Environment bill lacks vigor to empower citizens

By Suwiryo Ismail

JAKARTA (JP): The House of Representatives' endorsement of the environment bill last Friday has supposedly increased the number of laws ensuring freedom of expression.

Already there is the basic law governing the press and films and a bill on broadcasting, which has been endorsed but is back before the House to be deliberated again -- something which has never happened before.

A careful examination of the environment bill will show that it does not actually guarantee freedom of expression or speech. This is despite article 6 (1) of the bill, which explicitly recognizes the rights of the community to obtain information about the role the community plays in environmental management.

Acknowledgement of these rights is indeed a step forward since the beginning of the New Order 30 years ago. However, it cannot be denied that this juridical recognition is in fact less progressive than that in Saudi Arabia and Rumania.

These two countries, long known to shun freedom of speech, have for a long time formally guaranteed a community's right to obtain information. This was even before the Rio de Janeiro declaration (1992) made it one of the most important dictums, binding hundreds of states including Indonesia.

The environment bill appears even more backward if we compare it with the Nuisance Ordinance (Hinderordinantie [HO], Statute Book No. 226/1926), a legacy of the Dutch colonial government, which guarantees the right of the community to obtain information about the environment.

It is interesting to note that this bill emerged when the government demanded a review of the broadcasting bill and the public demanded a review of Press Law No. 21/1982, which is considered a hurdle to press freedom.

Is there any correlation between the return of the broadcasting bill and the limited nature of the environment bill?

The environment bill, the broadcasting bill and the law on the press determine, to a great extent, the community's access to information. They even determine whether or not information will serve its function as a source of power for the community.

The broadcasting bill and press law regulate how the mass media must manifest freedom of speech in their journalistic efforts to fulfill the criterion of free dissemination of information.

The environment bill, meanwhile, emphasizes how the public may use their rights and freedom to obtain and utilize information for various purposes.

In this context, freedom of speech may be likened to a union of the two sides of a coin. If one of the sides represents "freedom of the press" to dig up and disseminate information, then the other represents "the right and the freedom of the public" to obtain or provide information.

Is it possible for articles in the environment bill to guarantee the community's right to obtain information?

Article 6 (2) of the bill, which links the right to obtain information with the participation of the community in environmental management, can be bent to ensure the state predetermines participation.

By exploiting Law No. 8/1985 on mass organizations, the government may unilaterally determine which representatives of the community will have the right to obtain information and also what information they can be given.

Hence, it is very likely that elements of the state are engaged in a process of reduction or even deviation from the fulfillment of the rights and the freedom of the community to obtain information.

It is therefore necessary to question why, for example, the right to obtain information is not linked with Article 5 (1), which stresses that everyone has the right to a good and healthy environment?

Based on this premise, if the need for environmental information was not limited by the state's perception and instrumental interests to regulate community participation, then greater access for the community would be possible. And the community would feel freer to make requests for information relating to development activities which may harm their rights to have such an environment.

Legislation which recognizes the right of the community to obtain information is absolutely necessary considering our blocked channels of political communication.

The multitude of environmental problems in the past decade attest to the public being greatly disadvantaged and powerless. This situation points to a lack of information and, therefore, inability to anticipate or respond.

A number of cases regarding the implementation of the 1926 Nuisance Act or government regulation No. 51/1993 (previously regulation No. 29/1986) analyzing impacts on the environment (AMDAL) could serve as examples.

These cases show that although there are stipulations which restrict the government and private circles, the information disseminated is very much dependent on the perception and the interest of the government as the "center of information" about the environment.

The difficulty is that in addition to the absence of articles regulating to the dissemination of information, there are also no definite sanctions for government officials who violate the obligation to disseminate information.

It seems to be beyond the community to raise this issue. Apart from being trapped in the culture of silence, the community has also lost their bargaining power to deconstruct discourse which is dominated by the symbols of state power.

Nevertheless, the existence of a law does not guarantee a solution as it is not autonomous but can be driven by the interests of the power behind it.

Fulfillment of the right to obtain information is very much determined by the political will of the government.

Therefore, one should see the debate on the right to obtain information on the environment not only from the juridical context but in its relationship with a more social context, namely the centralized, bureaucratic and hegemonic political setting.

The debate must reveal the shift in public communication as a means of public emancipation to legitimizing power.

This reflection will hopefully open up an opportunity to reinforce the rights of the community to obtain information and restrict the state's tendency to treat freedom of the press and the freedom of the community as tools of power.

Is this possible? History has shown that for almost 30 years, efforts to liberalize the people from the shackles of power have always failed.

Even the review of the business licenses in the bill on broadcasting does not guarantee any leeway in freedom of speech.

There will be no deregulation, but rather a "revitalization of licensing" to reinforce existing structures and mechanisms of control over freedom in broadcasting. Inevitably it will follow the lead of the SIUPP business license, which controls freedom of the press.

Therefore, juridical guarantee for the fulfillment of the right of the community to obtain information, as underlined in the environmental bill, may have little impact.

History will put the bill to the test. But is it possible for information rights to be fulfilled in a hegemonic political climate?

The writer is head of the environmental division at the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute Foundation, Jakarta.