How open is environmental information?

By Suwiryo Ismail

JAKARTA (JP): In Indonesia's legal domain the only legislation recognizing the public's right for information is Law No. 23/1997.

This law on environmental management replaces Law No. 4/1982.

Law 23/1997 (Article 5 paragraph 2) stipulates that everyone is entitled to information linked to their role in environmental management.

Two other articles (Art. 6 par. 2 and Art. 10) of this law oblige every person, business and government institution to provide and disseminate information on the environment which is both correct and accurate.

This is a new phenomenon in the tradition of Indonesian legislation, and several aspects of it are worth mentioning.

First, no other law has placed the public's rights on an equal footing with the state's obligations. Even Law No. 21/1982 on the principles of the press and the recently passed Broadcasting Law do not contain a clause which regulates the right for information, let alone the state's obligation to prepare and disseminate such information.

These two laws are in fact designed especially to regulate the dissemination of information as part of the series of links denoting freedom of speech, press freedom and freedom of expression.

Second, this juridical assurance is given at a time when the government shows its dominance over the media and has an extraordinary capacity to mobilize information through communication networks made up of both print and electronic media.

This leads to the question: Has government information fallen short of community expectation?

Third, the three articles have been devised at a time when most of the community affected by environmental concerns remain helpless because their access to information continues to be blocked in one way or another.

The timing also coincides with the government's tendency to block access to information on huge projects while pressure is mounting on reporters covering cases such as that of Freeport in Irian Jaya and the Aceh environmental pollution.

All this happens when the relationship between the press and the government is increasingly colored with an "information diplomacy" pattern of partnership marked by press self- censorship.

Or perhaps the government now has the political will to take the process of information transparency a stage toward the creation of clean governance? Only God knows.

What is the implication of these three articles on the right of information?

They will obviously provide double advantages.

To the press, they expand the mandate to develop "the freedom to dig out and disseminate information", while to the public they offer a chance to make information a source of power.

The articles can also be used as a ticket to press legal charges if the government and businesses violate or ignore these obligations.

Greater access to information and improved chances for the press to ferret out information will give the public greater control over environmental management, leaving the government with less work.

However, fulfillment of the right to information related to the environment is not as simple or as easy as it could be.

Many political factors influence the fulfillment of this right, and they can sometimes shift in the opposing direction to the objectives set out in law.

Take the Nuisance Act or Hinderordonantie (HO), Statute Book of 1926 No. 226, as a case in point.

A legal product of the colonial era, this act very much protects the environment.

Although it stipulates the obligation for businesses and the government to disseminate information about the potential impact of an activity on the environment, in practice it is different.

Information is not readily available and, if there is any, the substance very much depends on the perception and willingness of the government as the "sole agent" of information on the environment.

Political factors aside, there is another basic and influential factor, that is, the application of a closed and centralized political communication system colored by government- dominant exchange.

Experience shows clearly that this closed political communication system -- marked with the domination of the government on the one hand and the impairment of all information and communication networks on the other -- has given birth to an unbalanced "information market" full of information smacking of authority.

In point of fact, a condition like this indicates that a great amount of information is available, but that it is incompatible with the needs of the community.

It is therefore not surprising if this glut of information has led to complaints from the public and an apathetic attitude.

This is so because the content and function of the information available in the "market" evolves following the logic of power.

In such a situation the mass media does almost nothing, let alone conduct checks and balances, because it is gripped by its own fear that it has quoted information from sources outside government circles.

An information glut colored by the bias of authority only intensifies the reinforcement of this unbalanced communication pattern. On the one hand, the state acts as the sole provider of the stamp of validity on information, while on the other, the community is nothing more than a target audience.

At this juncture, the mass media is nothing but an "intermediary" following the logic and wishes of a political communication system that gives prominence to the dominant role of power holders.

Will, therefore, the creation of the three articles in Law No. 23/1997 reinforce the flow of information on the environment in the current condition of political reticence?

It is difficult to answer this question because the substance of these provisions still contains some rudimentaries that call for criticism.

The first critical note is that the definition in Article 5 paragraph 2 reading "... which is linked to the role of the community in environmental management ..." clearly shows the government's hesitation in the fulfillment of the right for information.

On the one hand there is a desire to give juridical recognition, but on the other, there is tight restriction of the exercise of the right by means of "subjecting" the process of its fulfillment to a construction of participation, which is fully under the government's control.

It is unlikely that such a formula will open up greater chances for the government to unilaterally determine the type of information and the mechanism for its distribution, as well as the representation of the community entitled to receive the information.

Second, the above definition will allow the government to regulate unilaterally the type of information it considers worth distributing to the public.

This can be seen in mining cases in Irian Jaya, Kalimantan and Sulawesi where the government provided information based on its own perception so gearing the community toward fully accepting the presence of these mining activities, even encouraging them to do so.

Whereas information which could reveal their impact on the environment, the acquisition of traditionally-owned plots of land and local ecological and cultural sustainability, is not distributed at all and even invariably covered up.

Therefore, the extent that Articles 5, 6 and 10 of Law No. 23/1997 will allow the community to exercise control over the environment will be determined by two factors.

The first is concerned with the extent the government can show some "achievement" in removing constraints against the fulfillment of the right of the community for information on the environment (and if necessary, facilitate its realization).

And the second is related to the extent the government can display its "civilized dimension" -- not to intervene with or restrict and limit the exercise of the right for information as part of freedom of speech, press freedom and freedom of expression.

This means that there is demand for the current system of political communication, which is centralized, closed and hegemonic, to be transformed into one which can perform the function of communication as a means of social emancipation.

Only in this way will the assurance of the right for information, as found in Law No. 23/1997, better empower the public.

It may later transform the state with its dominant role as the "sole agent" of information into an entity which is capable of making the principle of transparency one of the forms of its accountability to the public.

The writer is an alumnus of University of Sam Ratulangi, Manado and now works at the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute Foundation.

Window: Greater access to information and improved chances for the press to ferret out information will give the public greater control over environmental management, leaving the government with less work.