public participation and access to information in amdal - World Bank ...

9 downloads 63 Views 2MB Size Report
Where comments have been significant in terms of numbers and relevance to the AMDAL ...... Informasi dalam AMDAL” sebagai pengantar diskusi. Moderator ...
FINAL REPORT STUDY ON

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION IN AMDAL

AMDAL REFORM PROGRAM (PHASE 2) LINKING POVERTY, ENVIRONMENT, AND DECENTRALISATION AUGUST 2005 SUBMITTED TO THE WORLD BANK BY PT. QIPRA GALANG KUALITA

this page is intentionally left blank

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

iii 1 1 1 2 4

1.1 Background of Study 1.2 Objective and Expected Output 1.3 Link to Other Work 1.4 Structure of This Report

Chapter 2 METHODOLOGY

5 5 7

2.1 Study Approach 2.2 Empirical Study

Chapter 3 CASE-STUDY FINDINGS 3.1 Announcement 3.2 Public Consultations for KA-ANDAL Preparation 3.3 Data Compilation and Documentation 3.4 Representation at the AMDAL Commission Meetings 3.5 Access to Information

Chapter 4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 AMDAL Public Involvement in the Current Sociopolitical Condition 4.2 Limiting & Critical Success Factors 4.3 Key areas for improvement

Chapter 5 RECOMMENDATIONS

11 11 15 24 25 31 37 37 41 46 49

ATTACHMENTS A Case-Study Description B List of Case-Study Resource Persons C Preparatory Steps and Preconditions for Public Involvement in AMDAL D Minutes of Meeting and Participation List from “Discussion on Public Involvement in AMDAL’ E References

i

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

this page is intentionally left blank

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Study is conducted to review the level, quality and effectiveness of public involvement in the AMDAL process since the issuance of the Decree of the Head of BAPEDAL No. 08/2000. The Study is expected to identify patterns of implementation, limiting and key success factors. The ultimate aim of the Study is to provide recommendations as input for the national-level effort for AMDAL revitalization, and more specifically the revision of the decree on public involvement and information disclosure in AMDAL. The Study uses 10 case-studies as the basis of an empirical analysis on public involvement and information disclosure in AMDAL. Additional literature and resource persons were also used to develop recommendations. Results of the case-study analysis indicate that although public involvement and information disclosure in AMDAL has been implemented (albeit in varying degrees), the outcome of these efforts have not been significant. Comments received from the Concerned Public have varying value, but largely has not significantly contributed to a better AMDAL process and decisions based on the AMDAL process. Where comments have been significant in terms of numbers and relevance to the AMDAL process, the amount of preparation and resources spent was substantial. Reasons for limited success from public involvement in AMDAL is attributed to a combination of problems related to: a) poor understanding of AMDAL objectives, scope and process; b) lack of understanding of public involvement in AMDAL and expected output; c) weak communication between the public and government on needs and aspirations for economic development and social welfare (outside the AMDAL process); d) still evolving democratic process and institutions The Study presents recommendations that are expected to be useful in Government deliberations on revising the public involvement regulations and guidelines. This Study assumes

iii

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

that the current AMDAL procedures will be modified in the near future, and the deliberations to formulate the modifications will occur in the next few months. In order to accommodate possible changes, the recommendations provided here do not prescribe a single solution. The ultimate aim of the recommendations is to create a public involvement and information disclosure for AMDAL that is effective, efficient, credible and contextual to the Indonesian development picture. This Study recommends the following changes to the current AMDAL-public involvement regulations and guidelines: •

• •

• •







More specific statement of objectives, and detailed objectives for each of the key components of the AMDAL process; Establish a set of qualitative criteria for ‘good’ public involvement; Establish clearer division of responsibility among the three key parties, namely the Responsible Environment Agency, the Local Government, and the Project Proponent; Define more clearly who is meant by Affected Communities and their legitimate representatives; Allow some degree of freedom to the Project Proponent to determine the mix of techniques used for information disclosure and public involvement; Develop links and formalize ties with other agencies’ programs for public involvement in development planning outside of the AMDAL process; Develop a program to assist different stakeholders to be able to contribute to the AMDAL-public involvement process; Identify sources of finances to support Government agencies and Affected Communities’ involvement in the AMDAL process, and to enhance public education on AMDAL and public involvement in AMDAL.

Finally, the lesson learned in the 4 years of implementing a formal public involvement process is that any process developed for the AMDAL system should fit into the sociopolitical mechanisms that are being developed for overall democratization in Indonesia. The task to increase public involvement in AMDAL cannot be taken lightly and entails

iv

concerted effort to develop capacity and infrastructure to be used by all stakeholders. If public involvement in AMDAL is to be successful, the Government must allocate significant resources and play an active role in developing the necessary parts of the process.

v

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

this page is intentionally left blank

vi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION 1.1. BACKGROUND OF STUDY The prevailing Government Regulations on AMDAL (PP 27, 1999) lays the foundation for public involvement in the AMDAL process. This was followed by the issuance of detailed guidelines on the subject through a Decree of the Head of BAPEDAL No. 08, 2000 (Kepka 08/2000). Since the issuance of this guideline, the Ministry of Environment (and BAPEDAL, before it was merged with the Ministry) has received many inquiries, observed and themselves experienced many challenges with implementing the regulation. Put into context, the guidelines became effective about the same time that regional autonomy was first being introduced, as well as very eventful period in the national government and politics (elections of 1999, electing president Abdurachman Wahid, who was then replaced by Megawati in 2001). During this period multifaceted reforms (‘reformasi’) entered all segments of society and all sectors of development. Only 2 years after the issuance of the Kepka, the Ministry of Environment was beginning to consider the need to evaluate the guidelines. Portions of the Kepka were difficult to implement, while others were seen inappropriate, and overall the guidelines did not seem successful in meeting the objective of public involvement in AMDAL. As part of the ‘AMDAL Reform Program’, a Study on Public Participation and Access to Information is conducted in an effort to improve this portion of the AMDAL system.

1.2. OBJECTIVE AND EXPECTED OUTPUT The objective of the study is as follows: 1. Assess the level, quality and effectiveness of public involvement in AMDAL since issuance of the

1

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

government regulation Kepka 08/2000; 2. Develop recommendations for improvement based on empirical experience in Indonesia and World Bank projects; 3. Provide inputs for the national-level AMDAL revitalization effort conducted by the Ministry of Environment. The specific outputs of the Study covers: 1. An overview of how AMDAL-related public participation has taken place since the issuance of relevant government regulations; 2. A set of critical success factors that enable public participation in AMDAL, as well as challenges faced by stakeholders involved; 3. Recommendations regarding improvement necessary to the general practice of public participation in AMDAL, and regarding changes/ modifications to the existing government guidelines/ regulations. The topic of ‘access to information’ is seen as a necessary component of the public participation process. It is not treated as a separate item in the study, rather as an integral part of the entire analysis.

1.3. LINK TO OTHER WORK REGIONAL The Study on Public Participation and Access to Information PILOT (PPAI) is conducted concurrently with the Regional Pilot PROJECT Project Component of the ‘AMDAL Reform Program’, as well as the Good Practices Study undertaken by the World Bank. By design, the results of the PPAI Study are intended to inform the Regional Pilot Project, particularly in the development of the Provincial AMDAL System. Therefore, the results of the PPAI Study are expected to be available during the time the Regional Pilot Project team is in the process of developing the Detailed Mechanism of the Provincial AMDAL System. The link between the PPAI study and the Regional Pilot Project has in fact been two-way. Discussions held under the Regional Pilot Project have produced some comments from

2

stakeholders and findings relevant to the public participation requirements of AMDAL. This link also exists between the PPAI Study and the Good Practices Study, where some findings from the case-studies are relevant to the PPAI Study.

RELATED In 2002, the World Bank assisted the Ministry of PAST WORK Environment in the development and publication of informal guidelines for public participation in AMDAL. Two publications were produced and disseminated, namely: a) Public Consultation in AMDAL - A Practical Guide for Project Proponents b) Public Involvement in AMDAL – Information Booklet for the Public. The guidelines were developed through a combination of activities, namely: • Review of guidelines for public participation in EIA/EA in other countries and international organizations, • Discussion with stakeholders to identify the main challenges and current practices in implementing public participation for AMDAL. The guidelines were then disseminated through a Training Course and workshops (in 2003) involving a total of 56 (fifty-six) participants from regional environment agencies (provincial and some kabupaten/kota), universities and consultants. Through the course of these activities, many comments, observations, and ideas were obtained from stakeholders. Many of these comments were based on experience in the field, and demonstrated an overall confusion on the intent and implementation of the Kepka 08/2000. As reported in the Final Report to the World Bank (December 2002), the Consultant provided the following recommendations for follow-up: • Socialization to all stakeholders to improve understanding of the objective and implementation of public participation in AMDAL; • Issuance of local regulations and guidelines to ensure application of the Kepka are consistent with local social conditions; • Real evidence of the benefits of Public Consultation to

3

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL



disseminate and convince stakeholders on the value of public consultation related to AMDAL; Comprehensive review of Kepka implementation to identify constraints in implementing the Kepka and identify the need to clarify or revise the Kepka.

This Public Participation and Access to Information (PPAI) Study is regarded as a follow-up to the last of the above recommendations.

1.4. STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT The outline of this report follows a proposed outline for the Final Report. The report is structured in the following manner: Chapter 2: METHODOLOGY – provides a description of the methodology used in the PPAI Study and sources of information; Chapter 3: CASE-STUDY FINDINGS – provides a summary of the key findings from the case-studies, and discusses common threads found from the case-studies; Chapter 4: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION – provides a discussion on public involvement in AMDAL in the larger context of development in Indonesia, and offers some light as to the limiting and critical success factors identified in this study. Chapter 5: RECOMMENDATIONS – describes recommendations offered to improve public involvement and information disclosure in AMDAL, to feed into the Government’s efforts to revise the existing regulations and guidelines on public involvement in AMDAL.

4

CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY 2.1. STUDY APPROACH Public involvement in the AMDAL process is defined in the Government Regulation (PP) No. 27, 1999 on AMDAL, and is further elaborated in the Decree of the Head of BAPEDAL No 08, 2000 on Public Involvement and Information Disclosure in the AMDAL Process (Kepka 08/2000). This Study is an assessment of the effectiveness of the government policy on public involvement in the AMDAL process. The assessment is guided by a set of questions that have emerged in various discussions previously. The questions are divided into: a) over-arching questions that revolve around the objectives, scope and expectations of public involvement in the AMDAL process at a general level; and b) procedural questions that question whether the prescribed procedures in the Kepka 08/2000 support effective public involvement process. Over-arching questions includes: • Does public participation in fact improve the quality of the AMDAL study or decisions related to AMDAL? • What measures can be used to determine that sufficient public involvement has been done for an AMDAL/EIA? • What are the specific roles (and limits thereof) of each stakeholder in the AMDAL-related public involvement process (government, proponent, public), especially in the era of regional autonomy? • Can public participation in AMDAL be effective only if proper public involvement has been done for spatial planning and other development planning processes? Procedural questions include: • What are the outcomes of the key elements of Kepka 08/2000: a) announcement in mass media, b) public

5

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL



• •

consultation at the TOR phase, c) access to AMDAL information, d) representation of affected community in the AMDAL Evaluation Committee? What are the obstacles to conducting and attaining the objectives of AMDAL-related public involvement processes in Indonesia ? What approaches have been implemented to provide access to information on AMDAL? What are the critical success factors that support effective public involvement processes that are deemed effective?

The study is designed to answer the question: • What impact has public involvement had on the AMDAL process? • Has Kepka 08/2000 been effective in producing AMDAL documents and decisions on environmental feasibility that are more sensitive to the needs and concerns of the public? • How should the government regulations and guidelines be modified to improve public involvement in the AMDAL process? This Study is a qualitative analysis that tries to answer the above question using empirical information, observations and opinions from experts and practitioners. The study combines several approaches, namely: 1. Empirical Study; It involves assessment of case-studies where public involvement is practiced in an AMDAL study. The case-studies are expected to divulge the: a) different patterns of implementing Kepka 08/2000 that has emerged in the field; b) identify problems or constraints as well as expectations of stakeholders regarding public involvement in AMDAL; c) record where public involvement has succeeded in meeting the objectives for a ‘better AMDAL process and decision’, and identify critical success factors. A more detailed description of the Empirical Study is provided below. 2. Review of Literature and Expert Opinions; It is expected to provide additional inputs regarding: a) guidelines or regulations issued by other countries and international organizations; b) the implementation of such guidelines or regulations in other countries (especially non-

6

industrialized countries). Such international perspective is expected to provide a wider perspective on what is achievable (or achieved) and not in public involvement in EIA/EA in other countries. This perspective is deemed important to bridge the gap between the theoretical and ideal goals of public involvement in EIA/EA (which is the basis of Kepka 08/2000, and found in various international documents) with the reality of implementing it in the field. Compilation of Expert Opinions involves compiling and reviewing comments and ideas obtained through interviews and discussions with various experts and practitioners outside of the casestudy stakeholders. Included are results of discussions held in 2002 and 2003 for the preparation of the guidebook and workshops. Under the course of this study, additional interviews are conducted. The expert opinions are expected to enrich, supplement and/or complement the findings of Empirical Study and inform in the development of recommendations.

2.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY The empirical segment of the study is designed to provide a foundation for this study. By collecting information on how public involvement has been practiced in Indonesia and what results have been achieved, a snapshot on the effectiveness of the Kepka is developed. Ten (10) case-studies were selected to build this empirical snapshot. There is no pretension that the 10 case-studies are representative of the wide variety of projects, geographic and social diversity of Indonesia. But considerable attempt has been made to ensure that the 10 cases cover a range of project characteristics, such as: a) project-types, i.e. private sector investment and public sector infrastructure project; b) AMDAL status, i.e. AMDAL has been approved (public participation process completed) and AMDAL in process (public participation process recent and ongoing); c) Complexity of project, i.e. single/ simple project and

7

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

integrated/ complex project. Another criteria used in the final selection and confirmation of the case-studies is access to information. Some case-studies placed on the candidate list were dropped because of difficulty in reaching and obtaining confirmation from the key stakeholder. A list of the final case-studies is provided in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1. List of Case-Studies PROJECT AND LOCATION

1. Hazardous Waste Landfill, Kab. Karawang, West Java

2. Gonggang Dam, Kab. Magetan, East Java

3. Housing and Recreation Area, Bandung, West Java

4. Metro Trade Center Mall, Kota Bandung, West Java

5. Coal Mine, Kutai Timur, East Kalimantan

6. Double Track Railway Kutoarjo – Yogya, Central Java-DI Yogyakarta

7. Jakarta Outer Ringroad (JORR), Jabotabek

8. Banyu Urip Oilfield Devt., East Java

8

PROPONENT

AMDAL COMMISSION

PROJECT TYPE/ SECTOR

AMDAL STATUS

NAME USED IN THIS REPORT

PT. Indobarat Rayon (private)

Central (KLH)

Hazardous Waste Landfill/ private

AMDAL approved

Indobarat

Kabupaten Government of Magetan (government)

East Java Province

Water Resource/ public

AMDAL approved

Gonggang Dam

PT Dam Utamasakti Prima (private)

Kota Bandung

Housing & tourism development/ private

KA review

Punclut

PT Margahayu Raya (private)

Kota Bandung

Commercial development/ private

AMDAL approved

Metro Trade Center

PT Kaltim Prima Coal (private)

Kabupaten Kutai Timur

Mining / private

AMDAL approved

KPC Coal

Ministry of Transportation (government)

Central (KLH)

Land transportation / public

AMDAL approved

Double Track

PT Jasa Marga/ Ministry of Public Works (government)

Central (KLH)

Road development/ public

AMDAL approved

JORR

ExxonMobil Oil Indonesia, Inc (private)

Central (KLH)

Oil-gas development/ private

AMDAL approved

Banyu Urip

9. Sadewa Oilfield Devt., Kab. Kutai Kartanegara, East Kalimantan

10. Housing Estate, Kec. Gunung Putri, Kab Bogor, West Java

Unocal Indonesia Company (private)

Central (KLH)

Oil-gas development/ private

KA preparation

Sadewa

PT. Karya Cantika Kusuma (private)

West Java Province

Housing development/ private

AMDAL approved

KCK Housing

CASE STUDY For each case-study, information was collected regarding the PROCESS process and results of the various steps in public involvement in AMDAL, namely: • Announcement • Public Consultation in the KA-ANDAL Preparation • Representation in the AMDAL Commission • Access to Information. The case-studies were built from various sources of information, namely: 1. Stakeholders involved, representing at least 3 (three) parties: • Project proponent or consultant; • AMDAL Commission or local environmental institution; • Affected Communities or Observer Groups (NGOs near the project site). 2. Review of documents related to the case-studies: • KA report (TOR-ANDAL), • ANDAL report, • Report on public consultations (attachment to the KA report), where available, • Record of Discussion (Berita Acara) of the KA and ANDAL/RKL-RPL evaluation meetings, where available. Stakeholders from the 3 parties were interviewed using a semi-structured interview method. Names of interviewees from the Affected Communittes or Observer Groups were obtained from the Record of Discussion (attendee list) or from the AMDAL Commission or local Environmental

9

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

Agency.

ANALYSIS Results of interviews and document reviews were compiled and compared. This allowed identification ‘patterns of implementation’ based on empirical experience, and identification of problems and key success factors found from the case-studies. The findings were then analyzed against the content (and intent) of the government regulations and guidelines, and reviewed against comments and observations from other resource persons and literature.

10

CHAPTER 3

CASE-STUDY FINDINGS CASE-STUDY Information obtained from the case-studies shows RESULTS considerable variation on how the provisions in the Kepka are interpreted and implemented. This section describes the patterns that have emerged from the case-studies for each of the major steps prescribed in the Kepka, as well as the outcomes that are observed from the public involvement process. The intent of this chapter is to portray the different interpretations and provide a general discussion on the major obstacles to implementing public participation in the AMDAL process. The chapter is divided into several sections, each describing a major component of the public involvement process.

3.1. ANNOUNCEMENT The Kepka (article 2.2) mandates that the Project Proponent and the Responsible Environment Agency place announcements in a national and local print media, notices in public places, in electronic media, and other media. The content and format of the announcement are specified in the Kepka. Table 3.1 presents a summary of announcements made in the 10 case-studies.

