Partisipasi Masy Dalam AMDAL

FINAL REPORT

STUDY ON

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION IN AMDAL

AMDAL REFORM PROGRAM (PHASE 2)

LINKING POVERTY, ENVIRONMENT, AND DECENTRALISATION

AUGUST 2005

SUBMITTED TO THE WORLD BANK

BY PT. QIPRA GALANG KUALITA

this page is intentionally left blank

i

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background of Study 1

1.2 Objective and Expected Output 1

1.3 Link to Other Work 2

1.4 Structure of This Report 4

Chapter 2 METHODOLOGY 5

2.1 Study Approach 5

2.2 Empirical Study 7

Chapter 3 CASE-STUDY FINDINGS 11

3.1 Announcement 11

3.2 Public Consultations for KA-ANDAL Preparation 15

3.3 Data Compilation and Documentation 24

3.4 Representation at the AMDAL Commission Meetings 25

3.5 Access to Information 31

Chapter 4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 37

4.1 AMDAL Public Involvement in the Current Sociopolitical Condition

37

4.2 Limiting & Critical Success Factors 41

4.3 Key areas for improvement 46

Chapter 5 RECOMMENDATIONS 49

ATTACHMENTS A Case-Study Description

B List of Case-Study Resource Persons

C Preparatory Steps and Preconditions for Public Involvement in AMDAL

D Minutes of Meeting and Participation List from “Discussion on Public Involvement in AMDAL’

E References

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL

ii


iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Study is conducted to review the level, quality and

effectiveness of public involvement in the AMDAL process

since the issuance of the Decree of the Head of BAPEDAL

No. 08/2000. The Study is expected to identify patterns of

implementation, limiting and key success factors. The

ultimate aim of the Study is to provide recommendations as

input for the national-level effort for AMDAL revitalization,

and more specifically the revision of the decree on public

involvement and information disclosure in AMDAL.

The Study uses 10 case-studies as the basis of an empirical

analysis on public involvement and information disclosure in

AMDAL. Additional literature and resource persons were also

used to develop recommendations. Results of the case-study

analysis indicate that although public involvement and

information disclosure in AMDAL has been implemented

(albeit in varying degrees), the outcome of these efforts have

not been significant. Comments received from the Concerned

Public have varying value, but largely has not significantly

contributed to a better AMDAL process and decisions based

on the AMDAL process. Where comments have been

significant in terms of numbers and relevance to the AMDAL

process, the amount of preparation and resources spent was

substantial.

Reasons for limited success from public involvement in

AMDAL is attributed to a combination of problems related

to: a) poor understanding of AMDAL objectives, scope and

process; b) lack of understanding of public involvement in

AMDAL and expected output; c) weak communication

between the public and government on needs and aspirations

for economic development and social welfare (outside the

AMDAL process); d) still evolving democratic process and

institutions

The Study presents recommendations that are expected to be

useful in Government deliberations on revising the public

involvement regulations and guidelines. This Study assumes


iv

that the current AMDAL procedures will be modified in the

near future, and the deliberations to formulate the

modifications will occur in the next few months. In order to

accommodate possible changes, the recommendations

provided here do not prescribe a single solution. The ultimate

aim of the recommendations is to create a public involvement

and information disclosure for AMDAL that is effective,

efficient, credible and contextual to the Indonesian

development picture.

This Study recommends the following changes to the current

AMDAL-public involvement regulations and guidelines:

• More specific statement of objectives, and detailed

objectives for each of the key components of the

AMDAL process;

• Establish a set of qualitative criteria for ‘good’ public

involvement;

• Establish clearer division of responsibility among the

three key parties, namely the Responsible Environment

Agency, the Local Government, and the Project

Proponent;

• Define more clearly who is meant by Affected

Communities and their legitimate representatives;

• Allow some degree of freedom to the Project Proponent

to determine the mix of techniques used for information

disclosure and public involvement;

• Develop links and formalize ties with other agencies’

programs for public involvement in development

planning outside of the AMDAL process;

• Develop a program to assist different stakeholders to be

able to contribute to the AMDAL-public involvement

process;

• Identify sources of finances to support Government

agencies and Affected Communities’ involvement in the

AMDAL process, and to enhance public education on

AMDAL and public involvement in AMDAL.

Finally, the lesson learned in the 4 years of implementing a

formal public involvement process is that any process

developed for the AMDAL system should fit into the

sociopolitical mechanisms that are being developed for overall

democratization in Indonesia. The task to increase public

involvement in AMDAL cannot be taken lightly and entails

v

concerted effort to develop capacity and infrastructure to be

used by all stakeholders. If public involvement in AMDAL is

to be successful, the Government must allocate significant

resources and play an active role in developing the necessary

parts of the process.


vi


1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1. BACKGROUND OF STUDY

The prevailing Government Regulations on AMDAL (PP 27,

1999) lays the foundation for public involvement in the

AMDAL process. This was followed by the issuance of

detailed guidelines on the subject through a Decree of the

Head of BAPEDAL No. 08, 2000 (Kepka 08/2000). Since

the issuance of this guideline, the Ministry of Environment

(and BAPEDAL, before it was merged with the Ministry) has

received many inquiries, observed and themselves experienced

many challenges with implementing the regulation. Put into

context, the guidelines became effective about the same time

that regional autonomy was first being introduced, as well as

very eventful period in the national government and politics

(elections of 1999, electing president Abdurachman Wahid,

who was then replaced by Megawati in 2001). During this

period multifaceted reforms (‘reformasi’) entered all segments

of society and all sectors of development.

Only 2 years after the issuance of the Kepka, the Ministry of

Environment was beginning to consider the need to evaluate

the guidelines. Portions of the Kepka were difficult to

implement, while others were seen inappropriate, and overall

the guidelines did not seem successful in meeting the

objective of public involvement in AMDAL.

As part of the ‘AMDAL Reform Program’, a Study on Public

Participation and Access to Information is conducted in an

effort to improve this portion of the AMDAL system.

1.2. OBJECTIVE AND EXPECTED OUTPUT

The objective of the study is as follows:

1. Assess the level, quality and effectiveness of public

involvement in AMDAL since issuance of the


2

government regulation Kepka 08/2000;

2. Develop recommendations for improvement based on

empirical experience in Indonesia and World Bank

projects;

3. Provide inputs for the national-level AMDAL

revitalization effort conducted by the Ministry of

Environment.

The specific outputs of the Study covers:

1. An overview of how AMDAL-related public participation

has taken place since the issuance of relevant government

regulations;

2. A set of critical success factors that enable public

participation in AMDAL, as well as challenges faced by

stakeholders involved;

3. Recommendations regarding improvement necessary to

the general practice of public participation in AMDAL,

and regarding changes/ modifications to the existing

government guidelines/ regulations.

The topic of ‘access to information’ is seen as a necessary

component of the public participation process. It is not

treated as a separate item in the study, rather as an integral

part of the entire analysis.

1.3. LINK TO OTHER WORK

REGIONAL

PILOT

PROJECT

The Study on Public Participation and Access to Information

(PPAI) is conducted concurrently with the Regional Pilot

Project Component of the ‘AMDAL Reform Program’, as

well as the Good Practices Study undertaken by the World

Bank. By design, the results of the PPAI Study are intended

to inform the Regional Pilot Project, particularly in the

development of the Provincial AMDAL System. Therefore,

the results of the PPAI Study are expected to be available

during the time the Regional Pilot Project team is in the

process of developing the Detailed Mechanism of the

Provincial AMDAL System.

The link between the PPAI study and the Regional Pilot

Project has in fact been two-way. Discussions held under the

Regional Pilot Project have produced some comments from

3

stakeholders and findings relevant to the public participation

requirements of AMDAL. This link also exists between the

PPAI Study and the Good Practices Study, where some

findings from the case-studies are relevant to the PPAI Study.

RELATED

PAST WORK In 2002, the World Bank assisted the Ministry of

Environment in the development and publication of informal

guidelines for public participation in AMDAL. Two

publications were produced and disseminated, namely:

a) Public Consultation in AMDAL - A Practical Guide for

Project Proponents

b) Public Involvement in AMDAL – Information Booklet

for the Public.

The guidelines were developed through a combination of

activities, namely:

• Review of guidelines for public participation in EIA/EA

in other countries and international organizations,

• Discussion with stakeholders to identify the main

challenges and current practices in implementing public

participation for AMDAL.

The guidelines were then disseminated through a Training

Course and workshops (in 2003) involving a total of 56

(fifty-six) participants from regional environment agencies

(provincial and some kabupaten/kota), universities and

consultants.

Through the course of these activities, many comments,

observations, and ideas were obtained from stakeholders.

Many of these comments were based on experience in the

field, and demonstrated an overall confusion on the intent

and implementation of the Kepka 08/2000.

As reported in the Final Report to the World Bank

(December 2002), the Consultant provided the following

recommendations for follow-up:

• Socialization to all stakeholders to improve

understanding of the objective and implementation of

public participation in AMDAL;

• Issuance of local regulations and guidelines to ensure

application of the Kepka are consistent with local social

conditions;

• Real evidence of the benefits of Public Consultation to


4

disseminate and convince stakeholders on the value of

public consultation related to AMDAL;

• Comprehensive review of Kepka implementation to

identify constraints in implementing the Kepka and

identify the need to clarify or revise the Kepka.

This Public Participation and Access to Information (PPAI)

Study is regarded as a follow-up to the last of the above

recommendations.

1.4. STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT

The outline of this report follows a proposed outline for the

Final Report. The report is structured in the following

manner:

Chapter 2: METHODOLOGY –

provides a description of the methodology used in the PPAI

Study and sources of information;

Chapter 3: CASE-STUDY FINDINGS –

provides a summary of the key findings from the case-studies,

and discusses common threads found from the case-studies;

Chapter 4: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION –

provides a discussion on public involvement in AMDAL in

the larger context of development in Indonesia, and offers

some light as to the limiting and critical success factors

identified in this study.

Chapter 5: RECOMMENDATIONS –

describes recommendations offered to improve public

involvement and information disclosure in AMDAL, to feed

into the Government’s efforts to revise the existing

regulations and guidelines on public involvement in

AMDAL.

5

CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY

2.1. STUDY APPROACH

Public involvement in the AMDAL process is defined in the

Government Regulation (PP) No. 27, 1999 on AMDAL, and

is further elaborated in the Decree of the Head of BAPEDAL

No 08, 2000 on Public Involvement and Information

Disclosure in the AMDAL Process (Kepka 08/2000).

This Study is an assessment of the effectiveness of the

government policy on public involvement in the AMDAL

process. The assessment is guided by a set of questions that

have emerged in various discussions previously. The questions

are divided into:

a) over-arching questions that revolve around the objectives,

scope and expectations of public involvement in the AMDAL

process at a general level; and

b) procedural questions that question whether the prescribed

procedures in the Kepka 08/2000 support effective public

involvement process.

Over-arching questions includes:

• Does public participation in fact improve the quality of

the AMDAL study or decisions related to AMDAL?

• What measures can be used to determine that sufficient

public involvement has been done for an AMDAL/EIA?

• What are the specific roles (and limits thereof) of each

stakeholder in the AMDAL-related public involvement

process (government, proponent, public), especially in

the era of regional autonomy?

• Can public participation in AMDAL be effective only if

proper public involvement has been done for spatial

planning and other development planning processes?

Procedural questions include:

• What are the outcomes of the key elements of Kepka

08/2000: a) announcement in mass media, b) public


6

consultation at the TOR phase, c) access to AMDAL

information, d) representation of affected community in

the AMDAL Evaluation Committee?

• What are the obstacles to conducting and attaining the

objectives of AMDAL-related public involvement

processes in Indonesia ?

• What approaches have been implemented to provide

access to information on AMDAL?

• What are the critical success factors that support effective

public involvement processes that are deemed effective?

The study is designed to answer the question:

• What impact has public involvement had on the AMDAL

process?

• Has Kepka 08/2000 been effective in producing AMDAL

documents and decisions on environmental feasibility that

are more sensitive to the needs and concerns of the public?

• How should the government regulations and guidelines be

modified to improve public involvement in the AMDAL

process?

This Study is a qualitative analysis that tries to answer the

above question using empirical information, observations and

opinions from experts and practitioners.

The study combines several approaches, namely:

1. Empirical Study; It involves assessment of case-studies

where public involvement is practiced in an AMDAL

study. The case-studies are expected to divulge the: a)

different patterns of implementing Kepka 08/2000 that

has emerged in the field; b) identify problems or

constraints as well as expectations of stakeholders

regarding public involvement in AMDAL; c) record

where public involvement has succeeded in meeting the

objectives for a ‘better AMDAL process and decision’,

and identify critical success factors. A more detailed

description of the Empirical Study is provided below.

2. Review of Literature and Expert Opinions; It is expected

to provide additional inputs regarding: a) guidelines or

regulations issued by other countries and international

organizations; b) the implementation of such guidelines

or regulations in other countries (especially non-

7

industrialized countries). Such international perspective is

expected to provide a wider perspective on what is

achievable (or achieved) and not in public involvement in

EIA/EA in other countries. This perspective is deemed

important to bridge the gap between the theoretical and

ideal goals of public involvement in EIA/EA (which is the

basis of Kepka 08/2000, and found in various

international documents) with the reality of

implementing it in the field. Compilation of Expert

Opinions involves compiling and reviewing comments

and ideas obtained through interviews and discussions

with various experts and practitioners outside of the case-

study stakeholders. Included are results of discussions

held in 2002 and 2003 for the preparation of the

guidebook and workshops. Under the course of this

study, additional interviews are conducted. The expert

opinions are expected to enrich, supplement and/or

complement the findings of Empirical Study and inform

in the development of recommendations.

2.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY

The empirical segment of the study is designed to provide a

foundation for this study. By collecting information on how

public involvement has been practiced in Indonesia and what

results have been achieved, a snapshot on the effectiveness of

the Kepka is developed.

Ten (10) case-studies were selected to build this empirical

snapshot. There is no pretension that the 10 case-studies are

representative of the wide variety of projects, geographic and

social diversity of Indonesia. But considerable attempt has

been made to ensure that the 10 cases cover a range of project

characteristics, such as:

a) project-types, i.e. private sector investment and

public sector infrastructure project;

b) AMDAL status, i.e. AMDAL has been approved

(public participation process completed) and

AMDAL in process (public participation process

recent and ongoing);

c) Complexity of project, i.e. single/ simple project and


8

integrated/ complex project.

Another criteria used in the final selection and confirmation

of the case-studies is access to information. Some case-studies

placed on the candidate list were dropped because of

difficulty in reaching and obtaining confirmation from the

key stakeholder. A list of the final case-studies is provided in

Table 2.1.

Table 2.1. List of Case-Studies

PROJECT AND LOCATION

PROPO-NENT

AMDAL COMMIS-

SION

PROJECT TYPE/

SECTOR

AMDAL STATUS

NAME USED IN

THIS REPORT

1. Hazardous Waste Landfill, Kab. Karawang, West Java

PT. Indobarat Rayon (private)

Central (KLH)

Hazardous Waste Landfill/ private

AMDAL approved

Indobarat

2. Gonggang Dam, Kab. Magetan, East Java

Kabupaten Government of Magetan (government)

East Java Province

Water Resource/ public

AMDAL approved

Gonggang Dam

3. Housing and Recreation Area, Bandung, West Java

PT Dam Utamasakti Prima (private)

Kota Bandung

Housing & tourism development/ private

KA review Punclut

4. Metro Trade Center Mall, Kota Bandung, West Java

PT Margahayu Raya (private)

Kota Bandung

Commercial development/ private

AMDAL approved

Metro Trade Center

5. Coal Mine, Kutai Timur, East Kalimantan

PT Kaltim Prima Coal (private)

Kabupaten Kutai Timur

Mining / private

AMDAL approved

KPC Coal

6. Double Track Railway Kutoarjo – Yogya, Central Java-DI Yogyakarta

Ministry of Transpor-tation (government)

Central (KLH)

Land transportation / public

AMDAL approved

Double Track

7. Jakarta Outer Ringroad (JORR), Jabotabek

PT Jasa Marga/ Ministry of Public Works (government)

Central (KLH)

Road development/ public

AMDAL approved

JORR

8. Banyu Urip Oilfield Devt., East Java

ExxonMobil Oil Indonesia, Inc (private)

Central (KLH)

Oil-gas development/ private

AMDAL approved

Banyu Urip

9

9. Sadewa Oilfield Devt., Kab. Kutai Kartanegara, East Kalimantan

Unocal Indonesia Company (private)

Central (KLH)

Oil-gas development/ private

KA preparation

Sadewa

10. Housing Estate, Kec. Gunung Putri, Kab Bogor, West Java

PT. Karya Cantika Kusuma (private)

West Java Province

Housing development/ private

AMDAL approved

KCK Housing

CASE STUDY

PROCESS For each case-study, information was collected regarding the

process and results of the various steps in public involvement

in AMDAL, namely:

• Announcement

• Public Consultation in the KA-ANDAL Preparation

• Representation in the AMDAL Commission

• Access to Information.

The case-studies were built from various sources of

information, namely:

1. Stakeholders involved, representing at least 3 (three)

parties:

• Project proponent or consultant;

• AMDAL Commission or local environmental

institution;

• Affected Communities or Observer Groups (NGOs

near the project site).

2. Review of documents related to the case-studies:

• KA report (TOR-ANDAL),

• ANDAL report,

• Report on public consultations (attachment to the

KA report), where available,

• Record of Discussion (Berita Acara) of the KA and

ANDAL/RKL-RPL evaluation meetings, where

available.

Stakeholders from the 3 parties were interviewed using a

semi-structured interview method. Names of interviewees

from the Affected Communittes or Observer Groups were

obtained from the Record of Discussion (attendee list) or

from the AMDAL Commission or local Environmental


10

Agency.

ANALYSIS Results of interviews and document reviews were compiled

and compared. This allowed identification ‘patterns of

implementation’ based on empirical experience, and

identification of problems and key success factors found from

the case-studies. The findings were then analyzed against the

content (and intent) of the government regulations and

guidelines, and reviewed against comments and observations

from other resource persons and literature.

11

CHAPTER 3 CASE-STUDY FINDINGS

CASE-STUDY

RESULTS Information obtained from the case-studies shows

considerable variation on how the provisions in the Kepka

are interpreted and implemented. This section describes the

patterns that have emerged from the case-studies for each of

the major steps prescribed in the Kepka, as well as the

outcomes that are observed from the public involvement

process.

The intent of this chapter is to portray the different

interpretations and provide a general discussion on the major

obstacles to implementing public participation in the

AMDAL process. The chapter is divided into several sections,

each describing a major component of the public


3.1. ANNOUNCEMENT

The Kepka (article 2.2) mandates that the Project Proponent

and the Responsible Environment Agency place

announcements in a national and local print media, notices

in public places, in electronic media, and other media. The

content and format of the announcement are specified in the

Kepka. Table 3.1 presents a summary of announcements

made in the 10 case-studies.

PRINT MEDIA In nine out of ten case-studies, the Project Proponent placed

an announcement in the national and/or local newspaper.

There is some variation in terms of placement:

• Only in a national newspaper (Indobharat Rayon, KPC

Coal, JORR),

• Only in local newspaper (Metro Trade Center,

Gonggang Dam, Punclut),

• In both national and local newspapers (Banyu Urip,

Double-Track Railway, Sadewa).

The only Project Proponent that did not place an


12

announcement in a print media is the KCK Housing.

In terms of content, most of the newspaper announcements

do not fully follow the prescribed content in the Kepka

(which includes a wide range of information). Particularly

absent from the newspaper announcements are location map,

type and volume of waste, waste management approaches. In

some cases, also missing is the address of the Responsible

Environment Agency (Gonggang Dam) and the deadline for

sending in written comments/ suggestions (Gonggang Dam,

KPC Coal). All announcements use Bahasa Indonesia, as

prescribed in the Kepka.

In the 10 case-studies, none of the Responsible Environment

Agencies have made their own announcements. The

Environment Agencies have relied fully on the Project

Proponent to place announcements in the appropriate media.

In most cases, the name and address of the Responsible

Environment Agency are included in the newspaper

announcement (except for Gonggang Dam).

Table 3.1 Summary of Announcements & Responses in 10 Case-Studies

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ANNOUNCEMENT by Project Proponent National newspaper

v v v v v v Print Media

Local newspaper v v v v v v Notice board at project site

v v v v v

Notice board at Proponent office near project site

v

Notices at village, kelurahan or kecamatan offices

v v v v v

Around Project Site

Posters at public places

v

Electronic Media

Radio v v

ANNOUNCEMENT by Responsible Agency

- - - - - - - - - -

COMMENTS RECEIVED in response to Announcement

6 0 7 0 0 1 0 9 10 0

AROUND

PROJECT SITE

Notices were placed at or near the project site for all case-

studies. The specific location includes:

13

• At project site (Indobharat Rayon, Punclut, Metro Trade

Center, KPC Coal, JORR)

• At the project proponent’s office near the project site

(Gonggang Dam)

• At the village or kelurahan or kecamatan offices (Punclut,

Double-Track Railway, JORR, Banyu Urip, Sadewa),

• At other public places frequented by community (KCK

Housing).

Many of the Notices do not contain information prescribed

in the Kepka. The most common missing information relates

to location map. However, a few notices only contain

announce “x project will be built on this location” (Metro

Trade Center, KPC Coal, Gonggang, Indobharat).

All notices used Bahasa Indonesia, as required in the Kepka.

ELECTRONIC

MEDIA Radio announcements were used in only two cases, namely

Punclut and Banyu Urip. In the Banyu Urip case, local radio

stations announced the time and place of upcoming public

consultation meetings to inform villagers on such events.

RESPONSE TO

ANNOUNCE-MENT

Of the 10 case-studies, written responses were received for 6

Proposed Projects. No written responses were received for the

Gonggang Dam, Metro Trade Center, KPC Coal, JORR

announcements. In terms of number of written responses, 6

letters were received on the Indobharat Rayon, 7 letters on

Punclut, 1 letter on the Double-Track Railway, 8 letters for

Banyu Urip and 10 letters for Sadewa case-study. Many of

the written responses did not meet the requirement in the

Kepka, which requires submission of the identity (name and

address) of the source of the comments.

DISCUSSION The 10 case-studies show that the majority of project

proponents have adhered to the requirements of the

Government to place an announcement in the print media

and other media as appropriate. However, a significant

finding is that the Government (ie the Responsible

Environmental Agency) has not fulfilled its obligation to

place announcements separate from that of the Project

Proponent.

In most cases, the cause for the Government’s failure to


14

comply is that it has no funds for such announcements.

Advertisements (announcements) in daily newspapers,

especially at a national scale, are expensive. Government

agencies find it difficult to budget for announcements, since

it is impossible to anticipate the number of AMDALs that are

likely to be processed in the coming year. Even the Ministry

of Environment has not been able to comply with this

requirement set out in the Kepka 08/2000. As a result, the

Responsible Environment Agency generally requests its name

to be included in the announcement placed (and funded) by

the Project Proponent.

In terms of content, the Kepka’s prescription to include in

the announcements technical information on the project and

potential impacts may be unrealistic. To include all

information would require upscaling the size of the

announcement, and thus increasing the cost.

There has also been much comment about the Kepka’s

prescription on the language used in announcements, ie

Bahasa Indonesia. In many rural locations, the language

commonly used may be the local dialect, especially for the

current adult population. Use of Bahasa Indonesia for

information dissemination at the local level may not be the

most effective language.

The response obtained from placing a newspaper

announcement is not deemed commensurate to the cost.

Even when announcements are placed in more than 1

newspaper, there is no guarantee that it would generate a

large number of responses from the public (Double-Track

Railway). And even in the urban case-studies, where the

populations to be reached by the announcements are

presumably more educated, the level of response is low

(Punclut, Metro Trade Center, JORR).

The lack of response to newspaper announcements may be

attributed to:

• Announcements are not visible or attractive enough to

catch attention of readers;

• There is little interest among readers to respond to the

announcement, and or little interest in AMDAL of a

proposed project;

15

• Information in the announcements are not sufficiently

clear to be commented on;

• Indonesians generally are not accustomed to writing and

sending written responses.

A more effective means to reach Affected Communities

appear to be announcements or notices placed in public

places near project site and announcements via radio. Such

announcements can be more cost-effective, but serves a

different purpose than the newspaper announcements. As the

Banyu Urip case indicates, this media can be used to inform

the public about the existence of a proposed project, an

upcoming AMDAL study, the basics of a project design, and

the timing and venue of public consultation meetings in a

particular area. However, there is no evidence that such

announcements would trigger sending in of written

comments/ responses from the public.

3.2. PUBLIC CONSULTATION FOR KA-ANDAL PREPARATION

Kepka 08/2000 (Article 3.2) states that the proponent is

obliged to conduct consultations with the Affected

Communities and Observer Groups during preparation of

the KA-ANDAL document. Results of public consultations

are to be used as consideration in the scoping process. In

these consultations, the Proponent is required to provide

information on the proposed project, environmental

components potentially impacted, and key issues. The

Proponent is expected to announce the time, place and

method of consultations to be conducted. Possible methods

of consultations are given in the Kepka as examples, ie. public

meetings, workshops, seminars, focused discussions, and

other methods for two-way communication).

The case-studies show that consultations are implemented by

all Project Proponents, however, there is a wide variety on the

approach and preparations done. Table 3.2 below provides a

summary of different approaches.

IDENTIFYING

AFFECTED

Two approaches were found to be used to determine the

Affected Communities to be the target for public


16

COMMU-NITIES

consultations:

• through a pre-survey as in the case of Sadewa and Banyu

Urip. This entails conducting a field survey to

understand the social structure of the communities,

identify opinion leaders, common mode of

communication and use of media; and

• through secondary information obtained from local

authorities (village head or Lurah) and local documents,

as in the case of Indobharat Rayon, Gonggang Dam,

Punclut, Metro Trade Center, Double-Track and others.

In the case of JORR, there was additional effort to identify

informal community leaders through the land-acquisition

effort that was ongoing parallel to the AMDAL study.

Proponents of Sadewa and Banyu Urip found that a pre-

survey is critical to identifying who should be consulted,

ensure different elements of the community are consulted

and determine the best approach for consultations, including

the venue and timing of consultation meetings.

Even with such a pre-survey, the proponent of Sadewa

project had difficulty in identifying the affected communities

for its off-shore project in the Makassar Straits. Fishermen

operating in that area come from different parts of Sulawesi

and Kalimantan. Data on fishing permits did not provide

sufficient information on the origin of the fishermen.

Table 3.2 Summary of Preparations for Public Consultations

PREPARATIONS for PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Preliminary Survey v v Identification of Affected Communities to be Consulted

Secondary information (from local officials and documents)

v v v v v v v v v v

Time and place of meetings determined by Proponent/Consultant alone

v v v

Time and place of meetings determined with assistance from Lurah, Head of Village

v v v v v v

Planning of Consultation Meetings

Local Government becomes organizer of Consultation Meetings

v

Implementation of Public

Meetings at village or RW level

v v v v v v v v

17

Meetings at Kecamatan level

v v v v v v Consultation Meetings

Meetings at Kabupaten and or Province level

v v

Determined by Village Head, Lurah or Camat

v v v v v v v v

Based on preliminary survey

v v

Community Members Invited to/ Attended the Public Consultations Opened to public v v Dissemination of Additional Information prior to Consultation Meetings

Distribution of booklet/ flyers or posters placed around project site

v

ORGANIZA-TION

Although generally viewed as part of the AMDAL

consultant’s scope of work, there is variation in terms of who

takes the lead in organizing the public consultation events

among the three parties involved: a) Project Proponent, b)

AMDAL Consultant, c) Responsible Environment Agency

and local government authorities. Three patterns emerge

from the case-studies. (see Table 3.2)

In several case-studies, the venue, time and participants were

determined by the Project Proponent and the Consultant. In

the Banyu Urip case, the pre-survey provided the basic

information for the public consultation consultant to

determine the best venues and target groups for the meetings.

In the JORR, KCK Housing, KPC Coal cases, the proponent

and consultant set the time and place.

In other cases, the project proponent and/or AMDAL

consultant requested assistance from the local Lurah or

Village Head. In the Indobharat, Punclut, Metro Trade

Center and Double-Track Railway cases, the village head

determined the time, place and participants to be invited to

the public consultation meetings.

In one case-study (Sadewa), the project proponent fully

engaged the Provincial and District level environment and

other agencies to act as organizer of the public consultation

meetings. The local government agencies were involved in

deciding how many meetings were going to be held, the

locations, invitees, who to lead the meetings. The Project

Proponent’s role in the public consultation meetings was

only to present a technical presentation on the proposed


18

project and respond to questions of technical nature. Such

arrangement was agreed to between the parties in a workshop

initiated by the proponent. In this case, the Proponent

intentionally reduced the role of the AMDAL consultant,

since the Proponent felt most competent and knowledgeable

to describe the proposed activity and respond to questions

from the audience.

PUBLIC

CONSULTA-TION

ACTIVITIES

All case-studies used public meetings, seminars, discussions

and focused group discussions to consult with the public.

In most case-studies, the proponents and AMDAL

Commission members interviewed use the term

‘socialization’ (sosialisasi) to refer to public consultation

meetings held. The term ‘socialization’ is usually used to refer

to a meeting where a new product/ program/ regulation is

introduced or disseminated to the public. Although the

terminology is incorrectly used in this context, records show

that in fact a two-way communication was achieved in the

public consultation meetings in the 10 case-studies reviewed.

The number of public consultations range from 1 event for

the Punclut, KCK Housing case-studies, 6-7 meetings for the

Gonggang and Double Track case-studies, to 36 meetings for

the Banyu Urip case-study. This appears to be linked to the

size of the project area and estimated impacted areas.

There is also variation in terms of the level of community

where the public consultations are held. The following

indicates the patterns that are observed:

• Meetings at only the village and neighborhood level (RW

in urban setting) were done for the Double-Track,

Punclut, Metro Trade Center and KCK Housing;

• Meetings were held only at the Kecamatan (sub-district)

level in the case of KPC Coal and JORR;

• Meetings were held at village/RW and Kecamatan levels,

such as for Gonggang Dam and Indobharat;

• Meetings held at village/RW, Kecamatan and higher

levels, such as Banyu Urip and Sadewa.

In general the public consultation meetings took around 2-4

hours. All consisted of opening remarks by local officials, a

presentation on the proposed project, and a question/answer

session. Some meetings were held in the night-time to

19

accommodate the schedules of the communities (Metro

Trade Center, JORR).

In many of the case-studies, questionnaires were used by the

proponent as an additional method to capture the

participants’ opinions/ concerns, as well as information

regarding the project location. Interviews with community

members who attended the public consultation meetings

were conducted after the meeting closed.

ATTENDANCE Attendance at public meetings also varied. In some cases, the

Village Head, Lurah or Camat determined who should be

invited to the public consultation meetings (Indobharat,

Gonggang Dam, Metro Trade Center, JORR, KPC Coal). In

two cases (Banyu Urip and Sadewa), invitations were

determined based on the pre-survey done to identify Affected

Communities to be consulted. In one cases (Banyu Urip),

consultation meetings were announced through the radio to

invite any community members interested in attending.

In the case of Double-Track, determination of invitees for

the consultation meetings was based on residents living along

the existing railroad tracks. The Affected Community was,

therefore, relatively easy to identify and invite

Where attendance was limited to invitees, the participants of

the consultation meetings were mainly elected community

leaders, such as the BPD (village representative board), RT

(neighborhood officer), LPM (community development

organization), Kepala Desa (village head), and in some cases,

informal leaders (women’s group, PKK).

For the JORR case, the Affected Communities included not

only ‘common persons’, but also representatives from

manufacturing companies (factories), Pertamina, and a Navy

housing complex, which have facilities located near the

location of the proposed toll-road. Representatives of the

companies attended the public consultation meetings.

COST Data on the cost to hold public consultations were not

obtained from all case-studies. However, there is indication

that the unit cost varies considerably. The cost per public

consultation meeting range from Rp 1 million (Metro TC),

Rp 5-10 million (JORR) to approximately Rp. 20 million


20

(Sadewa). This is generally to cover costs such as rental of

venue, snacks, rental of sound-system, transportation costs

especially if meetings are held out-of-town. In the Banyu

Urip case, over Rp 600 million was spent for the entire

process of a pre-survey, development of the consultation

strategy, design and production of information materials,

implementation of public consultation meetings and

reporting.

In many cases, the above cost also includes a small sum of

cash to cover transportation cost for community

representatives/ members attending public consultation

meetings. Such ‘compensation’ was deemed necessary to

compensate for the transport cost incurred by community

members to attend the meeting or for the opportunity cost of

not working that day. Compensation is not seen to have

influence on the recipient’s opinion towards the proposed

activity.

RESPONSE

FROM THE

PUBLIC

In most case-studies, less than 20 comments/inputs were

obtained from the public consultation events. Only in the

case of Banyu Urip were there a significant number of verbal

comments from participants of the public meetings (total

538 from 36 meetings). In this case-study, the Prepared list

of questions to be raised in public meetings of various

information they required to assist in determing the scope of

the ANDAL study. Affected Communities thus had specific

issues to comment on. Table 3.3 below provides a summary

of comments received during the public consultations.

In the public consultation meetings, the range of topics raised

by the public covers the following:

• Comments related to existing environmental conditions;

• Concerns regarding biogeophysical environmental

impact of proposed activity;

• Suggestion regarding changes in the design of the

portions of the proposed project;

• Suggestion for biogeophysical impact mitigation efforts;

• Concerns regarding social impact such as criminality,

relationship with in--migrants;

• Request for public facilities such as clean water, road, etc;

• Request for use of local workforce;

21

• Request for compensation of land acquisition;

• Suggestions for relocation;

• Request for community development.

The suggestions and requests from the public were noted by

the proponent/ consultant, and the public was informed that

their inputs will be considered in the study and further

decision-making on project design/ activities. However, most

KA-ANDAL documents reviewed did not explicitly describe

how the above comments from the Affected Community

have influenced or not influenced the definition of the

ANDAL study scope.

In several of the case-studies, the communities present at

public consultation meetings were persistent on the issue of

compensation. In the case of JORR, the proponent

representatives successfully diverted further discussion,

explaining to the audience that they were not authorized to

deal with land acquisition and compensations (note: a

different unit in the proponent’s organization is responsible

for this process). In one case, Indobharat Rayon, the public

consultation meeting was concluded with Joint Agreement

letter between the proponent and the communities

establishing the level of compensation.

Table 3.3 Summary of Results of Public Consultation Meetings

RESULTS of PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Request information on project

v v v v

Re existing environmental conditions

v v

Re biogeophysical impacts of project

v v v v v v v

Suggestion on project design

v v v

Suggestion on mitigation efforts of biogeophysical impacts

v v v v v v

Concerns regarding social impacts such as criminality, relations with migrant workers

v

Comments Raised

Request for public facilities such as clean water, roads,

v v v


22

etc. Request for recruitment of local workers

v v v v v v v v

Request for compensation of land acquisition

v v v v

Suggestion on relocation

Request for community development

v v v v v

Number of comments

6 18 10 19 11 ? 11 538 6 5

DISCUSSION The case-studies demonstrate variance in interpretation (and,

in fact, confusion) as to a number of important aspects

regarding public consultations in the KA-ANDAL

preparation stage. These questions are:

• Who is to be consulted during this stage?

• What is the role of the local government?

On the first question (Who, in the community, should be

consulted?) the case-studies reveal the existence of two points

of view:

1. The Affected Community can and should be represented

by formal leaders, such as Village Head, BPD, LPM,

RT/RW heads, Lurah, since they have the mandate and

legitimacy to represent the communities, and have, at

least, knowledge of the different interests in the

community;

2. Formal leaders (such as Village Head, BPD, LPM,

RT/RW heads, Lurah) do not necessarily represent the

interest of communities, and may in fact have vested

interests of their own with regard to a proposed project.

AMDAL public consultations should reach the ‘common

person’ or community members who do not hold any

formal office, and/or informal leaders recognized by the

community, such as religious leaders, leaders of trade

organizations (farmers, fishermen, traders), etc.

The second point of view requires that the Project Proponent

spends substantially more effort and finances to conduct

multiple consultation meetings, to identify the target groups

23

for consultations, and to prepare materials to inform the

general public. Furthermore, Project Proponents view

consultations with community members as potentially

exposing the Project Proponent to uncertain (possibly

volatile) situations. The probability is high when

consultations are used as a venue to make demands on the

Project Proponent, and when other interests (such as land

speculation, see Purnama, 2003) infiltrate the consultation

meetings. Since the Kepka does not specifically define ‘which

community (ies)’ need to be consulted, Project Proponents

have freely interpreted this to minimize time, operational

difficulty and complications.

In most cases, the ‘common person’ is not accustomed to

being involved in development consultations. An interview

with a community member for the Indobarat Rayon case,

indicates this farmer was not interested in attending public

consultation meetings because he felt it was the job of the

village officials/ leaders. Lack of interest or impetus to

participate in public meetings related to EIA is also reported

in Bulgaria, where “securing the basic necessities of life

commands immediate attention” (Almer & Koontz, 2004).

The role of local government (autonomous regions of

Province and Kabupaten) in public consultations is unclear.

Although the Kepka 08/2000 was conceived during the time

regional autonomy law was also being drafted and publicly

discussed, there is insufficient recognition or definition as to

the role of the local government in organizing, planning

and/or facilitating public consultations for AMDAL. The

case-studies show three potential roles of the local

government:

a) supporting role to the Project Proponent, eg providing

information on persons to invite;

b) full partner to the Project Proponent, eg taking part in

presentations and responding to questions/comments raised

in the public consultation meetings;

c) lead role (with Project Proponent playing supporting role),

eg convening the public consultation meetings, facilitating in

the dialog between the Affected Communities and the

Project Proponent.


24

Definition of this role is important since communication

with the public ultimately has a bearing on local development

plans, investment projection, permits and spatial plans. The

local government should share responsibilities with the

project proponent (especially private sector companies) on

communications with the Affected Communities.

