email: [email protected] tel/fax: website: ... fileMeares Soputan Mining (MSM) began construction in...

Meares Soputan Mining (MSM) beganconstruction in Rinondoran Bay even beforepublic consultations over a newenvironmental impact assessment (EIA) hadtaken place. MSM is the 85%-owned localvehicle of Archipelago Resources, a company

based in Perth,Australia and registered on theUK’s Alternative Investment Market.

The plans are opposed bycommunities from the whole area betweenLembeh - Bitung, West and East Likupangdistricts, and Manado, in North Sulawesiprovince.

indonesia's environment minister,Rachmat Witoelar, instructed PT MearesSoputan Mining late last year to stop allactivities as it did not possess a validenvironmental impact assessment as requiredby Indonesian law. An EIA done seven yearsago was invalid due to social andenvironmental changes in the area, known asToka Tindung.

The first that most local peopleknew of the revision of the EIA was anannouncement in a local newspaper on 16thJune giving the general public 30 days torespond to the study.The 'public consultation'required under the EIA regulations was heldby the mining company on July 4th inAirmadidi, but only selected pro-miningcommunity leaders were invited to attend.This biased process prompted protests byalmost 100 members of the coastal peoplesalliance AMMALTA, who prevented the hand-picked panel from entering the consultation.The efforts by the mining company tomanipulate the legally required process werethen exposed in the local Manado media.

North Sulawesi's governor stronglyopposes the MSM mine and has written tothe mining minister in Jakarta demanding thatconstruction is suspended until the companyhas an approved EIA. Despite this and stronglocal resistance, MSM has continuedconstruction and is bringing in heavy

machinery as well parts of the processingplant.

The position of the head of NorthMinahasa district, Vonny Panambunan, is lessclear. Her office was therefore one of thelocations of a peaceful mass demonstrationorganised by AMMALTA on July 13th,involving more than 3,200 participants fromcoastal communities. They demanded thatpoliticians stand with their constituencyagainst the mine that endangers theirlivelihoods, or otherwise step down fromoffice. The protest started at the BitungMayor's office, proceeded via the districtcapital, Airmadidi, to Manado, the provincialcapital. The protest was widely reported bythe Indonesian media.

One reason for popular oppositionto the project is the plan to dispose of tailings(mine waste) into the sea, which brings therisk of effects on human health andenvironmental contamination due to heavymetals and other chemicals contained in the

Community struggle against gold mine plans

Plans for a new gold mine on the northern tip of North Sulawesi are going ahead in the face ofdetermined opposition from local communities.

No. 70 August 2006

office: 59 Athenlay Rd, London SE15 3EN, England, email: [email protected] tel/fax: +44 16977 46266 website:http://dte.gn.apc.org

Our new report on pulp industry developments in South Kalimantan is out now! See page 10 for details

Inside...Mining:

No Newmont clean-up for Buyat BayRio Tinto in Sulawesi nickel project

Indigenous peoples:Declaration breakthroughIFI standards fail on indigenous rights

Indigenous peoples / forests:A portrait of indigenous forest management in Sungai Utik

Forests:Forest policy and the resources crisis

Java earthquake:Fifty-nine seconds in a 5.9 Richterscale earthquake

34

56

8

9

12

Indigenous forest management - page 8

Brutal attack by pro-company thugs

Participants in a peaceful protest involving3,200 people from two regencies in NorthSulawesi opposed to the Toka Tindung GoldMining project were attacked on July 13thby a group known as Alliance Pro Investor(AMPI) which had previously expressedtheir support for the mining project. In theattack, professional thugs believed to beacting in cooperation with mining companyworkers ambushed the protestors, whowere travelling home along a dark stretchof road. They bombarded the anti-mineprotesters with rocks, then moved in andbeat them with iron bars and wooden clubsstudded with nails. In total 54 people wereinjured including a pregnant woman whosubsequently suffered a miscarriage. Sevenothers were also seriously injured, sufferinghead and eye wounds requiring medicaltreatment.

The attacking group is believed tohave a close relationship with gold miningcompany PT Meares Soputan Mining. Policecollected evidence and reports on theidentity of the attackers in the AMPI group,and subsequently detained three suspectsfor questioning, including one manunderstood to be a worker at the mineproject.

2

DOWN TO EARTH No. 70,August 2006

tailings. The controversial method ofsubmarine waste disposal is only used inIndonesia and Papua New Guinea, and is atthe centre of the conflict between Buyat Bayvillagers and US company Newmont (seepage 3).

The Toka Tindung mining planthreatens the livelihoods of thousands offishing families in the province and also theprovincial government's income from thefishery sector, which amounts to an estimatedIDR 500 to 900 billion per year1. Localbusinesses are not supporting the plan either."I understand the necessity for business in theregion, but this is a get-rich-quick scheme, andthe environmental assessments for this mineare woefully inadequate”, chairman of NorthSulawesi's Chamber of Commerce, DinoVega, is reported as saying. "Unfortunately, themining concession was granted under aformer regime. We are hoping that we canalert the wider world to this environmentaldisaster in the making," he said.The provincialNorth Sulawesi Water sports Association(NSWA) that represents investors in thetourism sector also strongly opposes themining project which they fear will have adevastating effect on the flourishing localtourism industry.

International conservationorganisation WWF is concerned that, inaddition to polluting local waters, tailingsfrom the MSM mine will threaten LembehStrait - the world-renowned dive area - andBunaken National Marine Park. Oceancurrents could drag waste toward towardsthe reefs surrounding nearby small islands,which contain a greater diversity of coralspecies than Australia's Great Barrier Reef.

Managing director of Archipelago,Australian businessman Colin Loosemore,told the British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph,that the mine would operate tointernationally recognised environmentalstandards. "We are complying fully with localregulatory practices," he said. "Our minetailings will be in the form of finely groundrock, which will be deposited in a submarinetrench on the other side of Sulawesi (fromBunaken) between 1,000 and 2,000 metresdeep, where they will sink."

Not only is this statementgeographically inaccurate, but evidence fromthe Newmont Minahasa gold mine - also inNorth Sulawesi - shows that strong oceancurrents, tropical storms and a tectonicallyunstable sea bed will cause tailings dumped inthe sea to pollute surface waters and themarine food chain instead of remaining inerton the deep ocean floor.

The local communities aredesperate to save their environment and wayof life. So far, they have funded all theirlobbying themselves through theirorganisation,AMMALTA (The Alliance AgainstMining Waste), even though its members aremainly ordinary farmers and fisherfolk (see

DTE 68:8-9 for a report on a lobbying visit toJakarta).This part of North Sulawesi is closerto the Philippines than to Jakarta, so it isexpensive for them to get to decision-makersin the capital. It is also difficult to organisediscussions, planning meetings and protestswhen people live in dozens of small, dispersedcommunities and have to work long hours tomaintain their livelihoods.

Nevertheless, AMMALTA heldpeaceful protests in Manado, Tomohon andthe Toka Tindung area on June 5th

(Environment Day) and again on July 4th andJuly 13th with hundreds of people fromvillages surrounding the mine gathered ineach location to draw attention to their case.

