RI's river-cleaning program loses momentum<\/p>\n
By Jaseenthaa D'silva<\/p>\n
AMSTERDAM (JP): Indonesia's many rivers have long served as a
\nsource of water for the population. But they now carry an
\nadditional dangerous cargo: pollution. The uncontrolled dumping
\nof dangerous chemicals by industrial firms along with the
\nextensive use of rivers for domestic purposes have turned the
\ncountry's traditional sources of water into a national problem.
\nThe extent of the pollution is so damaging that some river
\nstretches are deemed to be biologically dead because no natural
\npetrification can occur any more.<\/p>\n
In 1989, government authorities responded by launching the
\nClean River Program, Prokasih, the first of its kind in the
\ncountry. The program was based on the recognition that surface
\nwater, especially from rivers, is the principal source of water
\nfor social and economic activities in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
Initiated as a \"crash program\", the principal objectives of
\nProkasih were to decrease the volume of pollution being
\ndischarged into waterways and to improve the overall quality of
\nwater in Indonesia's rivers. The scheme prioritized 14 different
\nindustries and selected a number of firms within each of these
\ncategories to form Prokasih's initial target group.<\/p>\n
In its inaugural plan, Prokasih aimed to cut by half the
\nindustrial waste-water discharge of its \"first-priority
\nindustries\" within one year of its implementation. By the end of
\nthe fourth year, the program's target was for all priority
\nindustries to be in compliance with the acceptable standards for
\nwaste water discharge. It was then intended to expand and
\nincorporate other types of industries and to include pollution-
\ncontributing sources from the domestic and agricultural sectors.<\/p>\n
After several years, critics began to argue that the program
\nwas proving to be merely symbolic because the targets were too
\nambitious. It was argued they were biased towards capturing the
\nimagination of anti-pollution groups rather than reflecting truly
\nachievable ends. The targets were also seen to be designed to
\nprovide a quick-fix solution to an otherwise complex social and
\neconomic problem.<\/p>\n
June 1996 marked the seventh year of the implementation of
\nProkasih. This anniversary shows Indonesia is well on the way to
\ncompleting a decade of national pollution control. What will
\nProkasih be able to boast of at the end of its first decade?<\/p>\n
If present results are anything to go by, then pollution
\ncontrol authorities must quickly reassess the effectiveness of
\ntheir present strategies and weigh up the implications of these
\nfor the future.<\/p>\n
For one, although general levels of pollution are said to have
\ndecreased in rivers, the planned target of a 50 percent reduction
\nin waste water discharge is still far from being met. Achieving
\nthis reduction hinges on the proper monitoring of firms.<\/p>\n
Monitoring authorities, however, have simply not yet acquired
\nenough human resources, expertise and capital to undertake the
\ntask effectively. The current national economic boom, and in
\nparticular the growth of the manufacturing sector, compounds
\nthis critical issue. As more investment brings sector shifts and
\nnew kinds of firms into the country, so will the pollution
\nmonitoring and managing crisis increase.<\/p>\n
Another factor concerns the scope of the Program. It still
\ntackles only the most obvious and visible polluters; that is,
\nlarge and medium-scale industrial companiess. One third of all
\npollution in rivers is thought to originate from industrial
\nsources. This proportion includes the contribution of small scale
\nfirms. This, environmentalists say, is impossible to measure
\nbecause no one yet knows just how many small-scale firms there
\nare.<\/p>\n
Equally important is the remaining two thirds of the
\npollution, which is estimated to come from households.
\nConsidering that both small-scale industry and households have
\nyet to be incorporated into Prokasih, the program is in fact
\ndirected at less than one third all polluters. So the scope of
\nthe program remains rather small.<\/p>\n
Additionally, estimates of the number of small-scale firms
\nshow that they are more numerous than their large or medium-scale
\ncounterparts. It therefore remains questionable whether a 50
\npercent reduction in industrial waste-water discharge is
\nrealistic and achievable even if some measure of success can be
\ngot from large and medium-scale firms.<\/p>\n
It is difficult to guess how long Prokasih will take to return
\nthe country's rivers to the level of cleanliness we expect. One
\ngovernment official commented that, with funding and resources
\nheld constant, the Prokasih targets have been set 25 years ahead
\nof their time.<\/p>\n
With the most important element of the program being a planned
\nreduction in the discharge of industrial waste water, the issue
\nof domestic sewage treatment has been pushed aside.<\/p>\n
Comparative data on water quality analysis show that
\nIndonesia's rivers harbor some of the highest levels of E. Coli
\nbacteria in the world. E. Coli is known to originate from human
\nand animal waste and is responsible for many gastrointestinal and
\nskin infections. The country's short rivers make flushing
\nproblematic and dilution a difficult process.<\/p>\n
Considering the huge populations that are dependent on the
\nrivers, it would make sense to incorporate domestic sewage
\ntreatment onto the priority list within Prokasih's short and
\nlong-term agendas.<\/p>\n
In the areas of legal enforcement, almost nothing has been
\ndone to prosecute those who violate the country's sophisticated
\npollution-control laws. Those cases that have reached court have
\nusually been quickly dismissed on technical grounds. So despite
\nthe fact that legal sanctions formed the cornerstone on which the
\nprogram was built, industry still keeps polluting and turning a
\nblind eye to anti-pollution legislation.<\/p>\n
In effect, the application of legal sanctions is turning out
\nto be less of a promise over time and more of an administratively
\nnon-enforceable feature of the program.<\/p>\n
Coupled with this problem is the more recent shift in the
\noverall Prokasih strategy which seems to indicate a more lax
\nattitude toward industrial firms' transgressions despite the
\ngrowing pollution crises.<\/p>\n
The introduction of a color-coding system whereby industrial
\nfirms are awarded colors, ranging from green to black --
\ndepending on how heavily they are polluting rivers -- leans away
\nfrom the traditional plan of swiftly prosecuting those who
\npollute the environment. Instead, the program has swung toward a
\nsystem of graduated responses.<\/p>\n
Despite these criticisms, the program continues to receive
\npolitical support from a government bent on tackling the
\ncountry's pollution crisis and, to give it its due, it has
\nachieved several noteworthy successes.<\/p>\n
One laudable feature is that it has been able to raise
\nnational awareness of the critical need for better pollution
\ncontrol in Indonesia. As a national program, it has managed to
\ncapture the attention of government and non-government groups
\nalike and in so doing has managed to create the much-needed
\nnational platform for debate of the pollution issue.<\/p>\n
Another is that as a flagship program of the Environmental
\nImpact Management Agency, Prokasih has provided the framework for
\nthe establishment of a specialized environmental authority in
\nIndonesia. Through its focus and goals, the program has given the
\nagency a specific role, function and responsibility in
\nenvironmental matters.<\/p>\n
And through the channeling of political and financial support
\nfor Prokasih the program has also managed to raise the profile of
\nthis newly-established environmental agency to one of equal
\nimportance with the country's State Ministry of Environment.<\/p>\n
It is therefore conceivable that good planning in the future
\nand with the passing of a period of institutional growing pains,
\nthe responsible authorities can achieve success in pollution
\ncontrol.<\/p>\n
The writer is a Ph.D. fellow at the Institute of Social
\nStudies in the Netherlands.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/ris-river-cleaning-program-loses-momentum-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}