Emergency Management in Coal Mining: Developing a Capability-Based Model in Indonesia

Abstract

The coal mining sector in Indonesia faces a high level of risk of disasters; however, to date, there is no specific evaluation framework to measure Emergency Management Capability. This research aims to develop a conceptual model of EMC that applies to the context of the coal mining industry. Using an exploratory qualitative approach, this study employed regulatory analysis and in-depth interviews, which were then thematically analyzed using the NVivo application. The results identified four challenges to EMC implementation, namely the absence of a minimum index standard for assessment, policy and implementation gaps, illegal mining activities, and risk dynamics. In response to these challenges, three strategic approaches were proposed: utilizing the InaRISK platform, adapting the IKD model, and developing standardized EMC instruments. Furthermore, this research formulates seven main components in the mining sector EMC framework, namely (1) risk and threat identification, (2) physical capacity, (3) human resource capacity, (4) prevention, (5) emergency response capability, (6) evaluation and improvement, and (7) recovery and restoration. This framework is expected to serve as a reference for evaluating the preparedness of mining organizations in a systematic, adaptive, and integrated manner within the national safety management system.

1. Introduction

Indonesia is one of the countries that are located at the intersection of three major world plates, namely Eurasia, Indo-Australia, and the Pacific, which not only makes Indonesia rich in abundant natural resources but also increases the risk of severe natural disasters [1]. In the face of these risks, various efforts for preparedness have been made, but most still focus on structural measures such as the existence of documents, procedures, or equipment. In fact, the success of preparedness is also largely determined by the actual capability to respond effectively to emergencies [2]. This becomes even more important for high-risk sectors such as mining, which have not had instruments to evaluate preparedness capabilities specifically [3].

The coal sector has a vital role in the national energy system. PLN data shows that coal-based Steam Power Plants account for 35,216 MW or around 49.67% of the national electricity capacity [4]. Indonesia is also one of the world’s largest coal producers and exporters, and since 2005 has been a major supplier of medium to low-calorie thermal coal for the Chinese and Indian markets [5]. According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, Indonesia ranks 9th in the world in coal reserves with a contribution of 2.2% of global reserves, of which about 60% is in the form of low-quality coal (sub-bituminous) [6]. However, many mining locations and coal-fired power plants are in disaster-prone areas. At least 131 mineral and coal mining concessions covering an area of 1.6 million hectares are in earthquake risk zones, 2104 concessions in flood risk areas (4.6 million hectares), and 744 concessions in landslide risk areas (6.1 million hectares, including 611 thousand hectares of coal mines) [7].

Mining disasters that occur in the mining area also cause the risk of losses to workers, companies and the surrounding people. In Indonesia in 2022, there were floods due to coal mining activities in the North Kalimantan area. The collapse of the Coal Company’s waste embankment around the Malinau River resulted in flooding that damaged the gardens and houses of local residents [8]. In addition, mining companies in Papua, Indonesia (2023) experienced floods and landslides in the area of concentrate processing plants due to high rainfall. This incident caused two local residents to die due to the flash flood that hit the mine at that time [9]. With the same cause and effect, mining activities can also cause natural disasters to the environment of the surrounding community. Coal mining affects vast mountain cracks, causing landslides in steep areas and landslides in steep cliff areas. In addition, a certain amount of waste from mining products will accumulate around the slopes of the Valley, which affects the occurrence of landslides [10].

The issue of disaster management capability is not only a national concern but also a global challenge that remains inadequately addressed. According to [11], over the past two decades, more than 7348 major disasters have occurred globally, resulting in approximately 1.23 million deaths, affecting over 4.2 billion people, and causing economic losses nearing USD 3 trillion. International studies also confirm that mine disasters and accidents not only have an impact on safety but also pose a huge economic burden. For example, the new case of pneumoconiosis of coal mine workers in China has caused significant annual health–economic losses. From 2007 to 2016 it amounted to about CNY 0.579–4.46 billion per year, while the estimated annual economic loss averaged about CNY 3 billion, and the average proportion of GDP was about 0.045‰ [12]. Meanwhile, another study found that the termination of mining operations due to work accidents or regulatory obstacles can cause an average profit loss of 5.59% for all mining operations. Similarly, the ratio of losses derived only from termination due to work and regulatory accidents reached an average of 6.82% of the total operating costs [13].

In Indonesia, data from BNPB’s (National Disaster Management Agency) Disaster Data Geoportal indicates a rising trend in disaster occurrences from 2019 to 2021. In 2019, there were 3184 recorded events, which increased to 4650 in 2020 and further to 5402 in 2021. The regions most frequently impacted include Java, Bali, Lombok, Kupang, Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Maluku, and Papua. These figures underscore the urgent need for structured and systematic disaster preparedness and risk management across all sectors, including the mining industry [14].

In mining, especially in the coal industry, natural disasters such as floods, landslides, and earthquakes can occur alongside incidents that occur during operations, increasing the negative impact on safety, the environment, and business continuity. Steps that can be taken are to reduce the impact of disasters and accelerate the post-disaster recovery process. However, the standard emergency management system in Indonesia, especially in the coal mining sector, remains underutilized. Although there are legal provisions regulated by the Directorate General of Mineral and Coal No. 185 of 2019, which regulates emergency management, consisting of five main pillars, the technical implementation remains the responsibility of each organization. The absence of basic emergency capability measurement standards and limited preparedness indicators in the Mining Safety Management System (SMKP) indicate deficiencies in preparation. It can exacerbate the response to large-scale disasters.

Disasters that occur at mine sites can result in significant losses for workers, companies, and surrounding communities. In Indonesia, there was an explosion in a smelter area owned by a nickel industry company located in North Morowali, Central Sulawesi, which resulted in the death of two workers [15]. In another location, an explosion also occurred in the smelter of a heavy metal processing company in North Maluku, which caused four workers to suffer severe injuries [16]. In 2022, flooding occurred as a result of coal mining activities in the North Kalimantan region. The rupture of a waste embankment from a coal company near the Malinau River caused flooding and damaged the gardens and homes of local residents [8]. Another natural disaster that occurred at a mining site in South Kalimantan was heavy rainfall that resulted in a landslide in a mountainous area. A pickup truck was trapped in the collapsed earth, disrupting access to the road connecting Hulu Sungai Selatan Regency with Tanah Bumbu Regency, South Kalimantan [17].

Although Indonesia already has regulatory tools in disaster management, such as Law No. 24/2007 and the development of the Regional Resilience Index (IKD) by the BNPB, these tools still have limitations in describing the specific readiness of a region or sector in dealing with emergencies. BNPB’s focus tends to be on macro disaster management, including technical guidance, general mitigation, and inter-agency coordination; however, it has yet to address the sectoral and operational aspects of emergency management capabilities, particularly in the mining sector. On the other hand, mining sector regulations, such as the decree of the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) and guidelines in SMKP, have included some elements of emergency preparedness, including training, simulation, and risk reduction. However, to date, no instrument or evaluation method can comprehensively measure the Emergency Management Capability (EMC) of coal mining organizations in Indonesia, which indicates the absence of a conceptual framework or specific instrument that can systematically and contextually assess emergency management capabilities in this sector.

The absence of a standardized EMC framework leads to variations in approach between mining organizations, making it difficult to monitor, evaluate, and improve emergency capacity nationwide. Considering that the coal mining sector is prone to a high risk of disasters and operational incidents, this research is crucial for protecting the workforce, ensuring operational continuity, and maintaining the safety of the environment and surrounding communities. In response to this gap, this research offers the development of an EMC conceptual model specifically tailored to the coal mining sector in Indonesia. This framework is designed not only as a scientific contribution to the limited literature but also as a practical instrument that can be used to assess and strengthen the emergency preparedness capabilities of mining organizations. The model was developed through a synthesis of scientific literature and a thematic analysis of expert interviews from relevant government agencies to identify key dimensions and indicators relevant to building adaptive and applicable emergency capabilities. The primary objective of this research is to develop a conceptual model of EMC within the context of the coal mining industry, which can serve as a basis for evaluating organizational readiness in dealing with emergencies in an effective, structured, and applicable manner.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

This research uses an exploratory qualitative approach to explore and formulate a conceptual model of EMC that is relevant for the coal mining sector in Indonesia. This approach was chosen because it is suitable for understanding complex phenomena in depth through exploration of experiences, perceptions, and relevant policy and institutional frameworks.

2.2. Data Sources

This research uses two main types of data sources:

• Primary data, in the form of in-depth interviews with five key informants from agencies related to emergency management and mining policy. The key informants were the (1) Director of Disaster Risk Mapping and Evaluation, BNPB; (2) Disaster Risk Assessment officer, BNPB; (3) Former Director of Mineral and Coal Engineering and Environment, Directorate General of Minerals and Coal of the Ministry of ESDM; (4) Disaster risk analyst, BNPB; and (5) Head of the Sub-Directorate of Standardization of Operational Procedures and Fire Management Resources, Ministry of Home Affairs. These five informants were chosen because they represent key institutions with direct authority and experience in the preparation of regulations, technical supervision, and disaster risk management in the mining sector. With a combination of perspectives from central regulators, national disaster agencies, and technical officials, the interview data reflects a representative view for developing the EMC framework in Indonesia.
• Secondary data, in the form of analysis of policy documents related to EMC, disaster, as well as mining sector regulations and disaster management in Indonesia.

2.3. Data Collection Procedure

• Literature Study: Analysis of regulatory documents was conducted on several existing regulations in Indonesia.
• In-depth interviews: Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured guide. This guide includes (a) EMC’s understanding in the mining sector, (b) key dimensions and elements of emergency capabilities, (c) implementation challenges, (d) compliance with national regulations, and (e) proposed EMC framework structure.

2.4. Data Analysis

Analysis of regulatory documents is conducted by comparing the objectives, sector scope, principles, stages, institutions, actor involvement, and stages of occupational safety management and emergency management in mining, as outlined in each document. This comparison is used as a conceptual basis in building an EMC framework model that is more contextual and integrated with sector regulations. Meanwhile, data from in-depth interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis, aided by NVivo version 15. The process begins with open coding, which is reading interview transcripts repeatedly to identify important statements and code relevant pieces of text. These initial codes are then grouped into categories based on similarity in meaning or topic. From these categories, the identification and development of the main themes that represent the multi-dimensionality of emergency management capabilities are identified. To ensure the validity of the results, the researcher applied triangulation with the results of a literature study and analysis of regulatory documents, as well as conducted peer debriefing among members of the research team to review the consistency of the code framework and the clarity of the resulting theme. Meanwhile, the results of literature studies and document analysis were used as a basis for triangulation to strengthen the validity of the findings and formulate the initial structure of the EMC model.

2.5. Workflow

To clarify the research flow, Figure 1 presents the research workflow of design to the preparation of the conceptual model of the EMC.

2.6. Research Ethics

This research has obtained ethical approval from the Ethics Commission for Research and Community Health Services, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Indonesia, with number Ket-139/UN2.F10.D11/PPM.00.02/2025 dated 14 April 2025. All informants gave informed consent voluntarily. The personal data of the informants were kept confidential and only used for scientific purposes.

3. Results

3.1. Literature Study and Analysis of Regulatory Documents

The results of the literature review and comparison of the three main regulations are presented in

Table 1. Results of analysis of national disaster regulations in the context of application in the mining sector.

Aspects	Law No. 24 (2007)	Government Regulation No. 21 (2008)	Government Regulation No. 55 (2010)
Objective	Related to disaster management, such as community protection, post-disaster recovery, and institutional handling.	Technical implementation of planned, integrated, and coordinated disaster management.	Guidance and supervision of mineral and coal mining businesses (does not directly address disaster management).
Main Focus/Substance	Elaboration of definitions, principles, rights and obligations, and institutions related to disaster management.	Operationalization of technical disaster management stages.	Management, evaluation and supervision of mining activities.
Institutional	BNPB and BPBD as implementing agencies.	The duties of BNPB/BPBD are clarified at each stage.	Minister, governor, regent/mayor according to authority.
Stages of Disaster Management	Pre-disaster, emergency response, post-disaster are mentioned generally.	Fully elaborated: pre-disaster (mitigation, preparedness), emergency response, post-disaster.	Not directly relevant, but there is a reclamation and post-mining stage.
Sector Scope	Pre-disaster, emergency response, post-disaster are mentioned generally.	Not explicitly outlined, but all regulations indirectly cover the three types of disaster management.	Does not mention types of disasters. Focus only on types of mining activities (mineral and coal).
Limitations in the Context of Mining EMCs	Being general and conceptual, it does not provide technical instruments or quantitative indicators to assess emergency preparedness in high-risk sectors such as coal mining.	Provides detailed steps for countermeasures, but does not set minimum standards (e.g., response speed, logistics capacity, frequency of exercises) making it difficult to operate in the mine.	It does not set minimum standards (e.g., response speed) making it difficult to operate in the mine. Focus on mine management and supervision, not including emergency management aspects; supervision focuses more on technical operations, not disaster preparedness.

and

Table 2. Results of analysis of ESDM sector regulations related to emergency management in mining.

