Why residents oppose Bojong waste plant

Why residents oppose Bojong waste plant

Andri G. Wibisana, Maastricht, Netherlands

Designating locations, referred to as "siting", for facilities
such as dumps or waste treatment plants seems always to be
accompanied by public opposition.

This is a common phenomenon that occurs not only in Indonesia
but also in developed countries. In the U.S., for example, local
residents' opposition toward waste plants, however benign they
are supposed to be, have been manifested in a "Not-In-My-Back-
Yard" attitude.

Proposals to build plants are normally marked by strong
divergences in opinion between the government, the so-called
"experts", or those who propose the plan on one hand, and the
residents who live around the proposed facility, who are usually
assisted by NGOs, on the other.

After reading what happened in Bojong village last week it is
obvious that such a divergence can also turn into atrocious
violence (Jakarta Post, Nov. 23, 2004).

There has been a lot of social research done in the West about
why residents often fall foul of the government and its appointed
experts with regard to the costs and benefits of such plants.

As such, one could argue that this opposition is motivated
often by irrational fears that excessively emphasize the possible
negative outcomes, simply because the risks, regardless of their
probabilities, are salient and heuristically available, while the
benefits are unseen.

Another important driver of public opposition is a lack of
trust. The violence in Bojong village is proof that this lack of
trust cannot be overlooked by the government and businesses in
Indonesia. Previously, Indonesian administrations when siting
waste facilities have relied heavily on technical assessments and
at the same time dismissed public concerns about the adverse
human health and environmental affects of these plants, which
often only increases public resistance.

The importance of public trust in the expert judgment of risks
has been alluded to by several studies. In the least, it seems
highly likely that the local residents' refusal of the Bojong
waste plant was in part caused by a lack of trust in local
authorities or the businesses behind the facility.

Unfortunately, in our country, the association between waste
treatment facilities and terrible health and environmental
effects has been shown to be true. It is easy to bring up other
waste sites as examples of this, such as the highly polluting
Bantar Gebang dump in Bekasi.

Of course, one could argue the facility in Bojong will be
equipped with more-advanced technology different from that being
used currently by other waste plants in Indonesia. However, the
bad image of waste plants is unlikely to dissipate any time soon,
unless people's experiences of local government -- which
regularly fails to address the health and environmental impacts
of waste -- change.

As long as there continues to be local-body indifference or
negligence, governments are likely to continue to find it
difficult to convince people their bad experiences associated
with waste management will not recur.

In addition, local governments and their experts are not
immune from making honest mistakes when judging the risks of
certain treatment or disposal options.

In this vein, it is easy to argue that dismissing public
concerns about waste plants as irrational is highly
counterproductive.

Instead of accusing certain groups of being scaremongers, it
would be more productive for local authorities and waste
businesses to change their approach to how they deal with the
public -- by becoming more transparent and involving the public
more in the decision-making process.

Local authorities and the businesses behind the facilities
usually argue their sites can create large economic benefits for
local residents, including jobs and often offer to pay for public
health care if negative health effects arise

They become frustrated when residents remain opposed to their
proposal regardless of what they may consider as "generous"
offers.

However, it is easy to see that a common feature of waste
plants in Indonesia is that the risks generally far outweigh the
benefits for residents. While the environmental and health risks
are generally concentrated only in one locality, the benefits
from the facility, if it is non-polluting, can be shared by all.

In the Bojong case, while the greatest benefit from the
facility will be reaped by the residents of Jakarta, as the
producers of solid wastes, the risks are almost entirely incurred
by Bojong locals. Since Bojong residents undoubtedly deserve no
worse an environment than residents in other areas, compensating
them should be a primary issue.

Accordingly, those who propose the facility should be
considering several compensation mechanisms. Any financial
compensation should be paid ex ante; or before the fact, not
later when residents become sick or their environment is
destroyed. This is because exposing the residents to higher risks
in itself obliges local authorities to compensate.

Assuming that ex ante mechanisms are available, there could
still be several problems, one of which is that it is not easy to
"monetize" the degradation of human health and environmental
quality. Converting these costs into monetary units has always
been ethically problematic and controversial. Therefore, the
compensation offered should by no means be considered as a trade-
off for the risks residents may be exposed to. This is because at
some point, namely when facing a perceived minimum safety
standard, the residents will not accept any compensation, no
matter how high it is.

Risks resulting from waste plants are generally perceived by
local residents as involuntary ones -- in the sense that these
risks are imposed on them by others.

Those who are responsible for regulating and managing waste
plants should also be able to show to the public that they will
not sacrifice public health and environmental protection for
profit or other reasons.

Transparency and public participation in the decision-making
process are vital. Not only will they create more trust, which
leads to public acceptance, but they can also produce better
quality and more legitimate public policy.

Genuine public consent can only be achieved through a
democratic process, and not through the use of force as has been
demonstrated in the Bojong case.

The writer is a lecturer in environmental law at the
University of Indonesia, and is currently a PhD researcher at the
University of Maastricht, the Netherlands. He can be reached at
mragw@yahoo.com.