Commentary: When awards don’t guarantee permits: The Agincourt Resources question

A mining operation widely recognized for environmental management loses its forestry access. What changed—the company’s performance, or Indonesia’s enforcement calculus?

Key points:

• Martabe’s permit revocation reflects a shift in Indonesia’s environmental enforcement—from site-level compliance to broader spatial legitimacy.

• Environmental awards and certifications no longer guarantee operational security when overlapping legal frameworks—mining and forestry—are enforced separately.

• The case signals rising regulatory risk for mining in ecologically sensitive areas, where spatial placement now matters as much as environmental performance.

By Adianto P. Simamora

On January 20, 2026, President Prabowo Subianto’s administration announced the revocation of forest utilization permits for 28 companies operating in Sumatra. Among them was PT Agincourt Resources, operator of the Martabe gold mine in South Tapanuli, North Sumatra.

The decision, made after a limited virtual cabinet session chaired by President Prabowo from London, follows an investigation by the Forest Area Regularization Task Force (Satgas PKH) into companies whose land use was linked to the catastrophic floods and landslides triggered by Tropical Cyclone Senyar in November 2025.

The disaster claimed more than 1,200 lives across Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra provinces. Authorities have connected the severity of these events to long term forest degradation and watershed changes, arguing that diminished natural water retention increased flood impacts.

This enforcement action has stunned the mining sector, because PT Agincourt Resources had been publicly recognized by the same government agencies now taking legal action against it.

As reported by CNN Indonesia (Jan. 21, 2026), DetikFinance, and CNBC Indonesia, Agincourt officials stated that they had not received formal written notice of any permit revocation and had only learned of the government’s decision from news reports.

In a statement quoted by the media, Katarina Siburian Hardono, Senior Manager Corporate Communications at PT Agincourt Resources, said:

"Until now, the company has not been able to comment further because it has not received official notification or full details regarding the decision."

At a broader level, the government has framed this action as part of a post disaster accountability effort, asserting that violations of forest and environmental laws contributed to ecological conditions that exacerbated the 2025 flooding.

Environmental recognition

Between 2023 and 2025, PT Agincourt Resources was a frequent recipient of high level environmental and operational awards from Indonesian regulators.

The Ministry of Environment and Forestry granted the company the Green PROPER rating in both 2023 and 2024. This is the second highest classification in Indonesia’s official environmental performance index — awarded only to companies that go beyond legal compliance and maintain documented sustainability programs.

The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) awarded Agincourt the Best Implementation of Good Mining Practice Award 2024, the highest recognition in the metal mineral producer category, along with sub-awards for environmental management, mining conservation, and safety systems.

At the Subroto Awards 2025, the company received recognition for community development innovation and its contribution to non tax state revenue (PNBP) from the mineral sector.

These recognitions were supported by multiple ISO certifications and third-party environmental audits. During official reporting tours, Agincourt staff demonstrated systems for tailings management, land rehabilitation, biodiversity programs, and community-based conservation efforts.

By most public metrics, this was a company performing well above minimum standards.

Where enforcement logic diverged

The legal basis for the government’s action lies in the separation between the mining and forestry permit frameworks.

Martabe operates under a 30 year Contract of Work (KK) signed in 1997, giving Agincourt mineral extraction rights in a defined area. However, that contract does not include automatic rights to operate in forested zones. For that, a separate forest utilization permit (Izin Pemanfaatan Hutan) is required — which falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forestry, not the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources.

What the Prabowo administration revoked was this forest permit — not the mining contract. But without forest access, core parts of the mine’s infrastructure and operations are effectively frozen.

In a press conference at the Presidential Palace on January 20, Minister of State Secretary Prasetyo Hadi explained that President Prabowo made the decision after receiving the final audit results from Satgas PKH.

“Based on the task force’s investigation, the President decided to revoke the permits of 28 companies proven to have committed violations,” Prasetyo said, as quoted by CNBC Indonesia.

He outlined three key reasons for the revocation:

1. Operating outside permitted boundaries

2. Entering prohibited forest zones

3. Administrative non-compliance with forestry-related regulations

While the specific violations tied to Agincourt were not publicly detailed, the revocation was linked to wider patterns of forest degradation that, according to the Environment Ministry, “contributed to the worsening of hydrometeorological disasters,” as stated by Deputy Minister of Environment Diaz Hendropriyono, also present at the January 20 briefing.

This action forms part of a broader campaign under Presidential Regulation No. 5 of 2025, which created the Satgas PKH. In its first year, the task force reclaimed over 4 million hectares of illegally occupied land and imposed fines exceeding Rp 2.3 trillion, according to State Secretary Prasetyo Hadi and other attending officials.

The move signals that the government’s spatial enforcement threshold has shifted — especially for extractive industries operating in forested or watershed-critical zones.

Operational excellence isn’t enough

For the mining sector, Martabe represents a case study in how compliance and enforcement no longer operate on a single track.

First, it underscores that environmental awards are no longer insulation from legal exposure. A company can perform well within its site — but still lose permits due to spatial or legal zoning violations.

Second, it reflects the divergence between operational management and spatial legality. Managing waste and emissions well doesn’t override violations in forest access or land classification. These are governed by different ministries under different statutory regimes.

Third, it reveals a new enforcement logic: post-disaster liability. After Cyclone Senyar, the government shifted from routine auditing to high-impact enforcement, linking landscape degradation to loss of life and assigning institutional responsibility.

For investors, this introduces a non-market, non-financial layer of risk that ESG metrics often overlook. Even well-rated operators can face disruptions if located in now-deemed “too sensitive” zones.

As for Agincourt, its legal options remain open. The company has not announced formal legal action. The company, however, can explore administrative court appeals or negotiated reinstatement. International arbitration also remains a remote but possible scenario under the Contract of Work dispute mechanisms.

When systems measure different things

The Martabe case illustrates a core dilemma in Indonesia’s governance of natural resources.

One system — like PROPER — rewards performance inside a company’s site. The other — forestry enforcement — penalizes violations based on spatial and ecosystem-wide impact.

When the same government gives a company an environmental award one year and strips its permit the next, the signals to industry become blurry. That’s not necessarily a contradiction — but it does demand a clearer alignment of policy goals and legal thresholds.

If environmental responsibility is to be the backbone of Indonesia’s mining strategy, the rules of where — and how — companies are allowed to operate must be clearly defined, predictably enforced, and transparently communicated.

Because when systems reward performance but ignore placement — or penalize placement but ignore performance — the balance between enforcement and certainty begins to break.

And in that gap, not just companies, but communities and ecosystems, are left in limbo.

Editing by Reiner Simanjuntak