Ladia Galaska road network: construction continues ...€¦ · major rivers - Krueng Seunagan,...

Floods hit four districts in Aceh on May 7-8,in the western area downstream of the LadiaGalaska road project, leaving one persondead, sweeping away four houses and forcingthousands to leave their flooded homes.Heavy rains had caused the region's threemajor rivers - Krueng Seunagan, KruengMeurebo and Krueng Tripa - to overflow.Local environmental group,WALHI Aceh, saidthe roads in the Ladia Galaska network cutacross two of these watersheds. WALHIrepeated warnings that more disasters wouldfollow if the authorities insisted on pushingahead with the project.

The controversy over LadiaGalaska was reignited three years ago whenAceh governor Abdullah Puteh revived plansfor the road network to link the Gayohighlands to the east and west coasts. Plansshow 450km of main roads, plus over 1200kmof minor roads.The project will fragment the2.6 million Leuser Ecosystem, whichencompasses Gunung Leuser National Park. Itwill open access to more forest exploitationin areas already severely under pressure fromorganised illegal logging. The police, militaryand members of the local political elite are allknown to be deeply involved. Even thepresidential edict on controlling illegal loggingin the Leuser Ecosystem (InPres No5/2001),has had no effect. At least a quarter of theforests in the Leuser Ecosystem aredegraded.

Hold governor accountableIn an open letter, a 24-member environmentaland human rights NGO alliance urgedPresident Megawati to hold the Acehgovernor to account for the flood disaster.The Indonesian NGO Alliance against theLadia Galaska Road Network said AbdullahPuteh should also be told to account for theRp 400 billion (US$44 million) of publicmoney spent on the Ladia Galaska projectsince 2001 - large-scale corruption issuspected - and for approving a deeply flawedenvironmental impact study in 2003. Theletter asked Megawati to order the project'ssuspension and consider alternative routesproposed by members of her cabinet andNGOs.

The Alliance is convinced thatpowerful national and local business interestsare forcing the pace and direction ofdecision-making on the Ladia Galaska roadnetwork. The NGOs point to disagreementwithin parliament over the project.Parliamentary commission VIII, whoseresponsibilities include environmental issues,opposes the project, while commissions IVand IX, responsible for regional infrastructureand the national budget, are pushing for it togo ahead. The military and police in Aceh,known to be profiting from illegal logging, arein favour of the Ladia Galaska project. Theyalso see the scheme as a means of tighteningtheir grip on people suspected of belongingto Aceh's independence movement, GAM.Some prominent local and national political

figures have accused NGOs who oppose theroad network as being anti-development andpro-GAM.

Environment minister NabielMakarim has expressed publicly hisopposition to the road project. He said theroad development would destroy Leuser'sbiodiversity and increase illegal logging there,as well as make it easier for members of theFree Aceh Movement (GAM) to movearound.The head of the national developmentplanning agency has spoken out against LadiaGalaska and Indonesia's most eminentenvironmental professor, Otto Soemarwoto,said that the environmental impact study was

Ladia Galaska road network:construction continues, controversy rages

NGOs have stepped up their campaign to halt construction of the Ladia Galaska road projectwhich cuts through the Leuser Ecosystem in Aceh - one of world's richest areas of

tropical rainforest.

No. 62 August 2004

office: 59 Athenlay Rd, London SE15 3EN, England, email: [email protected] tel/fax: +44 16977 46266 website:http://dte.gn.apc.org

Many back issues of the DTEnewsletter are available freeof charge.For more information contact us [email protected]

InsideForests:

Illegal logging - defining legalityChronic overcapacityForest fires

Pulp:NGOs oppose S. Kalimantan mill

Land:New plantation law

Conservation:Indonesian CSOs slam privatisation

GM agriculture:Indonesia to sign biosafety protocol

Politics:When the elections are over...

Economy:CGI mid-term review

In brief...

356

7

8

10

11

13

1416

Forest fires - again, see page 6

DOWN TO EARTH No. 62,August 2004

seriously flawed. Former environmentminister and senior Indonesian statesmanEmil Salim has also criticised the project fornot meeting the needs of the people of Aceh.In an open letter to the Indonesian press, hecalled for any road developments to be in thenorthern part of the province where tourism,industry and agriculture would bring morebenefits to the local economy and tocommunities.

In early July, forest conservationnetwork SKEPHI, a member of the NGOAlliance, issued a press release listing nine'crimes' committed by governor Puteh.Theseincluded presiding over an increase in illegallogging in Aceh - despite a loggingmoratorium; wasting money on Ladia Galaskawhen it would be better spent onhumanitarian programmes and post-conflictdevelopment; presiding over corruption ofproject funds; setting a precedent for illegalroad-building through Gunung LeuserNational Park; and besmirching Indonesia'simage internationally. SKEPHI also suggestsways for President Megawati to improve thatimage: by immediately dismissing governorPuteh from his post; preventing morespending on the Ladia Galaska project;investigating corruption in the province sincePuteh became governor; stopping all work onthe project; and ordering a comprehensivestudy of all road construction needs in Aceh.

WALHI to appeal court caserulingEarly July saw the Banda Aceh DistrictCourt's dismissal of WALHI's lawsuit againstgovernor Puteh, and other officials.The NGOargued that the government had violated the1997 environment law by permitting work onthe project to start in 2002 before anenvironmental impact assessment (EIA) had

been carried out. The EIA was eventuallysubmitted in 2003.The case was dismissed onthe grounds that the project had not officiallystarted until 2003. The judges also said thewitnesses had provided no hard evidence ofWALHI's claim that the Ladia Galaska projectwould damage the protected forests.

WALHI called the ruling 'ridiculous'and said it would appeal.

Earthquakes and landslideswarningOne of WALHI's expert witnesses during thecase was Eko Soebowo, a scientist fromIndonesia's Institute of Sciences, LIPI. He saidthat six of the nine planned routes in the roadnetwork would cross a fault line and wouldbe prone to earthquakes, landslides andcollapse. The previous month, a LIPIresearcher had told a seminar on the roadproject that that some sections of the roadwould be prone to natural disasters. AdrinTohari, member of a government-appointedteam* given the task of assessing the LadiaGalaska scheme, said that different sections ofthe road would be liable to localisedlandslides, generalised landslides andearthquake damage. One of the conclusionsin the team's final report was that the projectwould have little effect on the hydrology ofthe area. The NGO consortium Greenomicswithdrew from the team because it stronglydisagreed on this point and did not want tobe party to decisions taken on misleadinginformation. Meanwhile, an official at theministry for resettlement and regionalinfrastructure said that construction wasproceeding only in non-controversial sectionsof the road.

*This team also included Bestari Raden,arrested in March this year, while visiting Acehas part of the team's work - see box.

(Source:WALHI Aceh press release 11/05/04;Open letter from NGO Alliance Against theConstruction of Ladia Galaska Road13/05/04; Jakarta Post 10&11/Jun/04,5&6/Jul/04; SKEPHI press release 1/Jul/04;Kompas 22/Jun/04, 9/Jul/04)

Gunung Leuser NationalPark declared World

Heritage Site

Around the date that WALHI's lawsuit wasdismissed, UNESCO announced that threeparks in Sumatra had been declared WorldHeritage Sites.They are the GunungLeuser National Park - a 890,000 hectarearea within the 2.6 million hectare LeuserEcosystem.The other two are the KerinciSeblat and Bukit Barisan Selatan nationalparks.

The news was received with dismay bySKEPHI, which had been pushing for thewhole Leuser Ecosystem to be included.(DPA 6/Jul/04; http://www.eu-ldp.co.id/)

Bestari Raden on trial

The indigenous and environmental activistBestari Raden, whose March arrest isbelieved to be linked to his opposition tothe Ladia Galaska road scheme, is still indetention in Aceh. He is being tried on acharge of 'treason' [makar] for his allegedinvolvement with the Free Aceh Movement(GAM).The charge carries a maximum jailterm of 20 years.A second charge oforganising the burning down of a loggingcamp, carries a maximum sentence of sixyears.

Bestari’s defence lawyers haveasked for his case to be dismissed on thegrounds that the evidence wasinsubstantial, but the judges have said thatthe case is to proceed.Witnesses havebeen called for both prosecution anddefence.For background see DTE 61:10 orhttp://dte.gn.apc.org/61IND.htm,http://dte.gn.apc.org/cbest3.htm andAmnesty International websitewww.amnesty.org.

Urgent Action:Please press members of your governmentand your ambassador to Indonesia to takeaction so that:

the charges against Bestari Raden aredismissed;key members of the local government,administration, police and military areinvestigated for involvement in illegallogging;work on the Ladia Galaska roadnetwork is halted.

Please also continue to send faxes to theIndonesian ambassador in your country,the Indonesian Forestry Minister andPresident Megawati.

Megawati Soekarno PutriPresiden Republik Indonesia [President]Istana MerdekaJakarta 10110 IndonesiaEmail [email protected] +62-21 345-2685 or 380-5511 or5268726 orFax Sekretariat Presiden 344-2223Telex 44283 BIGRA IA or 44469 DEPLU IA

Menteri Kehutanan [Forestry Minister]M.PrakosaGedung Pusat Kehutanan ManggalaWanabhakti Blok I Lt.4Jl. Gatot Subroto Senayan Jakarta 12070Tel +62-21 5731820/0218Fax +62-21 570 0226

2


forests

'Illegal logging' - defining legality,undermining rights

Efforts to secure protection for local communities under a new timber trade standard may be undermined by anemergency decree on illegal logging.

In 2002, the Indonesian and Britishgovernments signed a Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MoU) to combat illegallogging and the illegal timber trade.Two yearson, after a stop-start, lengthy and somewhatpatchy process of consultation, the twogovernments are getting closer to agreeingwhat they mean by 'legal' and 'illegal'.

Lobbying by civil societyorganisations led the UK government'sDepartment for International Development(DFID) to conclude that it was necessary tospell out what 'legal' and 'illegal' mean in aconfusing and contradictory Indonesian legalcontext. A response was required to thedemands of indigenous peoples’organisations, grouped in AMAN (the Allianceof Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago), andsupported by many NGOs, that the definitionof legality required a radical rethink.According to AMAN, the narrow definitionapplied by the Indonesian government deniesthe rights of indigenous peoples since theircustomary rights are not adequatelyrecognised under existing forestry and otherlaws. Indigenous peoples in Indonesia havelong demanded restoration of their rights tocontrol lands and resources in theircustomary areas. Their own definition of'illegal' covers most of the timber operationsconsidered as 'legal' by the government. Thisis because, in the majority of cases, indigenouscommunities never gave their consent to theindustrial logging of their forests.

The Indonesian government hasrefused to consider any change to the statusquo. It insists that any discussions on forestuse and tenure take place within theframework of the 1999 Forestry Law.However, it has become increasinglyconcerned that international buyers arerefusing to accept Indonesian timber due toprotests and direct action by environmentalcampaigning groups in Europe and the USA.So, last year there were two multi-stakeholder regional meetings (in Pelalawan,Riau and Berau, East Kalimantan) followed bya national workshop to clarify what 'legal'timber is. Forestry department officials kept atight rein on these consultations and thedrafting process.

Principle 1.Land tenure and Use rightsThe legal status of, and tenure rights to theForest Management Unit[2] are clearlydefined and its boundaries have beenproperly gazetted.The Company[3] hasdocumented, legally established rights toharvest timber within those boundaries, andharvests timber only within thoseboundaries.

Principle 2. Physical and Social EnvironmentalImpactThe Company has an Environmental ImpactAssessment (AMDAL) covering the ForestManagement Unit that was prepared in theprescribed manner, and can demonstratethat it complies with all legal, physical, socialand environmental requirements stated inthe AMDAL, as well as all legal requirementsfor monitoring and reporting onimplementation of the AMDAL.

Principle 3. Community Relations and WorkersRightsThe Company complies with all its legalresponsibilities in ensuring the well-being ofcommunities affected by its activities in theForest Management Unit, its provision ofservices to local communities, and the well-being and safety of its workers andcontractors employed in the ForestManagement Unit.

Principle 4.Timber Harvesting Laws andRegulationsThe Company conducts all forest planning,harvesting and other activities within theForest Management Unit in compliance withrelevant government regulations.

Principle 5. Forest TaxesThe Company pays all relevant legallyprescribed fees, royalties, taxes and otherlegal charges related to its use of the ForestManagement Unit and the timber extractedfrom it.

Principle 6. Log Identification,Transfer andDeliveryThe Company ensures that all logstransported from the Forest ManagementUnit are properly identified, have correctassociated documentation and aretransported in accordance with governmentregulations.

Principle 7.Timber Processing and ShippingTimber processing facilities and shippingcompanies have valid licenses and operate inaccordance with applicable governmentregulations.

[1]Final summary by participants atStakeholder Consultation in Jakarta, June2003 [2]"Forest Management Unit" refers to thedefined area of land from which theCompany claims to have right to harvesttimber and is subject to evaluation.[3]"Company" refers the legally establishedbody that claims authority to perform theforest, transport or processing operationsunder evaluation.

The draft Legality Standard, includingprinciples, criteria and indicators andguidance notes can be accessed atwww.illegal-logging.info/

Principles of Legality for Forestry Operations and Timber

"Timber is legal when the validity of its origin, logging permit, logging system andprocedures, administration and transport documentation, processing, and trade ortransfer are verified as meeting all applicable legal requirements.[1]"

3


The result is a draft 'LegalityStandard', which was made public in May2004. The standard is aimed at "making iteasier for buyers to differentiate betweenlegally and illegally produced Indonesiantimber products". Its goal is to promote thelegal timber trade and discourage illegaltrading. It consists of seven broad principlesof legality, accompanied by criteria andindicators and guidance notes to helpauditors verify compliance with eachindicator.

However, as all the principles,criteria and indicators are specifically aimedat Forest Concession Holders (HPH), thelegality status of timber which comes fromcommunity forests (hutan rakyat/hutan adat)still remains unresolved, where these alsoneed to access the timber market.

Field testing in KalimantanThe Legality Standard is due to be field-testedin July by the US-based conservationorganisation,The Nature Conservancy, in theEast Kalimantan timber concession of PTSumalindo, where SGS/URS will carry out thelegal verification. An independent assessmentof the social aspects of this pilot verificationwill then be carried out by Dr MarcusColchester, director of the UK-based NGO,

Forest Peoples Programme, during Augustand September. The findings are then to bediscussed in a national workshop involvingNGOs and other interested parties.

An emerging issue in the discussionbetween TNC, civil society organisations(CSOs) and the MoU team is the involvementof CSOs in the process of carrying out theMoU’s Plan of Action as an independentmonitor.

Language on adatAMAN, plus a number of Indonesian CSOs,have been involved in the legality discussions,but largely on an ad hoc and informal basis.Their inputs have ensured that some wordingon adat (customary) rights and the principleof free, prior informed consent has beenincluded in the draft criteria and indicators.

For example, on Principle 1, landand tenure rights, criterion 1.2.1 states that acompany must hold a valid timber harvestinglicence (HPH, HPHTI, IUPHHK) "that hasbeen approved by the Department ofForestry and that has been issued only withthe free and prior informed consent of allaffected communities."

On Principle 3, community relationsand workers rights, criterion 3.1 states thatthe company "has identified all communitiesaffected by its activities in the ForestManagement Unit and has obtained their freeand prior informed consent to carry outthose activities". Criterion 3.2. states that thecompany "has identified and documented thetraditional rights of communities affected byits activities in the Forest Management Unitand can demonstrate that it respects thoserights."

This language is to be welcomed inthat it does offer the hope of someprotection for indigenous and localcommunities in forest areas, and offers betterprospects than the Indonesian government'sBRIK approach (see DTE 60:13).Nevertheless, civil society organisationsremain very concerned that the draftstandard does not go nearly far enough inprotecting indigenous peoples' rights to landand resources.The standard is, after all, aimedat promoting the timber trade, rather thanprotecting Indonesia's fast-dwindling forestsor promoting the rights of indigenous andlocal communities. CSOs argue thatsubstantial changes to Indonesian laws andpolicies are needed if the roots, rather thenjust the symptoms, of the deforestation crisisare to be addressed.

The illegal logging PerpuThe limited gains achieved under the draftLegality Standard could be wiped out if a newemergency law on illegal logging comes intoeffect.

Plans for a government regulationin lieu of a law (Perpu) to tackle illegal logging

Indonesia's forests are underpressure from:

Destructive logging by 'legal'companies;

'Illegal logging' outside concessions tosupply over-capacity in the forestindustries;

Illegal logging to supply demand fromindustries in Malaysia, China andelsewhere;

Mining and quarrying operations - theMegawati government has permitted 13mining companies to restart operationsin protection forests - see page 16;

Conversion to cash plantations such asoil palm - despite a moratorium onconversion of natural forests since2000;

Logging by companies licensed byregional governments in defiance of thecentral authorities;

Forest fires - in damaged, logged-overareas and deliberately set by plantationcompanies to clear forests.

FoE: UK govt fails ontimber promise

While DFID officials work to define legalityin Indonesia, NGOs have criticised the UKgovernment’s own record on timberpurchasing.

In May, campaigners from Indonesia andPapua New Guinea attacked the BritishGovernment for its failure to honour itspromise to tackle its purchase of illegallyand unsustainably logged timber. Lettersdelivered to Environment SecretaryMargaret Beckett highlighted thedevastating impact of destructive loggingon local communities. Four years ago, theUK government made a commitment tobuying only “legal and sustainable timber”.Central government contracts account for15% of timber use in the UK. In a pressrelease, Friends of the Earth England,Wales & Northern Ireland said that sincethen, the government has “taken minimalsteps to implement this promise andassigned it no significant funding.” “Thedefinition of ‘legal and sustainable’ timberhas not yet even been set and there hasbeen virtually no impact on Governmenttimber purchasing.”

Last year Greenpeace revealed thatillegally-sourced Indonesian timber mayhave been used in construction of the UKgovernment’s new Home Office building -see DTE 58:9 orhttp://dte.gn.apc.org/58for.htm.

(Foe press release 21/May/04; Greenpeace2003 report on Indonesia-UK timber links,Partners in Crime, is atwww.saveordelete.com)

Indonesia in EU voluntaryscheme

The European Union has set up a schemeto encourage timber producing countriesin Asia and Africa to certify their exports.Greenpeace, which believes the scheme istoo weak, has called for an EU ban onillegal wood imports.The group says thatIndonesia Malaysia and Ghana will takepart in the scheme first. Greenpeace alsocriticised the fact that the only processedtimber product to be covered by thelicensing scheme was plywood, whereaspaper, pulp and other wood products werenot included.The European Commissionhas said that the participating countrieswould face a huge administrative burdenand has set aside 30 million Euros to help.(Reuters 20/Jul/04)

4

5


were announced by forestry minister Prakosain March this year (see DTE 61:16).The latestdraft of this regulation, circulated in June,covers felling, transporting, storing, possessingand distributing illegal timber. It sets out asystem of penalties for people (defined asindividuals, groups or corporations) involvedin illegal logging. These include the deathpenalty or life imprisonment for financingillegal logging; 5-15 year jail terms forordering, encouraging or carrying out illegallogging and fines of Rp10-100bn (approxUSD1-10 million); and 5-7 years plus fines ofRp100-500 million for officials who ignorecases of illegal logging.