PRINT MEDIA In nine out of ten case-studies, the Project Proponent placed an announcement in the national and/or local newspaper. There is some variation in terms of placement: • Only in a national newspaper (Indobharat Rayon, KPC Coal, JORR), • Only in local newspaper (Metro Trade Center, Gonggang Dam, Punclut), • In both national and local newspapers (Banyu Urip, Double-Track Railway, Sadewa). The only Project Proponent that did not place an

11

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

announcement in a print media is the KCK Housing. In terms of content, most of the newspaper announcements do not fully follow the prescribed content in the Kepka (which includes a wide range of information). Particularly absent from the newspaper announcements are location map, type and volume of waste, waste management approaches. In some cases, also missing is the address of the Responsible Environment Agency (Gonggang Dam) and the deadline for sending in written comments/ suggestions (Gonggang Dam, KPC Coal). All announcements use Bahasa Indonesia, as prescribed in the Kepka. In the 10 case-studies, none of the Responsible Environment Agencies have made their own announcements. The Environment Agencies have relied fully on the Project Proponent to place announcements in the appropriate media. In most cases, the name and address of the Responsible Environment Agency are included in the newspaper announcement (except for Gonggang Dam).

Table 3.1 Summary of Announcements & Responses in 10 Case-Studies 1

2

ANNOUNCEMENT by Project Proponent Print Media National v newspaper Local newspaper v Around Project Notice board at v Site project site Notice board at v Proponent office near project site Notices at village, kelurahan or kecamatan offices Posters at public places Electronic Radio Media ANNOUNCEMENT by Responsible Agency COMMENTS RECEIVED in 6 0 response to Announcement

3

v v

4

v v

5

6

7

8

9

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v v

v

10

v

v

v

v v

v

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7

0

0

1

0

9

10

0

AROUND Notices were placed at or near the project site for all casePROJECT SITE studies. The specific location includes:

12

• • • •

At project site (Indobharat Rayon, Punclut, Metro Trade Center, KPC Coal, JORR) At the project proponent’s office near the project site (Gonggang Dam) At the village or kelurahan or kecamatan offices (Punclut, Double-Track Railway, JORR, Banyu Urip, Sadewa), At other public places frequented by community (KCK Housing).

Many of the Notices do not contain information prescribed in the Kepka. The most common missing information relates to location map. However, a few notices only contain announce “x project will be built on this location” (Metro Trade Center, KPC Coal, Gonggang, Indobharat). All notices used Bahasa Indonesia, as required in the Kepka.

ELECTRONIC Radio announcements were used in only two cases, namely MEDIA Punclut and Banyu Urip. In the Banyu Urip case, local radio stations announced the time and place of upcoming public consultation meetings to inform villagers on such events.

RESPONSE TO Of the 10 case-studies, written responses were received for 6 ANNOUNCE- Proposed Projects. No written responses were received for the MENT

Gonggang Dam, Metro Trade Center, KPC Coal, JORR announcements. In terms of number of written responses, 6 letters were received on the Indobharat Rayon, 7 letters on Punclut, 1 letter on the Double-Track Railway, 8 letters for Banyu Urip and 10 letters for Sadewa case-study. Many of the written responses did not meet the requirement in the Kepka, which requires submission of the identity (name and address) of the source of the comments.

DISCUSSION The 10 case-studies show that the majority of project proponents have adhered to the requirements of the Government to place an announcement in the print media and other media as appropriate. However, a significant finding is that the Government (ie the Responsible Environmental Agency) has not fulfilled its obligation to place announcements separate from that of the Project Proponent. In most cases, the cause for the Government’s failure to

13

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

comply is that it has no funds for such announcements. Advertisements (announcements) in daily newspapers, especially at a national scale, are expensive. Government agencies find it difficult to budget for announcements, since it is impossible to anticipate the number of AMDALs that are likely to be processed in the coming year. Even the Ministry of Environment has not been able to comply with this requirement set out in the Kepka 08/2000. As a result, the Responsible Environment Agency generally requests its name to be included in the announcement placed (and funded) by the Project Proponent. In terms of content, the Kepka’s prescription to include in the announcements technical information on the project and potential impacts may be unrealistic. To include all information would require upscaling the size of the announcement, and thus increasing the cost. There has also been much comment about the Kepka’s prescription on the language used in announcements, ie Bahasa Indonesia. In many rural locations, the language commonly used may be the local dialect, especially for the current adult population. Use of Bahasa Indonesia for information dissemination at the local level may not be the most effective language. The response obtained from placing a newspaper announcement is not deemed commensurate to the cost. Even when announcements are placed in more than 1 newspaper, there is no guarantee that it would generate a large number of responses from the public (Double-Track Railway). And even in the urban case-studies, where the populations to be reached by the announcements are presumably more educated, the level of response is low (Punclut, Metro Trade Center, JORR). The lack of response to newspaper announcements may be attributed to: • Announcements are not visible or attractive enough to catch attention of readers; • There is little interest among readers to respond to the announcement, and or little interest in AMDAL of a proposed project;

14

• •

Information in the announcements are not sufficiently clear to be commented on; Indonesians generally are not accustomed to writing and sending written responses.

A more effective means to reach Affected Communities appear to be announcements or notices placed in public places near project site and announcements via radio. Such announcements can be more cost-effective, but serves a different purpose than the newspaper announcements. As the Banyu Urip case indicates, this media can be used to inform the public about the existence of a proposed project, an upcoming AMDAL study, the basics of a project design, and the timing and venue of public consultation meetings in a particular area. However, there is no evidence that such announcements would trigger sending in of written comments/ responses from the public.

3.2. PUBLIC CONSULTATION FOR KA-ANDAL PREPARATION Kepka 08/2000 (Article 3.2) states that the proponent is obliged to conduct consultations with the Affected Communities and Observer Groups during preparation of the KA-ANDAL document. Results of public consultations are to be used as consideration in the scoping process. In these consultations, the Proponent is required to provide information on the proposed project, environmental components potentially impacted, and key issues. The Proponent is expected to announce the time, place and method of consultations to be conducted. Possible methods of consultations are given in the Kepka as examples, ie. public meetings, workshops, seminars, focused discussions, and other methods for two-way communication). The case-studies show that consultations are implemented by all Project Proponents, however, there is a wide variety on the approach and preparations done. Table 3.2 below provides a summary of different approaches.

IDENTIFYING Two approaches were found to be used to determine the AFFECTED Affected Communities to be the target for public

15

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

COMMU- consultations: NITIES





through a pre-survey as in the case of Sadewa and Banyu Urip. This entails conducting a field survey to understand the social structure of the communities, identify opinion leaders, common mode of communication and use of media; and through secondary information obtained from local authorities (village head or Lurah) and local documents, as in the case of Indobharat Rayon, Gonggang Dam, Punclut, Metro Trade Center, Double-Track and others.

In the case of JORR, there was additional effort to identify informal community leaders through the land-acquisition effort that was ongoing parallel to the AMDAL study. Proponents of Sadewa and Banyu Urip found that a presurvey is critical to identifying who should be consulted, ensure different elements of the community are consulted and determine the best approach for consultations, including the venue and timing of consultation meetings. Even with such a pre-survey, the proponent of Sadewa project had difficulty in identifying the affected communities for its off-shore project in the Makassar Straits. Fishermen operating in that area come from different parts of Sulawesi and Kalimantan. Data on fishing permits did not provide sufficient information on the origin of the fishermen.

Table 3.2 Summary of Preparations for Public Consultations PREPARATIONS for PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS Identification of Affected Communities to be Consulted Planning of Consultation Meetings

Implementation of Public

16

Preliminary Survey Secondary information (from local officials and documents) Time and place of meetings determined by Proponent/Consultant alone Time and place of meetings determined with assistance from Lurah, Head of Village Local Government becomes organizer of Consultation Meetings Meetings at village or RW level

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v v

v v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

Consultation Meetings

Community Members Invited to/ Attended the Public Consultations Dissemination of Additional Information prior to Consultation Meetings

Meetings at Kecamatan level Meetings at Kabupaten and or Province level Determined by Village Head, Lurah or Camat Based on preliminary survey Opened to public Distribution of booklet/ flyers or posters placed around project site

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v v

v

v

v v

ORGANIZA- Although generally viewed as part of the AMDAL TION

consultant’s scope of work, there is variation in terms of who takes the lead in organizing the public consultation events among the three parties involved: a) Project Proponent, b) AMDAL Consultant, c) Responsible Environment Agency and local government authorities. Three patterns emerge from the case-studies. (see Table 3.2) In several case-studies, the venue, time and participants were determined by the Project Proponent and the Consultant. In the Banyu Urip case, the pre-survey provided the basic information for the public consultation consultant to determine the best venues and target groups for the meetings. In the JORR, KCK Housing, KPC Coal cases, the proponent and consultant set the time and place. In other cases, the project proponent and/or AMDAL consultant requested assistance from the local Lurah or Village Head. In the Indobharat, Punclut, Metro Trade Center and Double-Track Railway cases, the village head determined the time, place and participants to be invited to the public consultation meetings. In one case-study (Sadewa), the project proponent fully engaged the Provincial and District level environment and other agencies to act as organizer of the public consultation meetings. The local government agencies were involved in deciding how many meetings were going to be held, the locations, invitees, who to lead the meetings. The Project Proponent’s role in the public consultation meetings was only to present a technical presentation on the proposed

17

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

project and respond to questions of technical nature. Such arrangement was agreed to between the parties in a workshop initiated by the proponent. In this case, the Proponent intentionally reduced the role of the AMDAL consultant, since the Proponent felt most competent and knowledgeable to describe the proposed activity and respond to questions from the audience.

PUBLIC All case-studies used public meetings, seminars, discussions CONSULTA- and focused group discussions to consult with the public. TION

In most case-studies, the proponents and AMDAL members interviewed use the term ‘socialization’ (sosialisasi) to refer to public consultation meetings held. The term ‘socialization’ is usually used to refer to a meeting where a new product/ program/ regulation is introduced or disseminated to the public. Although the terminology is incorrectly used in this context, records show that in fact a two-way communication was achieved in the public consultation meetings in the 10 case-studies reviewed.

ACTIVITIES Commission

The number of public consultations range from 1 event for the Punclut, KCK Housing case-studies, 6-7 meetings for the Gonggang and Double Track case-studies, to 36 meetings for the Banyu Urip case-study. This appears to be linked to the size of the project area and estimated impacted areas. There is also variation in terms of the level of community where the public consultations are held. The following indicates the patterns that are observed: • Meetings at only the village and neighborhood level (RW in urban setting) were done for the Double-Track, Punclut, Metro Trade Center and KCK Housing; • Meetings were held only at the Kecamatan (sub-district) level in the case of KPC Coal and JORR; • Meetings were held at village/RW and Kecamatan levels, such as for Gonggang Dam and Indobharat; • Meetings held at village/RW, Kecamatan and higher levels, such as Banyu Urip and Sadewa. In general the public consultation meetings took around 2-4 hours. All consisted of opening remarks by local officials, a presentation on the proposed project, and a question/answer session. Some meetings were held in the night-time to

18

accommodate the schedules of the communities (Metro Trade Center, JORR). In many of the case-studies, questionnaires were used by the proponent as an additional method to capture the participants’ opinions/ concerns, as well as information regarding the project location. Interviews with community members who attended the public consultation meetings were conducted after the meeting closed.

ATTENDANCE Attendance at public meetings also varied. In some cases, the Village Head, Lurah or Camat determined who should be invited to the public consultation meetings (Indobharat, Gonggang Dam, Metro Trade Center, JORR, KPC Coal). In two cases (Banyu Urip and Sadewa), invitations were determined based on the pre-survey done to identify Affected Communities to be consulted. In one cases (Banyu Urip), consultation meetings were announced through the radio to invite any community members interested in attending. In the case of Double-Track, determination of invitees for the consultation meetings was based on residents living along the existing railroad tracks. The Affected Community was, therefore, relatively easy to identify and invite Where attendance was limited to invitees, the participants of the consultation meetings were mainly elected community leaders, such as the BPD (village representative board), RT (neighborhood officer), LPM (community development organization), Kepala Desa (village head), and in some cases, informal leaders (women’s group, PKK). For the JORR case, the Affected Communities included not only ‘common persons’, but also representatives from manufacturing companies (factories), Pertamina, and a Navy housing complex, which have facilities located near the location of the proposed toll-road. Representatives of the companies attended the public consultation meetings.

COST Data on the cost to hold public consultations were not obtained from all case-studies. However, there is indication that the unit cost varies considerably. The cost per public consultation meeting range from Rp 1 million (Metro TC), Rp 5-10 million (JORR) to approximately Rp. 20 million

19

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

(Sadewa). This is generally to cover costs such as rental of venue, snacks, rental of sound-system, transportation costs especially if meetings are held out-of-town. In the Banyu Urip case, over Rp 600 million was spent for the entire process of a pre-survey, development of the consultation strategy, design and production of information materials, implementation of public consultation meetings and reporting. In many cases, the above cost also includes a small sum of cash to cover transportation cost for community representatives/ members attending public consultation meetings. Such ‘compensation’ was deemed necessary to compensate for the transport cost incurred by community members to attend the meeting or for the opportunity cost of not working that day. Compensation is not seen to have influence on the recipient’s opinion towards the proposed activity.

RESPONSE In most case-studies, less than 20 comments/inputs were FROM THE obtained from the public consultation events. Only in the PUBLIC case of Banyu Urip were there a significant number of verbal comments from participants of the public meetings (total 538 from 36 meetings). In this case-study, the Prepared list of questions to be raised in public meetings of various information they required to assist in determing the scope of the ANDAL study. Affected Communities thus had specific issues to comment on. Table 3.3 below provides a summary of comments received during the public consultations. In the public consultation meetings, the range of topics raised by the public covers the following: • Comments related to existing environmental conditions; • Concerns regarding biogeophysical environmental impact of proposed activity; • Suggestion regarding changes in the design of the portions of the proposed project; • Suggestion for biogeophysical impact mitigation efforts; • Concerns regarding social impact such as criminality, relationship with in--migrants; • Request for public facilities such as clean water, road, etc; • Request for use of local workforce;

20

• Request for compensation of land acquisition; • Suggestions for relocation; • Request for community development. The suggestions and requests from the public were noted by the proponent/ consultant, and the public was informed that their inputs will be considered in the study and further decision-making on project design/ activities. However, most KA-ANDAL documents reviewed did not explicitly describe how the above comments from the Affected Community have influenced or not influenced the definition of the ANDAL study scope. In several of the case-studies, the communities present at public consultation meetings were persistent on the issue of compensation. In the case of JORR, the proponent representatives successfully diverted further discussion, explaining to the audience that they were not authorized to deal with land acquisition and compensations (note: a different unit in the proponent’s organization is responsible for this process). In one case, Indobharat Rayon, the public consultation meeting was concluded with Joint Agreement letter between the proponent and the communities establishing the level of compensation.

Table 3.3 Summary of Results of Public Consultation Meetings RESULTS of PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

1

Comments Raised

v

Request information on project Re existing environmental conditions Re biogeophysical impacts of project Suggestion on project design Suggestion on mitigation efforts of biogeophysical impacts Concerns regarding social impacts such as criminality, relations with migrant workers Request for public facilities such as clean water, roads,

2

3

4

v

v

5

6

7

8

9

v v

v

v

v

v

10

v

v

v

v

v

v v

v

v v v

v

v

v

v

v

v

21

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

etc. Request for recruitment of local workers Request for compensation of land acquisition Suggestion on relocation Request for community development Number of comments

v v

v

v

v

v

v 6

v

18

10

v

v

19

11

?

v

v

v

v

11

v

v

v

538

6

5

DISCUSSION The case-studies demonstrate variance in interpretation (and, in fact, confusion) as to a number of important aspects regarding public consultations in the KA-ANDAL preparation stage. These questions are: •

Who is to be consulted during this stage?



What is the role of the local government?

On the first question (Who, in the community, should be consulted?) the case-studies reveal the existence of two points of view: 1. The Affected Community can and should be represented by formal leaders, such as Village Head, BPD, LPM, RT/RW heads, Lurah, since they have the mandate and legitimacy to represent the communities, and have, at least, knowledge of the different interests in the community; 2. Formal leaders (such as Village Head, BPD, LPM, RT/RW heads, Lurah) do not necessarily represent the interest of communities, and may in fact have vested interests of their own with regard to a proposed project. AMDAL public consultations should reach the ‘common person’ or community members who do not hold any formal office, and/or informal leaders recognized by the community, such as religious leaders, leaders of trade organizations (farmers, fishermen, traders), etc. The second point of view requires that the Project Proponent spends substantially more effort and finances to conduct multiple consultation meetings, to identify the target groups

22

for consultations, and to prepare materials to inform the general public. Furthermore, Project Proponents view consultations with community members as potentially exposing the Project Proponent to uncertain (possibly volatile) situations. The probability is high when consultations are used as a venue to make demands on the Project Proponent, and when other interests (such as land speculation, see Purnama, 2003) infiltrate the consultation meetings. Since the Kepka does not specifically define ‘which community (ies)’ need to be consulted, Project Proponents have freely interpreted this to minimize time, operational difficulty and complications. In most cases, the ‘common person’ is not accustomed to being involved in development consultations. An interview with a community member for the Indobarat Rayon case, indicates this farmer was not interested in attending public consultation meetings because he felt it was the job of the village officials/ leaders. Lack of interest or impetus to participate in public meetings related to EIA is also reported in Bulgaria, where “securing the basic necessities of life commands immediate attention” (Almer & Koontz, 2004). The role of local government (autonomous regions of Province and Kabupaten) in public consultations is unclear. Although the Kepka 08/2000 was conceived during the time regional autonomy law was also being drafted and publicly discussed, there is insufficient recognition or definition as to the role of the local government in organizing, planning and/or facilitating public consultations for AMDAL. The case-studies show three potential roles of the local government: a) supporting role to the Project Proponent, eg providing information on persons to invite; b) full partner to the Project Proponent, eg taking part in presentations and responding to questions/comments raised in the public consultation meetings; c) lead role (with Project Proponent playing supporting role), eg convening the public consultation meetings, facilitating in the dialog between the Affected Communities and the Project Proponent.

23

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

Definition of this role is important since communication with the public ultimately has a bearing on local development plans, investment projection, permits and spatial plans. The local government should share responsibilities with the project proponent (especially private sector companies) on communications with the Affected Communities. In terms of comments expressed during the public consultation events, there seems to be no doubt that there are constructive suggestions, information and comments from the public related to the ANDAL study. However, in all cases, it is inevitable that the consultations also become a venue to express views and ‘wish-lists’ regarding social/ community development, workforce recruitment and compensation. In fact it these issues that carry-through to the AMDAL Commission phase, and one that is held most strongly by community representatives in some cases. Although the latter issues give indication for the ANDAL study (socio-economic component) some of the major issues of concern to the Affected Community, these issues cannot be resolved through the AMDAL process. For compensation, land acquisition and resettlement, there are a separate set of government procedures that apply. It is arguable that community development and social facilities are the responsibility of the project proponent. Such development programs should be the main task of local governments, and contributions from private companies operating in an area should be arranged between the local government and the private companies. The fact that some public consultation meetings ended with signing of agreement letters between the proponent and community on compensation, indicates a misunderstanding with regard to the purpose of public consultation for AMDAL as well as the objective of the AMDAL itself.