(Source: Daily Telegraph 6/May/06; informationfrom AMMALTA and local NGOs)

Note:1. North Sulawesi Central Bureau of

Statistics.

Protests against MSM, North Sulawesi (AMMALTA)

How you can help:AMMALTA has established an excellent website at http://www.save-lembeh.infoincluding action alerts. DTE suggests people write to the following Indonesianauthorities in support of local people's demands to stop the MSM mine goingahead:

1. Minister of Environment, Rahmat Witoelar Office: Jl. D.I. Panjaitan, Kebon Nanas, Jakarta 13410Fax : +62 21 8580101Email : [email protected], [email protected]

2. Minister of Energy and Mining, Purnomo YusgiantoroFax : +62 21 8297642,Email : [email protected], Info [email protected]

3. Minister of Marine and FisheryFax : +62 21 3522059, +62 21 3004304034Email: [email protected] [email protected]

4. Minister of Tourism and CultureSapta Pesona BuildingJl. Medan Merdeka Barat No. 17Jakarta 10110Tel. +62 21 383 8167Fax. +62 21 384 9715

3


No Newmont clean-up for Buyat BayReclamation activities in Sulawesi by Newmont Minahasa Raya, the gold mining company majority-owned by

US-based Newmont Mining Corp, are not dealing with the huge amounts of waste dumped in the sea.

Newmont Minahasa Raya (PT NMR) claims tohave completed 70% of its reclamation planfor the 200 hectare gold mine at Ratatotok inNorth Sulawesi.The US-owned company aimsto dismantle the processing unit and otherinstallations by September and to have closedthe mine completely by the end of the year.

The 'reclamation' consists oflandscaping the site, replanting it and puttingin drainage channels and dams. A team madeup of staff from the local governmentforestry, environment and mining officesmakes three-monthly inspections to checkthat the work is done in accordance withinstructions from the Energy and MineralResources department in Jakarta in 2002.

NMR's publicity manager told localjournalists that NMR had spent US$15 millionon mine reclamation so far. He did notmention that NMR has no plans to restorethe marine environment in Buyat Bay wherethe company dumped some 5.5 milliontonnes of heavy metal contaminated miningwaste during its 8 years of operations.

Evidence gathered by Indonesianenvironmental groups and the Indonesiangovernment show that the STD disposalmethod is the cause of increased levels ofheavy metals in marine sediments. Localpeople have complained of health problemssuch as skin complaints and loss of livelihoodsdue to fish kills since the gold mine startedoperations in 1996. The company hasemployed experts to refute these claims.

As DTE went to press, theIndonesian government was sure it would winits case against NMR for polluting Buyat Bayin the Manado criminal court. NMR'spresident director, Richard Ness faces apossible 15 year jail sentence if found guilty."We're not thinking of what we should do ifwe lose the case. We're confident that wehave enough evidence to prove the companyis harming the environment," saidenvironment ministry spokesman Hoetomo.

The environment ministry has notexplained why it agreed to a US$30 millionout-of-court settlement to end a similar caseagainst Newmont in the civil court in January2006.

(Sources: Republika 19/Jun/06; Jakarta Post5/Jul/06)

New lives for BuyatBay familiesIn March, DTE interviewed Ibu Surtini, whohad relocated from Buyat Bay.

Families who moved from BuyatBay to escape the impacts of the NMR goldmine have celebrated their first year in theirnew location.

Seventy families relocated to thevillage of Dumina Nga, some 300 km to thewest of Ratatotok towards Gorontalo, on 25June 2005. Many were suffering from a rangeof health problems attributed to pollutionfrom the mining waste. Another 18 familieswho were not ill decided to remain in BuyatBay.

"When we first arrived, many of uswere ill.We had terrible headaches, itchy skin- all kinds of problems, but now we are muchhealthier. Some people, like me were taking 8tablets a day for the first three months butnow we don't need to. Yes, we get theoccasional illness, but that's normal - not likebefore," said Ibu Surtini from Buyat.

A number of agencies, including thenational environmental NGO WALHI, haveraised funds to buy land for a new settlement

in Bolaang Uki sub-district. The area looksvery similar to their old home as it is on thecoast where mountains come down to thesea.The potential for fishing is good and theland is suitable for farming. The governmenthad tried to make the community movefurther east to Biniha, but they were reluctantas the land was not good.

So far only 20 houses have beenbuilt. These are simple, 5m x 6mconstructions with a concrete floor, woodenwalls and thatched roofs, each set on a smallplot of land in blocks of ten. To avoid anyresentment, the families draw lots to decidewho will get a new house and who will stay inthe barracks until there is enough funding tobuild more.

Electricity is supplied by agenerator at night and a large river from themountainside provides clean water fordrinking, washing and domestic needs.

The local community welcomed thepeople from Buyat and has given themsupport during their first year.They providedaccommodation in their own homes for thefirst week, supply them with staple foods likeyams and bananas and have been teachingthem how to farm. The Buyat communityused to live mainly by fishing and havebrought their boats with them along thecoast. But fishing depends on a detailedunderstanding of local currents, fishpopulations and the marine environment,built up over years of experience, so theycannot yet depend solely on their old way oflife.

The Buyat people are now learningto grow nutmeg, cloves, cocoa, beans, pepperand chillies, in addition to the yams, bananas,maize and coconuts which used to be theironly crops. Several of the women are earningmoney to buy rice and other basiccommodities by harvesting chillies and othercrops for the villagers until their own land issufficiently productive.

"We are still finding out how tomake a living in this new place," Ibu Surtinitold DTE. "But it's better to be healthy, evenif life is hard.We could earn more money inBuyat, but we were always ill there.All four ofmy children are much healthier.The oldest aregoing to school here and they are even talkingwith a local accent!" she laughed.

Individuals or agencies interested infunding more homes for the Buyatcommunity should contact the Manado-basedenvironment NGO, KELOLA:[email protected].

Ibu Surtini from Buyat (DTE)

4


Rio Tinto in new Sulawesi nickel projectA dramatic rise in the price of nickel is prompting the development of a major new nickel mine in Sulawesi.

What will be the impacts for local people and their environment?

The Indonesian government and Anglo-Australian mining multinational Rio Tinto arenegotiating the terms of a contract to developthe La Sampala nickel deposit on the bordersof Southeast and Central Sulawesi. Spokesmanfor Rio Tinto in Indonesia,Anang R Noor, saidthe company plans to invest US$1 billion inthe project. Exploration is due to continueand a feasibility study to be carried out oncethe contract is signed.

With this new investment, thecompany is expected to produce 46,000tonnes of nickel (over 101 million pounds)and employ around 5,000 workers, accordingto Rio Tinto's chief executive for copper andexploration,Tom Albanese.

La Sampala, according to theIndonesian news agency Antara, contains twolaterite nickel deposits covering more than 60square kilometres.

Indonesia's president SusiloBambang Yudohoyono has endorsed theproject, saying it would create employment,economic activity and would give Indonesia'added value' - a reference to the fact that theproject may help attract other investors intothe country.

Rio Tinto stands to make largeprofits from this venture: nickel prices havequadrupled since 2001 largely due to demandfrom Chinese steelmakers. The company'sown profits have increase eightfold in fiveyears.

The contract, which is expected tobe awarded in September this year, willrequire Rio Tinto not to sell the mine beforethe production stage has been reached,according to Mangantar S Marpaung, an officialat the Ministry of Energy and MineralResources. He said the government's royaltywould be 3% of sales. However, an official atIndonesia's Investment Coordinating Board,Muhammad Lufti, said Jakarta was promisingtax breaks and ‘smooth sailing’ through thebureaucracy to encourage Rio Tinto to invest.In June, after meeting Rio Tinto executives, hesaid the deal was 80% complete and his officewas working on sweeteners in the form of taxincentives.

The La Sampala deposit wasidentified by Rio Tinto as a project with'development potential' as early as 2000. Thecompany was issued with a licence for surveypreparations in Southeast Sulawesi the yearbefore (see DTE 43:11). In its 2002 AnnualReview, Rio Tinto reported that La Sampala'spotential nickel laterite resources amounted

to more than 370 million tonnes of materialcontaining 1.3 per cent nickel and 0.1 per centcobalt. An 'order of magnitude' survey, toassess how much nickel can be produced, wascompleted in 2005.

Poor recordWhat can communities living around the LaSampala concession expect from thisdevelopment? The company's poor record onenvironment and human rights in Indonesiaand globally offers a bleak prospect.

Rio Tinto is well known in Indonesiafor its involvement in the West Papuan goldand copper mine operated by Freeport - aproject associated with decades of serioussocial and environmental impacts, plus humanrights atrocities committed by military guards(see DTE 69 for recent reports).The companyalso runs the Kelian gold mine in EastKalimantan, now in the closure process.This isanother project which has been associatedwith forced relocation of local people, humanrights abuses and pollution.The company wasjoint partner with BP in the giant Kaltim Primacoal mine, East Kalimantan, before this wassold off to Indonesian interests. Kaltim Primawas associated with environmentaldegradation and labour disputes. A CentralSulawesi gold mining concession held by RioTinto (Poboya), for which the company deniesany immediate plans, has met with stiffresistance from local people (see DTE 57:3and 56:14 for background.)

Existing nickel mining operations inSulawesi hardly offer any moreencouragement: Decades of mining at PT IncoIndonesia's Soroako mine in South Sulawesihave brought hardship to local people throughland loss, inadequate or non-existentcompensation, pollution and environmentaldamage. Additional exploration in parts ofneighbouring Central Sulawesi threatens todisadvantage local communities there. (SeeDTE 67, Nov/05 for more background.)

Weda Bay nickel project soldto French companyA French mining firm, Eranet SA has said it willinvest US$1.5 billion in a nickel and cobaltmining project on Halmahera Island, NorthMaluku. Eranet took over Canadian companyWeda Bay Minerals in May this year. NGOshave protested against the company's plans todump waste from the project into the sea -the much-condemned method used byNewmont in its North Sulawesi and SumbawaIsland gold and copper operations.

BHP-Billiton's Gag Islandnickel development on holdA huge nickel mining project on Gag Island, offWest Papua is still on hold. Australian-UKmultinational BHP-Billiton Gag Island told theSydney Morning Herald in April "We continueto consult with the local community, localgovernment and our Indonesian partner asthese studies progress…As we have saidpreviously, we will not use deep sea tailingplacement and we will not proceed with anydevelopment on Gag Island if it is gazetted asa world heritage area." (SMH 1/Apr/06).

Both the Gag Island and Weda Baynickel projects were effectively excluded frommining in protected forests, according to anIndonesian Constitutional Court decision lastyear (see DTE 66:14).

(Sources: Jakarta Post 20/Jun/06; Reuters20/June/06; Bloomberg via Joyo Indonesia News7/Apr/06; AFX News Ltd 20/Jun/06; Antara5/Jul/06; Rio Tinto Annual Reports onwww.riotinto.com)

Note: the Indonesian version of Rio Tinto'sstatement of business practice, The Way WeWork (Cara Kita Bekerja) is on the company'swebsite athttp://www.riotinto.com/library/reports/PDFs/corpPub_BusPract_Indonesia.pdf

5


Indigenous groups hail declarationbreakthrough

Indigenous peoples have warmly welcomed the adoption by the newly-established United Nations Human RightsCouncil of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

indigenous peoples

The Declaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples, which will now be forwarded to theUN General Assembly for approval beforethe end of the year, was adopted on June29th, with 30 members in favour, two againstand twelve abstentions. The Declaration iswidely viewed as an important tool toeliminate human rights violations against over347 million indigenous people worldwide aswell as gain recognition and protection fortheir rights.

Such tools are desperately neededin countries like Indonesia, where indigenouspeoples have been marginalised for decadesby top-down development, and resourceexploitation schemes which have adevastating impact on their lives.

Victoria Corpuz, chair of the UN'sPermanent Forum on Indigenous Issues,described the adoption of the Declaration asa "momentous occasion". In a statement forthe Indigenous Peoples' Caucus, theindigenous grouping which helped draft thedeclaration, she said:

"One of the most important outcomes has beenthat throughout all of our expressions, sometimesin our own languages, we have succeeded ineducating the international community about thestatus, rights and lives of Indigenous peoples inevery corner of world…The true legacy of theDeclaration will be the way in which we, theIndigenous peoples of the world, in partnershipwith states, breathe life into these words......The real test will be how this will affect the livesof our people on a daily basis."

(Indigenous Peoples' Caucus Closing Statement, 29 June, 2006)

The Declaration, which took eleven years tonegotiate, sets a new standard for indigenouspeoples' rights.These include:

the right to the full enjoyment, as acollective or as individuals, of all humanrights and fundamental freedoms asrecognized in the Charter of the UnitedNations, the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights and international humanrights law.the right to be free from any kind ofdiscrimination.the right of self-determination and, by

virtue of that right "they freelydetermine, their political status and freelypursue their economic, social andcultural development".the right to autonomy or self-government in internal and local affairs.the right to the lands, territories andresources which they have traditionallyowned, occupied or used.the right to redress for the lands,territories and resources which theyhave traditionally owned or otherwiseoccupied or used, and which have beentaken or damaged without their free,prior and informed consent.the right not to be subjected to forcedassimilation or destruction of theirculture.the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affecttheir rights, through representativeschosen by themselves in accordance withtheir own procedures, as well as tomaintain and develop their ownindigenous decision-making institutions.

Under the Declaration, indigenous people arenot to be forcibly removed from their landsor territories and there is to be no relocation

without their free, prior and informedconsent and after agreement on just and faircompensation and, where possible, with theoption of return.

The Declaration contains a series ofmeasures for states, including the obligationto:

obtain indigenous peoples' free, prior andinformed consent before adopting andimplementing laws or administrativemeasures that may affect them.take measures, in conjunction withindigenous peoples, to ensure thatindigenous women and children enjoy thefull protection and guarantees against allforms of violence and discrimination.give legal recognition and protection toindigenous lands and resources with duerespect the customs, traditions and landtenure systems of the indigenous peoplesconcerned.undertake effective consultations with theindigenous peoples concerned, throughappropriate procedures and through theirrepresentative institutions, prior to usingtheir lands or territories for militaryactivities.in consultation and cooperation withindigenous peoples, to take theappropriate measures, includinglegislative measures, to achieve the endsof the Declaration.

