Environmental disputes: New options
Environmental disputes: New options
JAKARTA (JP): Legal practitioners and environmental activists agreed yesterday on the need to supplement the court system with alternative means of resolving environmental disputes.
Speaking at a seminar on the management of environmental conflicts in Indonesia, a number of experts said that the litigation system had not been effective in stemming violations of regulations designed to protect the environment.
Police and state prosecutors acknowledge that lack of expertise in their agencies has made it difficult for them to prosecute offenders against the 1982 Law of Environment. There is broad agreement that the few cases which do make it into court often end with the offenders getting off lightly, to the further chagrin of the government and conservation groups.
Experts at yesterday's seminar suggested the introduction of the Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR) system as one way of settling environmental disputes.
The system, according to Mas Achmad Santosa of the Indonesian Center for Environmental Law (ICEL), "is capable of covering a wide scope of issues and has a good chance of becoming an efficient means of ending environmental disputes in the future."
The seminar, attended by legal practitioners, conservationists, government officials and representatives of the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, was jointly organized by ICEL, Colorado-based Communication/Decisions/Results Associates, the office of the State Minister of Environment, German-based GTZ and the Human Resources Development Project.
Mas Achmad said that because an ADR was more flexible compared with formal litigation, it also had greater potential to resolve conflicts with a "win-win" settlement.
Sutadi Djajakusuma of the National Development Planning Board said the government planned to set up an ADR Board this year.
"The public's increasing legal awareness has caused people to demand sound legal instruments capable of guaranteeing them legal security and assurance, based on truth and justice," Sutadi said.
The public, he added, was also aware of the attitude of government officials which, he said, often reflected a lack of legal awareness and conscientiousness in upholding the law.
"A legal instrument is needed to respond to these rapid changes in society and we must admit that presently the public does not have a very positive attitude towards the law."
Sutadi acknowledged that formal litigation often produced results that were unsatisfactory, as well as costly, time- consuming and harmful to personal and social relationships. Court actions also affected people's credibility, were complicated and caused unnecessary ongoing conflicts, he said.
"Litigations is useful to end disputes, but it is not the only way for all conflicts," Sutadi said.
Other experts said that ADR should be introduced as an alternative instrument, rather than as a response to complaints about the inefficiency of the court system.
Satjipto Rahardjo, a professor of law at Semarang's Diponegoro University, cautioned that because of its cooperative nature, ADR could easily lead to collusion, especially between the government, NGOs and industries, which are usually the defendants in environmental disputes.
Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Kadin Deputy Dewi Motik Pramono, who oversees the chamber's environmental affairs, emphasized the need for penalties to be imposed on companies that violated environmental laws.
"I don't think cooperative dispute settlements alone are appropriate because businessmen often don't know, or want to know, that they are damaging the environment," she said.
"Through cooperation, they must be given plenty of information but they should still be penalized whenever they violate the law." (pwn)