3.3. DATA COMPILATION AND DOCUMENTATION The Kepka 08/2000 (article 2.2 items 2, 3 and 4) explains that the Responsible Environment Agency is charged with the task of: • Documenting and analyzing written comments/

24

• •

suggestions from the public, Preparing a summary of the above, Presenting its opinion (position) regarding the above to the AMDAL Commission.

With regard to comments/ suggestions/ inputs obtained from the public consultation process, the Kepka 08/2000 places responsibility of documenting, summarizing and analyzing on the project proponent or its consultant. The results of this process are to be documented in a separate report, attached to the KA-ANDAL report.

BY From the 10 case-studies, none of the responsible RESPONSIBLE environment agencies performed its obligations with regard ENVIRON- to written comments from the public received in response to the announcements. Where written comments were received AGENCY by the environment agency, these were passed on to the project proponent or AMDAL consultant to be further used and analyzed.

MENTAL

BY PROJECT In all 10 case-studies, inputs gained from the public PROPONENT consultation events were documented and analyzed. Most of the case-studies also produced a report which was attached to the KA-ANDAL report. However, how comments/ suggestions from the public are treated in the process of the AMDAL study is generally not described well in the KA or ANDAL reports.

DISCUSSION In all case-studies, the compilation, documentation and analysis of comments and suggestions from the public were done by the AMDAL consultant/ project proponent. None of the Responsible Environment Agencies in the case-studies fulfilled their responsibilities. The main obstacle appears to be the lack of manpower to undertake this task, but likely it is also due to lack of intent. There is a common understanding that analyzing the data is the job of the AMDAL consultants. The impact is that the AMDAL Commission solely relies on what is reported in the KA-ANDAL report and the attachment on public consultation to understand the comments/ suggestions from the public. There is possibility of distortion or omission of comments/ suggestions that do

25

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

not support the project proponent.

3.4. REPRESENTATION AT THE AMDAL COMMISSION MEETINGS Article 2.1 point 3 and Article 3.3 of the Kepka 08/2000 stipulate that representatives of the Affected Communities must attend the AMDAL Commission meeting to evaluate the AMDAL documents. Article 2.1 point 3b) states that the Affected Communities must select for themselves the representative to sit in the AMDAL Commission. Criteria and requirement of the Affected Community representative are further described, ie: a) someone recognized as spokesperson of the community and/or has obtained a mandate from the community; b) voices all aspirations and opinions in the community; c) conducts regular communication and consultations with the community represented. Two meetings are held by the AMDAL Commission, namely: 1. To review the KA-ANDAL document, 2. To review the ANDAL and RKL/RPL documents. During the process of evaluation of the KA-ANDAL Document, the Observer Groups can also provide written comments to the Responsible Agency or Proponent up until 3 days prior to the AMDAL Commission meeting. For the ANDAL, RKL/RPL documents, the Observer Groups have 45 workdays to submit additional comments. Of the 10 case-studies, 1 case-study had not proceeded to the AMDAL Review Commission stage (Sadewa), and 1 casestudy had only gone through the KA-ANDAL review meeting (Punclut) at the time of this Study. Of the remaining 8 (eight) case-studies, the Affected Community was represented at the AMDAL Commission meeting by at least 1 (one) representative, with the exception of JORR casestudy. The level of representation, the patterns of representation, and breadth of aspiration represented demonstrates different patterns.

NUMBER OF The number of representatives attending the AMDAL

26

REPRESENTA- Commission meetings range from 1 (Gonggang) to 20 TIVES

(Punclut). Most of the case-studies indicate attendance between 3-10 representatives of affected communities. Similar numbers are observed between the AMDAL Commission meeting to review the KA-ANDAL and the ANDAL, RKL/RPL documents. Where large (>4) number of community representatives are present, AMDAL commission chairmen have found that meetings are more difficult to manage. The feel the number of representatives should be limited and made explicit

Table 3.4 Summary of Affected Community Representation at the AMDAL Review Commission REPRESENTATION AT THE AMDAL REVIEW COMMISSION

1

2

3

4

5

Number of Affected Community representatives

6

7

KA=ANDAL 3 1 20 3 2 5 0 Review meeting ANDAL, 3 1 n/a 10 2 4 0 RKL/RPL Review meeting Representation Formal leaders v v v v v by (Village Head, Lurah, BPD, LPM, RW & RT head) Community v v members Other community v v v v leader(s) or local NGOs Selection of Assigned by v community Affected representative Communities Appointed by v v v formal leaders Appointed by v v Project Proponent Routine communication/ consultation between Affected Communities and their representatives Understand why they have been v invited to Attend meeting n/a = AMDAL Review meeting had not been conducted at the time of this Study

8

9

10

4

n/a

3

3

n/a

5

v

n/a

v

n/a

v

n/a

v

n/a n/a

v

n/a

-

n/a

v

-

v

REPRESENTA- The case-study reveals that the Affected Communities are TION OF AFFECTED COMMUNI-

represented by a mix of the following: •

Formal community leaders, defined as Head of Village, Lurah, BPD, LPM, Head of RT/RW (neighborhood

27

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

councils) who are regarded as representatives elected by the community;

TIES



Other community leaders, defined as local groups, including trade group (eg fishermen’s group), youth group, local NGO;



Common citizens, defined as individuals who are not attached to any organization.

Data for this portion of the study were obtained from records of attendance in the AMDAL Commission meetings, thus depends on self-proclamation of each participant on the attendance list. Almost in all 8 cases, Formal Leaders attend the AMDAL Commission Meeting to represent the Affected Communities. In many cases, the Formal Leaders are accompanied by Other Community leaders, while only in 2 cases are there two representatives claiming to be Common Citizens (Metro Trade Center and Double-Track Railway). In one case-study (JORR), the representative who claimed he was a Community Representative turned out to be a staff of the Kecamatan Office (sub-district government); and thus in this analysis, the JORR case-study is regarded as not having a community representative. The selection of representatives to attend the AMDAL Commission meetings also varies. In the case of Indobharat Rayon and Banyu Urip, formal community leaders were specifically invited by the project proponent or environmental agency based on their participation in the public consultation meetings. Yet for the Gonggang, Metro Trade Center, and KPC Coal, representatives were selected by the Camat or Lurah. In the Punclut case, it appears that the proponent arranged for community representatives to attend the KA-ANDAL review meeting. Only in the case of the Double-Track Railway, was there a community selection process (through a Focussed Group Discussion) whereby the Village Head and Head of BPD were appointed to attend the AMDAL Commission Meeting on behalf of the Affected Communities. In terms of representation of interests, it is important to note that in the case of Punclut and Gonggang Dam, only

28

representatives of supportive communities were in attendance at the KA-ANDAL Commission meeting. In both cases, media coverage and interviews with stakeholders indicate that there were communities unsupportive of the proposed projects. However, the opposing point-of-view was not represented in the KA-ANDAL evaluation meeting. At the AMDAL Commission meetings to review the ANDAL, RKL/RPL, most case-studies show slight difference in representation than that attending the KA-ANDAL evaluation meeting. In some cases, a substantially larger number of representatives attend the ANDAL, RKL/RPL review meeting (Metro Trade Center). In many cases, it appears that the same community representatives attend the two Review Meetings (Indobarat Rayon, Banyu Urip, Double Track, KCK Housing, Gonggang Dam).

COMMENTS In the KA-ANDAL evaluation meetings, comments from the community representatives include: COMMUNITY • Comments on environmental impacts of concern REPRESENTA(Indobharat Rayon, Double-Track, Banyu Urip,); TIVES • Request related to socio-economic programs, compensation for land-acquisition, recruitment of local people (KPC Coal, KCK Housing); • Support for the project, or requesting the Government to approve the Proposed Project (Gonggang Dam and Punclut); • Suggestion for the name of the Proposed Project (Gonggang Dam). FROM

In the ANDAL-RKL/RPL review meeting, comments expressed by community representatives relate to: • Requests related to socio-economic programs, compensation for land-acquisition or environmental impact, recruitment of local people (Metro Trade Center, Double-Track, Gonggang, KPC Coal, KCK Housing); • Concern over environmental impacts and suggestions for environmental management, such as air quality, drainage, regreening, early warning system for marine pollution (Indobharat, Gonggang, Metro Trade Center, Banyu Urip, Double-Track, KCK Housing).

29

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

Comments did not appear to refer to specific sections of the AMDAL documents being reviewed.

COMMUNICA- In none of the 10 case-studies, is there indication that community representatives assigned to attend the AMDAL meetings conduct routine consultations/ BETWEEN Review COMMUNI- communications with the community. TION

TIES AND

As such, it is difficult to determine whether the comments/

THEIR requests raised during the AMDAL review meetings do in REPRESENTA- fact represent the aspirations of the wider public. TIVES

Even in the case where the community appointed a representative to attend the AMDAL Commission meeting (Double Track Railway), there is no routine communication or consultations held by the appointed representative.

UNDERSTAND When asked, in interviews for this Study, whether the community representatives understand why they have been ATTENDANCE invited to attend the AMDAL Commission review meeting, most answer that they do not understand. The exception holds for the JORR and Banyu Urip case-studies. For the JORR case-study, however, it should be noted that the community representative present at the review meetings was a staff of the Kecamatan office. PURPOSE OF

Most of the community representatives did not receive AMDAL documents prior to AMDAL Commission meetings. A few interviewee who claimed they received the document (Indobarat and Banyu Urip case), said that they did not read the document because it was too thick and difficult

DISCUSSION The AMDAL Commission meets to review the KA-ANDAL and ANDAL/RKL-RPL documents. The objective of the review is to ensure the scientific validity of the documents, provide comments for revision of the documents, and, finally, approve the documents. In all case-studies, the community representatives attending the AMDAL Commission meetings do not fully understand the objective of the Commission, nor what is expected from them in the meeting. Community representatives generally have not reviewed the documents prior to the AMDAL

30

Commission meeting. The comments expressed in the meeting are general comments on aspirations or concerns, whether or not they have been addressed in the documents being reviewed. There are three obstacles in play: 1. The community representative did not receive the AMDAL document in sufficient time; 2. The AMDAL documents are too scientific and not amenable to being understood by the laymen; 3. The community representatives have not been informed about their role or duty in the AMDAL Commission meetings. The Kepka states that the Responsible Environment Agency is tasked with providing, to the public, information regarding the process and results of reviewing the AMDAL documents. None of the community representatives interviewed in this study had received prior information on AMDAL or public involvement in the AMDAL process. However, it is worth noting also that most AMDAL commission members from the Environment Agency are also unclear as to the role of community representatives in the AMDAL Commissions; whether they are expected to fully participate in decisionmaking on the AMDAL report (approvals) or only to provide additional input. This point needs to be clarified As with public consultation meetings, representation again is an issue in the AMDAL Commission. Affected Communities represented by formal community leaders/ village officials can demonstrate legitimacy of representation, while it is more difficult to ascertain legitimacy when common citizens attend the AMDAL Commission meeting. In the cases where community representative present at the AMDAL Commission meeting are only from the supportive communities (Gonggang and Punclut), raises the question of how to ensure that all interests are represented. In these cases, the project proponent played a role in arranging who should attend the AMDAL Commission meetings. None of the 10 case-studies, community representatives are biased towards objecting the project (although discussion with KLH indicates that this seems to occur with relative frequency).

31

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

Regardless of who is representing the Affected Communities, the cases studies do not show communication between the representatives and the community being represented to determine the issues to be raised in the AMDAL Commission meeting. Such an effort requires that the representatives review the materials, discuss the content with the communities, and formulate agreed comments to bring to the AMDAL Commission. It also requires that after the AMDAL Commission meeting, the representative reports back to the community results of the AMDAL Commission. This finding is consistent with general observations on the current political process in Indonesia, where elected leaders or parliamentarians are not in regular communication with their constituents.

3.5. ACCESS TO INFORMATION Providing relevant information to the public is an integral part of the public participation process. Two components of access to information that should be fulfilled are: • Access or delivery channel; and • Information content and media. This section describes findings on practices from the 10 casestudies, outside of the announcement already discussed in Section 3.1. To facilitate the process of public involvement in AMDAL, the following information should be provided to the public: • Regulations and guidelines related to the AMDAL study, process of approval, and public involvement procedures and goals; • Proposed project and potential impacts for preparation of public consultations for the KA-ANDAL; • Results of the environmental impact assessment (in the form of draft KA-ANDAL, ANDAL and RKL/RPL documents) prior to AMDAL Commission meetings. The objective of providing information is ensure that the Affected Communities and Observer Communities have sufficient basis to formulate comments, suggestions and inputs regarding their concerns, information to be shared,

32

and so on. Without the appropriate information, the public will be unable to constructively participate in the public involvement process.

Table 3.5 Summary of Efforts to Provide Information to Affected Communities ACCESS TO INFORMATION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Received information regarding regulations on public involvement in AMDAL Additional information on Proposed Project made available prior to public consultations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

v

v

KA, ANDAL, RKL/RPL documents

Affected Communities Observer Groups

Through posters or flyers Information provided in Proponent’s office Information provided by other (non-AMDAL) Proponent representative Reviewed documents prior to attending AMDAL Commission meetings

v

v

v

v v

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

REGULATIONS All representatives of Affected Communities interviewed for AND GUIDE- the 10 case-studies were asked whether they were familiar with the contents of government guidelines regarding public PUBLIC participation in the AMDAL process (mainly Kepka INVOLVEMENT 08/2000). None of the interviewees were not aware of and IN AMDAL did not know of the government guidelines. Only a few representatives of Observer Groups interviewed were aware of and understand the content and objectives of Kepka 08/2000 (Punclut and Metro Trade Center). These groups happen to be environmental NGOs active in the Bandung area. All interviewed felt there has been no dissemination of information from the government regarding the guidelines. LINES ON

Most project proponents were aware of the the Kepka 08/2000 either from keeping updated with current regulations (through regulation books or internet) or were informed by the AMDAL consultant. In the case of Gonggang Dam, the proponent (Magetan Kabupaten Government) did not know of Kepka 08/2000. All claimed

33

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

there has been no dissemination by the government.

FOR PUBLIC Aside from the notices placed near the project site and the CONSULTA- announcements in newspapers, few of the case-studies TIONS

prepared and disseminated additional information on the proposed project and its impacts. The few cases are Banyu Urip, KCK Housing and Double-Track Railway, which produced posters and placed them in facilities often frequented by the communities. In the case of Banyu Urip, a booklet was produced and disseminated during the public consultation meetings that provided more detailed information on the project design, the expected impacts, and how the public can transmit comments/ suggestions. In the case of Indobharat, the proponent claimed they made additional information available at the project office (near the project site). However, they did not announce to the affected communities that such information was available and accessible to the public. Community representatives interviewed related to the Punclut and JORR shared that they expected to receive written information, but this was not available. In one case (JORR), however, the Affected Communities were already aware of project plans from other teams that have surveyed or consulted them. Prior to the AMDAL Study, Affected Communities had already been approached and provided information by proponent teams dealing with land acquisition and feasibility study of the toll-road.

PRIOR TO The AMDAL Commission Secretariat is required to send AMDAL draft KA, ANDAL and RKL/RPL documents to all members COMMISSION of the AMDAL Commission prior to the meeting date. In MEETINGS most cases, these documents are received by the AMDAL Commission members only a few days prior to the meeting. For the community representatives interviewed for the casestudies, the KA-ANDAL or ANDAL, RKL/RPL documents are considered too thick to review in a few days. Even when received by the Head of the Village, the content is deemed to ‘difficult’ to absorb. As a consequence, most community representatives present at the AMDAL Commission were not familiar with the findings or results of the study as expressed

34

in the documents.

DISCUSSION Information access in the 10 case-studies shows significant deficiency. An important finding is that community members or leaders generally have not received information regarding public involvement in the AMDAL process. Their knowledge of the objectives and scope of the AMDAL study, the public consultations and the AMDAL Commission meetings and the role as community representatives are limited to any explanations given during the public consultation and AMDAL Commission meetings. Case-studies show that information for the public needs to be delivered to the community, in close proximity to their areas of activity. Only providing access (such as government or proponent’s offices) is not an effective method, since very few community members would venture out to seek information located outside their immediate neighborhoods. In the 10 cases studied, there is limited delivery of information to Affected Communities prior to specific public involvement activities. Information provided to the public depends solely on information made available by the project proponent or their consultants. Such information is usually provided not long before activities related to public involvement in AMDAL are held. Obstacles to delivery of information are as follows: • Central government agencies have limited resources to disseminate information to all levels of community. They disseminate information to the provincial government with the expectation that the province will disseminate information to the Kabupaten agencies, and from Kabupaten to Kecamatan level, and so on. The reality is this chain reaction has not occurred; • NGOs also have limited resources to disseminate information to all levels of community. Even major environmental NGOs with relatively large resources have limitations in disseminating information; • In rural areas, access to any information is limited (not only with regard to AMDAL or environmental issues). Information resources common in the industrial countries, such as public libraries or community centers

35

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

are not available in Indonesia. Internet use is extremely limited. In addition to delivery problems, the substance of the AMDAL documents is also of concern. Since KA, ANDAL, RKL/RPL documents are written as scientific reports, they are not digestible to members of most Affected Communities. Delivery of AMDAL documents are not an effective method to prepare community representatives to participate in the AMDAL Commission.

36

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION This section discusses the findings from the case-studies in the context of the overall expected outcome of public involvement in the AMDAL process. Key limiting factors and success factors related to implementation of public involvement in AMDAL in the case-studies are summarized in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3. Analysis and discussion provided in this section includes inputs from other resource-persons (outside the 10 case-studies). The section ends with several fundamental questions that have emerged from this Study, and will be followed up in the section on Recommendations.

4.1. AMDAL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE CURRENT SOCIOPOLITICAL CONDITION The Government Regulation on AMDAL, PP 27, 1999 (article 34) states that: “Concerned public must be involved in the preparation of the terms of reference, evaluation of terms of reference, environmental impact analysis, environmental management plan and environmental monitoring plan”. In the subsequent guidelines issued in the Head of BAPEDAL Decree (Kepka) 08/2000, the objective of public involvement in AMDAL is provided. It is described as follows: 1. To protect the interest of the public; 2. To empower the public in decision-making on planned activities that have a potential to cause significant and large environmental impacts; 3. To ensure transparency in the overall AMDAL process; and 4. To create an atmosphere of equal partnership among all concerned parties, ie. by respecting the rights of all parties to obtain information and making mandatory for all parties to provide information that must be known by other parties affected.

