On Indonesia’s Buru Island, eucalyptus farmer Mahani switched professions and became a gold miner to make more money. He is just one of many who joined a gold rush. In 2011, gold was found on the island’s Mount Botak. Since then, people from around Maluku archipelago have been flocking to the island to search for gold.
For decades before, Indonesians Buru island. It had the stigma of being a place of exile for political prisoners who were activists of the Indonesian Communist Party in 1965. In 1965-66, there were mass killings of communist sympathisers in Indonesia in which not less than 500,000 people died.
Indonesia’s gold mining crisis
Gunung Botak hill in Maluku’s archipelago reflects the complexity of mining governance in Indonesia. Since gold was discovered in 2011, the area has changed dramatically — from an agricultural region to a hub of unregulated, small-scale mining. Thousands of miners have arrived, most without official permits, and mining activities are carried out using methods that damage the environment.
The unbridled use of mercury and cyanide in the mining process has polluted rivers, destroyed ecosystems, and is threatening public health. This has led to conflicts between residents, often resulting in death. However, the root of the problem does not lie solely in the behaviour of illegal miners. State regulations that should have served as a protective barrier actually opened up opportunities for exploitation.
The Mineral and Coal Mining law that was enacted in 2009 (Minerba Law) to strengthen environmental protection and community rights was revised in 2020. This revision expanded the authority of the central government, and made it easier to grant mining permits.
The Minerba law and mining crisis
Article 35 of the Minerba Law states that mining permits can be granted by the central government without the obligation to consult with local governments or affected communities. This eliminates local control mechanisms and weakens public participation. In the context of Gunung Botak, local governments have field knowledge and direct relationships with local communities. When their authority was curtailed, oversight became weak and social conflicts increased.
Moreover, Article 136 of the Minerba Law states that mining permit holders are required to obtain approval from land rights holders. However, there is no detailed explanation regarding the form of approval, verification mechanisms, or protection of indigenous peoples’ customary lands. As a result, mining companies can claim to have obtained consent based solely on administrative documents, without a legitimate consultation process. This opens the door to land grabbing and the marginalization of indigenous communities.
In the case of Gunung Botak, indigenous peoples and local farmers have lost access to productive land. Though the gold mine was closed by the government in 2015, illegal mining activities continued. Law enforcement was ineffective, and criminal sanctions against perpetrators of environmental pollution did not have a deterrent effect. In fact, fines imposed are often not paid, with no clear legal consequences. This demonstrates the weakness of the monitoring system and the inability of regulations to protect public interest.
From an environmental law perspective, the Minerba Law is also not in line with the principles of ecological protection stipulated in the country’s law on Environmental Protection and Management that came into effect in 2009. This law mandates that any activity that has the potential to cause a significant impact on the environment must undergo an Environmental Impact Assessment process. However, in practice, many mining projects are approved without an adequate EIA, or with documents that are merely a formality.
On Mount Botak, the use of mercury and cyanide is uncontrolled. The Waekase and Anahoni rivers, that run through Gunung Botak, are heavily polluted. Research by National Science Body (LIPI) shows that mercury levels in the Waekase River have reached 0.05 mg/L — 50 times the WHO’s safe threshold. The impact is not only on the ecosystem, but also on human health. Mercury can cause neurological disorders, kidney damage, and developmental disorders in children. However, there is no systematic environmental recovery mechanism in place.
The Environmental Law also regulates community participation in decision-making. Article 65 states that everyone has the right to obtain information about the environment, participate in its management, and object to plans for activities that have an impact.
However, in the context of mining, this right is often ignored. The mining licensing process is closed, and the affected communities are not meaningfully involved. When pollution or conflict occurs, access to justice becomes very limited.
Local governments face a dilemma. On the one hand, mines generate revenue through taxes and levies. On the other hand, they must bear the social and ecological impacts they cause. Without strong regulatory support, local governments find it difficult to balance economic interests and sustainability. When their authority is curtailed by the Minerba Law, their room to manoeuvre to protect communities and the environment becomes limited.
Restoring environmental justice in mining sector
This situation shows that mines can indeed provide livelihoods, but not without proper regulations. Else, uncontrolled exploitation of natural resources without adequate legal protection will continue.
Several regulatory reforms such as the full recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights to customary lands, with clear and legally binding consent mechanisms, are needed. Regulations must also ensure that customary lands cannot be transferred without a process of consultation and collective consent.
Environmental oversight, including a ban on the use of mercury and cyanide, and the implementation of safe tailings processing technologies is also needed. The government must provide a budget, and resources to monitor the impact of mining on a regular basis.
Strict and consistent law enforcement, with effective criminal and administrative sanctions against polluters and illegal miners must be ensured. Fines must be paid in full, and the funds should be used for environmental restoration and compensation for affected communities.
A national roadmap for mining reform, based on scientific data and involving academics, civil society, and local communities can ensure that the mining system is fair, transparent, and sustainable.
Synchronization between the Minerba Law and the Environmental Law will help integrate the principles of precaution, public participation, and ecological restoration and become a part of mining policy.
Without regulatory changes that favour the environment and society, the Minerba Law will continue to be a tool for legalising destruction. Indonesia needs mining policies that not only pursue economic profits, but also guarantee ecological and social justice.
Mount Botak is just one of many examples.
In Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and Papua, similar stories continue to repeat themselves. If not addressed immediately, environmental damage will continue to spread, and future generations will inherit polluted land and unresolved conflicts.
Yanti Lawerissa, D.J.A. Hehanussa and E.R.M. Toule are lecturers in the Faculty of Law in Pattimura University, Ambon, Indonesia. Abraham Tulalessy is a lecturer in the Faculty of Agriculture in Pattimura University, Ambon, Indonesia. Moh Ilias Bin Hamid is a doctoral student in the Faculty of Law, Pattimura University, Ambon, Indonesia. Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info
.