Australian hypocrisy over mining in RI forests<\/p>\n
Igor O'Neill, Mineral Policy Institute, Sydney<\/p>\n
Much is at stake in the debate underway in the House of
\nRepresentatives over plans to permit mining in Indonesia's
\nconservation areas. Twenty-two mining companies have applied for
\nexemptions to Forestry Law 41\/1999 which prohibits open-pit
\nmining in protected forest areas. At threat is not only the
\nenvironment but also the freedom of Indonesia's democratic
\nprocesses from international intervention.<\/p>\n
This weekend, legislators of the Commission III, among others
\nin charge of forestry, and Commission VIII, among others in
\ncharge of mining, have recently made lightning visits to 15 of
\nthe mine sites at which the Ministry of Energy and Mineral
\nResources is recommending they revoke protected forest status.
\nIndonesian environment commentators warn that these visits will
\nnot yield a balanced perspective, since the organization and
\nlogistics of the trip are being left in the hands of the
\npetitioning mining companies, with no community involvement.<\/p>\n
This debate is framed by several facts, highlighted by various
\nreports issued by the Indonesian government, the World Bank and
\nenvironmental non-government organizations: Indonesia's forests
\nand coral reefs are in crisis, both are disappearing at an
\nunprecedented rate. The water catchments are in crisis, plagued
\nby pollution and catastrophic flooding. Finally, the eastern
\nprovinces are seriously lagging behind in terms of infrastructure
\ndevelopment and economic opportunities.<\/p>\n
The Australian government has been lobbying for over a year,
\nbehind the scenes, to undermine existing environmental
\nprotections at several sites in Eastern Indonesia. This lobbying
\nonly came to light after the Australian Minister for Foreign
\nAffairs, Alexander Downer, was called to account by an Australian
\nGreens Senator.<\/p>\n
Parliamentary questions revealed extensive lobbying of
\nIndonesian officials by Australian Embassy staff in Jakarta,
\nincluding the Ambassador, at the behest of Australian mining
\ncompanies. Downer's answers revealed that mining giants BHP
\nBilliton, Newcrest, Placer Dome, and Rio Tinto specifically
\nrequested, and received, lobbying assistance from the Australian
\nEmbassy on the matter of mining in protected areas.<\/p>\n
Australian embassy officials on nine occasions pressed
\nIndonesian parliamentarians, officials, including the Ministers
\nand Departments for Economic Affairs, Mining, Forestry and
\nEnvironment to drop the ban on mining in protected areas.<\/p>\n
Australians have a high level of concern for the environment
\nand firmly choose to keep Australian protected areas protected
\ninstead of mining them. The several environmental projects
\nfunded by AUSAID are an appropriate reflection of this widely
\nheld Australian public position. The jarring note struck by pro-
\nmining, anti-environment lobbying by Australian Embassy officials
\nin Indonesia therefore constitutes significant conflict in policy
\naims, and worst of all, a betrayal of Australian public
\nsentiments.<\/p>\n
Central to Australian lobbying is the dubious claim that some
\nof the protected areas are \"not forested\" or are not of high
\nquality or biodiversity value. The Australian claims are
\nunsupported by documented independent investigations but in any
\ncase ignore key functions of protected forest areas.<\/p>\n
Under the Forestry Law of 1999, a protected forest is defined
\nas an area with the purpose of protecting livelihoods and ecology
\nincluding through flood mitigation, controlling erosion,
\ninhibiting the intrusion of saltwater, and maintaining soil
\nfertility, are all lifesaving functions. Accordingly, these are
\namongst the criteria which Indonesian Department of Forestry
\nstaff used to complete a reassessment of 22 protected forest
\nareas in which mining is being pushed.<\/p>\n
So who are these powerful interests, influential enough to
\ndemand the Australian government lobby on their behalf, and
\npowerful enough to override opposition from the Environment
\nDepartment and scientific reports carried out by the Department
\nof Forestry? What of their policies and track record on
\nenvironment protection?<\/p>\n
Just to the north of Indonesia, Placer mining company's
\nMarcopper mine suffered a massive mine waste spill, filling the
\nBoac River on the island of Marinduque with 3 million to 4
\nmillion tons of metal enriched and acid generating mine waste. In
\nDecember 2001, Placer suddenly pulled out of the Philippines
\naltogether, abandoning its commitments to clean up the Boac River
\nand to compensate villagers affected by the 1996 mine waste spill
\ndisaster.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, just across the border into Papua New Guinea, BHP-
\nBilliton and Placer Dome have each built a giant gold\/copper
\nmine, OK Tedi and Porgera respectively. These two operations dump
\nover a hundred thousand tons of mine waste into the Fly River
\nsystem daily.<\/p>\n
The result of waste dumping from the Ok Tedi mine is an
\necological and human disaster which will last for generations;
\naccording to BHP-Billiton's own studies, the Ok Tedi\/Fly River
\nfishery is destroyed and indigenous people's forests, food
\ngardens and sago are smothered under a blanket of waste
\nstretching inland for hundreds of kilometers along the river.<\/p>\n
Like Placer in the Philippines, BHP cut and run in the wake of
\nthe Ok Tedi disaster, entirely abandoning Papua New Guinea. But
\nhave these two companies really learnt their lesson? In Eastern
\nIndonesia BHP-Billiton has begun work on a huge nickel mine on
\nGag Island in Papua province, now a protected forest area, and
\napparently plans to dump a staggering volume of mine sludge
\n(\"tailings\") directly into the ocean via the controversial
\nSubmarine Tailings Disposal method.<\/p>\n
Likewise, Placer Dome plans to dig an open cut gold mine in a
\nprotected forest area in South Kalimantan's Meratus Mountains,
\ndespite official statements of opposition from local indigenous
\npeople's organizations.<\/p>\n
The difference between Rio Tinto's operations in Australia and
\nIndonesia clearly demonstrate a double standard. Rio Tinto's
\nJabiluka uranium mine project is located in the middle of World
\nHeritage listed Kakadu National Park in northern Australia. The
\nproposed mining at Jabiluka is resisted by the indigenous
\nlandowners and opposed by the majority of Australians. In an
\nencouraging response to this opposition, Rio Tinto recently
\nannounced that they will not develop the mine in the foreseeable
\nfuture.<\/p>\n
But crossing over to Eastern Indonesia, there is no such
\nreticence from Rio Tinto, who holds mining leases over two
\nprotected areas, the Palu gold prospect in Poboya Great Forest
\nPark and a sizeable share in Freeport's mining lease over Lorenz
\nNational Park. Like Kakadu National Park, Lorenz National Park is
\na rare World Heritage-listed property. And just like
\nJabiluka\/Kakadu, the Palu\/Poboya mine is opposed by local
\nindigenous peoples.<\/p>\n
It seems Rio Tinto operates according to one ethical and
\nenvironmental standard for Australia, and a different, much
\npoorer, standard in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
Several thousands of people have sent cards expressing their
\nsupport for the existing forest protection law. Will the House of
\nRepresentatives stand firm in the face of powerful threats and
\nenticements brought to bear by mining industry lobbyists,
\nincluding the Australian Embassy?<\/p>\n
The writer also works with the Indonesian Environmental Forum
\n(Walhi).<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/australian-hypocrisy-over-mining-in-ri-forests-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}