In recent years, Indonesia has doubled down on promoting Raja Ampat, a remote archipelago in West Papua famed for its biodiversity, as a global eco-tourism icon. In an effort to do so, the government is increasing entry fees for foreign visitors, tightening tourism regulations, and positioning the region in international conservation diplomacy. However, a sinister motive lies behind the green façade, as critics argue that the development may also include revenue extraction, political control, and international image management.

Mining permits and environmental backlash

In mid-2025, the government revoked the mining permits of four nickel companies operating in or near Raja Ampat, citing environmental violations after widespread public protests and concern from NGOs. Despite the situation, Mongabay has reported that PT Gag Nikel, part of state-owned enterprise Antam, was allowed to continue operations on Gag Island, which lies just outside the officially designated UNESCO Global Geopark.

This selective revocation suggests multiple motives. Government officials justify allowing Gag Nikel’s operations by pointing to “green” ratings under environmental performance programmes, existing contracts, and “outside geopark” status. But Global Witness reported that critics see this as a way to preserve strategic economic interests (nickel being crucial for global electric vehicle and battery supply chains) while placating environmental outrage.

Moreover, environmental damage claims, including sedimentation harming reefs, dust and health issues in local communities, deforestation of tropical forests on small islands, have raised the stakes. Mongabay also reported that NGOs warn that once coral and reef ecosystems are degraded, both biodiversity and tourism incomes suffer.

It was reported earlier this week that the government has permitted state-owned miner PT Gag Nikel to resume operations on Gag Island in Raja Ampat, one of the world’s most biodiverse marine regions, despite company-funded research showing damage to the environment and community health, according to Mongabay. Work resumed on September 3 after a moratorium imposed in June was lifted.

Tourism fees, local communities, and government revenue

Another front in the controversy is the system of entry and conservation fees for Raja Ampat. Foreign visitors must pay for official permits (sometimes called tariffs) for environmental services, which are valid for a year. KWR Global reported that local communities in some areas also impose additional, unofficial fees or charges for access — a source of frustration for tourists who see them as arbitrary.

These fees bring in funds which the government says are used for reef protection, marine park management, and infrastructure, but transparency is criticised. Many locals claim they see little of the revenue, or don’t know how funds are allocated. This feeds into perceptions that the government benefits are disproportionately distributed. Additionally, collecting fees from tourists helps the government to monetise “conservation” in Raja Ampat in global tourism marketing, KWR Global added.

Motives: sovereignty, foreign image, and economic strategy

Beyond environmental protection and tourism, there are deeper political and strategic motives behind the Indonesian government's policy in Raja Ampat. Sovereignty plays a central role.

West Papua has been a politically sensitive region for decades, with periodic independence movements. By investing in infrastructure, tourism, regulation, and conservation branding, the Indonesian government strengthens its presence and control, both physically and symbolically. Conservation zones, entry permits, and mining regulations function as tools for consolidating central authority over land, sea, and natural resource rights.

International image is another key driver. Promoting Raja Ampat as a world-class geopark and marine biodiversity hotspot helps Indonesia project itself as a leader in environmental conservation globally. That supports its position in climate negotiations, biodiversity conventions, and an increasingly green global economy. Revoking mining permits in highly visible areas after public outcry also wins international praise, Mongabay reported.

At the same time, economic strategy underpins the policy. On one side, nickel is in high demand for use in EV batteries and other green technologies, and Indonesia has some of the world’s richest reserves. On the other hand, environmental degradation threatens tourism, fisheries, and indigenous livelihoods. The government appears to be trying to capture economic benefit through mining revenues and fees from high-spending tourists while mitigating negative fallout, both ecological and political. The decision to retain the Gag Nikel permit, Mongabay revealed, despite environmental concerns shows how economic value influences policymaking.

What next?

These overlapping motives create tensions that are difficult to resolve. Local communities often feel sidelined in decision-making. While some benefit from mining or tourism, BATS Consulting’s investigation revealed many claim their rights, income, or customary usage of land and sea are undermined by central government control.

Legal contradictions also complicate the picture. Indonesian law contains provisions against mining on small islands, but enforcement has been uneven. Some mining concessions predate certain protected statuses, leading to disputes over whether revocations can be applied retroactively, as reported by Bird’s Head Seascape.

Finally, the environmental risks remain significant. Studies warn that sedimentation from mining, deforestation, and pollution can degrade coral reefs irreversibly, affecting species, fisheries, and tourism. Even where sites are outside officially protected areas, ecological impacts can cross boundaries through currents and watersheds.

The government’s approach to Raja Ampat appears to combine genuine environmental and conservation concerns with revenue generation, political integration, and global environmental branding. The selective revocation of mining permits, maintenance of strategic mines like Gag Nikel, and relatively high entry fees for tourists suggest that the government is trying to strike a balance, preserving enough of Raja Ampat’s natural capital to sustain its tourism and environmental credibility, while still leveraging its other economic potential.