Crucially, for indigenous peoples, thePerpu reverts to the narrow definition oflegality contained in the 1999 forestry law(No 41). This excludes the respect for adatrights and the requirement for free, priorinformed consent which appear in the draftLegality Standard. Clause 50 (3) of the 1999law merely states that "all people areforbidden to fell trees or harvest or collectforest products within forests without rightsor permission from the officials responsible."Since indigenous rights in forest areas areextremely weak under prevailing Indonesianlaws, including law 41/1999, this means thatmembers of indigenous communities could betreated as criminals in their own customaryforests.

NGOs have criticised the Perpu forits narrow definition of legality. There havebeen no consultations with civil societygroups on its content.The Indonesian Centerfor Environmental Law (ICEL) questionswhether the regulation, if passed, would haveany impact on illegal logging when otherattempts to control the runaway destructionhave failed. ICEL argues that the two mainreasons existing law enforcement initiativeshave failed are the lack of sufficient investmentin law enforcement and the "lack of integrity"in local authorities, the police and judiciary. In2001, of the 1,031 cases where someone wascaught in anti-illegal logging operations, notone resulted in court action, says ICEL. In2002, none of the 971 cases resulted inprosecutions and in 2003, only one out of 15cases has gone to court.

ICEL proposes that what is neededis a 'one-roof enforcement system' under theDepartment of Forestry in Jakarta. It arguesthat the Perpu is justified because the rate ofdeforestation is so high and the social andenvironmental impacts are so serious that thesituation is "an emergency…which requiresimmediate action" or an "extraordinarycrime" as set down in the IndonesianConstitution. However, it urges thegovernment to guard against misuse ofemergency funding. It also wants theregulation to be strengthened in several ways,including broadening the definition ofcriminality; legal penalties; burden of proof;

witness protection and legal formulation foraction against companies.

As DTE went to press, IndonesianNGO discussions over the merits and dangersof the Perpu were ongoing.The regulation wasstill in draft form, and had not been signed bythe President. It remains to be seen whetherthe regulation will be pushed through in thisperiod of presidential transition and politicaluncertainty.

(Source: A Legality Standard for Timber Productsfrom Indonesia, Draft Number 1.0; 26/May/04;ICEL press statement 12/May/04; RancanganPeraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undangnomor _ Tahun 2004 tentang PemberantasanTindak Pidana Penebangan Pohon di DalamHutan Secara Ilegal)

For a DTE summary of the draft Perpu withnotes see http://dte.gn.apc.org/cper04.htmThe 2002 Indonesia - UK agreement (MoU)is at http://dte.gn.apc.org/CfMoU.htm.For NGO statements and DTE's pressrelease on this, seehttp://dte.gn.apc.org/camp.htm#for.

Chronic over-capacitydrives forestdestruction

Indonesia has the world's fastest rate ofdeforestation at 3.8 million hectares per year- the official figure is around 2 million per year.One of the biggest drivers of forestdestruction is over-capacity in the country'swood-based industries, which includesawmills, plymills and pulp and paper mills.Theindustry puts current capacity at 30-40 millioncubic metres per year - a 1999 independentset it at over 100 million m3 per year. Somecompanies have gone bankrupt and closeddown since then, but the current annualcapacity is still thought to be more than 80million m3.

In July, Jakarta's forestry departmentannounced a 5% cut in the legal allowable cutin natural forests for next year to 5.45 millionm3 down from 5.74 million m3 this year. Themedium term aim is to get the quota down to2 million m3 per year,with companies sourcingraw materials from timber plantations or logimports. The government wants woodprocessing capacity reduced to 20 millioncubic metres per year. It has also set up aforest rehabilitation scheme and is trying tostimulate the expansion of Indonesia's 2million hectares of industrial tree plantationsthrough new regulations intended to attractprivate investment. But with plantations stillyielding only minimal amounts of wood, thecompanies are turning to illegal supplies to

maintain production instead of cutting it. Manycompanies are being encouraged to keep upproduction in order to service huge foreignand domestic debts amassed during the lastyears of the Suharto era. At the same time,regional governments are promoting newprojects (pulp mills in South and CentralKalimantan for example) which will onlyworsen the chronic over-capacity problem.(Asia Pulse/Antara 18/Jun/04; Jakarta Post2/Jul/04; Asia Times 7/Jul/04)

New Social Forestryregulation

Indonesia's forestry ministry has issued anew regulation to back up the socialforestry policy launched by the Presidentin July last year. The new regulation -P.01/Menhut-II/2004 on Empowering LocalCommunities in and/or around Foreststhrough Social Forestry - was issued onJuly 12, 2004.A ministry press release saysthat Social Forestry is intended to "createa sustainable forest resource and increaselocal peoples' prosperity". It is described asa forest management system in which localpeople are the implementers and/or mainpartners. 'Empowering local people' isdefined as increasing people's capacity andautonomy (kemandirian), while 'localpeople' are "…communities living inand/or around forests based on theirdependence on forests for livelihood, andbased on their history, ties to the placewhere they live, and the arrangement oftheir social rules in anorganisation/institution….". Social forestry,according to the ministry, does not changethe status or function of a forest area orgive ownership rights over forests.

(Forestry ministry press releaseS.406/II/PIK-1/2004)

Forest firesThe burning season started early in Sumatra this year, but Jakarta has been too preoccupied with the elections to

take action on forest fires.

6


Thick smoke blanketed parts of Sumatra andKalimantan for several days during June andJuly, resulting in the now familiar symptoms ofdelayed flights and the authorities handing outface masks. Local governments are preparinglawsuits against plantation companies andfarmers were blamed for the land-clearingblazes.

The first indications of the annualdry-season hazard came from Riau where,despite relatively heavy rains, the number offires began to increase and 'haze' affectedparts of mainland Riau in mid-February. Riau'senvironment management agency relies onreports on hotspots in the province fromnearby Singapore. Together with the localagriculture and forestry offices, it isresponsible for monitoring and taking actionagainst fires on forest lands under a decreeissued by Riau's governor early last year.

In Singapore, concerns about thefires in Sumatra rose as the annual hazebecame evident and air quality deteriorated.By mid-June, there were over 400 'hot spots'in Sumatra, mostly in Riau and Jambi. TheMalaysian authorities were saying that thepollution problems were the worst since1997-8 when thick smoke from burningforests blanketed Singapore and parts ofMalaysia and Indonesia for several months.They issued warnings of unhealthy air in somecities including Kuala Lumpur, Penang andMalacca, and warned residents to stay inside.The Malaysian government has not publishedthe air pollution index for the last five yearsfor fear that publicising the 'haze' will affect itsvaluable tourism industry.

Thick haze blanketed the city ofJambi from dusk until dawn for much of June.However, the fires have, to date, been worst inRiau.There were 435 hotspots in the provinceon one day in June.Riau's dwindling forests areunder severe pressure from oil palmplantations and small-scale agriculture. Thereare also extensive tracts of peatland, wherefires generate most smoke and are mostdifficult to extinguish. Last year, theenvironmental NGO WALHI unsuccessfullytried to sue Riau governor, Saleh Djasit, for hislack of action over forest fires in the province.Of the ten illegal burning cases where thelocal government said it was taking legalaction in 2003, only one has so far reached thecourts. An environment agency official saidthat illegal burning in Riau had destroyed1,008 hectares of forest in the past sixmonths.

ProsecutionsThe Riau authorities have announced thatthey are preparing to prosecute another tencompanies in the province, in lawsuits costingRp 2 trillion (US$213 billion), for using fire forland clearance. Officials from the environmentministry reported five Riau companiessuspected of starting fires to the nationalpolice. The plantations and industrial timberestates have not been named.Nevertheless, anofficial spokesman outlined one case in Minaswhere the director of a plantation allegedlyordered 1,200 hectares of land to be clearedby burning.

Indonesia's forestry law(No.41/199) bans the use of fire to clearforest land, but the new Plantations Act,passed in July, allows up to 10 years'imprisonment and Rp10 billion in fines forpeople who 'deliberately or out of negligence'burn for land clearance. Plantation companiesare worried: fire is by far the cheapest methodof land clearance and it is a common ploy forcompany managers to claim that fires in theirconcession areas were started by local peopleor natural causes. Benny Tjoeng, vice presidentof one of Indonesia's biggest oil palmcompanies - PT Astra Agro Lestari - wants thegovernment to define clearly what is meant by'deliberate' and 'negligence' in connectionwith burning.

In the international news,Indonesia's illegal burning problem has beenovershadowed by spectacular forest fires inUS. In Indonesia, the annual outbreak of 'hotspots' and acrid haze is hardly considerednewsworthy. Local officials put the blame onsmall-scale farmers for using fire to clear landfor farming. Environmental NGOs accuse thelarge-scale plantation companies andindustrial timber estates. Everyone says thatthere is much corruption and turning a blindeye to the evidence. "We keep urginggovernment to apply stern policies, but so farthere is no significant solution," said Ade Fadli- WALHI's forest campaigner.

Jakarta has been far moreconcerned with the general and presidentialelections to take much notice.Vice PresidentHamsah Haz brushed off questions from theinternational press saying that it was up to theregional authorities, not central government,to take effective action. However, local mediareported in late June that the environmentminister Nabiel Makarim has ordered staff toinvestigate cases so that the guilty companiesand individuals can be brought to justice soon.The minister said at least 20 million

Indonesians were directly affected by thehaze.