Aspects	Law No. 4, 2009	Government Regulation No. 78, 2010	Ministerial Regulation of ESDM No. 26, 2018
Objective	Set standards for the implementation of good mining engineering principles in all mining activities.	Explains in more detail the implementation of good mining engineering rules in accordance with Ministerial Regulation of ESDM No. 26/2018.	Provides technical guidance for mine safety inspection personnel.
Main Focus/Substance	Mining business management, state control, obligations and rights of mining business actors.	Contains operational technical standards for the implementation of mining engineering rules according to the stages of Emergency Management.	Technical implementation of safety inspections by mine inspectors.
Stages of Occupational Safety Management and Emergency Management in Mining	Mining work safety, which includes Risk management Work safety program, which includes prevention of accidents, fires, and other dangerous events Safety education and training Occupational safety administration Emergency management Occupational safety inspection Accident prevention and investigation	Emergency Management includes Identification and Assessment of Potential Emergencies Emergency Prevention Emergency Preparedness Emergency Response Emergency Recovery	Emergency Management consists of Identification and assessment of potential emergencies Emergency prevention Emergency preparedness Emergency response Emergency recovery
Key Users	All mining license holders.	Business actors, head of mining engineering, managers of mining activities.	Mine inspectors, Minister of ESDM technical officers.
Linkages	Become the main legal basis for the implementation of technical rules.	Elaboration of Ministerial Regulation 26/2018.	Field implementation of Ministerial Regulation 26/2018 and Ministerial Decree 1827/2018.
Limitations in the Context of Mining EMCs	Emphasizing only the principles of good mining techniques, without a special mechanism for assessing emergency preparedness; there is no quantitative indicator to measure EMC yet.	Contains technical standards, but is still procedural–administrative; does not set minimum parameters (e.g., emergency team capacity, equipment availability, response time).	It already mentions the stages of EMC (identification, prevention, preparedness, response, recovery), but there is no standard measurement instrument; implementation is highly dependent on the interpretation of each company, making it difficult to standardize nationally.

below.

Based on the analysis results in Table 1 and Table 2, it can be seen that national disaster regulations provide a conceptual and procedural framework for disaster management that is cross-sectoral. This regulation plays an important role in forming a legal basis for all sectors, including the mining sector, in developing a comprehensive emergency management system. Meanwhile, ESDM sectoral regulations such as Ministerial Regulation of ESDM No. 26/2018 provide specific technical and operational directions for implementing safety and emergency response systems in the mining environment. This ministerial regulation explicitly integrates emergency management principles into the structure of the SMKP, establishing a direct link between national policy mandates and operational needs at mines. However, the results of the table analysis also show limitations in the context of EMC. National regulations are still general and do not provide technical instruments or measurable indicators that can be applied in high-risk sectors such as coal mines. Sectoral regulations are indeed more operational, but they are still procedurally administrative and have not set minimum standards such as speed/response time.

3.2. Challenges of EMC in the Mining Sector

The thematic analysis of in-depth interviews shows that EMC implementation in the coal mining sector still faces various structural and technical challenges (Figure 2).

• The absence of a minimum index standard to measure emergency preparedness at the mine organization level. Although regulations such as the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Regulation No. 26 of 2018 have placed mine inspectors and mine officers as key actors in safety supervision, interviews show that current legislative instruments are not enough to support rapid decision-making in emergency situations. Mine inspectors and officers perform more administrative functions and document audits than conduct real-time assessments of mine preparedness. As a result, supervisory capacity becomes limited to the fulfillment of formal compliance, rather than the evaluation of adaptive emergency responses. This shows that the relationship between mine supervisors and regulations is still inadequate.
• Implementation challenges arise from the gap between policy and implementation in the field. Many companies only comply with the administration without fully internalizing risk management principles. Activities such as simulations and training are often conducted without reference to actual risk evaluation results.
• Illegal mining activities are often perceived by the public as the cause of infrastructure damage and safety disruptions, although investigations show that environmental and weather factors also contribute significantly. A resource person from Energy and Mineral Resources explained that accusations against the mining industry, both legal and illegal, often arise due to damage to roads or infrastructure around the mining area. This situation is exacerbated by the development of settlements around the mining area, which is actually not allowed by regulation. The existence of new settlements in risk zones causes the community to be the first party to be affected and at the same time the party who blames mining activities when incidents occur. This creates a gap between technical reality and public perception, which has implications for the weakening of public trust in EMC systems in the mining sector.
• Risk dynamics are also a significant challenge. Changing weather patterns, geological shifts, and environmental degradation cause risks to become non-static, making EMC systems based on long-term documents unresponsive to current conditions.