In their pre- or post-vote statements, severalCouncil members 'clarified' their position oncertain elements of the Declaration, reflectingthe difficulties during the long draftingprocess. Among the most problematic werethe issues of self-determination and collectiverights. Several states, including the UK andGermany, observed that the Declaration wasnot legally-binding, and interpreted the rightof self-determination as one to be exercisedwithin the territory of a state, without impacton the state's territorial integrity. The UKreiterated that it did not accept the conceptof collective rights under international law - aposition that has long been strongly criticisedby indigenous groups and NGOs. Japan'srepresentative also stated that it did notrecognise collective rights.

Indigenous women at AMAN Congress (DTE)

6


Indonesia's representative, GustiAgung Wesaka Puja, said his country hadfollowed the negotiations closely over thepast 11 years and supported the adoption ofthe declaration. He added that Indonesia wasa multicultural nation that did notdiscriminate against its population on anygrounds. This view is not shared byIndonesia's indigenous peoples' alliance,AMAN, which says the majority of indigenouspeoples in Indonesia are still living in povertyand suffering from human rights violationsbecause their rights to land and naturalresources have not been recognised. In a jointstatement issued a day before the Council'svote, AMAN and the environmental group,WALHI, criticised Indonesia's lack of supportfor the Declaration and urged the Indonesianmember to support its adoption.AMAN andWALHI also called for Indonesia to makepolitical steps to "respect, fulfil andacknowledge the existence and rights ofindigenous peoples in Indonesia."

(Sources:AMAN & WALHI Press Release28/Jun/06; Indigenous Peoples' Caucus ClosingStatement 29/Jun/06;http://www.iwgia.org/sw248.asp; HumanRights Council Press Release 29/Jun/06, viaAMAN.)

IFI standards failon indigenousrightsNGOs and indigenous peoples have called forgreater attention to be paid to the impacts oflending by international financial institutions(IFIs) on indigenous rights. They want IFIs -including multilateral banks like the WorldBank and Asian Development Bank, as well asUN funds, bilateral donor agencies andprivate commercial banks - to recognise thefundamental importance of respectingindigenous peoples' rights to lands, territoriesand resources and to free, prior and informedconsent in their development-relatedactivities.

A statement by UK-based NGO,Forest Peoples Programme (FPP), andindigenous organisations to the May 2006session of the UN Permanent Forum onIndigenous Issues highlighted the fact that IFIprojects and sectoral loans often have seriousnegative impacts, which are not necessarilyavoided simply because IFIs have policies onindigenous peoples1.

A number of IFIs have recentlyrevised or are currently updating theirsafeguard policies, including the World Bank,the Asian and Inter-American DevelopmentBanks and the IFC (see below). Most of these,says the statement, fall below internationalhuman rights standards applying to

indigenous peoples, while certain loans,particularly technical assistance, sectoral andstructural adjustment loans, have no specificguarantees applicable to indigenous peoples.Some institutions, including the GlobalEnvironmental Facility, most bilateral donorsand export credit agencies, and a number oflarge commercial banks, have no formal policyon indigenous peoples whatsoever.

The FPP and indigenous groupswho submitted the statement believe thatindigenous peoples and the PermanentForum - an advisory body to the UN, set upin 2002 at the instigation of indigenouspeoples organisations - should activelyparticipate in the revisions of these IFIpolicies to ensure they are consistent withindigenous rights.

IFC new safeguards critiquedOne institution that has completed its policyrevision is the International FinanceCorporation (IFC), the World Bank Group'sprivate sector lending arm, which providesbusinesses with loans, equity, investmentservices and technical assistance.The IFC hascommitted financing of $2.6 billion to 81projects in Indonesia since 1968, includinginvestments in oil palm plantations - a sectorwhich is notorious for violating indigenouspeoples' rights and destroying forests.

The IFC's new policy on Social andEnvironmental Sustainability, plus eight newperformance standards - including one onindigenous peoples - was approved by theWorld Bank Group's Board in February thisyear. An initial assessment by FPP has pointed

Indonesia was elected to sit on the UN'snew Human Rights Council along withother members in May this year.TheCouncil, which replaces the UN HumanRights Commission in Geneva, has seats for47 of the UN's 191 member states. Unlikethe Commission, the Council meetsthroughout the year and has its membershiprestricted to countries that "abide by thehighest human rights standards". Indonesiawas one of 11 Asian nations officially listedas candidates for the Council's membership.

In addition to the Declaration on the Rightsof Indigenous Peoples, the Council alsoadopted the International Convention forthe Protection of All Persons from EnforcedDisappearances.

In his statement to the final session of theHuman Rights Commission, Indonesia'sAmbassador to the UN in Geneva, MakarimWibisono expressed his hopes that the newCouncil would not engage in the"politicisation, selectivity and doublestandards" of which the Commission hadbeen accused.

Indonesia could itself be accused of doublestandards. Last year, it opposed SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan's proposal to establishthe Council.Also, at international level,Indonesia pledges support to the work ofthe Office of the High Commissioner forHuman Rights. However, Indonesia told theOHCHR to wind up its mission in Jakartalast year and has not extended any furtherinvitation.

In comparison to other Asian candidates,Indonesia submitted the most elaborateplan of actions to be undertaken at nationaland international level. Nevertheless,Indonesia suffers from serious credibilitycrisis because of the systemic impunity

provided to the security forces, especially inarmed conflict situations.

Amnesty International has launched a newwebsite listing the human rights records ofall candidates to the UN Council.TheIndonesia page draws attention to reportsof arbitrary arrests, unlawful killings, tortureand ill-treatment in West Papua and the factthat independent human rights monitoringthere is hampered by tight restrictions onaccess to the region by foreign journalistsand other international human rightsmonitors, as well as by harassment andintimidation of local activists.

It also points out that:

"Members of the police have used excessiveforce on various occasions, including againstdemonstrators and detainees. In September2005, 37 people were wounded when thepolice shot into a crowd of around 700 peasantfarmers in Tanak Awuk, Lombok Island.Thegathering was organized to commemorateNational Peasants' Day and to discuss landissues.The police said they were responding topeople attacking them." (http://www.amnesty.org/un_hrc/indonesia.h

tml)

(Sources: Indonesia's permanent mission toGeneva:http://www.mission-indonesia.org/modules/news.php?lang=en&newsid=47 Asian Centre for Human Rightshttp://www.achrweb.org/Review/2006/123-06.htmUN News service, 29/Jun/06)

The Human Rights Council website is at:

http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/

Indonesia and the Human Rights Council

7


to some potentially positive elements, butalso to serious flaws in the standards - both intheir content and the rushed process fordeveloping and adopting them.

Potentially positive elementsinclude a safeguard for 'high risk' projectslocated on indigenous lands or using theirresources, which indirectly establishes thatthe IFC will not fund projects wherenegotiations with affected indigenous peoplesdo not end in agreement. There is also anindirect safeguard against forced relocationbecause 'good faith' negotiations must besuccessfully concluded before any physical oreconomic displacement of indigenous peoplestakes place. In addition, IFC clients mustrelease annual implementation reports to thepublic.

However, FPP has also identified aweakening of standards in several instancesand found that concerns raised aboutloopholes in the policies have not beenadequately addressed. The weaknesses

include a lack of commitment in theperformance standards to upholdinternational law, including human rights lawin IFC investments and operations; the failureto adequately recognise the acceptedinternational standard of Free Prior andInformed Consent for IFC-financed plans,decisions or activities that may affectindigenous peoples; dropping the exclusion ofindustrial logging operations in tropical moistforests from IFC finance; and a failure toinclude human rights impact assessments aspart of the social and environmentalassessment process.

The new IFC standards areparticularly important because they have asignificant knock-on effect beyond the IFC.They are expected be adopted by around 40large commercial banks that have signed up tothe 'Equator Principles'2.These banks providean estimated 80% (US$125 billion) of privatesector international project finance. Theyinclude banks with a history of investment in

Indonesia, such as ABN-AMRO, Rabobank(Netherlands), Fortis (Netherlands/Belgium);HSBC, Barclays (UK), Citigroup, and JPMorgan (US).

Notes1.The statement was submitted by the Forest

Peoples Programme, Foundation forAboriginal and Islander Research ActionAboriginal Corporation, Na Koa Ikaika o KaLahui Hawaii, Saami Council and TebtebbaFoundation. The full version is athttp://www.forestpeoples.org/documents/law_hr/pfii_fpp_statement_may06_eng.pdf

2. See www.equator-principles.com

(Source: A brief and preliminary assessment ofthe IFC's new safeguard policy framework, FPP,3/May/06 athttp://www.forestpeoples.org/documents/ifi_igo/ifc_safegd_fpp_brief_may06_eng.shtml)

payable if the rules are violated.Kampong Endor Kerja: A production forest

area managed in a just and sustainable way.Trees with a diameter over 30cm may betaken.The forest also serves as a source ofseedlings.

Developing customary forestmanagement initiativesA range of external pressures is threateningthe Sungai Utik community's forests. Theseinclude illegal logging, financed by Malaysianentrepreneurs from across the border, and oilpalm plantations planned under theIndonesian-Malaysian border mega-project.These have the potential to devastate thepeople of Sungai Utik's forests and livelihoods.

In response, the Iban community inSungai Utik, together with several local groups(PPSHK, LBBT, Pancur Kasih) have developedvarious initiatives and alternatives to defendthe forests. The synergy developed betweenlocal groups working in Sungai Utik has had apositive impact on the Iban Dayak community.The initiatives developed in Sungai Utik withthese supporting groups include:· A credit union (CU) developed withPancur Kasih to strengthen the local economyand reduce internal pressures on thecustomary forests;

An initiative developed with LBBT to buildand strengthen the political position of theSungai Utik Iban community. A study toidentify their customary/ancestral rights(hak ulayat) has been done. This hasprovided material for drafting a Perda(local government regulation) whichrecognises the existence of the Sungai Utikcommunity and their customary area. (The

Perda has not yet been passed.)Several years ago, PPSHK Kalbar started aforest resources management activitytogether with the Sungai Utik community.This began with participative communitymapping of the customary area, areaplanning and the development of afurniture-making business. The idea is tocapture more of the profit for thecommunity.The Sungai Utik community, together withAMAN and PPSHK Kalbar, are trying towiden the scope of benefits - not onlypolitical and economic, but also ecologicalbenefits and skills in aspects of forest

management - by combining principles ofconservation with a community logginginitiative.This initiative requires high qualitynatural/forest resources, indigenouscommunities who have maintained theirforest resources management valuesoriented towards conservation, plus thepotential and capacity of supportingorganisations. By the end of thiscommunity logging project, hopefully theproduction model of community-basedforest management applied in Sungai Utikwill be recognised by the market throughthe Indonesia Ecolabeling Institute's forestmanagement certification scheme.

Umai and Kampong Endor Kerja areas, Sungai Utik (DTE)

(continued from page 8)

8


A portrait of indigenous forest management in Sungai Utik

The following is adapted from an article by Yuyun Indradi which first appeared in Forest Watch Indonesia'spublication Intip Hutan in February 2006 and was written after a visit to this West Kalimantan indigenous

community in May 2005

indigenous peoples / forests

Getting thereVisiting Sungai Utik is an unforgettableexperience.The journey is not easy and needsa lot of stamina. It is a rough ride, whetheryou travel by air, land or river. I was fortunatein taking the easy route: a two-hour plane tripfrom Pontianak to Putu Sibau, followed by 3-4 hours by road from Putu Sibau to SungaiUtik. Going overland can take two days; goingvia the Kapuas River can take as long as aweek by boat. Back on land after the flight, thesight of tropical rainforest on either side ofthe road offered calm and comfort, althoughit was sad to see occasional piles of logs byroadside, which had been confiscated underthe government's anti-illegal loggingoperations.We were relieved when the heavydownpour of rain didn't last long enough toaffect the road. We reached Sungai Utiktowards early evening.The first thing we sawwas an impressive long house (rumah panjae)and several dump trucks, excavators andbulldozers parked alongside it.

The general pictureSungai Utik is in the administrative area ofEmbaloh Hulu subdistrict, Kapuas Huludistrict, West Kalimantan province. To thenorth, Sungai Utik borders directly withSarawak; to the east is East Kalimantanprovince and to the west is Sintang district.

In indigenous terms, Sungai Utikbelongs to the Jalai Lintang customary area(Ketemenggungan), along with four otherareas, Kulan, Ungak,Apan and Sungai Tebelian.The majority of the inhabitants are IbanDayaks. Most Iban in Jalai Lintang make a livingas farmers, both from dry-field (umai pantai)and wet-rice (umai payak) farming. Theymaintain customary rituals connected to therelationships between people (birth,marriage, death) as well as the relationshipbetween people and nature.This relationshipwith nature is vital as it forms the basis ofIban management and use of naturalresources to sustain their lives.

Natural resourcesmanagement in the SungaiUtik Indigenous areaThe Iban of Sungai Utik have followed rulesfor managing their customary (adat) area, andhave managed and benefited from theirnatural resources for generations. Thecommunity divides the area into 15 allocationand management categories as follows:

1. Rumah Panjae: The residential area2. Taba': Area allocated/chosen as the

location for the rumah panjae3. Temawai: Former location of a rumah

panjae or hut (langkau)4. Damun: A former field. There are several

types of damun, based on appearance andhow long the field has been left.Ownership is individual and it may bebequeathed

5. Tanah Mali: Forest area which may not be

opened for fields. Nothing in this area maybe harvested or taken. Usually this area isused as a place for slaughteringchickens/pigs for funeral ceremonies.

6. Kampong Puang: land/forest ownedcollectively by the Iban Dayak community.

7. Pendam: an area reserved as afuneral/burial ground.

8. Penganyut Aek: area allocated and managedas a source of water. Usually located alonga river. Usually also used for transport.