In terms of comments expressed during the public

consultation events, there seems to be no doubt that there are

constructive suggestions, information and comments from

the public related to the ANDAL study. However, in all

cases, it is inevitable that the consultations also become a

venue to express views and ‘wish-lists’ regarding social/

community development, workforce recruitment and

compensation. In fact it these issues that carry-through to the

AMDAL Commission phase, and one that is held most

strongly by community representatives in some cases.

Although the latter issues give indication for the ANDAL

study (socio-economic component) some of the major issues

of concern to the Affected Community, these issues cannot

be resolved through the AMDAL process. For compensation,

land acquisition and resettlement, there are a separate set of

government procedures that apply. It is arguable that

community development and social facilities are the

responsibility of the project proponent. Such development

programs should be the main task of local governments, and

contributions from private companies operating in an area

should be arranged between the local government and the

private companies. The fact that some public consultation

meetings ended with signing of agreement letters between the

proponent and community on compensation, indicates a

misunderstanding with regard to the purpose of public

consultation for AMDAL as well as the objective of the

AMDAL itself.

3.3. DATA COMPILATION AND DOCUMENTATION

The Kepka 08/2000 (article 2.2 items 2, 3 and 4) explains

that the Responsible Environment Agency is charged with

the task of:

• Documenting and analyzing written comments/

25

suggestions from the public,

• Preparing a summary of the above,

• Presenting its opinion (position) regarding the above to

the AMDAL Commission.

With regard to comments/ suggestions/ inputs obtained from

the public consultation process, the Kepka 08/2000 places

responsibility of documenting, summarizing and analyzing

on the project proponent or its consultant. The results of this

process are to be documented in a separate report, attached to

the KA-ANDAL report.

BY

RESPONSIBLE

ENVIRON-MENTAL

AGENCY

From the 10 case-studies, none of the responsible

environment agencies performed its obligations with regard

to written comments from the public received in response to

the announcements. Where written comments were received

by the environment agency, these were passed on to the

project proponent or AMDAL consultant to be further used

and analyzed.

BY PROJECT

PROPONENT

In all 10 case-studies, inputs gained from the public

consultation events were documented and analyzed. Most of

the case-studies also produced a report which was attached to

the KA-ANDAL report. However, how comments/

suggestions from the public are treated in the process of the

AMDAL study is generally not described well in the KA or

ANDAL reports.

DISCUSSION In all case-studies, the compilation, documentation and

analysis of comments and suggestions from the public were

done by the AMDAL consultant/ project proponent. None

of the Responsible Environment Agencies in the case-studies

fulfilled their responsibilities. The main obstacle appears to

be the lack of manpower to undertake this task, but likely it

is also due to lack of intent. There is a common

understanding that analyzing the data is the job of the

AMDAL consultants.

The impact is that the AMDAL Commission solely relies on

what is reported in the KA-ANDAL report and the

attachment on public consultation to understand the

comments/ suggestions from the public. There is possibility

of distortion or omission of comments/ suggestions that do


26

not support the project proponent.

3.4. REPRESENTATION AT THE AMDAL COMMISSION MEETINGS

Article 2.1 point 3 and Article 3.3 of the Kepka 08/2000

stipulate that representatives of the Affected Communities

must attend the AMDAL Commission meeting to evaluate

the AMDAL documents. Article 2.1 point 3b) states that the

Affected Communities must select for themselves the

representative to sit in the AMDAL Commission. Criteria

and requirement of the Affected Community representative

are further described, ie:

a) someone recognized as spokesperson of the community

and/or has obtained a mandate from the community;

b) voices all aspirations and opinions in the community;

c) conducts regular communication and consultations with

the community represented.

Two meetings are held by the AMDAL Commission,

namely:

1. To review the KA-ANDAL document,

2. To review the ANDAL and RKL/RPL documents.

During the process of evaluation of the KA-ANDAL

Document, the Observer Groups can also provide written

comments to the Responsible Agency or Proponent up until

3 days prior to the AMDAL Commission meeting. For the

ANDAL, RKL/RPL documents, the Observer Groups have

45 workdays to submit additional comments.

Of the 10 case-studies, 1 case-study had not proceeded to the

AMDAL Review Commission stage (Sadewa), and 1 case-

study had only gone through the KA-ANDAL review

meeting (Punclut) at the time of this Study. Of the

remaining 8 (eight) case-studies, the Affected Community

was represented at the AMDAL Commission meeting by at

least 1 (one) representative, with the exception of JORR case-

study. The level of representation, the patterns of

representation, and breadth of aspiration represented

demonstrates different patterns.

NUMBER OF The number of representatives attending the AMDAL

27

REPRESENTA-TIVES

Commission meetings range from 1 (Gonggang) to 20

(Punclut). Most of the case-studies indicate attendance

between 3-10 representatives of affected communities.

Similar numbers are observed between the AMDAL

Commission meeting to review the KA-ANDAL and the

ANDAL, RKL/RPL documents.

Where large (>4) number of community representatives are

present, AMDAL commission chairmen have found that

meetings are more difficult to manage. The feel the number

of representatives should be limited and made explicit

Table 3.4 Summary of Affected Community Representation at the AMDAL Review Commission

REPRESENTATION AT THE AMDAL REVIEW COMMISSION

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

KA=ANDAL Review meeting

3 1 20 3 2 5 0 4 n/a 3 Number of Affected Community representatives

ANDAL, RKL/RPL Review meeting

3 1 n/a 10 2 4 0 3 n/a 5

Formal leaders (Village Head, Lurah, BPD, LPM, RW & RT head)

v v v v v v n/a v

Community members

v v n/a

Representation by

Other community leader(s) or local NGOs

v v v v v n/a v

Assigned by Affected Communities

v n/a

Appointed by formal leaders

v v v n/a v

Selection of community representative

Appointed by Project Proponent

v v v n/a

Routine communication/ consultation between Affected Communities and their representatives

- - - - - - - - n/a -

Understand why they have been invited to Attend meeting

v v

n/a = AMDAL Review meeting had not been conducted at the time of this Study

REPRESENTA-TION OF

AFFECTED

COMMUNI-

The case-study reveals that the Affected Communities are

represented by a mix of the following:

• Formal community leaders, defined as Head of Village,

Lurah, BPD, LPM, Head of RT/RW (neighborhood


28

TIES councils) who are regarded as representatives elected by

the community;

• Other community leaders, defined as local groups,

including trade group (eg fishermen’s group), youth

group, local NGO;

• Common citizens, defined as individuals who are not

attached to any organization.

Data for this portion of the study were obtained from records

of attendance in the AMDAL Commission meetings, thus

depends on self-proclamation of each participant on the

attendance list.

Almost in all 8 cases, Formal Leaders attend the AMDAL

Commission Meeting to represent the Affected

Communities. In many cases, the Formal Leaders are

accompanied by Other Community leaders, while only in 2

cases are there two representatives claiming to be Common

Citizens (Metro Trade Center and Double-Track Railway).

In one case-study (JORR), the representative who claimed he

was a Community Representative turned out to be a staff of

the Kecamatan Office (sub-district government); and thus in

this analysis, the JORR case-study is regarded as not having a

community representative.

The selection of representatives to attend the AMDAL

Commission meetings also varies. In the case of Indobharat

Rayon and Banyu Urip, formal community leaders were

specifically invited by the project proponent or

environmental agency based on their participation in the

public consultation meetings. Yet for the Gonggang, Metro

Trade Center, and KPC Coal, representatives were selected

by the Camat or Lurah. In the Punclut case, it appears that

the proponent arranged for community representatives to

attend the KA-ANDAL review meeting. Only in the case of

the Double-Track Railway, was there a community selection

process (through a Focussed Group Discussion) whereby the

Village Head and Head of BPD were appointed to attend the

AMDAL Commission Meeting on behalf of the Affected

Communities.

In terms of representation of interests, it is important to note

that in the case of Punclut and Gonggang Dam, only

29

representatives of supportive communities were in attendance

at the KA-ANDAL Commission meeting. In both cases,

media coverage and interviews with stakeholders indicate that

there were communities unsupportive of the proposed

projects. However, the opposing point-of-view was not

represented in the KA-ANDAL evaluation meeting.

At the AMDAL Commission meetings to review the

ANDAL, RKL/RPL, most case-studies show slight difference

in representation than that attending the KA-ANDAL

evaluation meeting. In some cases, a substantially larger

number of representatives attend the ANDAL, RKL/RPL

review meeting (Metro Trade Center). In many cases, it

appears that the same community representatives attend the

two Review Meetings (Indobarat Rayon, Banyu Urip,

Double Track, KCK Housing, Gonggang Dam).

COMMENTS

FROM

COMMUNITY

REPRESENTA-TIVES

In the KA-ANDAL evaluation meetings, comments from the

community representatives include:

• Comments on environmental impacts of concern

(Indobharat Rayon, Double-Track, Banyu Urip,);

• Request related to socio-economic programs,

compensation for land-acquisition, recruitment of local

people (KPC Coal, KCK Housing);

• Support for the project, or requesting the Government to

approve the Proposed Project (Gonggang Dam and

Punclut);

• Suggestion for the name of the Proposed Project

(Gonggang Dam).

In the ANDAL-RKL/RPL review meeting, comments

expressed by community representatives relate to:

• Requests related to socio-economic programs,

compensation for land-acquisition or environmental

impact, recruitment of local people (Metro Trade

Center, Double-Track, Gonggang, KPC Coal, KCK

Housing);

• Concern over environmental impacts and suggestions for

environmental management, such as air quality,

drainage, regreening, early warning system for marine

pollution (Indobharat, Gonggang, Metro Trade Center,

Banyu Urip, Double-Track, KCK Housing).


30

Comments did not appear to refer to specific sections of the

AMDAL documents being reviewed.

COMMUNICA-TION

BETWEEN

COMMUNI-TIES AND

THEIR

REPRESENTA-TIVES

In none of the 10 case-studies, is there indication that

community representatives assigned to attend the AMDAL

Review meetings conduct routine consultations/

communications with the community.

As such, it is difficult to determine whether the comments/

requests raised during the AMDAL review meetings do in

fact represent the aspirations of the wider public.

Even in the case where the community appointed a

representative to attend the AMDAL Commission meeting

(Double Track Railway), there is no routine communication

or consultations held by the appointed representative.

UNDERSTAND

PURPOSE OF

ATTENDANCE

When asked, in interviews for this Study, whether the

community representatives understand why they have been

invited to attend the AMDAL Commission review meeting,

most answer that they do not understand. The exception

holds for the JORR and Banyu Urip case-studies. For the

JORR case-study, however, it should be noted that the

community representative present at the review meetings was

a staff of the Kecamatan office.

Most of the community representatives did not receive

AMDAL documents prior to AMDAL Commission

meetings. A few interviewee who claimed they received the

document (Indobarat and Banyu Urip case), said that they

did not read the document because it was too thick and

difficult

DISCUSSION The AMDAL Commission meets to review the KA-ANDAL

and ANDAL/RKL-RPL documents. The objective of the

review is to ensure the scientific validity of the documents,

provide comments for revision of the documents, and,

finally, approve the documents.

In all case-studies, the community representatives attending

the AMDAL Commission meetings do not fully understand

the objective of the Commission, nor what is expected from

them in the meeting. Community representatives generally

have not reviewed the documents prior to the AMDAL

31

Commission meeting. The comments expressed in the

meeting are general comments on aspirations or concerns,

whether or not they have been addressed in the documents

being reviewed.

There are three obstacles in play:

1. The community representative did not receive the

AMDAL document in sufficient time;

2. The AMDAL documents are too scientific and not

amenable to being understood by the laymen;

3. The community representatives have not been informed

about their role or duty in the AMDAL Commission

meetings.

The Kepka states that the Responsible Environment Agency

is tasked with providing, to the public, information regarding

the process and results of reviewing the AMDAL documents.

None of the community representatives interviewed in this

study had received prior information on AMDAL or public

involvement in the AMDAL process. However, it is worth

noting also that most AMDAL commission members from

the Environment Agency are also unclear as to the role of

community representatives in the AMDAL Commissions;

whether they are expected to fully participate in decision-

making on the AMDAL report (approvals) or only to provide

additional input. This point needs to be clarified

As with public consultation meetings, representation again is

an issue in the AMDAL Commission. Affected Communities

represented by formal community leaders/ village officials can

demonstrate legitimacy of representation, while it is more

difficult to ascertain legitimacy when common citizens attend

the AMDAL Commission meeting.

In the cases where community representative present at the

AMDAL Commission meeting are only from the supportive

communities (Gonggang and Punclut), raises the question of

how to ensure that all interests are represented. In these cases,

the project proponent played a role in arranging who should

attend the AMDAL Commission meetings. None of the 10

case-studies, community representatives are biased towards

objecting the project (although discussion with KLH

indicates that this seems to occur with relative frequency).


32

Regardless of who is representing the Affected Communities,

the cases studies do not show communication between the

representatives and the community being represented to

determine the issues to be raised in the AMDAL

Commission meeting. Such an effort requires that the

representatives review the materials, discuss the content with

the communities, and formulate agreed comments to bring

to the AMDAL Commission. It also requires that after the

AMDAL Commission meeting, the representative reports

back to the community results of the AMDAL Commission.

This finding is consistent with general observations on the

current political process in Indonesia, where elected leaders

or parliamentarians are not in regular communication with

their constituents.

3.5. ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Providing relevant information to the public is an integral

part of the public participation process. Two components of

access to information that should be fulfilled are:

• Access or delivery channel; and

• Information content and media.

This section describes findings on practices from the 10 case-

studies, outside of the announcement already discussed in

Section 3.1.

To facilitate the process of public involvement in AMDAL,

the following information should be provided to the public:

• Regulations and guidelines related to the AMDAL study,

process of approval, and public involvement procedures

and goals;

• Proposed project and potential impacts for preparation

of public consultations for the KA-ANDAL;

• Results of the environmental impact assessment (in the

form of draft KA-ANDAL, ANDAL and RKL/RPL

documents) prior to AMDAL Commission meetings.

The objective of providing information is ensure that the

Affected Communities and Observer Communities have

sufficient basis to formulate comments, suggestions and

inputs regarding their concerns, information to be shared,

33

and so on. Without the appropriate information, the public

will be unable to constructively participate in the public


Table 3.5 Summary of Efforts to Provide Information to Affected Communities

ACCESS TO INFORMATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Affected Communities

- - - - - - - - - - Received information regarding regulations on public involvement in AMDAL

Observer Groups v v

Through posters or flyers

v v v

Information provided in Proponent’s office

v

Additional information on Proposed Project made available prior to public consultations Information

provided by other (non-AMDAL) Proponent representative

v

KA, ANDAL, RKL/RPL documents

Reviewed documents prior to attending AMDAL Commission meetings

- - - - - - - - - -

REGULATIONS

AND GUIDE-LINES ON

PUBLIC

INVOLVEMENT

IN AMDAL

All representatives of Affected Communities interviewed for

the 10 case-studies were asked whether they were familiar

with the contents of government guidelines regarding public

participation in the AMDAL process (mainly Kepka

08/2000). None of the interviewees were not aware of and

did not know of the government guidelines. Only a few

representatives of Observer Groups interviewed were aware of

and understand the content and objectives of Kepka 08/2000

(Punclut and Metro Trade Center). These groups happen to

be environmental NGOs active in the Bandung area. All

interviewed felt there has been no dissemination of

information from the government regarding the guidelines.

Most project proponents were aware of the the Kepka

08/2000 either from keeping updated with current

regulations (through regulation books or internet) or were

informed by the AMDAL consultant. In the case of

Gonggang Dam, the proponent (Magetan Kabupaten

Government) did not know of Kepka 08/2000. All claimed


34

there has been no dissemination by the government.

FOR PUBLIC

CONSULTA-TIONS

Aside from the notices placed near the project site and the

announcements in newspapers, few of the case-studies

prepared and disseminated additional information on the

proposed project and its impacts. The few cases are Banyu

Urip, KCK Housing and Double-Track Railway, which

produced posters and placed them in facilities often

frequented by the communities. In the case of Banyu Urip, a

booklet was produced and disseminated during the public

consultation meetings that provided more detailed

information on the project design, the expected impacts, and

how the public can transmit comments/ suggestions.

In the case of Indobharat, the proponent claimed they made

additional information available at the project office (near the

project site). However, they did not announce to the affected

communities that such information was available and

accessible to the public. Community representatives

interviewed related to the Punclut and JORR shared that

they expected to receive written information, but this was not

available.

In one case (JORR), however, the Affected Communities

were already aware of project plans from other teams that

have surveyed or consulted them. Prior to the AMDAL

Study, Affected Communities had already been approached

and provided information by proponent teams dealing with

land acquisition and feasibility study of the toll-road.

PRIOR TO

AMDAL

COMMISSION

MEETINGS

The AMDAL Commission Secretariat is required to send

draft KA, ANDAL and RKL/RPL documents to all members

of the AMDAL Commission prior to the meeting date. In

most cases, these documents are received by the AMDAL

Commission members only a few days prior to the meeting.

For the community representatives interviewed for the case-

studies, the KA-ANDAL or ANDAL, RKL/RPL documents

are considered too thick to review in a few days. Even when

received by the Head of the Village, the content is deemed to

‘difficult’ to absorb. As a consequence, most community

representatives present at the AMDAL Commission were not

familiar with the findings or results of the study as expressed

35

in the documents.

DISCUSSION Information access in the 10 case-studies shows significant

deficiency. An important finding is that community

members or leaders generally have not received information

regarding public involvement in the AMDAL process. Their

knowledge of the objectives and scope of the AMDAL study,

the public consultations and the AMDAL Commission

meetings and the role as community representatives are

limited to any explanations given during the public

consultation and AMDAL Commission meetings.

Case-studies show that information for the public needs to be

delivered to the community, in close proximity to their areas

of activity. Only providing access (such as government or

proponent’s offices) is not an effective method, since very few

community members would venture out to seek information

located outside their immediate neighborhoods.

In the 10 cases studied, there is limited delivery of

information to Affected Communities prior to specific public

involvement activities. Information provided to the public

depends solely on information made available by the project

proponent or their consultants. Such information is usually

provided not long before activities related to public

involvement in AMDAL are held.

Obstacles to delivery of information are as follows:

• Central government agencies have limited resources to

disseminate information to all levels of community. They

disseminate information to the provincial government

with the expectation that the province will disseminate

information to the Kabupaten agencies, and from

Kabupaten to Kecamatan level, and so on. The reality is

this chain reaction has not occurred;

• NGOs also have limited resources to disseminate

information to all levels of community. Even major

environmental NGOs with relatively large resources have

limitations in disseminating information;

• In rural areas, access to any information is limited (not

only with regard to AMDAL or environmental issues).

Information resources common in the industrial

countries, such as public libraries or community centers


36

are not available in Indonesia. Internet use is extremely

limited.

In addition to delivery problems, the substance of the

AMDAL documents is also of concern. Since KA, ANDAL,

RKL/RPL documents are written as scientific reports, they

are not digestible to members of most Affected

Communities. Delivery of AMDAL documents are not an

effective method to prepare community representatives to

participate in the AMDAL Commission.

37

CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION This section discusses the findings from the case-studies in

the context of the overall expected outcome of public

involvement in the AMDAL process. Key limiting factors and

success factors related to implementation of public

involvement in AMDAL in the case-studies are summarized

in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3. Analysis and discussion provided

in this section includes inputs from other resource-persons

(outside the 10 case-studies). The section ends with several

fundamental questions that have emerged from this Study,

and will be followed up in the section on Recommendations.

4.1. AMDAL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE CURRENT SOCIOPOLITICAL CONDITION

The Government Regulation on AMDAL, PP 27, 1999

(article 34) states that: “Concerned public must be involved

in the preparation of the terms of reference, evaluation of

terms of reference, environmental impact analysis,

environmental management plan and environmental

monitoring plan”. In the subsequent guidelines issued in the

Head of BAPEDAL Decree (Kepka) 08/2000, the objective

of public involvement in AMDAL is provided. It is described

as follows:

1. To protect the interest of the public;

2. To empower the public in decision-making on planned

activities that have a potential to cause significant and

large environmental impacts;

3. To ensure transparency in the overall AMDAL process;

and

4. To create an atmosphere of equal partnership among all

concerned parties, ie. by respecting the rights of all parties

to obtain information and making mandatory for all

parties to provide information that must be known by

other parties affected.


38

Interspersed in various sections, the Kepka further states that

the public is expected to submit suggestions, comments and

inputs regarding the proposed activity. For example, the

Kepka states that comments received in the public

consultation process in the KA-ANDAL preparation stage are

expected to be considered in defining the scope of the

ANDAL Study. In relation to the AMDAL Commission,

however, the Kepka only states that community

representatives are expected to provide comments, suggestions

and inputs to the Commission. The specific role of

community representatives in the Commission decision-

making process is not described.

This study uses specific objectives that are implicit in the

Kepka (and commonly understood among practitioners) to

further define what is expected from public involvement in

the AMDAL process, as follows:

• Ensure the scope of the ANDAL study considers

issues of concern to the public;

• Influence design or location of proposed projects

(considers information provided by the public);

• Ensure that the decision of AMDAL Commission

acknowledges the concerns/ aspirations of the public.

When compared to the above specific objectives, the case-

studies show that, overall, public involvement in the AMDAL

process has not been effective. Although there is some

evidence that comments from the public do influence the

scope of the ANDAL study, project design or location and or

the decision or recommendation of the AMDAL

Commission, it is generally observed that the focus of

community representatives in either the public consultations

and in the AMDAL Commissions are not related to AMDAL

study. The issues that are carried through from the KA-

ANDAL preparation stage to the AMDAL Commission

review by the community representatives tend to focus on

issues of land acquisition, employment, compensation,

community development and social/ public facilities – issues

that are beyond the scope of the AMDAL process, and

beyond the capacity or authority of the environmental

agency.

39

The reason for this may be a mixture of the following factors:

• Limited understanding of the AMDAL objectives, scope

and process.

• Lack of opportunity for the public to discuss issues on

social/ public facilities, local development programs, etc.

with the local authorities.

• High expectations that the AMDAL process can resolve

issues such as compensation and land acquisition.

The combination of above factors manifest itself in differing

interpretations among the AMDAL stakeholders on the

question of: What is AMDAL capable of resolving?

In this study, AMDAL is understood only as a study to

identify and analyze potential environmental impacts, whose

result would assist decision-makers in determining whether

the project is deemed environmentally feasible. AMDAL is

seen to address issues related to environmental clearance

(feasibility) for the particular proposed projects. As such,

AMDAL is not seen as a process that can resolve (ie settle

disagreements, form a consensus) issues related to land

acquisition, compensation, social/ public infrastructure, and

social welfare. Resolution of such issues is outside of the

realm of AMDAL process. And yet, the case-studies show that

Affected Communities are most keen on obtaining

commitment on such issues. They are not interested in

discussing the AMDAL study per se.

The issues of most concern to the Affected Communities are

valid issues. People need jobs, to be fairly compensated, to be

provided clean water, proper schooling, etc. But, this study

argues that it is impossible to expect such issues to be resolved

in the AMDAL study, and many of these issues are not the

responsibility of the project proponent, but of the

government. What the AMDAL process can do is to identify

such issues in the ANDAL study, and feed it for follow-up by

the government (on social welfare, oversight of land

acquisition and compensation, etc.) and the project

proponent (compensation, community development

programs, recruitment plans).

The misinterpretation and high-expectations on the AMDAL

study, that is observed through the case-studies and emerge in


40

many discussions with resource persons, can be attributed to

several problems larger that AMDAL itself:

• Lack of public involvement in other (pre-AMDAL)

development planning process, such as in spatial

planning. The current spatial planning laws and

regulations require public involvement. But for the most

part, this is not implemented, and government agencies

responsible are not penalized for not involving the public

in developing spatial plans. Public objections regarding

land-use or changes in land-use should already surface in

spatial planning process, but now emerges in the project-

level AMDAL process;

• Democratic process in Indonesian society is still under

development. The requirement to involve the public in

AMDAL preceded the establishment of organic processes

of representation and communication with constituents

that are important elements of democratic societies in the

industrial world. Without these organic mechanisms, the

issue of ‘who represents whom’ in the AMDAL public

involvement will continue to be a contentious issue and

bring forward controversies at the project level.

Under such conditions, there are significant limitations on

what can be expected to emerge from public involvement in

AMDAL. Furthermore, any requirement for AMDAL public

involvement must be placed in the context of the overall

socio-political evolution in Indonesia. With such underlying

problems, the prescriptive procedural approach of the current

regulation and guidelines seem inappropriate and do not

produce the desired impact.

Such a problem is not unique to Indonesia. Literature from

other countries point to a questioning of “the effectiveness of

public hearings in EIA in developing countries, such as

Ghana, Chile and Brazil” (Almer & Koontz, 2004).1 Public

involvement in EIA is based on experience of the US that has

relied on “a firm legal infrastructure, longstanding

constitutional rights, and an active civil society” (Almer &

Koontz, 2004). Literature from Canada states that “education

1 Although KLH officials say that public hearings are not required by the Government, case-studies show that public consultation meetings held by Project Proponents are in fact public hearing sessions.

41

and information dissemination are preconditions to fair and

effective public involvement” (Sinclair and Diduck, 2001).

The absence of such important elements of the democratic

process in Indonesia has led to less-than-optimal results from

the AMDAL-public involvement process.

4.2. LIMITING AND CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR

PROBLEMS

WITH THE

GUIDELINES

In the current socio-political condition, the guidelines for

public involvement in AMDAL are flawed in a number of

ways:

• Statement of objectives are too broad and vague (see

comparison in Table 4.1 below);

• The approach of the guidelines is too procedural;

• The procedures with regard to announcements are too

rigid and do not acknowledge the variation in channels of

information active in the public;

• The requirement for public consultation in the KA-

ANDAL stage lacks clarity as to who should be

consulted, and as to the role of the local government in

the era of regional autonomy;

• The requirement for representation in the AMDAL

Commission is misplaced, and confused as to the role of

the Commission, and unrealistic with regard to selection

of community representative.

Table 4.1. Comparison of Statement of Objectives of EIA-Public Involvement

SOURCE QUOTE

Decree of Head of BAPEDAL No. 08/2000, on Public Involvement in AMDAL and Information Disclosure

1. Protect the interest of the public;

2. Empower the public in decision-making on planned activities that have a potential to cause significant and large environmental impacts;

3. Ensure transparency in the overall AMDAL process; and

4. Create an atmosphere of equal partnership among all concerned parties, ie. by respecting the rights of all parties to obtain information and making mandatory for all parties to provide information that must be known by other parties affected.

UNEP Training Resource Manual

• Informing stakeholders

• Gaining their views, inputs and values • Taking account of public inputs in decision-making

• Influencing project design


42

• Obtaining local knowledge

• Increasing public confidence • Improving transparency and accountability in decision-

making • Reducing conflict

A Basic Guide to the Public Participation Process of an EIA, South Africa

• To inform the public about proposals

• To improve the scooping of the EIA • To identify local concerns/ problems • To allow wider discussion of the environmental and social

issues

• To improve the forms of mitigation • To provide quality control of the EIA through acceptance by

the public • To improve democratic governance

Public Consultation, Ontario, Public Affairs and Communication Branch, April 1994

Public consultation is a process involving interactive or two-way communication between the Ministry and the pubic, through which both become informed about different perspectives on issues and proposals, providing the public with the opportunity to influence decisions to be made by the Ministry.

Public Involvement in EA: Requirements, Opportunities and Issues, World Bank, EA Sourcebook Update, Oct 1993

Two levels:

Consultation – “involves soliciting people’s views on proposed actions and engaging them in a dialogue. While decision-making authority is retained by governments, interaction with people and eliciting feedback allows affected populations to influence the decision-making process…” Participation – “is a voluntary process in which people, come together with project authorities to share, negotiate and control the decision-making process in project design and management”. “The Bank requires the participation by affected people in project preparation when the project affects indigeneous people or involves involuntary resettlement.”

Table 4.2 presents a breakdown of limiting factors related to

the steps in public involvement in AMDAL.

Table 4.2. Limiting Factors in AMDAL Public Involvement

STAGE LIMITING FACTORS

ANNOUNCEMENT

Government does not have funds to place newspaper announcements

Public, especially in rural areas, do not read newspaper

Public not accustomed to preparing written comments

Bahasa Indonesia often not the most effective communication tool

1 Newspaper Announcements

Cost is high

2 Notice board near Information limited

43

project site Cost

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS IN KA-ANDAL PREP

Difficulty in identifying legitimate community representatives to consult

Difficulty in ensuring that all community views are represented

Different interpretations as to role of relevant environment institution and local authorities in organizing public consultations

Different interpretations as to legitimacy of formal community leaders (BPD, Head of Village, Dewan Kelurahan, LPM, etc.) in representing community interests

3 Representation

Costly to consult with all community elements and levels

Unrealistic expectations of public on what can be achieved in public consultations (especially with regard to agreement on compensation level, community/ social development programs)

4 Dialog during public consultations

Insistent on issues not relevant to AMDAL study, such as size of compensation, recruitment of local workforce, community development

REPRESENTATION IN AMDAL COMMISSION

Different interpretations on legitimate community representatives to attend AMDAL Commission meetings

Selected representatives (including formal leaders) do not conduct routine consultations/ communication with community members

5 Representation

Transport and accommodation of community representatives attending AMDAL Commission financed by proponent

Unrealistic expectations of public on what can be achieved in public consultations (especially with regard to agreement on compensation level, community/ social development programs)

Community representatives have not read AMDAL documents to be reviewed, and feel unequipped to review documents

6 Discussion in AMDAL Commission

Insistent on issues not relevant to AMDAL study, such as size of compensation, recruitment of local workforce, community development

OTHER

Affected Communities not aware, and never received information on AMDAL public involvement

Observant Communities that are not environmental organizations are not aware of regulations and guidelines

Government does not disseminate information to all levels of public, due to limited resources

7 Access to Information

Major environmental NGOs do not have funds to disseminate information to all levels of community or to NGOs throughout Indonesia


44

CRITICAL

SUCCESS

FACTORS

Despite the many problems associated with implementing

public involvement in AMDAL, the case-studies have shown

some ingredients for success. The most significant success

factor is understanding the communities to be involved in the

AMDAL process. This knowledge becomes essential in

defining the approaches for information delivery/ access, to

identify the different groups and levels in the community to

be consulted with, and community representatives to involve

in long-term dialog beyond the AMDAL approval process (by

government and project proponent). This understanding is

achieved through a scoping or pre-survey of the communities

at the very beginning of the process, and through intense

communication with local authorities.

The case-study also shows that to obtain constructive inputs

for the AMDAL study/ process, it is critical to provide

information to the public. The better informed the public is

on the project, on AMDAL, on the process, the more useful

will the comments/ inputs be. However, it is not sufficient to

provide access, but it is necessary to deliver information to the

communities.

An underlying factor that makes possible the presence of the

above success factors is sufficient funds. From the case-

studies, the proponents that have spent time and money on

learning about the Affected Communities and deliver

information are multinational companies operating on behalf

of the government and proposing large, high-technology oil-

gas development. Funds for community pre-survey and

production and distribution of information are charged back

to the government. Furthermore, the multinational

companies have additional motivation to perform responsibly

due to international scrutiny. For the other cases, funds is

precisely the limiting factor for most project proponents,

either government or private sector. Developers of shopping

centers or medium-size housing estates find that spending

substantial amount of funds for public involvement is not

commensurate to the size of investment. Government

agencies acting as proponents find it difficult enough to have

budgets approved for AMDAL studies, let alone public

involvement processes.

An additional success factor that emerges in only 1 case-study

45

is that selected community representatives discuss comments

to be taken to the AMDAL Commission meeting. The

discussion at the beginning of this section indicates that such

dialog is more of a rarity than the norm in the current

Indonesian society. Outside of the 10 (ten) case-studies, there

is evidence that where traditional community leaders are still

an important part of society, legitimacy of representatives and

communication between representatives and community

members are less of a problem. Such local characteristics are

items that local (provincial) regulations can identify in more

specific guidelines for AMDAL public involvement.

Table 4.3. Critical Success Factors in AMDAL Public Involvement

STAGE CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS

ANNOUNCEMENT

1 Newspaper Announcements

Placement in more than one newspaper

Posters are located in many public places frequented by community

2 Notice board near project site

Multiple posters contain different types of information

3 Radio Effective as invitation to public consultation events

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS IN KA-ANDAL PREPARATION

Scoping or pre-survey of Affected Community is conducted to understand social structure, formal and informal leaders, different interests in the community

4 Representations

Local government and authorities (Kabupaten to Village/ kelurahan) are consulted in the planning

Local government/ authorities present and active in dialog 5 Dialog during public consultations

Proponent directly involved in dialog (instead of only being represented by AMDAL consultants)

REPRESENTATION IN AMDAL COMMISSION

6 Representation The extent of Affected Communities is clear and can easily select representative

7 Discussion in AMDAL Commission

Community representatives have discussed issues to be raised in AMDAL Commission prior to meeting date

OTHER

Delivered to community members near place of activity 8 Access to Information

Presented in easy-to-digest format


46

4.3. KEY AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Several key questions have emerged from the empirical

analysis of public involvement and information disclosure

in AMDAL. These questions are fundamental, and must

be resolved and clarified, as well as commonly understood

by all stakeholders, before more meaningful results can be

expected from the process.

WHAT IS

EXPECTED FROM

AMDAL AND

PUBLIC

INVOLVEMENT?

This question needs to be defined more clearly. Better

definition of the objectives and expected output of public

involvement in the different stages of AMDAL is needed.

Should it be defined narrowly and specifically to support

the AMDAL process? Or, should it be broader in scope

with long-term goals and ideals? Choice of language will

shape the results from efforts to implement public

involvement in AMDAL.

WHO ARE

LEGITIMATE

REPRESENTATIVES

OF AFFECTED

COMMUNITIES?

Any revised regulations need to better define what is meant

by “affected communities” and who must be consulted.

Given that democracy in Indonesia is still undergoing

‘growing pains’, who are the legitimate representatives of

the community needs to be defined. Is it sufficient to

consult with formal leaders during the entire AMDAL

process? Or must the AMDAL process involve informal

leaders and common citizens? If common citizens are to be

involved, what process would be necessary to identify these

citizens and ensure all interests are represented?

SHOULD PUBLIC

INVOLVEMENT IN

AMDAL BE

REQUIRED OF ALL

PROJECTS?

Currently all projects that require an AMDAL need to

fulfill public involvement and information disclosure

requirements. The range of projects that fall in this

category is very wide, including medium-size activities

with known and manageable impacts (such as malls,

hotels), to large complex activities with a large mix of

impacts (oil-gas development, petrochemical plants, etc.).

Should these projects have the same requirements placed

on them? Or, is some differentiation justifiable?

WHAT IS ROLE OF

LOCAL

GOVERNMENT?

The role of local government must be clarified in the

revised regulations. Should they play the role of convener,

as is the case in Bulgaria, being a neutral party that

facilitates dialog between project proponent and Affected

47

Communities (Almer & Koontz, 2004). In cases where the

local government will issue permits to the Project

Proponent, should it serve as partner of the Project

Proponent in dialog with the Affected Communities, and

thus take on responsibility in describing development

plans and responding to questions?

WHO IS

RESPONSIBLE FOR

PUBLIC

EDUCATION?

If public involvement in AMDAL is expected to have real

value and contribution to the AMDAL process and

decisions based on AMDAL, there needs to be significant

effort to educate the public on AMDAL, on public

involvement and the role of the public. Whose

responsibility is this? Should the Government rely on the

project proponent to ensure that the public is prepared to

be involved in the AMDAL process, as is currently the

case?

WHO SHOULD

FUND PUBLIC

INVOLVEMENT IN

AMDAL?

The public’s attendance at public consultation meetings

and AMDAL Commission meetings are currently funded

by the Project Proponent. Is this appropriate? Canada is

proposing the formation of an ‘independent participation

fund’ (Sinclair & Diduck, 2001). Early discussions in

Indonesia leading to the issuance of Kepka 08/2000 record

an idea to develop a ‘public participation fund’.

Deliberations to prepare revised regulations on public

involvement in AMDAL should address this issue.


48


49

CHAPTER 5 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations provided here do not follow the structure

of current procedures for public involvement in AMDAL.

This Study assumes that the current AMDAL procedures

will be modified in the near future, and the deliberations to

formulate the modifications will occur in the next few

months. In order to accommodate possible changes, the

recommendations provided here do not prescribe a single

solution, but instead attempt to present concepts for

consideration in designing a new public involvement

requirement for a revised AMDAL process.

The recommendations are prepared with full recognition

that the preconditions of an effective public involvement

process do not exist in the Indonesian society and

institutions, and fully recognizes the fluid nature of

Indonesian society today and in the coming years. The

recommendations therefore are constructed to assist in the

deliberations and decision-making process that will ensue in

the government to revise the current regulations and

guidelines.

The ultimate aim of the recommendations is to create a

public involvement and information disclosure for AMDAL

that is effective, efficient, credible and contextual to the

Indonesian development picture. However, the authors of

this report do not claim to be able to answer all issues related

to public involvement and information disclosure in

AMDAL.

The recommendations are divided into several sections based

on the topics, namely:

1. Objectives of Public Involvement and Information

Disclosure in AMDAL;

2. Criteria for Good Public Involvement and Information

Disclosure in AMDAL;

3. Division of Roles and Responsibilities;


50

4. Procedures and Techniques;

5. Public Involvement Outside of AMDAL;

6. KLH’s Role in Capacity Building and Provision of

Resources.

OBJECTIVES OF

PUBLIC

INVOLVEMENT

AND

INFORMATION

DISCLOSURE

IN AMDAL

As previously discussed, the statement of objectives in the

current government regulations and guidelines is too vague

and has led to confusion at the operational level. More

specific statements of objectives are recommended for the

revised regulations and guidelines.

Justification: Sharper and more specific statement of

objective is expected to clarify the objective and expected

outcome of the public involvement process in AMDAL, and

allow for better understanding among all stakeholders. This

would complement efforts to clarify the objectives/ function

of AMDAL (ongoing under AMDAL Revitalization).

Revised regulations should also define the specific objectives

of public involvement in the key components of the

AMDAL process. This Study views there are 4 major

components of the AMDAL process namely:

Scoping – determination of the scope of the

ANDAL study;

ANDAL Study – the process of identifying,

evaluating and determining significant impacts to

be dealt with;

ANDAL Review– the review of ANDAL, RKL/RPL

documents by an AMDAL Commission to

determine the scientific validity of the study;

Decision on Environmental Clearance – the

decision by appropriate authorities on whether the

proposed project is deemed environmentally feasible

or not. This decision would be passed on to

authorities in charge of approving the proposed

project (final operating permits).

In the current AMDAL implementation, components 3 and

4 are often regarded as one and the same (ie. AMDAL

approval means that the proposed project is regarded as

environmentally feasible). However, KLH has underscored

51

in various discussions, that in fact these are different

decision-making processes, as experienced in many

controversial projects reviewed by KLH. This Study

recognizes the distinction between AMDAL Review process

and Decision on Environmental Clearance.

The table below offers specific objective statements for each

of the components, with the addition of Information

Disclosure, regarded as a necessary auxiliary component of

public involvement in AMDAL.

Proposed Specific Objectives of Public Involvement and Information Disclosure in AMDAL

Overall: Ensuring that the public has sufficient information on the proposed project to be able to contribute meaningfully to the AMDAL process. To inform the public on the proposed project (nature of activity, project site) To inform the public of potential environmental impacts likely to occur as a result of the proposed project To inform the public of results of the ANDAL study

Information Disclosure

To inform the public of decision on the ANDAL study/ environmental clearance of the project

Overall: Ensuring that the scope of the ANDAL Study takes into consideration the concerns of the public regarding: a) potential environmental impacts caused by the proposed project; b) environmental conditions of the area; c) mitigation of environmental impacts caused by the proposed project. To obtain information regarding existing environmental conditions around the project area To obtain information regarding environmental concerns of the public in relation to the proposed project

Scoping Process

To obtain information regarding the affected community’s aspirations with regard to the proposed project’s environmental impact mitigation

Overall: Ensuring that determination of significant impacts takes into consideration the public’s (affected communities’) concerns and conditions. To obtain in-depth information on affected communities’ concerns and perception towards the potential environmental impacts

ANDAL Study

To obtain additional factors to consider in evaluating the potential environmental impacts

Decision on AMDAL or Environmental Clearance (note: one or

Overall: Ensuring that the decision on environmental clearance or AMDAL approval (issued by the Government) has taken into consideration the concerns of all stakeholders, including affected communities and observer groups.

2 This Study recommends public involvement in either the AMDAL Review process or Decision on Environmental Clearance, but does not see necessary that the public be involved in both processes. If the public is involved in the AMDAL Review process, comments from the public must be made available to authorities making decisions on environmental clearance, regardless of the position/recommendation of the AMDAL Commission. Selection of which process to involve the public should consider the following factors: a) the scientific nature of the AMDAL documents, b) the main interests of the Affected Communities (more related to social welfare and


52

To feed the decision-making process of the Government with considerations regarding environmental impact from all stakeholders

the other)2

To document how the considerations regarding environmental impact has influenced or not influenced the decisions of the Government

The above objectives should be explicitly stated in the

regulations and guidelines, and differentiated from

additional long-term benefits of public involvement in the

AMDAL process, namely:

• Commencement of long-term relationship between

project owner and surrounding (directly affected)

communities;

• Enhance awareness of public regarding

environmental conditions and the responsibility for

environmental protection;

• Enhance participation of public in environmental or

developmental decision-making;

• Improvement of communication between the

government and the public regarding development

programs and social welfare.

Specific statements should also be made that public

involvement in AMDAL is not intended to and cannot be

expected to:

• Resolve past conflicts between the proponent and

affected communities;

• Resolve community development commitments to

be conducted by the proponent;

• Resolve issues related to land acquisition and levels

of compensation;

• Resolve issues related to social welfare and

development programs to be conducted by the

government.

CRITERIA FOR

GOOD PUBLIC

INVOLVEMENT

AND

INFORMATION

DISCLOSURE

Currently, the government does not have standard criteria to

judge whether public involvement has been conducted to a

‘good’ or ‘satisfactory’ level. It is recognized that the

subjectivity of ‘good’ or ‘satisfactory’ is high and likely to

remain so, and that quantitative measures are not

appropriate and difficult to enforce in this area. Therefore, it

compensation), and c) cost implications to solicit comments from the public. See also discussion on Techniques.

53

IN AMDAL is suggested that a set of qualitative criteria be established

and laid out in the government guidelines.

Justification: A set of qualitative criteria would help provide

guidance to the Environmental Agency/ AMDAL

Commission and the proponent on how to, respectively,

evaluate and design an information disclosure and public

involvement process for the AMDAL of the proposed

project. Such criteria would help prevent questions or

disagreements at a later date.

Proposed Set of Qualitative Criteria

Criteria Measure/ Evidence

1 Sufficient efforts have been made to provide/ make available information to the Affected Communities and Observer Groups on the proposed project and the ANDAL study components prior to solicitation of comments.

Minimum requirements (or agreement between Proponent and Environment Agency) are met and described in AMDAL documents. See discussion on ‘Procedures and Techniques’ in this Chapter.

2 Content of the following has considered the comments, aspirations, concerns of the Concerned Public:

• Scope of ANDAL Study; • Determination of significant impacts; • Approach for environmental impact mitigation.

Explicit description and justification on how public comments are treated, in the following documents: • KA-ANDAL • ANDAL • RKL-RPL.

3 Approval of the AMDAL documents or the decision on environmental clearance of proposed project has considered the comments, aspirations, concerns of the Concerned Public.

Explicit description (how) and justification (why) in Letter of Decision on Environmental Clearance or AMDAL approval letter.

For item 2, explicit description and justification means

that the documents should state what comments/

concerns/ aspirations were expressed by the Affected

Communities and Observer Groups and how the

Proponent/Consultant treats them. If the comments,

concerns and aspirations are wholly or partially accepted

and has influenced the position of the

Proponent/Consultant, then it should be stated why. If

they are wholly or partially rejected and has not

influenced the position of the Proponent/ Consultant, the

documents should also explain why. The same applies to

how the comments from the Concerned Public are

treated by the Government/ AMDAL Commission in


54

item 3.

DIVISION OF

ROLES AND

RESPONSIBILITIES

As previously discussed, the role and responsibilities of the

different stakeholders need to be redefined and clarified if

effective public involvement and information disclosure is

desired. It is suggested here that some of the

responsibilities currently placed on the project proponent

should be shifted to the government, while the role and

responsibilities of the local government should be better

defined.

Justification: Project proponents operate at the project

level, which fall into a broader program or development

initiative established by the Government, manifested in

spatial plans, investment plans or policies, development

programs. Although there is much room for improvement

in the Government planning process, projects (and

project proponents) cannot be expected to undertake or

take on the responsibilities of the Government.

Conversely, the Government should not pass on their

responsibilities to project proponents for reasons of

inadequate budget or resources. In redefining AMDAL

public involvement, it is imperative that roles and

responsibilities of the each key player be put in

perspective. Public involvement in AMDAL is a big job

that requires significant effort from all key players.

Table 5.1 offers a proposed division of responsibility

among the three key parties, namely the Responsible

Environment Agency, the Local Government, and the

Project Proponent. The table deliberately uses generic

terms with the intent to return discussion to the basic

elements of public involvement and information

disclosure in AMDAL.

All parties must realize that if one party does not fulfill its

responsibilities, the entire process and the results of

AMDAL public involvement will be compromised.

Therefore, the Government (in this case KLH) should

make concerted effort to ensure that responsibilities are

fulfilled equally among all stakeholders.

55

Table 5.1 Division of Responsibilities among Key Players

RESPONSIBLE ENVIRONMENT

AGENCY

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

PROJECT PROPONENT

DISSEMINATE INFORMATION: On AMDAL and public involvement in AMDAL

L S

On Project basic information (nature, location) potential impacts/ ANDAL study information and documents

L

On Project AMDAL: • Potential impacts L

• Summary of ANDAL study findings

L S S

• AMDAL approval or decision on environmental clearance

L S S

IDENTIFY AFFECTED COMMUNITIES TO BE INVOLVED: Identification of Affected Communities to be involved in AMDAL process

S L

Preparation/ assistance to Affected Communities prior to being involved in AMDAL process

S L

OBTAIN & PROCESS COMMENTS & INFORMATION FROM AFFECTED COMMUNITIES FOR AMDAL: To feed into scoping of ANDAL Study

L

To feed into determination of significant impacts in ANDAL Study

L

To feed into AMDAL review process

L S

To feed into AMDAL approval or environmental clearance

L S

Local Government here refers to Kabupaten/ Kota and Kecamatan levels

The role of Local Government (Kabupaten/Kota and

Kecamatan levels) should be detailed further, for example,

in the implementation of public consultation meetings. In

cases where the Responsible Environment Agency (eg

Provincial BAPEDALDA) is not in the Local

Government structure, then the potential role of the

Local Government (Kabupaten or Kecamatan

Government) is to assist the Project Proponent or even as


56

neutral facilitator in the public consultation meetings. In

cases where the Responsible Environment Agency is part

of the Local Government structure (eg AMDAL approval

is given by the BAPEDALDA Kabupaten), it may be

difficult for the Local Government (Kabupaten

government) to serve as neutral facilitator in the public

consultation meetings, so its role may be more focused on

disseminating information prior to the public

consultation meetings. Local government agencies

involved should not be limited to environment agencies,

but agencies overseeing economic development and/or

social welfare should also be engaged in the process of

public consultations.

NGOs have an important potential role in assisting the

process of information dissemination and public

involvement in AMDAL. Each of the three key players

listed in the table, have the opportunity and should be

encouraged to enlist the assistance of NGOs, either

residing locally near the project area or based in the

nearest major cities.

NGOs are envisioned to play an important role in the

following areas:

• Disseminating information on AMDAL and public

involvement;

• Acting as neutral facilitator to collect/ solicit

comments from the Affected Communities;

• Identifying Affected Communities or their

representatives to be involved;

• Preparing/ training Affected Communities prior to

consultation meetings with Project Proponent or

Responsible Environment Agency.

It is highly recommended here that KLH explores,

develop and implement a concerted program to engage a

number of established NGOs to serve as long-term

partners in developing capacity, spreading knowledge-

base and experience on public involvement in AMDAL.

KLH should identify NGOs that have an interest in this

area, has field experience in public participation,

community development or environmental management,

57

have extensive links with grass-root NGOs throughout

Indonesia, and can commit in the long-term. KLH

should recognize, however, the reality that most NGOs

have little resources of their own, and thus may require

substantial financial support. Coordination of resources

and programs with KLH’s Deputy for Environmental

Communication and Community Empowerment is

recommended.

Procedures and Techniques

The current government regulation (specifically the

Kepka 08/2000) focuses very much on procedures.

However, description of the prescribed procedures is

unbalanced, with excessive detail on the announcement

and insufficient description on public consultations as

well as processes in the AMDAL Review Commission

(also mentioned in ADB, 2002). The case studies in this

Study show that implementation in the field inevitably

follow the conditions of the project area, the resources

available to and the level of ‘caution’ of the Project

Proponent. With the current definition of projects

requiring AMDAL studies being so wide in spectrum, this

Study recommends that the revised government

regulations not prescribe a single procedure or techniques,

but rather recognize the variety of needs and conditions of

different projects. This Study recommends that the

government allows some degree of freedom to the Project

Proponent to determine the procedure and mix of

techniques used for information disclosure and public

involvement.

Justification: Certain types of projects, by nature, invite

high level interest and reactions, regardless of locality of

operation, due to potential high risks to public health and

the environment – for example oil and gas operations by

multinational oil companies, surface mining operations,

dams, nuclear power plants, and sanitary landfills,

hazardous waste processing facilities. However, other

types of activities, such as malls, hotels, housing

compounds, roads, may or may not invite strong

reactions, since their impacts are largely commonly

known and manageable with relatively low cost. Projects

with higher potential risks should be required to conduct


58

more intense public involvement.

The recommendation presented here is intended to

underscore the need for the Government to establish a

‘minimum level of effort’ expected from Project

Proponents. This should be set along with an illustration

of the ‘maximum level of effort’ expected from certain

types of projects.

Table 5.2 below provides a sample of a minimum-

maximum spectrum. The spectrum is developed assuming

the current system of screening, in which projects

requiring AMDAL cover a wide variety of project types

and sizes. The maximum level of effort is developed partly

based on the case-studies considered to have done

significant effort to involve the public.

Each Project Proponent, during initial meetings with the

Responsible Environment Agency, consult and agree

upon which Level of Effort will be conducted for public

involvement and information disclosure for the said

project. The Responsible Environment Agency would be

guided by knowledge of the existing environmental

conditions and social issues in its area, as well as

knowledge of the nature and magnitude of potential

impacts from the said project type. Provincial and

Kabupaten/Kota environmental agencies are suggested to

develop guidelines to help decision-making. However, it

should be recognized that some degree of discretionary

judgement will play a role in such decision-making. KLH

should develop a program to assist Provincial and

Kabupaten/Kota environmental agencies in capacity

building and developing such guidelines.

59

Table 5.2 Spectrum of Level of Effort for Public Involvement in AMDAL

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM

Announcement in national and local newspapers

Notice board at project site

(any combination of techniques,

Notice board at project site

according to project type,

Posters/ pamphlets at strategic areas near project site

characteristics of Affected

Communities,

Notice on website of proponent and environment agency

Displays in local government offices, local organizations offices



other needs)

Radio announcements Consultation with community leaders

(formal and informal) through Focused Group Discussions, small meetings

Scoping Consultation with formal community leaders through Focused Group Discussions, small meetings

Consultation with community members

ANDAL Study In-depth interviews In-depth interviews

Make available summary of draft ANDAL document to formal community representatives

Presentation of key findings of ANDAL study to community representatives

Delivery of draft ANDAL document and summary to community representatives

ANDAL Review

Allow written comments to be submitted by formal community representatives

Community representative participate in ANDAL review

Decision on Environmental

Final review by Responsible Environment Agency of comments received during prior stages

Visit to affected community by representative of Environmental Agency, or

Community representative attend a consultative meeting at the Environmental Agency’s office

Clearance

Final review of all stakeholders’ position by Environmental Agency

Figure 5.1 provides a diagram of the proposed public involvement

and information disclosure procedure, with a more generic

approach. Figure 5.2 depicts the existing public involvement

procedure as set in Kepka 08/2000.


60

Determination ofANDAL Study Scope

ANDAL Study Implementation

Preparation of ANDAL,RKL/RPL Documents

Review of ANDAL,RKL/RPL Documents

Decision onEnvironmental Clearance

AMDAL ProcessPublic Involvement Process

Screening & InitialMeeting w Govt

SCOPING

ANDAL STUDY

ANDAL REVIEW

ENV’L CLEARANCE DECISION

By Resp Envt Agency By Project Proponent


Solicitation of Comments/ Information

Socioeconomic Survey


Review or SolicitationOf Comments


Figure 5.1 Diagram of Proposed Changes to Public Involvement Process in AMDAL

Figure 5.2 Current Procedure for Public Involvement in AMDAL

Minimum Level of Effort would apply to all project types

and sizes. It is envisioned that projects that can be allowed

to follow the Minimum Level of Effort would be projects

Concerned Public Responsible Env’t Agency Project Proponent

Announcement ofProposed Activity

Announcement ofAMDAL Preparation

Suggestions, Opinion,Comments

Preparation of KA-ANDALPublic Consultations

Evaluation of KA-ANDAL

Evaluation of ANDAL,RKL, RPL

Decision on Environmental Clearance

Preparation of ANDAL RKL, RPL



61

that meet the following criteria:

• common in a particular locality,

• environmental impacts are commonly known and can

be mitigated easily,

• environmental wastes do not include hazardous and

toxic wastes,

• location is not in a sensitive environment or

immediately next to nature reserve or protected area.

The minimum public involvement required would entail:

• Information disclosure using notice boards at the

project site, and posters or pamphlets placed at

strategic areas around the project location;

• Solicitation of comments from the public through

small meetings with formal community leaders;

• In-depth interviews at the ANDAL study stage

(socioeconomic survey);

• Distribution of summaries of the draft ANDAL

document to formal leaders, and allowing written

comments;

• Final review of comments received from the public

during process of decision-making of environmental

feasibility/clearance.

Maximum Level of Effort involves conducting thorough

and intensive information disclosure and solicitation of

comments at every stage of the AMDAL process. Such a

maximum effort is envisioned to apply to projects with

more than one of the following characteristics:

• Project location covers a wide area (e.g. more than 1

kecamatan)3;

• Waste generated includes hazardous and toxic waste;

• Project causes involuntary resettlement of large

number of families (e.g. more than 100 families);

• Project located in area where population density is

high (use Human Development Index);

• Project likely to impact area where isolated traditional

communities reside or have activities.

3 Elaboration in brackets is given as illustration only; further discussion will be necessary to determine thresholds.


62

If a project has only one or none of the above

characteristics, the Proponent has the opportunity to

design its own mix of techniques that lie in between the

Minimum and the Maximum Levels of Effort. This mix

of techniques must be consulted with the Responsible

Environment Agency during the Intial Screening Meeting

(see Figure 5.1).

In developing Minimum and Maximum Levels of Effort,

KLH should recognize that each effort (to disseminate

information, to hold consultation meetings, and so on)

entail significant preparatory steps and have a budgetary

and human resource consequences. To require a

Proponent to undertake the Maximum Level of Effort

requires that human and financial resources are available,

not only on the part of the Project Proponent, but also

the Responsible Environment Agency and local

government agencies (see discussion on Division of Roles

and Responsibilities). Preparatory steps required to

achieve the Maximum Level of Effort is given as an

illustration in Attachment C. The Attachment also lists

preconditions expected to exist that would allow for

successful implementation of the public involvement

process.

DEFINITION OF

AFFECTED

COMMUNITIES

TO BE INVOLVED

A looming question that consistently appears throughout

this Study and in most discussions and literature is “Who

is the Affected Community” and “Who are Legitimate

Representatives of the Affected Community” to be

involved in the AMDAL process. Most will agree that it is

very difficult for Project Proponents to ensure that all

elements of the Affected Community are consulted and

that all aspirations existing in the Community are

represented.

It is imperative that KLH defines more clearly who is

meant by Affected Communities and their legitimate

representatives. The recommendation of setting

minimum-maximum spectrum of public involvement

allows a clearer definition of Affected Communities.

Projects that are allowed to follow the Minimum Level of

Effort are expected to only consult with formal

63

community leaders. Whereas projects expected to follow

the Maximum requirements would be asked to consult

formal leaders, informal leaders and community members

(common citizens), whose interests may not yet be

covered by the two former groups. Projects that fall in

between the Minimum and Maximum thresholds would

be allowed to consult with only formal and/or informal

leaders of the Affected Communities.

Another alternative that KLH should seriously consider is

recommendations presented in the ADB Report on

Capacity Building for Decentralization of the

Environmental Impact Assessment Process. The report

presents an extensive account of the public participation

mechanisms that have been established in the government

planning process, such as P5D (Pedoman Penyusunan

Perencanaan dan Pengendalian Pembangunan Daerah),

P3MD (Perencanaa Partisipatif Pembangunan Masyarakat

Desa), etc. The authors of the ADB report recommend

that “consultations (for the AMDAL process) should go

through the existing mechanisms for reaching the people

at the RW and RT levels that are the lowest levels of the

governing system” (p. VI-21). Examples of the

mechanisms are: a) Development Meeting at the Village

Level or Musyawarah Pembangunan Tingkat Desa/

Kelurahan (Musbang); b) Development Meeting at the

Sub-District Level or Temu Karya Pembangunan

Kecamatan. Although the ADB report does not describe

how the existing mechanisms are currently performing

(especially since the regional autonomy era), it is

important that the AMDAL-public involvement is

anchored to a system that already exists and does not

attempt to create a separate mechanism that has weak

roots in terms of legal, administrative as well as social

legitimacy.

This Study further recommends that for AMDAL-public

involvement, representation of the Affected Community

is followed through from the scoping stage to any

consultations required during or to feed into the decision-

making process on environmental clearance of the said

proposed project. In order to ensure consistency in


64

representation, it will be necessary for the Local

Government or Responsible Environment Agency to

clearly document the identities and contact information

of the Community Representatives, and educate these

representatives on AMDAL and public involvement. In

the long-run, these Community Representatives can play

an important part in monitoring the performance of any

impact mitigation effort conducted by the Project

Proponent.

PUBLIC

INVOLVEMENT

OUTSIDE OF

AMDAL

As mentioned in the previous chapter, it is difficult to

expect good results from AMDAL-public involvement if

public involvement in the upstream development

planning stages remains to be weak. If KLH intends to

provide leadership in enhancing public involvement (by

way of the AMDAL process), then it should develop links

and formalize ties with other agencies’ programs to

improve public involvement in development planning.

Specifically, there should be links with public

involvement in the development of spatial plans at all

levels of Government. Only through an integrated effort

can public involvement contribute to the AMDAL

process, and can AMDAL-public involvement contribute

meaningfully to the broader goal of increasing public

involvement in development.

KLH’S ROLE IN

CAPACITY

BUILDING AND

PROVISION OF

RESOURCES

KLH has a major task in building awareness and capacity

to support public involvement in the AMDAL process. It

is not sufficient for KLH to rely on dissemination of

written products (be it regulations or guidebooks)

through the normal method of seminars and internet.

The infrastructure and capacity needs to be built and

nurtured. Without such infrastructure or capacity, it can

be predicted that public involvement in AMDAL will

result in very little.

This Study recommends that KLH develops a program to

assist different stakeholders to be able to contribute to the

AMDAL-public involvement process, such as in the

following areas:

• Assist Environmental Agencies at the Provincial and

Kabupaten/Kota levels to develop local/ more detailed

65

guidelines on determining levels of public

involvement required for different projects or

localities, and in establishing AMDAL information

channels down to the community level (village or

RW).

• Develop capacity of NGOs to play a supporting role

in the process and disseminate information on

AMDAL and public involvement, as discussed in the

section on “Division of Roles and Responsibilities”.

• Enhance capacity of AMDAL consultants to

undertake proper public involvement. This can be

accomplished by working with key universities or

Environmental Study Centers to develop operational

guidelines for consultants or conduct additional

training courses on social aspects of AMDAL and

public involvement.

KLH will also need to tackle the issue of financial

resources for the Government agencies and Affected

Communities. Currently, the entire public involvement

process relies heavily on financial resources of the Project

Proponent. As of today in Indonesia, a ‘public

participation fund’ does not exist, and may be difficult to

establish. In the absence of such a fund, this Study finds

that it should be the prime responsibility of the

Government to provide financial resources at least to

complement that of the Project Proponent. KLH should

discuss with provincial and kabupaten/kota governments,

as well as technical departments, possible sources of funds

to support public involvement in AMDAL. In the case

government funds are not available, it is necessary to find

alternative solutions or alternative approaches to public

involvement with minimal expenses. It is not advisable to

add, by default, the financial responsibilities of the Project

Proponent.

Government funds are also needed for the enormous task

of educating the public on AMDAL and public

involvement in AMDAL. Without knowledge and

understanding at the community level, any effort to

involve the public in AMDAL will bear minimal results.


66

With limited funds, KLH may have to prioritize areas

based on the frequency of large-scale projects or sensitivity

of environmental conditions.

CONCLUSION Significant changes and rethinking of public involvement

in the AMDAL process is necessary. Part of the rethinking

necessary relates to defining more clearly what is and can,

realistically, be expected from public involvement in the

AMDAL process in the sociopolitical context of today,

and consistent with resources that can be made available.

Part of the changes will have to relate to the evolving

AMDAL process itself, especially improvements that are

required and being developed at this time.

If public involvement in AMDAL is to be successful,

concerted effort must be made to improve all

stakeholders’ ability to participate and contribute in the

process. The Government must develop and implement a

systematic program to develop capacity among

stakeholders, and prepare the institutional infrastructure

to channel information and dialog with the public. Even

if existing participatory mechanisms are utilized,

connections need to be made, formalized and recognized

by all parties. The Government cannot play a passive role,

but must actively pursue capacity building of

stakeholders. Should resources be limited, the

Government should prioritize its efforts and adjust the

requirements for public involvement in AMDAL

accordingly. Public involvement in AMDAL is an

enormous task, especially for an emerging democracy such

as Indonesia.

ATTACHMENT A

CASE-STUDY SUMMARIES

FINAL REPORT STUDY ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION IN AMDAL

AMDAL REFORM PROGRAM (PHASE 2) LINKING POVERTY, ENVIRONMENT, AND DECENTRALISATION



Attachment A 1

ATTACHMENT A CASE-STUDY DESCRIPTION

CASE-STUDY 1

Development of Fly Ash Landfill for PT Indo-Bharat Rayon

PT Indo-Bharat Rayon produces synthetic fiber for the textile industry. To meet higher demand,

PT Indo-Bhara Rayon intends to increase its production, which requires additional energy. The

company will build a coal-fired steam electricity generation plant. The plant will have a capacity

of 2 X 10,8 MW, and is expected to generate solid waste in the form of fly ash and bottom ash,

categorized as toxic and hazardous waste. For disposal of the waste, PT Indo-Bharat Rayon plans

to construct a landfill, with a capacity to accommodate + 200,000 m3 of solid waste. The area

needed is + 4 hectares. The landfill will be located in the Village of Cilangkap, Kecamatan

Babakan Cikao, Kabupaten Purwakarta, Province of West Java. The AMDAL study has been

approved by the Central AMDAL Commission in 2004.

CASE-STUDY 2

Construction of Gonggang Dam – Government of Magetan Kabupaten, Province of East Java

The Development Planning Agency of Kabupaten Magetan (BAPEKAB) plans to construct a

dam to dam the Gonggang River. The dam will provide irrigation for 2,500 hectares of

agricultural land, clean water for 40,000 residents of Kecamatan Poncol, and support water and

land conservation. Indirect benefits include fisheries, animal husbandry, and recreation. The dam

construction will be located in three villages: Genilangit, Janggan and Gonggang, in Kecamatan

Poncol. A total of 25 hectares of land will have to be acquired. The volume of the water is

expected to be 1,975,000 m3,, and 11,1 hectares will be inundated. The AMDAL Study was

approved by the Provincial AMDAL Commission (East Java) in 2003.

CASE-STUDY 3

Construction of Office and Commercial Building Metro Trade Centre (MTC), City of

Bandung- PT. Margahayu Raya

PT. Margahayu Raya plans to develop a commercial center in the eastern side of Bandung City.

The center will consist of home-office and home-shop units, covering 3 floors and 1 basement.

The center will be located at Jalan Soekarno Hatta Km 10,76, covering 73,578 m2 (4% of land

area will be developed). The AMDAL Study was approved by the AMDAL Commission of the

City of Bandung in 2003.

CASE-STUDY 4

Development of Recreation and Housing Complex in Punclut, City of Bandung - PT. Dam

Utamasakti Prima

The North Bandung area has a area of 38,548.33 hectares, covering the administrative regions of

Kabupaten Bandung, City of Bandung and City of Cimahi. Punclut is located in the City of

Bandung, covering an area of 268 hectares. PT. Dam Utamasakti Prima intends to construct an

integrated recreation and housing complex in an area of 80 hectares in Punclut.


Attachment A 2

The current plan is a revision from a previous plan that had an AMDAL study conducted in

1995. The previous plan entailed development of 140 hetares of land in the Kelurahan

Ciumbuleuit, Kecamatan Cidadap dan Kelurahan Dago, Kecamatan Coblong, City of Bandung.

The current plan (2004) involves 80 hectares, located in Kelurahan Ciumbuleuit, Kecamatan

Cidadap.

The development will comprise of a conservation area, management office, restaurant and food

court, cinema and open performance area, resort hotel, club house and driving range, sport

centre, home-shop and mini market, kindergarten and playgroup, camping grounds, housing

(large villa, medium villas, and townhouses), main roads and neighborhood roads. Housing will

cover 26.46 hectares. The project has attracted a lot of interest among citizens of Bandung, taking

the controversy in the media. The Observer Community is opposed to development, considering

North Bandung is designated as a conservation area. However, the Affected Community

immediately around the proposed location is supportive of the development, primarily due to

plans for road construction.

CASE-STUDY 5

Increase Capacity of Coal Production - PT. Kaltim Prima Coal Mine, Kabupaten Kutai

Timur, Province of East Kalimantan

PT. Kaltim Prima Coal (KPC) is a coal mining company that has been in operation in East

Kalimantan. Since 1990, PT KPC started to coal mining in the Sangatta area with open cut pit,

and initial planned production capacity of 6 million tons per year. In 1999, PT KPC planned an

increase in production at Bengalon up to 7.5 million tons per year. Until the end of 2003, an

increase of 16.7 tons has been realized, all from the Sangatta mine. The Bengalon mine had not

been in operation at that time.

The Sangatta Mine expansion will involve increase in width, and depth, merging of existing pits,

and opening of new pits in the western side of the existing mine. The operation of the Bengalon

Mine will include 3 new pits, Pit A in East Bengalon, and Pit B and C in West Bengalon. This

expansion will be located in Kecamatan Sangatta, Kabupaten Kutai Timur, Province of East

Kalimantan. The AMDAL study has been approved in 2004 by the AMDAL Commission of the

Kabupaten Kutai Timur.

CASE-STUDY 6

Construction of Double-Track Railway between Kutoarjo and Yogyakarta - Directorate

General Land Transportation, Department of Communications, Government of Indonesia

The trans Kutoarjo-Yogyakarta segment is located between two major hubs of Jakarta and

Surabaya. The objective of constructing the Double-Track is to (1) increase use of railway, which

is a shorter duration than road transport, (2) reduce the occurrence of late train arrival, (3) reduce

accident risk, (4) minimize operating cost, (5) improve passenger safety and comfort.

The double-track railway will mainly be built on government land (PT Kereta Api Indonesia)

along 65 Km passing through areas in the Kabupaten Sleman, Bantul dan Kulon Progo in the

Province of DI Yogyakarta, and the area of Kabupaten Purworejo in the Province of Central Java.

The AMDAL Study for this project has been approved by the Central AMDAL Commission in

the Ministry of Environment in 2004.


Attachment A 3

CASE-STUDY 7

Construction of the Jakarta Outer Ring Road/JORR, Segments W1, E2, E3 and Tanjung

Priok Access - PT. Jasa Marga

The Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR) was planned since mid-1990s to develop the outskirts of

DKI Jakarta to serve as the Central Business District (CBD) or commercial areas for DKI Jakarta.

JORR is the main toll-road located at a radius 10 - 13 Km from the center of Jakarta city. JORR

consists of 7 sections : (1) Section W1 (Penjaringan-Kebon Jeruk), (2) Section W2 (Kebon Jeruk-

Pondok Pinang), (3) Section S (Pondok Pinang-Jagorawi), (4) Section E1 (Jagorawi-Cikunir), (5)

Section E2 (Cikunir-Cakung), (6) Section E3 (Cakung-Cilincing), (7) Section N (Cilincing-Yos

Sudarso) which is modified to the Tanjung Priok Access Road (TgPA).

Sections of JORR that has been constructed are : (1) Kebon Jeruk-Penjaringan, (2) Kebon Jeruk-

Pondok Pinang, (3) Pondok Pinang-Jagorawi-Cikunir and (4) Tanjung Priok-Cilincing-Cakung-

Cikunir. The JORR sections W1, E2, E3 and N already has a valid AMDAL approved by the

Minister of Public Works. However, since there was no construction 3 years after the AMDAL

document was approved, a new AMDAL study was required for the sections W1, E2, E3 and

Tanjung Priok Access. The new AMDAL Study was approved in 2004 by the Central AMDAL

Commission in the Ministry of Environment.

CASE-STUDY 8

Development of the Banyu Urip Oilfield – ExxonMobil Oil Indonesia, Kabupaten Tuban &

Kabupaten Bojonegoro, Province of East Java

BP Migas and Mobil Cepu Ltd (MCL, subsidiary of ExxonMobil Oil Indonesia) plans to develop

the Banyu Urip oilfield. When fully operating, the field is expected to produce 165,000 barrels of

oil per day. The facilities to be constructed will be divided into three areas: production and

support facility, onshore pipeline, and offshore facilities.

During full operations, crude oil will be transferred from the wellheads to the Central Processing

Facility (CPF) which will produce the oil. The oil will then be piped through underground

pipeline to coastal facilities in the Tuban area. From there, the oil will be piped through

underwater pipeline to the offshore ship (FSO) where the oil is stored and loaded onto tankers.

In the Kabupaten Bojonegoro area, production and support facilities will be built, consisting of 6

wellheads, the CPF, airstrip, employee housing, warehouse, workshops, and power generator.

Onshore pipeline will be build from Kabupaten Bojonegoro to Kabupaten Tuban. In the offshore

area of Kabupaten Tuban, offshore facilities constructed will include pipeline maintenance

equipment, the FSO, and boat mooring system. The AMDAL Study was approved in 2003 by

the Central AMDAL Commission in the Ministry of Environment.

CASE-STUDY 9

Development of Sadewa Field - Unocal Indonesia Company, Kabupaten Kutai Kartanegara,

Province of East Kalimantan

BP Migas and Unocal Indonesia Company plans to develop an offshore oilfield. The Sadewa

Field will be located in the Makassar Straits, 50 Km offshore from Muara Badak shoreline in the

Kabupaten Kutai Kartanegara. Development will involve 2 stages: a) installation of a main


Attachment A 4

offshore platform (Zulu) and an additional platform (Yankee), and oil and gas pipelines to

wellhead platforms; b) installation of wellhead platforms at 550 meter depths, and oil and gas

pipelines to the Zulu platform. The Sadewa Field is expected to produce natural gas (3000 mm

SCFD), oil/ condensate (20,000 BOPD) and produced water (20,000 BWPD).

The AMDAL Study in still in process. Public consultations for the AMDAL Study were held in

December, 2004. As of May 2005, the KA-ANDAL document was still under preparation by

UNOCAL’s consultants.

CASE-STUDY 10

Development of Housing Complex – PT. Karya Cantika Kusuma, Village of Bojongnangka,

Kecamatan Gunung Putri, Kabupaten Bogor, Province of West Java.

A housing complex will be built on land that has been purchased by the proponent since 1994.

The housing complex will cover an area of 150 Hectares, and is adjacent to existing residential

areas. Support infrastructure to be built include roads, drainage, facilities for solid waste

management and liquid waste handling.

The AMDAL Study was approved by the Kabupaten Bogor AMDAL Commission in 2003.

ATTACHMENT B

LIST OF CASE-STUDY RESOURCE PERSONS





Attachment B 1

ATTACHMENT B LIST OF CASE-STUDY RESOURCE PERSONS

PROJECT NAME PROPONENT

AMDAL COMMISSION/ RESPONSIBLE

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

AFFECTED COMMUNITY

INTERESTED COMMUNITY

H.Gozali

Head of BPD Cilangkap

Jl.Industri KM 9

Desa Cilangkap

Kabupaten Purwakarta

1 Indo-Bharat Rayon, Hazardous Waste Landfill


Propinsi Jawa Barat

Lely Retna, ST (Staff General Affairs, PT Indobharat Rayon)

PO BOX No. 9

Desa Cilangkap

Purwakarta – 41101

Jawa Barat

Tlp (0264) 202041

[email protected]

Dra.Nenden Naeni Kurniati

(Head of AMDAL Unit)

Dinas Lingkungan Hidup & Tata Ruang Kabupaten Purwakarta.

Jl. Purnawarman Timur

Tlp (0264) 212738

Iyam Imbar, SE

Head of Village Cilangkap

Jl.Industri KM 10

Desa Cilangkap


Nurul Cholis

(Head of Sebukit NGO)

Purwakarta

Tlp. 0812-8915349

Puryadi

(Staff Ekbang Kecamatan Poncol)

Desa Gonggang

Tlp 0888 340 1871

HP 08563510151

Suyatno (village official and informal leader) Desa Genilangit

Sukarjoyo (Head of Village Gonggang)

Dusun Kopen Desa Gonggang

2 Gonggang Dam

Kecamatan Poncol

Kabupaten Magetan

Propinsi Jawa Timur

Ir.Eko Rusmartanto

(AMDAL Study Project Leader)

Previously Head of Physical and Regional Infrastructure Section, Bappeda Magetan

Jl. Basuki Rahmat Timur No.1 Magetan

Tlp/Fax (0351) 895041

Dyah Larasayu

(Staff Bintek AMDAL)

Bapedal Propinsi Jawa Timur

Jl.Wisata Menanggal 38

Surabaya – Jawa Timur

Tlp (031) 8543852

Fax (031) 8543851

Misran (village official)

Desa Janggan

3 Pembangunan

Kawasan Wisata & Hunian Terpadu

Ir.Gunawan MT

(AMDAL consultant)

Ir.Eva Yoshida, M.Si

(Kasubid AMDAL)

Deden Sepriadi (community representative

Dadang (NGO activist)

WALHI Jawa


Attachment B 2

who attended AMDAL Commission meeting)

Jl.Rereongan Sarupi 130

PUNCLUT

Kota Bandung

Propinsi Jawa Barat

Jl.Permai 17 No.15

Komplek Margahayu Permai – Kota Bandung

BPLH Kota Bandung

Jl. Sadang Tengah

Deden Suparman (community representative who attended AMDAL Commission meeting)

Ketua LSM – FA Kalbu

Jl. Bukit Raya 18 Bandung

Barat

Jl. Purwakarta

Sulistio (resident of RW 03 & attended consultations)

Komplek Margahayu Raya

Blok H2 No 61 Bandung

4 Metro Trade Centre

(office & shopping development)

Jl. Soekarno Hatta

Kelurahan Sekejati - Bandung

Ir.Yuyun Mulyani

(AMDAL consultant)

Jl.Muararajeun No.7

Bandung

Ir.Eva Yoshida, M.Si

(Kasubid AMDAL)

BPLH Kota Bandung

Jl. Sadang Tengah

H.Ahmad Duyeh (community representative who attended AMDAL Commission meeting)

(Head of LPM Kelurahan Sekejati)

Jl.Meteor Timur II No.31

Sugiyanto (attended FGD)

(Head of Village)

Desa Sentolo

Kecamatan Sentolo

Yogyakarta

5 Double-Track Railway

Kutoarjo - Yogyakarta

Ir.Iwan Pujoriyadi

(AMDAL consultant)

PUSTRAL UGM

Komplek UGM No. E 9

Yogyakarta

Tlp (0274) 556928

HP 08122653878

Ir.Pieter Lawdayuh

(Kasie PDL)

Jl. Timoho No.1 Yogyakarta

Komplek Walikota

Tlp (0274) 515865

HP 0816676573

Mustofa (activist NGO:

Suparlan

(Walhi/Jaringan Transportasi)

Jl.Hayam Wuruk No 110

Lempuyangan

Tlp (0274) 548499

HP 08179410865


Attachment B 3

YABIMA)

Jl.Khudori No.14

Wates Kulon Progo

Tlp (0274) 778309/773337

6 Increase in Production Capacity,

Kaltim Prima Coal Mine, Sangatta – Kutai Timur

Propinsi Kalimantan Timur

Prof.Marlon Aipassa

(AMDAL consultant)

Jl. Ki Hajar Dewantara

No.7 Samarinda

Hp 08125503612

Suryansyah, S.Hut, M.Agr

(Kabid AMDAL)

Dinas Lingkungan Hidup


HP 08125465985

Imamsyah

(Head of village)

Desa Muara Bengalon

Kecamatan Muara Bengalon


HM.Bohari (attended AMDAL Commission meeting)

(activist NGO: Wawasan)

Kecamatan Sangatta

HP 081346350159

7 Jakarta Outer RingRoad/JORR), Segment Penjaringan-Kebon Jeruk (W1), Cikunir-Cakung (E2), Cakung-Cilincing (E3) and Tanjung Priok Access (TgPA)

Dwi Cahyo , SH

(AMDAL consultant)

Pacific Consultindo International Indonesia

Jl. Warung Buncit Raya No. 23 Pejaten

Telp: 79197060Faks: 7989603

Dr. Supardio M.Pd

(Head of BPLHD)

Kotamadya Jakarta Utara

Kantor Walikota Jakarta Utara,

Jl. Yos Sudarso No. 27-29 Tg. Priok – Jakarta Utara

Telp/Fax : 4358794, HP 08158897655

Osmia Panjaitan

(Attended AMDAL Commission meeting, and consultation meeting)

Kepala Seksi Prasarana Umum

Kecamatan Cilincing, Jakarta Utara

Dyah Susilowati

(Kasubdit AMDAL)

Bapedalda Propinsi Jawa Timur



Tlp (031) 8543852

Fax (031) 8543851

Soekoer (attended AMDAL Commission meeting)

(Secretary of Village Brabowan)

Kecamatan Ngasem, Bojonegoro

8 Development of Banyu Urip Oilfield – TAC Contract Area Cepu, Exxon Mobil

East Java

Yuyun Surya (consultant)

FISIP-UNAIR

HP: 0811312635

[email protected]

Dyah Larasayu

(Staf Bintek AMDAL)

Bapedalda Propinsi Jawa Timur


Heri Wahono (attended AMDAL Commission meeting)

(Village Head Palang)

Kecamatan

Slamet Riyadi

LP3ES (Lemabga Penelitian, Pendidikan dan Penerangan Ekonomi dan Sosial)

Jl. Letjen S. Parman No. 81 Slipi, Jakarta 11420

Telp/Faks 56967127, email: [email protected]


Attachment B 4


Tlp (031) 8543852

Fax (031) 8543851

Palang, Tuban

H. Samir (Muara Badak Ulu community leader and fishingboat owner)

Herwan TR (Head of Fisheries and Marine Office)

9 Sadewa Oilfield Development,

Makassar Straits

Mirza Indianto and Sahat Hutahean (ESS Department)

UNOCAL Indonesia Co.

Pasir Ridge Complex

Balikpapan

East Kalimantan

Ir. Nazrin

(Kasubid AMDAL)

BAPEDALDA Propinsi Kalimantan Timur

Hasyim (extension worker for marine/ fishing activities)

Anonymous (NGO activist)

Muara Badak

10 Karya Cantika Kusuma Housing Estate, Bogor

Yudi and Liantono

PPLH IPB (AMDAL Consultant)

Institut Pertanian Bogor (PPLH-IPB) Kampus Darmaga PO.Box 243 Bogor Telp. (0251) 621262, 621085, 621087, 626936 Faks. (0251) 622134 E-mail :[email protected]

Adi

Secretary Village Kelurahan Bojongnangka, Kecamatan Gunung Putri, Kabupaten Bogor, Provinsi Jawa Barat.

ATTACHMENT C1

PREPATORY STEPS AND PRECONDITIONS FOR

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN AMDAL





Attachment C1 1

ATTACHMENT C1 PREPARATORY STEPS AND PRECONDITIONS FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN AMDAL

ACTIONS FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN AMDAL

PREPARATORY STEPS PRECONDITION to ensure EFFECTIVENESS *

Announcement in national and local print media

Selection of information to be announced Design & layout for announcement Selection of appropriate print media

Print media is widely read by affected communities

Notice board at project site Selection of information to be included Design of notice board Production & placement


Selection of information & language Design & layout of posters Production & placement Identification of strategic areas frequented by affected communities

Notice on website of proponent and environment agency

Selection of information Design & layout of website Posting

Displays in local government offices Selection of information Design & layout of displays Production of display panels

Radio announcements Selection of information & language Selection of appropriate radio stations Recording

Consultation with community leaders (formal and informal)

Identification of affected communities Identification of community leaders Preparation of project information Preparation of support materials Preparation of questions to be raised (information needed by Proponent)

Community leaders knowledgeable of AMDAL process and public involvement objectives & process Community leaders regularly discuss with community members regarding general concerns and aspirations

Consultation with community members Identification of affected communities Identification / mapping of key stakeholders in affected communities Preparation of project information Preparation of support materials Preparation of questions to be raised (information needed by Proponent)

Community knowledgeable of AMDAL process and public involvement objectives & process Community knowledgeable of public consultation objectives and limitations


Attachment C1 2

In-depth interviews Development of interview guide/ questionnaires (linked to potential impacts being evaluated in ANDAL study) Determination of sample size and/or target groups

Presentation of summary of ANDAL study Preparation of summary of ANDAL study findings (significant impacts, area of impacts, etc.) Preparation of visual aides for presentation Preparation of questions to be raised

Delivery of draft ANDAL document and summary to community representatives

Preparation of summaries and copies of documents Delivery to community representatives

Community representative participate in ANDAL review

Community selects representatives to attend ANDAL review Community representatives review documents Community representatives discusses with community members Community representative prepares comments to be taken to ANDAL review meeting Arrange transport and accommodations

Community representatives knowledgeable of AMDAL process Community representatives understands function of AMDAL Commission and its role in review meetings

Visit to Affected Communities by representative of Responsible Env’t Agency OR

Responsible Agency assigns official to visit Official reviews ANDAL documents Official visits affected communities or representatives to discuss proposed project Arrange transport and accommodations

Community understands nature and objective of visit by Responsible Env’t Agency official

Community representative attend consultative meeting at Environment Agency Office

Community selects representatives to attend ANDAL review Community representatives review documents Community representatives discusses with community members Community representative prepares comments to be taken to ANDAL review meeting Arrange transport and accommodations Responsible Env’t Agency prepares special meeting for community representatives Record comments from community representatives

Community representatives knowledgeable of AMDAL process and public involvement objectives & process Community representatives regularly discuss with community members regarding general concerns and aspirations

Final review of all stakeholders’ position by Responsible Env’t Agency

Responsible Env’t Agency reviews comments from Affected Community, recommendation from AMDAL Commission, comments from Observer Groups and other sources Responsible Env’t Agency prepares letter of decision and documentation of how comments from stakeholders have been considered

* In the absence of items listed under “Preconditions to ensure Effectiveness”, it is advised to select an alternative approach, or to conduct additional preparations to ensure preconditions are met.

ATTACHMENT C2

SAMPLE OF PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

IN AMDAL DEVELOPED BY UNOCAL

INDONESIA





Attachment C2 1

ATTACHMENT C2 SAMPLE of PROCESS for PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT in AMDAL DEVELOPED by UNOCAL INDONESIA

Prepare Draft of Public Announcement and discuss with BPMIGAS. KLH and BAPEDALDA

Announce the Activity Plan through national and local news papers

Send notification letter to BPMIGAS, KLH and BAPEDALDA regarding public announcement

Contractor conduct Pre-survey (should not be on behalf Unocal)

Coordination meeting with BAPEDALDA of Regency/City and Province to prepare Workshop

Workshop

Public Consultation

Writes Team of Reference (TOR)

Submit TOR to Unocal for review and inputs

Submit TOR to BPMIGAS for review, presentation and inputs

Submit TOR to BAPEDALDA for review, presentation and inputs

Submit TOR to KLH for review, presentation, inputs and approval

Waiting for TOR approval

Carry out Field Survey study, sampling and analysis refer to approved TOR

Writes ANDAL, RKL and RPL

Submit ANDAL, RKL and RPL to BPMIGAS for review, presentation and inputs

Submit ANDAL, RKL and RPL to BAPEDALDA for review, presentation and inputs

Submit ANDAL, RKL and RPL to KLH for review, presentation and obtaining inputs and recommendations

Waiting for Approval

Notes :

AMDAL :No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Analisa Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan / Envrironmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

KA : Kerangka Acuan / Term of Reference (TOR)

ANDAL : Analisa Dampak Lingkungan / Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA)

RKL : Rencana Pengelolaan Lingkungan / Environmental Management Plan (EMP)

RPL : Rencana Pemantauan Lingkungan / Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP)

Flowchart of Current Practice of Environmental Impact Assessment Process

ATTACHMENT D

MINUTE OF MEETING AND PARTICIPANT LIST

FROM “DISCUSSION ON PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

IN AMDAL WORKSHOP, 20 JULI 2005





Attachment D 1

ATTACHMENT D MINUTES of MEETING and PARTICIPANT LIST from “Discussion on Public Involvement in AMDAL” Workshop, 20 July 2005 Acara : Diskusi Keterlibatan Masyarakat dalam Amdal

Tempat : Grandkemang Hotel, Jakarta

Tanggal / Waktu : 20 Juli 2005 / 09.00 – 17.00

Peserta : Terlampir

TUJUAN ACARA Tujuan diskusi adalah untuk memaparkan hasil studi “Keterlibatan Masyarakat dan Keterbukaan Informasi dalam AMDAL”, dan mengangkat dalam pembahasan intensif beberapa pertanyaan penting yang muncul dalam studi. Hasil diskusi digunakan sebagai tambahan pertimbangan dalam melakukan finalisasi laporan studi. SUSUNAN ACARA Acara dimulai dengan presentasi hasil studi “Keterlibatan Masyarakat dan Keterbukaan Informasi dalam AMDAL” sebagai pengantar diskusi. Moderator menjelaskan proses diskusi, yang dibagi menjadi 3 topik. Masing-masing topik dibahas selama kurang lebih 1.5 jam. Diskusi menggunakan metoda metaplan untuk menampung opini peserta diskusi dan mengangkat dialog tentang alasan pemilihan jawaban masing-masing peserta diskusi.

Diskusi Topik 1: Apa yang diharapkan dari keterlibatan masyarakat dalam Amdal?

Pilihan jawaban: A. Mendapat masukan dari masyarakat berkepentingan untuk lingkup studi dan

identifikasi dampak penting. B. Menyelesaikan/mencapai kesepakatan berbagai hal yang menjadi masalah,

seperti pembebasan lahan, pembayaran ganti rugi, pembuatan fasilitas umum. C. Menyebarkan informasi tentang proyek ke masyarakat berkepentingan D. Memperoleh dukungan/persetujuan masyarakat berkepentingan terhadap

proyek E. Mendapat masukan dari masyarakat berkepentingan sebagai bahan

pertimbangan untuk pengambilan keputusan F. Lainnya. Pilihan peserta diskusi:

Pilihan Jumlah/Keterangan A 18 B 04 C 02 D 03 E 12 F • Mendapatkan masukan dari masyarakat hal yang terkait proyek

• Meningkatkan kesejahteraan masyarakat • Menampung dan mempertimbangkan kepentingan masyarakat • Informasi lain dan penting yang belum diketahui

pemrakarsa/konsultan • Membuat masyarakat mengerti Amdal dengan long term benefit


Attachment D 2

• Pemberian informasi saat pengumpulan data dalam tahap study Andal

• Harapan dari kegiatan untuk memberi masukan perbaikan lingkungan setempat dan/ peningkatan daerah.

1 Evaluasi dampak penting tidak bisa diperoleh dari masukan masyarakat. Sangat mungkin dilakukan oleh masyarakat yang mempunyai latar belakang cukup tetapi maksudnya untuk bahan pertimbangan.

Dadang

2 Masukan dari masyarakat digunakan untuk bahan pertimbangan dalam mengambil keputusan

Isna

3 Biasanya untuk evaluasi dampak memakai 6-7 kriteria, tapi bisa ada yang terlewat misalnya tidak besar tidak penting tapi mempunyai nilai-nilai tertentu dan sering tidak tercover. Hal-hal tersebut yang dapat diperoleh dari konsultasi masyarakat.

Taufiq

4 Misal setelah proyek disetujui ternyata ada masalah dengan ganti rugi bisa menghambat pembangunan yang telah berjalan. Ada salah komunikasi antara pemerintah dengan masyarakat.

Dede

5 Saat ini persetujuan masyarakat menjadi penting, karena izin dari masyarakat diperlukan untuk izin kegiatan. Saat ini izin ada 2 macam yang harus dipenuhi oleh pemrakarsa; izin untuk beroperasi/memenuhi peraturan2 dan izin dari masyarakat.

Hermin

6 Pengalaman: pada saat sosialisasi, yang ingin diketahui masyarakat adalah masalah pembebasan lahan.

Wiesje

7 Ada perbedaan pandangan antara tim dan pemrakarsa. Pengalaman: pada saat konsultasi tidak langsung membicarakan kompensasi karena khawatir masyarakat hanya memikirkan hal tersebut dan tidak memberi masukan. Pada saat penyusunan Amdal atau UKL UPL, Unocal ingin memperoleh inspirasi dari masyarakat. Sebelum tim teknis bekerja ada pertemuan lagi dengan masyarakat untuk membicarakan ganti rugi. Pemrakarsa tidak mencari dukungan masyarakat tapi hanya memetakan secara sosial, secara implisit memang memerlukan dukungan masyarakat tetapi tidak secara terbuka.

Akhmad

8 Poin B walaupun saat ini menjadi isu, tapi tempatnya tidak di Amdal. Tetapi menjadi kewajiban penyusun Amdal untuk menyinggung masalah tersebut dan dapat membawa isu tersebut sehingga dapat diselesaikan oleh pemrakarsa. Konteks “menyelesaikan” kurang tepat, mungkin memfasilitasi. Poin D, yang diharapkan dalam konsultasi masyarakat tidak semata-mata mencari dukungan. Dalam konsultasi masyarakat ada tahapan2. Ke depan bisa duduk bersama dengan masyarakat untuk mengambil keputusan.

Tina

9 Ada peraturan sendiri bagaimana cara membebaskan lahan, pembangunan fasilitas sosial dan umum Tidak bisa semua masuk ke Amdal, jadi tidak fokus. Sangat mengkhawatirkan kalau dukungan masyarakat disebutkan secara eksplisit. Contoh di Filipina, hal tersebut harus ada dulu baru kemudian Amdal. Poin D, memang akan ke arah sana, tapi tidak langsung disebutkan dalam konsultasi masyarakat.

Dadang

10 Masalah persetujuan masyarakat masih baru di Indonesia, bagaimana mendapatkannya?

Isna

Diskusi Topik 2: Siapa wakil masyarakat terkena dampak (MTD) yang sah?

Pilihan jawaban: A. Tokoh formal (Kepala Desa, Lurah) B. Tokoh informal (Kepala adat, pemuka agama, pimpinan kel tani, nelayan) C. Warga masyarakat lainnya D. Lainnya Pilihan peserta diskusi:

Pilihan Jumlah/Keterangan A 12 B 16 C 13 D 02

Ket • Kalau ada masyarakat yang memiliki keahlian tertentu • Tergantung sebaran dampaknya (menentukan komunitas yang

terkena dampak)


Attachment D 3

• Wakil MTD di komisi Amdal: benar MTD dan yang mengerti masalah

• Tergantung isu dan dampak yang dibahas 1 Kenyataan di lapangan: satu pihak tidak mengizinkan tetapi pihak lain tetap jalan,

akhirnya ke atas dipolitisir atau ke bawah lewat jalur premanisme. Taufiq

2 Contoh di Jepang: konsultasi masyarakat berlangsung sampai satu tahun, pertemuan berlangsung tiap dua minggu.

Askary

3 Kekurangan saat ini, pada saat sosialisasi dari kecamatan sampai provinsi, keterlibatan masyarakat sangat kecil.

Firkan

4 Pengalaman: pada saat survey masyarakat setuju dengan proyek pembangunan, hanya kurang mendapat informasi. Masyarakat juga tidak mengetahui kemana harus bila akan memberikan usulan.

Ricko

5 Amdal adalah alat bantu untuk mengambil keputusan, jadi Amdal bersifat sebagai rekomendasi

Askary

6 Pengambil keputusan satu orang, tetapi masukan dari pihak lain sangat penting. Dalam Amdal aspek sosial dibahas sangat dangkal.

Hermin

7 Apakah presentasi di daerah bisa untuk persetujuan atau hanyamasukan? Karena keputusan ada di pusat>

Akhmad

8 Pemrakarsa harus menghubungi tiap bagian yang punya otoritas. Kewenangan ada di provinsi, kota dan daerah berperan di komisi.

Dadang

9 Di negara lain untuk kriteria ditentukan oleh komisi Askary 10 Masyarakat memerlukan informasi apa yang akan dibangun, untuk berperan serta

dan mengambil keputusan. Usul: • Sudah ada peraturan lokal yang mengatur partisipasi masyarakat dalam

AMDAL, yakni KepGub No.76 • Pemda DKI menitipkan kepada BPLHD wilayah untuk mensosialisasikan

KepGub tersebut di tingkat kecamatan hingga dewan kelurahan, agar lebih mengerti AMDAL

• Selama proses penyusunan Amdal kalau ada masyarakat yang ingin membahas hal tersebut, tim proponen tidak boleh menolak.

• Pada saat dilakukan sosialisasi kepada masyarakat berkepentingan, apapun yang dibicarakan harus dilampirkan dalam dokumen KA dan menjadi masukan untuk proses scoping dan focusing

• Dalam pembahasan dokumen, masyarakat yang berkepentingan didahulukan terutama yang berkaitan dengan gangguan bagi lingkungan warga.

• Hard copy RKL RPL yang sudah disetujui juga disimpan di kelurahan sehingga jika ada yang tidak sesuai masyarakat bisa melaporkan impementasi penyimpangan implementasi RKL/RPL ke BPLHD.

Rudy T.

11 Perlu diuraikan dampak proyek terhadap masyarakat itu maksudnya apa? Tidak cukup jika dampak proyek dianalisis hanya terhadap masyarakat yang tinggal di sekitar tapak proyek saja

Rudy Y.

12 Status formal dan informal dimasyarakat sangat tipis. Misalnya karena kaya seseorang bisa menjadi kepala desa. Sehingga satu orang bisa menyandang beberapa status sosial sekaligus.

Firkan

13 • Kepala desa dan lurah seringkali lebih dekat dengan konsultan dan pemrakarsa, sehingga rekayasa banyak terjadi. Akhirnya seringkali langsung mengunjungi mayarakat yang terkena dampak. Misal: pembangunan jalan berdampak pada masyarakat yang tinggal di sepanjang pembangunan jalan tersebut. Untuk kasus ini, untuk konsultasi lebih baik menyertakan A,B, dan C

• Dalam hal keterlibatan dalam komisi, setuju hanya mengundang A dan B saja, karena untuk proyek jalan, lebih berdampak kepada daerah-daerah inter-urban

Widayani

14 Untuk mencari informasi sebanyak-banyaknya, sebaiknya A,B, dan C dijaring dalam konsultasi publik. Masalahnya, proses konsultasi publik seringkali noise-nya besar. Masing-masing kelompok memiliki biasnya sendiri-sendiri. Tidak bisa dikatakan bahwa informasi dari satu kelompok lebih baik daripada kelompok lainnya. Konsultan dan pemrakarsa yang harus pandai-pandai menjaring informasi yang relevan dengan rencana kegiatan dan AMDAL.

Taufiq

15 • Sifatnya sangat situasional. Terkadang mengundang tokoh formal seperti lurah Askary


Attachment D 4

bisa sangat tepat, karena mewakili masyarakat. Akan tetapi kadang kepala desa ada juga yang tidak mewakili masyarakat dan lebih “berbaju” pemrakarsa

• Sulit untuk digeneralisasi karena banyaknya variabel yang mesti dipertimbangkan. Di Jawa, kepala desa/lurah dianggap bisa mewakili karena masyarakat pada umumnya mau “mengikut” pimpinannya. Di daerah lain bisa lain lagi kondisinya.

16 • Sebaiknya semua isu yang dijaring difokuskan pada relevansinya terhadap AMDAL. Hal terpenting adalah mesti melihat sejauh mana sebaran dampak yang ditimbulkan dari kegiatan tersebut.

• Komponen masyarakat yang dilibatkan bisa saja semua (A,B,C) bergantung pada sebaran dampaknya.

• Perlu memperhatikan pranata sosial di daerah tersebut dan sistem pengambilan keputusan di daerah tersebut. Banyak konsultan AMDAL yang tidak peka terhadap hal tersebut

• Sulit untuk mendefinisikan keterwakilan masyarakat

Tina

17 OK setuju dengan dilakukannya survey masyarakat. Tapi jika KA mesti dibuat dalam 1 bulan, akan sulit melakukan survey/studi tsb

Isna

18 Sangat bergantung kepada jam terbang konsultan. Perbah ditemui konsultan yang memiliki jam terbang tinggi, waktu 1 bulan ternyata cukup untuk melakukan studi dan hasilnya baik

Tina

19 • Sebelum konsultasi perlu mengenal masyarakatnya • Harus dipilih mana yang dipercaya untuk menyalurkan aspirasi • Selain tokoh formal, ada wakil-wakil alami yang muncul?

Isna

20 Pengalaman: kalau BPLHD yang menentukan, masyarakat yang datang sudah ditentukan.

Taufiq

21 • Jika memang sempat, memang lebih baik dilakukan pra-survey. Dalam prosesnya pengalaman Unocal, pemrakarsa lebih bersifat “lepas baju” saat dilakukan survey tersebut, sehingga tidak ada istilah “pemrakarsa”, dll. Survey tersebut memang bergantung pada sebaran dampaknya dan hasil pemetaan kelompok mana yang terkena dampak. Misal: kelompok nelayan terkena dampak akibat kegiatan Unocal di lepas pantai

• Pada saat sosialisasi, dilakukan pemetaan kelompok terkena dampak. Hasilnya kemudian didiskusikan dengan LH

• Semua pihak (A,B,C) mesti selektif dipilih, terutama B dan C. Untuk A sebaiknya memang harus selalu ikut

• Pertanyaannya, bagaimana dengan kondisi yang sifatnya lintas kabupaten/wilayah administrasi?Misal adanya nelayan dari Jawa Timur atau dari kabupaten lain di kaltim yang turut beraktivitas di pantai tersebut, meski dengan frekuensi dan intensitas rendah, apa mesti dilibatkan juga? Apakah ada pengalaman dalam seleksi masyarakat terkena dampak yang telah melewati batas 12 mil (propinsi) dan 4 mil (kabupaten/kota)?

Akhmad

17 Di sidang komisi, MTD wajib hadir, kepala desa yang diminta menentukan MTD. Misalnya di Irja kepala gereja dihadirkan sebagai tokoh masyarakat.

Askary

18 • Ada contoh kasus proyek di lepas pantai Tuban yang ternyata mempengaruhi fishing ground-nya para nelayan dari Lamongan, sehingga mereka pun diakui sebagai bagian dari MTD

• Tidak berarti mengabaikan pihak-pihak yang terkena dampak tidak langsung, tapi mesti dilihat sejauh mana sebaran dampaknya dan tingkat kemampuan pemrakarsa. Meski memang pada umumnya masih diutamakan pihak-pihak yang terkena dampak langsung.

Tina

19 Apakah KLH mengevaluasi apakah MTDnya sudah sesuai? Isna 20 Ada kasus-kasus yang diselesaikan di luar Amdal (di luar komisi) Tina 21 MTD perlu kriteria tersendiri Esther 22 Pra survey berapa lama? Tokoh vokal belum tentu tokoh masyarakat yang

bersangkutan. Keputusan menjadi bias. Lis

23 Pra survey biasanya dilakukan oleh konsultan selama kira-kira 1 minggu sudah mencukupi. Aktivitas yang dilakukan berupa screening di wilayah tapak kegiatan, identifikasi stakeholder dan informal leader yang ada di lokasi. Mereka yang teridentifikasi ini kemudian dilibatkan dalam konsultasi publik

Akhmad


Attachment D 5

24 • Secara resmi belum pernah melakukan pra survey. Untuk menentukan masyarakatnya dilakukan tanya jawab. Dari metodologi banyak cara, misalnya snowballing method. Tujuan konsultasi untuk mengetahui apakah akan ada persoalan di masyarakat atau tidak.

• Komisi tidak mempunyai mekanisme untuk memperbaiki sistem. Bisa terjadi masyarakat pada saat konsultasi tidak setuju (gebrak meja menentang) tapi saat sidang KA setuju (gebrak meja setuju).

• Tidak ada kewajiban untuk mengumpulkan masyarakat tetapi hal itu cara yang cepat untuk mendapat informasi.

Taufiq

24 • Konsultasi publik dilakukan hanya sekadar untuk ikut aturan? • Konsultasi publik yang baik perlu modal besar dan hanya bisa dilakukan oleh

perusahaan besar?

Rudy Y.

25 • Penting untuk mengenali dan mengundang seluruh stakeholder dalam acara sosialisasi

• Akibatnya kadang masyarakat yang diundang berlebihan. Namun hal ini lebih baik daripada pada saat sidang komisi menjadi masalah karena dianggap kurang mengundang masyarakat.

• Konsultan masyarakat kadang dilakukan untuk sekadar mengikuti aturan. Namun untuk kasus Unocal, hal tersebut sangat perlu untuk dilakukan untuk menghindari potensi masalah dan konflik di kemudian hari

• Konsultasi masyarakat perlu modal besar mungkin dapat dibenarkan. Terutama untuk perusahaan PMA yang tidak hanya harus comply dengan peraturan-peraturan lokal, tapi juga internasional

Akhmad

26 Menurut pengalaman, adanya disparitas harga yang cukup mencolok antara biaya penyusunan AMDAL yang dilakukan oleh oil company dengan Pertamina. Seringkali biaya yang dikeluarkan oleh Oil company jauh lebih besar

Wiesje

27 • Sebelum dikeluarkannya Kepka No.8, salah satu weak point dalam sistem AMDAL di Indonesia adalah konsultasi publik

• Apa perlu mengumpulkan masyarakat? Contoh di Jepang terdapat koran khusus yang berisi pengumuman termasuk Amdal, yang direspon aktif oleh masyarakat. Malah masyarakat sendiri yang menghendaki adanya pertemuan secara rutin tiap 2 minggu sekali

• Konsultasi publik penting untuk menjadi wahana pemberian masukan/input bagi pemda lokal

Askary

Diskusi Topik 3: Apakah patut ada pembedaan kewajiban keterlibatan masyarakat dalam AMDAL berdasarkan karakteristik proyek/ lokasi? Jika ya, kriteria apa yang dipakai untuk membedakan?

Pilihan jawaban: Ya/ Tidak Jika ya, kriteria yang dipakai untuk membedakan: A. Luas wilayah proyek B. Kompleksitas proyek C. Jenis kegiatan baru di wilayah tersebut D. Sensitifitas penduduk setempat E. Pemindahan penduduk F. Proyek kepentingan umum atau bukan G. Lainnya Pilihan peserta diskusi:

Pilihan Jumlah/Keterangan Ya 10

A 04 B 07 C 03 D 09 E 02

F 01 Tidak 07 Ket • Pembedaan kriteria: batas administrasi, sosial, ekologi, proyek


Attachment D 6

• Pembedaan kompleksitas proyek: tergantung limbah yang akan dihasilkan, B3 atau non B3

• Kegiatan yang sama, kriterianya sama dan sebaliknya. • Sidang KA Andal akan menentukan perlu tidaknya wakil MTD

dalam rapat komisi. • Tidak perlu dibedakan untuk lokasi seperti Bali kecuali untuk

daerah sensitif. • Tidak perlu dibedakan karena umumnya kepentingan

masyarakat sama, tidak tergantung pada skala proyek. • Tidak perlu dibedakan, dengan sendirinya karakteristik

proyek/lokasi akan menentukan.

1 Kegiatan yang tidak perlu konsultasi publik maka tidak perlu Amdal, mungkin

hanya UKL UPL. Apakah kegiatan diantara UKL UPL dan Amdal (grey area) memerlukan konsultasi publik?

Taufiq

2 Prinsipnya kepentingan masyarakat sama, sehingga tidak perlu ada pembedaan dalam hal kewajiban pelaksanaan konsultasi publik

Sorta

3 • Tidak perlu ada perbedaan tetapi perlu ada rambu-rambunya. • Sebaiknya pemrakarsan menjajaki dulu lokasi proyek sebelum konsultan

masuk, sehingga lebih tahu bagaimana kebiasaan-kebiasaan penduduk, dll. • Untuk PU, dirasa perlu untuk mengenali pola pelaksanaan proyek di daerah

Wida

4 Mencermati pertanyaannya, hak masyarakat adalah sama untuk terlibat dan mendapatkan informasi, sehingga saya jawab TIDAK boleh ada pembedaan kewajiban

Askary

5 Pada saat rapat pembahasan KA Andal masyarakat tidak perlu ikut, jadi pada saat itu dibahas apakah perlu ada konsultasi masyarakat. Misal kegiatan di Aceh, jika dilakukan konsultasi publik, bisa jadi yang hadir adalah orang yang macem2)

RY

6 Amdal dilakukan pada situasi normal, bukan pada saat perang atau bencana. Untuk yang pada kondisi perang/bencana mungkin tidak perlu konsultasi

Askary

7 Yang membedakan mungkin teknis pelaksanaan. Jika dibedakan misalnya berdasarkan kompleksitas proyek bisa jadi sulit menentukan kriterianya karena sangat bergantung kepada variabel yang banyak sekali.

Esther

8 • Semenjak PP 51/1993 sebenarnya sudah ada kewajiban keterlibatan masyarakat namun tidak diformalkan dalam Kepka tersendiri

• Sudah pasti akan ada pembedaan, tapi bukan pada kewajibannya, melainkan lebih kepada sejauh mana keterlibatan masyarakat pada kondisi spesifik proyek tertentu

Tina

9 • Tidak perlu ada pembedaan kewajiban. Tapi memang akan ada perbedaan terutama pada point D dan E. Misalnya dialami pada kegiatan proyek Tangguh atau Inti Indo Rayon yang akan memerlukan tingkat keterlibatan masyarakat yang lebih intensif.

• Pada kenyatannya, tidak mungkin semua proyek kita anggap sama

Esther

10 • Tidak perlu dibedakan kewajibannya, tapi perlu juga menentukan formula atau minimum requirement untuk proyek-proyek dengan skala kegiatan tertentu pada kondisi lingkungan tertentu sesuai dengan kriteria pada point-point A,B,C,D, dan E tersebut.

• Akan lebih baik jika ada mekanisme yang jelas tentang siapa saja yang layak duduk di komisi, sehingga dapat lebih obyektif, fair, dan tidak ada bias, dan tidak akan keluar dari frame AMDAL.

• Memang sulit untuk menghindari perbedaan pendapat, malah terkadang antar ahli sendiri selalu ada perbedaan opini.

Akhmad

8 • Kewajiban keterlibatan masyarakat harus ada. • Mungkin intensitas keterlibatan masyarakat yang membedakan (misalnya

karena kompleksitas dan sensivitas penduduk).

Dede

9 Keterlibatan masyarakat jangan ditentukan dari awal tetapi diputuskan pada saat sidang KA Andal (perlu tidaknya wakil masyarakat). Seringkali keterlibatan masyarakat dalam sidang KA sangat tidak efektif karena membicarakan hal yang

Rudy Y.


Attachment D 7

tidak relevan. Atau bisa juga yang hadir dalam sidang KA tersebut tidak sesuai dengan isu penting, tapi turut diundang hanya karena dekat (proximity) dengan tapak proyek

10 Pada sidang KA tergantung pada pemrakarsa siapa masyarakat yang harus datang. Mungkin ke depan, komisi perlu memeriksa masyarakatnya.

Tina

11 Pada sidang KA, masyarakat sering bertanya hal yang seharusnya ditanyakan pada saat konsultasi masyarakat. Hal ini diperparah karena sidang sendiri tidak mampu mengarahkan pertanyaan-pertanyaan wakil masyarakat

Taufiq

12 KLH dalam proses untuk perbaikan mekanisme Amdal. Nantinya mungkin pemerintah yang akan melingkup.

Askary

Daftar Kehadiran Peserta Diskusi Keterlibatan Masyarakat dalam AMDAL No. Nama Instansi Hadir Tidak Hadir

1 Nurmala Simanjuntak, M.Eng.Sc

BLP Dit. Bintek Dep PU v

2 Widayani BLP Dit. Bintek Dep PU v 3 Agung BLP Dit. Bintek Dep PU v 4 Mirza Indianto Unocal Indonesia v 5 Akhmad Hidayat Unocal Indonesia v 6 Wiesje Astrid Rondonuwu Konsultan v 7 Moh. Hidayat Ruhz Perkumpulan Relawan Sumber Daya

Alam v

8 Drs. Rudy P. Tambunan Pusat Penelitian Geografi Terapan v 9 Riza Deliansyah Astra International v

10 Slamet Riyadi LP3ES v 11 Toni Pacifik Consultindo Int Ind v 12 Dede Hendriyana Dinas Pengelolaan LH Kota Bekasi v 13 Kania Bagian LH Setda Kota Depok v 14 Wisandana BPLHD Jabar v 15 Taufiq Afiff PPLH ITB v 16 Nila Konsultan Amdal v 17 Hermien Roosita KLH v 18 M. Askary KLH v 19 Sortawati Siregar KLH v 20 Esther KLH v 21 Yenny LC KLH v 22 Dadang P KLH v 23 Tini Artini KLH v 24 Harni Sulistyowati KLH v 25 Angus Mackay Bank Dunia v 26 Farida Zaituni Bank Dunia v 27 Isna Marifa Qipra Galang Kualita v 28 Rudy Yuwono Qipra Galang Kualita v 29 Firkan Maulana Qipra Galang Kualita v 30 Endro Adinugroho Qipra Galang Kualita v 31 Eka Jatnika Qipra Galang Kualita v 32 Jan Ricko Qipra Galang Kualita v 33 Laksmi Wardhani Qipra Galang Kualita v


Attachment D 8


ATTACHMENT E

REFERENCES





Attachment E 1

ATTACHMENT E REFERENCES Asian Development Bank, Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Home Affairs. Capacity Building for Decentralization of the Environmental Impact Assessment Process, Volume I. Research Triangle Institute, in association with PT. Intersys Kelola Maju. 2002. Almer, Heather L., and Koontz, Tomas M. “Public Hearings for EIAs in Post-Communist Bulgaria: Do They Work?”. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 2004. BAPEDAL, Laporan Pelaksanaan: Lokakarya Keterlibatan Masyarakat dan Keterbukaan Informasi dalam Proses AMDAL. In cooperation with Collaborative Environmental Project in Indonesia (CEPI), 1999. Clark, John. “Overview of Civil Society in Indonesia”, unpublished document, DFID. 2003. Departemen Pekerjaan Umum. Direktorat Jenderal Prasarana Wilayah, Direktorat Sistem Jaringan Prasarana. Pedoman Perencanaan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup Bidang Jalan. 2002. Departemen Pekerjaan Umum. Direktorat Jenderal Prasarana Wilayah, Direktorat Sistem Jaringan Prasarana. Pedoman Pelaksanaan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup Bidang Jalan. 2003. Hadi, Sudharto P. “Public Participation in Indonesian EIA”. UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual – Case Studies from Developing Countries. Ontario Public Affairs and Communication Branch. “Public Consultation”. April 1994. Purnama, Dadang. Public Involvement in the Indonesian EIA Process: Process, Perceptions and Alternatives, Chapter 9. Thesis submitted for doctorate degree, University of Adelaide, 2003. Purnama, Dadang. “Reform of the EIA Process in Indonesia: Improving the Role of Public Invovlement”. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23 (2003) 415-439. Qipra Galang Kualita. “Final Report: Improving Public Consultation and Disclosure for AMDAL (EIA)”. A Joint Effort between The World Bank and Ministry of Environment in Indonesia, 2002. Qipra Galang Kualita. Report on Kick-Off Workshop: “Discussion on AMDAL System Development in West Java Province”. February 2005. Sinclair, A. John and Diduck, Alan P. Public Involvement in EA in Canada: a Transformative Learning Perspective”. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 2001. Sekretariat Tim Pelaksana P2TPD. Program Prakarsa Pembaruan Tata Pemerintahan Daerah. Volume 1. “Panduan Operasional Persiapan F-Kab dan Fasilitasi Awal”. Draft 17 Maret 2005. South Africa. “A Basic Guide to the Public Participation of an EIA”. United Nations Environmental Programme. “Training Resource Manual” World Bank, EA Sourcebook. “Public Involvement in EA: Requirements, Opportunities and Issues”. October 1993. World Bank, Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup and PT. Qipra Galang Kualita. Konsultasi Masyarakat dalam AMDAL: Sebuah Panduan untuk Pemrakarsa. 2003.