Some local authorities haveattempted to extinguish the fires by sendingout staff to affected areas and the forestrydepartment has redeployed some of its10,000 forest police to tackle the fires. Insome places, local people have put out blazeswhere their own forests and crops arethreatened. But the most effective form of firecontrol has been the rain. The dry season inSumatra and Kalimantan usually lasts fromMay to September and this year it is unlikelyto be prolonged by El Niño. Heavy showershad extinguished most of the hot spots incentral Sumatra by the second week in July.Expects think that fires are unlikely to recurbefore early August.

The deputy environment ministersof Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Bruneimet in Riau in mid-July as part of ASEAN'sattempt to control forest fires and theresultant air pollution in the region. Theworking group meeting was also attended byenvironment management agencies from Riau,Jambi, West Kalimantan and North Sumatraplus environmental NGOs. Their agenda wasto evaluate progress and to prepare for anASEAN ministerial meeting on fires later thisyear. Indonesia has yet to ratify the HazeAgreement, signed in 2002 by ASEANmembers.

(Riau Pos 26/Feb/04; Straits Times 5/May/04;Reuters 14/May/04, 23/Jun/04; Media Indonesia20/Jun/04; AP 24/Jun/04; Kompas 18/Jul/04;Jakarta Post 26/May/03, 23/Jun/04, 25/Jun/04,19/Jul/04, 22/Jul/04; walhinews 14/Jul/04; CNAvia Joyo 16/Jul/04; Bisnis Indonesia 8/Jul/04)

The impact of fires,West Kalimantan, 2002. (DTE)

7


pulp

June 4, 2004

No support for the planned pulp mill ofUnited Fiber System in Indonesia

We, the undersigned organisations, want toexpress our deep concern regarding plans tobuild a pulp mill in the province of SouthKalimantan, Indonesia.

We expect the new mill to followsuit with other Indonesian mills whosedevelopment plans suggested responsibilityand profitability while in practice these millsbring about environmental, social andeconomic havoc.The planned pulp mill wouldbe operated by a company called PT MargaBuana Bumi Mulia, a joint venture by UnitedFiber System, Singapore, and China NationalMachinery & Equipment Import & ExportCorporation.Thus far we are aware ofinvolvement by Jaakko Pöyry (Finland), whichmade the pre-feasibility study, CellMark(Sweden), which has been mentioned as abuyer of pulp (90% of production) andwhose owners are investors in UFS, ÅF-IPK(Sweden), which assessed environmentalimpacts of the mill, and Vivendi Water(France), supplier of the water treatmentplant.

Eka Chemicals (Sweden) has withdrawn fromthe project.

A new pulp mill has to be viewed against thebackground of the forest situation inIndonesia.There is a huge overcapacity in thepulp industry.According to governmentpolicies, the pulp industry should be basedon plantations.

When the existing, modern pulp mills wereengineered and constructed by westerncompanies, they were supposed to quicklyestablish plantations and become self-sufficient regarding their raw-material base.This has not materialized in most cases, asthe pulp companies have expanded theircapacities and focused on woodprocurement from natural forests instead.

Approximately 75-80% of wood used in thepulp industry in Indonesia originates innatural forests, half of the use being fromsomehow illegal sources. Use of naturalforests as a resource base leads to wide-

spread deforestation. Every single one of thebig pulp mills in Indonesia has caused eithermajor social problems, pollution ordeforestation, in most cases all of these.Economically, pulp and paper companies areheavily indebted and have caused massivelosses to their lenders and to the Indonesiangovernment.The planned pulp mill in SouthKalimantan claims to avoid deforestation byusing readily established plantations in thenear-by areas. However, the company doesnot have enough plantations in place to feedthe planned 600,000 t/y pulp mill at present,and with the present pace of planting, theynever will.The pulp-wood plantationcompanies in South Kalimantan are far fromfulfilling their planting targets and yieldpredictions, and the annual planted area hasbeen minimal after 1999.Without sustainableplantations established before the millconstruction starts, there is no reason tobelieve that the project would be onsustainable basis.We do not find company'sclaims of not converting natural forests toeither make way for plantations or forpulping convincing given its record inplantation establishment and previous plansof large-scale conversion of natural forest.Since South Kalimantan has already lost mostof its forests, wood procurement of theplanned mill potentially has severe effects onthe remaining natural forests. Furthermore,the lack of raw material is an economicproblem in the long term since the mill cannot operate without sufficient fibreresources after running out of natural forestsand plantations.

Probably much of the deforested areas thatthe project will use for plantationestablishment consist of bushy areas withnatural forest regeneration potential.

"Reforestation" of such areas to pulpplantations accelerates loss of biodiversity inthe area.The establishment of plantations hasresulted, and will result if the plantations areextended, in land conflicts with the localpeople.

Land tenure situation in the existing andplanned plantation areas should be mappedand conflicts solved before further plantationestablishment. In addition, establishment ofthe pulp mill is seen as a threat by the

community in the mill site near Java Sea dueto its potential effect on water quality.Thecommunity depends on fishing as theirsource of living.

The main supplier of the planned pulp mill,plantation company ex-Menara Hutan Buana,has been found guilty of defraudinggovernmental reforestation funds by inflatingits annual planting figures. Its licence wasalready once revoked by the Ministry ofForestry in 2002. However, the licence of thecompany was handed over to United FiberSystem that has taken over the plantationand company infrastructure and changed itsname into Hutan Rindang Buana.The statusof the licence is disputable and the wholeissue points in the direction of high-levelcorruption.

The new mill project presents itself asenvironmentally and socially progressive,claiming to be transparent.Yet despiterequests, United Fiber System has notreleased the Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA) of the mill project. InEurope, the EIA of such a project would be apublic document, and the project's policy ofnot distributing it raises further questionsabout the environmental sustainability of theproject.

In this situation, building a new pulp mill cannot be justified. It cannot be justified fromthe national-level point of view, withproblems related to deforestation,overcapacity, illegal logging, and land tenureunresolved. Nor it is acceptable from thelocal and provincial point of view, with landconflicts, corruption, criminal companies, anddeficit of natural forests and plantationspresent.We urge you to make sure for yourpart that this project does not materialize.

(Open letter signed by 32 NGOs - includingDown to Earth - 4/Jun/04, posted circulatedby WALHI, footnotes not included. Forfurther background see DTE 56:3 and 58:6)

NGOs oppose South Kalimantan pulp millA group of thirty Indonesian and international NGOs have called for the cancellation of South Kalimantan’s firstpulp mill project. This is their ‘open letter to actors of the forestry, pulp & paper and banking sectors in Europe.’

8


New plantation law - more land conflicts predicted

Indonesia's new plantation law, aimed at providing legal certainty for investors, will do nothing to address conflictsbetween local communities and companies. It could well make things worse.

land

The Plantations Bill was endorsed byIndonesia's national parliament on 12th July,two years after it was tabled.The bill purportsto set out the rules for developing plantationsprofessionally, and sustainably, based on theprinciple - enshrined in Indonesia's 1945Constitution - that natural resources shouldbe managed optimally for the welfare of thepeople. It describes the functions ofplantations as: increasing income, human andcommunity development, unifying the nation,regional development and preserving naturalresources and the environment. The billcovers planning; control over land; business,management and marketing; research anddevelopment; human resources; finance andsupervision.

In Indonesia, ‘plantations’ mean oilpalm, rubber, coconut,cashews, tea, coffee,cacao and other commercial crops, but nottimber plantations (HTI). The aims ofstimulating investment in the plantationsector are difficult to square withsustainability and environmental protection.

Under the bill, plantation companiesreceive 35-year concessions, which can berenewed for a further 25 years with theminister's approval. The regionaladministrations provide licences forcompanies to operate and concessions areissued by the National Land Agency (BPN).The minister of agriculture has the power todetermine the maximum and minimum areato be used for plantations, based on type ofcommodity, availability of land and populationdensity.

CriticismAs a editorial in the influential Jakarta Post putit: “Judging by its primary objectives ofbringing about fairness tofarmers/smallholders, enhancing sustainableplantation-management practices and buildingup an internationally competitive plantationindustry, the plantation bill …is by no means agood law.“(15/Jul/04)

Different sections of civil societyhave attacked the bill for its failure to protectthe interests of small-scale farmers andindigenous communities and for giving bigbusiness too much power. Clauses in the draftlaw limiting land holdings to 20,000 hectares

in a single province and 100,000 ha in totalhave been omitted in the final version.

Some NGOs consider that the 35-year extendable concession period istantamount to giving companies ownership ofpublic land - a situation that is bound to leadto more land conflicts with local communitieswhose own rights to the land are not given

sufficient legal recognition.On the crucial question of

customary rights (hak ulayat), the bill says:

"when giving rights over land for plantationdevelopment, attention should be paid to thecustomary rights of communities governed bycustom, as long as these still exist in realityand do not conflict with the national interest."(Article 9(3))

Since there are no clear procedures forrecognising hak ulayat or ‘the nationalinterest’, this kind of language offers almost noprotection for indigenous communities*. Likeso many other pieces of legislation, the billfails to address the fundamental problemswith land tenure in Indonesia.

SanctionsThe bill sets down a maximum prison term of10 years and up to Rp 10 billion in fines assanctions aimed at stopping plantationcompanies using fire to clear land. However,there is concern that this could be usedagainst indigenous communities usingcontrolled burning techniques as part of theirtraditional farming systems (see also firesarticle, page 6). Other crimes include theillegal occupation of land - which could beused to target peasant farmers and indigenouscommunities whose rights over lands are notadequately recognised. One member ofparliament, Sayuti Rahawarin from theDaulatul Ummah Party (PDU) raised the keyissue for indigenous peoples: "We havenumerous reports of big plantations takingover tribal land.The bill should stipulate thatsuch companies should have their concessionsrevoked," he argued.

Ivan Valentina Ageung of the RACAInstitute said that the government should havereviewed all existing legislation relating toagrarian and natural resource management."Traditional land owners need recognitionfrom the government to protect their landfrom big plantation companies", he said.

NGOs have criticised the fact thatthe key Agrarian Reform and NaturalResources Management decree (No IX, 2001)has not been used as the basis of theplantations law.The decree, which was passed

ProtestsIn June, thousands of farmers from CentralJava,West Java and Banten provinces joinedstudents and workers grouped under theAgrarian Reform Movement Alliance(AGRA) in a demonstration against theplantations bill,Alliance leader ErpanFaryadi said his organisation wasdemanding land reform under the 1960agrarian law.The protestors also called fora stop to violence against peasants, anddemanded the release of peasant andindigenous leaders who had been jailed fordefending people's interests to land andnatural resources.

Dita Indahsari, chair of thelabour organisation FNPBI, said the billwould create tension between smallfarmers and large companies - a scenariowhich has brought military and policeintervention. She said the protesterstherefore rejected militarism and opposedpresidential candidates with a militarybackground.

Oil palm plantation,West Kalimantan (DTE)

Conflict in Conservation,Conservation in Conflict

The first National Parks in Indonesia werebased on a 'colonial' model. Prejudiceagainst 'natives' and the notion that naturehad to be conserved as 'wilderness', setaside by the State for recreation purposes,required the removal of inhabitants.

This 'colonial' model of conservation hasbeen used in the rest of the world and forover a century provided the dominantparadigm for establishing protected areas.The impacts on indigenous peoples havebeen dire. Ironically, as many conservationorganisations now agree, the impact on theenvironment has also been severe. Creatingprotected areas by expropriating indigenousterritories, destroying indigenous culturesand making enemies of the localcommunities not only creates horrendousmanagement problems, but also oftendisrupts viable, biodiversity enhancingcustomary systems of land use.Top-downconservation of this kind also exacts a heavypolitical cost, weakening customaryinstitutions and reinforcing the power of theState, which may all too often lead to abuseof power and human rights violations.

Since the 1980s, conservationists have madean effort to correct their approach and havesought new means of accommodatingindigenous peoples in protected areas,through establishing Biosphere Reserves,promoting Buffer Zones, experimenting withIntegrated Conservation and DevelopmentProgrammes and implementing Co-Management schemes.Too often theseinitiatives have failed to bring lasting benefitsto local communities, largely because theyhave not built on customary institutions,have failed to recognise indigenous landrights and have not entrusted the indigenouspeoples with management authority.

In the mid-1990s, a more serious policy shiftwas promised, which was welcomed byindigenous peoples. In a few areas, rightshave been restituted, indigenous authorityre-established and new partnerships basedon trust between indigenous peoples andconservationists have been forged. InIndonesia, Lore Lindu National Park is oftencited as a progressive example in adoptingnew approach in conservation; themanagement gave recognition to localpeople who live within the park, but at theend it failed to address basic communityneeds. Unfortunately, surveys show thatthese new policies, which accept indigenous

peoples' rights, are being applied in only afew areas*. Most national conservation lawsand policies are stuck in the old model of'Fortress Conservation'.

9


by the MPR, Indonesia's highest legislativebody, paved the way for reform of all sectorallaws affecting land and natural resources, andafforded some protection for the rights of'peoples following customary law'(see DTE52:3).

SecurityThe new law states that local communitiesshould be involved in security at theplantation to create a sense of ownership andresponsibility towards the operation.

Until now, many companies,including plantation developers, have chosen(or been obliged to) pay for military or policesecurity guards. This has led to a climate ofintimidation and fear around projects wherecommunity-owned resources have beenappropriated by the company withoutconsent.As is the case with mining companies,plantation companies have benefited from thissystem, whilst denying responsibility forhuman rights abuses committed by the guardsin their employ. It remains to be seen whetherthe new arrangement will encourage betterpractice, but concerns have already beenraised that involving local people could createdivisions and ‘horizontal conflict’ betweensurrounding communities.The wording on thisin the draft plantations law (article 20(1) andexplanatory notes) may have been inspired bythe problematic 'community-based' securityapproach being attempted by British oil

multinational BP at the Tangguh gas project inWest Papua - see DTE 60: for more details andconcerns raised over this approach.

(Source: RUU Perkebunan/Draft PlantationsLaw [no date] Jakarta Post 10/Jun/04,7,12&13/Jul/04; press release, Kesatuan Aksiuntuk Hak-hak Petani (KUHAP): TOLAKRancangan Undang-undang Perkebunan,31/Jan/03; Tempointeraktif 9/Jul/04)

* A 2002 study on legal tenures in Indonesiaalso notes that hak ulayat cannot be recognisedon lands overlapping concessions; thatrecognition of the right is subject to regulationsthat do not exist and that no compensation ispayable when the land is expropriated in thenational interest. See Colchester, Sirait andWijardjo, Obstacles and Possibilities, the Applicationof FSC Principles 2 & 3 in Indonesia p.124.

Calls for Agrarianconflict resolutionCommissionIndonesia's National Commission for HumanRights (Komnas HAM) and NGOs have calledfor a national commission to resolve agrarianconflicts. Komnas HAM admits that it is notable to deal with land disputes across thecountry due to lack of expertise, staff andpowers.

The NGOs - WALHI, KPA, HuMAand Bina Desa - and Komnas HAM havedrafted a 15-article presidential decree toestablish the commission, which provides forthe resolution of land disputes dating back to1967.This is the date when the most cases ofland disputes arose, according to RikardoSimarmata of HuMA. In that year Suharto,who had seized power two years before,enacted laws on forestry, mining, and foreigninvestment which allowed the political andmilitary elite, plus foreign investors to takecontrol of the country's rich naturalresources.

The draft decree would also providefor the establishment of an agrarian court toresolve land disputes fairly within one year ofreceiving a submission.

(Source: Jakarta Post 24/Jun/04)

*See Marcus Colchester, Salvaging Nature,Indigenous Peoples, Protected Areas andBiodiversity Conservation, 2003.(Available from Forest Peoples Programme£10.00. Contact [email protected])

(continued from page 10)

10


Conservation is an integral part of resourcemanagement. In biodiversity, it plays acrucial role, as our life and livelihoodsdepend on how we conserve nature. As aglobal common good, the responsibility forbiodiversity conservation is a globalresponsibility. ...[C]ountries and globalgovernance should ensure the best measuresto maintain it for the best interest of allpeoples. Therefore, any conservation effortsto conserve biodiversity should not be aneffort to give benefit to certain outsideinterest groups, but should benefit allpeople, in particular indigenous peoples andlocal people who live within conservationareas and depend on them.

In the past 15 years, the conservationcommunity has made concerted efforts todevelop principles and guidelines designed toreconcile indigenous rights withconservation initiatives.The Convention onBiological Diversity imposes obligations ongovernments to respect, preserve andmaintain indigenous peoples' knowledge,innovations and practices, and to protectand encourage their customary use ofnatural resources. It is now possible to pointto international human rights instrumentsand treaties, and to the jurisprudence of theUnited Nations human rights committeeswhich interpret them, and state withconfidence that international law nowrecognizes the rights of indigenous peoplesto: self-determination; freely dispose of theirnatural wealth and resources; in no case bedeprived of their means of subsistence; own,develop, control and use their communallands, territories and resources, traditionallyowned or otherwise occupied by them; thefree enjoyment of their own culture and tomaintain their traditional way of life; free andinformed consent prior to activities on theirlands; represent themselves through theirown institutions; exercise their customarylaw and restitution of their lands and

compensation for losses endured. However,all these matters only look good on paper.

The great majority of protected areas violatethese rights. For example, it is estimated that

more than 24 million hectares in Indonesiahave been declared as protected areas yet inthe great majority of cases the rights ofindigenous peoples to own, control andmanage these areas have been denied.People still have to fight for their rights ontheir land and their way of living. No oneknows how many people these protectedareas have displaced and little has been doneto ameliorate the suffering and poverty thathas resulted.

Many governments still prefer to do fortressconservation. In many southern countries,governments hand out management anddevelopment of conservation areas to thirdparties, such as business or conservationorganisations.

The reason is classic and simple:governments decide that they cannot affordto do conservation. This might be true insome cases, but giving out concessions tothe third parties to develop and manageconservation areas won't solve the problemeither. Giving out such licenses to thirdparties without recognizing the rights ofpeople living in the area will ignite conflictamong stakeholders. While governmentshave to bear responsibility for reducingconflicts between local communities andconservation 'concessionaires', theconcessionaires make money by selling this"collaborative management with full supportfrom the government”- as an addition totheir scientific justification - to their donors.

Biodiversity should not pay for itself, becausewe cannot afford to lose it. By giving it tothe market mechanism and commodifying it,we are selling our future. If we continue todo biodiversity conservation in this way, ourlife and livelihoods will be under threat.Biodiversity forms a web of life and it is ourlife that is at stake.

Indonesian CSOs slam privatisation ofconservation

The following is part of a statement by the Indonesian Forum for Environment (WALHI), the Mining AdvocacyNetwork (JATAM) and Alliance of Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago (AMAN) to the seventh meeting of parties

to the Biodiversity Convention (COP 7), Kuala Lumpur, February 2004.

conservation

Biodiversity meeting,Malaysia

COP 7 in Kuala Lumpur was attended byover 2,3000 participants includingrepresentatives of 161 governments, UNagencies, NGOs, indigenous and localcommunities, academia and industry. For areport of the meeting, focussing onindigenous people's perspectives seewww.forestpeoples.org.There was a strongand well-informed indigenous participationat this conference, headed by theInternational Indigenous Forum onBiodiversity (IIFP).

Achievements at COP 7 were anacknowledgement that full respect for therights of indigenous and local communitiesis a key issue in protected area planning,establishment and management. (PreviouslyCBD language acknowledged indigenouspeoples' rights only in a restricted sense).The other achievement was the explicitrecognition of the outcomes of the 5thWorld Parks Congress in Durban,September 2003, including the "newparadigm for protected areas". Theserecommend that governments and othersrespect the rights of indigenous people,stop involuntary resettlement fromprotected areas, ensure that protectedareas are established only with the freeprior and informed consent of indigenouspeoples, enact laws to recognise indigenousrights and establish processes for providingrestitution for past injustices (see DTE59:8).

(continued on page 9)

11


Indonesia to sign biosafety instrumentNGOs in Indonesia have worked hard to convince their government that it should do more to protect farmers and

consumers from the risks of genetically modified crops. Now their efforts have borne fruit.

GM agriculture

Indonesia's parliament began the process toratify the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety inJuly 2004 - a move that should ensure greaterprotection against the potential negativeimpacts of genetically modified organisms(GMOs).The Protocol, which came into forcein September 2003, commits parties toensuring that "the development, handling,transport, use, transfer and release of anyliving modified organisms are undertaken in amanner that prevents or reduces the risks tobiological diversity, taking also into accountrisks to human health". A key element is theprecautionary approach, which provides forpreventative measures where negativeimpacts have not been scientifically proven.The protocol also sets out an "advanceinformed agreement procedure" to helpcountries make informed choices beforeagreeing to the import of GMOs.

Indonesian civil societyorganisations, which have been pressing forratification of the protocol for several years,welcome the move. They hope that, afterratifying the protocol, Indonesia will thenconsult the public to draft regulations onGMOs and strengthen the agencies involvedin regulating GMO research and use. TejoWahyu Katmiko of Konphalindo saidratification would also give consumers theright to information. Up to now, consumershave had inadequate protection from GMproducts, whether legal or illegal, he said.

The Sulawesi cotton fiascoIndonesia has had an unhappy experiencewith growing GM crops commercially so far.In December 2003, the governmentannounced the end of 2 years of commercialGM cotton production in South Sulawesi,which had resulted in crop failure andindebtedness for farmers and the hurried exitof the seed company. US-based multinationalMonsanto stopped supplying seeds to farmersin the province in February last year andclosed down its office there, saying its cottonbusiness in Sulawesi was no longereconomically viable. The company was alsofaced with the prospect of legal action byfarmers.

Bt cotton was grown commerciallyin South Sulawesi in 2001 and 2002 byfarmers who were told by Monsanto andlocal government officials, that they wouldachieve much higher yields than they did with

non-GM varieties. Despite a vigorouscampaign by concerned NGOs and farmersgroups to stop the import and sales of seed,the Minister of Agriculture belatedly issued adecree to approve the limited release of Btcotton in seven districts.This was challengedin the courts by the NGO Coalition forBiosafety and Food Safety on the grounds thatthe decree did not consider theconsequences of using GM products. It alsoviolated the 1997 environment law because

no environmental impact assessment wasconducted. The court ruled against theCoalition later in 2001 and the case iscurrently awaiting a hearing at the SupremeCourt.

During the first year, the SouthSulawesi Bt cotton crop suffered from theeffects of drought and was attacked by peststhe seed was not designed to resist. As aresult, yields were much lower than expected.Farmers who had bought the seeds on creditended up indebted to the company. 70% ofthe 4,438 farmers growing the cotton couldnot repay the credit. Researchers found thatfarmers planting Bt cotton had lower incomesin 2002 than farmers planting non-Bt cotton.

Then the company doubled theprice of seeds in the second planting season,while the selling price for the cotton cropdecreased. The indebted farmers wereobliged to agree to the higher prices becausethe company could refuse to buy the crops ifthey didn't.

Some angry farmers refused to buymore seed and burned the cotton fields inprotest; others felt they had no choice but tocontinue with Bt cotton. In the end, manyfarmers refused the pay the outstandingcredit and demanded compensation for thelosses from Monsanto.

Monsanto has admitted that the USJustice Department is investigating itsoperations in Indonesia. Specifically, it islooking into allegations that a Monsantoemployee facilitated an improper $50,000payment to an Indonesian government officialin 2002. The alleged bribery was uncoveredwhile the Justice Department was following

"The company didn't give thefarmers any choice, they never

intended to improve our well-being,they just put us in a debt circle, tookaway our independence and madeus their slave forever.They try to

monopolise everything, the seeds, thefertilizer, the marketing channel and

even our life."

(Santi, Bt cotton farmer, South Sulawesi,FoE International*)

Burning GM cotton in Sulawesi (YLK)

12


up a disclosure by Monsanto, of financialirregularities in its Indonesian businessoperations. The US's Foreign CorruptPractices Act prohibits bribing of foreignofficials and can impose a maximum fine of $2million per violation while an individual facesup to five years imprisonment.

(See Lim Li Ching, How GM crops destroy theThird World 29/April/04 athttp://www.indsp.org/chinghoc.php for agood detailed summary of the Sulawesi Btcotton case, plus DTE 57:16, DTE 51:15; DTE50:16 & DTE 49:3 for more background.

Other sources:http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety/background.asp; Jakarta Post 7&12/Jul/04; Berita Bumi15/Jul/04; ‘Kronologis Komersialisasi KapasTransgenik Bt di Indonesia’, Berita Bumi8/Apr/04 - www.bertiabumi.or.id/, AP22/03/04; Wall Street Journal 22/Mar/04; Seealso: Jhamtani H. Bt cotton in Indonesia: a casefor liability, Paper presented at the ThirdWorld Network side event Liability andRedress: Lessons from Real Life during theFirst Meeting of the Parties to theCartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 26 Feb2004, Kuala Lumpur, quoted in Lim Li Chang,above).

*Friends of the Earth International. Geneticallymodified crops;A decade of failure, Feb 2004 andLim Li Ching, How GM Crops Destroy the ThirdWorld, Talk to Independent Science PanelBriefing, House of Commons (London), 29April 2004.http://www.indsp.org/chinghoc.php

Other GM crops in thepipelineIn May, a civil society group including farmersorganisations and NGOs, the People'sCoalition for Food Sovereignty (KRKP), urgedthe Indonesian government to followVenezuela's example of rejecting GMOs in

the country's agricultural system. But despiteits bad experience with GM cotton, the multi-billion dollar biotech industry is unlikely toleave Indonesia in peace. According to Asia'skey biotech research agency, ISAAA, GMcorn, peanut, soybean, potato and rice areunder development in Indonesia and limitedfield-testing has been done on herbicideresistant corn, cotton and soybean as well asinsect-resistant corn, cotton and potato.

Indonesia is one of an expanding listof 21 countries worldwide growing GMcrops, joined last year by the Philippines andBrazil. The leading GM crop growers are theUS (42.8% of the global area of GM crops)followed by Argentina (13.9%).

(Source: ISAAA:http://www.isaaa.org/kc/Global%20Status/gmreview/countries.htm andhttp://www.isaaa.org/kc/bic/globalstatus/auview.asp?id+28; Berita Bumi 12/May/04For background on ISAAA see DTE 49:5)

FAO slammed for pro-GM biasA report issued by the Food and AgricultureOrganisation of the UN has drawn sharpcriticism from NGOs who say it presents abiased view of GM crops and serves as apublic relations tool of the biotech industry.Aletter signed by 650 civil society organisationsworldwide, addressed to the report's author,said the report failed to recognise theinherent problems with GM crops which leadto the industrialisation of agriculture and theconcentration of wealth and threatenagricultural biodiversity. See www.grain.orgfor the full letter and reply from the report'sauthor.

The right to foodThe NGO BioTani PAN Indonesia, hascriticised the Indonesian government over itslack of commitment to the United Nations

The Cartagena Protocol

The Cartagena Protocol, a supplementaryagreement to the Convention onBiological Diversity, was signed inMontreal, 29 January 2000 and came intoforce on 11 September 2003. Indonesiapassed the 1994 Biodiversity Conservationlaw to ratify the CBD.

The first meeting of thecountries that have signed up to theprotocol (COP-MOP) was held from 23 to27 February 2004 in Kuala Lumpur.

For more information seehttp://www.biodiv.org/biosafety/

GM crops in Indonesia

Crop Trait Status Institution(s) Involved

Lab Field trials

Corn Roundup Ready Yes Yes MonsantoHerbicide resistance

Corn PinII Insect resistance No Unavail. RIAB/ABSP

Corn Bt Insect resistance Yes Yes Monsanto

Corn Bt Insect resistance Yes Unavail. Pioneer

Cotton Roundup Ready Yes Yes MonsantoHerbicide resistance

Peanut Virus resistance Yes Unavail. RIAB/ACIAR

Potato Bt Insect resistance Yes Yes RIV/RIAB/MSU

Rice Bt and GNA No Unavail. P3B LIPI Insect Resistance

Soybean Roundup Ready Yes Yes Monsanto Herbicide resistance

Approved crops

Crop Trait Type of Approval

Food Feed Environment

Corn Roundup Ready No No YesHerbicide Resistance

Cotton Bt Insect Resistance No No Yes

Source: http://www.isaaa.org/kc/bic/globalstatus/auview.asp?id+28


13


When the elections are over…This year, political life in Indonesia has been dominated by elections for national and regional parliaments, regionalrepresentatives council and, finally, for a new president. Choosing the president will take several more months as

there has been no clear winner in July's first round. But once the election dust settles, what will be the difference forthe vast majority of Indonesians? How much hope is there that the new government will take effective steps toreduce poverty, resolve conflicts and address the fundamental issue of control and access to land and natural

resources?

politics

WALHI: bleak outlookwhoever wins electionsIndonesia's biggest environment network,WALHI, has predicted that the next presidentand his or her government will not offer anysolutions to the country's environmentalcrisis. In its 'Political Statement' for the 2004-2009 period,WALHI says that the enthusiasmand optimism of five years ago have beenreversed.The hope of creating a democratic,just and sustainable Indonesia has beendashed by a corrupt political elite which hassubjugated itself to international capital, asrepresented by the World Bank, IMF,multinational companies and industrialisednations.The statement paints a bleak pictureof a country entrenched in political,economic, socio-cultural and ecological crisis.

The ecological crisis, says WALHI,arose because the state, investors and the"modern" system has reduced nature to a setof commodities to be engineered andexploited for short-term economic gain.Theexpansion of monocultures, forestexploitation and mineral extraction hasalready caused ecological devastation.Privatisation of natural wealth, both forcommercial and conservation purposes, hasprevented ordinary people's access to andcontrol over their sources of livelihood.Yet itis they who suffer the negative impacts offorest fires, floods, droughts, pollution and the

water crisis.The programmes of all five

presidential candidates are dominated by adevelopment paradigm of achieving economicgrowth by exploiting natural resources. Theyand their running mates "have noenvironmental vision".WALHI says it will fightfor environmental rights as a fundamentalhuman right. It asserts that the organisationwill take a stance of opposition towardswhoever wins the elections. Finally, thestatement calls on all Indonesians, especiallythe victims of natural disasters, investment,corruption, violence and other human rightsviolations to "organise, build up peoplepower, and adopt an independent and criticalposition towards the future government."

(Source: Pernyataan politik WALHI terhadappemerintahan periode 2004-2009, 2/Jul/04)

Ten agenda points to attainjusticeA group of 59 Indonesian NGOs issued ajoint declaration to remind the newgovernment of the most basic issues thatneed immediate attention. These include:political education needed to fight theauthorities' "deception and manipulation";

fighting corruption, including bringing formerPresident Suharto to trial; a halt to the theftof natural resources; protection for women;pro-people living space; restoration of landownership rights; a stop to impunity forhuman rights violators; an end to militarism,to the "politics of thuggery" and militias; andfair taxation to close the widening gapbetween rich and poor.

According to Binny Buchori,Executive Director of the International NGOForum on Indonesian Development (INFID),the declaration could also help the publicdecide which presidential candidates to votefor and serve as a tool for NGOs monitoringand evaluating the next government. Thesummary statement by the Jakarta SocialForum is on INFID's website athttp://www.infid.be/statement_10agenda.htm.Source: INFID's Short News OverviewNo.V/18 June 18-Jul 16, 2004.

What the two top candidates say

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono - formersecurity minister under Megawati and retiredarmy general:

says he will help the economy byincreasing oil and mining exploration,boosting the agricultural sector andimproving and creating new tourismdestinations;supports capital punishment for drugdealers, corrupters and gross humanrights abusers;says there should be a review of pendingcorruption cases, and suspended orignored cases should be reopened - thenhe will take stern measures;says he will maintain the military'sterritorial structure (the system thatplaces military personnel in everyprovince and district, right down tovillage level) but that the military shouldnot be involved in politics; he alsopromises to increase Indonesia's defencebudget so that the police and military"will have enough funds to settle

ResultsThe provisional results of the elections asof July 29 were:

1. Susilo (SBY) 33.59 %2. Megawati 26.25 %3.Wiranto 22.18 %4.Amien Rais 14.94 %5. Hamzah 3.05 %

(Source: http://tnp.kpu.go.id/)

Since no candidate has scored over 50% ofvotes in the first round, voters will choosebetween Democratic Party (PD) leaderSusilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Megawati(PDI-P) in a second round in September.

parties’ flags in the April parliamentary electioncampaign (DTE)

(continued next page)

14


Mid-term CGI meeting 2004: is transitionperiod the beginning of reform?

The 2004 CGI mid-year review meeting went almost unnoticed, as the country was in the final run up toIndonesia’s first direct presidential election.

economy

The meeting of Indonesia’s main creditors,grouped in the Consultative Group onIndonesia (CGI) was held in Jakarta on June 2,2004. It highlighted the introduction of theIndonesian government's Transition Plan: apolicy continuity to ensure a smooth shiftbetween the current government and thenext one. The Transition Plan is a mediumterm development agenda for the period of2006 to 2010. Its main objectives are (1)pushing reform in democracy and politicalinstitutions, (2) improving the wellbeing ofIndonesia's people through economicdevelopment and growth and (3)strengthening the unity and integrity ofIndonesia through conflict resolution, nationalreconciliation and more effective regionalautonomy.

While congratulating thegovernment of Indonesia on economicprogress, the meeting urged Indonesia toimprove investment climate and to takestronger action in poverty reduction.

INFID wants pro-poor policyIn the meeting, the Indonesian NGO Forumon Indonesian Development (INFID),representing Indonesian civil society,

reiterated its call to re-examine the existenceand role of the CGI. This drew attention tothe review of the CGI by carried out by theNational Development Planning agency(Bappenas), in November 2003. Onerecommendation was the move from adonor-led CGI towards an Indonesia-led CGI,in order that the country should genuinelyown its development agenda. Concerns thatthe CGI is donor-driven have been repeatedlyraised by civil society groups. Donors areseen as only interested in improving theinvestment climate and boosting thecommercial sector.

INFID also calls CGI to ensure thatits decisions furthered Indonesia's progresstowards the global Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs) set by the UN. Despite all therhetoric, a coherent pro-poor macroeconomy policy remains to be seen. It istimely for the CGI to revisit Indonesia's debtburden and its impact on the poor - whonumber over 50% of the population.

INFID also called on CGI membercountries to commit themselves to MDG 8 -to allocate 0.7% of their respective annualGDP for funding their overseas developmentassistance activities.

Certainly, one of the biggestchallenges for the new government ofIndonesia will be the implementation of goodgovernance, with combating corruption andnepotism as the prime focus. None of thethree post-Suharto governments hasdemonstrated any convincing efforts toeradicate systemic and extensive corruption.

The next CGI meeting may seesome new faces among the Indonesiandelegation; maybe not.As change often has tobe fought for, the Indonesian delegation alsoshares the responsibility of reform in theCGI. How much longer can Indonesia afford astatus-quo CGI?

(Sources: CGI Mid-Year Review Meeting,June 2, 2004, see http://web.worldbank.org/;INFID's comment on the Mid-term CGIStatement June 2nd, 2004 about PRSP; GoI &WB Press Release: CGI welcomes progress onthe White Papers, but urges stronger actions toboost investment and tackle povertyhttp://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINDONESIA/News%20and%20Events/20207964/InterimCGI-PR-060204.pdf.)

domestic conflicts across the country."Much of the budget is currently believedto disappear as a result of corruptionwithin the armed forces;does not oppose the expulsion ofInternational Crisis Group (ICG) staff bythe National Intelligence Agency, butmerely said that the reasons for it shouldbe clearly explained*.

Megawati Soekarnoputri - president since1999, who came to power on a reform ticket:

says it's hard to track down timbersmugglers because of the lack ofequipment to catch them;has asked for more time to deal witheconomic problems and crack down oncorruption, saying that the problemsstarted many years ago and it hasn't been

easy, but that progress has been made;promises to create 13 million jobs andcut poverty by 40% - no details given;says that Indonesia has been moreserious than other countries incombating terrorism and will continue itsefforts.

* Indonesia's decision to expel Sidney Jones,director for Southeast Asia of theInternational Crisis Group, plus anotherinternational member of ICG staff wasgreeted with dismay by foreign governmentsand civil society organisations in May.The twowere told to leave because the NationalIntelligence Agency (BIN) considered them athreat to Indonesia's security. NGOs see themove as a return to the repressive measuresof the Suharto era and are concerned aboutthe prospect of further intimidation againstthose critical of the government and military.

The head of the intelligence agency has saidthat another 19 NGOs are being monitored.The human rights NGOs Kontras challengedhim to name these organisations and their'crimes', but there has been no response.

(Laksamana.Net 26/Jun/04; AmnestyInternational Public Statement ASA21/018/2004 3/Jun/04; Reuters 30/Jun/04,1/Jul/04; AFP 1/Jul/04; AP 1/Jul/04; Jakarta Post2,28/Jul/04; Reuters 1/Jul/04, Sydney MorningHerald 3/Jun/04)


15


the protection of and respect for humanrights and environment defenders;action against the company (underIndonesia's 1997 Environment Act) forthe environmental damage it has caused;An investigation by the National HumanRights Commission into recent events.

The World Bank has praisedHeidleberg Cement and PT ITP for their June2004 agreement aimed at reducing carbonemissions. (World Bank news release 9/Jun/04;http://www.foei.org/cyberaction/rampa.php,Ikatan Nelayan Saijaan Kotabaru, letter,30/Jun/04)

TNI to stop guarding vitalprojectsIndonesian troops will no longer guard mines,oil and gas installations and other industrialoperations considered "vital projects" if apresidential decree is passed as planned. InJune President Megawati approved a proposalto transfer authority for security to theoperating companies within one year. Sixty sixinstallations are currently categorised as vitalprojects, half of them in the energy sector,including mines and oil or gas installations.According to the co-ordinating minister forsecurity affairs, Hari Sabarno, under thedecree TNI forces could return to guard sitesonly at the request of the police who will bedeployed in the event of securitydisturbances. However, national police chiefDa'i Bachtiar said the police could not takeover from the military due to lack ofpersonnel.

Armed forces commander GenEndriartono Sutarto, who requested thewithdrawal of TNI from guarding sites, saidthat companies had "neglected theirresponsibility for security in their owncompounds since the deployment of the TNIsoldiers," but said that the security forceswould "still watch out for them".

