Business, human rights and climate in the UK-Indonesia relationship How the UKgovernment’s push for trade and investment risks making things worse for hard-pressed communities. This month DTE and AMAN wrote an open letter to Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and British Prime Minister David Cameron, calling for immediate practical action to restore to Indonesia's indigenous peoples their rights over their customary forests, as required by last year's landmark Constitutional Court decision. 1 We called for a review of UK government policy towards Indonesia so that conflicting policies on investment and development cooperation are amended to support the rights of indigenous peoples. The UK government has six priority areas, as presented for public consumption on the website https://www.gov.uk/government/world/indon esia: supporting British nationals in Indonesia; promoting human rights in Indonesia; safeguarding Britain's national security from Indonesia; working with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations; addressing climate change and supporting Indonesia to achieve low carbon growth; and improving business with Indonesia. It is this last priority that is overriding the others and in particular conflicting with the human rights and climate change agendas. This imbalance and these contradictions need to be addressed. There is a major problem with Britain's approach to Indonesia: on the one hand the UK government presents itself as a champion of human rights and tackling climate change, on the other a supporter of business with Indonesia. There are not enough cross-cutting safeguards. This means that British government agencies are promoting investment by British companies in infrastructure development, and natural resources-based industries, which have negative impacts on community rights and livelihoods as well as greenhouse gas emission levels. The UK government's "Improving business with Indonesia" webpage says that the business sectors which offer particularly good opportunities for UK companies include infrastructure, defence and security, consumer goods, energy, education, low- carbon solutions and financial services. Brochures produced by the UKTI do identify opportunities in low carbon, green buildings, and renewable energy industries, but they simultaneously highlight infrastructure, oil and gas, mining, and agribusiness as sectors with particular potential for British companies. No. 98, March 2014 DTE publications office: 5 Tree Terrace,Tree Rd, Brampton, Cumbria CA81TY, England, email: [email protected]web: www.downtoearth-indonesia.org Coming soon: donate to DTE via our website Look out for the new donate button on our homepage www.downtoearth-indonesia.org or contact [email protected]Inside... Customary forests: Forestry Ministry reluctant to relinquish control over forests Election politics 2014 and natural resources management Land: Peasants’ long fight to roll back palm oil land grab Biofuels: Biofuels gridlock continues into 2014 Extractives: Tighten up rule for mining companies, UK MPs told DTE activities update 7 9 10 13 14 16 (continued next page) What next for customary forests? Page 7 Coal mining destroying forests near Maruwai, Central Kalimantan. ( See video from DTE/WDM visit: https://www.wdm.org.uk/exposed-how-our-banks-finance-climate-change) (Photo: DTE)
Transcript
Business, human rights and climate in the UK-Indonesia relationship
How the UK government’s push for trade and investment risks making things worse for hard-pressed communities.
This month DTE and AMAN wrote an openletter to Indonesian President Susilo BambangYudhoyono and British Prime Minister DavidCameron, calling for immediate practicalaction to restore to Indonesia's indigenouspeoples their rights over their customaryforests, as required by last year's landmarkConstitutional Court decision.1
We called for a review of UKgovernment policy towards Indonesia so thatconflicting policies on investment anddevelopment cooperation are amended tosupport the rights of indigenous peoples.
The UK government has sixpriority areas, as presented for publicconsumption on the websitehttps://www.gov.uk/government/world/indonesia: supporting British nationals in Indonesia;promoting human rights in Indonesia;
safeguarding Britain's national security fromIndonesia; working with the Association ofSoutheast Asian Nations; addressing climatechange and supporting Indonesia to achievelow carbon growth; and improving businesswith Indonesia. It is this last priority that isoverriding the others and in particularconflicting with the human rights and climatechange agendas. This imbalance and thesecontradictions need to be addressed.
There is a major problem withBritain's approach to Indonesia: on the onehand the UK government presents itself as achampion of human rights and tacklingclimate change, on the other a supporter ofbusiness with Indonesia. There are notenough cross-cutting safeguards. This meansthat British government agencies arepromoting investment by British companies in
infrastructure development, and naturalresources-based industries, which havenegative impacts on community rights andlivelihoods as well as greenhouse gas emissionlevels. The UK government's "Improvingbusiness with Indonesia" webpage says thatthe business sectors which offer particularlygood opportunities for UK companiesinclude infrastructure, defence and security,consumer goods, energy, education, low-carbon solutions and financial services.Brochures produced by the UKTI do identifyopportunities in low carbon, green buildings,and renewable energy industries, but theysimultaneously highlight infrastructure, oiland gas, mining, and agribusiness as sectorswith particular potential for Britishcompanies.
Customary forests:Forestry Ministry reluctant torelinquish control over forests
Election politics 2014 and naturalresources management
Land: Peasants’ long fight to roll backpalm oil land grab
Biofuels:Biofuels gridlock continues into 2014
Extractives:Tighten up rule for mining companies,UK MPs told
DTE activities update
7
9
10
13
14
16
(continued next page)
What next for customary forests? Page 7
Coal mining destroying forests near Maruwai, Central Kalimantan. ( See video from DTE/WDM visit:https://www.wdm.org.uk/exposed-how-our-banks-finance-climate-change) (Photo: DTE)
2
DOWN TO EARTH No. 98, March 2014
In the UKTI brochure 'Doing Business inIndonesia: A British Business Perspective', forexample, the regional manager of design andengineering consultancy Scott Wilson advises,"There are opportunities in nichetechnologies and various infrastructureprojects, such as coal transportation systems,mass transit and power generating schemes.There is a massive requirement forinfrastructure projects in Indonesia andopportunities could rival those of Brazil,Russia, India and China."2
These are all sectors which involveappropriating land, using heavy machinery toclear away forest, farmland and anything elsein the way, and/or extracting the naturalwealth it contains. These sectors are alsostrongly associated with conflict, human rightsviolations, and environmental destruction, andincreased emissions of greenhouse gasesfrom forest and peatland destruction. In thecase of fossil-fuel related business, the climateimpacts extend into the future with theeventual burning of those fuels on top ofemissions from extraction, processing andshipping.
This kind of primary industrialdevelopment features prominently in theIndonesian government's economicmasterplan for 2025 - known as the MP3EI -which has drawn strong criticism for ignoringthe rights and interests of millions of people -including indigenous peoples and localcommunities, living in target areas (see box).
British companies investing in thesesectors in Indonesia have a long history of
association with serious social, environmentaland climate impacts - DTE has regularlyraised concerns with extractive sectorcompanies Rio Tinto, BP, BHP-Billiton, andmore recently Bumi Plc,3 as part of ourcampaign to hold companies to account fortheir impacts in Indonesia.4 Currently, theLondon Mining Network (of which DTE is afounder member) is calling for moreoversight of companies listing on the LondonStock Exchange, as part of a broadercampaign for corporate accountability bymining companies based in London (seeseparate item).
Business, business, business...The balance between the competingpriorities in Britain's policy towards Indonesiahas shifted since David Cameron's Coalitiongovernment came to power in 2010. Doingmore business with Indonesia has moved upthe priority list since Indonesia was identifiedas one of 17 priority high-growth markets4
and part of the overall plan to boost Britain'seconomic growth through exporting more.Currently, Britain and Indonesia have less thana 1% share of each other's market, withBritain ranked 20th largest exporter toIndonesia.5 By contrast, Britain is one ofIndonesia's biggest foreign investors, rankingfifth in 2013 (see box). This relationship isbeing nurtured by repeated official visits.Britain's foreign minister visited Indonesia inJanuary this year, the Minister for Trade andInvestment and the Minister of Defence both
UK trade andinvestment in Indonesia
Britain is already one of the biggestinvestors in Indonesia, and the currentgovernment is encouraging UK companiesto invest more. It is also supporting UKexporters to sell more goods and servicesto what it recognises as a fast-growingmarket.
In April 2012 the Prime Minister andPresident Yudhoyono announced acommitment to double trade (goods &services) by 2015 to £4.4 billion.According to figures provided byIndonesia's Bank Indonesia, UK directinvestment flows to Indonesia between2004 and 2013 amounted to USD 6.458billion.1
Britain was the EU's biggest investor inIndonesia during that period, and in globalterms, fourth biggest investor in Indonesia,behind Japan, Singapore, and the USA.2 In2013, the UK was Indonesia's fifth largestinvestor (USD 926 million), according tothe Bank's data, with South Korea narrowlysurpassing British investment that year.3
Brochures aimed at encouraging Britishbusinesses to develop trade links withIndonesia highlight the burgeoning marketsas well as natural resources and low-costlabour. Sectors including energy, mining,infrastructure and agribusiness areidentified as being of particular interest toBritish investors.
Globally, in 2012-13, the FCO and UKTIspent £420 million to promote UKeconomic growth through supporting UKexporters, via their network of officesoverseas . http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/10258-001-FCO-and-UKTI-Book.pdf
Notes:1. Net investment flow figures given by the
UK's Office for National Statistics differsomewhat from the Bank Indonesia figures,seehttp://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_343719.pdf
2. See table:V33: Investasi Langsung di IndonesiaMenurut Negara Asal, accessible viahttp://www.bi.go.id/id/statistik/seki/terkini/eksternal/Contents/Default.aspx, accessed25/Feb/2014.
3. See table:V33: Investasi Langsung di IndonesiaMenurut Negara Asal, accessible viahttp://www.bi.go.id/id/statistik/seki/terkini/eksternal/Contents/Default.aspx, accessed25/Feb/2014.
