Are there lessons to learn from Buyat?<\/p>\n
Harry Bhaskara
\nBuyat\/Manado\/North Sulawesi<\/p>\n
It's a classic case. A multinational company is operating in a
\nregion and the local people feel alienated. It's frequently
\nhappened in various parts of the country, from Indonesia's
\neasternmost province of Papua to the westernmost province of
\nAceh. This time around, it's happening in North Sulawesi with the
\nPT Newmont Minahasa Raya gold mining company in the spotlight.<\/p>\n
A subsidiary of U.S.-based Newmont Mining Corporation, the
\nyear-long controversy revolves around alleged pollution in Buyat
\nBay where villagers are said to have shown symptoms of skin
\ndiseases, nausea, and tumor-like lumps.<\/p>\n
Newmont, which occupied half a million hectares of production
\nforest in South Minahasa regency, has extracted 62.6 tons of gold
\nover eight years. It ceased operations on schedule last August.<\/p>\n
Its high profile dwarfs the 300-odd impoverished Buyat
\nvillagers who are the alleged victims of pollution. Any conflict
\nwould conjure up a David-Goliath fight. But the villagers are not
\nalone.<\/p>\n
Last September, police detained five Newmont executives for a
\nmonth. The government is suing the company for alleged pollution.
\nLast week, the government said it was ready to seek an out-of-
\ncourt settlement.<\/p>\n
Early this month, a seminar organized by University of Sam
\nRatulangi in Manado, concluded that there was no pollution in the
\nbay. Student activists refuted the conclusions, saying the
\nseminar was held in collusion with Newmont, who was among the
\nsponsors of the seminar.<\/p>\n
Civic groups charge that Newmont had dumped 5.5 million tons
\nof mercury- and arsenic-laden waste into the bay during the 8-
\nyear period of its operation. Newmont has denied the charges but
\nadmitted releasing 17 tons of waste mercury into the air and 16
\ntons into the water over five years, an amount it says is far
\nbelow Indonesia's emission standards.<\/p>\n
Government offices and academics have given conflicting
\nreports on the alleged pollution. In a situation like this,
\nconfusion reigns. A fisherman in Buyat Bay says: \"We, the
\nunschooled, do not know anything about the pollution. We just eat
\nthe fish, as long as we don't get sick.\" This only shows the
\nvulnerability of the fishermen there.<\/p>\n
Newmont, which obtained a permit in 1986 to operate the mine,
\nis now caught in a new political setting. Unlike the 1980s, the
\ngovernment today does not have the luxury to stifle protest like
\nthe New Order regime used to do.<\/p>\n
The Buyat case hit the headlines as environmental activists,
\nacademics, the villagers, the media, the bureaucracy and the
\nmining company find themselves capable of airing their views in a
\nnew democratic environment. The result has been a confusing
\npicture of a case that has baffled the public, and perhaps even
\nthe stakeholders, who are not used to such a crossfire of views.
\nYet, this is common in a democracy.<\/p>\n
When the case is put to rest in the future, some aspects will
\nlikely remain unclear judging from the complex nature of a
\npollution case. All stakeholders have a steep learning curve in
\nthis new political setting. And as mining is an important
\nindustry, it is imperative that its activities are done in such a
\nway that are acceptable to the stakeholders. To accomplish this,
\nsound communication is a prerequisite.<\/p>\n
Several things need clarification. Newmont is the first mining
\ncompany to use the submarine tailings disposal method in
\nIndonesia. The method is not allowed in many countries such as
\nthe United States, Canada or Australia.<\/p>\n
The government needs to tell the public about its decision to
\nallow Newmont to use the method. Is it because of differences in
\nsoil characteristics between Indonesia and those countries where
\nthe method is banned? Or is it because the government is so
\ndesperate to get investment that it compromises its own people?
\nOr is it because the required environmental assessment (Amdal)
\nissued by the New Order government was defective?<\/p>\n
Other companies lining up to use the method include
\nAustralia's Asia Pacific\/BHP in Papua, Canada's Weda Bay Nikel
\nand Ingold in Maluku, Australia's PT Meares Soputan mining in
\nNorth Sulawesi, PT Jember Metal and Banyuwangi Minerals in East
\nJava. The government should really consider the long-time impacts
\nof this method.<\/p>\n
It is also unclear why such a mineral-rich province like North
\nSulawesi still has about ten percent of its total population of
\nabout two million living below the poverty line. Mining first
\nbegan in the province in the 19th century.<\/p>\n
When a multinational company operates in a region, its funding
\noffered to the region is often mindboggling. It is not a good
\ngovernment practice but it is a reality. To cite Newmont, such
\nfunding should have been able to improve the standard of living
\nof the people. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be the case.<\/p>\n
David Sompie, a former Newmont's external manager, once told
\nthis paper that the company had contributed direct and indirect
\nbenefits to Indonesia to the tune of US$561 million since 1994.<\/p>\n
In 2000, Newmont provided $1.5 million for the Minahasa Raya
\nFoundation. The fund is supposed to be perpetual, meaning the
\nfoundation was only allowed to use the interest on the principal
\namount for the benefit of people in Minahasa Selatan. The $1.5
\nmillion fund itself was to remain in tact.<\/p>\n
It is tempting to ask, where has all the money gone? How could
\nvillagers like those in Buyat live in poverty?<\/p>\n
Wherever the case takes us, whether an in-court or out-of-
\ncourt settlement, it is pertinent to address the sufferings of
\nBuyat villagers. A highly commended visit by local government
\nofficials and local legislators was made to Buyat village last
\nThursday to listen to what the people want to do. At the very
\nleast, it must be ensured that the villagers live in peace. The
\ncontroversy has left them deeply divided, and an open conflict
\namong villagers is the last thing we want.<\/p>\n
In retrospect, the Buyat case came to the fore for the first
\ntime during the 1999 election year, only to subside and resurge
\nin the 2004 election year. Next month is the start of local
\nelections in North Sulawesi. The authorities should be wary about
\nunscrupulous politicians who may seek to exploit the case for
\ntheir short-term political interests.<\/p>\n
If the lesson is not learned, other Buyat cases will recur and
\nthe common people will fall victim. Too many interests are at
\nplay in Buyat, and a multi-tiered approach should be employed to
\nsolve the problems there.<\/p>\n
The author is a staff writer of The Jakarta Post.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/are-there-lessons-to-learn-from-buyat-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }