[Kabar-indonesia] 'Victims have right to know about mud's impact'

[Joyo at aol.com]

also: Nothing to celebrate in Sidoarjo on Independence Day

The Jakarta Post 
Saturday, August 26, 2006

'Victims have right to know about mud's impact'

The mudflow engulfing Sidoarjo, East Java, remains unstoppable, with the 
sludge now laying waste to 180 hectares. Critics say the company blamed for the 
disaster, Lapindo Brantas Inc., has failed to provide certainty for the 
thousands of displaced people. Environmental law expert Mas Achmad Santosa, a 
cofounder of the Indonesian Center for Environmental Law, recently talked to The 
Jakarta Post's Hera Diani about the case. The following are excerpts of the 
interview.

Question: How do you see the mudflow case in Sidoarjo from the point of view 
of the environmental law?

Answer: Our legal system, including Law No. 23/1997 on environmental 
management, has yet to recognize environmental damage valuation. However, in March, 
State Minister for the Environment Rachmat Witoelar issued a set of guidelines 
on compensation valuation for environmental damage. There are many approaches 
in the guidelines for valuation, and it should be done by environmental experts.

The guidelines are not yet comprehensive but it is a legal tool that will 
help take care of this case.

The valuation is not only for individual compensation received by the victims 
of environmental destruction. It also includes public compensation or 
compensation to the state. Because in the long run, the state will be the one that 
bears the burden of the environmental destruction.

I have suggested the state minister should conduct such a valuation even if 
the destruction is still continuing. Even if the impact is still ongoing, we 
need to calculate the damage. There are non-governmental organizations which 
have done it.

You said that the state bears the burden of the costs from the environmental 
destruction. What if the state is also responsible for it?

We can only determine that from an investigation. One thing is for sure; we 
have to use the three "Ps", or "polluters pay principle". If the state has made 
a mistake, then just calculate the compensation that the state must pay.

Does this case parallel the pollution case of Buyat Bay in North Sulawesi, 
which has been blamed on PT Newmont Minahasa Raya?

(Pause) Well, this case is more obvious than the Buyat one. However, we don't 
know about the consequences of the mud, its content and how it affects the 
ecosystem.

The environment minister has already taken too long to inform the public 
about those things, while people have the right to obtain the information. But all 
of the information has been unclear. If the mud was indeed toxic, people 
should be informed so that they can take precautions.

So, what should the government should do right now?

It needs to assess the magnitude of the impact and the damage caused by the 
mudflow. Civil liability through individual and public compensation needs to be 
obtained. But so far, compensation is limited to the emergency response, 
while it has to be sustainable because its effects will be carried for years or 
maybe throughout a lifetime.

Aside from civil liability, criminal liability must not be left out, 
according to the environmental law. Even if the company has paid compensation, they 
still need to be taken to court.

Is there any similar case in other countries that we can learn from?

I don't know. I can only say that if this case happened in other countries, 
it would be a great political scandal. People will already file a class action, 
and the polluters would be immediately thrown into jail. Here, everybody is 
relaxed about it. 

------------------------------------------------------------------

The Jakarta Post 
Saturday, August 26, 2006

Nothing to celebrate in Sidoarjo on Independence Day

B. Herry Priyono, Jakarta

Being inundated by hot mud for three months is certainly too long for 
innocent villagers. As for many anxious spectators, the worsening conditions have 
turned the calamity into a mockery. It is no surprise that lately there has been 
a text message circulating among cellular phone users: "Get a free SPA in 
Sidoarjo mud! Please contact Lapindo Brantas, Inc." SPA here is of course not for 
Sante Par Aqua, that creme of dolce vita.

The sarcasm is not without reason. Week in and week out, the public have been 
given a litany of solutions, only to learn that none have worked. Alas, most 
of us are not geologists or the business captains of Lapindo Brantas. 
Engineers and geologists seem to have exerted genuine efforts to solve the problem and 
rightly concentrate on the most technical measures of stopping, or at least 
containing, the mudflow. The public, however, are less convinced that Lapindo 
Brantas has been swift enough in addressing the problem.

