What is right with AMDAL
A study on emerging EIA good practice in selected provinces in Indonesia
October 2005 For the World Bank, in support of the Ministry of Environment, Republic of Indonesia
[This summary report is intended for reading in conjunction with a full case study report – Good Practices of Environmental Impact Analysis - presenting examples of AMDAL good practice drawn from five regions in Indonesia.]
FINAL DRAFT – OCT 05
Executive summary 1. Introduction
Overview What’s right with AMDAL Objectives, audience and outputs Methodology and sources of information Organisation of the report 1 2 3 3 7
The AMDAL system
A brief history Decentralisation Key challenges 8 8 10
Case study findings
Legislation and guidelines Administration Screening and scoping EIA study content Review and public participation Monitoring and enforcement 12 14 16 17 19 21
Benchmarking Indonesian EIA good practice
Background Comparing AMDAL good practice with selected MICs Assessing international experience in selected areas 25 25 28
Conclusions and implications
Overall conclusions Specific conclusions Recommended policy actions 31 32 35
Annex A – Study Terms of Reference Annex B – Format for case study reports Annex C – Assessment tool for identification of AMDAL good practice Annex D – Minutes of workshop on identifying AMDAL good practice Annex E - References
Asian Development Bank Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan Analisis Dampak Lingkungan Badan Pengendalian Lingkungan Hidup Badan Pengendalian Lingkungan Hidup - Daerah Canadian International Development Agency Centre des Technologies de l’Environnement de Tunis Environmental lmpact Assessment Environmental Management Plan Kerangka Acuan ANDAL Ministerial decree Gubernatorial decree Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup International Agency for Impact Assessment Inter-American Development Bank Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Program Middle Income Country Non Governmental Organisation Pantai Indah Kapuk Pusat Studi Lingkungan Rencana Pengelolaan Lingkungan Rencana Pemantauan Lingkungan South African Institute for Environmental Assessment Strategic Environmental Assessment Upaya Pengelolaan Lingkungan Upaya Pemantauan Lingkungan World Bank
Context During the latter part of 2003, the Ministry of Environment (KLH) launched a further phase of reform to its environmental impact assessment system. “AMDAL Revitalisasi” aims to address specific challenges that have arisen since the introduction of the Government of Indonesia’s laws on regional autonomy in 1999. The World Bank is providing support to AMDAL Revitalisation through policy-oriented research focusing on adapting existing environmental regulatory regimes to the changed circumstances of decentralization. Two province level pilot studies have been launched (in West Java and East Kalimantan) looking at how the current centralized AMDAL system could be ‘varied’ to allow for the differences in environmental priorities that exist from one region to another. This review of AMDAL good practice is one of several supporting studies designed to add weight and additional interpretation to the results of the provincial pilots. The basic premise behind the study is that although the many problems associated with AMDAL implementation are acknowledged and well documented, very much less is known about “what is right with AMDAL”. At the same time, most would agree that building a better understanding of home grown good practice provides the best starting point for initiating policy and regulatory reforms. The study takes a close look at a series of recently completed Indonesian EIAs (considered to be measurably better than average), identifies discrete examples of good practice and assesses critical factors contributing to improved performance. An indication of the alignment of AMDAL good practice with international practice is provided via comparison with selected middle income countries. Key conclusions A considerable body of evidence has emerged to suggest that a number of local authorities have the capacity to innovate and to deliver AMDAL good practice in the face of the persistent political, institutional and resource related constraints. These examples need to be showcased by facilitating the dissemination of good practice between regions, and a wholesale change to the negative culture that surrounds AMDAL and has caused it to stagnate. An increasing focus on ‘what is right with AMDAL’ can help to reverse this trend and to restore confidence in a system that has gradually lost credibility since its introduction in the mid 1980s.
Examples of good practice identified in this study can be grouped into three thematic areas, providing an overall sense of the real contribution to be made by AMDAL practitioners around Indonesia in continuing to improve the system from within. The case studies show that: • much better use can be made of existing AMDAL procedures without necessarily needing to make wholesale changes to the system, particularly by ensuring that sufficient technical expertise is made available at critical points in the process; AMDAL can be better adapted to local conditions in a number of key areas (environmental screening, selecting tools for public involvement, linking AMDAL to permitting and selection of enforcement measures), without necessarily leading to policy and regulatory ‘fragmentation’; and AMDAL can be sold more effectively across government, the public and the private sector, specifically where local environmental authorities recognize the importance of establishing and maintaining partnerships with these stakeholders.
The key drivers of good practice include public scrutiny, quality of leadership within local environmental authorities, availability of technical expertise and level of engagement from the developer/private sector. The case studies show that the net effect of these forces (‘institutional potentials’) has been to significantly raise standards in a number of key areas particularly: integration of EIA with permitting, environmental scoping, AMDAL review, public consultation and EMP implementation. Although the relative importance and mix of these drivers varies, quality of leadership linked to level of public interest/scrutiny frequently emerge as dominant forces. This particular mix is most commonly found in the main economic centres where the impacts of development are most evident and the institutional potentials for reform are greatest. In these areas AMDAL has the best chance to become more effective in the short to medium term. In the longer term transfer of experience and know-how from economic centres can help to support AMDAL revitalization in less developed areas. The study indicates that in order to better adjust AMDAL to regional autonomy and to improve overall effectiveness, reforms are required to would allow greater flexibility for local authorities in four key areas including: • • • • environmental screening; selecting and applying public involvement tools; linking AMDAL to permitting; and selecting enforcement measures.
A substantial program of support for local authorities (particularly at the district and city level) is a clear pre-condition for such adjustments being made, including training and know-how transfer. A comparison of the case studies against EIA systems in comparable middle income countries (MICs) suggests that, in terms of know-how, there is at least as much to be learned from reviewing home-grown good practice as from looking for answers from overseas. As compared to other MICs, the Indonesia case study experience is weakest in relation to environmental screening and EIA study content but is relatively strong in relation to coordination issues, AMDAL review and public participation. EIA implementation remains characteristically weak across all countries. Recommended policy actions Eleven policy actions have been identified, emerging from the three good practice thematic areas. All are considered feasible because they are either wholly or partially derived from examples of existing AMDAL practice at province or district level. Proposed actions are ‘tagged’ to distinguish between those with: (Re) immediate implications for the review of regulation 27/1999; (Lo) longer term implications following on from regulatory reform; and (Qp) specific implications for the design of the provincial pilot projects currently being finalized in West Java and East Kalimantan.
Target Immediate implications for review of regulation 27/1999 (Re) Longer term implications following regulatory reform (Lo) Specific implications for design of provincial pilots (Qp) Actions 1,2,8,9,10,11 3,4,5,6,7 3,4,6,7
Thematic Area: Better use can be made of existing AMDAL procedures
1. Strengthen and disseminate existing national scoping guidelines (Decree
09/2000) – building on good practice experience over the past five years and making clear linkages with existing guidelines on public involvement and environmental screening (Lo). 2. Strengthen and disseminate existing national public involvement guidelines (Decree 08/2000) – recognizing that greater flexibility is required at local level in determining the specific mix of tools and techniques to apply (Lo). 3. Develop options for strengthening existing national procedures and guidelines on UKL/UPL (KepMen 86/2002) - including potential for re-introducing a two stage EIA system (Re, Qp). 4. Strengthen the role of the Tim Teknis in AMDAL review – recognizing the pivotal role it plays in improving the quality of ANDAL studies and in influencing project design (Re, Qp).
5. Strengthen and clarify the monitoring and control function of BPLHDs –
promoting increased coherence between AMDAL and other administrative procedures and more effective implementation of EMPs (Re). Thematic Area: AMDAL can be better adapted to local conditions
6. Develop options for refining national screening guidelines (KepMen 17/2001)
to better reflect local conditions – potentially involving introduction of a two stage process based on use of national guidelines followed by additional questions to be answered at local level (Re, Qp). 7. Transfer authority for AMDAL approval at sub-national level – recognizing that heads of local environmental authorities have only delegated authority in this area and that their accountability would be significantly increased if this authority were to be formally transferred from the Head of the region, via local regulation (Re, Qp). 8. Audit sub-national AMDAL legislation to identify strengths/weaknesses and promote consistency – specifically in the four potential areas for sub-national competence including: permit linked AMDAL; environmental screening; tools and techniques for public involvement; and enforcement (Lo). Thematic Area: AMDAL can be sold more effectively (across government, to the public, to the private sector)
9. Develop information sharing and learning networks for ‘know how’ on AMDAL
good practice – including implications for refocusing of functions within KLH and provincial Bapedaldas (Lo). 10. Showcase existing experience on mechanisms to promote AMDAL across government – particularly in relation to AMDAL review and approval linked to permitting procedures (Lo). 11. Showcase existing experience on developing partnerships with the private sector – particularly in relation to incentive systems for encouraging self monitoring and enforcement (Lo).
During the latter part of 2003, the Ministry of Environment (KLH) launched a further phase of reform to its environmental impact assessment system. “AMDAL Revitalisasi” aims to address specific challenges that have arisen since the introduction of the Government of Indonesia’s laws on regional autonomy in 1999. It recognizes, in particular, the need to clarify the role of the centre vis-àvis sub-national environmental authorities, review and improve existing procedures for public participation, clarify the scope of AMDAL and to introduce alternative environmental tools, and to strengthen enforcement. Early discussions with the Bank included also the potential to introduce more flexibility into the existing centralized system to allow for variation to emerge from one region to another while maintaining consistency with regard to environmental standards. The Bank has also stressed the importance of increased engagement with the private sector as a potential agent for innovation and change in order to drive up the quality of AMDAL. The reform process involves unprecedented levels of research and consultation, linked to revisions to existing AMDAL legislation, in particular PP 27/1999. Fundamental reform issues include: AMDAL review and approval procedures at sub-national level; strengthening the enforcement of AMDAL; developing alternative environmental management tools; and improving the effectiveness of public participation. The World Bank is supporting AMDAL Revitalisasi through the provision of policy-oriented research focusing on adapting existing environmental regulatory regimes to the changed circumstances of decentralization. Two province level pilot studies have been launched (in West Java and East Kalimantan) that will look at how the current centralized AMDAL system can be ‘varied’ to allow for the differences in environmental priorities that exist from one region to another. This review of AMDAL good practice is one of several supporting studies designed to add weight and additional interpretation to the results of the provincial pilots. The basic premise is that building a better understanding of home grown good practice provides the best starting point for initiating policy reform. It takes a close look at a series of recently completed Indonesian EIAs (considered to be measurably better than average), identifies discrete examples of good practice and assesses critical factors contributing to improved performance. An indication of the alignment of AMDAL with international practices is provided via comparison with selected middle income countries. The study will inform at three levels: (i) design of the provincial pilots; (ii) reforms to PP 27/1999; and (iii) measures for wider dissemination and replication of AMDAL good practice in Indonesia.
What is AMDAL Good Practice? It is a relative term which has value only if it is benchmarked against national standards, standards in comparable countries, or a best practice standard as represented by the World Bank Operational Directive on EIA. In general it implies that for any specific AMDAL, a minimum standard is being achieved in all component parts of the system (screening, scoping, reporting, review and approval and implementation).