37

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

Interspersed in various sections, the Kepka further states that the public is expected to submit suggestions, comments and inputs regarding the proposed activity. For example, the Kepka states that comments received in the public consultation process in the KA-ANDAL preparation stage are expected to be considered in defining the scope of the ANDAL Study. In relation to the AMDAL Commission, however, the Kepka only states that community representatives are expected to provide comments, suggestions and inputs to the Commission. The specific role of community representatives in the Commission decisionmaking process is not described. This study uses specific objectives that are implicit in the Kepka (and commonly understood among practitioners) to further define what is expected from public involvement in the AMDAL process, as follows: • Ensure the scope of the ANDAL study considers issues of concern to the public; • Influence design or location of proposed projects (considers information provided by the public); • Ensure that the decision of AMDAL Commission acknowledges the concerns/ aspirations of the public. When compared to the above specific objectives, the casestudies show that, overall, public involvement in the AMDAL process has not been effective. Although there is some evidence that comments from the public do influence the scope of the ANDAL study, project design or location and or the decision or recommendation of the AMDAL Commission, it is generally observed that the focus of community representatives in either the public consultations and in the AMDAL Commissions are not related to AMDAL study. The issues that are carried through from the KAANDAL preparation stage to the AMDAL Commission review by the community representatives tend to focus on issues of land acquisition, employment, compensation, community development and social/ public facilities – issues that are beyond the scope of the AMDAL process, and beyond the capacity or authority of the environmental agency.

38

The reason for this may be a mixture of the following factors: • Limited understanding of the AMDAL objectives, scope and process. • Lack of opportunity for the public to discuss issues on social/ public facilities, local development programs, etc. with the local authorities. • High expectations that the AMDAL process can resolve issues such as compensation and land acquisition. The combination of above factors manifest itself in differing interpretations among the AMDAL stakeholders on the question of: What is AMDAL capable of resolving? In this study, AMDAL is understood only as a study to identify and analyze potential environmental impacts, whose result would assist decision-makers in determining whether the project is deemed environmentally feasible. AMDAL is seen to address issues related to environmental clearance (feasibility) for the particular proposed projects. As such, AMDAL is not seen as a process that can resolve (ie settle disagreements, form a consensus) issues related to land acquisition, compensation, social/ public infrastructure, and social welfare. Resolution of such issues is outside of the realm of AMDAL process. And yet, the case-studies show that Affected Communities are most keen on obtaining commitment on such issues. They are not interested in discussing the AMDAL study per se. The issues of most concern to the Affected Communities are valid issues. People need jobs, to be fairly compensated, to be provided clean water, proper schooling, etc. But, this study argues that it is impossible to expect such issues to be resolved in the AMDAL study, and many of these issues are not the responsibility of the project proponent, but of the government. What the AMDAL process can do is to identify such issues in the ANDAL study, and feed it for follow-up by the government (on social welfare, oversight of land acquisition and compensation, etc.) and the project proponent (compensation, community development programs, recruitment plans). The misinterpretation and high-expectations on the AMDAL study, that is observed through the case-studies and emerge in

39

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

many discussions with resource persons, can be attributed to several problems larger that AMDAL itself: • Lack of public involvement in other (pre-AMDAL) development planning process, such as in spatial planning. The current spatial planning laws and regulations require public involvement. But for the most part, this is not implemented, and government agencies responsible are not penalized for not involving the public in developing spatial plans. Public objections regarding land-use or changes in land-use should already surface in spatial planning process, but now emerges in the projectlevel AMDAL process; • Democratic process in Indonesian society is still under development. The requirement to involve the public in AMDAL preceded the establishment of organic processes of representation and communication with constituents that are important elements of democratic societies in the industrial world. Without these organic mechanisms, the issue of ‘who represents whom’ in the AMDAL public involvement will continue to be a contentious issue and bring forward controversies at the project level. Under such conditions, there are significant limitations on what can be expected to emerge from public involvement in AMDAL. Furthermore, any requirement for AMDAL public involvement must be placed in the context of the overall socio-political evolution in Indonesia. With such underlying problems, the prescriptive procedural approach of the current regulation and guidelines seem inappropriate and do not produce the desired impact. Such a problem is not unique to Indonesia. Literature from other countries point to a questioning of “the effectiveness of public hearings in EIA in developing countries, such as 1 Ghana, Chile and Brazil” (Almer & Koontz, 2004). Public involvement in EIA is based on experience of the US that has relied on “a firm legal infrastructure, longstanding constitutional rights, and an active civil society” (Almer & Koontz, 2004). Literature from Canada states that “education 1

Although KLH officials say that public hearings are not required by the Government, casestudies show that public consultation meetings held by Project Proponents are in fact public hearing sessions.

40

and information dissemination are preconditions to fair and effective public involvement” (Sinclair and Diduck, 2001). The absence of such important elements of the democratic process in Indonesia has led to less-than-optimal results from the AMDAL-public involvement process.

4.2. LIMITING AND CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR PROBLEMS In the current socio-political condition, the guidelines for public involvement in AMDAL are flawed in a number of GUIDELINES ways: • Statement of objectives are too broad and vague (see comparison in Table 4.1 below); • The approach of the guidelines is too procedural; • The procedures with regard to announcements are too rigid and do not acknowledge the variation in channels of information active in the public; • The requirement for public consultation in the KAANDAL stage lacks clarity as to who should be consulted, and as to the role of the local government in the era of regional autonomy; • The requirement for representation in the AMDAL Commission is misplaced, and confused as to the role of the Commission, and unrealistic with regard to selection of community representative. WITH THE

Table 4.1. Comparison of Statement of Objectives of EIA-Public Involvement SOURCE

QUOTE

Decree of Head of BAPEDAL No. 08/2000, on Public Involvement in AMDAL and Information Disclosure

1. 2.

3. 4.

Protect the interest of the public; Empower the public in decision-making on planned activities that have a potential to cause significant and large environmental impacts; Ensure transparency in the overall AMDAL process; and Create an atmosphere of equal partnership among all concerned parties, ie. by respecting the rights of all parties to obtain information and making mandatory for all parties to provide information that must be known by other parties affected.

UNEP Training Resource Manual

• • • •

Informing stakeholders Gaining their views, inputs and values Taking account of public inputs in decision-making Influencing project design

41

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

• • • • • • • •

A Basic Guide to the Public Participation Process of an EIA, South Africa

• • •

Obtaining local knowledge Increasing public confidence Improving transparency and accountability in decisionmaking Reducing conflict To inform the public about proposals To improve the scooping of the EIA To identify local concerns/ problems To allow wider discussion of the environmental and social issues To improve the forms of mitigation To provide quality control of the EIA through acceptance by the public To improve democratic governance

Public Consultation, Ontario, Public Affairs and Communication Branch, April 1994

Public consultation is a process involving interactive or two-way communication between the Ministry and the pubic, through which both become informed about different perspectives on issues and proposals, providing the public with the opportunity to influence decisions to be made by the Ministry.

Public Involvement in EA: Requirements, Opportunities and Issues, World Bank, EA Sourcebook Update, Oct 1993

Two levels: Consultation – “involves soliciting people’s views on proposed actions and engaging them in a dialogue. While decision-making authority is retained by governments, interaction with people and eliciting feedback allows affected populations to influence the decision-making process…” Participation – “is a voluntary process in which people, come together with project authorities to share, negotiate and control the decision-making process in project design and management”. “The Bank requires the participation by affected people in project preparation when the project affects indigeneous people or involves involuntary resettlement.”

Table 4.2 presents a breakdown of limiting factors related to the steps in public involvement in AMDAL. Table 4.2. Limiting Factors in AMDAL Public Involvement STAGE

LIMITING FACTORS

ANNOUNCEMENT 1

Newspaper Announcements

Government does not have funds to place newspaper announcements Public, especially in rural areas, do not read newspaper Public not accustomed to preparing written comments Bahasa Indonesia often not the most effective communication tool Cost is high

2

Notice board near

42

Information limited

project site

Cost

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS IN KA-ANDAL PREP 3

Representation

Difficulty in identifying legitimate community representatives to consult Difficulty in ensuring that all community views are represented Different interpretations as to role of relevant environment institution and local authorities in organizing public consultations Different interpretations as to legitimacy of formal community leaders (BPD, Head of Village, Dewan Kelurahan, LPM, etc.) in representing community interests Costly to consult with all community elements and levels

4

Dialog during public consultations

Unrealistic expectations of public on what can be achieved in public consultations (especially with regard to agreement on compensation level, community/ social development programs) Insistent on issues not relevant to AMDAL study, such as size of compensation, recruitment of local workforce, community development

REPRESENTATION IN AMDAL COMMISSION 5

Representation

Different interpretations on legitimate community representatives to attend AMDAL Commission meetings Selected representatives (including formal leaders) do not conduct routine consultations/ communication with community members Transport and accommodation of community representatives attending AMDAL Commission financed by proponent

6

Discussion in AMDAL Commission

Unrealistic expectations of public on what can be achieved in public consultations (especially with regard to agreement on compensation level, community/ social development programs) Community representatives have not read AMDAL documents to be reviewed, and feel unequipped to review documents Insistent on issues not relevant to AMDAL study, such as size of compensation, recruitment of local workforce, community development

OTHER 7

Access to Information

Affected Communities not aware, and never received information on AMDAL public involvement Observant Communities that are not environmental organizations are not aware of regulations and guidelines Government does not disseminate information to all levels of public, due to limited resources Major environmental NGOs do not have funds to disseminate information to all levels of community or to NGOs throughout Indonesia

43

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

CRITICAL Despite the many problems associated with implementing SUCCESS public involvement in AMDAL, the case-studies have shown FACTORS some ingredients for success. The most significant success factor is understanding the communities to be involved in the AMDAL process. This knowledge becomes essential in defining the approaches for information delivery/ access, to identify the different groups and levels in the community to be consulted with, and community representatives to involve in long-term dialog beyond the AMDAL approval process (by government and project proponent). This understanding is achieved through a scoping or pre-survey of the communities at the very beginning of the process, and through intense communication with local authorities. The case-study also shows that to obtain constructive inputs for the AMDAL study/ process, it is critical to provide information to the public. The better informed the public is on the project, on AMDAL, on the process, the more useful will the comments/ inputs be. However, it is not sufficient to provide access, but it is necessary to deliver information to the communities. An underlying factor that makes possible the presence of the above success factors is sufficient funds. From the casestudies, the proponents that have spent time and money on learning about the Affected Communities and deliver information are multinational companies operating on behalf of the government and proposing large, high-technology oilgas development. Funds for community pre-survey and production and distribution of information are charged back to the government. Furthermore, the multinational companies have additional motivation to perform responsibly due to international scrutiny. For the other cases, funds is precisely the limiting factor for most project proponents, either government or private sector. Developers of shopping centers or medium-size housing estates find that spending substantial amount of funds for public involvement is not commensurate to the size of investment. Government agencies acting as proponents find it difficult enough to have budgets approved for AMDAL studies, let alone public involvement processes. An additional success factor that emerges in only 1 case-study

44

is that selected community representatives discuss comments to be taken to the AMDAL Commission meeting. The discussion at the beginning of this section indicates that such dialog is more of a rarity than the norm in the current Indonesian society. Outside of the 10 (ten) case-studies, there is evidence that where traditional community leaders are still an important part of society, legitimacy of representatives and communication between representatives and community members are less of a problem. Such local characteristics are items that local (provincial) regulations can identify in more specific guidelines for AMDAL public involvement.

Table 4.3. Critical Success Factors in AMDAL Public Involvement STAGE

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS

ANNOUNCEMENT 1

Newspaper Announcements

Placement in more than one newspaper

2

Notice board near project site

Posters are located in many public places frequented by community Multiple posters contain different types of information

3

Radio

Effective as invitation to public consultation events

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS IN KA-ANDAL PREPARATION 4

Representations

Scoping or pre-survey of Affected Community is conducted to understand social structure, formal and informal leaders, different interests in the community Local government and authorities (Kabupaten to Village/ kelurahan) are consulted in the planning

5

Dialog during public consultations

Local government/ authorities present and active in dialog Proponent directly involved in dialog (instead of only being represented by AMDAL consultants)

REPRESENTATION IN AMDAL COMMISSION 6

Representation

The extent of Affected Communities is clear and can easily select representative

7

Discussion in AMDAL Commission

Community representatives have discussed issues to be raised in AMDAL Commission prior to meeting date

OTHER 8

Access to Information

Delivered to community members near place of activity Presented in easy-to-digest format

45

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

4.3. KEY AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

WHAT IS EXPECTED FROM

AMDAL AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT?

WHO ARE LEGITIMATE REPRESENTATIVES OF AFFECTED COMMUNITIES?

SHOULD PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN

AMDAL BE REQUIRED OF ALL PROJECTS?

WHAT IS ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT?

46

Several key questions have emerged from the empirical analysis of public involvement and information disclosure in AMDAL. These questions are fundamental, and must be resolved and clarified, as well as commonly understood by all stakeholders, before more meaningful results can be expected from the process. This question needs to be defined more clearly. Better definition of the objectives and expected output of public involvement in the different stages of AMDAL is needed. Should it be defined narrowly and specifically to support the AMDAL process? Or, should it be broader in scope with long-term goals and ideals? Choice of language will shape the results from efforts to implement public involvement in AMDAL. Any revised regulations need to better define what is meant by “affected communities” and who must be consulted. Given that democracy in Indonesia is still undergoing ‘growing pains’, who are the legitimate representatives of the community needs to be defined. Is it sufficient to consult with formal leaders during the entire AMDAL process? Or must the AMDAL process involve informal leaders and common citizens? If common citizens are to be involved, what process would be necessary to identify these citizens and ensure all interests are represented? Currently all projects that require an AMDAL need to fulfill public involvement and information disclosure requirements. The range of projects that fall in this category is very wide, including medium-size activities with known and manageable impacts (such as malls, hotels), to large complex activities with a large mix of impacts (oil-gas development, petrochemical plants, etc.). Should these projects have the same requirements placed on them? Or, is some differentiation justifiable? The role of local government must be clarified in the revised regulations. Should they play the role of convener, as is the case in Bulgaria, being a neutral party that facilitates dialog between project proponent and Affected

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR

PUBLIC EDUCATION?

WHO SHOULD FUND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN

AMDAL?

Communities (Almer & Koontz, 2004). In cases where the local government will issue permits to the Project Proponent, should it serve as partner of the Project Proponent in dialog with the Affected Communities, and thus take on responsibility in describing development plans and responding to questions? If public involvement in AMDAL is expected to have real value and contribution to the AMDAL process and decisions based on AMDAL, there needs to be significant effort to educate the public on AMDAL, on public involvement and the role of the public. Whose responsibility is this? Should the Government rely on the project proponent to ensure that the public is prepared to be involved in the AMDAL process, as is currently the case? The public’s attendance at public consultation meetings and AMDAL Commission meetings are currently funded by the Project Proponent. Is this appropriate? Canada is proposing the formation of an ‘independent participation fund’ (Sinclair & Diduck, 2001). Early discussions in Indonesia leading to the issuance of Kepka 08/2000 record an idea to develop a ‘public participation fund’. Deliberations to prepare revised regulations on public involvement in AMDAL should address this issue.

47

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

this page is intentionally left blank

48

CHAPTER 5

RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations provided here do not follow the structure of current procedures for public involvement in AMDAL. This Study assumes that the current AMDAL procedures will be modified in the near future, and the deliberations to formulate the modifications will occur in the next few months. In order to accommodate possible changes, the recommendations provided here do not prescribe a single solution, but instead attempt to present concepts for consideration in designing a new public involvement requirement for a revised AMDAL process. The recommendations are prepared with full recognition that the preconditions of an effective public involvement process do not exist in the Indonesian society and institutions, and fully recognizes the fluid nature of Indonesian society today and in the coming years. The recommendations therefore are constructed to assist in the deliberations and decision-making process that will ensue in the government to revise the current regulations and guidelines. The ultimate aim of the recommendations is to create a public involvement and information disclosure for AMDAL that is effective, efficient, credible and contextual to the Indonesian development picture. However, the authors of this report do not claim to be able to answer all issues related to public involvement and information disclosure in AMDAL. The recommendations are divided into several sections based on the topics, namely: 1. Objectives of Public Involvement and Information Disclosure in AMDAL; 2. Criteria for Good Public Involvement and Information Disclosure in AMDAL; 3. Division of Roles and Responsibilities;

49

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

4. Procedures and Techniques; 5. Public Involvement Outside of AMDAL; 6. KLH’s Role in Capacity Building and Provision of Resources.

OBJECTIVES OF As previously discussed, the statement of objectives in the PUBLIC current government regulations and guidelines is too vague INVOLVEMENT and has led to confusion at the operational level. More specific statements of objectives are recommended for the INFORMATION revised regulations and guidelines. AND

DISCLOSURE Justification: Sharper and more specific statement of IN AMDAL objective is expected to clarify the objective and expected outcome of the public involvement process in AMDAL, and allow for better understanding among all stakeholders. This would complement efforts to clarify the objectives/ function of AMDAL (ongoing under AMDAL Revitalization). Revised regulations should also define the specific objectives of public involvement in the key components of the AMDAL process. This Study views there are 4 major components of the AMDAL process namely: Scoping – determination of the scope of the ANDAL study; ANDAL Study – the process of identifying, evaluating and determining significant impacts to be dealt with; ANDAL Review– the review of ANDAL, RKL/RPL documents by an AMDAL Commission to determine the scientific validity of the study; Decision on Environmental Clearance – the decision by appropriate authorities on whether the proposed project is deemed environmentally feasible or not. This decision would be passed on to authorities in charge of approving the proposed project (final operating permits). In the current AMDAL implementation, components 3 and 4 are often regarded as one and the same (ie. AMDAL approval means that the proposed project is regarded as environmentally feasible). However, KLH has underscored

50

in various discussions, that in fact these are different decision-making processes, as experienced in many controversial projects reviewed by KLH. This Study recognizes the distinction between AMDAL Review process and Decision on Environmental Clearance. The table below offers specific objective statements for each of the components, with the addition of Information Disclosure, regarded as a necessary auxiliary component of public involvement in AMDAL.

