Buyat case: Economic growth versus environment<\/p>\n
Todung Mulya Lubis, Jakarta<\/p>\n
The Buyat Bay case reflects the never ending tension between
\nthe concept of economic growth on the one hand and that of
\nenvironmental management on the other. This is a classical
\ntension that can never be satisfactorily resolved, although
\npeople have, on many occasions, talked about the concept of
\nsustainable development, which is, in essence, the blend of
\neconomic growth and environmental management.<\/p>\n
It must be admitted, however, that this concept of sustainable
\ndevelopment is yet to be fully accepted on the ground.
\nOperational interpretation of this concept is always in conflict
\nwith reality, which is, unfortunately, not always in tune with
\nthe concept of sustainable development. This is particularly so
\nin developing countries engaged in the pursuit of high rates of
\neconomic growth, though eventually at the expense of
\nenvironmental management.<\/p>\n
The ratification of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No.
\nI\/2004, for example, allows mining in protected forests. The
\nIndonesian government argued that it feared it would be sued in
\nan international court of arbitration if it prevented mining
\ncompanies from pursuing their operations in protected forests.
\nAlthough, obviously, the concept of economic growth played a
\ndominant role in all of this.<\/p>\n
In favor of and in the name of foreign investment, which will
\nbring in capital and foreign exchange, the government gave
\npermits to mining projects in protected forests even though they
\nviolated the prevailing laws.<\/p>\n
The Buyat Bay case shows that the pendulum has swung toward
\nenvironmental management, as evident from the conclusion that the
\npolice have arrived at to the effect that Buyat Bay, as a number
\nof environmental organizations have alleged, has been
\ncontaminated.<\/p>\n
This alleged contamination by PT Newmont Minahasa Raya has
\nbeen blown up in such a way by the media so that this
\ncontamination, if it is true, has become the sole responsibility
\nof PT Newmont Minahasa Raya.<\/p>\n
In fact, there are also illegal miners with little awareness
\nof the environment operating in this area. I am not saying that
\nthese illegal miners are responsible for the contamination of the
\nbay but it is only fair, I think, if we carefully calculate the
\ncontribution of all parties involved in this contamination case.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, reports about the contamination of Buyat Bay,
\nparticularly after the release of a report compiled by a
\ntechnical team from the Office of the State Minister for the
\nEnvironment, has directly implicated PT Newmont Minahasa Raya as
\nthe culprit in this contamination.<\/p>\n
It is only proper, therefore, that the government, despite
\nthe fact that it will still have to verify this allegation by
\ninvolving many of its agencies, should file a lawsuit against PT
\nNewmont Minahasa Raya. Such a lawsuit is a logical next step that
\nmust be pursued. This case, clearly, should not be given room for
\nan out-of-court settlement.<\/p>\n
I believe that taking the Buyat Bay case to court is a sound
\ndevelopment. We need a court ruling that will truly be the fruit
\nof a smart, careful and fervent legal fight. With the support of
\nstrong and accountable scientific and theoretical evidence, the
\ngovernment must present to the court this environmental
\ncontamination.<\/p>\n
The published findings of the technical team about the
\ncontamination of Buyat Bay must be put to the test during the
\ntrial. The government has the burden of proof and it is here that
\nthis legal fight is expected to provide us with a standard
\nreference for future environmental cases.<\/p>\n
It is also required of PT Newmont Minahasa Raya that it should
\ncounter the government's burden of proof and put up a legal
\ndefense against all charges.<\/p>\n
Various studies conducted by the World Health Organization
\nand the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization
\nalso need the support of smart scientific evidence. It is during
\nthe legal fight in the court of law that \"truth\" will be put to
\nthe test, of course with reference to the prevailing
\ninternational standards and jurisprudence. In this context, this
\nlegal fight should open up all avenues for proving the case,
\nincluding summoning experts from home and abroad.<\/p>\n
Arguments of the broadest scope possible must be allowed and
\nconstraints based on technical and procedural grounds must not be
\nallowed to emerge.<\/p>\n
These constraints could include, for example, the refusal to
\nhear statements from foreign experts or to accept and consider
\naffidavits. I suggest that in the court proceedings, all such
\nconstraints be removed.<\/p>\n
If the two parties can fight it out in the court of law by
\nexerting their best and with great fervor, and if the judges can
\nsmartly learn from this case, we can remove the perplexity on the
\npart of the public, who seem to fail to understand the
\ngovernment's lack of firmness in its attitude and its wavering
\nstance.<\/p>\n
Just take a look at what the Office of the State Minister for
\nthe Environment did with the release of two different reports on
\nthe same case. Was the environmental contamination standard
\nadopted by the former state minister different from those of the
\nnew state minister?<\/p>\n
Look at the conflicting statements several ministers made
\nbefore the technical team released its report. Look at the
\ncritical note on the report given by one government agency. It
\nsounds like dissenting opinions. All this simply proves that the
\nfight is still far from over for us in our formulation of
\npolicies on environmental affairs.<\/p>\n
It is only proper that all parties involved should restrain
\nthemselves and refrain from politicizing the Buyat Bay case. Let
\nthe judges make their ruling and let the parties involved and
\ntheir lawyers fight with great fervor. Only then may we hope to
\nsee a court ruling that will serve as a standard reference for
\nsolving environmental problems in future.<\/p>\n
There may be some conventional wisdom that will ease the
\nclassical tension between economic growth and environmental
\nmanagement. Perhaps there will be a better and more definitive
\nunderstanding about what is called sustainable development, a
\nconcept allowing room for all parties -- the government,
\nbusinesspeople, civil society and the public -- to grow together
\nin peace.<\/p>\n
The writer is a partner at Lubis, Santosa & Maulana
\nlaw firm<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/buyat-case-economic-growth-versus-environment-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}