What’s right with AMDAL
It is unusual for contemporary discussions on AMDAL reform to focus on ‘what is right with AMDAL’ (and yet this is precisely what is needed). Much is known about the problems with implementing AMDAL but there is far less exchange on potential solutions. At the same time it is important for policy thinking on AMDAL to be informed not only by international norms and standards but equally by home grown good practice that exists in Indonesia. AMDAL has been around for nearly 20 years. It is based on well founded national regulations and guidelines that are recognized across all key sectors of government. Review and approval procedures are relatively well institutionalized and uniformly applied at national and provincial levels, based on crossgovernmental administrative and technical committees. The system is supported by a network of Pusat Studi Lingkungan (Environmental Study Centres) providing technical inputs, formal training and quality control, while important reforms have also taken place to try to stimulate greater public involvement in AMDAL 1. There are many acknowledged weaknesses in AMDAL, notleast that it is inputoriented, concerned with bureaucratic compliance and is seldom cost-efficient. There are justifiable concerns also over the performance of AMDAL at district level, particularly since regional autonomy laws were introduced in Indonesia, given a pervasive lack of technical and administrative capacity for environmental management. Linked to this, past reforms to AMDAL have tended to be viewed primarily from a centralists’s perspective focusing on changing regulations and standards, while many of the real challenges are more operational in nature. Consequently there is a very real gap in ‘know-how’ when it comes to implementing national environmental policy on the ground. But in a country as large and complex as Indonesia, none of these criticisms can be taken to be uniformly true. Surprising levels of variance in performance can be found between provinces and districts, as discovered in a recent assessment carried out by the World Bank2. Several examples of AMDAL good practice were
Purnama, Dadang (2003). Reform of the EIA process in Indonesia: improving the role of public involvement. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23 (2003) 415-439. 2 Opportunities for Innovation in Indonesia – A Preliminary Assessment of the State of AMDAL (July, 2004).
identified including efforts to adapt and re-interpret national guidelines to locally perceived needs and priorities. For example, both West Java Province and Metropolitan Jakarta apply a streamlined Kaji Ulang ANDAL (EIA revision) for capacity expansions or other major alterations to existing facilities, rather than the full and lengthy AMDAL process mandated under national guidelines. In Kota Balikpapan (East Kalimantan) the local government is working closely with the private sector and a coalition of environmental NGOs to find ways to improve AMDAL, while in Bali AMDAL has been effectively used as a means of brokering agreements on the siting and design of contentious new developments, such as municipal sanitary landfills and waste treatment facilities.
Objectives, audience and outputs
This study identifies examples of AMDAL good practice at subnational level, examines contributing factors and assesses the potential for replicating this experience more widely in Indonesia. It tests the hypothesis that there is much to be learned from the past 5 years of sub-national AMDAL implementation in adapting national policy to the realities of decentralized environmental management. The study has several target audiences, in the first instance the staff of those sub-national environmental authorities that have been involved in preparation of the case studies3. Secondly, the study will inform the design of the provincial pilot studies which are currently being conducted by the Bank in West Java and East Kalimantan, though the identification of innovative ideas that have been tested elsewhere in Indonesia. Thirdly it will feed into the overall recommendations on AMDAL reform that the World Bank will be providing to KLH. It is hoped, also, that the key conclusions of the study will be shared more widely with districts and provinces through KLH’s newsletter on EIA (INFO-AMDAL) The outputs of the study include (i) this summary report, (ii) ten field-based case study reports, and (iii) a seminar featuring the results of the study for selected local authorities.
Methodology and sources of information
On 30 May 2005 a workshop was held at the World Bank in Jakarta to provide an opportunity for participating sub-national authorities to comment on the case study reports and to share information.
The study applies an empirical approach to identifying and explaining AMDAL good practice, the intention being to identify examples rather than to provide an overall sense of the frequency with which it is occurring within the system. It is already known that good practice is infrequent, perhaps occurring in around 10% of AMDALs carried out at sub-national level4. The study does not seek to substantiate this assumption, but rather to look at selected case studies in some detail as a basis for beginning to better understand why AMDAL is performing relatively well in some places but not others. The study comprised an initial phase focusing on compiling 10 field based case studies of recently completed AMDALs in five regions. The regions were selected in consultation with KLH on the basis of level of economic development, AMDAL implementation capacity, and willingness to participate. Field research was followed by verification of results and comparison against relevant experience from other countries, available from World Bank staff and other multilateral and bilateral donors. This follows the principle that, in order to avoid arbitrary results, identification of good practices in one country can best be determined via benchmarking against standards being applied in comparable countries, as well as accepted international best practice. The general approach and key steps in the process are summarized in Figure 1. To ensure that the results of the case studies could be easily benchmarked against international experience, a framework of analysis recently used by the World Bank in assessing national EIA systems in the METAP region was adapted and applied5. Accordingly, the study EIA systems into the following categories: • • • • • •
Legislation and Guidelines – the extent to which national regulations and guidelines are adapted to and reflect, local realities; Administration – the degree to which there is coordination between AMDAL and other administrative procedures; Screening and Scoping – the degree to which the quality of screening and scoping is improved through consultation and inclusion of local information; EIA Study Content – the sensitivity of report content to scoping, the quality of impact analysis, and the extent to which environmental management plans are operational; Review and Public Participation Processes – the quality and consistency of the review process and the extent to which the public is engaged; and Monitoring & Enforcement – measures taken to induce compliance with AMDAL requirements.
KLH carry out occasional reviews of selected AMDALs which indicate that approximately 10% only meet the national standards and criteria. 5 Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Program (METAP)
Each of these categories is divided into further study elements, as presented in Annex B, used as a questionnaire to guide field researchers. Figure 1: General approach and key steps in study implementation
Basic framework Field Research
Drafting and circulation of field reports
Legislation and Guidelines Administration Screening and Scoping EIA Study Content
Data Collection Primary data was collected in each of these areas and compiled into ten case study reports, providing a substantial body of information on existing AMDAL practices at sub-national level (see separate report6). Table 1a lists the case studies including a brief rationale for selection. Information was collected via a combination of document review, key informant interviews and site visits. Typically interviews were held with officials within the relevant sub-national environmental authority, other members of the AMDAL review Commission and technical teams, representatives of the project proponent, local NGOs and affected people, and the consultants and advisors responsible for preparing AMDAL reports. Each case study report was circulated in draft form both to KLH and relevant local authorities, prior to a seminar held in Jakarta for key local government officials from the five provinces involved in the study. A summary of points raised during this meeting is provided in Annex D.
Case Study Report (June 2005). Good practices of Environmental Impact Analysis (AMDAL) in Indonesia. Prepared for the World Bank in support of the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Indonesia.
Table 1a: Case Study Selection
Public involvement leading to changes in design Effective AMDAL scoping Effective AMDAL review Effective use of national screening guidelines Influenced technical feasibility Influenced technical feasibility Clear links with permitting Clear and operational RKL/RPL Cultural heritage site preserved Public involvement leading to changes in design
SulSel Jogjakarta Surabaya City Jatim
Identifying Good Practice The case study results are summarized in a table (Table 3a) providing a population of 200 possible examples of good practice. Each example was compared on a qualitative basis against an accepted standard. Two alternatives were considered: (i) Indonesian national standards; or (ii) international best practice standards as represented by World Bank Operational Policy 4.01 on Environmental Assessment. For reasons already outlined in the preceding paragraphs, it was felt more meaningful for the case study results to be compared against the World Bank standard. An assessment tool (see Annex C) was developed for the task based on methods used in a recent study of EIA capacity in Russia carried out for the World Bank7. The approach involved ranking from 1 (low) to 5 (high) each subcategory of information from each case study. Having ranked each of the case studies, the assessment tool was applied to several countries considered to be broadly comparable with Indonesia in terms of type of EIA system and level of economic development. While the analysis is indicative only, the idea was to provide some sense of how some of the better EIA’s carried out in Indonesia compare (in general terms) with standards in other countries. Explaining Good Practice Underlying factors contributing to the emergence of good practice for each of the case studies were identified via discussion with key informants. Informants were
Konrad von Ritter and Vladimir Tsirkunov. Russian Federation: How well is Environmental Assessment Working in Russia?. A Pilot Study to Assess the Capacity of Russia’s EA System. June 2002.
asked to consider possible regulatory, institutional and budgetary factors, as well as the role of civil society, access to information and human resources. The results were grouped into five underlying factors and their relative importance assessed via an expert opinion based ranking exercise. The analysis provides a ‘broad brush’ sense of priorities in terms of facilitating wider emergence of AMDAL good practice in Indonesia. Sources of Information Key documents reviewed for each case study included the ToRs (KA-ANDAL) and final EIA reports (ANDAL/RKL/RPL). Other important documents that have informed the study include: the World Bank’s own preliminary assessment of the state of AMDAL (July 2004), as well as several recent regional international EIA studies including: • • • • METAP (2003). Working together to manage the environment: strengthening EIA systems in the Mediterranean Region, compiled by the Centre des Technologies de l’Environnement de Tunis (CITET); World Bank (2002). Environmental Impact Assessment Systems in Europe and Central Asia Countries. Europe and Central Asia Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Department. World Bank (2003). A Review of Environmental Assessment Systems. Russian and International Experience. Europe and Central Asia Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Department. Inter-American Development Bank (2001). Review of Environmental Impact Assessment in Selected Countries of Latin America and the Caribbean: Methodology, Results and Trends. IDB Center for Development Studies; World Bank and Hydro Quebec International (2004). Capacity Enhancement for Impact Assessment – A summary of Seven Regional Studies. A contribution to the IAIA Marrakech Declaration and Action Plan for Capacity Development Workshop.
The latter contributed primarily to benchmarking Indonesian practice against standards elsewhere in Asia and beyond.
Organisation of the report
The remaining sections of this report are arranged as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of the existing AMDAL system and current challenges associated with decentralization; Section 3 presents summary findings of the case studies; Section 4 compares Indonesian EIA good practice with standards in selected middle income countries; and Section 5 presents study conclusions and recommended policy actions.
The Indonesian EIA System
A brief history
Although AMDAL was officially introduced to Indonesia in 19828, most practitioners recognize the true genesis to spring from Regulation No. 29/19869 which established the essential elements of the AMDAL process10. During the early 1990s a central environmental protection agency (BAPEDAL) separate from the State Ministry of Environment was established, with a mandate to improve the enforcement of AMDAL and pollution control, supported by three regional offices. The review and approval of EIA documents at this time has handled either by national level sectoral commissions (Komisi Pusat) or provincial commissions (Komisi Daerah), according to project scale and source of funding. More than 4000 EIAs were reviewed up until 1992 by which time it was becoming increasingly clear that elements of the process were overly complex and also too much based on ‘western style’ EIA. New AMDAL legislation was enacted in 199311 which had the effect of streamlining screening procedures, shortening the time-frame for review, and introducing a standardized EMP format (UKL/UPL) for projects with more limited impacts. More than 6000 national and provincial EIAs were processed under this regulation including a small number of regional EIAs under a central commission established within BAPEDAL. With the promulgation of a new Environmental Management Act (No. 23/1997) further reforms to AMDAL regulation became necessary. Regulation 27/199912 introduced further simplification. The sectoral commissions were dissolved and consolidated into a single central commission, while the provincial commissions were strengthened. More specific and inclusive provisions for public involvement were introduced, as well as a suite of supporting technical guidelines. However PP 27/1999 was somewhat miss-timed, failing to sufficiently reflect the broader political changes of the time which led to political and administrative decentralization.
The social movement of the mid to late 1990s, called ‘reformasi’, led to rapid political reform reflected in new legislation13 authorizing the country’s rural
Regulation No. 4/1982 on Basic Provisions for Environmental Management On Environmental Impact Analysis. 10 Supported by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) 11 No. 51/1993 Regarding Environmental Impact Assessment. 12 Concerning Environmental Impact Assessment. 13 Law 22/1999 on Regional Autonomy.
districts and municipalities to manage most government services. This reallocation of functions made Indonesia one of the most decentralized countries in the region, bringing with it the promise of improved governance (yet with few guarantees). Indonesia’s nearly 400 districts gained greater autonomy with the election of local heads no longer subject to higher approval, and responsibility for the mandatory provision of services in 11 areas, including environmental management. For example, the new arrangements allowed for the establishment of district level AMDAL Commissions. This has led to concerns over conflicts of interest in the review and approval of AMDAL documents fueling a view from the centre that local authorities would invite more intensive and environmentally damaging resource extraction in order to boost revenues. As an indirect consequence of decentralization, the functions of Bapedal were re-integrated into the State Ministry for Environment (KLH) at this time, while the responsibilities of its three regional offices were re-focused and extended also to encompass districts. There has been little research to date on the effects of decentralization on environmental management in general and AMDAL in particular. An initial review carried out by the Bank in early 2004 indicates significant variations from one region to another. Better resourced districts and municipalities have been quick to enact their own environmental regulations, though mostly in line with national standards. Less well resourced districts (the majority off-Java) have generally continued to rely on national guidelines as well as the provinces to help them to implement AMDAL. Personalities have been important in influencing the effectiveness of AMDAL, in particular the relationship between the head of the local environmental authority (BPLHD) and the provincial governor or district head. The level of public interest/protest has also been a key determinant in strengthening the process, as have international standards introduced through donor projects. At the same time, in almost all cases, rules continue to be ‘bent’ when it becomes convenient to do so, leading to calls from the centre to strengthen enforcement and accountability mechanisms. More recent revisions to the legal framework for decentralization appear to be strengthening the hand of provincial environmental authorities, while increasing democratization (such as direct elections for district heads) may in time provide the conditions for more consistent application of environmental laws and standards. Yet, such is the variation in capacity from region to region and from district to district that the implementation of AMDAL is likely to remain patchy for the foreseeable future. AMDAL Revitalisasi can begin to address this challenge by more clearly defining a role for KLH not only as a regulator but as a facilitator of learning and innovation between provinces. Provincial authorities can take a similar approach vis-à-vis the districts, but will need to retain operational responsibilities for AMDAL also.
From the perspective of the Ministry of Environment, decentralization has the effect of extending its oversight functions to the district, but provides neither the tools nor the resources to do this effectively. Oversight responsibilities are extended in the sense that KLH remains the caretaker of national environmental regulations but must now deal (at least theoretically) with nearly 400 independent units of management. While the net effect of this shift in authority may not be very visible in the short term, increasing inconsistencies in the application of national regulations and standards must inevitably follow in the longer term. A program of extensive capacity building and know how transfer to the districts could help to address this risk. Re-concentration of legal and administrative authority as well as further strengthening of technical capacity at the level of the province could provide another option. Both options would imply focusing on promoting public awareness and involvement combined with strengthened accountability mechanisms for local officials. However, promoting public involvement in AMDAL is a key challenge in itself. Public involvement (in particular from project affected people) is a critical ingredient without which EIA systems will remain largely bureaucratic, but remains very much a latent force in Indonesia. Occasionally local communities protest new developments resulting in significant siting and design changes, but such protests are rarely made as a direct result of AMDAL. For most, AMDAL is either a largely invisible process or one that is ‘captured’ by the bureaucracy. Thus direct action is generally the favoured way of effecting change. One of the main thrusts of AMDAL Revitalisasi is to reform existing mechanisms for public involvement in order to encourage greater public engagement. One important starting point may be to review the make-up and functions of AMDAL review commissions. For example, BPLHD Province South Sulawesi have experimented with holding AMDAL Commission meetings at the Kecamatan level, as a means of increasing visibility/transparency of the review process and to ensure that Commission members themselves are able to pass more informed comments. Recommendations for increasing the effectiveness and efficiencies of public involvement and information disclosure are provided via a separate report prepared as part of the World Bank’s support for AMDAL Revistalisation14. From a sub-national perspective, existing AMDAL regulations and guidelines often fail to provide the detail they require (particularly in terms of sectoral environmental issues) and yet remain too rigid to allow interpretation to local conditions. Sub-national authorities can (and indeed are expected) issue their
Final Report. August 2005. Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL. Submitted to the World Bank by PT. Qipra Galang Kualita.
own regulations but the standards that apply must be at least as strict as those stipulated at a national level. Local authorities frequently ask for more detailed and operational guidance which KLH is not always in a position to provide, or more flexibility in developing approaches that are better suited to local conditions. Clearly achieving an appropriate balance between allowing flexibility which maintaining overall consistency remains a key challenge, and one where clear signals are required from KLH if local authorities are to be discouraged from increasingly taking environmental regulation into their own hands. It goes without saying that the sheer size and diversity of a country like Indonesia presents a whole range of institutional capacity related challenges in implementing EIA, particularly from the perspective of a poorly resourced national environmental authority with a limited operational mandate. Here it makes sense to continue to strengthen the capacity for AMDAL at the level of the province, not only from an administrative perspective but equally in terms of broader technical and analytical skills upon which the system depends, as well as information management and outreach. This is a pragmatic approach because irrespective of the level of authority for AMDAL that is delegated to the district, many will continue to depend heavily on technical support from the province for the foreseeable future. However, size and diversity can also be considered as a strength providing a reservoir of experience in AMDAL implementation that can be tapped into, disseminated and multiplied. To date there has been very little emphasis on ‘active’ learning and yet this is an essential ingredient in the evolution of environmental management approaches in any country. For under-resourced sub-national environmental authorities it is not often obvious how to respond to routine challenges that arise in the day to day implementation of AMDAL. For example: how can proponents be held accountable for commitments made in AMDAL documentation?; how can the links between AMDAL approval and permitting be strengthened?; and what are the best ways of engaging project affected people in constructive dialogue? The case studies presented in this report do not provide all the answers, but give a sense of some of the more promising approaches that have been applied across Indonesia. More importantly the general approach taken is one that, if replicated, could help to build learning from experience more systematically into the reform process.
Case study findings
This section summarises the findings of the case studies (see separate case study report15) in which examples of recent province and district level AMDAL good practice are identified and underlying factors explored. One of the overall findings is that none of the case studies are sufficiently robust individually to be given an overall good practice classification. As the results presented in Table 3a demonstrate, good practice emerges in a patchy manner, with all case studies demonstrating significant weaknesses as well as strengths. Key factors influencing the emergence of good practice include: public pressure, commitment and leadership of senior environmental staff; availability of competent professionals; and the level of engagement and commitment from the developer. Political pressure can also be important but is contextual factor over which environmental authorities can exert limited control.
Legislation and guidelines
The focus of this set of categories is to establish the extent to which local authorities have begun to interpret national guidelines and standards to local realities. In a country as large and diverse as Indonesia it is obvious that national standards will appear generic from the perspective of most local authorities. Local authorities frequently ask for additional guidance from the centre in sufficient detail to help to operationalise national policy. However, some of the more innovative have also begun the process of adopting and adapting national regulations and standards. Legislation and procedures In all case studies at least one AMDAL regulation has been passed by local authorities, generally serving to ‘adopt’ national regulations, for example by establishing a local AMDAL commission or public participation procedures. In the most innovative regions, including Metropolitan Jakarta, Jogjakarta and Surabaya, the additional step of ‘adapting’ national regulations and standards to local requirements has begun. This has been driven by public awareness combined with a greater sense of accountability among public officials, particularly in the more developed areas of Indonesia. One of the better examples identified is from Metropolitan Jakarta which has passed a decree clearly integrating AMDAL with local planning and permitting procedures. As important as the final result here, was the process of reaching
Dollaris Riauaty Suhadi and Nila Oktaviany (2005). Case study report. Good practices of Environmental Impact Analysis (AMDAL) in Indonesia. Prepared for the World Bank in support of the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Indonesia
agreement on the procedures requiring ‘buy-in’ from all key licensing departments of the administration. Agreement required a compromise, allowing land clearance for a new development to start prior to AMDAL approval with the final building permit (IMB) only being issued after AMDAL approval. The approach taken demonstrates an ability on the part of the local environmental authority to negotiate a result that provides clear recognition of the role of AMDAL among key government departments. Ongoing coordination with licensing authorities is achieved via a ‘Forum’ linked to the AMDAL Commission, in which information is exchanged on the project pipeline. This is supplemented by a ‘roadshow’ delivered by the environmental authority through which the permit-linked AMDAL mechanism is explained to technical and mid-level staff within all licensing authorities. Jogjakarta Province has taken steps to adopt/clarify AMDAL procedures through issuance of a Decree of the Governor which highlights and strengthens public consultation requirements. This was driven by rapid development in the housing and commercial sectors and public concerns over related environmental and social costs. A pro-environment tendency from the much respected Governor of Jogjakarta has also given a stronger hand to the local BPLHD in its dealings with other government departments. General and technical guidelines Both Metropolitan Jakarta and Metropolitan Surabaya have issued local environmental screening guidelines which are based on national guidelines but stipulate more specific guidance in a few key sectors. For example Jakarta’s KepGub 2863/2001 stipulates that any activity of any scale that alters the function of a water supply reservoir requires a full AMDAL. In Surabaya recent flood events associated with inadequate drainage have sensitized the administration to the importance of environmental issues and development of local AMDAL regulation, leading to the enactment of a decree on types of activities requiring AMDAL and UKL/UPL.
Observation Initiatives taken in adopting and adapting national legislation and guidelines to local conditions are all broadly in line with national AMDAL policy, yet represent a significant step forward in terms of local authorities beginning to take greater responsibility for making AMDAL operational. They are also relatively straight forward and could/should be replicated elsewhere in Indonesia, as a measure to transfer know how and to promote greater consistency between regions.