Proposed Specific Objectives of Public Involvement and Information Disclosure in AMDAL Information Disclosure

Overall: Ensuring that the public has sufficient information on the proposed project to be able to contribute meaningfully to the AMDAL process. To inform the public on the proposed project (nature of activity, project site) To inform the public of potential environmental impacts likely to occur as a result of the proposed project To inform the public of results of the ANDAL study To inform the public of decision on the ANDAL study/ environmental clearance of the project

Scoping Process

Overall: Ensuring that the scope of the ANDAL Study takes into consideration the concerns of the public regarding: a) potential environmental impacts caused by the proposed project; b) environmental conditions of the area; c) mitigation of environmental impacts caused by the proposed project. To obtain information regarding existing environmental conditions around the project area To obtain information regarding environmental concerns of the public in relation to the proposed project To obtain information regarding the affected community’s aspirations with regard to the proposed project’s environmental impact mitigation

ANDAL Study

Overall: Ensuring that determination of significant impacts takes into consideration the public’s (affected communities’) concerns and conditions. To obtain in-depth information on affected communities’ concerns and perception towards the potential environmental impacts To obtain additional factors to consider in evaluating the potential environmental impacts

Decision on AMDAL or Environmental Clearance (note: one or

Overall: Ensuring that the decision on environmental clearance or AMDAL approval (issued by the Government) has taken into consideration the concerns of all stakeholders, including affected communities and observer groups.

2

This Study recommends public involvement in either the AMDAL Review process or Decision on Environmental Clearance, but does not see necessary that the public be involved in both processes. If the public is involved in the AMDAL Review process, comments from the public must be made available to authorities making decisions on environmental clearance, regardless of the position/recommendation of the AMDAL Commission. Selection of which process to involve the public should consider the following factors: a) the scientific nature of the AMDAL documents, b) the main interests of the Affected Communities (more related to social welfare and

51

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

the other)

2

To feed the decision-making process of the Government with considerations regarding environmental impact from all stakeholders To document how the considerations regarding environmental impact has influenced or not influenced the decisions of the Government

The above objectives should be explicitly stated in the regulations and guidelines, and differentiated from additional long-term benefits of public involvement in the AMDAL process, namely: •



• •

Commencement of long-term relationship between project owner and surrounding (directly affected) communities; Enhance awareness of public regarding environmental conditions and the responsibility for environmental protection; Enhance participation of public in environmental or developmental decision-making; Improvement of communication between the government and the public regarding development programs and social welfare.

Specific statements should also be made that public involvement in AMDAL is not intended to and cannot be expected to: • • • •

Resolve past conflicts between the proponent and affected communities; Resolve community development commitments to be conducted by the proponent; Resolve issues related to land acquisition and levels of compensation; Resolve issues related to social welfare and development programs to be conducted by the government.

CRITERIA FOR Currently, the government does not have standard criteria to GOOD PUBLIC judge whether public involvement has been conducted to a INVOLVEMENT ‘good’ or ‘satisfactory’ level. It is recognized that the subjectivity of ‘good’ or ‘satisfactory’ is high and likely to INFORMATION remain so, and that quantitative measures are not DISCLOSURE appropriate and difficult to enforce in this area. Therefore, it AND

compensation), and c) cost implications to solicit comments from the public. See also discussion on Techniques.

52

IN AMDAL

is suggested that a set of qualitative criteria be established and laid out in the government guidelines. Justification: A set of qualitative criteria would help provide guidance to the Environmental Agency/ AMDAL Commission and the proponent on how to, respectively, evaluate and design an information disclosure and public involvement process for the AMDAL of the proposed project. Such criteria would help prevent questions or disagreements at a later date.

Proposed Set of Qualitative Criteria Criteria 1

Sufficient efforts have been made to provide/ make available information to the Affected Communities and Observer Groups on the proposed project and the ANDAL study components prior to solicitation of comments.

2

Content of the following has considered the comments, aspirations, concerns of the Concerned Public: • Scope of ANDAL Study; • Determination of significant impacts; • Approach for environmental impact mitigation.

3

Approval of the AMDAL documents or the decision on environmental clearance of proposed project has considered the comments, aspirations, concerns of the Concerned Public.

Measure/ Evidence Minimum requirements (or agreement between Proponent and Environment Agency) are met and described in AMDAL documents. See discussion on ‘Procedures and Techniques’ in this Chapter. Explicit description and justification on how public comments are treated, in the following documents: • KA-ANDAL • ANDAL • RKL-RPL. Explicit description (how) and justification (why) in Letter of Decision on Environmental Clearance or AMDAL approval letter.

For item 2, explicit description and justification means that the documents should state what comments/ concerns/ aspirations were expressed by the Affected Communities and Observer Groups and how the Proponent/Consultant treats them. If the comments, concerns and aspirations are wholly or partially accepted and has influenced the position of the Proponent/Consultant, then it should be stated why. If they are wholly or partially rejected and has not influenced the position of the Proponent/ Consultant, the documents should also explain why. The same applies to how the comments from the Concerned Public are treated by the Government/ AMDAL Commission in

53

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

item 3.

DIVISION OF As previously discussed, the role and responsibilities of the ROLES AND different stakeholders need to be redefined and clarified if RESPONSIBILITIES effective public involvement and information disclosure is desired. It is suggested here that some of the responsibilities currently placed on the project proponent should be shifted to the government, while the role and responsibilities of the local government should be better defined. Justification: Project proponents operate at the project level, which fall into a broader program or development initiative established by the Government, manifested in spatial plans, investment plans or policies, development programs. Although there is much room for improvement in the Government planning process, projects (and project proponents) cannot be expected to undertake or take on the responsibilities of the Government. Conversely, the Government should not pass on their responsibilities to project proponents for reasons of inadequate budget or resources. In redefining AMDAL public involvement, it is imperative that roles and responsibilities of the each key player be put in perspective. Public involvement in AMDAL is a big job that requires significant effort from all key players. Table 5.1 offers a proposed division of responsibility among the three key parties, namely the Responsible Environment Agency, the Local Government, and the Project Proponent. The table deliberately uses generic terms with the intent to return discussion to the basic elements of public involvement and information disclosure in AMDAL. All parties must realize that if one party does not fulfill its responsibilities, the entire process and the results of AMDAL public involvement will be compromised. Therefore, the Government (in this case KLH) should make concerted effort to ensure that responsibilities are fulfilled equally among all stakeholders.

54

Table 5.1 Division of Responsibilities among Key Players RESPONSIBLE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY DISSEMINATE INFORMATION: On AMDAL and public L involvement in AMDAL On Project basic information (nature, location) potential impacts/ ANDAL study information and documents On Project AMDAL: • Potential impacts L • Summary of ANDAL study findings L • AMDAL approval or decision on environmental clearance

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

PROJECT PROPONENT

S L

S

L S

S

S

IDENTIFY AFFECTED COMMUNITIES TO BE INVOLVED: Identification of Affected S Communities to be involved in AMDAL process Preparation/ assistance to S L Affected Communities prior to being involved in AMDAL process

L

OBTAIN & PROCESS COMMENTS & INFORMATION FROM AFFECTED COMMUNITIES FOR AMDAL: To feed into scoping of ANDAL Study To feed into determination of significant impacts in ANDAL Study To feed into AMDAL review L S process To feed into AMDAL approval L S or environmental clearance

L L

Local Government here refers to Kabupaten/ Kota and Kecamatan levels The role of Local Government (Kabupaten/Kota and Kecamatan levels) should be detailed further, for example, in the implementation of public consultation meetings. In cases where the Responsible Environment Agency (eg Provincial BAPEDALDA) is not in the Local Government structure, then the potential role of the Local Government (Kabupaten or Kecamatan Government) is to assist the Project Proponent or even as

55

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

neutral facilitator in the public consultation meetings. In cases where the Responsible Environment Agency is part of the Local Government structure (eg AMDAL approval is given by the BAPEDALDA Kabupaten), it may be difficult for the Local Government (Kabupaten government) to serve as neutral facilitator in the public consultation meetings, so its role may be more focused on disseminating information prior to the public consultation meetings. Local government agencies involved should not be limited to environment agencies, but agencies overseeing economic development and/or social welfare should also be engaged in the process of public consultations. NGOs have an important potential role in assisting the process of information dissemination and public involvement in AMDAL. Each of the three key players listed in the table, have the opportunity and should be encouraged to enlist the assistance of NGOs, either residing locally near the project area or based in the nearest major cities. NGOs are envisioned to play an important role in the following areas: • • • •

Disseminating information on AMDAL and public involvement; Acting as neutral facilitator to collect/ solicit comments from the Affected Communities; Identifying Affected Communities or their representatives to be involved; Preparing/ training Affected Communities prior to consultation meetings with Project Proponent or Responsible Environment Agency.

It is highly recommended here that KLH explores, develop and implement a concerted program to engage a number of established NGOs to serve as long-term partners in developing capacity, spreading knowledgebase and experience on public involvement in AMDAL. KLH should identify NGOs that have an interest in this area, has field experience in public participation, community development or environmental management,

56

have extensive links with grass-root NGOs throughout Indonesia, and can commit in the long-term. KLH should recognize, however, the reality that most NGOs have little resources of their own, and thus may require substantial financial support. Coordination of resources and programs with KLH’s Deputy for Environmental Communication and Community Empowerment is recommended.

Procedures and The current government regulation (specifically the Techniques Kepka 08/2000) focuses very much on procedures. However, description of the prescribed procedures is unbalanced, with excessive detail on the announcement and insufficient description on public consultations as well as processes in the AMDAL Review Commission (also mentioned in ADB, 2002). The case studies in this Study show that implementation in the field inevitably follow the conditions of the project area, the resources available to and the level of ‘caution’ of the Project Proponent. With the current definition of projects requiring AMDAL studies being so wide in spectrum, this Study recommends that the revised government regulations not prescribe a single procedure or techniques, but rather recognize the variety of needs and conditions of different projects. This Study recommends that the government allows some degree of freedom to the Project Proponent to determine the procedure and mix of techniques used for information disclosure and public involvement. Justification: Certain types of projects, by nature, invite high level interest and reactions, regardless of locality of operation, due to potential high risks to public health and the environment – for example oil and gas operations by multinational oil companies, surface mining operations, dams, nuclear power plants, and sanitary landfills, hazardous waste processing facilities. However, other types of activities, such as malls, hotels, housing compounds, roads, may or may not invite strong reactions, since their impacts are largely commonly known and manageable with relatively low cost. Projects with higher potential risks should be required to conduct

57

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

more intense public involvement. The recommendation presented here is intended to underscore the need for the Government to establish a ‘minimum level of effort’ expected from Project Proponents. This should be set along with an illustration of the ‘maximum level of effort’ expected from certain types of projects. Table 5.2 below provides a sample of a minimummaximum spectrum. The spectrum is developed assuming the current system of screening, in which projects requiring AMDAL cover a wide variety of project types and sizes. The maximum level of effort is developed partly based on the case-studies considered to have done significant effort to involve the public. Each Project Proponent, during initial meetings with the Responsible Environment Agency, consult and agree upon which Level of Effort will be conducted for public involvement and information disclosure for the said project. The Responsible Environment Agency would be guided by knowledge of the existing environmental conditions and social issues in its area, as well as knowledge of the nature and magnitude of potential impacts from the said project type. Provincial and Kabupaten/Kota environmental agencies are suggested to develop guidelines to help decision-making. However, it should be recognized that some degree of discretionary judgement will play a role in such decision-making. KLH should develop a program to assist Provincial and Kabupaten/Kota environmental agencies in capacity building and developing such guidelines.

58

Table 5.2 Spectrum of Level of Effort for Public Involvement in AMDAL

MAXIMUM MINIMUM

Information Disclosure

Notice board project site

at

(any combination of techniques,

Posters/ pamphlets at strategic areas near project site

according to project type, characteristics of Affected Communities, other needs)

Scoping

ANDAL Study ANDAL Review

Decision on Environmental

Clearance

Consultation with formal community leaders through Focused Group Discussions, small meetings In-depth interviews Make available summary of draft ANDAL document to formal community representatives Allow written comments to be submitted by formal community representatives Final review by Responsible Environment Agency of comments received during prior stages

Announcement in national and local newspapers Notice board at project site Posters/ pamphlets at strategic areas near project site Notice on website of proponent and environment agency Displays in local government offices, local organizations offices Radio announcements Consultation with community leaders (formal and informal) through Focused Group Discussions, small meetings Consultation with community members In-depth interviews Presentation of key findings of ANDAL study to community representatives

Delivery of draft ANDAL document and summary to community representatives Community representative participate in ANDAL review Visit to affected community by representative of Environmental Agency, or

Community representative attend a consultative meeting at the Environmental Agency’s office Final review of all stakeholders’ position by Environmental Agency

Figure 5.1 provides a diagram of the proposed public involvement and information disclosure procedure, with a more generic approach. Figure 5.2 depicts the existing public involvement procedure as set in Kepka 08/2000.

59

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

Public Involvement Process

AMDAL Process Screening & Initial Meeting w Govt

Information Disclosure

SCOPING

Solicitation of Comments/ Information

ANDAL STUDY

Socioeconomic Survey

Determination of ANDAL Study Scope

ANDAL Study Implementation

Preparation of ANDAL, RKL/RPL Documents

Information Disclosure

ANDAL REVIEW

Review of ANDAL, RKL/RPL Documents

Review or Solicitation Of Comments

ENV’L CLEARANCE DECISION

By Resp Envt Agency

Information Disclosure

Decision on Environmental Clearance

By Project Proponent

Figure 5.1 Diagram of Proposed Changes to Public Involvement Process in AMDAL

Concerned Public

Responsible Env’t Agency

Project Proponent

Announcement of Proposed Activity Announcement of AMDAL Preparation Suggestions, Opinion, Comments Preparation of KA-ANDAL

Public Consultations

Suggestions, Opinion, Comments

Evaluation of KA-ANDAL

Suggestions, Opinion, Comments

Evaluation of ANDAL, RKL, RPL

Preparation of ANDAL RKL, RPL

Decision on Environmental Clearance

Figure 5.2 Current Procedure for Public Involvement in AMDAL

Minimum Level of Effort would apply to all project types and sizes. It is envisioned that projects that can be allowed to follow the Minimum Level of Effort would be projects

60

that meet the following criteria: • • • •

common in a particular locality, environmental impacts are commonly known and can be mitigated easily, environmental wastes do not include hazardous and toxic wastes, location is not in a sensitive environment or immediately next to nature reserve or protected area.

The minimum public involvement required would entail: •

• • •



Information disclosure using notice boards at the project site, and posters or pamphlets placed at strategic areas around the project location; Solicitation of comments from the public through small meetings with formal community leaders; In-depth interviews at the ANDAL study stage (socioeconomic survey); Distribution of summaries of the draft ANDAL document to formal leaders, and allowing written comments; Final review of comments received from the public during process of decision-making of environmental feasibility/clearance.

Maximum Level of Effort involves conducting thorough and intensive information disclosure and solicitation of comments at every stage of the AMDAL process. Such a maximum effort is envisioned to apply to projects with more than one of the following characteristics: • • • • •

Project location covers a wide area (e.g. more than 1 3 kecamatan) ; Waste generated includes hazardous and toxic waste; Project causes involuntary resettlement of large number of families (e.g. more than 100 families); Project located in area where population density is high (use Human Development Index); Project likely to impact area where isolated traditional communities reside or have activities.

3

Elaboration in brackets is given as illustration only; further discussion will be necessary to determine thresholds.

61

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

If a project has only one or none of the above characteristics, the Proponent has the opportunity to design its own mix of techniques that lie in between the Minimum and the Maximum Levels of Effort. This mix of techniques must be consulted with the Responsible Environment Agency during the Intial Screening Meeting (see Figure 5.1). In developing Minimum and Maximum Levels of Effort, KLH should recognize that each effort (to disseminate information, to hold consultation meetings, and so on) entail significant preparatory steps and have a budgetary and human resource consequences. To require a Proponent to undertake the Maximum Level of Effort requires that human and financial resources are available, not only on the part of the Project Proponent, but also the Responsible Environment Agency and local government agencies (see discussion on Division of Roles and Responsibilities). Preparatory steps required to achieve the Maximum Level of Effort is given as an illustration in Attachment C. The Attachment also lists preconditions expected to exist that would allow for successful implementation of the public involvement process.

DEFINITION OF AFFECTED COMMUNITIES TO BE INVOLVED

A looming question that consistently appears throughout this Study and in most discussions and literature is “Who is the Affected Community” and “Who are Legitimate Representatives of the Affected Community” to be involved in the AMDAL process. Most will agree that it is very difficult for Project Proponents to ensure that all elements of the Affected Community are consulted and that all aspirations existing in the Community are represented. It is imperative that KLH defines more clearly who is meant by Affected Communities and their legitimate representatives. The recommendation of setting minimum-maximum spectrum of public involvement allows a clearer definition of Affected Communities. Projects that are allowed to follow the Minimum Level of Effort are expected to only consult with formal

62

community leaders. Whereas projects expected to follow the Maximum requirements would be asked to consult formal leaders, informal leaders and community members (common citizens), whose interests may not yet be covered by the two former groups. Projects that fall in between the Minimum and Maximum thresholds would be allowed to consult with only formal and/or informal leaders of the Affected Communities. Another alternative that KLH should seriously consider is recommendations presented in the ADB Report on Capacity Building for Decentralization of the Environmental Impact Assessment Process. The report presents an extensive account of the public participation mechanisms that have been established in the government planning process, such as P5D (Pedoman Penyusunan Perencanaan dan Pengendalian Pembangunan Daerah), P3MD (Perencanaa Partisipatif Pembangunan Masyarakat Desa), etc. The authors of the ADB report recommend that “consultations (for the AMDAL process) should go through the existing mechanisms for reaching the people at the RW and RT levels that are the lowest levels of the governing system” (p. VI-21). Examples of the mechanisms are: a) Development Meeting at the Village Level or Musyawarah Pembangunan Tingkat Desa/ Kelurahan (Musbang); b) Development Meeting at the Sub-District Level or Temu Karya Pembangunan Kecamatan. Although the ADB report does not describe how the existing mechanisms are currently performing (especially since the regional autonomy era), it is important that the AMDAL-public involvement is anchored to a system that already exists and does not attempt to create a separate mechanism that has weak roots in terms of legal, administrative as well as social legitimacy. This Study further recommends that for AMDAL-public involvement, representation of the Affected Community is followed through from the scoping stage to any consultations required during or to feed into the decisionmaking process on environmental clearance of the said proposed project. In order to ensure consistency in

63

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

representation, it will be necessary for the Local Government or Responsible Environment Agency to clearly document the identities and contact information of the Community Representatives, and educate these representatives on AMDAL and public involvement. In the long-run, these Community Representatives can play an important part in monitoring the performance of any impact mitigation effort conducted by the Project Proponent.

