Are there lessons to learn from Buyat mining case?
Are there lessons to learn from Buyat mining case?
Harry Bhaskara, Buyat, Manado/North Sulawesi
It's a classic case. A multinational company is operating in a
region and the local people feel alienated. It's frequently
happened in various parts of the country, from Indonesia's
easternmost province of Papua to the westernmost province of
Aceh. This time around, it's happening in North Sulawesi with the
PT Newmont Minahasa Raya gold mining company in the spotlight.
A subsidiary of U.S.-based Newmont Mining Corporation, the
year-long controversy revolves around alleged pollution in Buyat
Bay where villagers are said to have shown symptoms of skin
diseases, nausea, and tumor-like lumps.
Newmont, which occupied half a million hectares of production
forest in South Minahasa regency, has extracted 62.6 tons of gold
over eight years. It ceased operations on schedule last August.
Its high profile dwarfs the 300-odd impoverished Buyat
villagers who are the alleged victims of pollution. Any conflict
would conjure up a David-Goliath fight. But the villagers are not
alone.
Last September, police detained five Newmont executives for a
month. The government is suing the company for alleged pollution.
Last week, the government said it was ready to seek an out-of-
court settlement.
Early this month, a seminar organized by University of Sam
Ratulangi in Manado, concluded that there was no pollution in the
bay. Student activists refuted the conclusions, saying the
seminar was held in collusion with Newmont, who was among the
sponsors of the seminar.
Civic groups charge that Newmont had dumped 5.5 million tons
of mercury- and arsenic-laden waste into the bay during the 8-
year period of its operation. Newmont has denied the charges but
admitted releasing 17 tons of waste mercury into the air and 16
tons into the water over five years, an amount it says is far
below Indonesia's emission standards.
Government offices and academics have given conflicting
reports on the alleged pollution. In a situation like this,
confusion reigns. A fisherman in Buyat Bay says: "We, the
unschooled, do not know anything about the pollution. We just eat
the fish, as long as we don't get sick." This only shows the
vulnerability of the fishermen there.
Newmont, which obtained a permit in 1986 to operate the mine,
is now caught in a new political setting. Unlike the 1980s, the
government today does not have the luxury to stifle protest like
the New Order regime used to do.
The Buyat case hit the headlines as environmental activists,
academics, the villagers, the media, the bureaucracy and the
mining company find themselves capable of airing their views in a
new democratic environment. The result has been a confusing
picture of a case that has baffled the public, and perhaps even
the stakeholders, who are not used to such a crossfire of views.
Yet, this is common in a democracy.
When the case is put to rest in the future, some aspects will
likely remain unclear judging from the complex nature of a
pollution case. All stakeholders have a steep learning curve in
this new political setting. And as mining is an important
industry, it is imperative that its activities are done in such a
way that are acceptable to the stakeholders. To accomplish this,
sound communication is a prerequisite.
Several things need clarification. Newmont is the first mining
company to use the submarine tailings disposal method in
Indonesia. The method is not allowed in many countries such as
the United States, Canada or Australia.
The government needs to tell the public about its decision to
allow Newmont to use the method. Is it because of differences in
soil characteristics between Indonesia and those countries where
the method is banned? Or is it because the government is so
desperate to get investment that it compromises its own people?
Or is it because the required environmental assessment (Amdal)
issued by the New Order government was defective?
Other companies lining up to use the method include
Australia's Asia Pacific/BHP in Papua, Canada's Weda Bay Nikel
and Ingold in Maluku, Australia's PT Meares Soputan mining in
North Sulawesi, PT Jember Metal and Banyuwangi Minerals in East
Java. The government should really consider the long-time impacts
of this method.
It is also unclear why such a mineral-rich province like North
Sulawesi still has about ten percent of its total population of
about two million living below the poverty line. Mining first
began in the province in the 19th century.
When a multinational company operates in a region, its funding
offered to the region is often mindboggling. It is not a good
government practice but it is a reality. To cite Newmont, such
funding should have been able to improve the standard of living
of the people. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be the case.
David Sompie, a former Newmont's external manager, once told
this paper that the company had contributed direct and indirect
benefits to Indonesia to the tune of US$561 million since 1994.
In 2000, Newmont provided $1.5 million for the Minahasa Raya
Foundation. The fund is supposed to be perpetual, meaning the
foundation was only allowed to use the interest on the principal
amount for the benefit of people in Minahasa Selatan. The $1.5
million fund itself was to remain in tact.
It is tempting to ask, where has all the money gone? How could
villagers like those in Buyat live in poverty?
Wherever the case takes us, whether an in-court or out-of-
court settlement, it is pertinent to address the sufferings of
Buyat villagers. A highly commended visit by local government
officials and local legislators was made to Buyat village last
Thursday to listen to what the people want to do. At the very
least, it must be ensured that the villagers live in peace. The
controversy has left them deeply divided, and an open conflict
among villagers is the last thing we want.
In retrospect, the Buyat case came to the fore for the first
time during the 1999 election year, only to subside and resurge
in the 2004 election year. Next month is the start of local
elections in North Sulawesi. The authorities should be wary about
unscrupulous politicians who may seek to exploit the case for
their short-term political interests.
If the lesson is not learned, other Buyat cases will recur and
the common people will fall victim. Too many interests are at
play in Buyat, and a multi-tiered approach should be employed to
solve the problems there.
The author is a staff writer of The Jakarta Post.