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)