3.3. Strategic Solutions for EMC Strengthening

Three main approaches were identified as directions for strengthening EMC in the coal mining sector (Figure 3):

• BNPB resource persons suggested utilizing InaRISK as a tool in the geospatial risk identification process. This platform allows overlaying of mining sites with maps of hazards, vulnerabilities, and capacities of the region. Thus, companies can more accurately assess potential threats and develop appropriate contingency plans.
• The Regional Resilience Index (IKD) assessment model developed by BNPB has the potential to be adapted into an emergency capability assessment framework for mining organizations. This system is based on multi-level indicators, uses supporting evidence, and undergoes a tiered verification process. This structure ensures that EMC assessments are not merely declarative but are based on objective and actionable data.
• The most dominant solution based on theme intensity was the development of a standardized EMC instrument or checklist. BNPB resource persons emphasized the importance of an instrument that can serve as a minimum standard. This instrument will serve as a minimum capability measurement tool that must be met by every mining organization, as well as an audit and guidance instrument.

3.4. Key Components in the EMC Framework

This study identified seven key components that make up the EMC conceptual framework for the mining sector (Figure 4):

• Identification of Risks and Hazards
  Defined as a systematic process for recognizing potential threats, hazardous conditions, and vulnerabilities that could create an emergency in the work environment. This was the component that came up most often and was emphasized by all interviewees. Identification is considered the foundation of the entire emergency management process. EMR interviewees stated that failure in this stage will directly impact the failure of emergency prevention, planning, and response.
• Physical Capacity
  Defined as the availability of infrastructure, facilities, and logistical means that support emergency preparedness and response. This includes communication systems, evacuation routes, gathering points, shelters, water sources, and emergency equipment. BNPB informants emphasized the importance of facilities such as gathering points, evacuation shelters, and sanitation in dealing with disaster scenarios.
• Human capacity
  Defined as the ability of individuals and organizations to carry out emergency response through technical competencies, training, and a clear command structure. Including periodic training, technical certification, and emergency team readiness. Informants from BNPB highlighted the need for tiered training and technical certification in the high-risk mining sector.
• Prevention
  Defined as a series of proactive measures to reduce the likelihood of an emergency occurring before an incident occurs. This includes routine inspections, control of the use of hazardous materials, and restrictions on activities in vulnerable zones. Prevention is an element that is often overlooked as organizations focus more on response. However, informants agreed that good prevention relies heavily on accurate identification. Prevention also includes controlling risks before activities begin.
• Emergency Response Capacity
  Defined as an organization’s ability to provide a rapid, effective, and coordinated response to an emergency event through resource mobilization, early warning systems, and external stakeholder engagement. An informant from the Ministry of Home Affairs highlighted the importance of integration between the mine emergency management system and the national disaster system.
• Evaluation and Improvement
  Defined as a reflective process that is carried out periodically after an emergency event to assess the effectiveness of the system and draw up recommendations for improvement. Includes after-action review, technical audit, and coordination evaluation. Post-incident evaluation is key to improving the existing system. BNPB informants emphasized that evaluation and improvement is a single cycle that must be carried out regularly.
• Restoration and Recovery
  Defined as an effort to restore the operational functions, infrastructure, and welfare of the community post-crisis, while strengthening long-term capacity. This includes operational recovery, facility reconstruction, and psychosocial support. Post-crisis recovery remains an integral part of EMC, although it was not dominant in the interviews.

4. Discussion

4.1. Challenges of EMC in the Mining Sector

The results of the qualitative analysis indicate that the implementation of EMC in the coal mining sector still encounters various complex structural and technical challenges. First, there is no fixed maximum index standard to assess emergency preparedness. This statement aligns with research conducted by [18], which states that to measure emergency preparedness capabilities in the coal mining sector, an organized evaluation system is needed. Without a uniform maximum index standard, the process of internal audit and external monitoring of mine readiness will be challenging to carry out thoroughly. The absence of such index standards leads to weak capacity readiness measurements, especially in the pre-disaster phase, which is critical for high-risk sectors such as coal mining. With firm standards in place, the mining sector will have a basis for objective evaluation of preparedness, facilitating continuous improvement. Furthermore, the absence of standardized EMC instruments not only weakens technical readiness but also poses significant economic risks. In their study, [12] showed that new cases of pneumoconiosis of coal mine workers in China caused large annual economic losses, including medical costs, loss of working days, and decreased productivity. Meanwhile, Ref. [13] found that the termination of tam-bang operations due to work accidents or regulatory constraints can cause substantial profit losses for companies. These findings confirm that the weaknesses of the EMC framework in Indonesia have the potential to develop into a safety crisis as well as an economic crisis.

The second challenge involves a gap between policy and field implementation. And changes in legislation are needed that strengthen the authority of inspectors to make immediate decisions (e.g., temporary suspension of operations, mobilization of emergency resources), as well as provide standard guidelines for measurable emergency capability evaluation. In their study, [19] found that overlapping regulations and inconsistent technical guidance between various government agencies hinder the implementation of policies into concrete actions on the ground. The lack of clarity in the division of responsibilities between sectors also leads to various interpretations in the implementation of emergency procedures, which reduces the effectiveness of coordination between units during times of crisis. In a study conducted by [20] at ANTAM UBPN Sultra Company, it was noted that although the level of administrative compliance with SMKP was relatively high, this did not automatically indicate good technical preparedness in the face of an actual emergency. Thus, improving EMC governance in the mining sector requires strengthening the technical implementation aspects based on relevant risk assessments and field checks.

The third challenge to EMC in the mining sector relates to the complex disruptions associated with illegal mining and the public perception surrounding its impacts. While these activities undeniably contribute to environmental degradation and social tension, investigations also highlight that infrastructure damage and safety risks are often exacerbated by environmental conditions and the expansion of settlements in risk-prone areas. Communities situated near mining zones tend to be the first to experience impacts and, consequently, attribute incidents primarily to mining activities, both legal and illegal. This perception gap, when not adequately addressed, can undermine public trust in EMC systems and weaken their effectiveness. Illegal mining further compounds the challenge by leaving behind unreclaimed landscapes, disrupting water flows, and increasing the risks of landslides and flooding [21]. In addition, the use of public roads for mineral transport and disputes over land rights create tensions that extend beyond the technical domain [22]. These multidimensional pressures illustrate the need for EMC frameworks that do more than monitor hazards; they must also strengthen risk communication, clarify stakeholder roles, and foster inclusive participation. Experiences from South Africa emphasize the value of continuous dialogue and clearly defined responsibilities across government, industry, and communities [23]. Therefore, rather than focusing solely on enforcement, a more balanced EMC approach should integrate environmental restoration, collaborative governance, and transparent communication mechanisms. By bridging the gap between technical realities and community perceptions, EMC systems in the mining sector can build stronger legitimacy and resilience, ultimately ensuring safer outcomes for both local populations and emergency responders.

The fourth challenge in implementing EMC in the mining sector lies in the dynamic nature of environmental conditions. Factors such as extreme weather patterns, geological shifts, and ecological degradation result in non-static risks, rendering document-based EMC systems less responsive. For example, Ref. [10] used a system dynamics approach to illustrate how excessive resource extraction destabilizes geological structures, increasing the risk of secondary disasters like landslides. Similarly, Ref. [24] highlighted that frequent flooding disrupts operations, forces mine closures, and damages infrastructure, particularly in climate-vulnerable regions such as Indonesia. These findings underscore the limitations of current EMC systems in adapting to rapid environmental changes, which may lead to response failures, asset damage, and even fatalities. Therefore, upgrading EMC requires transitioning from static documentation-based frameworks to adaptive, integrated systems that can effectively respond to evolving environmental risks. This approach ensures more resilient and timely emergency responses in the face of increasing environmental uncertainties.

4.2. Strategic Solutions for EMC Strengthening

Based on the results of the thematic analysis, there are three main approaches to strengthening EMC in coal mining in response to the challenges faced. The first is the application of InaRISK in the mining industry, which is a crucial step in efforts to reduce disaster risk through the use of geospatial data and information systems. BNPB created it as a tool to identify disaster risks such as floods, landslides, earthquakes, and land fires. In the mining sector, the system allows companies and stakeholders to recognize potential risks around mining areas. A research study from [25] noted that the systematic use of mapping technology can enlarge the ability of local governments to understand mapping technology, thus identifying potential risks in their areas, which is also done in mining as a high-risk sector. With the mapping of the area, mining companies can plan safer layouts, establish evacuation areas, and develop emergency response protocols based on risk analysis. Furthermore, strengthening the integration of InaRISK with the safety management system in mining also helps fulfil legal aspects and compliance with national regulations.

