We are pleased to include this guest contribution article by Rudi Bachtiar and Aryo Baskoro, Founding Partners of ARMA Law.

Background

Indonesia is moving toward a more centralized model for the export of certain strategic natural resource commodities. Following the issuance of Government Regulation No. 24 of 2026 concerning the Governance of Exports of Strategic Natural Resource Commodities (“GR 24/2026”), the Government intends to place selected natural resource exports under a designated state-owned enterprise (“SOE”) mechanism.

GR 24/2026 came into force on 1 June 2026 and may represent a material shift in Indonesia’s export governance, particularly for sectors that have historically relied on direct contractual relationships between Indonesian producers or exporters and offshore buyers.

 

General Overview of the Proposed Framework

Under GR 24/2026, the policy initially covers coal, palm oil, ferro alloy, and other strategic natural resource commodities that may be determined from time to time, with detailed Harmonized System (“HS“) Codes [1] expected to be regulated further through a Minister of Trade Regulation. 

At a broader policy level, the framework forms part of the Government’s effort to strengthen control over strategic exports, improve trade data integrity, and address risks such as trade under invoicing and export proceeds leakage, which also sits alongside the strengthened Foreign Exchange Export Proceeds (Devisa Hasil Ekspor – “DHE”) framework under Government Regulation No. 2 of 2026 and Government Regulation No. 21 of 2026.

The policy also appears consistent with Indonesia’s broader industrial policy direction under Government Regulation No. 28 of 2021 concerning the Industrial Sector Implementation as amended by Government Regulation No. 46 of 2023, where state control over strategic industries may be exercised through regulation of ownership, licensing, production, distribution, pricing, supervision, and export restrictions to support domestic availability and industrial deepening.

 

Scope of Strategic Natural Resource Commodities

GR 24/2026 defines “Strategic Natural Resource Commodities” as natural resource commodities determined by the Government by considering national interests, economic stability, domestic needs, and/or national strategic resource management. At the initial stage, GR 24/2026 identifies coal, palm oil, and ferro alloy as Strategic Natural Resource Commodities. It also allows the Government to designate additional commodities through a coordination meeting led by the Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs or the Coordinating Minister for Food, as applicable, and formalized through a Minister of Trade regulation. Strategic minerals, plantation commodities, and other export-oriented products should therefore monitor potential future inclusion.

 

Role of DSI and the Transition Period

The central feature of GR 24/2026 is the restriction on who may export Strategic Natural Resource Commodities. Such commodities may only be exported by a designated SOE export entity, either as owner or as sole intermediary. Government statements identify PT Danantara Sumberdaya Indonesia (“DSI”) as the SOE expected to carry out this role.

Under the current export framework, private business actors may generally export coal and palm oil, subject to licensing, customs, and sectoral requirements. The new regime may replace that model by requiring exports of covered commodities to be conducted through, and later by, DSI.

During the transition period, contemplated to run until 31 December 2026, exports may only be conducted through DSI. This transition period also requires an evaluation within three months after the regulation comes into force. Based on that evaluation, the Government may set an earlier deadline. After the transition period, exports may only be conducted by the SOE export entity, entailing a fuller transfer of the export-facing function to DSI.

 

Potential Impact on Existing Commercial Arrangements

For businesses operating in affected commodity sectors, the key issue is the treatment of existing export arrangements. Many exporters currently operate through long-term sales contracts, offtake arrangements, shipping arrangements, and price adjustment mechanisms. These are typically built around direct privity between the Indonesian exporter and the offshore buyer.

Companies should assess whether existing contracts contain change in law clauses, force majeure clauses, assignment or novation provisions, payment redirection provisions, sanctions undertakings, and clauses governing title transfer, delivery terms, and risk allocation, especially for contracts extending beyond the transition period.

GR 24/2026 provides that sales contracts signed before 1 June 2026 and still in force will be evaluated by the SOE export entity. This may create immediate review requirements for existing long-term offtake and export sales arrangements.

During the transition period, the implications are likely to be procedural and documentary, as GR 24/2026 indicates that exports “through” the SOE export entity may involve submission of export documents, sales contracts, related documents, and additional data through integrated government systems. After the transition period, domestic producers may need to shift from direct international sales to a domestic sale or supply model with DSI. Based on GR 24/2026, the SOE export entity will also determine the selling price and may apply a reasonable margin, which may affect pricing control, buyer relationships, tax treatment, and liability allocation.

Shipping and Logistics Considerations

The framework may affect shipping and logistics arrangements, particularly where existing export contracts are structured around a private exporter’s control over shipment scheduling, vessel nomination, loading arrangements, and delivery terms. Export transactions for commodities are often linked to charterparty arrangements, bills of lading, letters of credit, shipping instructions, laytime and demurrage, port readiness, and customs clearance. If DSI becomes the party through which, or by which, the export is legally conducted, businesses should review whether existing shipping documents and contracts remain aligned with the new structure.

Where the Indonesian producer is currently named as shipper, exporter of record, seller, or beneficiary under a letter of credit, the introduction of a DSI layer may require adjustments to shipping instructions, documentation flow, payment documents, and title transfer mechanics. Any mismatch between the commercial contract, customs declaration, bill of lading, and payment documentation could create issues in cargo release, insurance coverage, and dispute allocation.

GR 24/2026 expressly provides that the governance of such exports may include export control, including verification or technical tracing, as well as regulation of export transportation and insurance. This gives a clearer regulatory basis for shipping, freight procurement, marine cargo insurance, and related documentation issues.

This DSI framework may also potentially affect the direct appointment of other Indonesian SOEs operating in the shipping sector, on the assumption of achieving cost efficiency among SOEs within the context of maritime transportation.

In addition, the DSI framework may also be afforded various regulatory and commercial facilitation measures within the context of transportation and logistics incentive schemes. For instance, if the framework is implemented alongside a requirement for exports to be conducted on a CIF basis, further considerations may arise regarding freight procurement, marine cargo insurance, vessel nomination, and shipment execution, which have been established for decades by the Government of Indonesia through the Minister of Trade and the Minister of Finance. As the export-facing entity under a CIF structure typically assumes responsibility for arranging carriage and insurance, DSI may exercise greater influence over the arrangements, potentially affecting existing chartering practices and commercial shipping relationships. Such arrangements may also give rise to questions concerning the allocation of responsibility for laytime, demurrage, detention, cargo claims, shipping instructions, and insurance recoveries, particularly where contractual, customs, banking, and shipping documentation are issued by different parties.

The DSI framework may also create new considerations relating to jurisdiction and dispute resolution mechanisms in international commercial arrangements and charter parties. With the potential shift toward a state-linked entity, counterparties may increasingly prefer foreign governing laws and neutral forums, including international arbitration.

Operational and Compliance Issues to Watch 

Several issues will have to be anticipated, such as: 

• The implementing regulations will need to clarify commodity coverage, including detailed HS Codes.
• Sectoral implementation also remains uncertain, e.g., public reporting indicates that the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources is still awaiting further technical regulations and implementation guidance.
• Businesses will need clarity on DSI’s legal role, particularly whether it will act as owner, sole intermediary, seller, or exporter of record.
• Payment and DHE mechanics will need to be aligned. Companies should expect closer scrutiny of payment flows, export proceeds, foreign exchange retention, and reporting.
• The transitional period may require contract restructuring, including amendments to export contracts, letters of credit, shipping documentation, bank coordination, and customs procedures.
• Businesses with government contracts or agreements containing investment, divestment, and domestic processing and/or refining commitments should also assess whether they may fall within the exemption mechanism under GR 24/2026.

 

What Businesses Should Do Now

• Regulatory exposure mapping: Identify affected products, relevant HS Codes, and export contracts that may remain active beyond the transition period.
• Relevant contract review: Assess whether existing contracts need to be amended if exports must be conducted through or by DSI, including sales contracts signed before 1 June 2026 that remain in force and are subject to evaluation. Key areas for review include the seller, exporter of record, payment recipient, delivery obligations, liability allocation, dispute resolution, and change in law provisions.
• Buyer communication: For companies with long-term buyers, early communication may be necessary. Offshore buyers will likely require certainty on contractual performance, delivery responsibility, and whether DSI will assume any direct contractual obligations.
• Shipping and documentation audit: Review charterparty arrangements, letter of credits beneficiary designation, and title transfer mechanics to assess the implication of the DSI structure.

 

Closing Remarks

The centralized export governance framework signals a clear shift in Indonesia’s approach to strategic natural resource exports. While framed as a measure to improve trade governance and support the domestic economy, its implementation could materially affect existing business models in major export sectors.

The practical impact will depend on DSI’s formal role, detailed HS Code coverage, and implementing regulations. Until then, businesses should avoid assuming that the policy will operate as a simple administrative routing mechanism, and should continue preparing contract, payment, and shipping documentation reviews in parallel.

Prepared By: