Why residents oppose Bojong waste plant<\/p>\n
Andri G. Wibisana, Maastricht, Netherlands<\/p>\n
Designating locations, referred to as \"siting\", for facilities
\nsuch as dumps or waste treatment plants seems always to be
\naccompanied by public opposition.<\/p>\n
This is a common phenomenon that occurs not only in Indonesia
\nbut also in developed countries. In the U.S., for example, local
\nresidents' opposition toward waste plants, however benign they
\nare supposed to be, have been manifested in a \"Not-In-My-Back-
\nYard\" attitude.<\/p>\n
Proposals to build plants are normally marked by strong
\ndivergences in opinion between the government, the so-called
\n\"experts\", or those who propose the plan on one hand, and the
\nresidents who live around the proposed facility, who are usually
\nassisted by NGOs, on the other.<\/p>\n
After reading what happened in Bojong village last week it is
\nobvious that such a divergence can also turn into atrocious
\nviolence (Jakarta Post, Nov. 23, 2004).<\/p>\n
There has been a lot of social research done in the West about
\nwhy residents often fall foul of the government and its appointed
\nexperts with regard to the costs and benefits of such plants.<\/p>\n
As such, one could argue that this opposition is motivated
\noften by irrational fears that excessively emphasize the possible
\nnegative outcomes, simply because the risks, regardless of their
\nprobabilities, are salient and heuristically available, while the
\nbenefits are unseen.<\/p>\n
Another important driver of public opposition is a lack of
\ntrust. The violence in Bojong village is proof that this lack of
\ntrust cannot be overlooked by the government and businesses in
\nIndonesia. Previously, Indonesian administrations when siting
\nwaste facilities have relied heavily on technical assessments and
\nat the same time dismissed public concerns about the adverse
\nhuman health and environmental affects of these plants, which
\noften only increases public resistance.<\/p>\n
The importance of public trust in the expert judgment of risks
\nhas been alluded to by several studies. In the least, it seems
\nhighly likely that the local residents' refusal of the Bojong
\nwaste plant was in part caused by a lack of trust in local
\nauthorities or the businesses behind the facility.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, in our country, the association between waste
\ntreatment facilities and terrible health and environmental
\neffects has been shown to be true. It is easy to bring up other
\nwaste sites as examples of this, such as the highly polluting
\nBantar Gebang dump in Bekasi.<\/p>\n
Of course, one could argue the facility in Bojong will be
\nequipped with more-advanced technology different from that being
\nused currently by other waste plants in Indonesia. However, the
\nbad image of waste plants is unlikely to dissipate any time soon,
\nunless people's experiences of local government -- which
\nregularly fails to address the health and environmental impacts
\nof waste -- change.<\/p>\n
As long as there continues to be local-body indifference or
\nnegligence, governments are likely to continue to find it
\ndifficult to convince people their bad experiences associated
\nwith waste management will not recur.<\/p>\n
In addition, local governments and their experts are not
\nimmune from making honest mistakes when judging the risks of
\ncertain treatment or disposal options.<\/p>\n
In this vein, it is easy to argue that dismissing public
\nconcerns about waste plants as irrational is highly
\ncounterproductive.<\/p>\n
Instead of accusing certain groups of being scaremongers, it
\nwould be more productive for local authorities and waste
\nbusinesses to change their approach to how they deal with the
\npublic -- by becoming more transparent and involving the public
\nmore in the decision-making process.<\/p>\n
Local authorities and the businesses behind the facilities
\nusually argue their sites can create large economic benefits for
\nlocal residents, including jobs and often offer to pay for public
\nhealth care if negative health effects arise<\/p>\n
They become frustrated when residents remain opposed to their
\nproposal regardless of what they may consider as \"generous\"
\noffers.<\/p>\n
However, it is easy to see that a common feature of waste
\nplants in Indonesia is that the risks generally far outweigh the
\nbenefits for residents. While the environmental and health risks
\nare generally concentrated only in one locality, the benefits
\nfrom the facility, if it is non-polluting, can be shared by all.<\/p>\n
In the Bojong case, while the greatest benefit from the
\nfacility will be reaped by the residents of Jakarta, as the
\nproducers of solid wastes, the risks are almost entirely incurred
\nby Bojong locals. Since Bojong residents undoubtedly deserve no
\nworse an environment than residents in other areas, compensating
\nthem should be a primary issue.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, those who propose the facility should be
\nconsidering several compensation mechanisms. Any financial
\ncompensation should be paid ex ante; or before the fact, not
\nlater when residents become sick or their environment is
\ndestroyed. This is because exposing the residents to higher risks
\nin itself obliges local authorities to compensate.<\/p>\n
Assuming that ex ante mechanisms are available, there could
\nstill be several problems, one of which is that it is not easy to
\n\"monetize\" the degradation of human health and environmental
\nquality. Converting these costs into monetary units has always
\nbeen ethically problematic and controversial. Therefore, the
\ncompensation offered should by no means be considered as a trade-
\noff for the risks residents may be exposed to. This is because at
\nsome point, namely when facing a perceived minimum safety
\nstandard, the residents will not accept any compensation, no
\nmatter how high it is.<\/p>\n
Risks resulting from waste plants are generally perceived by
\nlocal residents as involuntary ones -- in the sense that these
\nrisks are imposed on them by others.<\/p>\n
Those who are responsible for regulating and managing waste
\nplants should also be able to show to the public that they will
\nnot sacrifice public health and environmental protection for
\nprofit or other reasons.<\/p>\n
Transparency and public participation in the decision-making
\nprocess are vital. Not only will they create more trust, which
\nleads to public acceptance, but they can also produce better
\nquality and more legitimate public policy.<\/p>\n
Genuine public consent can only be achieved through a
\ndemocratic process, and not through the use of force as has been
\ndemonstrated in the Bojong case.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer in environmental law at the
\nUniversity of Indonesia, and is currently a PhD researcher at the
\nUniversity of Maastricht, the Netherlands. He can be reached at
\nmragw@yahoo.com.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/why-residents-oppose-bojong-waste-plant-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}