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.