Impact analysis rendered impotent by corruption
Impact analysis rendered impotent by corruption
Hera Diani, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
The government made the commissioning of an environmental impact
analysis mandatory for all major projects 20 years ago. However,
corruption has once again prevented the original good intentions
from bearing fruit, and pollution and environmental destruction
are now worse than ever.
State Minister for the Environment Rachmat Witoelar has
admitted that many still see the need for an impact analysis as
nothing more than a bureaucratic requirement.
In reality, however, an environmental impact analysis should
actually be a comprehensive, scientific document that not only
serves as a study on environmental feasibility, but also ensures
greater cost efficiencies.
"With the problems that exist, it's no wonder that people are
skeptical about the benefit of environmental impact analyses.
While they are still relevant, the whole area needs to be
revitalized," Rachmat said while opening a seminar on Thursday,
the first day of Indonesian Environment Week, at the Jakarta
Convention Center (JCC).
An expert on environmental impact analyses, Soeryo Adiwibowo,
said that the analyses were often perceived as commodities, which
resulted in poor quality assessments by central and local
environmental management agencies.
"Many firms don't even bother to commission analyses. Some
just copy them from somewhere else. Meanwhile, some others do
commission analyses but don't implement them," said Soeryo, who
heads the environmental research center at the Bogor Institute of
Agriculture (IPB).
The need for the analyses is often seen as an additional cost
instead of an effort to protect the public and the environment.
"These problems reflect who we are as a nation: Weak
governance and law enforcement, as well as a lack of conscience
and competence," Soeryo said.
Not every country requires an environmental impact analysis as
a prerequisite for a development. Canada, for instance, requires
it, while Singapore does not. Yet, both countries' environmental
problems are much less than Indonesia.
To revitalize this area, the most important thing is to
enforce the law against violators, Soeryo said, adding that it
means that those who do not possess analyses, do not implement
them or plagiarize them must be punished.
On the other hand, he urged the government to provide rewards
or incentives to those that commissioned impact analyses.
Continuous monitoring was also essential to ensure that the
analyses were actually complied with.
As for the business community, Soeryo said there should be a
paradigm shift to perceiving impact analyses as being beneficial,
instead of solely as an additional cost.
He said that 52 studies conducted around the world showed that
environmental impact analyses actually saved project costs
amounting to up to US$300 million per year.
"An impact analysis needs to be seen as a feasibility study.
It requires some money, true, but it will provide benefits
through the modifications made to the project based on the
study," he said.
Hera Diani, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
The government made the commissioning of an environmental impact
analysis mandatory for all major projects 20 years ago. However,
corruption has once again prevented the original good intentions
from bearing fruit, and pollution and environmental destruction
are now worse than ever.
State Minister for the Environment Rachmat Witoelar has
admitted that many still see the need for an impact analysis as
nothing more than a bureaucratic requirement.
In reality, however, an environmental impact analysis should
actually be a comprehensive, scientific document that not only
serves as a study on environmental feasibility, but also ensures
greater cost efficiencies.
"With the problems that exist, it's no wonder that people are
skeptical about the benefit of environmental impact analyses.
While they are still relevant, the whole area needs to be
revitalized," Rachmat said while opening a seminar on Thursday,
the first day of Indonesian Environment Week, at the Jakarta
Convention Center (JCC).
An expert on environmental impact analyses, Soeryo Adiwibowo,
said that the analyses were often perceived as commodities, which
resulted in poor quality assessments by central and local
environmental management agencies.
"Many firms don't even bother to commission analyses. Some
just copy them from somewhere else. Meanwhile, some others do
commission analyses but don't implement them," said Soeryo, who
heads the environmental research center at the Bogor Institute of
Agriculture (IPB).
The need for the analyses is often seen as an additional cost
instead of an effort to protect the public and the environment.
"These problems reflect who we are as a nation: Weak
governance and law enforcement, as well as a lack of conscience
and competence," Soeryo said.
Not every country requires an environmental impact analysis as
a prerequisite for a development. Canada, for instance, requires
it, while Singapore does not. Yet, both countries' environmental
problems are much less than Indonesia.
To revitalize this area, the most important thing is to
enforce the law against violators, Soeryo said, adding that it
means that those who do not possess analyses, do not implement
them or plagiarize them must be punished.
On the other hand, he urged the government to provide rewards
or incentives to those that commissioned impact analyses.
Continuous monitoring was also essential to ensure that the
analyses were actually complied with.
As for the business community, Soeryo said there should be a
paradigm shift to perceiving impact analyses as being beneficial,
instead of solely as an additional cost.
He said that 52 studies conducted around the world showed that
environmental impact analyses actually saved project costs
amounting to up to US$300 million per year.
"An impact analysis needs to be seen as a feasibility study.
It requires some money, true, but it will provide benefits
through the modifications made to the project based on the
study," he said.