Controversial mining regulation may be rejected by House<\/p>\n
Rendi A. Witular, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Most legislators deliberating a controversial government
\nregulation in lieu of law on mining expressed their opposition on
\nWednesday to a provision in the regulation that allows 13 mining
\nfirms to resume their operations in protected forests.<\/p>\n
Herman Widyananda, the chairman of the House of
\nRepresentatives' special committee assigned to deliberate the
\nregulation, said that although it was not yet final, most of the
\ncommittee members were determined to reject it.<\/p>\n
\"Most of the team members are likely to annul the regulation
\nas we suspect there may have been some irregularities involved
\ngiven that it was issued in a hurry when the House was in
\nrecess,\" said Herman after a meeting with Minister of Forestry M.
\nPrakosa and Minister of the Environment Nabiel Makarim.<\/p>\n
The House special committee deliberating the regulation
\nconsists of legislators from Commission VIII on energy and
\nCommission III on forestry and agriculture. The approval of the
\nHouse is needed in order for the regulation to take binding
\neffect.<\/p>\n
The government issued the regulation in March, and it allows
\nopen-pit mining in protected forests as long as the mining
\ncompanies had signed contracts with the government prior to the
\nenactment of Law No. 41\/1999 on forestry, which prohibits open-
\npit mining in protected forests.<\/p>\n
The regulation was issued to provide an immediate solution to
\na dispute between the government and several mining firms whose
\noperations had to be halted following the enactment of Law No.
\n41\/1999. The dispute had been going on for more than two years.<\/p>\n
To follow up on the implementation of the regulation, the
\ngovernment issued Decree No. 41\/2004 in May to allow 13 mining
\nfirms to operate in protected forests.<\/p>\n
Herman, who is from the Golkar Party, said that if the
\nregulation was revoked, the country should be ready to face the
\nlegal repercussions as the result of the filing of claims by the
\n13 firms in international arbitration courts.<\/p>\n
\"According to one study, we would have to pay US$22.7 billion
\nif we lose these cases. This amount, however, is nothing compared
\nto the losses that would result from the destruction of our
\nvirgin forests in the future,\" he said.<\/p>\n
The House is expected to give its final say on the regulation
\non July 15, just one day before it goes into recess.<\/p>\n
Aside from questioning the impact of the mining operations on
\nthe surrounding environment, the legislators also questioned the
\nprocess of selecting the 13 firms, which they said was not
\ntransparent.<\/p>\n
\"We have not received satisfactory answers from either Prakosa
\nor Nabiel regarding transparency during the selection of the
\ncompanies. Prakosa seemed to be trying to avoid answering our
\nquestions,\" said Herman.<\/p>\n
Another team member, Tari Siwi Utami of the National Awakening
\nParty (PKB), said some of the 13 firms were not among the list of
\n22 mining companies previously proposed by the government for the
\nreceipt of licenses to operate in protected forests.<\/p>\n
\"Some of the 13 companies are not among the 22 qualified firms
\nthat it was previously proposed would get licenses. We feel there
\nis a lack of transparency here,\" said Tari to Prakosa during the
\nhearing.<\/p>\n
Prakosa readily admitted that the 13 firms had been selected
\nas they had a \"serious intention and major potential to take
\ntheir cases to international arbitration, while the other firms
\nwere not that serious.\"<\/p>\n
Eyebox for mining<\/p>\n
;JP;REN;
\nANPAf..r..
\nForestry-mining-eyebox
\nJP\/ \/<\/p>\n
Concessions of the 13 mining companies<\/p>\n
Name Area Concession<\/p>\n
1. Freeport Indonesia Mimika, Papua 10,000 ha<\/p>\n
Freeport Indonesia Puncak Jayawijaya, Papua 202,380 ha<\/p>\n
2. Karimun Granit Riau 2,761 ha<\/p>\n
3. INCO Sulawesi (North Luwu, Kolaka, Kendari,<\/p>\n
Morowali 218,828 ha<\/p>\n
4. Indominco Mandiri East Kutai, E. Kalimantan 25,121 ha<\/p>\n
5. Aneka Tambang North Maluku 39,040 ha<\/p>\n
6. Natarang Mining Lampung 12,790 ha<\/p>\n
7. Nusa Halmahera Mineral North Maluku 29,622 ha<\/p>\n
8. Pelsart Tambang Kencana South Kalimantan 201,000 ha<\/p>\n
9. Interex Sacra Raya East Kalimantan, South<\/p>\n
Kalimantan 15,860 ha<\/p>\n
10. Weda Bay Nickel Central Halmahera,<\/p>\n
North Maluku 76,280 ha<\/p>\n
11. Gag Nikel Sorong, Papua 13,130 ha<\/p>\n
12. Sorikmas Mining North Sumatra 66,200 ha<\/p>\n
13. Aneka Tambang Kendari, Southeast Sulawesi 14,570 ha<\/p>\n
Source: Ministry of Forestry<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/controversial-mining-regulation-may-be-rejected-by-house-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }