Shaping Science and Expertise: The Political Ecology of Karst Resource Contestation in North Kendeng Mountains, Indonesia

This study examines the socio-environmental conflict surrounding cement mining in the North Kendeng Mountains, Indonesia, where JM-PPK (Kendeng Mountains Concerned Community Network) mobilise against state-backed corporate interests seeking to exploit karst resources. This research provides a comprehensive understanding of how different forms of power, actor–oriented (Weberian), structural economic (Neo-Marxist), and discursive (Post-structuralist), intersect in shaping governance outcomes. This ‘pluralistic approach to power’ moves beyond single-perspective analyses by integrating these three dimensions to capture how grassroots agency, economic structures, and discursive strategies interact in environmental conflicts. This framework is particularly useful in revealing how power is mobilised, challenged, and reconfigured through scientific and expertise claims.
A central contribution of this study is its examination of three key arenas of contestation where actors assert and challenge scientific and expert claims to justify or oppose mining activities. The first arena is the environmental assessment process, where corporations and government agencies produce Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and EIA Addendums to downplay ecological risks and justify industrial expansion. The second arena of contestation is the legal struggle, where scientific claims are scrutinised and debated in courtrooms. And the third and most decisive arena is the shift in policy direction of the Geological Agency, which serves as a state-sanctioned mediator in the dispute. By integrating these three arenas of contestation, this study demonstrates how power relations and scientific claims are intertwined with broader struggles over governance and environmental justice.
The implications of this study underscore the need for greater transparency in scientific assessments, participatory governance mechanisms that recognise diverse knowledge systems, and stronger institutional safeguards against regulatory capture. This study’s novel contribution lies in its application of a pluralistic power approach to demonstrating that environmental governance is not just a matter of policy but a deeply contested terrain shaped by competing claims to expertise and authority.