Endriartono and the TNI wereseriously embarrassed last year when US-

based mining company Freeport was forcedby a shareholder group to reveal that from2001-2002 it had handed over more than US$10 million in payments to the military.Guarding vital projects - whether thecompanies concerned want it or not - hasbeen a lucrative source of extra-budgetaryincome for the security forces, along with legaland illegal businesses. (Source: Jakarta Post25/Jun/04. See also DTE 57:1 for morebackground on the Freeport case.)

New US West Papua ActionNetworkWest Papua Action Network (WPAN) a USadvocacy group was launched in May, with aspeaking tour of 10 US cities by Papuanhuman rights defender John Rumbiak. Thenetwork’s aim is to stop human rights abusesand genocide in West Papua and to educatepolicy-makers about the history of USinvolvement in the region. Papuans becamecold war victims, says Rumbiak, whenWashington helped broker the transfer ofWest Papua from the Netherlands toIndonesia.“Denying Papuans the rights to self-determination is the fundamental source ofconflict in the region,” he said.

US documents released in July thisyear showed how, in 1969, the Nixonadministration was unwilling to raise anyobjections to West Papua’s incorporation intoIndonesia even though it was overwhelminglyopposed by Papuans. The US Ambassador atthe time noted that Indonesian militaryoperations had “stimulated fears and rumoursof intended genocide” among Papuans. Anestimated 100,000 Papuans have lost theirlives at the hands of Indonesia, since then. ADecember 2003 report by Yale Law Schoolraises concerns that the Indonesiangovernment/military's actions over the last 30years may constitute genocide and warrantfurther investigation. (Contact WPAN [email protected]. Source: WPAN13/May/04;Asia Times 13/Jul/04; Yale Daily News 3/Feb/04)

NGOS demand World Bankloan auditIndonesia’s NGO Coalition Against Debt(KAU) has called for an independent body todetermine whether or not World Bank loansshould be repaid in full. Around 30% of thecumulative USD25 billion in Bank loans werelost to corruption, according to KAU, whichthinks the Bank should take responsibility forbeing aware of the corruption, but failing toact.

The Bank does not recognise theconcept of corrupted or “odious debt”, whichhas been estimated as high as USD100 billionworldwide. The Bank’s 60th birthday, in July,was marked by protests in many countries,including Indonesia. Here, civil societyorganisations believe bank projects have failedto alleviate poverty, leaving instead whatWALHI director Longgena Ginting called “atrail of misery on the planet.” (Jakarta Post22/Jul/04; Far Eastern Economic Review 29/Jul/04- this issue has details of corrupt Bank-fundedprojects in Indonesia; Why the World BankCelebrates an Unhappy 60th Birthday, 20/Jul/04circulated on NGO-forestry-sector-partnership e-list)

Toro indigenous people winUNDP Equator InitiativerecognitionThe Toro indigenous people of Kulawi, CentralSulawesi, held a traditional celebration onInternational Biodiversity Day, May 22. TheToro were selected as finalists for this year’sEquator Initiative award for the communities’extraordinary commitment in reformingNgata Toro’s customary law. The lawrecognises the important role of women tomake strategic decisions in managingbiological diversity.

The award was won by the CitizensForum for the Bunaken National Park, NorthSulawesi. (GEF press release, 19/May/04)

Millennium Development Goal to halve globalhunger by 2015. Indonesia is a member of theUN Food and Agriculture Organisation'sInter-Governmental Working Group (IGWG)on the right to adequate food, but, along withother Asian countries, has contributed little sofar in the way of practical solutions. TheIGWG has the task of elaborating voluntaryguidelines on the right to adequate food, but,according to BioTani PAN, Indonesia andother members are not putting the basichuman right to food ahead of narrow nationalinterests. (BioTani Indonesia Foundation/PANIndonesia 5/Jul/04 www.fao.org)

FAO Seed Treaty comes into forceMeanwhile, NGOs gave a qualified welcometo the FAO's International Treaty on PlantGenetic Resources for Food and Agriculture,which came into force June 29. The Treaty'saim is to guarantee agricultural biodiversityand equitable benefit sharing from itssustainable use. Indonesia has not yet signedor ratified the treaty. (Seewww.fao.org/ag/cgfra/itpgr.htm and UK ABCSpecial Report 29/Jun/04 onwww.grain.org/bio-ipr?id+401)


By Helena Paul and Ricarda Steinbrecher,Zed Books, 2003. www.zedbooks.co.uk


DOWN TO EARTH is the newsletter of the International Campaign for Ecological Justice in Indonesia. If you want to receive the newsletter on a regular basis, please fill out the form provided.We would welcome information about your work in the field of environment and development in Indonesia.

Name.................................................................Organisation...................................................................................................................Address................................................................................................................................................

The subscription is £10 a year for institutions and those organisations or individuals who can afford it. Please add equivalent of £1.50 if paying with non sterling cheque. Please make cheques payable to Down to Earth and send to Down to Earth, 59 Athenlay Road, London SE15 3EN, UK. Email: [email protected] tel/fax: +44 16977 46266

Down to Earth is a project of the Asia-Pacific Peoples' Environment Network c/o SAM, 27 Lorong Maktab, 10250 Penang, Malaysia


In brief...

Community holds Newmontto account Villagers from Buyat Bay, North Sulawesi havelodged complaints with the police over thedevastating health impacts of NewmontMinahasa Raya’s gold mine. At least 30 peopleare believed to have died as a result of theheavy metal pollution caused by the mine,which dumps tailings on the sea-bed.A reportfrom a local university suggests that morethan 100 villagers from Buyat are sufferingfrom the effects of heavy metalscontamination - including arsenic andmercury - in the Bay, where local people fish.The pollution is believed to have cause thedeath of a 5-month old baby in early July.

The US-based Newmont, whichdenies the allegations, has closed down theSulawesi mine due to depleted gold reserves.An international NGO campaign, co-ordinated by Global Response, is pressing thecompany to ensure the mine closure, clean-up and reclamation meet US standards; thatfree health services are provided for thepeople of Buyat Bay and Ratatotok and faircompensation for lost land and livelihoods isprovided.

For details of JATAM’s campaign seewww.jatam.org and DTE 61:7; orhttp://dte.gn.apc.org/61MIN.htm.(Source:Global Response Alert #3/04 May-June 2004;Dow Jones 21/Jul/04; Jakarta Post 21/7/04 andtranslation by Tracy Glynn, JATAM of article inKompas 20/Jul/04.)

Parliament approves miningin protected forestsIndonesia's parliament voted to pass anemergency regulation (Perpu) on mining inprotected forests in July - dealing anothersevere blow to the struggle of forest-dependent communities to defend theirlivelihoods. The regulation paves the way for13 companies - including Freeport, Inco, andBHP to resume operations. Environmentminister Nabiel Makarim insisted that nomore than these 13 would be permitted back

into protected forest areas, but NGOssuspect that the government may give way topressure from more than 100 othercompanies now that the Perpu has beenpassed.

NGOs campaigning to prevent themove say they will mount a judicial review andsuspect that bribery played a part in thedecision. WALHI believes the Australiangovernment put pressure on the Indonesiangovernment to give the go ahead to mining,holding 13 closed door meetings with officialsbefore the Perpu was issued in March thisyear. For background to this issue and a list of13 approved companies see DTE 61:6-7 orhttp://dte.gn.apc.org/61MIN.htm (Jakarta Post17/Jul/04).

Free the Rampa Fisherfolk,South KalimantanOn June 16, 2004, three activists and twofishermen were beaten, arrested and arecurrently detained at Kota Baru DistrictPolice Office in South Kalimantan. Theirarrests are the result of a two year peacefulaction by the Rampa fisher community, alongwith local students and activists, against wastedumped on their traditional fishing area by PTIndocement Tunggal Prakarsa Tbk, a subsidiaryof Heidelberg Cement Group, Germany. The

action, started on June 5, 2004, blocked thecompany's transport route until it agreed toremove the waste it has dumped oncommunity fishing grounds.

The company built a port anddumped excavated rock from theirconstruction operation into the sea wherethe community has been making a living fromfish and shrimp for generations.

There are approximately 3,700villagers living in Rampa village and thesurrounding villages of Semayap, KotabaruHilir and Kotabaru Hulu who depend on thefishing grounds.

Friends of the Earth Internationalhas launched a letter-writing campaign athttp://www.foei.org/cyberaction/rampa.phpto free those detained and force the companyto clean up the fishing grounds.

In a letter sent to the head of theIndonesian Police and the head of theIndonesian Human Rights Commission on30th June, the community demanded:

no more repressive police actionagainst the community;the dismissal of the local police chief;the release of the 5 fisherfolk (one ofwhom is 80 yrs old) and activists frompolice detention;

New on the DTE website:

http://dte.gn.apc.org/AMAN/gaung/gaung.htmlGaung AMAN - newsletter of Alliance of Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago (AMAN)- Indonesian originals + English translations

http://dte.gn.apc.org/AMAN/gaung/kman2.htmlGaung KMAN - daily newsletter of AMAN Congress, September 2003 - Indonesianoriginals and English translations

http://dte.gn.apc.org/camp.htm#IFIsIFIs factsheets and updates 2004

http://dte.gn.apc.org/news.htmUrgent Action and update on Bestari Raden arrest in March 2004, plus NGO openletter

http://dte.gn.apc.org/srfi1.htm and http://dte.gn.apc.org/srfi2.htmIndonesian translation of Parts I and II of Forests, People & Rights, DTE’s June 2002 SpecialReport on forests.

http://dte.gn.apc.org/cper04.htmSummary translation with notes of draft emergency regulation on illegal logging.


Date post:	30-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Ladia Galaska road network: construction continues ...€¦ · major rivers - Krueng Seunagan,...

Documents