The BNPB’s Disaster Resilience Index (IKD) serves as a model that can be adapted into an emergency capability assessment framework for mining companies. IKD assesses disaster management capacity at the district/city and provincial levels. In the mining context, this system can evaluate and enhance regional capabilities in managing disaster risks from mining activities, which is critical for assessing resilience and recovery. A commonly used approach involves qualitative analysis of mining policy and governance. Research indicates that mining’s economic impacts are unevenly distributed, often causing adverse effects such as agricultural land degradation and income loss [26]. The IKD formulation includes Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with local governments, communities, and relevant stakeholders in disaster mitigation. International literature shows that increased shares for indigenous peoples can be achieved through benefit-sharing agreements, joint ownership arrangements, and co-management structures that allow indigenous peoples to become equal partners in mine management [27]. In the Indonesian context, the weak legal protection for indigenous peoples makes this strategy not run optimally, so mining regulatory reform is still needed to ensure fair distribution of benefits [28]. Failure to address negative impacts through IKD may hinder sustainable development [29]. Despite its importance in measuring a region’s disaster response capacity, IKD’s use in the mining sector remains limited and is not yet fully incorporated into mining-specific regulatory frameworks.

In addition, it is crucial to develop well-structured EMC instruments. With clear minimum standards in place, mining organizations no longer need to rely on subjective interpretations in designing emergency response systems. For these instruments to function correctly, it is essential to have a monitoring system and binding regulatory support. Policymaker participation is also crucial so that the instrument does not become a mere administrative procedure but can also improve emergency capacity on the ground, which aligns with research from [30], which states that the importance of the role of policymakers and managers is crucial in achieving operational goals. They need to optimize performance to help companies understand the current situation. Given that the mining industry is a sector with a high level of risk, it is essential to develop a structured EMC measurement tool.

4.3. Key Components in the EMC Framework

Thematic analysis results identified seven essential components in developing the EMC framework for the mining sector: risk and hazard identification, physical capacity, human resource capacity, prevention, emergency response capacity, evaluation and improvement, and restoration and recovery. Among these, risk and hazard identification emerged as the most frequently cited and emphasized. This process is vital as the initial stage for screening, prevention, planning, and emergency responses. It also forms a solid foundation for risk-related decision-making [31]. The Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) highlights that inaccurate identification may lead to flawed emergency plans, thereby increasing potential losses. This aligns with [32], which emphasizes that the structured identification of risks is the first and most critical step in emergency management, aiming to reduce disaster likelihood. Another study confirms its role in formulating strategic plans for hazard prevention and control [33]. Without this step, risk management systems cannot effectively manage critical incidents.

The areas of concern in EMC assessment and improvement are the physical and human aspects. These two elements are important parts that support each other in enhancing the effectiveness of emergency management capabilities. Companies need to organize official policies and procedures related to workflow units and communication flows. The people involved must have clear responsibilities and cooperate in implementing the emergency handling system [34]. The communication aspect also plays a crucial role in enhancing team performance. Therefore, the role of structured and harmonious coordination is indispensable in the EMC process [35]. In the mining industry, a lack of physical capacity can hinder emergency management efforts. In many countries, the strategy used is to provide regulation-based incentives from relevant ministries or authorities to encourage companies to invest in emergency capacity building. In the Indonesian context, the legal basis for providing incentives for mining companies actually already exists. Government Regulation No. 96 of 2021, Article 168 paragraph (2) b allows the provision of fiscal and/or non-fiscal incentives for companies that build derivative industries of coal processing and refining products. While the incentives are currently focused on increasing added value (downstream), the same principle can be extended to support strengthening the physical capacity of EMCs. Thus, the ministry has the potential to design a regulation-based incentive fee scheme that encourages mining companies to invest more in emergency facilities [36].

Meanwhile, human resource capacity refers to the readiness of individuals and organizational structures in emergency situations. Trained human resources can make decisions quickly and accurately when facing crisis situations. In the mining industry, which is characterized by a high level of risk, the presence of human resources with the appropriate competencies and certifications is crucial for ensuring the safety of workers and maintaining operational continuity. According to research conducted by [37], emergency preparedness management requires a skilled workforce, interconnected technology, and comprehensive procedures. Human resource capabilities and physical capacity are interrelated elements and need to be developed in synergy in the EMC system. A poor balance in any one part can disrupt the overall performance. Therefore, strengthening these two elements is the main focus in the development of EMC instruments.

The prevention component is the steps taken to reduce the likelihood of an emergency occurring or before the event takes place. Prevention includes risk management and safety monitoring and auditing. Interviews with interviewees showed that this element is often overlooked because the organization’s attention is more focused on response. In fact, this process starts before a disaster occurs or at the pre-disaster stage and becomes a comprehensive and ongoing set of disaster management activities. However, effective prevention relies heavily on proper identification. Prevention is an important first step to setting priorities and managing risks in a planned way [38]. If initial identification is not done accurately, prevention strategies will be inefficient. Prevention is not only designed to prevent emergencies from occurring but also to establish a robust organizational system from the outset.