PUBLIC As mentioned in the previous chapter, it is difficult to INVOLVEMENT expect good results from AMDAL-public involvement if OUTSIDE OF public involvement in the upstream development AMDAL planning stages remains to be weak. If KLH intends to provide leadership in enhancing public involvement (by way of the AMDAL process), then it should develop links and formalize ties with other agencies’ programs to improve public involvement in development planning. Specifically, there should be links with public involvement in the development of spatial plans at all levels of Government. Only through an integrated effort can public involvement contribute to the AMDAL process, and can AMDAL-public involvement contribute meaningfully to the broader goal of increasing public involvement in development.

KLH’S ROLE IN CAPACITY BUILDING AND PROVISION OF RESOURCES

KLH has a major task in building awareness and capacity to support public involvement in the AMDAL process. It is not sufficient for KLH to rely on dissemination of written products (be it regulations or guidebooks) through the normal method of seminars and internet. The infrastructure and capacity needs to be built and nurtured. Without such infrastructure or capacity, it can be predicted that public involvement in AMDAL will result in very little. This Study recommends that KLH develops a program to assist different stakeholders to be able to contribute to the AMDAL-public involvement process, such as in the following areas: •

64

Assist Environmental Agencies at the Provincial and Kabupaten/Kota levels to develop local/ more detailed

guidelines on determining levels of public involvement required for different projects or localities, and in establishing AMDAL information channels down to the community level (village or RW). •

Develop capacity of NGOs to play a supporting role in the process and disseminate information on AMDAL and public involvement, as discussed in the section on “Division of Roles and Responsibilities”.



Enhance capacity of AMDAL consultants to undertake proper public involvement. This can be accomplished by working with key universities or Environmental Study Centers to develop operational guidelines for consultants or conduct additional training courses on social aspects of AMDAL and public involvement.

KLH will also need to tackle the issue of financial resources for the Government agencies and Affected Communities. Currently, the entire public involvement process relies heavily on financial resources of the Project Proponent. As of today in Indonesia, a ‘public participation fund’ does not exist, and may be difficult to establish. In the absence of such a fund, this Study finds that it should be the prime responsibility of the Government to provide financial resources at least to complement that of the Project Proponent. KLH should discuss with provincial and kabupaten/kota governments, as well as technical departments, possible sources of funds to support public involvement in AMDAL. In the case government funds are not available, it is necessary to find alternative solutions or alternative approaches to public involvement with minimal expenses. It is not advisable to add, by default, the financial responsibilities of the Project Proponent. Government funds are also needed for the enormous task of educating the public on AMDAL and public involvement in AMDAL. Without knowledge and understanding at the community level, any effort to involve the public in AMDAL will bear minimal results.

65

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

With limited funds, KLH may have to prioritize areas based on the frequency of large-scale projects or sensitivity of environmental conditions.

CONCLUSION Significant changes and rethinking of public involvement in the AMDAL process is necessary. Part of the rethinking necessary relates to defining more clearly what is and can, realistically, be expected from public involvement in the AMDAL process in the sociopolitical context of today, and consistent with resources that can be made available. Part of the changes will have to relate to the evolving AMDAL process itself, especially improvements that are required and being developed at this time. If public involvement in AMDAL is to be successful, concerted effort must be made to improve all stakeholders’ ability to participate and contribute in the process. The Government must develop and implement a systematic program to develop capacity among stakeholders, and prepare the institutional infrastructure to channel information and dialog with the public. Even if existing participatory mechanisms are utilized, connections need to be made, formalized and recognized by all parties. The Government cannot play a passive role, but must actively pursue capacity building of stakeholders. Should resources be limited, the Government should prioritize its efforts and adjust the requirements for public involvement in AMDAL accordingly. Public involvement in AMDAL is an enormous task, especially for an emerging democracy such as Indonesia.

66

ATTACHMENT A

CASE-STUDY SUMMARIES

FINAL REPORT STUDY ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION IN AMDAL

AMDAL REFORM PROGRAM (PHASE 2) LINKING POVERTY, ENVIRONMENT, AND DECENTRALISATION

this page is intentionally left blank

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

ATTACHMENT A

CASE-STUDY DESCRIPTION CASE-STUDY 1 Development of Fly Ash Landfill for PT Indo-Bharat Rayon PT Indo-Bharat Rayon produces synthetic fiber for the textile industry. To meet higher demand, PT Indo-Bhara Rayon intends to increase its production, which requires additional energy. The company will build a coal-fired steam electricity generation plant. The plant will have a capacity of 2 X 10,8 MW, and is expected to generate solid waste in the form of fly ash and bottom ash, categorized as toxic and hazardous waste. For disposal of the waste, PT Indo-Bharat Rayon plans 3 to construct a landfill, with a capacity to accommodate + 200,000 m of solid waste. The area needed is + 4 hectares. The landfill will be located in the Village of Cilangkap, Kecamatan Babakan Cikao, Kabupaten Purwakarta, Province of West Java. The AMDAL study has been approved by the Central AMDAL Commission in 2004. CASE-STUDY 2 Construction of Gonggang Dam – Government of Magetan Kabupaten, Province of East Java The Development Planning Agency of Kabupaten Magetan (BAPEKAB) plans to construct a dam to dam the Gonggang River. The dam will provide irrigation for 2,500 hectares of agricultural land, clean water for 40,000 residents of Kecamatan Poncol, and support water and land conservation. Indirect benefits include fisheries, animal husbandry, and recreation. The dam construction will be located in three villages: Genilangit, Janggan and Gonggang, in Kecamatan Poncol. A total of 25 hectares of land will have to be acquired. The volume of the water is 3, expected to be 1,975,000 m , and 11,1 hectares will be inundated. The AMDAL Study was approved by the Provincial AMDAL Commission (East Java) in 2003. CASE-STUDY 3 Construction of Office and Commercial Building Metro Trade Centre (MTC), City of Bandung- PT. Margahayu Raya PT. Margahayu Raya plans to develop a commercial center in the eastern side of Bandung City. The center will consist of home-office and home-shop units, covering 3 floors and 1 basement. 2 The center will be located at Jalan Soekarno Hatta Km 10,76, covering 73,578 m (4% of land area will be developed). The AMDAL Study was approved by the AMDAL Commission of the City of Bandung in 2003. CASE-STUDY 4 Development of Recreation and Housing Complex in Punclut, City of Bandung - PT. Dam Utamasakti Prima The North Bandung area has a area of 38,548.33 hectares, covering the administrative regions of Kabupaten Bandung, City of Bandung and City of Cimahi. Punclut is located in the City of Bandung, covering an area of 268 hectares. PT. Dam Utamasakti Prima intends to construct an integrated recreation and housing complex in an area of 80 hectares in Punclut.

Attachment A

1

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

The current plan is a revision from a previous plan that had an AMDAL study conducted in 1995. The previous plan entailed development of 140 hetares of land in the Kelurahan Ciumbuleuit, Kecamatan Cidadap dan Kelurahan Dago, Kecamatan Coblong, City of Bandung. The current plan (2004) involves 80 hectares, located in Kelurahan Ciumbuleuit, Kecamatan Cidadap. The development will comprise of a conservation area, management office, restaurant and food court, cinema and open performance area, resort hotel, club house and driving range, sport centre, home-shop and mini market, kindergarten and playgroup, camping grounds, housing (large villa, medium villas, and townhouses), main roads and neighborhood roads. Housing will cover 26.46 hectares. The project has attracted a lot of interest among citizens of Bandung, taking the controversy in the media. The Observer Community is opposed to development, considering North Bandung is designated as a conservation area. However, the Affected Community immediately around the proposed location is supportive of the development, primarily due to plans for road construction. CASE-STUDY 5 Increase Capacity of Coal Production - PT. Kaltim Prima Coal Mine, Kabupaten Kutai Timur, Province of East Kalimantan PT. Kaltim Prima Coal (KPC) is a coal mining company that has been in operation in East Kalimantan. Since 1990, PT KPC started to coal mining in the Sangatta area with open cut pit, and initial planned production capacity of 6 million tons per year. In 1999, PT KPC planned an increase in production at Bengalon up to 7.5 million tons per year. Until the end of 2003, an increase of 16.7 tons has been realized, all from the Sangatta mine. The Bengalon mine had not been in operation at that time. The Sangatta Mine expansion will involve increase in width, and depth, merging of existing pits, and opening of new pits in the western side of the existing mine. The operation of the Bengalon Mine will include 3 new pits, Pit A in East Bengalon, and Pit B and C in West Bengalon. This expansion will be located in Kecamatan Sangatta, Kabupaten Kutai Timur, Province of East Kalimantan. The AMDAL study has been approved in 2004 by the AMDAL Commission of the Kabupaten Kutai Timur. CASE-STUDY 6 Construction of Double-Track Railway between Kutoarjo and Yogyakarta - Directorate General Land Transportation, Department of Communications, Government of Indonesia The trans Kutoarjo-Yogyakarta segment is located between two major hubs of Jakarta and Surabaya. The objective of constructing the Double-Track is to (1) increase use of railway, which is a shorter duration than road transport, (2) reduce the occurrence of late train arrival, (3) reduce accident risk, (4) minimize operating cost, (5) improve passenger safety and comfort. The double-track railway will mainly be built on government land (PT Kereta Api Indonesia) along 65 Km passing through areas in the Kabupaten Sleman, Bantul dan Kulon Progo in the Province of DI Yogyakarta, and the area of Kabupaten Purworejo in the Province of Central Java. The AMDAL Study for this project has been approved by the Central AMDAL Commission in the Ministry of Environment in 2004. Attachment A

2

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

CASE-STUDY 7 Construction of the Jakarta Outer Ring Road/JORR, Segments W1, E2, E3 and Tanjung Priok Access - PT. Jasa Marga The Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR) was planned since mid-1990s to develop the outskirts of DKI Jakarta to serve as the Central Business District (CBD) or commercial areas for DKI Jakarta. JORR is the main toll-road located at a radius 10 - 13 Km from the center of Jakarta city. JORR consists of 7 sections : (1) Section W1 (Penjaringan-Kebon Jeruk), (2) Section W2 (Kebon JerukPondok Pinang), (3) Section S (Pondok Pinang-Jagorawi), (4) Section E1 (Jagorawi-Cikunir), (5) Section E2 (Cikunir-Cakung), (6) Section E3 (Cakung-Cilincing), (7) Section N (Cilincing-Yos Sudarso) which is modified to the Tanjung Priok Access Road (TgPA). Sections of JORR that has been constructed are : (1) Kebon Jeruk-Penjaringan, (2) Kebon JerukPondok Pinang, (3) Pondok Pinang-Jagorawi-Cikunir and (4) Tanjung Priok-Cilincing-CakungCikunir. The JORR sections W1, E2, E3 and N already has a valid AMDAL approved by the Minister of Public Works. However, since there was no construction 3 years after the AMDAL document was approved, a new AMDAL study was required for the sections W1, E2, E3 and Tanjung Priok Access. The new AMDAL Study was approved in 2004 by the Central AMDAL Commission in the Ministry of Environment. CASE-STUDY 8 Development of the Banyu Urip Oilfield – ExxonMobil Oil Indonesia, Kabupaten Tuban & Kabupaten Bojonegoro, Province of East Java BP Migas and Mobil Cepu Ltd (MCL, subsidiary of ExxonMobil Oil Indonesia) plans to develop the Banyu Urip oilfield. When fully operating, the field is expected to produce 165,000 barrels of oil per day. The facilities to be constructed will be divided into three areas: production and support facility, onshore pipeline, and offshore facilities. During full operations, crude oil will be transferred from the wellheads to the Central Processing Facility (CPF) which will produce the oil. The oil will then be piped through underground pipeline to coastal facilities in the Tuban area. From there, the oil will be piped through underwater pipeline to the offshore ship (FSO) where the oil is stored and loaded onto tankers. In the Kabupaten Bojonegoro area, production and support facilities will be built, consisting of 6 wellheads, the CPF, airstrip, employee housing, warehouse, workshops, and power generator. Onshore pipeline will be build from Kabupaten Bojonegoro to Kabupaten Tuban. In the offshore area of Kabupaten Tuban, offshore facilities constructed will include pipeline maintenance equipment, the FSO, and boat mooring system. The AMDAL Study was approved in 2003 by the Central AMDAL Commission in the Ministry of Environment. CASE-STUDY 9 Development of Sadewa Field - Unocal Indonesia Company, Kabupaten Kutai Kartanegara, Province of East Kalimantan BP Migas and Unocal Indonesia Company plans to develop an offshore oilfield. The Sadewa Field will be located in the Makassar Straits, 50 Km offshore from Muara Badak shoreline in the Kabupaten Kutai Kartanegara. Development will involve 2 stages: a) installation of a main Attachment A

3

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

offshore platform (Zulu) and an additional platform (Yankee), and oil and gas pipelines to wellhead platforms; b) installation of wellhead platforms at 550 meter depths, and oil and gas pipelines to the Zulu platform. The Sadewa Field is expected to produce natural gas (3000 mm SCFD), oil/ condensate (20,000 BOPD) and produced water (20,000 BWPD). The AMDAL Study in still in process. Public consultations for the AMDAL Study were held in December, 2004. As of May 2005, the KA-ANDAL document was still under preparation by UNOCAL’s consultants. CASE-STUDY 10 Development of Housing Complex – PT. Karya Cantika Kusuma, Village of Bojongnangka, Kecamatan Gunung Putri, Kabupaten Bogor, Province of West Java. A housing complex will be built on land that has been purchased by the proponent since 1994. The housing complex will cover an area of 150 Hectares, and is adjacent to existing residential areas. Support infrastructure to be built include roads, drainage, facilities for solid waste management and liquid waste handling. The AMDAL Study was approved by the Kabupaten Bogor AMDAL Commission in 2003.

Attachment A

4

ATTACHMENT B

LIST OF CASE-STUDY RESOURCE PERSONS

FINAL REPORT STUDY ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION IN AMDAL

AMDAL REFORM PROGRAM (PHASE 2) LINKING POVERTY, ENVIRONMENT, AND DECENTRALISATION

this page is intentionally left blank

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

ATTACHMENT B

LIST OF CASE-STUDY RESOURCE PERSONS PROJECT NAME

1

PROPONENT

Indo-Bharat Rayon, Hazardous Waste Landfill

Lely Retna, ST (Staff General Affairs, PT Indobharat Rayon)

Kabupaten Purwakarta

PO BOX No. 9

Propinsi Jawa Barat

Purwakarta – 41101

Desa Cilangkap Jawa Barat Tlp (0264) 202041 [email protected]

AMDAL COMMISSION/ RESPONSIBLE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY Dra.Nenden Naeni Kurniati (Head of AMDAL Unit) Dinas Lingkungan Hidup & Tata Ruang Kabupaten Purwakarta. Jl. Purnawarman Timur Tlp (0264) 212738

AFFECTED COMMUNITY

INTERESTED COMMUNITY

H.Gozali

Nurul Cholis

Head of BPD Cilangkap

(Head of Sebukit NGO)

Jl.Industri KM 9

Purwakarta

Desa Cilangkap

Tlp. 08128915349

Kabupaten Purwakarta

Iyam Imbar, SE Head of Village Cilangkap Jl.Industri KM 10 Desa Cilangkap Kabupaten Purwakarta

2

Gonggang Dam

Ir.Eko Rusmartanto

Dyah Larasayu

Puryadi

Kecamatan Poncol

(AMDAL Study Project Leader)

(Staff Bintek AMDAL)

Previously Head of Physical and Regional Infrastructure Section, Bappeda Magetan

Bapedal Propinsi Jawa Timur

(Staff Ekbang Kecamatan Poncol)

Jl.Wisata Menanggal 38

Tlp 0888 340 1871

Jl. Basuki Rahmat Timur No.1 Magetan

Surabaya – Jawa Timur

HP 08563510151

Tlp/Fax (0351) 895041

Tlp (031) 8543852

Kabupaten Magetan Propinsi Jawa Timur

Fax (031) 8543851

Desa Gonggang

Suyatno (village official and informal leader) Desa Genilangit Sukarjoyo (Head of Village Gonggang) Dusun Kopen Desa Gonggang Misran (village official) Desa Janggan

3

Pembangunan

Ir.Gunawan MT

Kawasan Wisata & Hunian Terpadu

(AMDAL consultant)

Attachment B

Ir.Eva Yoshida, M.Si (Kasubid AMDAL)

Deden Sepriadi (community representative

Dadang (NGO activist) WALHI Jawa

1

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

PUNCLUT

Jl.Permai 17 No.15

Kota Bandung

Komplek Margahayu Permai – Kota Bandung

Propinsi Jawa Barat

BPLH Kota Bandung Jl. Sadang Tengah

who attended AMDAL Commission meeting)

Barat Jl. Purwakarta

Jl.Rereongan Sarupi 130

Deden Suparman (community representative who attended AMDAL Commission meeting) Ketua LSM – FA Kalbu Jl. Bukit Raya 18 Bandung 4

Metro Trade Centre

Ir.Yuyun Mulyani (AMDAL consultant)

Ir.Eva Yoshida, M.Si

(office & shopping development)

Jl.Muararajeun No.7

(Kasubid AMDAL)

Bandung

BPLH Kota Bandung

Jl. Soekarno Hatta Kelurahan Sekejati - Bandung

Jl. Sadang Tengah

Sulistio (resident of RW 03 & attended consultations) Komplek Margahayu Raya Blok H2 No 61 Bandung

H.Ahmad Duyeh (community representative who attended AMDAL Commission meeting) (Head of LPM Kelurahan Sekejati) Jl.Meteor Timur II No.31 5

Double-Track Railway Kutoarjo Yogyakarta

Ir.Iwan Pujoriyadi

Ir.Pieter Lawdayuh

(AMDAL consultant)

(Kasie PDL)

Sugiyanto (attended FGD)

Komplek UGM No. E 9

Jl. Timoho No.1 Yogyakarta

(Head of Village)

Yogyakarta

Komplek Walikota

Tlp (0274) 556928

Tlp (0274) 515865

Kecamatan Sentolo

HP 0816676573

Yogyakarta

PUSTRAL UGM

HP 08122653878

Desa Sentolo

Mustofa (activist NGO:

Attachment B

Suparlan (Walhi/Jaringan Transportasi) Jl.Hayam Wuruk No 110 Lempuyangan Tlp (0274) 548499 HP 08179410865

2

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

YABIMA) Jl.Khudori No.14 Wates Kulon Progo Tlp (0274) 778309/773337 6

Increase in Production Capacity, Kaltim Prima Coal Mine, Sangatta – Kutai Timur

Prof.Marlon Aipassa

Imamsyah

(AMDAL consultant)

Suryansyah, S.Hut, M.Agr

Jl. Ki Hajar Dewantara

(Kabid AMDAL)

No.7 Samarinda

Dinas Lingkungan Hidup

Desa Muara Bengalon

Hp 08125503612

Kabupaten Kutai Timur

Propinsi Kalimantan Timur

HP 08125465985

(Head of village)