AMDAL is generally only effective to the extent that it is tied to other administrative procedures for development control and environmental management, and that the results of AMDAL studies have consequences for these procedures. This section summarises some of the ways in which local authorities have achieved greater coordination. Coordination with pollution control In general coordination with environmental control functions was found to be relatively well advanced among the 10 case studies, with most RKL/RPLs making specific reference to national and local air, odour, noise and water pollution standards. Metropolitan-Jakarta has been particularly pragmatic in terms of ensuring links between AMDAL and pollution control procedures, recognizing that combining the two in an RKL/RPL (where monitoring becomes the primary responsibility of the developer) reduced its own monitoring burden. In Metropolitan Surabaya and the Province of East Java the need for coordination is largely driven by past negative experience in relation to pollution control and related public perception. In Jogjakarta Province, public perception also appears to be a key factor linked to the personal stance on environmental management taken by the Governor. In all cases the degree of integration is directly related to the administrative efficiency of local environmental authorities, specifically their environmental control units which are tasked with overseeing AMDAL implementation. Coordination with planning and permitting Coordination between AMDAL and planning/permitting functions is generally achieved through the inclusion of relevant government agencies as permanent members within AMDAL Commissions or through the establishment of additional bodies, such as Kabupaten Bandung’s ‘Location Permit Forum’. Only in Metropolitan Jakarta, as explained above, has a more formal mechanism been established driven by higher level economic growth interests and the related need to simplify permitting for new investors. Effective Implementation of the mechanism is largely attributed to the approach taken by BPLHD which recognizes that new procedures need be ‘sold’ to implementing partners, and continue to be sold to ensure penetration to technical level staff. In Metropolitan Surabaya an overall framework for linking AMDAL to licensing has yet to be developed, but the environmental authority has taken the lead in coordinating approval procedures for development control among other key
sectors. Case study #9 (shopping centre development in Surabaya) provides a good example. The proposed development is located close to a cultural heritage site protected under local regulation. In this case, AMDAL provided a mechanism for implementation of this regulation requiring specific measures to minimize damage to the site during construction, as well as to carry out post construction renovation. In explaining this good practice, local officials maintain that recent concerns over flooding and traffic congestion within the city have increased the overall sensitivity of the administration towards more rigorous application of environmental and socio/cultural standards. In Bandung, public consciousness of land use planning appears to be relatively high compared to other regions in Indonesia, leading to greater incentives within government to ensure that permits are issued in line with the spatial plan including related environmental criteria. By contrast in Jogjakarta Province, strengthening the links between development controls and environment appears to be largely attributed to strong leadership/political will from the Governor. Authority for AMDAL Approval Somewhat controversially the issue of authority for AMDAL approval was ranked ‘low’ across most of the case studies. This is because at the sub-national level, ultimate authority for approval or non-approval of AMDAL rests with the Head of a region (Governor in the case of a province and Bupati or Mayor in the case of cities and districts), rather than the senior environmental official. In many cases, for administrative reasons, this authority has been delegated to the Head of the relevant Bapedalda’s, largely because of the time taken for regional heads to issue the required approval. DKI Jakarta operates on this basis. In Kabupaten Bandung, Metropolitan Surabaya and East Java Province, a hybrid model has been introduced whereby approval for the KA-ANDAL (ToRs) is approved by the Head of Environment while the Head of a region approves the final AMDAL. At the national level, by contrast, AMDALs are approved by the Minister of Environment.
Observation The administration of AMDAL is one of the areas over which local BPLHDs have the most control. Not surprisingly, by selecting case studies from among the most capable and best resourced regions, many examples of good practice have emerged in this area. However, similar standards of administrative efficiency will be hard to achieve in less well resourced regions.
Screening and scoping
Screening and scoping are arguably the most important steps in EIA preparation. This section considers how the quality of screening and scoping has been improved through public consultation and the inclusion of local information. Screening procedures and methods Few examples of good practice were found in relation to environmental screening. One exception was the Asti Puri housing and recreational project (CS#3) in Kabupaten Bandung, where a screening decision was made based on a combination of national standards and local spatial planning policy. Because the proposed project was located in a catchment projection zone, an AMDAL was required even though the project fell below the relevant threshold for AMDALs in the national guidelines. In this example, public concern linked to awareness raising by local NGOs influenced the bureaucracy. Good practice was also displayed in the way in which the environmental authority was able to achieve its objectives by referring to existing spatial plans linked to the additional leverage that comes from working closely with the planning agency. Scoping methods and procedures Local environmental authorities have been relatively effective in terms of ensuring that scoping is carried out at the ToR stage. In most cases studied public consultation has been used. For example the Pantai Indah Kapuk (CS#1) project in North Jakarta took considerable care to consult widely at the scoping stage. This is attributed to the fact that the project was high profile and controversial, given that it was linked to persistent flooding of a major toll road. The role of the Tim Teknis in ensuring that the results of consultations were introduced into the KA-ANDAL was also found to be critical. In South Sulawesi and Jogjakarta, effective scoping was considered to have been largely possible due to the competency of the Tim Teknis, including their understanding of the specifics of the project and ability to induce public comment at this early stage. Environmental scoping for the Pajukukang Port Development (CS#6) involved public consultations which raised social issues relating to land acquisition and compensation and environmental issues relating to proposed land reclamation and effects on coastal sedimentation processes, The Tim Teknis then ensured that the ANDAL focused on further assessing the impact of deposition from 2 local rivers on the lifetime of the port, ultimately leading to significant design changes being made. In Jogja (PT. Sari Husada) an additional factor was the level of awareness of the proponent (ISO 14001 certified) of the likely environmental impacts of the proposed development leading to a rapid focusing in on key issues. This
demonstrates the critical role of an informed and cooperative private sector in driving up the quality of the AMDAL process.
Observation At this stage in the development of AMDAL there is a need for local authorities to begin to further develop their ideas on increasing the effectiveness of environmental screening. While national guidance provides a useful reference point, more information needs to be considered in adjusting screening decisions to local conditions. Performance on scoping in the case studies is surprisingly high but there is a need for more systematic dissemination of KLH’s scoping guidelines (Decree 09/2000), to promote consistency of approach from one region to another. Guidance should in time be refined based on the evidence of implementation, as identified in this study.
EIA study content
This section considers measures taken to improve the quality of AMDAL reporting in particular by making ANDALs more sensitive to environmental scoping, and RKL/RPLs more operational and relevant to local conditions. Content of ANDALs The better ANDAL studies identified (CS#2, CS#5 and CS#6) were those where content had clearly been influenced by environmental scoping, leading to a less rigid report format and more substance in the key impact areas. In all cases the better ANDALs where those that had been prepared with international donor involvement or where a private sector proponent applies its own internal environmental standards. However, fewer examples of good practice emerged in this area overall, confirming the general criticism that ANDAL studies tend to lengthy, formulaic and non-substantive. One of the reasons is that consultants have a tendency to view each AMDAL essentially as a template document requiring modification only to take into account project specifics and locality. Quality of Impact Analysis The Bangkala power project AMDAL in South Sulawesi (CS#5) provides one of best examples of impact analysis, good practice being attributed largely to the level of engagement of the Tim Teknis as well as the experience and quality of the AMDAL consultant. Quantitative baseline physical, chemical, biological and socio-economic data are presented in the ANDAL. Dispersion modeling identified daily mean particulate and SO2 concentrations to be above national ambient air quality standards. This case is particularly interesting because of the level of engagement received from the national ministry for energy and mineral resources in ensuring that the project description accurately reflected proposed development activities. This is often a key weakness in ANDAL reports, leading to inaccurate identification of impacts and RKL/RPLs of limited operational value
In the case of the Asti Puri development in North Bandung, inclusion of a capable community development specialist within the consultant team appears to have significantly strengthened the assessment of social issues. This is a relatively unusual occurrence, with most AMDAL consultants tending to be generalist and habitually less capable in handling social issues than environmental. However, there is a tendency in this area for consultants to carry out partial rather than comprehensive analysis. For example, the AMDAL for the Yogya Plaza shopping mall looked at potential economic multiplier effects in some detail but did not weigh these benefits against related costs of increased congestion including possible negative effects on human health. This undermines the purpose of EIA which is designed to provide a balanced assessment based on a comparison of all key environmental and social costs and benefits. Quality of RKL/RPLs The PIK housing and recreational development in North Jakarta (CS#1) and the PT Sari Husada dairy product factory development in Jogjakarta Province (CS#8) provide good examples of RKL/RPLs. The PT. Sari Husada RKL/RPL defines clear and operational measures to mitigate and monitor air quality, wastewater and certain hazardous wastes. A plan to reduce particulates and to increase the capacity of existing wastewater treatment technology is specified. This was possible for a number of reasons: the key issues were already known based on past performance from an existing facility which was being expanded. Furthermore the company is ISO 14001 certified with its field staff relatively well trained in environmental management. The RKL/RPL was actually prepared by the PT Sari Husada staff rather than a consultant. The North Jakarta housing development RKL/RPL identifies specific measures in relation to flood management and conservation of protected forests and natural habitats. The document was subject to several rounds of discussion and substantive correction before it could be considered to be fully operational. This was enabled by the quality of the consultant hired to carry out the studies and the fact that the proponent had an environmental division with whom the consultant could interact. Additional factors contributing to emergence of good practice included public pressure and a sense of accountability among BPLHD officials to deliver an operational RKL/RPL. Analysis of Alternatives The case studies confirm known weaknesses with AMDAL in the area of project alternatives, with only the Pajukukang Port case study in South Sulawesi genuinely considering project alternatives, and this essentially as a form of mitigation. At present, the AMDAL regulation does not preclude the consideration of alternatives but neither does it make it an explicit requirement. Consequently
this is an area where good practice might have emerged from some of the more innovative local authorities but has not done so. The main reason is that developers tend to approach the government only at the permitting stage of a project, by which time technical and economic feasibility has usually been completed.
Observation Quality of reporting is a common weakness in most EIA system, relating closely to the supply of experienced consulting support. What emerges from the case studies is that where the proponent (particularly the private sector) is ‘engaged’ from the outset, quality of reporting can generally be expected to significantly better than average. This applies mainly to RKL/RPLs but also to the ANDAL study particularly in terms of ensuring an accurate description of the project.
Review and public participation
This section focuses on the quality of AMDAL review and approvals process as well as measures taken to induce public participation and provide timely access to information. AMDAL Review The World Bank scoping study (June 2004) indicated that one of the key weaknesses of AMDAL is the review process which tends to be bureaucratic and concerned with administrative correctness rather than substantive issues. However for most of the case studies, including Kabupaten Bandung, South Sulawesi and Metropolitan Surabaya, commission members were found to have engaged in technical discussions which have had a significant bearing on critical siting and design issues. The South Sulawesi AMDAL Commission were found to be particularly effective in the way in which review tasks were distributed, with the Tim Teknis focusing on technical substance and the Commission on administrative and regulatory aspects. Personal leadership and organizational ability of the head of the AMDAL Commission was found to be the critical success factor here. The Metropolitan Jakarta case studies demonstrate that an ability to carry out effective review of AMDAL documents closely relates to competency of Tim Teknis and consultant. How these two work together is critical and will ensure that revisions required by the AMDAL Commission are indeed carried out by the consultant prior to re-submission. In addition, unlike most Commission meetings, the review documents were provided to all members several days prior to the meeting, as well as to local officials and community leaders.
Requirements for Public Participation Most of the case studies identified examples of good practice in this area, even though it is generally the case that project affected people are unaware of AMDAL as a mechanism for voicing concerns. The Bangkala power project in South Sulawesi (CS#5) provides one of the best examples of public participation in Indonesia resulting from early recognition from the provincial BPLHD, of possible tensions with the community, leading to a much more proactive approach to providing people with information in advance. The key elements of the process used were the following: • • • AMDAL Commission meetings were alternated between province and Kabupaten level, and several non-permanent members invited to join the Commission including project affected people and a district level NGO. The project was announced using local media but additional information was also provided through local officials and community leaders, taking into account poor literacy levels among project affected people. Copies of draft AMDAL documents were distributed to community leaders to support their role in keeping project affected people informed.
As a result of these measures, local people were better able to see how their concerns had been taken account of in AMDAL and project design documentation. Consequently, they were able to effect a major design change to the project. For example, while the power plant was originally designed to use river water for cooling, following local concerns over water supply during the dry season, a major redesign was carried to allow use of seawater. . The PT BASF Indonesia project (CS#2) shows that the BPLHD had a clear interest in ensuring that the public were well informed, and to enlist members of the public as observers and providers of monitoring information. In this example BPLHD recognized that it lacked capacity to carry out adequate monitoring and that greater public engagement could help to deflect criticisms later on. By contrast for the East Java Province toll road project (CS#10), the proponent was concerned that without public support significant and costly delays in project implementation might ensue, specifically in relation to land acquisition and compensation. The development of new shopping malls both in Jogjakarta and Surabaya city stimulated public interest because of a sense of limited carrying capacity and the need to conserve unique cultural and historical heritage. However, these views were expressed by the general public rather than those likely to be directly affected. As is more usual, directly affected people were more concerned with social issues and opportunities for employment.
Providing Access to Information The Bangkala power project (CS#5) and PT Husada Dairy factory (CS#6) provide two exceptions to the general rule that project affected people are rarely informed of the likely consequences of new developments in advance. In both cases, public meetings were held in advance of the ANDAL studies and measures were taken to provide community representatives with access to the finalized AMDAL documents. However the evidence from the case studies confirms that these behaviours are rare and likely to result mainly from the external requirements of international donors and multinationals. Much more can be done in the future to improve the quality of public involvement through early introduction of clear information.
Observation Although access to information remains a key weakness in all but three of the case studies, examples of good practice emerged fairly consistently in terms of AMDAL review process and public participation. This points to an increasing recognition among environmental officials of the importance of the public (civil society and project affected people) as genuine stakeholders in the AMDAL process.
Monitoring and enforcement
This section looks at ways in which RKL/RPLs are applied in practice and the measures taken by local BPLHDs to induce compliance with AMDAL requirements. Monitoring of RKL/RPLs The best examples of effective monitoring were found in Metropolitan Jakarta and in Jogjakara province. PT. BASF Indonesia (CS#2) prepares quarterly implementation reports largely completed by field staff (rather than a consultant). The RKL/RPL is updated each time and new environmental management measures introducted, as necessary. PT. Sari Husada (CS#8) applies ISO 14001 involving a similar regular monitoring and reporting system, with a concept of continual improvement built in. The first RKL/RPL is therefore only a starting point requiring constant refinement in order to become and remain operational. In both regions BPLHD environmental staff conduct random audits to validate periodic monitoring reports submitted by the developer. In addition the developer is generally responsive to finding appropriate solutions to problems arising. Consequently overall compliance levels are relatively high. Law Enforcement and Compliance
Enforcement remains the most fundamental AMDAL reform issue, as perceived by KLH and many sub-national environmental authorities. Metropolitan Jakarta has made some progress in this area largely achieved by building good relations with developers and a clear understanding of expectations on both sides in terms of environmental compliance, rather than by ‘reaching for the rule book’. This approach entails regular communication with the proponent, working towards collective agreements on corrective actions that need to be taken, and giving the proponent a reasonable time-frame within which to effect necessary actions. Rewards for good performers are used in order to publicly recognize and further stimulate improved compliance. The threat of administrative sanctions for poor performers are also applied. The critical issue seems to be the ability to build a relationship between the proponent and the regulator and for the regulator not to attempt to overuse its powers. The role of the environmental control unit within BPLHD responsible for monitoring the implementation of the RKL/RPL, which is relatively well resourced and has competent staff, was a further critical factor. By contrast Jogjakarta province appears to be taking a more regulatory approach by issuing a regulation on administrative sanctions for noncompliance with AMDAL. While it is too early to assess the effectiveness of this regulation there is a clear future opportunity here, to assess the relative merits of regulatory versus incentive based approaches to enforcement.
Observation Local BPLHDs are acutely aware of the costs of environmental monitoring and enforcement, and of their own limited resources. The most innovative and successful BPLHDs have found creative ways of enlisting ‘the polluter’ in becoming an agent for environmental management rather than just an entity to be regulated.
TABLE 3a: IDENTIFICATION AND RANKING AMDAL GOOD PRACTICE FROM 1 (LOW) TO 5 (HIGH)
Categories Legislation and Guidelines
1. Local level AMDAL legislation and procedures 2. Local level general and technical guidelines 3. Provisions for cumulative and SEA 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2
3 3 2
3 3 2
4. Authority for approval of AMDAL 5. Coordination with planning and permitting 6. Coordination with pollution control 7. Sectoral expertise for conducting AMDAL 3 5 5 3 3 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 4 3 1 2 4 3
AMDAL Study Content
12. Content of ANDAL study report 13. Quality of analysis of ANDAL study 14. Operational RKL/RPL 15. Consideration of Project alternatives 3 3 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 3 3 1 3 4 1 1 3 4 1 3 1 2 1 1
No data No data
2 4 1
Review and Public Participation
16. Review of content of AMDAL reports 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 2
17. Requirements for public participation 18. Access to information (AMDAL reports) 1 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 5 4 1
Monitoring and Enforcement
19. Monitoring of RKL/RPL 3 3 2.8 2.8 2.2 2.0 3 1 1 1 2.2 5 1 1 1 20. Law enforcement and compliance 1 1 2.2 1 1 2.0 5 3 2.3
Notes 1. Light shaded cells denote areas where observed AMDAL practice is progressive compared to common practice elsewhere in Indonesia, as observed in a World Bank scoping study carried out in early 2004. 2. Dark shaded cells denote areas where observed AMDAL practice approximates towards international best practice, based on World Bank standards. 3. Performance ranking is based on an EIA assessment framework adapted from a recent World Bank review (2003) of environmental assessment systems comparing Russian and other international experience.
Benchmarking Indonesian EIA good practice
This section compares AMDAL good practice against standards in three middle income countries (MICs) with EIA systems that are broadly equivalent with Indonesia’s. Comparison is facilitated by the fact that EIA systems in all three countries have recently been assessed by the World Bank, applying the same framework (METAP framework) that has been used for the Indonesia case studies. More detailed analysis is then provided in relation to several specific AMDAL challenges identified by KLH including: • • • • measures to strengthen linkages between EIA and planning/permitting, improving enforcement of environmental management plans, improving public involvement in EIA; and applying alternative environmental management tools as a means of reducing the burden on EIA.
The issue of alternative environmental management tools is covered in greater detail in a separate study which has been commissioned by the Bank in support of AMDAL Revitalisasi.
Comparing AMDAL good practice with selected MICs
A number of middle income and newly-industrialised countries considered to have broad compatibility with Indonesia were assessed on the basis of socioeconomic, legal and administrative criteria, as presented in Table 4a. Brazil, Malaysia and Turkey emerged from this assessment as the most compatible. However, owing to insufficient available information Brazil and Malaysia were later substituted for Egypt and Poland. All three countries are relatively large geographically and Turkey and Egypt are also populous at 70 million and nearly 80 million respectively. Like Indonesia there are very significant disparities in population density between growth areas and the largely economically stagnant yet very extensive rural areas. Decentralisation is an important feature of EIA systems in all three countries, although none have decentralised to the level of the district. In this respect Indonesia remains relatively unique. Poland most closely resembles the current Indonesia system, with two levels of EIA review commission (national and province) and a unitary (environment authority) rather than sectoral basis for implementation. Both Turkey and Egypt retain relatively complex and partially decentralized EIA systems. Turkey has both national and provincial EIA commissions, yet the
provincial commissions can only approve preliminary EIAs and responsibility for these commissions is with regional branches of the Ministry of Environment it half of its 80 provinces. EIA review and approval functions in Egypt are entirely retained by the Ministry of Environment, but there are signals that more authority may soon be devolved to environmental authorities that have been established by the Governorates. Table 4a: Compatibility EIA Systems in Selected MICs
Countries Brazil Bulgaria China Egypt Malaysia Poland Russia Sri Lanka Thailand Turkey Legal 3 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 Administrative 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 2 Socio-economic 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 Score 7 4 6 6 8 6 6 3 4 7
The assessment tool used for the case studies (see Annex C) was applied to EIA systems in each of the three countries, as presented in Table 4b, based information derived from the following three reports: • • • METAP (2001). Evaluation and future development of the EIA system in Turkey. Report prepared under the METAP EIA Institutional strengthening project. METAP (2000). Evaluation and future development of the EIA system in Egypt. Report prepared under the METAP EIA Institutional strengthening project. World Bank (2002). Environmental Impact Assessment Systems in Europe and Central Asia Countries. Poland Country Report.
The clearest implication of Table 4b is that against an average score for all 10 Indonesia case studies there is broad equivalence (in terms of performance) between EIAs in some provinces in Indonesia and EIAs in more developed economies like Poland, Egypt and Turkey. This does not mean that Indonesian EIA standards ‘in general’ are equivalent. By contrast CS#1 and CS#2 compare favourably against the international experience. The Indonesia case study experience is weakest in relation to environmental screening and EIA study content and is comparatively strong in relation to coordination, AMDAL review and public participation. EIA implementation remains characteristically weak across all countries.
Table 4b: Comparison of case studies against selected MICs (1 = low)
1. Local level AMDAL legislation 2. Local level guidelines 3. Provisions for cumulative and SEA
EIA Study content
12. Content of ANDAL reports 13. Quality of analysis 14. Operational RKL/RPL 15. Consideration of Project alternatives 16. Review of content of AMDAL reports 17. Requirements for public participation 18. Access to information 19. Monitoring of RKL/RPL 20. Law enforcement and compliance No data 2 5 2 3 3 2 5 2 1 5 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 4 1 2 1 1 1
In the key interest areas expressed by KLH (as listed above) - public participation, enforcement and strengthening linkages between EIA and permitting - the evidence suggests that there is at least as much to be learned from reviewing home-grown EIA good practice as from looking for answers from overseas.
If a key measure of EIA effectiveness is consistency to a minimum standard across all categories, the table also clearly demonstrates the difficulties that many countries are facing in establishing EIA as an effective planning tool.
Assessing international experience in selected areas
Strengthening linkages between EIA and planning/permitting It is extremely difficult for EIA to function effectively where linkages with development planning are weak or where planning laws themselves lack authority. EIA evolved in countries with relatively strong planning traditions, enabling environmental principles to be effectively introduced through the application of EIA screening, scoping, review and approval procedures. However many developing countries continue to struggle to establish effective spatial planning. Where plans do exist they tend not to be widely consulted and are therefore open to frequent modification based on vested interest. Where there is a high degree of discretion applied to physical planning, it has proved virtually impossible for EIA to achieve its potential – and is at best viewed as a technical input to project approval. The ‘ideal’ configuration of EIA and planning procedures will vary from country to country but should adhere to a certain number of basic principles. For example permits to build or operate new facilities should not be issued in advance of environmental clearance16. In Latvia applications for construction permits must be accompanied by an application to the relevant EIA authority, in Lithuania preliminary EIA is a part of spatial planning procedures for new developments, while in Poland also the primacy of EIA requirements over other types of developmental permits is established in Law. In addition to this important principle being established, the specifics of administrative procedures linking EIA to planning need to be made clear. This requires that they should be set out in detail and made public, both in terms of how EIA is applied to the development of new spatial plans (Strategic-EIA based) and the approval of individual investment projects (project-EIA based). Implementing and enforcing environmental management plans Traditionally the balance of effort applied to EIA has been skewed towards project preparation rather than implementation. This is to say that much less attention has been paid to monitoring the ‘actual’ environmental impacts of projects and effectiveness of mitigation plans. This reflects the basic character of EIA as a predictive tool, but the consequence is that EIA processes have become linear rather than iterative in nature. Even worse, the process risks becoming a pro-forma exercise rather than a genuine exercise in environmental management. The Bank’s recent study of East European and Central Asian
Yet, this remains common practice even in the larger developing countries in South East Asia with strong traditions of EIA, such as Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines and Malaysia.
countries indicates that many countries have no legal requirements binding the developer to actions derived from EIA studies. By focusing on project preparation it is hoped that the worst impacts can be eliminated through siting and design decisions rather than expensive and technically challenging monitoring and follow up measures. There is indisputable logic in this approach in a resource poor context, but in the long term it restricts learning and innovation and the system must ultimately begin fail to meet the challenges that future progress will inevitably bring. Furthermore, the practice of environmental protection in developing countries is often rule oriented, poorly implemented and under-enforced. The underlying reasons for poor enforcement have as much to do with institutional and human resource issues as well as short-term growth oriented policy priorities, yet in many developing countries there is a tendency to continue to ‘reach’ for the rule book. Indonesia is currently considering introducing sanctions into its EIA system joining countries like the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and China, which have established penalties for EIA related violations. However, the evidence so far from these countries is inconclusive, in the face of the widely held view (among EIA practitioners) that effective enforcement is a function of the overall health of the EIA system, rather than any one part of that system. There is widespread recognition also that successes in enforcement are a function of the degree of ‘partnership’ that exists between regulator and developer. Improving public involvement in EIA The last decade has seen increasing consensus on the meaning of public involvement for EIA, in particular that it requires a two way process of dialogue and that significant expertise in communicating complex messages using different media, is needed. A number of developing countries have been quick to grasp the essentials of meaningful public involvement and (even) to translate these principles into EIA related legislation. But the evidence of implementation has been disappointing. The tools and procedures have yet to be developed, bureaucracies have proved to be unable to work effectively with the informal sector and the latter have remained suspicious of the intentions of the bureaucrats. Some commentaries go further, suggesting that public involvement is largely absent from EIA processes or confined to the very last stages. At the same time there has been widespread miscalculation (in the international community at large) of the level of effort and resources required to translate the rhetoric into reality, particularly the investment required to provide adequate and timely access to information. Consequently most developing countries restrict practices to ‘consultation’ rather than ‘participation17’, and to a limited number of specific points in the process. For example public hearings are frequently used as a means of ensuring public comment on draft EIA statements. For this
Defined as a more interactive form of involvement with increased potential to affect decisionmaking.
approach to be effective, specific tools and procedures need to be set out by government, and the public needs to be informed of its related rights and responsibilities. A variation is applied in Poland where there is a requirement for administrative hearings on EIA to be made ‘open to the public’ – a subtle distinction perhaps but one that does not necessarily require such elaborate tools and procedures to be applied. A further simple measure that can improve the impact of consultation is to place a requirement on EIA review commissions to explain why opinions, proposals or suggestions made by the public were not taken into consideration. Such approaches touch on the fundamental issue of public access to information, which remains a key limiting factor for public consultation process in most countries. The Aarhus Convention has been successful in leveraging reform on this issue in European countries, particularly in the former Soviet block. This may provide a model for similar agreements to be made in other parts of the World.
Conclusions and Implications
Examples of good practice identified in this study can be grouped into three main areas providing an overall sense of what is right with AMDAL (albeit in a few localities only), and of the real contribution to be made by AMDAL practitioners around Indonesia in continuing to improve the system from within. Most importantly the case study results demonstrate how: • • • better use can be made of existing AMDAL procedures without necessarily making wholesale changes to the system; AMDAL can be better adapted to local conditions without necessarily leading to policy and regulatory ‘fragmentation’; and AMDAL can be sold more effectively across government, the public and the private sector, specifically where local environmental authorities recognize the value of building and maintaining partnerships with these stakeholders.
The study has identified several key influencing factors affecting the emergence of AMDAL good practice, including: • • public interest and scrutiny generating a greater sense of visibility and accountability among public servants; pressure from the political level to increase efficiencies within the bureaucracy, promote inward investment and to promote environmental sustainability; quality of leadership demonstrated by heads of local environmental agencies and their senior deputies; availability of technically competent professionals from the perspective of AMDAL preparation (consultants), scoping and review (Tim Teknis), and AMDAL implementation (developer); and level of commitment from the developer to environmental management objectives.
Although the relative importance and mix of these factors varies, quality of leadership linked to level of public interest/scrutiny frequently emerge as dominant forces. This particular mix is most commonly found in the main economic centres where the impacts of development are most evident and where existing institutional potentials are greatest. In these areas, AMDAL has the best chance of becoming a more effective tool in the short to medium term. Transfer
of experience and know-how from economic centres can help to support AMDAL revitalization in less developed areas in the longer term.
Better use can be made of existing AMDAL procedures Much can be done to improve the performance of AMDAL without necessarily making wholesale changes to the system. The strength of the case studies is that they show how this is being achieved in a practical sense, implicitly challenging others to achieve the same standard. The best examples where found in relation to: environmental scoping; the functioning of the Tim Teknis and; making RKL/RPLs more operational. Performance on environmental scoping was surprisingly high, primarily because local authorities had introduced some level of local consultation early on (ie. prior to KA-ANDAL finalization). The Tim Teknis were then able to turn the issues and concerns raised into a much more clearly defined AMDAL study scope. Existing KLH scoping guidelines (Decree 09/2000) where used in this process, although they would benefit from being refined based on field experience and from wider dissemination to promote consistency of approach from one region to another. Although most RKL/RPLs are poor quality documents tending towards standardized mitigation and monitoring measures, two of the case studies (CS#1 and CS#8) show what can happen when these documents become valuable tools both to the developer and environmental authority. In both cases the RKL/RPLs were frequently reviewed and revised (bi-annually) leading to specific consequences for the developer. Related monitoring reports were also submitted to the environmental authority on time. The examples are particularly powerful because the whole purpose of EIA should be to develop an operational EMP and then to apply it. It is one of the key failings of AMDAL and EIA systems around the world that this rarely happens. Local authorities have also shown how they can make better use of the system by ensuring that sufficient technical and sector expertise is made available at critical points in the process. AMDAL’s quality control function is initially dependent on the Tim Teknis, which provides technical support to the formal review body (AMDAL Commisi) at ToR and draft report stages. Where the Tim Teknis is staffed with committed and competent individuals a much higher overall result can normally be expected, beginning with clear scoping of key issues and feeding through into higher quality impact analysis and definition of appropriate environmental mitigation. Later on, during AMDAL implementation, quality control passes to a specific unit within the environmental authority which (if well resourced and managed) can play a key role in making RKL/RPLs more operational.
AMDAL can be better adapted to local conditions While national environmental regulations establish the essential elements of the AMDAL system (screening, scoping, public participation, AMDAL review), local authorities are calling for greater specificity to local conditions in certain areas. This tension between the need for consistent over-arching regulations that apply nationally against the equal need for local specificity is a feature of EIA systems worldwide, particularly in large countries with large geographical and sociocultural variation. Many States in the US, for example, continue to apply Federal EIA laws only while others have developed their own systems based on a combination of Federal laws and more specific state-level legislation. The case studies show that the process of ‘adapting and adopting’ national AMDAL regulations to local needs has begun in several provinces. This is clearly an imperfect process, but the fact that certain authorities are recognizing this need is taken (in this study) as an indicator of good practice. The legitimate concern from the Ministry of Environment is that such moves could lead to fragmentation and further weakening of the AMDAL system. At the same time, there is an inevitability to the process, particularly in the more developed economic areas. This leaves the Ministry in a position where it needs to engage more significantly in supporting the development of sub-national implementing regulations and standards, allowing for greater flexibility from one location to another while remaining consistent with the broad objectives of AMDAL. Some key candidate areas for allowing greater flexibility include: • • • • adapting national screening criteria and procedures, selecting and applying public involvement tools and techniques linking AMDAL to permitting, selecting enforcement measures.
For example Metropolitan Jakarta has already been effective in developing clear procedures which link AMDAL approval with the issuance of development permits. This has brought much needed clarity in relation to the function of AMDAL at province level from the perspective both of proponents and government departments responsible for licensing. Another area of good practice relates to the integration of AMDAL with local pollution control regulations such as the control effluent discharges (which in some cases also include administrative sanctions), through the mechanism of the RKL/RPL. In the area of environmental screening, some local authorities have begun to supplement existing national criteria with local procedures, such as public consultations and screening studies, in order to derive more informed screening decisions. To date the effect has always been to apply a more stringent standard than the national standard only, but it highlights the fact that screening is a step in the process over which competent local authorities need more control.
AMDAL can be sold more effectively The case studies convincingly demonstrate how effective AMDAL can become when local environmental authorities begin to work more closely with key stakeholders, including other branches of the administration, the public and project proponents. For example, the private sector is a client of AMDAL, or at least should be considered as a partner in the process. The case studies show that where environmental authorities recognize this factor and can take positive steps towards developing positive relations, much more can be expected in terms of AMDAL implementation. The best examples are from Metropolitan Jakarta and Jogjarkarta where a more collaborative approach to the development of RKL/RPLs (including an approach based on progressive improvement) has led to much improved records of performance. Similarly, the way in which AMDAL relates to other branches and functions of the bureaucracy is critical to improving its effectiveness, particularly in terms of development planning and control. Several case studies demonstrate steps that have been taken by local environmental authorities to strengthen the linkages between AMDAL and permitting through the development of local regulations (CS#1 and CS#2). The best example is from Metropolitan Jakarta where there is added recognition of the need for continuing advocacy across government in order to effectively implement AMDAL. Here, the environmental authority takes the time to explain AMDAL procedures to other key departments through the use of an annual ‘roadshow’, and spends time discussing and answering questions on different approaches to implementing the procedures. Bureaucratic inertia is reduced in this way helping to streamline development approvals procedures. At the same time, where significant environmental issues arise, these tend to be taken more seriously by line departments. The case studies also point to an increasing recognition among environmental officials of the importance of the public (civil society and project affected people) as genuine stakeholders in the AMDAL process, and of the consequent need to approach public involvement in a much more organized manner. Habitually AMDAL interacts with the public in two ways: (i) engenders no comment and passes largely unnoticed, (ii) leads to significant public outcry for reasons that are often beyond the scope of AMDAL leading to fairly tough and often illhumoured interactions between project-affected people and developer. Neither of the two are desirable. The latter can have the effect of forcing siting and design changes, but then leaves very little positive energy/will to engage in a constructive approach to the more important issue of implementing mitigation and monitoring plans. Not surprisingly therefore public attitudes to AMDAL are often less than positive. However some of the case studies (CS#5, CS#6 and CS#10) demonstrate an approach to public awareness and involvement that recognizes the importance of 34
building partnerships and understanding from an early stage. For these local authorities, past experience has shown the value of increasing the quality and flow of information early on in the process as a means of raising the quality of engagement at critical points, such as ToR and AMDAL review. Several case studies, particularly the Metropolitan Jakarta examples (CS#1 and CS#2), demonstrate how officials are affected in their work by a sense that there is public interest and scrutiny in the way in which new projects are developed and approved. With this, comes a consciousness of the need to respond to this pressure by driving up standards in a range of areas from linking AMDAL more effectively with permitting, to ensuring higher quality of reporting and increasing the focus on monitoring and compliance.
Recommended Policy Actions
This section summarises policy implications in the form of specific actions arising from each of the three thematic good practice areas. Proposed actions are considered to be feasible because they are either wholly or partially derived from examples of existing good practice emerging from the case studies. Proposed actions are ‘tagged’ to distinguish between those with: (Re) immediate implications for the review of regulation 27/1999; (Lo) longer term implications following from regulatory reform; and (Qp) specific implications for the design of the provincial pilot projects currently being finalized in West Java and East Kalimantan.