Based on the interview results for emergency response capacity, it is stated that integration between the mine EMC system and the national disaster system is critical. Components of emergency response capacity include rapid response to incidents, mobilization of resources, self-warning systems, and external stakeholder participation. Organizations need to liaise with relevant authorities such as the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources to ensure that all existing regulations are followed. In addition, communicating with other external parties such as communities, NGOs, and local governments is important to build positive relationships and understand the social impacts that may arise in the coal mine operating environment [39].

The evaluation component involves comparing the level of risk that has been analyzed against the risk criteria determined by the organization [31] Based on the interviews with interviewees from BNPB, evaluation and improvement are part of a cycle that should be carried out regularly. This process involves not only a technical evaluation but also an assessment of how effective the coordination and response were. The results of the evaluation are then used as a basis for developing suggestions for improvement or enhancement.

The recovery and restoration component in EMC focuses on recovery after a crisis, which is an important part. This component encompasses the restoration of operational functions, the provision of psychosocial support, and the reconstruction of the facility. Ref. [40] demonstrated that planning and strategies for infrastructure network recovery are crucial for a swift return to service operations. Psychosocial support is also an important component in the recovery process. A study conducted by [41] emphasized that psychological well-being is a crucial component in the long-term recovery process. The components of recovery and rehabilitation encompass not only restoring pre-event conditions but also strengthening operational structures, providing psychosocial support, and rebuilding communities.

4.4. Study Limitations and Future Recommendations

This research has several limitations that need to be considered. First, empirical data was only obtained from five key sources. Although the informants represent strategic institutions in the field of disaster and per-mining governance, the limited number of informants limits the diversity of perspectives. Therefore, the results of this study cannot be generalized widely without caution. Second, the proposed EMC framework was developed in the context of Indonesia’s specific regulations and institutions in the coal mining sector. Other mining sectors or other countries may have different legal structures, organizational practices, and risk dynamics, so these frameworks need to be further adapted before they can be universally applied. Third, this study uses a qualitative approach with thematic analysis enriched by literature review and regulatory analysis. Although this approach is suitable for the development of conceptual models, the resulting findings still require quantitative validation and more comprehensive field tests.

Based on these limitations, further research is recommended to expand the number and diversity of sources, integrate quantitative survey instruments, and test this EMC framework in various mining areas by considering local risk dynamics. In addition, future research can explore how the seven-component assessment instrument of EMC can be operationalized as a practical evaluation tool in the coal mining sector and other high-risk industrial sectors. This effort will strengthen the validity, applicability, and generalization of the offered model.

5. Conclusions

Emergency Management Capability (EMC) is a critical component for ensuring the resilience of the coal mining sector in Indonesia in the face of emergencies. The study findings indicate that EMC implementation faces multiple structural and technical challenges, including the absence of standardized preparedness indices, gaps between policy and field implementation, illegal mining activities, and dynamic environmental risks. These challenges can undermine both operational safety and economic stability, highlighting the need for robust, adaptive, and context-sensitive emergency management systems. Regulatory analysis shows substantive linkages between national disaster management regulations and sector-specific mining regulations. While Ministerial Regulation of ESDM No. 26/2018 integrates emergency management principles into the SMKP framework, further regulatory harmonization and adjustments are required to align with the geographical and operational characteristics of coal mines, particularly in disaster-prone areas.

To address these challenges, EMC strengthening strategies should focus on three main approaches: (1) utilization of InaRISK for geospatial risk identification, (2) development of a standardized Emergency Preparedness Index, and (3) creation of a comprehensive, contextual EMC framework. The proposed EMC framework consists of seven key components: (1) risk and hazard identification, (2) physical capacity, (3) human resource capacity, (4) prevention, (5) emergency response capacity, (6) evaluation and improvement, and (7) recovery and restoration. These components provide a foundation for designing an adaptive, scalable, and sustainable EMC system tailored to the Indonesian coal mining sector. The practical implication of these findings is the urgent need to develop standardized EMC assessment instruments that are adaptive to evolving risk dynamics. Strengthening regulations, fostering cross-sector collaboration, and integrating spatial and field data are essential pillars for building a responsive, accountable, and effective EMC system. This study has several limitations: the data were obtained from five key informants, limiting the diversity of perspectives; the EMC framework is developed within the context of Indonesia’s coal mining regulations and institutions; and the qualitative approach requires further quantitative validation. Therefore, future research is recommended to expand the number and diversity of sources, operationalize the seven-component EMC framework in multiple mining sites, and test its applicability in other high-risk industrial sectors. Such efforts will enhance the validity, generalizability, and practical utility of the proposed model.