Kecamatan Muara Bengalon Kabupaten Kutai Timur

HM.Bohari (attended AMDAL Commission meeting) (activist NGO: Wawasan) Kecamatan Sangatta HP 081346350159

7

8

Dwi Cahyo , SH Jakarta Outer RingRoad/JORR), (AMDAL consultant) Segment Pacific Consultindo PenjaringanInternational Indonesia Kebon Jeruk Jl. Warung Buncit Raya (W1), CikunirNo. 23 Pejaten Cakung (E2), Cakung-Cilincing Telp: 79197060Faks: (E3) and Tanjung 7989603 Priok Access (TgPA)

Development of Banyu Urip Oilfield – TAC Contract Area Cepu, Exxon Mobil East Java

Dr. Supardio M.Pd

Osmia Panjaitan

Slamet Riyadi

(Head of BPLHD)

(Attended AMDAL Commission meeting, and consultation meeting)

LP3ES (Lemabga Penelitian, Pendidikan dan Penerangan Ekonomi dan Sosial)

Kepala Seksi Prasarana Umum

Jl. Letjen S. Parman No. 81 Slipi, Jakarta 11420

Kotamadya Jakarta Utara Kantor Walikota Jakarta Utara, Jl. Yos Sudarso No. 27-29 Tg. Priok – Jakarta Utara Telp/Fax : 4358794, HP 08158897655

Yuyun Surya (consultant)

Dyah Susilowati

FISIP-UNAIR

(Kasubdit AMDAL)

HP: 0811312635 [email protected]

Bapedalda Propinsi Jawa Timur Jl.Wisata Menanggal 38 Surabaya – Jawa Timur Tlp (031) 8543852

Kecamatan Cilincing, Jakarta Utara Soekoer (attended AMDAL Commission meeting)

Telp/Faks 56967127, email: [email protected]

(Secretary of Village Brabowan) Kecamatan Ngasem, Bojonegoro

Fax (031) 8543851

Dyah Larasayu (Staf Bintek AMDAL) Bapedalda Propinsi Jawa Timur Jl.Wisata Menanggal 38

Heri Wahono (attended AMDAL Commission meeting) (Village Head Palang) Kecamatan

Attachment B

3

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

Surabaya – Jawa Timur

Palang, Tuban

Tlp (031) 8543852 Fax (031) 8543851 9

Sadewa Oilfield Development, Makassar Straits

Mirza Indianto and Sahat Hutahean (ESS Department) UNOCAL Indonesia Co. Pasir Ridge Complex

Ir. Nazrin (Kasubid AMDAL) BAPEDALDA Propinsi Kalimantan Timur

H. Samir (Muara Badak Ulu community leader and fishingboat owner)

Anonymous (NGO activist) Muara Badak

Balikpapan East Kalimantan

Herwan TR (Head of Fisheries and Marine Office) Hasyim (extension worker for marine/ fishing activities)

10

Karya Cantika Kusuma Housing Estate, Bogor

Yudi and Liantono

Adi

PPLH IPB (AMDAL Consultant)

Secretary Village Kelurahan Bojongnangka, Kecamatan Gunung Putri, Kabupaten Bogor, Provinsi Jawa Barat.

Institut Pertanian Bogor (PPLH-IPB) Kampus Darmaga PO.Box 243 Bogor Telp. (0251) 621262, 621085, 621087, 626936 Faks. (0251) 622134 Email :[email protected]

Attachment B

4

ATTACHMENT C1

PREPATORY STEPS AND PRECONDITIONS FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN AMDAL

FINAL REPORT STUDY ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION IN AMDAL

AMDAL REFORM PROGRAM (PHASE 2) LINKING POVERTY, ENVIRONMENT, AND DECENTRALISATION

this page is intentionally left blank

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

ATTACHMENT C1 PREPARATORY STEPS AND PRECONDITIONS FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN AMDAL ACTIONS FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN AMDAL Announcement in national and local print media Notice board at project site Posters/ pamphlets at strategic areas near project site

Notice on website of proponent and environment agency Displays in local government offices Radio announcements Consultation with community leaders (formal and informal)

Consultation with community members

Attachment C1

PREPARATORY STEPS Selection of information to be announced Design & layout for announcement Selection of appropriate print media Selection of information to be included Design of notice board Production & placement Selection of information & language Design & layout of posters Production & placement Identification of strategic areas frequented by affected communities Selection of information Design & layout of website Posting Selection of information Design & layout of displays Production of display panels Selection of information & language Selection of appropriate radio stations Recording Identification of affected communities Identification of community leaders Preparation of project information Preparation of support materials Preparation of questions to be raised (information needed by Proponent) Identification of affected communities Identification / mapping of key stakeholders in affected communities Preparation of project information Preparation of support materials Preparation of questions to be raised (information needed by Proponent)

PRECONDITION to ensure EFFECTIVENESS * Print media is widely read by affected communities

Community leaders knowledgeable of AMDAL process and public involvement objectives & process Community leaders regularly discuss with community members regarding general concerns and aspirations Community knowledgeable of AMDAL process and public involvement objectives & process Community knowledgeable of public consultation objectives and limitations

1

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

In-depth interviews

Presentation of summary of ANDAL study

Delivery of draft ANDAL document and summary to community representatives Community representative participate in ANDAL review

Visit to Affected Communities by representative of Responsible Env’t Agency OR Community representative attend consultative meeting at Environment Agency Office

Final review of all stakeholders’ position by Responsible Env’t Agency

Development of interview guide/ questionnaires (linked to potential impacts being evaluated in ANDAL study) Determination of sample size and/or target groups Preparation of summary of ANDAL study findings (significant impacts, area of impacts, etc.) Preparation of visual aides for presentation Preparation of questions to be raised Preparation of summaries and copies of documents Delivery to community representatives Community selects representatives to attend ANDAL review Community representatives review documents Community representatives discusses with community members Community representative prepares comments to be taken to ANDAL review meeting Arrange transport and accommodations Responsible Agency assigns official to visit Official reviews ANDAL documents Official visits affected communities or representatives to discuss proposed project Arrange transport and accommodations Community selects representatives to attend ANDAL review Community representatives review documents Community representatives discusses with community members Community representative prepares comments to be taken to ANDAL review meeting Arrange transport and accommodations Responsible Env’t Agency prepares special meeting for community representatives Record comments from community representatives Responsible Env’t Agency reviews comments from Affected Community, recommendation from AMDAL Commission, comments from Observer Groups and other sources Responsible Env’t Agency prepares letter of decision and documentation of how comments from stakeholders have been considered

Community representatives knowledgeable of AMDAL process Community representatives understands function of AMDAL Commission and its role in review meetings

Community understands nature and objective of visit by Responsible Env’t Agency official

Community representatives knowledgeable of AMDAL process and public involvement objectives & process Community representatives regularly discuss with community members regarding general concerns and aspirations

* In the absence of items listed under “Preconditions to ensure Effectiveness”, it is advised to select an alternative approach, or to conduct additional preparations to ensure preconditions are met.

Attachment C1

2

ATTACHMENT C2

SAMPLE OF PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN AMDAL DEVELOPED BY UNOCAL INDONESIA

FINAL REPORT STUDY ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION IN AMDAL

AMDAL REFORM PROGRAM (PHASE 2) LINKING POVERTY, ENVIRONMENT, AND DECENTRALISATION

this page is intentionally left blank

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

ATTACHMENT C2 SAMPLE of PROCESS for PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT in AMDAL DEVELOPED by UNOCAL INDONESIA Flowchart of Current Practice of Environmental Impact Assessment Process Prepare Draft of Public Announcement and discuss with BPMIGAS. KLH and BAPEDALDA

Carry out Field Survey study, sampling and analysis refer to approved TOR

Announce the Activity Plan through national and local news papers

Writes ANDAL, RKL and RPL Yes Submit ANDAL, RKL and RPL to BPMIGAS for review, presentation and inputs

Send notification letter to BPMIGAS, KLH and BAPEDALDA regarding public announcement

No

Yes Submit ANDAL, RKL and RPL to BAPEDALDA for review, presentation and inputs

Contractor conduct Pre-survey (should not be on behalf Unocal)

No

Yes Submit ANDAL, RKL and RPL to KLH for review, presentation and obtaining inputs and recommendations

Coordination meeting with BAPEDALDA of Regency/City and Province to prepare Workshop

No

Yes Waiting for Approval

Workshop

No

Public Consultation

Writes Team of Reference (TOR) Notes : Submit TOR to Unocal for review and inputs

No

KA

Yes Submit TOR to BPMIGAS for review, presentation and inputs

No

Yes Submit TOR to BAPEDALDA for review, presentation and inputs

AMDAL : Analisa Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan / Envrironmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

No

: Kerangka Acuan / Term of Reference (TOR)

ANDAL : Analisa Dampak Lingkungan / Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) RKL

: Rencana Pengelolaan Lingkungan / Environmental Management Plan (EMP)

RPL

: Rencana Pemantauan Lingkungan / Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP)

Yes Submit TOR to KLH for review, presentation, inputs and approval

No

Waiting for TOR approval

Attachment C2

1

ATTACHMENT D

MINUTE OF MEETING AND PARTICIPANT LIST FROM “DISCUSSION ON PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN AMDAL WORKSHOP, 20 JULI 2005

FINAL REPORT STUDY ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION IN AMDAL

AMDAL REFORM PROGRAM (PHASE 2) LINKING POVERTY, ENVIRONMENT, AND DECENTRALISATION

this page is intentionally left blank

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

ATTACHMENT D MINUTES of MEETING and PARTICIPANT LIST from

“Discussion on Public Involvement in AMDAL” Workshop, 20 July 2005 Acara Tempat Tanggal / Waktu Peserta

: : : :

Diskusi Keterlibatan Masyarakat dalam Amdal Grandkemang Hotel, Jakarta 20 Juli 2005 / 09.00 – 17.00 Terlampir

TUJUAN ACARA Tujuan diskusi adalah untuk memaparkan hasil studi “Keterlibatan Masyarakat dan Keterbukaan Informasi dalam AMDAL”, dan mengangkat dalam pembahasan intensif beberapa pertanyaan penting yang muncul dalam studi. Hasil diskusi digunakan sebagai tambahan pertimbangan dalam melakukan finalisasi laporan studi. SUSUNAN ACARA Acara dimulai dengan presentasi hasil studi “Keterlibatan Masyarakat dan Keterbukaan Informasi dalam AMDAL” sebagai pengantar diskusi. Moderator menjelaskan proses diskusi, yang dibagi menjadi 3 topik. Masing-masing topik dibahas selama kurang lebih 1.5 jam. Diskusi menggunakan metoda metaplan untuk menampung opini peserta diskusi dan mengangkat dialog tentang alasan pemilihan jawaban masing-masing peserta diskusi.

Diskusi Topik 1: Apa yang diharapkan dari keterlibatan masyarakat dalam Amdal? Pilihan jawaban: A. Mendapat masukan dari masyarakat berkepentingan untuk lingkup studi dan identifikasi dampak penting. B. Menyelesaikan/mencapai kesepakatan berbagai hal yang menjadi masalah, seperti pembebasan lahan, pembayaran ganti rugi, pembuatan fasilitas umum. C. Menyebarkan informasi tentang proyek ke masyarakat berkepentingan D. Memperoleh dukungan/persetujuan masyarakat berkepentingan terhadap proyek E. Mendapat masukan dari masyarakat berkepentingan sebagai bahan pertimbangan untuk pengambilan keputusan F. Lainnya. Pilihan peserta diskusi: Pilihan A B C D E F

Attachment D

Jumlah/Keterangan 18 04 02 03 12 • Mendapatkan masukan dari masyarakat hal yang terkait proyek • Meningkatkan kesejahteraan masyarakat • Menampung dan mempertimbangkan kepentingan masyarakat • Informasi lain dan penting yang belum diketahui pemrakarsa/konsultan • Membuat masyarakat mengerti Amdal dengan long term benefit 1

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

• • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8

9

10

Pemberian informasi saat pengumpulan data dalam tahap study Andal Harapan dari kegiatan untuk memberi masukan perbaikan lingkungan setempat dan/ peningkatan daerah.

Evaluasi dampak penting tidak bisa diperoleh dari masukan masyarakat. Sangat mungkin dilakukan oleh masyarakat yang mempunyai latar belakang cukup tetapi maksudnya untuk bahan pertimbangan. Masukan dari masyarakat digunakan untuk bahan pertimbangan dalam mengambil keputusan Biasanya untuk evaluasi dampak memakai 6-7 kriteria, tapi bisa ada yang terlewat misalnya tidak besar tidak penting tapi mempunyai nilai-nilai tertentu dan sering tidak tercover. Hal-hal tersebut yang dapat diperoleh dari konsultasi masyarakat. Misal setelah proyek disetujui ternyata ada masalah dengan ganti rugi bisa menghambat pembangunan yang telah berjalan. Ada salah komunikasi antara pemerintah dengan masyarakat. Saat ini persetujuan masyarakat menjadi penting, karena izin dari masyarakat diperlukan untuk izin kegiatan. Saat ini izin ada 2 macam yang harus dipenuhi oleh pemrakarsa; izin untuk beroperasi/memenuhi peraturan2 dan izin dari masyarakat. Pengalaman: pada saat sosialisasi, yang ingin diketahui masyarakat adalah masalah pembebasan lahan. Ada perbedaan pandangan antara tim dan pemrakarsa. Pengalaman: pada saat konsultasi tidak langsung membicarakan kompensasi karena khawatir masyarakat hanya memikirkan hal tersebut dan tidak memberi masukan. Pada saat penyusunan Amdal atau UKL UPL, Unocal ingin memperoleh inspirasi dari masyarakat. Sebelum tim teknis bekerja ada pertemuan lagi dengan masyarakat untuk membicarakan ganti rugi. Pemrakarsa tidak mencari dukungan masyarakat tapi hanya memetakan secara sosial, secara implisit memang memerlukan dukungan masyarakat tetapi tidak secara terbuka. Poin B walaupun saat ini menjadi isu, tapi tempatnya tidak di Amdal. Tetapi menjadi kewajiban penyusun Amdal untuk menyinggung masalah tersebut dan dapat membawa isu tersebut sehingga dapat diselesaikan oleh pemrakarsa. Konteks “menyelesaikan” kurang tepat, mungkin memfasilitasi. Poin D, yang diharapkan dalam konsultasi masyarakat tidak semata-mata mencari dukungan. Dalam konsultasi masyarakat ada tahapan2. Ke depan bisa duduk bersama dengan masyarakat untuk mengambil keputusan. Ada peraturan sendiri bagaimana cara membebaskan lahan, pembangunan fasilitas sosial dan umum Tidak bisa semua masuk ke Amdal, jadi tidak fokus. Sangat mengkhawatirkan kalau dukungan masyarakat disebutkan secara eksplisit. Contoh di Filipina, hal tersebut harus ada dulu baru kemudian Amdal. Poin D, memang akan ke arah sana, tapi tidak langsung disebutkan dalam konsultasi masyarakat. Masalah persetujuan masyarakat masih baru di Indonesia, bagaimana mendapatkannya?

Dadang Isna Taufiq Dede Hermin Wiesje Akhmad

Tina

Dadang

Isna

Diskusi Topik 2: Siapa wakil masyarakat terkena dampak (MTD) yang sah? Pilihan jawaban: A. Tokoh formal (Kepala Desa, Lurah) B. Tokoh informal (Kepala adat, pemuka agama, pimpinan kel tani, nelayan) C. Warga masyarakat lainnya D. Lainnya Pilihan peserta diskusi: Pilihan Jumlah/Keterangan A 12 B 16 C 13 D 02 Ket • Kalau ada masyarakat yang memiliki keahlian tertentu • Tergantung sebaran dampaknya (menentukan komunitas yang terkena dampak)

Attachment D

2

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13

14

15

Wakil MTD di komisi Amdal: benar MTD dan yang mengerti masalah • Tergantung isu dan dampak yang dibahas Kenyataan di lapangan: satu pihak tidak mengizinkan tetapi pihak lain tetap jalan, akhirnya ke atas dipolitisir atau ke bawah lewat jalur premanisme. Contoh di Jepang: konsultasi masyarakat berlangsung sampai satu tahun, pertemuan berlangsung tiap dua minggu. Kekurangan saat ini, pada saat sosialisasi dari kecamatan sampai provinsi, keterlibatan masyarakat sangat kecil. Pengalaman: pada saat survey masyarakat setuju dengan proyek pembangunan, hanya kurang mendapat informasi. Masyarakat juga tidak mengetahui kemana harus bila akan memberikan usulan. Amdal adalah alat bantu untuk mengambil keputusan, jadi Amdal bersifat sebagai rekomendasi Pengambil keputusan satu orang, tetapi masukan dari pihak lain sangat penting. Dalam Amdal aspek sosial dibahas sangat dangkal. Apakah presentasi di daerah bisa untuk persetujuan atau hanyamasukan? Karena keputusan ada di pusat> Pemrakarsa harus menghubungi tiap bagian yang punya otoritas. Kewenangan ada di provinsi, kota dan daerah berperan di komisi. Di negara lain untuk kriteria ditentukan oleh komisi Masyarakat memerlukan informasi apa yang akan dibangun, untuk berperan serta dan mengambil keputusan. Usul: • Sudah ada peraturan lokal yang mengatur partisipasi masyarakat dalam AMDAL, yakni KepGub No.76 • Pemda DKI menitipkan kepada BPLHD wilayah untuk mensosialisasikan KepGub tersebut di tingkat kecamatan hingga dewan kelurahan, agar lebih mengerti AMDAL • Selama proses penyusunan Amdal kalau ada masyarakat yang ingin membahas hal tersebut, tim proponen tidak boleh menolak. • Pada saat dilakukan sosialisasi kepada masyarakat berkepentingan, apapun yang dibicarakan harus dilampirkan dalam dokumen KA dan menjadi masukan untuk proses scoping dan focusing • Dalam pembahasan dokumen, masyarakat yang berkepentingan didahulukan terutama yang berkaitan dengan gangguan bagi lingkungan warga. • Hard copy RKL RPL yang sudah disetujui juga disimpan di kelurahan sehingga jika ada yang tidak sesuai masyarakat bisa melaporkan impementasi penyimpangan implementasi RKL/RPL ke BPLHD. Perlu diuraikan dampak proyek terhadap masyarakat itu maksudnya apa? Tidak cukup jika dampak proyek dianalisis hanya terhadap masyarakat yang tinggal di sekitar tapak proyek saja Status formal dan informal dimasyarakat sangat tipis. Misalnya karena kaya seseorang bisa menjadi kepala desa. Sehingga satu orang bisa menyandang beberapa status sosial sekaligus. • Kepala desa dan lurah seringkali lebih dekat dengan konsultan dan pemrakarsa, sehingga rekayasa banyak terjadi. Akhirnya seringkali langsung mengunjungi mayarakat yang terkena dampak. Misal: pembangunan jalan berdampak pada masyarakat yang tinggal di sepanjang pembangunan jalan tersebut. Untuk kasus ini, untuk konsultasi lebih baik menyertakan A,B, dan C • Dalam hal keterlibatan dalam komisi, setuju hanya mengundang A dan B saja, karena untuk proyek jalan, lebih berdampak kepada daerah-daerah inter-urban Untuk mencari informasi sebanyak-banyaknya, sebaiknya A,B, dan C dijaring dalam konsultasi publik. Masalahnya, proses konsultasi publik seringkali noise-nya besar. Masing-masing kelompok memiliki biasnya sendiri-sendiri. Tidak bisa dikatakan bahwa informasi dari satu kelompok lebih baik daripada kelompok lainnya. Konsultan dan pemrakarsa yang harus pandai-pandai menjaring informasi yang relevan dengan rencana kegiatan dan AMDAL. • Sifatnya sangat situasional. Terkadang mengundang tokoh formal seperti lurah

Attachment D

Taufiq Askary Firkan Ricko Askary Hermin Akhmad Dadang Askary Rudy T.