That is why many concerned parties are beginning to ask in anger, "If Lapindo 
Brantas was technologically unprepared for this kind of accident, why were 
they drilling in the first place?" This is likely to be also true of many 
companies in this country.

Is this a form of finger-pointing that only adds fuel to the fire? Perhaps, 
but in the early stages of the disaster, Lapindo also seemed keen on preventing 
the public from knowing the errors that had been committed. Indeed, the more 
a business has a negative social impact on the wider public, the more this 
form of questioning is bound to have a necessary critical ring. As was exposed in 
a letter by its business partner, Medco, there seemed to be serious 
non-compliance with the strict rules of exploration. And the awakening of the 
geological cauldron that occurred in recent months has served as an alibi for the 
company.

No wonder then, when the mishap began to turn into a calamity, the gushing 
mud was claimed to be a mystery. That is, it was claimed to be the effect of 
current geological turbulence rather than caused by gross negligence. The point 
of course has less to do with hard facts than with its financial implications, 
i.e., how to externalize costs.

It doesn't take an economic wizard to know that "efficiency" in business is a 
protean term. One of its avatars is a device to minimize costs, and one 
principal stratagem is by reducing the costs borne by the company, then put the 
rest on somebody else's bill, thus external to the company. "Cost recovery" is 
part of it, and government money is ripe for the taking. But cost 
externalization involves much more than simply raiding the government's coffers. In fact is 
the most defenseless target is not government, but the displaced local 
population, for the amount of compensation for them is enormous.

The local population could not be expected to know much about the engineering 
and financial complexities surrounding this colossal fault. As they were 
never given prior information about how the drilling was to be done, they could 
not be expected to understand the costs that must now be borne by the company. 
But the footing is of course not as equal as it seems. Part of the strategy to 
externalize costs is for the company captains to play their cards shrewdly, 
and they will surely have no difficulty in outwitting or outmaneuvering the 
untrained and uninformed locals.

Government, which is legally in charge of leveling the playing field, could 
be added to the equation. But little will come from a business-obsessed 
government which always treats big companies as a knight in shining armor on a white 
horse. Even if some officials highlight the plight of the local population, 
the onslaught by the business captains would be difficult to withstand. Money is 
the sinew of business, and it is all the more potent when backed up by 
political and administrative connections.

It is due to this problem that the humanitarian issue is lost in the morass 
of financial calculus. At least 9,000 people have been displaced, and the 
humanitarian tragedy should also include the havoc caused to the sources of their 
livelihood, ecosystem, public infrastructure, industries, etc. This is not to 
say that the engineering work to stop the mudflow is not an issue; at this 
stage that is clearly the most needed step. It is equally clear, however, that the 
plight of the victims is the issue least attended to.

The ensuing events have increasingly turned ugly, and the humanitarian toll 
now involves not only displacement but also conflicts bordering on communal 
war. On the eve of Independence Day, for instance, a friend who is a journalist 
on duty in Sidoarjo called to tell me that a violent feud has just broken out 
between villagers from East Renokenongo and people from the neighboring 
village. The former tried to prevent the latter from breaching part of the levee that 
holds back the mud.

The dilemma is as real as the mud, for the breaking of the levee may rescue 
the latter but wipe out the livelihood of the former. Instead of celebrating 
the eve of Independence Day, they fought for survival. The morning after, the 
Independence Day festivities were simply meaningless.

As the calamity enters a new critical phase, no one seems to know what will 
happen to the spewing mud that has reached 4 million cubic meters. We all like 
happy endings, but we may not get one. What we know is that something has been 
severely damaged, and it cannot easily be repaired. The damage may not last 
long for the company, for with its financial resources it can easily hire 
unscrupulous public relations officers to clean up its image (The Jakarta Post, 
Aug. 24).

Not so for the thousands of families that have been displaced for almost 
three months now. Sober talk is no sedative for them, and it is the fear of death 
rather than the hope of life that keeps them going. The world has indeed 
become a terrifying place, and they may have to shout louder to keep up their 
courage.

The writer is a lecturer in the graduate program of the Driyarkara School of 
Philosophy, Jakarta. 

------------------------------------------  
Joyo Indonesia News Service
------------------------------------------