Australian hypocrisy over mining in RI forests

Australian hypocrisy over mining in RI forests

Igor O'Neill, Mineral Policy Institute, Sydney

Much is at stake in the debate underway in the House of
Representatives over plans to permit mining in Indonesia's
conservation areas. Twenty-two mining companies have applied for
exemptions to Forestry Law 41/1999 which prohibits open-pit
mining in protected forest areas. At threat is not only the
environment but also the freedom of Indonesia's democratic
processes from international intervention.

This weekend, legislators of the Commission III, among others
in charge of forestry, and Commission VIII, among others in
charge of mining, have recently made lightning visits to 15 of
the mine sites at which the Ministry of Energy and Mineral
Resources is recommending they revoke protected forest status.
Indonesian environment commentators warn that these visits will
not yield a balanced perspective, since the organization and
logistics of the trip are being left in the hands of the
petitioning mining companies, with no community involvement.

This debate is framed by several facts, highlighted by various
reports issued by the Indonesian government, the World Bank and
environmental non-government organizations: Indonesia's forests
and coral reefs are in crisis, both are disappearing at an
unprecedented rate. The water catchments are in crisis, plagued
by pollution and catastrophic flooding. Finally, the eastern
provinces are seriously lagging behind in terms of infrastructure
development and economic opportunities.

The Australian government has been lobbying for over a year,
behind the scenes, to undermine existing environmental
protections at several sites in Eastern Indonesia. This lobbying
only came to light after the Australian Minister for Foreign
Affairs, Alexander Downer, was called to account by an Australian
Greens Senator.

Parliamentary questions revealed extensive lobbying of
Indonesian officials by Australian Embassy staff in Jakarta,
including the Ambassador, at the behest of Australian mining
companies. Downer's answers revealed that mining giants BHP
Billiton, Newcrest, Placer Dome, and Rio Tinto specifically
requested, and received, lobbying assistance from the Australian
Embassy on the matter of mining in protected areas.

Australian embassy officials on nine occasions pressed
Indonesian parliamentarians, officials, including the Ministers
and Departments for Economic Affairs, Mining, Forestry and
Environment to drop the ban on mining in protected areas.

Australians have a high level of concern for the environment
and firmly choose to keep Australian protected areas protected
instead of mining them. The several environmental projects
funded by AUSAID are an appropriate reflection of this widely
held Australian public position. The jarring note struck by pro-
mining, anti-environment lobbying by Australian Embassy officials
in Indonesia therefore constitutes significant conflict in policy
aims, and worst of all, a betrayal of Australian public
sentiments.

Central to Australian lobbying is the dubious claim that some
of the protected areas are "not forested" or are not of high
quality or biodiversity value. The Australian claims are
unsupported by documented independent investigations but in any
case ignore key functions of protected forest areas.

Under the Forestry Law of 1999, a protected forest is defined
as an area with the purpose of protecting livelihoods and ecology
including through flood mitigation, controlling erosion,
inhibiting the intrusion of saltwater, and maintaining soil
fertility, are all lifesaving functions. Accordingly, these are
amongst the criteria which Indonesian Department of Forestry
staff used to complete a reassessment of 22 protected forest
areas in which mining is being pushed.

So who are these powerful interests, influential enough to
demand the Australian government lobby on their behalf, and
powerful enough to override opposition from the Environment
Department and scientific reports carried out by the Department
of Forestry? What of their policies and track record on
environment protection?

Just to the north of Indonesia, Placer mining company's
Marcopper mine suffered a massive mine waste spill, filling the
Boac River on the island of Marinduque with 3 million to 4
million tons of metal enriched and acid generating mine waste. In
December 2001, Placer suddenly pulled out of the Philippines
altogether, abandoning its commitments to clean up the Boac River
and to compensate villagers affected by the 1996 mine waste spill
disaster.

Meanwhile, just across the border into Papua New Guinea, BHP-
Billiton and Placer Dome have each built a giant gold/copper
mine, OK Tedi and Porgera respectively. These two operations dump
over a hundred thousand tons of mine waste into the Fly River
system daily.

The result of waste dumping from the Ok Tedi mine is an
ecological and human disaster which will last for generations;
according to BHP-Billiton's own studies, the Ok Tedi/Fly River
fishery is destroyed and indigenous people's forests, food
gardens and sago are smothered under a blanket of waste
stretching inland for hundreds of kilometers along the river.

Like Placer in the Philippines, BHP cut and run in the wake of
the Ok Tedi disaster, entirely abandoning Papua New Guinea. But
have these two companies really learnt their lesson? In Eastern
Indonesia BHP-Billiton has begun work on a huge nickel mine on
Gag Island in Papua province, now a protected forest area, and
apparently plans to dump a staggering volume of mine sludge
("tailings") directly into the ocean via the controversial
Submarine Tailings Disposal method.

Likewise, Placer Dome plans to dig an open cut gold mine in a
protected forest area in South Kalimantan's Meratus Mountains,
despite official statements of opposition from local indigenous
people's organizations.

The difference between Rio Tinto's operations in Australia and
Indonesia clearly demonstrate a double standard. Rio Tinto's
Jabiluka uranium mine project is located in the middle of World
Heritage listed Kakadu National Park in northern Australia. The
proposed mining at Jabiluka is resisted by the indigenous
landowners and opposed by the majority of Australians. In an
encouraging response to this opposition, Rio Tinto recently
announced that they will not develop the mine in the foreseeable
future.

But crossing over to Eastern Indonesia, there is no such
reticence from Rio Tinto, who holds mining leases over two
protected areas, the Palu gold prospect in Poboya Great Forest
Park and a sizeable share in Freeport's mining lease over Lorenz
National Park. Like Kakadu National Park, Lorenz National Park is
a rare World Heritage-listed property. And just like
Jabiluka/Kakadu, the Palu/Poboya mine is opposed by local
indigenous peoples.

It seems Rio Tinto operates according to one ethical and
environmental standard for Australia, and a different, much
poorer, standard in Indonesia.

Several thousands of people have sent cards expressing their
support for the existing forest protection law. Will the House of
Representatives stand firm in the face of powerful threats and
enticements brought to bear by mining industry lobbyists,
including the Australian Embassy?

The writer also works with the Indonesian Environmental Forum
(Walhi).