Coal mining as far as the eye can see, KPC / Bumi Resources mine, East Kalimantan: an abandonedstump is all that remains of the rainforest. (DTE)
3
DOWN TO EARTH No. 98, March 2014
visited Indonesia at different times in 2013.This was preceded by the visit of the PrimeMinister, and David Cameron, visited in Aprilof 2012, accompanied by 30 'business leaders'.Cameron (when he was criticised by rightsorganisations for calling for Britain to sellmore arms there7), but apart from thisrelatively little attention has been paid to this'race for business' in Indonesia.8 PresidentSusilo Bambang Yudhoyono was invited to paya sState made a return visit to Britain laterthat year, where he was given an honoraryknighthood by the Queen (and also, in turn,greeted by human rights and environmentalprotesters).9 His visit included a meeting withBP executives at which Cameron announcedthe expansion of the BP-operated Tangguh gasproject, the huge, high-impact gas extractionand liquefaction project developed onindigenous peoples' land in Bintuni Bay,WestPapua. "This agreement on a £7.5bndevelopment is great news for BP, one of thelargest foreign investors in Indonesia. It's ahuge boost to the UK's growing trade andinvestment in Indonesia's emerging market,"said Cameron.10
The special attention to Indonesiaas a priority market means that boostingbusiness with Indonesia gets enhancedresources in terms of staff, services andfunding. The British government agency ‘UKTrade & Investment Indonesia’ helps UK-based companies to access businessopportunities in Indonesia, offeringinformation, contacts, advice and in-marketsupport, according to the uk.gov website. Italso helps with trade missions from UK toIndonesia and vice versa; and works withCameron's Trade Envoy for Indonesia, RichardGraham, to identify new opportunities tosupport British business seeking to enter theIndonesian market. Bilateral trade talks werestarted in 2011 aimed at improving marketaccess, with the third round of thesescheduled in November 2013; a business-led"Vision 2030 Group" is being established toreport to both trade ministers on aspirationsfor the bilateral trade and investmentrelationship in 2030 and the action requiredto get there.11 On the regional level, there isalso an 'Asia Task Force' which aims to "bringtogether experts from industry, educationand government to focus on boosting Britishexports to, and investment in, Asiancountries." It meets twice a year to discusswhat it can practically do to help achieve thisaim.12
Conflicting UK governmentpriorities in East KalimantanOne of the services provided for the businesscommunity is provided by the Foreign &Commonwealth Office (FCO), which issuesCountry Updates about Indonesia. October2013's Update, Indonesia: Land, Coal, People andPower in East Kalimantan, makes disturbingreading because it neatly captures the conflict
between business, human rights and climatechange priorities.The report follows a visit toEast Kalimantan by the Jakarta Embassy'sDeputy Head of Mission and a team from theUK-funded Climate Change Unit (CCU). It isfrank about the impacts of the province'shuge coal industry.
"Open cast mines circle the city, even abuttingmajor roads. During the Embassy's meeting withprovincial administrators, the team saw massivecoal barges passing along the Mahakam Riverevery couple of minutes."
It describes the impact on people:
"As with many resource economies, localpopulations have struggled to benefit from theboom. Barely 5% of East Kalimantan's populationis employed in the extractive sector... Theindigenous Dayak population remainsmarginalised, struggling with recognition oftraditional land rights, whilst the descendants oforiginal Javanese migrant farmers have beensqueezed. The team met one village that wassurrounded by mines (owned by the current andprevious mayors). With their permanent watersupply cut off, and little prospect of landrehabilitation, villagers described how neighboursand families had been pitted against each other."
It also mentions the unintended impacts ofIndonesia's decentralisation programme:
"Decentralisation has fostered local accountabilityand may promote a new generation of reformistnational leaders. But devolved decision-making onissues such as forestry and mining permits hasalso incentivised corruption and poor decision-making."
Then it points out the inconsistencies in thelocal and national government approach toresources use:
"[East Kalimantan] Governor Awang has madesustainable development a priority, reinforcingPresident Yudhoyono's four year moratorium onnew forest concessions and mining permits. Aprovincial green strategy is in place; earlier thisyear he announced a one year ban on forestdestruction.Awang is cooperating closely with thePresidential Delivery Unit. But Awang andYudhoyono's partnership illustrates thecontradictory forces a[t] play. Until April this year,Awang was facing corruption charges fordecisions he took as the regional leaderoverseeing the KPC mine.13 And both he andYudhoyono are promoting major infrastructureprojects in the province; a 6m hectare palm oildevelopment was recently announced."
After detailing the huge economic,environmental, land, governance and climatechallenges, and the problems faced by UKinvestors (which include BP, Rio Tinto,Churchill and the ill-fated Bumi Resources14),the FCO report explains how the CCU's 4-
year project is aimed at supporting "improvedgovernance of land use, land use change andforestry in Indonesia, including in EastKalimantan."
"Working with Yudhoyono's delivery unit,15 theprovincial administration and local civil societyorganisations, the project aims to improvecompliance and accountability in the granting andenvironment of permits for logging, oil palmplantations and mining industries, throughtransparency of local budgets, effective freedomof information laws and support for anti-corruption initiatives."16
This just about makes sense for a climatechange unit - if the general idea of theimproved compliance and accountability is toprevent more licences being issued, since thiswould help limit the damage to forests, andtherefore the climate, in an area of rampantcoal mining and associated infrastructuredevelopment.
UK NGOs push fortransparency in new UKfund to tackle deforestationdriversA group of UK-based NGOs, includingForest Peoples Programme, FERN,Greenpeace, Environmental InvestigationAgency and Global Witness are calling onthe government to finalise plans for a long-awaited new Forest and Climate Change(FCC) programme through a consultativeand collaborative process with anaccountable mechanism for disbursing fundsunder the UK International Climate Fund(ICF). In July last year, they made severalrecommendations to improve the design ofthe FCC, including that it should
support community systems of forestgovernance, and recognise the role offorest peoples as key rights holders andeconomic actors*, andact on evidence of the effectiveness ofsecure community tenure in stemmingforest loss and in delivering multiplebenefits for local livelihoods and forestpeoples including women.
See: www.forestpeoples.org for all theNGO recommendations and on the ICF.(Source:UK government to refine proposalsfor bilateral deforestation and climate fund.1/Oct/2013)
*In March 2014, an international workshopon deforestation and forest peoples' rightsin Palangkaraya, Central Kalimantan issueda declaration on this:http://www.forestpeoples.org/topics/climate-forests/news/2014/03/palangka-raya-declaration-deforestation-and-rights-forest-people
(continued on page 6)
4
DOWN TO EARTH No. 98, March 2014
In November 2013, Britain announced a newpolicy to no longer put public money into thefinancing of coal-fired power generation indeveloping countries. "It is completely illogicalfor countries such as the UK and the US tobe decarbonising our energy sectors whilepaying for coal-fired power plants to be builtin other countries. It undermines globalefforts to prevent dangerous climate changeand stores up a future financial time bomb forthose countries [where they are built], " saidBritain's energy secretary, Ed Davey at lastyear's intergovernmental climate talks inWarsaw.
However, since 2007, the UK hasprovided about $500m (£310m) to coalprojects, mostly through its share indevelopment banks such as the World Bank,according to figures collated by the USNatural Resource Defense Council (NRDC).The US has provided nearly $9bn over thesame period, Germany about $6bn and Japannearly $20bn. A survey by the US NGOEnvironmental Defense, found that in 2009Indonesia was the highest recipient of publicfunds (including World Bank Group funds) forcoal-fired power stations.1
The UK government's move, whichfollows similar announcements by the USAand the World Bank, has been welcomed, butalso criticised for not going far enough.This isbecause the funding ban doesn't includeexport guarantee finance, which is continuingto underwrite companies involved in coalmining (the latest export credit agreementwas with a company supplying coal miningequipment to Siberia).2 Despite the WorldBank announcement in July 2013 that it wouldlimit coal lending to 'rare circumstances', itcontinues to back (to the tune of US$33.9million) a government guarantee for theconstruction of the Central Java PowerProject, which is due to be of one of thebiggest coal-fired power plants in SoutheastAsia.3
Recently, the British NGO, theWorld Development Movement (WDMwelcomed the government step, but is nowcalling for the British government to takeaction to curb UK private financing for coal.
"Current government policy on coal finance isinconsistent. Ending public funding of overseascoal without taking any action on private fundingis unlikely to have a transformative impactbecause public funding for coal only makes up atiny proportion of the billions of pounds that flowinto the industry every year from the privatesector.The UK government has put about £330mof public money into coal-fired power stations andcoal mining since 2007,while UK banks have put£12bn of private money into coal mining alone
since 2005.That means that UK banks have putin at least 27 times more money per year intocoal than the UK government."
"Around the world, in countries such as Indonesiaand Colombia, coal mining is destroyingagricultural land, polluting water supplies anddisplacing whole villages. It is the private bankingsector, not public funding, that is financing thisboom in coal."4
Last year, following a joint visit to Kalimantanby WDM and DTE, a WDM report revealedthat, since 2009, UK banks have lent more forIndonesian coal than banks from any othercountry in the world.5 Previously in 2012,together with the London Mining Network,and conscious of the fuelling effect of theLondon financial markets, DTE called forstricter regulation of mining companies listedon the London Stock Market, highlighting thecase of Bumi plc.6 More and more, coalmining companies, such as Bumi, are losingtheir legitimacy even in the eyes of theinvestment community. At the same time,civil society organisations are increasinglycalling on the UK government to act toreduce UK investment in coal, impose greencredit controls, require mandatory reportingof financed carbon emissions and ensuretighter criteria and regulation of companieslisted on the London Stock Exchange. (Seealso separate article on LMN's submission tothe UK parliamentary enquiry on theextractives industry).7
In recent months, a series ofreports have been published focusing oninvestment and the economics of theIndonesian coal industry, highlighting many ofthe inconsistencies mentioned here.Increasingly, investors themselves are wakingup to these realities, the true costs and, mostimportantly, the impacts of the miningoperations themselves.8
Notes1. See Environmental Defense,
www.edf.org/documents/9584_coal-plants-spreadsheet.xls and 'UK-Indonesia coalconnections' in DTE's special editionnewsletter (no 85-86,August 2010)http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/uk-indonesia-coal-connections.
2. See http://oneworld.org/2013/11/20/british-coal-pledge-not-worth-the-paper-its-written-on/, the Export Finance UK 2012-2013 reportis athttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207721/ecgd-ukef-annual-report-and-accounts-2012-to-2013.pdf. UK Export finance for companiesselling goods to Indonesia in the period werefor products sold to the Indonesian police
(bomb disposal equipment), the Ministry ofDefence (Intelligence equipment) and pollutioncontrol equipment for a South Koreanengineering and construction company (GSE&C Corp).
3. See: http://priceofoil.org/2013/09/25/world-bank-accelerating-coal-development-indonesia/.There is also an Indonesian language version ofthis report, as well as a petition and campaignto stop this project going ahead:http://forcechange.com/65628/protect-indonesia-from-environmentally-damaging-coal-plant/comment-page-1/#comment-479991See also:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/world-bank-coal_n_3986125.html?utm_hp_ref=climate-change
4. Curbing UK private financing of coal, MPbriefing, January 2014.WDMhttp://www.wdm.org.uk/sites/default/files/Mp%20briefing%20on%20coal%20jan%202014_0.pdf
5. Scrivener A J (2013), Banking while BorneoBurns: How the UK financial sector isbankrolling Indonesia's fossil fuel boom.WorldDevelopment Movement. September 2013.www.wdm.org.uk/sites/default/files/banking_while_borneo_burns.pdf
7. WDM briefing as above.http://www.wdm.org.uk/sites/default/files/Mp%20briefing%20on%20coal%20jan%202014_0.pdf
8. Banktrack report on Banks investment in coal:http://www.banktrack.org/download/banking_on_coal/banking_on_coal_4_67_6.pdfGreenpeace report on the effect of the coalindustry on the Indonesian economy (inIndonesian & English):http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/id/press/reports/Bagaimana-pertambangan-batubara-melukai-perekonomian-Indonesia/
A growing consensus on the need to move away frominvestment in coal ?
Kalimantan's coal-rush, so devastating forcommunities, farmland, forests, peatlands andclimate, will intensify dramatically ifIndonesia's "MP3EI" economic masterplan isimplemented. MP3EI is the national-level plan,published by the Coordinating Ministry ForEconomic Affairs in 2011, aimed at speedingup development in Indonesia.1
The plan divides the archipelagointo 6 main target 'corridors', each with adiffering economic focus. Kalimantan has beendesignated a 'Center for Production andProcessing of National Mining and EnergyReserves', and the general strategy for thecoal industry is "to encourage the extractionof large coal deposits located in inlandKalimantan, accessible with adequateinfrastructure and supported by properregulations while maintaining environmentalsustainability."2
This 'adequate infrastructure'involves building dedicated railways totransport coal from coal-rich areas such asMurung Raya district in Central Kalimantan -location of BHP Billiton's planned Indometcoal project - to rivers or ports on the coast.It means opening up previously inaccessibleareas for large-scale exploitation, enablingcoal mining companies to shift coal farquicker and at much lower cost than theycould by road.The MP3EI cites data on 2009coal production suggesting that productionwill increase 6.7-fold if infrastructureimprovements are applied in CentralKalimantan alone (see figure, copied fromMP3EI).
The railway projects listed in theMP3EI document are from CentralKalimantan to East Kalimantan - Puruk Cahu- Tanjung Isuy (203 km) and Puruk Cahu -Bangkuang (185 km, both in CentralKalimantan), with both projects due to startin 2015.
More recent plans put forward bythe National Development Planning Board in2012 include extending the Puruk Cahu -Bangkuang project to Lupak Dalam (onCentral Kalimantan's coast) in order to "helpthe province transport more coal"(20 milliontonnes annually).3 The TransportationMinistry's railway director has outlined 10railway projects in Kalimantan, all part of theTrans Kalimantan Railway Masterplan, andneeding total investment of around IDR 600trillion (US$62.4 billion). Russia's statecompany Russian Railways is building a coalrailway in East Kalimantan, with a secondphase of the project planned to connect Eastand Central Kalimantan (mentioned above).Aseparate coal railway project linking MuaraWahau to Lubuk Tutung Port in EastKalimantan, would be built by Middle East
Coal Holdings of the United Arab Emirates,he said.4
These projects, and the severenegative impacts they will bring are a matterof growing concern for affected communitiesand CSOs defending their interests. Acoalition of twelve organisations is opposingthe Central Kalimantan project, saying it willlead to ecological destruction.5 Nordin,executive director of one of the groups, SaveOur Borneo, called for the planned project tobe cancelled, saying it will lead to "massiveexploitation of natural resources in CentralKalimantan and will not guarantee energyjustice for the people."6 In East Kalimantan,the mining advocacy network Jatam Kaltimalso opposes these railway projects, which, itsays, will benefit foreign investors while doingnothing for communities. On a broader level,Indonesian CSOs are voicing seriousconcerns about the impacts of the MP3EIacross the country, pointing out that its focuson large-scale projects will worsen conflictsover land and resources. MP3EI projects arebeing driven forward, they say, while thegovernment fails to take action to protect
communities on the ground, and, in the caseof indigenous peoples, fails to implement theConstitutional Court's decision which takesindigenous peoples' customary forests out ofstate control (see separate article).
British-based coal miningcompanies, such as BHP Billiton, are verylikely to benefit from the railway projects,even if they don't want to be too publiclyassociated with initiatives that will trigger alot more coal exploitation in Kalimantan withsevere impacts for local communities.7 At thecompany's most recent London AGM, DTEchallenged the company's board on thisquestion. BHP Billiton Chairman Jac Nassersaid the company was not progressinginvestigation or development of railwayfacilities. However he avoided giving anypublic undertaking not to mine and not to usethe railway.8
It is somewhat ironic that BHPBilliton - one of the world's biggest exportersof coal - feels the need to downplay thesignificance of the Kalimantan railway projectat its AGM, while British public funds arebeing used to highlight investmentopportunities in just this kind ofinfrastructure development, as well as othersectors closely associated with deprivingcommunities of lands and resources. It is afurther demonstration of just how un-joined-up are British priorities on climatechange, human rights and business inIndonesia.
Notes1. See Big Plans for Papua, DTE 91-92, May 2012,
http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/big-plans-papua. Englishlanguage version of MP3EI see:http://www.slideshare.net/Luluk_Uliyah/pdf-mp3ei#
2. MP3EI (English version), 2011, page 102.3. Central Kalimantan's $2.8bn coal railway to kick
off early next year", Jakarta Post 14/Nov/20124. Central Kalimantan's $2.8bn coal railway to kick
off early next year", Jakarta Post 14/Nov/20125. English version of civil society alliance statement
6. 'Coal railway could cause 'ecological disaster' inIndonesian Borneo, warn environmentalists',Diana Parker, Mongabay, 30/Sep/13.
7. For an overall account of UK private sectorinvolvement in coal mining in Kalimantan, see:h t t p : / / w w w. t h e g u a r d i a n . c o m / g l o b a l -development/2013/oct/30/coal-mining-uk-profits-indonesia
8. See LMN report on BHP Billiton AGM, London,5/Nov/2013, at http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/lmn-report-bhp-billiton-agm-london
5
DOWN TO EARTH No. 98, March 2014
MP3EI, the Kalimantan coal railway and UK coal interests
Bar chart from MP3EI document (page102), predicting the increase in coalproduction once the Central Kalimantancoal railway is built.
6
DOWN TO EARTH No. 98, March 2014
As the report goes on, the conflict of interestswithin UK policy towards Indonesia becomesincreasingly apparent:
"In the meantime, we continue to encourage UKcompanies - historically slow to venture toIndonesia, let alone the hinterland - to benefitfrom the infrastructure and other opportunitiesthat places such as East Kalimantan offer.Devolution has given rise to a complex picture atthe local level in terms of land tenure anddecision-making. But the pace of growth and anew raft of mega infrastructure projects (includingan international container port in Balikpapan,several new regional airports, and a new port andindustrial zone in Maloy) hold real opportunity forBritish investors."
This prompts several questions: Isthe FCO trying to encourage more UKinvestment in a part of Indonesia wherecompanies like Rio Tinto, BP and Bumi havedone so much damage to climate andcommunity livelihoods already? Is it tellinginvestors not to worry too much about thecorruption risks because the CCU is helpingto smooth the way for you with itsgovernance improvement programme? Issupporting UK investment in infrastructureprojects in Indonesia's "hinterland" likely to fitwith the aims of the Climate Change Unit to"support people in remote communities tohave choice and control over their owndevelopment and to hold decision makers toaccount"?17
It is clear then, that there arecontradictory forces at play in UK policytowards Indonesia. These need urgentattention so that the dominant businesspriority of the current UK government issubjected to greater scrutiny and tightersafeguards.These need to fully recognize andprotect the human rights of vulnerablecommunities living in areas targeted forinvestment, in line with Britain's internationalhuman rights treaty obligations. Safeguards arealso needed to ensure British interventions inIndonesia reduce greenhouse gas emissions,not increase them.
Notes1. The letter was sent to Cameron and SBY as
co-chairs of the 27-member High Level Panelof Eminent Persons on the Post-2015Development Agenda, set up by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to advise on the globaldevelopment framework beyond 2015, thetarget date for the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs).See http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/sby-and-cameron-co-chairs-high-level-panel-post-2015-development-agenda-time-protect-indigenou
2. UKTI, Doing Business in Indonesia: a UKBusiness Perspective, July 2010, page 23,downloadable fromhttp://www.ukti.gov.uk/export/countries/asiapacific/southeastasia/indonesia/doingbusiness.html,accessed 25/Feb/2014. See also UKTI DoingBusiness in Indonesia, November 2010,downloadable from the same site, whichprovides more details of opportunities inseveral sectors including, railway (including forthe mining sector), power generation, oil & gasand mining, as well as renewable energies.
3. Now renamed 'Asia Resource Minerals' in anattempt to distance itself from the scandalsengulfing the company.
4. See coal campaign on DTE website for moreinformation. http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/campaign/coal
5. See UK Trade and Investment "Indonesia"webpage athttp://www.ukti.gov.uk/export/countries/asiapacific/southeastasia/indonesia.html, accessed25/Feb/2014
6. Improving business with Indonesia, UKgovernment,https://www.gov.uk/government/priority/improving-business-with-indonesia, accessed25/Feb/2014.
7. See'David Cameron calls for UK arms sales toIndonesia,The Guardian 11/Apr/2012,http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/apr/11/david-cameron-trade-mission-indonesia. Formore background on UK arms sales toIndonesia and the link to Indonesia's externaldebt, see DTE 64, 2005 athttp://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/indonesias-odious-arms-debt-uk
8. "I am determined to do everything I can toensure that Britain succeeds in the global raceand to link British business up to the world'sfastest-growing economies…." Prime MinisterDavid Cameron, February 2013. See:http://www.tvetuk.org/wp-content/uploads/UKTI-High-growth-and-emerging-markets-bulletin-April-2013.pdf. See
9. See 'Demonstration to mark visit of SBY toUK', DTE , http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/demonstration-mark-visit-president-sby-uk
10. Indonesian Government Approves Plan ofFurther Development for Expansion of TangguhLNG, BP, 31/Oct/2012.http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/press/press-releases/indonesian-government-approves-plan-of-further-development-for-expansion-of-tangguh-lng.html. For more information on theTangguh project and community perspectives,see http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/campaign/bp-tangguh
11. Improving business with Indonesia, UKgovernment,https://www.gov.uk/government/priority/improving-business-with-indonesia, accessed25/Feb/2014. More information on the servicedoffered is listed on page 27 of the BrochureDoing Business in Indonesia: a UK BusinessPerspective, July 2010, one of two PDF formatguides downloadable fromhttp://www.ukti.gov.uk/export/countries/asiapacific/southeastasia/indonesia/doingbusiness.html
13. As we have documented, UK companies haveplayed a key role in developing and managingthis highly destructive mine. See DTE 85-86,August 2010, for more background.http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/corruption-collusion-and-nepotism
14. See DTE website for more background.15. The President's Delivery Unit for
Development Monitoring and Oversight, alsoknown as UKP4, is led by KuntoroMangkusubroto. It is also leading thedevelopment of Indonesia's One Map Policy -see DTE 93-94, December 2012.http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/indonesia-s-one-map-policy
16. Seehttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/266570/Indonesia-summary2.pdf for the UKCCU operationalplan.
17. DFID, Summary of DFID's work in Indonesia2011-2015, June 2013,https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/266570/Indonesia-summary2.pdf
(continued from page 3)
Coal barge, Mahakam River, 2013 (DTE)
7
DOWN TO EARTH No. 98, March 2014
Last May's ruling by Indonesia's ConstitutionalCourt (MK35/20121) resulted in hutan adat(customary forests) no longer beingcategorised as hutan negara (state forests).Instead they become hutan hak (forestssubject to rights) the second of twocategories of forest listed in Article 6 of the1999 Forestry Law. This means hutan adat,while still subject to the jurisdiction of theMinistry of Forestry, are now considered tobe areas where the communities may havestronger rights to lands and to manageresources - reversing a situation which haspersisted for decades and which has seen thesystematic abuse of indigenous peoples' rightto own and manage their forests, throughoutIndonesia.
Given the immense political powerand wealth-generation potential which flowfrom de facto control over the vast areaclassified as Indonesia's kawasan hutan (ForestZone), it isn't surprising that the ForestryMinistry has been reluctant to hand back theforests to indigenous peoples.
Some key legal questions havearisen in the months following MK35, as theForestry Ministry passes new regulationsapparently aimed at curbing the effect of theConstitutional Court's decision. Generally,the Forestry Ministry's response to MK35seems to be one of containment, aimed atlimiting indigenous peoples' scope to reclaimtheir forests. It appears to be aimed atmaintaining a grip over as much of the ForestZone as possible - an area which makes upalmost 70% of Indonesia's land area. Thisinvolves:
asserting state control over the whole ofthe Forest Zone and ignoring theexistence of the category of forests thatisn't directly controlled by the state:'forests subject to rights' (hutan hak) (seetable);setting up obstacles to make it difficult forindigenous peoples to claim their rightsover their forests, and asserting that theForestry Ministry remains in charge oftheir forests until claims can be backed uplegally;ignoring another important change in thelaw, which results from a separate ruling byIndonesia's Constitutional Court(45/2011) and which undermines theForestry Ministry's claim over the majorityof the Forest Zone.
This Circular was addressed to all provincialgovernors, and district/municipal heads, plusheads of region level forestry services,informing them about the MK35 changes, andasserting Forestry Ministry control overdecisions affecting indigenous peoples'customary forests.
Referring to amended article 5 (3)of the 1999 Forestry Law, the Circular assertsthat it is the Forestry Minister whodetermines customary forest status; and
determining the status of customary forestsrequires the legal recognition of the existenceof the indigenous people through a regionalregulation (Perda).
The Circular also reiterates theConstitutional Court's consideration that ifan indigenous people is no longer inexistence, then the forest management rightwill revert to the Government, and thecustomary forest status changes to stateforest.
Statements by Forestry Minister inHuMa film (posted online October1st) http://huma.or.id/publikasi/film-hutan-adat-paska-putusan-mk-35.html
Forestry Minister Zulkifli Hasan who is
Forestry Ministry reluctant torelinquish control over forests
Last year's ruling on customary forests by Indonesia's Constitutional Court was celebrated by indigenous peoplesacross Indonesia.Ten months on, what progress has been made on implementing the decision?
Forestry Minister Zulkifli Hasan interviewed for the HuMa film. (Photo: screengrab from video onhttp://huma.or.id/publikasi/film-hutan-adat-paska-putusan-mk-35.html)
Kawasan Hutan - Forest Zone - pre MK35/2012
Hutan Negara - state forests - includes hutan adat - customary forests Hutan Hak - forests subject to rights
Kawasan Hutan - Forest zone - post MK35/2012
Hutan Negara - state forests Hutan hak - forest subject to rights- includes hutan adat - customary forests
8
DOWN TO EARTH No. 98, March 2014
interviewed in this film by Jakarta-based civilsociety organisation HuMa, says there is "noproblem with MK35" as long as thecustomary forests are proposed and legalisedby regional regulations (Perda). It should beclear who the community members are, hesays and, once the Perda is passed, "we cantake these lands out of the forest zone."However, then he adds that it will be a long,difficult and costly process and mentions thatusing the "village forest" system (hutan desa)will be much easier. Hutan desa, he explains,still belong to the state, but can be managedby indigenous peoples.
Forestry Ministry regulation 62/2013(Nov 2013).
This regulation is the Ministry's initial legalresponse to MK35/2012 and has drawn fiercecriticism and opposition from civil society,including indigenous peoples.
Regulation 62/2013 sets outchanges to a previous regulation(No.44/2012) on the Establishment of theForest Zone (Pengukuhan Kawasan Hutan),which sets out the rules for, and stagesinvolved in, gazetting (legally determining) theForest Zone.
The regulation was analysed byBernadinus Steni (HuMa) and Yance Arizona(Epsitema Institute) in a December 2013paper.2 In January 2014, AMAN issued apress release and statement calling for theregulation's withdrawal.3
Steni and Arizona point out thatRegulation 62/2013 ignores another decisionof the Constitutional Court (MK 45/PUU-IX/2011) which negates the ForestryMinistry's claim over most of what has been"denoted" as the Forest Zone.4 This isrelevant because the regulation states thatwritten and non-written proof of rights overthe land should predate the denoting of theForest Zone (carried out around 1982). Non-written proof, which applies in most cases ofindigenous peoples' claims, consists of"dwellings, and public and social facilities,based on their historical existence." Wherethese non-written proofs existed after thedenoting of the Forest Zone, additionalcriteria apply: they must have beendetermined in a regional regulation (Perda);and noted in Village or Subdistrict statistics;and consist of more than 10 households livingin at least 10 houses.
This sets up many more hoops forindigenous peoples to jump through toreclaim their forests. The requirementspresents serious difficulties for indigenouscommunities still occupying their customaryterritories, let alone for communities whohave been evicted from their forests, whosevillages have been destroyed, or for disparatecommunities who live in groups of ten or lessfamilies.
Steni and Arizona's analysis alsohighlights the confusion by the Ministry of
Forestry between the terms "Forest Zone"and "state forests". MK35/2012 takescustomary forests out of state forests, notout of the Forest Zone, argue Steni andArizona, but Regulation 62 states thatcustomary forests are to be taken out of theForest Zone (this also fits with the viewexpressed by Minister Zulkifli in the HuMafilm). It is a further indication that theForestry Ministry wants to stick to the oldpractice of treating the whole Forest Zone asunder the control of the state, instead ofallowing space for two categories of forests(hutan hak as well as hutan negara).
At the end of their analysis Steniand Arizona ask a more basic question: is itreally necessary to set up such a complexprocedure in order to recognise the rights ofcommunities who have so long beenmarginalised? What about the government'srole, mandated by the constitution, to giveespecial protection for marginal groups? Whyis the Forestry Ministry making it so difficultfor indigenous peoples? What hope is therefor communities who have already lost theirlands?
AMAN's analysis of Regulation62/2013 further highlights its deficiencies. In astatement calling for the withdrawal of theregulation, AMAN accuses an "arrogant"government of blatantly twisting MK35/2012.AMAN calls on President SBY to take action
to implement MK35/2012, to take thenecessary steps to prevent violence againstindigenous peoples demanding the rights totheir territories, including customary forests,and to withdraw Regulation 62/2013. AMANalso wants the Forestry Ministry and otherstate agencies to issue guidance forimplementing MK35/2012, and is calling onregional governments to immediately prepareregional regulations (Perda) to recognise andprotect indigenous peoples.
Another controversial regulation of 2013:P.32/Menhut-II/2013 regarding theMacro Plan to Consolidate theForest Zone, 5th July 2013
This "macro plan" for forests covering twodecades (2013-2032) is controversial in thepost-MK35/2012 period, because, once again,it appears to be based on state control of allthe Forest Zone, thus ignoring the "forestssubject to rights" (hutan hak) component ofthe Forest Zone.
A series of maps attached to thePlan includes one map indicating the locationof indigenous peoples in the Forest Zone.(Somewhat bizarrely indigenous locations aremarked with mini Indonesian flags.) This hascaused consternation as it indicates anapparently random scattering of very fewareas of customary forests, without indicatingnumbers of people involved, boundaries offorests areas, or where the information hascome from.
Highly controversial too is Law No. 18 ofAugust 2013 on the Prevention andEradication of Forest Degradation(UUP3H).
Indonesian CSOs have objected to this lawnot least because it ignores MK35/2012 andcan be used to criminalise indigenouspeoples.5 AMAN has reported that the lawhas already been used to forcibly evict 380members of the Semende Banding Agungindigenous community in Bengkulu province,Sumatra, from an area designated a NationalPark.6
Notes:1. The Court decision is dated according to the
year the case was submitted (2012), not whenthe decision was issued (2013).
2. Analisa Hukum atas Permenhut No 62 Tahun2013, Dec 18,2013, Bernadinus Steni & YanceArizona.
4. Seehttp://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/putusan/putusan_sidang_45%20PUU%202011-TELAH%20BACA.pdf.This is a significantchange because it means that the forest zonecan only be legally established once all fourstages have been carried out (denoting thearea, setting the boundaries, mapping andgazetting), rather than just once the first stage
AMAN's review of 2013AMAN has provided a useful overview oflegal issues concerning indigenous peoplesin 2013, including post-MK35 developments.It also summarises progress on mappingindigenous territories and providesinformation about conflicts involvingindigenous peoples.7 The review includesan update on the Draft Law on theRecognition and Protection of Indigenouspeoples, which AMAN wants to see passedduring SBY's last months as President andbefore the parliamentary elections this year.
New Law on VillagesA new Law on Villages (Law No.6/2014)provides additional scope for therecognition of indigenous peoples and theirrights to manage their own affairs at villagelevel.8 It provides both opportunities andchallenges for indigenous peoples, accordingto AMAN.9
In October last year, a civil societyworkshop on harmonizing this law (still indraft at the time) with the Bill on IndigenousPeoples' Rights and the draft Land Law,produced a legal opinion for the IndonesianParliament. The legal opinion highlightedcontradictions among the bills that wouldlead to difficulties in implementation incustomary forest areas.10
(continued on page12)
9
DOWN TO EARTH No. 98, March 2014
The environment is a marginal issue notworthy of any attention.This is the perceptionevident from the election campaigns ofparliamentary candidates, almost all of whichare failing to focus on the environment.
A study by WALHI (Friends of theEarth Indonesia) shows that less than 7% ofIndonesian parliamentary candidates havemade commitments on environmental issues.1
This is despite the fact that it is an importantissue for the public. A joint survey by WWFIndonesia and LP3ES (Institute for Institute forSocial Economic Research Education andInformation) found that 95.7% of respondentsconsidered that environmental issues areserious and need to be dealt with by futuremembers of parliament.2
Indonesia's parliamentary electionsare on 9th April, with the first round ofPresidential elections due on 9th July 2014.
Natural ResourcesManagement and DisastersThere are close connections betweendisasters like floods, fires and landslides andthe way natural resources are managed inIndonesia. The allocation of forests forcommercial forestry, including logging, timberplantations, and for large-scale commercialplantations like oil palm and sugarcane; plusthe clearing of forests for mining, is at the rootof the deforestation that triggers suchdisasters.To make things worse for the poor,whose lives and livelihoods are most affectedin disaster-prone areas, the climate impacts ofdeforestation and peatland clearing areincreasing the likelihood of many of the severeweather events that are causing the damage.
In 1997-98, Indonesia experiencedthe world's worst forest fires, centred onKalimantan and Sumatra. An estimated 1.1million hectares of peatland was burned inKalimantan alone during that period.3 Firesare burning in the region once again, followingclose behind the disastrous "haze" of 2013.4
In last year's fires in Sumatra,especially Riau, fires hotspots were mostlylocated in timber plantation concessionsbelonging to the giant pulp and paperconglomerates APP and APRIL.5 Oil palmplantations are frequently the site of fires too:Riau also hosts Indonesia's most extensive oilpalm plantations amounting to 3 millionhectares of Indonesia's total 13 millionhectares of oil palm plantations.6
Natural ResourcesManagement and CorruptionIn the run-up to elections, forests and mineralwealth and plantation land always becomecommodities which are traded for politicalcampaign funds, votes and influence, whetherthis is at regional level for district head, mayoror governor, or at national level for parliamentor president. According to IndonesianCorruption Watch (ICW), the forestry sectorand other natural resources are truly fertileground for securing political funding, forcorruption and for getting rich quick.7
As of 2013, there were aroundseven cases of corruption in the forestrysector in the process of being dealt with, oralready completed, by the CorruptionEradication Commission (KPK).8 Almost allthese perpetrators of corruption occupiedpositions of power.9 Corruption in this sectornot only leads to disasters which harmcommunities, but also bring losses to thestate.A study by ICW into state losses in theforestry sector found that in the 2011-2012period, these losses reached IDR691 trillion(around USD606 million).10
Voting clean and pro-environmentFor some, it seems there is no hope for achange in forestry and natural resourcespolitics in Indonesia, unless environmentalactivists enter the political arena themselves.
Several environmental and indigenous activistshave started to do this by putting themselvesforward as potential members of thelegislature for the coming period.Theseinclude Berry N Furqan, the previous NationalDirector of WALHI, Mahir Takaka, ex Deputyof AMAN, Ridha Saleh, ex Deputy of WALHIand former member of the National HumanRights Commission.
Meanwhile, the Indigenous PeoplesAlliance of the Archipelago (AMAN) hassigned contracts with 180 parliamentarycandidates. These candidates have made acommitment to fighting for AMAN's campaignfor the recognition and protection ofindigenous peoples' rights.11 In SouthSumatra, environmental activists have made apublic pledge to support candidates who arecampaigning for environmental policies.12
It remains to be seen how thesepro-environment and pro-rights candidatesfare in the elections and, if they are successful,how far they will be able to make headway onecological justice after the vote.
Notes:1. Walhi Institute and Eksekutive Nasional Walhi.
Hasil Studi Kualitas Calon Legislatif DPR-RI ProLingkungan Hidup 2014-2019
2. WWF and LP3ES. Survey Persepsi MasyarakatTerhadap Isu Lingkungan dan Preferensi PartaiPolitik. 2014.
5. Riau Headline. 21 June 2013. ‘Berikut PenyebabKebakaran Hutan dan Lahan diRiau’.riauheadline.com/view/Lingkungan/799/Berikut-Penyebab-Kebakaran-Hutan-dan-Lahan-di-Riau.html
12.Detik.com. 22 Juli 2013. ‘Aktifis LingkunganHidup di Sumsel siap Dukung Caleg yang GoGreen’.Websites such as www.jariungu.com,http://www.checkyourcandidates.org/, andhttp://bersih2014.net/id/content/daftar-caleg-bersih-2014-serta-cv are providing informationabout candidates.
Election politics 2014 and natural resources management
How green are the elections? Do Indonesia’s voters care about ecological justice? We take a very brief look...
Election campaign flags and posters adorn awall in Bogor (DTE)
10
DOWN TO EARTH No. 98, March 2014
Sudarmin Paliba stands on a hillside, lookingdown through row upon row of oil palmtrees. "This is where we had our fruit trees,and at the bottom we grew paddy rice," hesays.
One morning in 1994, Sudarminand other farmers from the Buol District ofCentral Sulawesi, Indonesia, were walking totheir farms when they came upon a team ofworkers, guarded by soldiers, chopping downtrees in the surrounding forests.
They were told that a road wasbeing built. But soon they came to understandthat this was just the beginning of a muchlarger operation.All of their customary landsand forests had been signed away withouttheir knowledge or consent to one ofIndonesia's richest and most powerful familiesfor the creation of a massive 22,000 ha palmoil plantation.
Over the next three years, thefarmlands and forests used by over 6,500families were destroyed. Sudarmin and hisfellow villagers stood in front of trucks andattached themselves to trees, but with themilitary backing the operation, there was littlethat they could do.
Today, their former farms andforests are blanketed by an endlessmonoculture of oil palms belonging to the PTHardaya Inti Plantations company, owned bybusiness magnate and political insiderMurdaya Widyawimarta and his wife SitiHartati Cakra Murdaya through their holdingcompany, the Cipta Cakra Murdaya Group.
Wave of land grabsSulawesi is one of the main targets of thebreathtaking expansion of oil palm plantationsin Indonesia. Since 2005, the area under oilpalm in the country has nearly doubled, andnow covers 8.2 million hectares, about a thirdof all of Indonesia's arable land. With littleland left for expansion on the island ofSumatra, where production was traditionallyconcentrated, companies are turning to theislands of Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and Papua.Several of Indonesia's largest palm oilproducers are even expanding to thePhilippines and West Africa.
This expansion is fuelled by growingglobal demand for cheap vegetable oil forfood processing and biofuels. But it's also aresult of brutal inequality.The main players inthe country's palm oil industry are cronies offormer President Soeharto. They are nowusing their accumulated treasure chests andpolitical connections to grab the lands of thecountry's most marginalised communities,
often in collusion with foreign agribusinesscompanies and banks, many of them based inSingapore and Malaysia.
A company with friends inhigh placesPT Hardaya Inti Plantations took over theBuol lands during the final years of Soeharto'sreign. The company's owners, MurdayaWidyawimarta and Siti Hartati CakraMurdaya, made their fortunes throughlucrative procurement contracts withSoeharto's government, before diversifyinginto hotels, plantations and even shoefactories supplying companies like Nike andLacoste.
When the Soeharto dictatorshipcollapsed in 1998, they both moved moredirectly into politics, solidifying connectionsthat run all the way up to the currentPresident Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Theother main shareholders of Pt Hardaya IntiPlantations are also big political players,notably the Minister of Women'sEmpowerment and Child Protection, LindaArmalia Sari and the son of the former chiefof the National Intelligence Agency, RonnyNarpatisuta Hendropriono.
Broken promisesDespite the powerful forces ranged againstthem, the villagers of Buol District weredetermined to get their lands back.A series ofroad blockades and other protest actionsforced Pt Hardaya to negotiate a compromiseagreement in May 2000, under which the
company agreed to provide around 4,900 haof land to compensate displaced villagers andto establish an outgrower programme -known in Indonesia as plasma farming - wherethe company would prepare and plant 2 ha ofoil palms for each family and purchase theharvest at an agreed upon price.
But just one month later, thecompany denied having made the agreementand instead offered only to run an outgrowerprogramme on 15,000 ha outside of theconcession area, on lands that the provincialgovernment would have to identify.
It was a painful setback for thevillagers. Depleted from years of struggle andwithout any support for their cause from thegovernment, their protests petered out andthe company was able to move forward withits operations.
From bad to worseThe situation for the villagers deteriorated inthe years that followed. The companydiscovered that much of the land it hadacquired was not productive, and so it beganexpanding outside of its concession area.Official maps show how the companyencroached on several thousand hectares oflands, primarily on lands reserved for familiesthat moved to the area under a Soehartoprogramme to resettle landless peasants fromother parts of the country.
The deforestation and planting ofoil palms along river banks and on hillsidesboth within and outside the concessioncaused severe soil erosion, with much of thesoil ending up in the fast flowing Buol river.
Peasants' long fight to roll back palm oil land grab in Indonesia
Guest article by GRAIN.This article was first published in January 2014 on GRAIN’s website www.grain.org
View of the PT Hardaya Inti Plantations oil palm concession in Buol, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia(Photo: Pietro Paolini/Terra Project)
11
DOWN TO EARTH No. 98, March 2014
"We used to get three floods peryear on our paddy fields," says Yahyah, apeasant who moved downstream from theplantations in the mid-90s after his village wasdestroyed to make way for the concession."Now we get floods six to eight times amonth, and the flooding has destroyed ourrice production."
The company's promisedoutgrower programme has barelymaterialised. So far, just 400 ha have beenallocated for the programme, and most ofthese lands have gone to the local politiciansthat supported the company. Paraman Yunus,a farmer involved in the outgrowerprogramme, says that monthly payments bythe company only amount to around $40anyway.
"The company keeps us in the darkabout the price calculations," says Paraman."And most of the revenue goes to pay offdebts that we owe to the company for theinitial costs of preparing the lands."
Working conditions on theplantation are abysmal. There are over 3,000people working on the plantation, many ofwhom lost their lands to the company. Theylive in dilapidated camps and are paidaccording to the amount they harvest.
Hamsi is one of these workers,living with his wife and children in a crampedroom in one of the work camps on theplantation. He and his wife have been workinglong, hard weeks here for the past 13 years.
"No matter how hard we work, weare always in debt," says Hamsi.
It is not only the meagre wages paidby the company that keep its workers poor.The company constantly makes deductionsfor all kinds of expenses - from the electricityand water they use in their homes, to thetools and safety equipment that they need forwork. By the end of each month, Hamsi says,there's no money left.
Hamsi's wife, like other womenworkers in the plantation, is responsible forspraying pesticides. One of the pesticidesused extensively in the plantation isGramaxone (paraquat), an herbicide that isbanned in over 30 countries due to its severeimpacts on human health. She says she wasnot provided with training or protectiveequipment by the company, and that shesprayed pesticides throughout herpregnancies and soon after child birth, as shecould not afford to take unpaid days off fromwork.
Renewed resistanceIn 2012, the leaders of three of the villagesthat were destroyed by the plantationestablished contact with the nationalpeasants' movement AGRA. By then, theplantation workers had also formed a unionand had begun pushing for better workingconditions.Together they decided to take upthe fight against the company once againunder the banner of Forum Tani Buol.
In October 2012 they sent adelegation of leaders to Jakarta to meet withthe National Human Rights Commission andto negotiate with the company at its headoffices. They then organised a road blockadeand occupied the mayor's office. In each case,the government and company officialsresponded with promises to pursue asettlement of the land conflict based on theoriginal May 2000 agreement. But nothingmaterialised.
Frustrated with the lack of action,peasants and workers took over thecompany's processing factory in March 2013.The government sent in the military to
remove them, but not before they managedto wrest another promise from thegovernment to impose a resolution.
Despite the years of failedpromises, the villagers are optimistic that theyare close to getting their lands back.They saythat the local government is finally takingtheir side, and they now have a governmentsanctioned task force and the NationalHuman Rights Commission backing theirclaims. The company's owners are also in aweakened position. Siti Hartati CakraMurdaya is currently serving a 2.5 year jailsentence for bribing a Buol official for permitsto expand the company's plantation on landsoutside of the concession area.
The villagers are even starting todiscuss what they will do with the lands oncethey get them back. They are in agreementthat the lands should be managed collectivelyand not through individual ownership andthey recognise that they have little choice butto keep producing palm oil until the currenttrees are fully mature and can be replaced byother crops.
The problem, however, is that thecompany is not acquiescing. Last year, it failedto show up for a meeting with the villagersorganised by the local government, and thereis understandable fear that the companymight leverage its deep connections withinthe government and the army to derail aresolution once again.
A lesson about land grabs for palm oilThe experiences of the communities in Buolshows how the profound impacts of oil palmplantations on local communities get worseover time. The meagre benefits that aplantation provides, whether in jobs orthrough outgrower programmes, are nosubstitute for the loss of access to and
Map of the land concession given to PT Hardaya Inti Plantations.The concession is marked with aclear(red) line.The dark area (in blue) is the 4,900 ha that the villagers are demanding be returnedto them (Photo: Pietro Paolini/Terra Project).
Abdulah Rahman, leader of the union of workerson the PT Hardaya Inti Plantations oil palmplantations in Buol, Central Sulawesi. Rahmanwas laid off by the company immediately afterhe led a delegation of workers and peasants tothe National Human Rights Commission inJakarta in 2012 (Photo: Pietro Paolini/TerraProject).
12
DOWN TO EARTH No. 98, March 2014
control over lands and water thatcommunities use to ensure their food needsand livelihoods.
"We used to get all the food weneeded out of one cropping season," saysSamisar Abu, a mother of three who lost herfamily's farm lands to PT Hardaya IntiPlantation. "My parents earned enough fromfarming to pay our school fees, but now Icannot do the same for my children."
Over the 20 years that the Buolvillagers have struggled to get their lands backand improve working conditions on theplantations, they have seen little but emptywords from the company and thegovernment. The only real gains they havemade in their struggle have come from directactions. They were able to force progress innegotiations only through road blocks andoccupations. The risk with such actions,however, is violent repression. If this lastround of actions fails to secure lands for thevillagers, the conflict is bound to escalate.
It is in this context thatinternational solidarity and monitoring of thesituation is critical. The villagers are keen tobring more international exposure to theircase.They say that one of the ways in whichpeople can provide support is by signing apetition that they will be sending to PTHardaya Inti Plantation.
They also believe that it is crucialfor them to have a more detailed map of thearea that clarifies land use prior to and afterthe plantation, and they are looking forsupport to help finance this work.
PetitionThe community have appealed for national and international support to put pressure on PTHIPand the Buol district head.See: http://www.grain.org/bulletin_board/entries/4870-petition-for-the-struggle-of-buol-farmers-forum-against-land-grabbing-by-pt-hardaya-inti-plantations
The villagers can be contacted through AGRA: agra indonesia [email protected]
Workers of PT Hardaya Inti Plantations living at the company's worker residence within its plantation,Buol, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia (Photo: Pietro Paolini/Terra Project)
has been carried out, as previously.Thedifference between the area that has beendenoted and the area that has been fullygazetted is huge: according to official data, just21.07 million hectares, or 16.3% of what theForestry Ministry has denoted as forests (intotal 130.68 million hectares) has been fullygazetted. MK45/2011 results from an appeal byprovincial and district level authorities seekinggreater power over land allocation decisions.When such areas are defined as being outsidethe forest zone, there is a big risk - if notimmediately then in the medium term - thatthese areas could be handed out to agribusiness
investors, leading to a massive acceleration offorest loss and takeover of forest peoples'lands. (See also DTE 95, March 2013 athttp://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/indonesian-csos-call-save-indonesia-s-remaining-forests).However, ignoring MK45, as the Ministryappears to be doing with Regulation 62/2013,can also be seen as damaging for indigenouspeoples' rights in that it allows the ForestryMinistry to retain its control over the ForestZone while setting up obstacles for therecognition indigenous peoples.