Rudy Y. Firkan Widayani

Taufiq

Askary

3

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

16

17 18 19

20 21

17 18

19 20 21 22 23

bisa sangat tepat, karena mewakili masyarakat. Akan tetapi kadang kepala desa ada juga yang tidak mewakili masyarakat dan lebih “berbaju” pemrakarsa • Sulit untuk digeneralisasi karena banyaknya variabel yang mesti dipertimbangkan. Di Jawa, kepala desa/lurah dianggap bisa mewakili karena masyarakat pada umumnya mau “mengikut” pimpinannya. Di daerah lain bisa lain lagi kondisinya. • Sebaiknya semua isu yang dijaring difokuskan pada relevansinya terhadap AMDAL. Hal terpenting adalah mesti melihat sejauh mana sebaran dampak yang ditimbulkan dari kegiatan tersebut. • Komponen masyarakat yang dilibatkan bisa saja semua (A,B,C) bergantung pada sebaran dampaknya. • Perlu memperhatikan pranata sosial di daerah tersebut dan sistem pengambilan keputusan di daerah tersebut. Banyak konsultan AMDAL yang tidak peka terhadap hal tersebut • Sulit untuk mendefinisikan keterwakilan masyarakat OK setuju dengan dilakukannya survey masyarakat. Tapi jika KA mesti dibuat dalam 1 bulan, akan sulit melakukan survey/studi tsb Sangat bergantung kepada jam terbang konsultan. Perbah ditemui konsultan yang memiliki jam terbang tinggi, waktu 1 bulan ternyata cukup untuk melakukan studi dan hasilnya baik • Sebelum konsultasi perlu mengenal masyarakatnya • Harus dipilih mana yang dipercaya untuk menyalurkan aspirasi • Selain tokoh formal, ada wakil-wakil alami yang muncul? Pengalaman: kalau BPLHD yang menentukan, masyarakat yang datang sudah ditentukan. • Jika memang sempat, memang lebih baik dilakukan pra-survey. Dalam prosesnya pengalaman Unocal, pemrakarsa lebih bersifat “lepas baju” saat dilakukan survey tersebut, sehingga tidak ada istilah “pemrakarsa”, dll. Survey tersebut memang bergantung pada sebaran dampaknya dan hasil pemetaan kelompok mana yang terkena dampak. Misal: kelompok nelayan terkena dampak akibat kegiatan Unocal di lepas pantai • Pada saat sosialisasi, dilakukan pemetaan kelompok terkena dampak. Hasilnya kemudian didiskusikan dengan LH • Semua pihak (A,B,C) mesti selektif dipilih, terutama B dan C. Untuk A sebaiknya memang harus selalu ikut • Pertanyaannya, bagaimana dengan kondisi yang sifatnya lintas kabupaten/wilayah administrasi?Misal adanya nelayan dari Jawa Timur atau dari kabupaten lain di kaltim yang turut beraktivitas di pantai tersebut, meski dengan frekuensi dan intensitas rendah, apa mesti dilibatkan juga? Apakah ada pengalaman dalam seleksi masyarakat terkena dampak yang telah melewati batas 12 mil (propinsi) dan 4 mil (kabupaten/kota)? Di sidang komisi, MTD wajib hadir, kepala desa yang diminta menentukan MTD. Misalnya di Irja kepala gereja dihadirkan sebagai tokoh masyarakat. • Ada contoh kasus proyek di lepas pantai Tuban yang ternyata mempengaruhi fishing ground-nya para nelayan dari Lamongan, sehingga mereka pun diakui sebagai bagian dari MTD • Tidak berarti mengabaikan pihak-pihak yang terkena dampak tidak langsung, tapi mesti dilihat sejauh mana sebaran dampaknya dan tingkat kemampuan pemrakarsa. Meski memang pada umumnya masih diutamakan pihak-pihak yang terkena dampak langsung. Apakah KLH mengevaluasi apakah MTDnya sudah sesuai? Ada kasus-kasus yang diselesaikan di luar Amdal (di luar komisi) MTD perlu kriteria tersendiri Pra survey berapa lama? Tokoh vokal belum tentu tokoh masyarakat yang bersangkutan. Keputusan menjadi bias. Pra survey biasanya dilakukan oleh konsultan selama kira-kira 1 minggu sudah mencukupi. Aktivitas yang dilakukan berupa screening di wilayah tapak kegiatan, identifikasi stakeholder dan informal leader yang ada di lokasi. Mereka yang teridentifikasi ini kemudian dilibatkan dalam konsultasi publik

Attachment D

Tina

Isna Tina Isna

Taufiq Akhmad

Askary Tina

Isna Tina Esther Lis Akhmad

4

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

24



Taufiq Secara resmi belum pernah melakukan pra survey. Untuk menentukan masyarakatnya dilakukan tanya jawab. Dari metodologi banyak cara, misalnya snowballing method. Tujuan konsultasi untuk mengetahui apakah akan ada persoalan di masyarakat atau tidak. • Komisi tidak mempunyai mekanisme untuk memperbaiki sistem. Bisa terjadi masyarakat pada saat konsultasi tidak setuju (gebrak meja menentang) tapi saat sidang KA setuju (gebrak meja setuju). • Tidak ada kewajiban untuk mengumpulkan masyarakat tetapi hal itu cara yang cepat untuk mendapat informasi. 24 • Rudy Y. Konsultasi publik dilakukan hanya sekadar untuk ikut aturan? • Konsultasi publik yang baik perlu modal besar dan hanya bisa dilakukan oleh perusahaan besar? 25 Akhmad • Penting untuk mengenali dan mengundang seluruh stakeholder dalam acara sosialisasi • Akibatnya kadang masyarakat yang diundang berlebihan. Namun hal ini lebih baik daripada pada saat sidang komisi menjadi masalah karena dianggap kurang mengundang masyarakat. • Konsultan masyarakat kadang dilakukan untuk sekadar mengikuti aturan. Namun untuk kasus Unocal, hal tersebut sangat perlu untuk dilakukan untuk menghindari potensi masalah dan konflik di kemudian hari • Konsultasi masyarakat perlu modal besar mungkin dapat dibenarkan. Terutama untuk perusahaan PMA yang tidak hanya harus comply dengan peraturan-peraturan lokal, tapi juga internasional 26 Menurut pengalaman, adanya disparitas harga yang cukup mencolok antara biaya Wiesje penyusunan AMDAL yang dilakukan oleh oil company dengan Pertamina. Seringkali biaya yang dikeluarkan oleh Oil company jauh lebih besar 27 Askary • Sebelum dikeluarkannya Kepka No.8, salah satu weak point dalam sistem AMDAL di Indonesia adalah konsultasi publik • Apa perlu mengumpulkan masyarakat? Contoh di Jepang terdapat koran khusus yang berisi pengumuman termasuk Amdal, yang direspon aktif oleh masyarakat. Malah masyarakat sendiri yang menghendaki adanya pertemuan secara rutin tiap 2 minggu sekali • Konsultasi publik penting untuk menjadi wahana pemberian masukan/input bagi pemda lokal Diskusi Topik 3: Apakah patut ada pembedaan kewajiban keterlibatan masyarakat dalam AMDAL berdasarkan karakteristik proyek/ lokasi? Jika ya, kriteria apa yang dipakai untuk membedakan? Pilihan jawaban: Ya/ Tidak Jika ya, kriteria yang dipakai untuk membedakan: A. Luas wilayah proyek B. Kompleksitas proyek C. Jenis kegiatan baru di wilayah tersebut D. Sensitifitas penduduk setempat E. Pemindahan penduduk F. Proyek kepentingan umum atau bukan G. Lainnya Pilihan peserta diskusi: Pilihan Jumlah/Keterangan Ya 10 A 04 B 07 C 03 D 09 E 02 F 01 Tidak 07 Ket • Pembedaan kriteria: batas administrasi, sosial, ekologi, proyek Attachment D

5

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

• • • • • •

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8

9

10

8

9

Pembedaan kompleksitas proyek: tergantung limbah yang akan dihasilkan, B3 atau non B3 Kegiatan yang sama, kriterianya sama dan sebaliknya. Sidang KA Andal akan menentukan perlu tidaknya wakil MTD dalam rapat komisi. Tidak perlu dibedakan untuk lokasi seperti Bali kecuali untuk daerah sensitif. Tidak perlu dibedakan karena umumnya kepentingan masyarakat sama, tidak tergantung pada skala proyek. Tidak perlu dibedakan, dengan sendirinya karakteristik proyek/lokasi akan menentukan.

Kegiatan yang tidak perlu konsultasi publik maka tidak perlu Amdal, mungkin hanya UKL UPL. Apakah kegiatan diantara UKL UPL dan Amdal (grey area) memerlukan konsultasi publik? Prinsipnya kepentingan masyarakat sama, sehingga tidak perlu ada pembedaan dalam hal kewajiban pelaksanaan konsultasi publik • Tidak perlu ada perbedaan tetapi perlu ada rambu-rambunya. • Sebaiknya pemrakarsan menjajaki dulu lokasi proyek sebelum konsultan masuk, sehingga lebih tahu bagaimana kebiasaan-kebiasaan penduduk, dll. • Untuk PU, dirasa perlu untuk mengenali pola pelaksanaan proyek di daerah Mencermati pertanyaannya, hak masyarakat adalah sama untuk terlibat dan mendapatkan informasi, sehingga saya jawab TIDAK boleh ada pembedaan kewajiban Pada saat rapat pembahasan KA Andal masyarakat tidak perlu ikut, jadi pada saat itu dibahas apakah perlu ada konsultasi masyarakat. Misal kegiatan di Aceh, jika dilakukan konsultasi publik, bisa jadi yang hadir adalah orang yang macem2) Amdal dilakukan pada situasi normal, bukan pada saat perang atau bencana. Untuk yang pada kondisi perang/bencana mungkin tidak perlu konsultasi Yang membedakan mungkin teknis pelaksanaan. Jika dibedakan misalnya berdasarkan kompleksitas proyek bisa jadi sulit menentukan kriterianya karena sangat bergantung kepada variabel yang banyak sekali. • Semenjak PP 51/1993 sebenarnya sudah ada kewajiban keterlibatan masyarakat namun tidak diformalkan dalam Kepka tersendiri • Sudah pasti akan ada pembedaan, tapi bukan pada kewajibannya, melainkan lebih kepada sejauh mana keterlibatan masyarakat pada kondisi spesifik proyek tertentu • Tidak perlu ada pembedaan kewajiban. Tapi memang akan ada perbedaan terutama pada point D dan E. Misalnya dialami pada kegiatan proyek Tangguh atau Inti Indo Rayon yang akan memerlukan tingkat keterlibatan masyarakat yang lebih intensif. • Pada kenyatannya, tidak mungkin semua proyek kita anggap sama • Tidak perlu dibedakan kewajibannya, tapi perlu juga menentukan formula atau minimum requirement untuk proyek-proyek dengan skala kegiatan tertentu pada kondisi lingkungan tertentu sesuai dengan kriteria pada pointpoint A,B,C,D, dan E tersebut. • Akan lebih baik jika ada mekanisme yang jelas tentang siapa saja yang layak duduk di komisi, sehingga dapat lebih obyektif, fair, dan tidak ada bias, dan tidak akan keluar dari frame AMDAL. • Memang sulit untuk menghindari perbedaan pendapat, malah terkadang antar ahli sendiri selalu ada perbedaan opini. • Kewajiban keterlibatan masyarakat harus ada. • Mungkin intensitas keterlibatan masyarakat yang membedakan (misalnya karena kompleksitas dan sensivitas penduduk). Keterlibatan masyarakat jangan ditentukan dari awal tetapi diputuskan pada saat sidang KA Andal (perlu tidaknya wakil masyarakat). Seringkali keterlibatan masyarakat dalam sidang KA sangat tidak efektif karena membicarakan hal yang

Attachment D

Taufiq Sorta Wida

Askary RY Askary Esther Tina

Esther

Akhmad

Dede

Rudy Y.

6

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

10 11 12

tidak relevan. Atau bisa juga yang hadir dalam sidang KA tersebut tidak sesuai dengan isu penting, tapi turut diundang hanya karena dekat (proximity) dengan tapak proyek Pada sidang KA tergantung pada pemrakarsa siapa masyarakat yang harus datang. Mungkin ke depan, komisi perlu memeriksa masyarakatnya. Pada sidang KA, masyarakat sering bertanya hal yang seharusnya ditanyakan pada saat konsultasi masyarakat. Hal ini diperparah karena sidang sendiri tidak mampu mengarahkan pertanyaan-pertanyaan wakil masyarakat KLH dalam proses untuk perbaikan mekanisme Amdal. Nantinya mungkin pemerintah yang akan melingkup.

Tina Taufiq Askary

Daftar Kehadiran Peserta Diskusi Keterlibatan Masyarakat dalam AMDAL No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Nama Nurmala Simanjuntak, M.Eng.Sc Widayani Agung Mirza Indianto Akhmad Hidayat Wiesje Astrid Rondonuwu Moh. Hidayat Ruhz

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Drs. Rudy P. Tambunan Riza Deliansyah Slamet Riyadi Toni Dede Hendriyana Kania Wisandana Taufiq Afiff Nila Hermien Roosita M. Askary Sortawati Siregar Esther Yenny LC Dadang P Tini Artini Harni Sulistyowati Angus Mackay Farida Zaituni Isna Marifa Rudy Yuwono Firkan Maulana Endro Adinugroho Eka Jatnika Jan Ricko Laksmi Wardhani

Attachment D

Instansi BLP Dit. Bintek Dep PU BLP Dit. Bintek Dep PU BLP Dit. Bintek Dep PU Unocal Indonesia Unocal Indonesia Konsultan Perkumpulan Relawan Sumber Daya Alam Pusat Penelitian Geografi Terapan Astra International LP3ES Pacifik Consultindo Int Ind Dinas Pengelolaan LH Kota Bekasi Bagian LH Setda Kota Depok BPLHD Jabar PPLH ITB Konsultan Amdal KLH KLH KLH KLH KLH KLH KLH KLH Bank Dunia Bank Dunia Qipra Galang Kualita Qipra Galang Kualita Qipra Galang Kualita Qipra Galang Kualita Qipra Galang Kualita Qipra Galang Kualita Qipra Galang Kualita

Hadir

Tidak Hadir v

v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v

7

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

this page is intentionally left blank

Attachment D

8

ATTACHMENT E

REFERENCES

FINAL REPORT STUDY ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION IN AMDAL

AMDAL REFORM PROGRAM (PHASE 2) LINKING POVERTY, ENVIRONMENT, AND DECENTRALISATION

this page is intentionally left blank

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

ATTACHMENT E REFERENCES Asian Development Bank, Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Home Affairs. Capacity Building for Decentralization of the Environmental Impact Assessment Process, Volume I. Research Triangle Institute, in association with PT. Intersys Kelola Maju. 2002. Almer, Heather L., and Koontz, Tomas M. “Public Hearings for EIAs in Post-Communist Bulgaria: Do They Work?”. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 2004. BAPEDAL, Laporan Pelaksanaan: Lokakarya Keterlibatan Masyarakat dan Keterbukaan Informasi dalam Proses AMDAL. In cooperation with Collaborative Environmental Project in Indonesia (CEPI), 1999. Clark, John. “Overview of Civil Society in Indonesia”, unpublished document, DFID. 2003. Departemen Pekerjaan Umum. Direktorat Jenderal Prasarana Wilayah, Direktorat Sistem Jaringan Prasarana. Pedoman Perencanaan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup Bidang Jalan. 2002. Departemen Pekerjaan Umum. Direktorat Jenderal Prasarana Wilayah, Direktorat Sistem Jaringan Prasarana. Pedoman Pelaksanaan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup Bidang Jalan. 2003. Hadi, Sudharto P. “Public Participation in Indonesian EIA”. UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual – Case Studies from Developing Countries. Ontario Public Affairs and Communication Branch. “Public Consultation”. April 1994. Purnama, Dadang. Public Involvement in the Indonesian EIA Process: Process, Perceptions and Alternatives, Chapter 9. Thesis submitted for doctorate degree, University of Adelaide, 2003. Purnama, Dadang. “Reform of the EIA Process in Indonesia: Improving the Role of Public Invovlement”. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23 (2003) 415-439. Qipra Galang Kualita. “Final Report: Improving Public Consultation and Disclosure for AMDAL (EIA)”. A Joint Effort between The World Bank and Ministry of Environment in Indonesia, 2002. Qipra Galang Kualita. Report on Kick-Off Workshop: “Discussion on AMDAL System Development in West Java Province”. February 2005. Sinclair, A. John and Diduck, Alan P. Public Involvement in EA in Canada: a Transformative Learning Perspective”. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 2001. Sekretariat Tim Pelaksana P2TPD. Program Prakarsa Pembaruan Tata Pemerintahan Daerah. Volume 1. “Panduan Operasional Persiapan F-Kab dan Fasilitasi Awal”. Draft 17 Maret 2005. South Africa. “A Basic Guide to the Public Participation of an EIA”. United Nations Environmental Programme. “Training Resource Manual” World Bank, EA Sourcebook. “Public Involvement in EA: Requirements, Opportunities and Issues”. October 1993. World Bank, Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup and PT. Qipra Galang Kualita. Konsultasi Masyarakat dalam AMDAL: Sebuah Panduan untuk Pemrakarsa. 2003.

Attachment E

1