Target Immediate implications for review of regulation 27/1999 (Re) Longer term implications following regulatory reform (Lo) Specific implications for design of provincial pilots (Qp) Actions 1,2,8,9,10,11 3,4,5,6,7 3,4,6,7
Better use can be made of existing AMDAL procedures
1. Strengthen and disseminate existing national scoping guidelines (Decree 09/2000). Existing national environmental scoping guidelines (Decree 09/2000) provide a good introduction to the principles of the process and underline why it is important to do scoping. The point is made that the main output of scoping should be a detailed set of ToRs for the main AMDAL study focusing on key impact areas. However, in order for this guidance to be made more useful and applicable to local conditions a revised version building on good practice experience over the past 5 years is now needed. Clear linkages between existing guidelines on public involvement (Decree 08/2000) and environmental screening (KepMen 86/2002) should be made (Lo). 2. Strengthen and disseminate existing national public involvement guidelines (Decree 08/2000). Measures taken by KLH during the late 1990s to strengthen the role of public involvement in AMDAL appear to have paid off. Seven out of 10 case studies demonstrated good practice in this area, and in all cases Decree 08/2000 was used as a reference point. At the same time there is recognition at all levels that this guidance is often hard to implement and needs revision, in particular that it should not be too
prescriptive but rather set out principles and measures of good practice leaving decisions on how to implement more to operational staff. The case study experience reinforces important principles that should be reflected in national guidelines: (i) in order to improve the quality of consultation and dialogue at important stages (such as ToR and ANDAL review), there is a need to substantially increase the quality and flow of project information early on in the process; (ii) a good understanding of existing community level structures that already exist for information dissemination is required; (iii) a clear plan of action for public involvement is needed and this requires specialist input beyond the normal expertise that can be expected of AMDAL consultants; and (iv) the process needs to be made as visible as possible to project affected people, for example by occasionally holding AMDAL review meetings at kecematan level. Case study #5 provides one of the better examples of how to carry out an effective public involvement plan at sub-national level (Lo). 3. Develop options for strengthening national procedures and guidelines on UKL/UPL (KepMen 86/2002). KLH and provincial environmental authorities are right to stress the importance of strengthening and developing alternative environmental management tools to AMDAL. If a full AMDAL is not required, a lower level of analysis (UKL/UPL) is often needed. In fact for most districts, particularly off-Java, the UKL/UPL is the primary environmental management instrument in use. However, just like AMDAL, it has become excessively formulaic and very seldom results in any real actions being taken on the ground. At this level, developers do not expect to have to take account of environmental and social issues and local authorities tend not to monitor. In essence, the system is moribund. KLH’s approach of late has been to devolve responsibility for UKL/UPL entirely to local level. Consequently there has been little interest in assessing its effectiveness and introducing reforms. It is important now for KLH to refocus its attention on how to strengthen UKL/UPL, including possibly re-introducing a two-stage EIA system (Re, Qp). 4. Strengthen the role of the Tim Teknis in AMDAL review. The case studies have demonstrated the pivotal role of the Tim Teknis (technical review panel) both in improving the quality of AMDALs and influencing project design. The provincial pilots should recommend measures to strengthen the powers of this body and ensure that appropriate individuals are assigned on a case by case basis, also routinely including an individual with experience in public involvement. Computer based EIA review packages could be piloted and adapted at sub-national level as a basis for increasing the quality and consistency of AMDAL review from one region to another. (Re, Qp). 5. Strengthen and clarify the monitoring and control function of BPLHDs. Environmental control units that have been established in many local environmental authorities play a critical role in ensuring that AMDALs are effectively implemented. Once an AMDAL has been approved, it is the function of these units to ensure that the RKL/RPL is applied. Furthermore they ensure that there is coherence between AMDAL and other environmental permitting requirements, such as local wastewater discharge permits. The case study experience underlines the importance of an efficiently functioning environmental control unit both in relation to developing partnerships with the developer but equally in holding the developer to account when necessary. Capacity building measures for AMDAL revitalization need to take account of this key linkage (Re).
AMDAL can be better adapted to local conditions
6. Develop options for refining national screening guidelines (KepMen 17/2001) to better reflect local conditions. More than ever this study demonstrates the high costs (particularly in terms of time and know-how) associated with applying AMDAL effectively and underlines the need for it not to be overused. KLH recognizes this fact and is proposing to redefine the scope of AMDAL accordingly, including revisions to its screening guidelines (KepMen 17/2001). Furthermore, there is general recognition that although this regulation is clear and provides consistency from one region to another, it becomes a fairly coarse instrument when applied locally. The provincial pilot should take a close look at way in which to improve the relevance of environmental screening procedures to local conditions. One option would to allow for a two-staged process in screening including the initial use of a national guideline supplemented by additional questions to be answered at local level. The questions would be designed to introduce preliminary social and environmental information that could be used to make a final decision on the level of environmental review required (Re, Qp). 7. Transfer authority for AMDAL approval at sub-national level to Heads of Environment. Authority for AMDAL approval remains a weakness in the system at the sub-national level. A national level, the Minister for Environment approves the AMDAL, while at sub-national level this authority resides with the Head of a region (province, district, city) leading to concerns over conflicts of interest. In some cases authority has been delegated from the Head of a region to the Head of environment for that region, as a measure to simplify administrative procedures. However, the additional step of formally transferring full authority to the Head of Environment through appropriate local legislation should now be considered as a measure to better adapt the AMDAL process to decentralization. That legislation should also require that both the decision to approve and key factors informing that decision is publicly disclosed. This will increase both the authority but more importantly the accountability of Heads of Environment to the public in respect of decisions made on AMDAL. The provincial pilots should further evaluate and report back on the feasibility of introducing this action as an element to AMDAL revitalization (Re, Qp). 8. Audit sub-national AMDAL legislation to identify strengths/weaknesses and promote consistency. There is a rapidly increasing stock of sub-national environmental legislation being developed, both at province and district/city level, much of which relates specifically to AMDAL. KLH has been forthright in its critique of the way in which national policies are being implemented locally and of the increasing inconsistencies that are emerging from one region to the next. At the same time, it is important for KLH to find positive ways of engaging with local authorities in order to promote consistency and minimum standards across different regions. An audit of existing sub-national AMDAL legislation would be a good starting point in order to identify existing strengths and weaknesses. This could lead to development of a project to facilitate discussion and lesson learning among selected, potentially including capacity building for local officials and DPRD members. The integration of AMDAL with planning and permitting could provide a useful starting point, based on the case studies referred to in this report. Encouraging local authorities to develop regulations to strengthen the authority of Heads of environment in relation to AMDAL approval could provide another area (Lo).
AMDAL can sold more effectively
9. Develop information sharing and learning networks for ‘know how’ on AMDAL good practice. Over the next 3-5 years, AMDAL Revitalisasi needs to develop much stronger mechanisms for transmission of learning and information sharing, including showcasing good practices. KLH is clearly in a strong position institutionally to help to facilitate this process. Some reorganization of the functions of its AMDAL and Planning Directorate would be required to focus more on facilitating AMDAL implementation in the regions. In order to free up the necessary time, this might also entail returning responsibility for the review of national level AMDALs to the sectors. The Ministry of Home Affairs, which has an environment directorate, could also play a role particularly in providing opportunities for the regions to share their experience. Equally there are a number of line ministries with relatively active environment departments and significant experience of AMDAL with an interest in seeing progressive improvement, in particular the Ministry of Public Works and the Ministry of Mining and Energy. Outside government certain elements of the private sector have an interest in seeing AMDAL deliver better outputs and for there to be greater certainty and consistency, particularly at the subnational level. Donors could potentially support this process through the establishment of a ‘know-how’ fund which could be accessed by provincial and district authorities for the promotion of innovation and good practice. In other regions independent organizations such as the Institute for Environmental Assessment also have a role to play in this area. Over the past few years the World Bank has been supporting the Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (SAIEA) which has developed an action plan for EIA review and assessment with related capacity building. The approach centres around the establishment of ‘knowledge nodes’ for EIA in Southern Africa, providing independent quality assurance, capacity building, research and development and networking functions. Once established the knowledge node can serve as a catalyst for progressive improvement of EIA systems (Lo). 10. Showcase existing experience on mechanisms to promote AMDAL across government. There is a need to ensure that local environmental authorities recognize the value of working across government in promoting AMDAL, particularly in relation to ensuring clarity with regard to AMDAL approval and development permitting. Achieving regulatory clarity in this area requires a clear mechanism that, once achieved, needs to be reinforced via briefings both to senior and mid-level officials within a number of key spending departments. Case study #1 provides an example of how this has been achieved in Metropolitan Jakarta. Case studies #2 and #3 demonstrate measures taken by Kabupaten Bandung to established a Location Permit Forum as a clearing mechanism for new investments. Technical divisions within relevant Dinas/permitting authorities, such as Bina Marga or energy and mining also have a more direct role to play in the strengthening the quality AMDALs which are habitually weak in relation to project description. Inputs from the relevant technical sector should occur early on during the AMDAL studiesl Consultants should be instructed to work closely with relevant sector technical staff to check their assumptions and findings prior to submitting their draft report. Case study #5 demonstrates the value of close engagement throughout the AMDAL process from the relevant technical sector (Lo). 11. Showcase existing experience on developing partnerships with the private sector. Both KLH and sub-national environmental authorities need to do more to promote partnerships with the private sector in implementing AMDAL. This approach is likely to be fundamental to improving AMDAL’s enforcement record. Clear examples are provided in this study of the benefits of approaches based on collaboration with the
private sector, as opposed to overtly regulatory approaches, particularly in terms of the development of operational RKL/RPLs. The Metropolitan Jakarta case studies should be show-cased and, in time, compared to more traditional approaches to enforcement which are being developed in Jogjakarta Province. Case study #8 also provides an example of how a clear and concise RKL/RPL can be developed via close collaboration (which goes far beyond standard/habitual review, comment and approval relationship) between the developer and local authorities (Lo).
Annex A: Study Terms of Reference
Review of AMDAL Best Practices and Comparison against International Norms Purpose and Objectives This exercise is part of broader range of activities that the World Bank is undertaking in support of the Government of Indonesia’s AMDAL Revitalisation project. It will identify best practices experience of EIA under decentralized administration both in Indonesia and overseas, and assess potential for (incountry) wider replicability. The review will focus on a limited selection of issues (preliminarily, agreed with KLH, and also considered critical by the other project partners), which would include, among others, enforcement of EIA processes; screening and scoping procedures, and review and approval procedures. The review will inform the development of the Regional AMDAL Pilots and feed into the final policy recommendations of the World Bank’s overall AMDAL program. Hence, the flexibility to introduce additional work that emerges from the preparation phase of the regional models will be retained to ensure that the review responds both to nationally and locally perceived concerns. Methodology The study will be conducted in two phases. Phase 1 will involve fact finding in Indonesia, which will build on the scoping work carried out between April and June 2004 which identified critical aspects of the AMDAL process requiring improvement; specifically: AMDAL Preparation Process • AMDAL scoping; • Integration of AMDAL with project technical and economic feasibility; • Links to spatial planning and permitting; AMDAL Execution • AMDAL review and approval processes; • Environmental mitigation and monitoring; • Sanctions and enforcement; Alternative Approaches to AMDAL • Alternative Environmental Management Tools The fact finding in Indonesia will be conducted within a sample of 15-20 local authorities (e.g. districts and provinces), which will be selected based on past evidence of AMDAL good practices, and innovation, experience gathered during the Bank’s scoping study, the World Bank’s GRIP districts, and districts currently participating in KLH’s Good Environmental Governance Program. Particular attention will be given to the specific context in which AMDAL is being applied in terms of: • legal and regulatory dimensions; 42
• • • •
institutional dimensions (capacity, independence, coordination …); fiscal and budgetary dimensions; civil society and NGOs (accountability, transparency …); and access to knowledge and expertise.