5. Joint Press Statement:The Ratification Of BillOn The Efforts To Eliminate Deforestation,http://www.kpa.or.id/?p=2182&lang=en
6. See ‘2013 in Review Indigenous Peoples'Alliance of the Archipelago’,http://www.aman.or.id/2014/02/28/2013-in-review-indigenous-peoples-alliance-of-the-archipelago-aliansi-masyarakat-adat-nusantara-aman/#.UxRBis6guEE
7. ‘2013 in Review Indigenous Peoples' Alliance ofthe Archipelago’, as above.
8. 'Ruang Masyarakat Hukum Adat Dalam Undang-Undang Desa', EkspresNEWS.com, 1/Feb/2014,http://ekspresnews.com/masyarakat-hukum-adat-dalam-ruang-undang-undang-desa/
9. See ‘2013 in Review Indigenous Peoples'Alliance of the Archipelago’, as above.
10. RRI Quarterly News, Oct-Dec 2013.
(continued from page 8)
with little mention of how it will addressthem. Of particular concern regarding thepromotion of biomass and 'advanced biofuels'is the issue of sustainability on a large scale.The EU's existing environmental sustainabilitycriteria are poor and policies almostcompletely exclude reference to socialimpacts of biofuels and biomass on producercountries. Only radically improved and legallybinding sustainability criteria, with penaltiesfor non-compliance, stand a chance ofcontrolling any environmental or socialdamage caused by high demand for biomass
and biofuels. If transport targets in the REDare scrapped, upholding effective sustainabilitycriteria for biofuels will be challenging if notimpossible.
All eyes on decision-makersThe EC's headline targets for the 2030 energyand climate vision appear ambitious - but theframework behind them has significantweaknesses.The onus is now on EU memberstates to strengthen the framework post-2020, without losing focus on the immediatepriority to fix problems with current biofuelspolicy. It is essential that those with the
authority to make the necessary changes arereminded of their responsibilities to do so.
1. For more information see DTE's article: EUEnergy Council fails to agree on restrictions tobad biofuels - 12th December 2013 athttp://tinyurl.com/lllskra.
2. The Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) sets rules forthe quality of the fuel used in Europeanvehicles. In particular, it dictates a mandatory6% reduction in the greenhouse gas intensity offuels by 2020 (under Article 7a).To reach this6% reduction, Member States are relying onblending petrol and diesel with agrofuels.
(Continued from page 13)
13
DOWN TO EARTH No. 98, March 2014
Biofuels gridlock continues into 2014Indecision and uncertainty on EU biofuels policy persists, as communities in Indonesia continue to suffer the
impacts of oil palm expansion.
biofuels
2013 ended with biofuels policy trapped in agridlock of indecision.1 The European Councilfailed to agree on the measures presented tothem by the European Parliament inSeptember, aimed at addressing the negativeimpacts of indirect land use change (ILUC)and land-based biofuels. Several months into2014 and the European Parliament'sproposals are gathering dust on theparliamentary shelves.While decision-makerscontinue to deliberate, it's business as usualon biofuels and the damage this causes topeople, the environment and the climate.
A vision for Europe's post2020 Climate and EnergyFrameworkMeanwhile, the focus on renewable energieshas turned to the future - post 2020. InJanuary this year, the European Commission(EC) released a report which sketches out itsvision for the European Union's (EU) climateand energy framework for 2020-2030. Thecommission's proposal reflected demandsfrom the biofuels industry and several EUMember States, for a 'simplified' EU climateframework post-2020.
The EU's current climate andenergy framework (which ends in 2020)requires member states to achieve specifictargets to reduce emissions and increasetheir share of renewable energy, particularlyin transport. If agreed, existing sub-targets fortransport and energy will be dropped underthe new '2030' framework. Instead, the EUwill set a single renewable energy goal of 27%and a single target to cut carbon by 40% by2030 (compared to 1990 levels), which willapply to the European Union as a wholewithout any specific or binding targets forindividual member states.
The new framework would allowflexibility for governments to choose themost cost effective means of cuttingemissions - but what happens to thosemembers states which fail to pull their weightin introducing more renewable energy? Inplace of the national binding targets, the 2030framework encourages new 'regionalapproaches', which support betterconsultation and coordination of national andregional energy policies betweenneighbouring countries as a strategy forachieving energy and climate targets.
It remains unclear precisely howthis new style of governance will ensure thatgovernments are held accountable for their
renewable energy contributions - especiallyconsidering the lack of binding targets or legalcapacity to impose penalties. A certainamount of flexibility can be positive forallowing governments the freedom to tailortheir own renewable energy paths. However,history has shown that compulsory targets atthe national level are important for instigatingaction and for holding governmentsaccountable for delivering on their promises.So will the lack of legal targets for memberstates allow emissions, particularly fromtransport, to slip through the net, post 2020?Could Europe then fail to reach its 2030unified emissions targets as a result? How canEurope provide certainty that the Union willachieve its targets without the ability tomeasure or assess this at the member statelevel?
These are just some of thequestions being raised as the European Unionmember states enter into debate on the EC'sproposal.The pressure is now on to reach anagreement for the new 2030 frameworkbefore the 2015 International ClimateNegotiations in Paris.
What does this mean forbiofuels?Debates over what should be regarded asgenuinely 'renewable' energy have doggedclimate discussions for years - and none moreso than the debate around biofuels.The EC'snew framework proposes some positivechanges, including an end to public support(subsidies) for food-crop based biofuelsbeyond 2020. Dropping the 10% sub-targetfor renewable energy in transport will mostlikely bring an end to the biofuels mandatescurrently imposed on member states. Biofuelsmandates have driven the increasing demand
for land-based feedstocks, such as palm oilfrom Indonesia, resulting in devastatingimpacts on community livelihoods, forestsand peatlands.
So does the new climate andenergy framework present a reason tocelebrate on biofuels? Not quite. Byproposing that sub-targets are dropped fromthe 2030 goals, the EC is removing incentivesfor governments to pursue biofuels, whichcould lead to a phase out of 1st generationbiofuels such as palm oil - indeed a positivestep. But even if biofuel mandates arescrapped, the Renewable Energy Directive(RED), which originally set the biofuelstargets and stimulated the market, hascreated a thirst for biofuels in Europe, whichis unlikely to go away. If oil prices rise highenough, member states could considerbiofuels as a viable contribution to theirdomestic renewable energy mix, evenwithout the support of EU subsidies. Thedanger is that under the 'national target-free'2030 framework, the EU will have littlelegislative control over how governmentscontribute to the Union's headline targets onrenewable energy and emission reductions -including the quantity (and quality) of anybiofuels they may use.To add to civil societyconcerns, the new framework fails to set a2030 target on energy efficiency andproposes to scrap the Fuel Quality Directive(FQD), which sets a legal target of 6% on thegreenhouse gas intensity of fuels. The FQD isessential for ensuring that only the mostefficient and highest carbon saving biofuelsare used so losing the FQD opens the doorsfor governments to use less sustainable fuelswith little legislative grounds for recourse.
Biomass on the menuThe EC's report recognises the limitations of1st generation biofuels as a renewable fuel inEurope, as well as the issues associated withILUC. Energy and climate plans for 2030 willpromote the use of advanced biofuels toreplace 1st generation biofuels and todecarbonise certain transport sectors. Thereport also states that ambitious renewablestargets will require a strong increase in theuse of biomass - both domestic and imports -and encourages "An improved biomasspolicy…necessary to maximize the resourceefficient use of biomass in order to deliverrobust and verifiable greenhouse gas savings".
The EC admits to the challengesand limitations in delivering this vision, but
Palm oil fruit
(Continued on page 12)
The London Mining Network, WorldDevelopment Movement and other NGOshave repeated their calls for tougherregulation of extractive industry companieslisting on the London Stock Exchange. Theywant new requirements for companies tomeet standards on human rights, environmentand climate before listing in London, and tomeet much higher transparency standards.The government should institute increasedmonitoring of extractive company behaviour,with clear sanctions for those companies whofail to abide by these regulations.
The Business Innovation and SkillsParliamentary Select Committee in Londonheard evidence from four NGOrepresentatives – London Mining Network(LMN), World Development Movement(WDM), Christian Aid and WWF-UK - as partof their enquiry into the extractive industriessector.1
The enquiry was prompted in largepart by the scandal surrounding Bumi plc,2
the coal company riven by boardroomdisputes between its Indonesian and Britishdirectors. The company has seen its shareprice slump, its shares temporarily suspended,and is the subject of ongoing investigationsfor corruption. An attempted “divorce”between the Indonesian and UK parts ofBumi plc is still unresolved, due to continuingdisputes over costs, legal issues and debt.
Bumi plc’s major assets areinvestments in coal mines, including the hugeKPC coal mine in East Kalimantan which hasa long record of negative social,environmental and human rights impacts onlocal communities. DTE has repeatedlybrought these impacts to the attention of thecompany and the wider public in the UK andIndonesia, arguing that community interestsshould not be drowned out by boardroomclashes.3
MPs questioned the NGOrepresentatives for one and a half hoursabout the written evidence they hadsubmitted in advance. LMN’s submissionargued that the operations of UK-listed andUK-funded mining companies are causing
severe damage and creating a legacy ofbitterness. “Neither engagement with miningcompanies nor voluntary initiatives such asEITI are in themselves sufficient to holdmining companies accountable: stricterregulation is necessary.”
LMN is recommending that eitherthe Financial Conduct Authority or someother statutory body be given the power,responsibility, funding and institutionalcapacity to enforce good conduct on all UK-listed extractives companies, including thosetrading on the London Stock Exchange’sAlternative Investment Market. “This mustextend beyond matters of financial concernto shareholders and include compliance withhuman rights, social and environmentalstandards.”4
Supplementary material was sentafter a meeting between DTE, JATAM (theIndonesian Mining Advocacy Network), LMNand members of the ParliamentaryCommittee in November last year, followinga speaking and lobby tour by the Coordinatorof JATAM and a representative of Indigenouscommunities in Colombia affected by theactivities of BHP Billiton.5
In the committee’s March session,MPs were interested to know why so manyNGOs were working on the extractivesindustry, what their views were aboutengaging with extractive companies, how farit was damaging or otherwise to Britishinterests that London is a centre for theextractives industry companies, and what wasthe most effective way of getting companiesto improve their practices.
They asked about measuresintroduced by other Stock exchanges (such asthe Hong Kong and Johannesburg Stockexchanges) to impose human rights, socialand environmental standards.
The NGOs argued that it isdamaging as well as embarrassing for Britainto continue allowing companies with appallinghuman rights, social and environmentalrecords to be listed on the London StockExchange. They should be compelled by lawto publish much fuller information about all
14
DOWN TO EARTH No. 98, March 2014
Tighten up human rights & environmentrules for mining companies,
British MPs toldOn March 4th, London Mining Network (LMN) and other NGOs gave evidence to the UK Parliament’s Business andSkills Committee, as part of the Committee’s inquiry into the extractive industries sector. LMN made a convincing
case for stricter regulation, based on the experience of communities directly affected by UK-based companiesaround the world.
extractives
Richard Solly of LMN gives evidence to MPs inparliamentary committee session in London.(image: screengrab from official video)
Submitting evidence: representatives from WDM,WWF-UK, Christian Aid and London MiningNetwork (LMN) at the Houses of Parliament,London, March 2014.
DOWN TO EARTH No. 98, March 2014
the impacts of their operations, said RichardSolly of LMN. These should include arequirement to report not only on jobscreated, but also the number of jobsdestroyed.
UK-listed companies should belegally required to note in their corporatereports all findings of non-compliance withIFC and OECD standards, he said, and of UKand non-UK regulations concerningbiodiversity and environmental protection, aswell as convictions in UK and non-UK courts.
The UK’s Financial ConductAuthority should also ensure that UK-listedcompanies recognise and respectinternational human rights and environmentalstandards to which the UK is a signatory,including the Universal Declaration of HumanRights, the International Covenant onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights, the UNDeclaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples and the Convention on BiologicalDiversity. Companies should be required toimplement the highest environmental, social,cultural, labour, and health and safetystandards.
London as extractives centre alsobrings a high financial risk, argued WDM’sAlex Scrivener: if the “carbon bubble” orheavy reliance on investment in carbon
intensive industries bursts amid moves todecarbonise the UK economy, we could beagain thrown into financial crisis.
Throughout the hearing, repeatedreference was made to the particularsituation in Indonesia with regard to theextractive industry. Reference was made tocompanies such as BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto(including the Grasberg mine), Bumi andother companies. At the close of the meeting,WDM referred to the “gutting” by the coalmining industry of one particular province inIndonesia (East Kalimantan).6
The next stage of the committee’senquiry is a visit to South Africa to viewextractives industry practices there. Afterthat, the committee will publish its report andrecommendations to the UK government.
Only then will it become evidenthow far this cross-party committee of MPs
have taken on board the urgent need forreforms and what specifically they arerecommending to remedy the situation.
See also 'LMN tells Parliamentary Committeeto tighten regulation on mining companies' onthe LMN blog.
2. In an attempt to rebrand and cleanse Bumi'simage, the company has now been renamed'Asia Resource Minerals'.
3. See DTE reports about Bumi athttp://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/campaign/coal
4. Available at http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/sites/downtoearth-indonesia.org/files/LMN-evidence-psc.pdf
5. Attached to http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/tighten-human-rights-environment-rules-mining-companies-british-mps-told
6. See ‘New report and films on UK-Kalimantancoal connections’, September2013.http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/new-report-and-films-uk-kalimantan-coal-conne
The vote was a close-run thing: we helpedlimit the ambitions of the industry lobbyistswho were pushing for unrestricted use inEurope of land-based agrofuel crops like palmoil and MEPs voted to set a cap on the usageof land-based biofuel crops - although slightlyhigher than we were pushing for. Now, muchmore work needs to be done to ensure thatcommunity livelihoods in Indonesia are nolonger negatively affected by EU policies. Wereported in full about the campaign and thekey questions in the current agrofuels debates
in our dual language special edition newsletter,published in December.
Apart from agrofuels, publicationsfocused on indigenous peoples and climatechange. We published the Indonesian versionof our joint book with AMAN, Forests for theFuture (Hutan untuk Masa Depan), shortlyafter the Constitutional Court's landmarkdecision on customary forests.
We also ensured that moreindependent information about REDD(Reducing Emissions from Deforestation andForest Degradation) - provided by the widelyread REDD-Monitor website - was available
in the Indonesian language. Working with theIndigenous Peoples Network in Aceh, weensured that the information was madeavailable to communities whose forests arebeing targeted for REDD.
For more snapshots, and the biggerpicture, browse the English or Indonesianhomepage of our website (everything we postappears on the homepage), find us onFacebook, or follow us on Twitter. If you wouldlike to help support our work, please considerdonating to DTE by hitting the new Donatebutton coming soon on our website.
“Companies should be compelled bylaw to report on all the impacts oftheir operations, including not only
reporting the number of jobscreated, but also the number of jobs
destroyed.”
All of DTE’s English language publications can be accessed via www.downtoearth-indonesia.org
Indonesian language materials are at www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/id
We no longer publish a print version of the newsletter except for paying subscribers.If you would like to take out a print version subscription at GBP20 per year, please [email protected].
(continued from back page)
DOWN TO EARTH No. 98, March 2014
Focusing public attention on the devastatingimpacts on communities, environment andclimate of coal mining and agrofuels featuredprominently in DTE's work over the last year.In June, DTE visited East and CentralKalimantan with members of another UKNGO, World Development Movement. Thetrip included trekking to the site of BHP-Billiton's planned Haju coal mine - an arearich in rainforest biodiversity. We also spoketo local community members who don't wantto see any more land turned into a massiveopen-pit mine (they have seen what thesemines are like in neighbouring areas).
A few months later, we co-hostedJATAM coordinator Hendrik Siregar in theUK. He spoke about the impacts of coalmining at WDM-organised public meetingsaround the UK, and at BHP Billiton's LondonAGM he asked the company's board why itwas persisting in dirty energy exploitation inKalimantan. DTE informed companyshareholders at the AGM how local peopleare against the Haju mine and how it will ruinlocal livelihoods. BHP Billiton claims it "isn'tlike other companies", and that it is treadingcarefully in Kalimantan. But is it possible for acoal company to tread carefully? How aboutdoing what people really want and nottreading there at all?
Other companies involved in coal-mining in Kalimantan include Bumi plc. Bumi’sboardroom splits and ongoing financialscandals have overshadowed news of humanrights abuse and planned relocation of localpeople,. The vast Kaltim Prima Coal mine isexpanding further (it is already Indonesia'sbiggest coal mine, producing over 40 milliontonnes per year). DTE challenged Bumi'sboard about these on-the-ground impacts atthe company's AGM in June.
As an active member of the LondonMining Network, we supported the campaign
to secure tighter rules and supervision ofcompanies like Bumi listing on London'sStock Exchange.
Turning to agrofuels, we workedclosely with other European NGOs as well asWALHI and Sawit Watch in Indonesia, toscrutinise the fast-developing world of
biofuels policy-making in the European Union,watching out for opportunities to highlightthe negative impacts of current policies andpush for improvements. A key EuropeanParliament vote was scheduled forSeptember. So, we worked hard with visitingactivists from Indonesia to campaign for aphasing out of land-based crops being used asbiofuels in Europe under its 2020 fuel andenergy targets.
Want to help shapeDTE’s future?
DTE is looking for new boardmembers with skills andexperience especially in
personnel, fundraising andcommunications.
If you’re interested in workingfor ecological justice forIndonesia, please contact
DTE activities Update 2013:snapshots from a year of campaigns
(continued on inside back cover)
Bakrie in muddy watersDuring a visit to East Java hosted by the mining advocacy network JATAM, DTE witnessedan astounding piece of action-theatre.This featured an effigy of Aburizal Bakrie (a candidatein this year's Presidential elections) being pelted with mud on the shore of the vast Lapindomud lake in Sidoardjo.The mudflow has spread over thousands of hectares, forcing villagersout of their homes and swamping their farmland.
Bakrie leads one of Indonesia's most powerful business families, which has majorinvestments in coal (including in Bumi), oil palm, land, and property, and is widely heldresponsible for the mudflow. He has never been held to account and has long since sold theoil drilling company that is accused of triggering the disaster.
The poster in the picture says:“Danger don’t vote for me”. Bakrie is thepresidential candidate for Golkar, and is currently lagging far behind the most popularcandidate Joko Widodo, known as Jokowi, who is standing for the PDI-P (IndonesianDemocratic Party - Struggle) .The Presidential elections are on July 9th while parliamentaryelections are on the April 9th 2014.
For background on the mudflow disaster see http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/east-java-mudflow-disaster. (Photo: DTE)
