How open is environmental information?

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.