9. Pulau: an area of forest reserved for itsspecial qualities. Includes fruit, honeytrees, timber and so on. Ownership statusmay be individual or collective.

10.Hutan Simpan: customary forest areaprotected as a reserve, no fields may beopened. Ownership is collective.

11.Redas: area allocated for growingvegetables.

12.Tapang Manye: Honey tree (the personwho finds the tree owns it and maybequeath it)

13.Tanah Kerapa: Wetland or swamp area,usually allocated as wet fields.

14.Tanah Endor Nampok: sacred area formeditation.

15.Umai: allocated for dry-field farming,usually called umai pantai.

Types of customary forest Their customary forest is of the utmostimportance to the Iban of Sungai Utik. Theyhave developed the system of zoningcustomary forests to maintain the balance inthe relationship between people and natureand to safeguard the sustainable benefits.There are three types of forest area underthe Sungai Utik Iban system:

Kampong Taroh: a forest area that may not beused for fields or collecting/cutting timber.Kampong taroh are protected forests,aimed at protecting the water supply andthe breeding of wildlife. Kampong Taroh areusually in upriver areas.

Kampong Galao: a forest reserve, wheremedicinal plants, firewood and timber formaking sampan boats may be collected.Forest exploitation is highly restricted andis closely controlled. Customary fines are

Honey tree, Sungai Utik (DTE)

(continued on page 7)

Indonesian forest policydevelopment: a chronic andacute diseaseThere have been a lot of policy developmentsin natural resources management during thepast few years. The forestry sector has beenespecially busy, with developments includingGovernment Regulation No. 34/2002 onForestry and the Formulation of Plans on theManagement, Exploitation and Use of ForestLands; Government Regulation No. 35/2002on the Reforestation Fund; revisions to LawNo. 41 on Forestry and the Draft Law on theEradication of Criminal Acts of Illegal Tree-Felling In Forests (better known as the DraftLaw on Illegal Logging). These two lastinitiatives are part of the Indonesianparliament's 2004-2009 National LegislationProgramme.

However, the many changes toforestry sector legislation do not address thedeeper paradigm shift that is needed. Instead,these regulations and laws retain a narrowfocus and a short-term orientation.

Concern about the uncertainfuture of Indonesia's forests is justified. Thehigh deforestation rate (3.2 million hectares ayear), over-capacity in the wood industries,weak law enforcement, policy distortion,corruption and conflict paint a bleak portraitof forest management in Indonesia. Thevarious measures aimed at addressing theproblems merely respond to superficialissues, without reaching the root of forestryproblems. Forestry policies are like medicineswhich deal with the symptoms, not thedisease.

The Draft Illegal LoggingLaw: painkiller for theforestry sectorThe Draft Law on Illegal Logging is anexample of how the government (forestrydepartment) reacts to the symptoms ofdisease in Indonesian forest management,without addressing the root of the problems.It is true that illegal logging causes losses to

the state and threatens the forests, but thequestion is how did this happen and how didit get so bad? The drafters of the IllegalLogging Law failed to take into accountconflicts over tenure in forest areas, as if allforests in Indonesia belonged to the state.They gave no clear indication of what is andwhat isn't legally produced. Implicitly, thelegality of forest products, according to thedraft law, is determined by the national'positive law' arrangements for forests, whichregard them as state forests, not encumberedby conflicts over tenure. This, of course,means that indigenous communities' rights totheir forests are not recognised and that theiruse of the forests according to customary lawbecome a soft target of this law. The samegoes for local communities living in forestareas claimed as state forests.

Forestry Law No.41, passed in1999, acknowledges the existence of forestssubject to rights/proprietary forests (HutanHak/Milik), customary forests (Hutan Adat)1

and state forests (Hutan Negara). In fact, only15% of the total state forests claimed havebeen gazetted2, meaning that thegovernment's claim over state forests is only15% valid. At the same time, customaryforests are treated as practically non-existentbecause they overlap with areas claimed asstate forests.This situation, plus the fact thatthe drafters of the Illegal Logging Law denythat there is conflict over tenure, is bound tolead to yet more conflict.And it is the forest-dependent communities living in and aroundforests who will suffer the most.

Another implication of the draft lawis that a large number of loggers will bearrested in the effort to enforce it. If eachcase of a person suspected of illegally loggingis brought to court, and each court sessionrequires an ad hoc panel of judges (one ofwhom must come from a forestrybackground) just imagine the difficulties andinefficiencies in the legal system, proceduresand process that will result.

The draft Illegal Logging Lawversus the Legality StandardAs mentioned before, a major flaw in theDraft Illegal Logging Law is the failure to setout clearly the difference between legal andillegal. Whereas a whole series of acts aregrouped as ‘illegal’, there is no clear referenceto what is considered legal under this law.TheLegality Standard3, which does define what islegal, ought to be completed first. Having noclear definition is very dangerous. Again, it islike treating the symptoms while ignoring thedisease.

Moreover, the public consultationon the Draft Illegal Logging Law wasinadequate. People who will feel its impact -communities living in and around forests,especially those in areas where there areconflicts over tenure - were not asked theiropinion.The public consultation was only heldin several large towns such as Jakarta, Jambi,Makasar, Pontianak and Jayapura. Was this atrue and legitimate representation of publicopinion?

Put simply, unless the mainproblems in forestry are addressed, anyinitiative will have the potential to create newconflicts.Those drafting the illegal logging laware over-simplifying the problems.

According a decree issued 5 yearsago by the People's Consultative Assembly(Indonesia's highest legislative body) - TAPMPR IX/2001 - there should be an overhaulof all legislation related to natural resourcesmanagement, including a requirement to bringall sectoral laws in line with the decree4.Thisis still needed to assess whether the paradigmof all laws and draft laws is still appropriatewith the situation today.

Indonesia's natural resourcesmanagement crisisIn recent weeks, the headlines have been fullof floods and landslides in Kalimantan andSulawesi and, on the other hand, droughts,dried-up reservoirs and failed harvests invarious parts of Sumatra, Java and East Nusa


9

Forest policy and Indonesia's naturalresources crisis: a view from Jakarta

This article is based on an interview with Andiko, Coordinator of the Legal Reform Programme of HuMA, theAssociation for Community and Ecology-Based Legal Reform, in Jakarta. Andiko is actively involved in various legal

reform discussions and campaigns on natural resources management. HuMA supports Indonesia's indigenouspeoples and their struggle for the recognition of their rights.

forests

Tenggara. Meanwhile, the hot mud flowdisaster in East Java caused by human error ata gas drilling well, is getting newspaper and TVcoverage, and the issue of human rightsviolations associated with natural resourcemanagement is being widely reported.

These are signals that naturalresources management is in a criticalcondition and show just how urgently policiesand laws governing natural resources need tobe overhauled. While the laws are reviewedand in order to maintain legal certainty fornatural resources management, interimlegislation needs to be created for thetransition period. The Perpu (GovernmentRegulation In Lieu of a Law, designed for usein a national crisis or emergency) is amechanism that could be brought in duringthis transition. However, the Perpu has notalways been used properly, with 'crisis'conditions often translated unilaterally by thegovernment. This happened in the case ofPerpu No 1/2004 on Changes to Law No.41on Forestry, which legitimised the opening ofprotected areas to mining. By contrast, aseries of natural disasters (due tomismanagement) and destruction caused byresources exploitation is not considered anational emergency.

It is evident from Indonesia'sdegraded resources, disasters and conflicts,that natural resource management is in astate of dire emergency, but not everyonewants to pay proper attention to this, least ofall the government. Even the intelligentsia arenot doing much to raise awareness of thisissue.

It is the people who suffer theimpacts themselves who must take action and

speak out, and civil society ought to be morefocused on strengthening communities atgrass roots level. On the other hand, incampaigns work there needs to be a greaterfocus on decision-makers, in the Indonesianparliament, for instance. If these efforts don'tget the results, we may need to makeimprovements in how we work, how weassess target groups and where we put ourenergies. Consistency is extremely important- in focusing on the target, and continuouslyevaluating our achievements.

For campaigning NGOs,determination is not enough: we need tokeep expanding our capacity so that we canspeak and debate eloquently and withconviction. Many NGO ideas do reach awider audience so its necessary to move onfrom just playing a watchdog role to offeringpositive ideas for changes.

HuMA's approachHuMA works with partners in the field tounderstand what is going on on the groundand to find alternative solutions. If this alsorelates to policy, then the changesrecommended must be based on the needs ofthe affected community.HuMA is beginning todevelop campaign activities and build dialoguedirectly with parliament. HuMA tries tomaximise its work in certain areas: currentactivities include documenting the practicesof adat (customary) justice; documenting localregulations (Perda) relating to protection andrecognition of indigenous peoples; adat lawand adat areas; carrying out and compilingresearch on the implementation (and thepractice of distorting) Law No. 41 on

Forestry to support the case for revising thislaw; and supporting community efforts todraft village regulations (Perdes) on naturalresources management.

Although the prospects for naturalresource management are far from brightand there will be more conflicts in future,there is some hope because there are stillpeople who are endeavouring to make thingsbetter (including people in the governmentand in national and regional parliaments).Information about natural resources andenvironmental destruction and the role of themedia is vitally important to educate thepublic and raise awareness. At the same time,rescue attempts, however small, andcampaigns which reach key policy-makersdirectly also have a wide impact, if these aredone in a sustained manner.

Notes:1. There has still been no clarification of the

terms Hutan Adat (customary forest) andHak Ulayat (customary right/ right ofusufruct) in Forestry Law No. 41 because therequired government regulations have notyet been issued.

2. Gazetted means the forests are classified,their boundaries surveyed, agreedinterdepartmentally, and then officiallyregistered as state forests

3. This was drafted as part of the follow-up tothe 2002 MoU to combat illegal logging andthe illegal timber trade, signed by theIndonesian and British governments - seeDTE 67:13.

4. See DTE 52 and 57 for more background toTAP MPR IX/2001.

10


New DTE publication:

Tidak ada Chip Milltanpa Kayu

No Wood Chip MillWithout WoodAn in-depth report on pulp and chip milldevelopments in South Kalimantan andthe web of international investors,financiers, consultants, suppliers andpurchasers surrounding them.

The report (Indonesian and Englishversions) will be posted on our website.Printed copies will be sent to DTE’smailing list. Electronic PDF copies will beavailable free of charge.

Contact [email protected] fordetails.

homes and psychological rehabilitation. A 24-month reconstruction strategy aims torestore all economic, transportation,telecommunications, social and culturalservices and institutions.

The most urgent thing for people inthe region is to move out of their tents byOctober when the rainy seasons starts. Bantulis planning to build 300,000 houses costingRp1.2 trillion (around US$120 million),although the local authorities only have about20-25% of the money needed.

The government is trying topromote earthquake resistant housing. Slemandistrict, for example, has built 100 modelearthquake-resistant houses in Prambanansubdistrict.Woven bamboo is the first choicefor semi-permanent housing, because it'scomparatively cheap and more quake-proofthan other building materials.

Nevertheless, the cost of bamboopanels, as well as other building materials likesand and bricks, is rocketing due to the post-quake demand, mostly from aid agencies.There is also concern about the sustainability

of supplies: will bamboo stands in the regionbe exploited out of existence if bamboobecomes the construction material of choice?

Now, almost two months havepassed. One thing that has united peopleduring this time is the feeling of sharedsuffering. For example, when there is aproblem with living cost assistance, they agreeto share the money received with people whohaven't received any due to inaccurate datacollection. They do whatever needs to bedone, like clearing away the debris of theirhomes, and try to rebuild them according totheir capabilities, with everyone helping out.The work of NGOs and the government hasbeen rather ineffective, so people wouldrather be self-reliant than depend on outsidehelp.

SUARA's website is at:www.suarakorbanbencana.org

Correction to DTE 69On page 19, we mistakenly referred to the UKminister for international development, as EliotMorley.The correct name is Gareth Thomas,


Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugeesof 1966, which underline the responsibility ofstates to guarantee the basic needs and thehuman dignity needs of disaster victims.

The same goes for planning. Onemonth after the disaster, local andinternational NGOs and aid agencies are stillwaiting for the government to give them aclear picture of its rehabilitation andreconstruction plans.There are no groundrules on which organisations can base theirwork. If things go on like this, learning fromthe disaster management experience in Acehand Nias, the same negative social, economicand cultural impacts could well happen inYogya and Central Java.

Therefore, Forum SUARA is urgingthe government to:1. Draft a master plan as soon as possible

for the rehabilitation and reconstructionof Yogya and Central Java, whichaccommodates local people's participationand knowledge;

2. Give accurate and responsible informationand carry out disaster mitigationeducation in areas that are stillexperiencing aftershocks and in areaswhere environmental conditions havechanged or other natural events havehappened which are causing local peopleconcern;

3. Guarantee that people's basic needs arefulfilled, including in remote areas orwhere there are food shortages;

4. Guarantee that the various rights ofvulnerable groups are fulfilled: babies andchildren; the elderly, women, sick anddisabled people.

Since this press release was published, it isstill hard to say that the government hasstarted being more efficient. But governmentand non government organisations (local,national and international) are at leastmeeting each other to identify and fill thegaps in their work.

Disaster funds transparencyNational Coordinating Agency for NaturalDisaster and Refugees Relief (Bakornas PBP)has published a summary of central funds inlocal and national newspapers. This is apositive move - and unprecedented. At leastwe can see how much money is being handledby the central government for the yogya andCentral Java disaster.

Generally, there are two sources offunds for disaster management: state budgetfunds (APBN) and non-budget funds. Thestate budget funds can be used as and whenrequired, needing only a phone call from thevice-president ('on call budget'). These statebudget funds have been disbursed in twotranches of Rp 50 billion each.

Non-budget funds have come infrom the Chinese embassy, UNESCAP in

Bangkok, Thailand and the Indonesianembassy in PhnomPenh, Korea InternationalCooperation, Hongkong Care and theIndonesian embassy in Turkey. The totalamount of non-budget funds stood at over Rp23.5 billion by June 22 (Kompas 24/Jun/06).

These cash funds are being used tocover living costs for people whose homeshave been damaged, and operational costs.Living costs are Rp 90,000 per person permonth. According to official figures, thisassistance has been distributed to 810,225people in Jojga (5 districts), and 441,631

people in Central Java. Operational costs are4% of the total, according to the summary offunding published.

At provincial level, around Rp33billion is being handled by the Yogyakartaprovincial government in the form of foodand other goods to be distributed.Unfortunately, no provincial summary hasbeen made available, so it is harder to trackhow the aid money is being spent here.

Other questions remainunanswered too. According to Bakornas onJune 30th, the government decided to spend75% of the total funds allocated for coveringliving costs for Yogyakarta and Central Javasurvivors.There has been no information onthe deadline for disbursing the rest of thefunds.

Data collection and damageverification Distributing aid does help people who reallyneed it. But, according to Findings, one monthafter the quake, by the Institute forDevelopment and Economic Analysis (IdeaYogya), there have been a range of problemsin the process of distributing this living costassistance.The problems stem from a lack ofaccuracy in the basic data which determinehow aid is targeted. Data collection has beenvery limited and confusing, resulting in many

people not receiving living cost assistancebecause they have not been counted.

The data collection has not beencarried out by the officials who weresupposed to do it. Instead there has been atendency to pass this matter to the peoplethemselves, with no guidance, and call it 'self-assessment'.As a result, the distribution of aidto cover living costs is different from one areato another.According to the mechanism used,living cost assistance is allocated on a houseby house basis, at the same time as damageverification. If the damage is less than 25%, or

the house is still fit to live in, no living costassistance is payable. In practice, datacollection is being left to the peoplethemselves, who do this by filling in a form,which they find confusing and leads toinaccuracies. Damage verification is beingdone by village heads and community leaders,meaning that houses are being categoriseddifferently from one area to the next. Manypeople feel that this is unfair and there aremany who believe they deserve the living costassistance, but aren’t receiving any.

Reconstruction plansBy early July, reconstruction plans finallystarted to take shape. The emergencyresponse period officially ended on July 3rd -earlier than planned because the governmentconsidered that people affected by thedisaster had reached a minimal survival level.

A 'Post Yogyakarta and Central JavaEarthquake Rehabilitation andReconstruction Team' was established undera Presidential decree signed on July 3rd tocoordinate planning, implementation andevaluation of the rehabilitation andreconstruction work. District-level planninghas started. In Bantul district, for example, a12 month rehabilitation plan will focus onrestoring minimum public services, basic andeconomic infrastructure, reconstructing


11

New house built of bamboo panels (Ima Susilowati)



DOWN TO EARTH is the newsletter of the International Campaign for Ecological Justice in Indonesia. If you want to receive the newsletter on a regular basis, please fill out the form provided.We would welcome information about your work in the field of environment and development in Indonesia.

Name.................................................................Organisation...................................................................................................................Address................................................................................................................................................

The subscription is £10 a year for institutions and those organisations or individuals who can afford it. Please add equivalent of £1.50 if paying with non sterling cheque. Please make cheques payable to Down to Earth and send to Down to Earth, 59 Athenlay Road, London SE15 3EN, UK. Email: [email protected] tel/fax: +44 16977 46266

Down to Earth is a project of the Asia-Pacific Peoples' Environment Network c/o SAM, 27 Lorong Maktab, 10250 Penang, Malaysia

DOWN TO EARTH No.70,August 2006

The thundering filling my ears early on May27th is still fresh in my memory. The noisemade me think of the dustbin lorry whichregularly collects the rubbish. Why is it soearly (it was around 5 to six in the morning)and why is it making such a thundering noise,I asked myself.The next moment, before therewas time to answer, a terrifying jolting mademe stagger. At that moment I knew it wasn'tthe dustbin lorry. EARTHQUAKE! I got out ofthe house as fast as I could after picking upmy child, who was still asleep.

I had never felt such an extremeshaking before.The house felt like it was beingrocked violently from side to side. And ifanyone asks me what is the most memorableexperience of my life, I'll say: fifty-nine secondsin a 5.9 Richter scale earthquake.

I only found out the scale ofdamage later when the electricity came backon and we could watch the news on TV. Ihadn't imagined that the earthquake I'dexperienced could kill thousands of peopleand destroy hundreds of thousands of homes.The official World Health Organisationreport stated that 6,487 people died, 96,000were injured, and between 200,000 and650,000 people were made homeless.

Since then the earthquake has filledour conversations and discussions.

SolidarityIt appears that the Yogyakarta earthquake wasfairly 'eyecatching'. People - from localcommunities living nearby, to theinternational community - respondedimmediately by sending donations andoffering solidarity. The government instatedan emergency response period of threemonths.

Two days after the disaster, I gotinvolved in emergency response work as avolunteer in an NGO in Yogyakarta. I helped

package the aid (food and nutrition, sanitarygoods, tents, etc.) and helped distribute it topeople in the Yogyakarta area.

One month after the earthquake,Forum Suara - a forum to coordinate 26 civilsociety organisations set up two days afterthe quake - issued the following press releaseon the government's handling of theemergency so far.

Non-existent management: the governmentmust explain its rehabilitation andreconstruction plansThirty days have passed since theearthquake that devastated Yogya and parts

of Central Java, but life for the survivors isstill uncertain. In many places food suppliesare running low and many people's right totemporary shelter is not being fulfilled.Theyare being forced to sleep in the open air orcrowded altogether in the emergency centretents. SUARA has observed that manydamaged areas have still only receivedminimal amounts of assistance...

...There has been a hugemobilisation of solidarity and assistance frompeople inside and outside Indonesia and it'sfair to say that the rescue efforts in Yogyaand Klaten have stemmed from publicsolidarity thus far. However, because of thelack of coordination and clear control fromthe government, this assistance has beendistributed without any guarantee offairness. Government aid, which survivorswere counting on, still hasn't materialisedtoday.The local government and centralgovernments appear to be waiting for eachother and are giving the impression thatthey are trying to avoid responsibility formeeting survivors' need for basic suppliesand for dignity.

People have not been giveninformation about the aftershocks or othernatural post-quake events, but are left to findout for themselves.The areas of Imogiri andPundong, for example, are hearing boomingsounds and feeling tremors coming fromunderground. In Gedangsari, there is a crackin Bukit Linduk, hundreds of metres long, asfar as the hills near from Patuk subdistrict.Local people have fled their homes.

These realities clearly conflict withthe basic principles and minimum standardsfor disaster management as set out in theInternational Covenant on Economic, Socialand Cultural Rights of 1966, the Covenanton the Status of Refugees of 1951 and the

Devastation in Java (Ima Susilowati)

Fifty-nine seconds in a 5.9 Richter scale earthquake

The following report from Yogyakarta, by Ima Susilowati, starts with a personal account of the events early on May 27th 2006, then moves on to a critique of the government's emergency response

from an NGO worker's perspective.


email: [email protected] tel/fax: website: ... fileMeares Soputan Mining (MSM) began construction in...

Documents

Transcript of email: [email protected] tel/fax: website: ... fileMeares Soputan Mining (MSM) began construction in...