Close liaison with the Consultant involved in the regional pilots (see below) will be important during the early stages of Phase I to ensure that outputs are designed to support preparation of the pilots. Phase II will draw in the overseas experience and context (both within East Asia and other regions with at least a five year track record in decentralized environmental management) to identify relevant and replicable EIA experiences that could be tried in Indonesia to (i) improve the effectiveness of the AMDAL system at the national and local level; and (ii) ensure that KLH’s overall AMDAL Revitalization Program is well aligned with EIA international good practices. Phase II will be carried out by conducting a rapid review of any existing relevant experience and case studies available from other countries in the EAP and other regions, experts within the Bank and other multilateral and bilateral donors, academia and NGOs pertaining to decentralized EIA management and implementation. The results of Phase I and II will be brought together to allow for improvement and innovation to be mainstreamed in the existing AMDAL system. It is envisaged that after the completion of Phase I and II of the proposed activities, a limited number of study tours could take place, within countries in the East Asia region and/or other regions of interest. Government and Other Counterparts KLH and the selected local authorities will be the lead partner for the preparation of the proposed review, thus renewing the fruitful collaboration started with the preparation of the AMDAL scoping exercise last April. In addition, the team will also seek the endorsement of, and consult with the Ministry of Public Works. In addition, collaboration will be sought from academia, civil society, NGOs, and other multilateral and/or bilateral donors active in Indonesia, and also abroad in the field of EIA. Outputs The outputs will include a set of case study reports (each of the selected districts and/or province), 2-3 working meetings to review survey results, and a final report which will present best practice experience in terms of the options most likely to be replicable in Indonesia. Timeline The overall AMDAL Decentralization and Reform Program will be carried out over a period of 12 months. The table below summarizes the schedule for the AMDAL work, including the Review of AMDAL Best Practices:
Annex B: Format for Case Study Reports
15 pages (English language) Section 1 – Background Information Location Status of Envtl Authority (Badan, Dinas, Kantor) Number of AMDAL trained staff (A,B,C) Date AMDAL Commission established Number of AMDALs reviewed since this date Breakdown of sectors (mining, tourism, housing, forestry …) List of AMDAL related SK/Perda issued Basic description of the AMDAL system
Write 2-3 paragraphs describing the usual stages in the AMDAL process from initial identification of a project, to review and approval of AMDAL documents.
Section 2 – Identifying Good Practice (for each category of information a series of sub-categories will guide the research and reporting) Contextual Information Category Description Legislation and procedures Administration Capacity for EIA
Evidence of Good Practice
Project Specific Information (Case Study #1) Category Description Screening
Evidence of Good Practice
Scoping EIA study content Review and public participation processes Monitoring and enforcement Project Specific Information (Case Study #2) Category Description Screening Scoping EIA study content Review and public participation processes Monitoring and enforcement Section 3 – Explaining Good Practice Example Example #1 Example #2 Example #3 Detailed Description Contributing Factors
Evidence of Good Practice
Section 4 – Lessons learned and issues for further discussion
Annex 1 – List of meetings held Annex 2 – List of documents reviewed Annex 3 -
Annex C: Assessment Tool for Identification of AMDAL Good Practice18
Criteria Guidelines for rating (1= low) Legislation and Guidelines 1. Local legislation and 1. Adherence to national legislation and procedures only. procedures 3. Some local level (SK, Perda) implementing legislation which adapts national AMDAL regulation is in place. 5. Implementing legislation fully adapted to local conditions 2. General and specific guidelines 1. Strict adherence to national guidelines. Limited guidance available at sub-national level taking account local conditions. 3. Some national guidelines ‘interpreted’ and/or further ‘developed’ to suit local conditions 5. Guidelines fully adapted to local requirements. 3. Provisions for cumulative and/or strategic environmental assessment 1. AMDAL does not consider indirect, cumulative or strategic environmental impacts 3. Some experimentation with cumulative or strategic level environmental assessment 5. Comprehensive guidance on sectoral and regional EA in place Administration 4. Authority for approval of AMDAL
1. Relevant environmental agency (BPLHD/Dinas Lingkungan) does not have ultimate authority to approve or reject AMDAL 5. Relevant environmental agency (BPLHD/Dinas Lingkungan) has ultimate authority to approve or reject AMDAL.
5. Coordination with other bodies responsible for planning approval
1. Links between AMDAL and development approvals/permitting are unclear 3. AMDAL documents are a precondition for the issuance of Izin princip, lokasi and/or building permit. 5. Clear procedures in place for ensuring that EIA is a precondition for project approval
6. Coordination with other pollution control and other environmental management measures
1. Links between pollution control and other environmental management procedures are unclear. 5. Pollution control requirements clearly reflected in RKL/RPLs
Derived from: Konrad von Ritter and Vladimir Tsirkunov. Russian Federation: How well is Environmental Assessment Working in Russia?. A Pilot Study to Assess the Capacity of Russia’s EA System. June 2002.
7. Sectoral expertise for conducting AMDAL
1. Sector specific expertise for conducting or reviewing AMDAL studies often unavailable or not deployed. 3. Members of AMDAL Commission vary according to project type/sector. 5. Review panel specifically selected according to project sector/EIA scope.
Screening & Scoping 8. Screening categories
1. Use of national screening categories and mandatory thresholds only (KepMen 17/2001) 5. Screening categories and guidance fully adaptable/sensitive to local environmental factors.
9. Screening method
1. Screening decision is a formality based on limited local information or consultation 3. BPLHD/Dinas Lingkungan consult with stakeholders on screening decision, including non-governmental bodies. 5. Comprehensive environmental screening process involving multiple factors, field visits, consultation and peer review.
10/11. Scoping procedures and method
1. In approving KA-ANDALs, Commission members look for administrative correctness only. Clear definition of EIA scope is rare. 3. Technical scope of the ANDAL study clearly distinguishes between ‘important’ and ‘less important’ issues. 5. Scoping and development of study ToRs based on preliminary analysis, public consultation and peer review. Form and content of EIA study clearly determined from scoping.
EIA Study Content 12. Content of the study report
1. Strict adherence to structure set out in national guidelines 3. Content of study report varied based on the results of scoping 5. Comprehensive structure provided based on international best practice, adapted as necessary to local conditions and highly sensitive to scoping
13. Quality of analysis
1. Baseline information lacks focus containing much irrelevant information and very limited analysis 3. Some quantitative analysis of impacts provided in the study linked to baseline conditions 5. Magnitude and significance of key impacts assessed using both quantitative and qualitative methods.
14. Consideration of alternatives
1. ANDAL study considers one alternative only
3. Project alternatives emerge and are considered as a result of AMDAL. 5. EIA must included assessment of alternatives including the ‘no project’ alternative. 15. Operational environmental management plan 1. RKL/RPLs formulaic, lacking in substance and of limited operational value to decision makers. 5. EMP includes specific mitigation and monitoring plans based on key impact areas identified in the EIA study. Review and Public Participation Processes 16. Method for review 1. Commission members look for administrative correctness rather of content and than discussing substantive environmental and social issues substance of reports submitted 3. Commission members engage in significant discussion on technical matters and may recommend changes to the siting and/or design of the project. 5. Based on ensuring consistency with the ToRs, includes peer review and may include field visits by environmental specialists. 17. Requirement for public participation 1. Project affected people are unaware of the AMDAL process as a possible channel for their concerns. 5. Public participation leads to revisions to the ANDAL/RKL/RPL, or complaints during project implementation ensure that RKL/RPL is applied 18. Arrangements for access to ANDAL reports 1. No specific arrangements made for access to information 3. Reports placed in a public place and publicized in a local newspaper 5. Provision of accessible information in local language is mandatory prior to finalization of ToRs and after completion of draft EIA/EMP. Monitoring and Enforcement 19. Requirements for 1. RKL/RPL not used or referred to after review and approval follow-up and completed. monitoring 3. RKL/RPL is an operational document, and may have been subject to ‘revisions’ during lifetime of project. 5. Formal procedures based on regular reporting applied. 20. Enforcement and compliance 1. Non-compliances with RKL/RPL ignored. 5. Monitoring reports result in developer being forced to take action to reduce environmental damage, or to a permit being revoked.
1-2 3 4-5 Common practice or less Good practice Towards or equivalent to best practice (derived from WB EIA practice, OP 4.01. 1999)
Annex D: Workshop on Identifying AMDAL Good Practice
World Bank Jakarta Office 30 May 2005 Agenda 08.30 – 09.00 Coffee & Registration
Promoting AMDAL good practice Summary presentation of group discussion (Facilitator) Plenary discussion (Moderator) Concluding remarks (Qipra)
List of participants DKI Jakarta: Drs. Ridwan Panjaitan, MSi., Head of Division Prevention of Environmental Impacts, BPLHD DKI Jakarta Ir. Diah Ratna Ambarwati, MSi., Head of Sub-division AMDAL, BPLHD DKI Jakarta Ir. Yunani, MSi., Head of Division Control of Environmental Impacts, BPLHD DKI Jakarta Adlina Nainggolan, SKM, Head of Sub-division Control of Environmental Document Management, BPLHD DKI Jakarta South Sulawesi: Ir. H. Tan Malaka Guntur, MSi., Head of BAPEDALDA of South Sulawesi Province Ir. Burhanuddin S. Laside, MS., Head of Division of Environmental Impacts, BAPEDALDA of South Sulawesi Province Ir. H. Mukhtar Patau, Head of Division of Environment, Kabupaten Jeneponto, South Sulawesi Ir. Gunawan Palaguna, MSi., Head of BAPEDALDA, Kabupaten Maros, South Sulawesi Kabupaten Bandung: Ibu Mulyaningrum, Head of Dinas Environment, Kabupaten Bandung Said Sadiman, Head of Division AMDAL Yogyakarta: Bp. Soedarmadji, Kepala BAPEDALDA Bp. Sarjuni, Kepala SubBidang AMDAL Propinsi Jawa Timur: Bp. Hartoyo, Kepala BAPEDALDA Ibu Dyah Susilowati, Kepala Sub-Bidang AMDAL, BAPEDALDA Kota Surabaya: Bp. Paryadi, Kepala Bidang Perijinan Dinas LH Kota Surabaya Bp Iman Santoso, Kepala Sie AMDAL, Dinas LH, Kota Surabaya KLH: Dana Kartakusuma, Head of AMDAL Division 50
Dadang Purnama, AMDAL Division Pak Askary, AMDAL Division Ibu Esther, AMDAL World Bank: Angus Mackay, Environmental Specialist Consultants: Isna Marifa, Qipra Kualitas Galang Rudy Yuwono, Qirpra Kualitas Galang Taufiq Afiff, Qipra Kualitas Galang Waty Suhardi Nila Oktaviani
Discussion Minutes Session 1: Moderator: Dadang Purnama (KLH) Dadang Purnama (KLH): Although the study results are still in draft form, however the findings already reflect the actual situation in the regions. The results of the study findings approximate the results that were expected by KLH. There are still some differences in views, for example regarding the criteria of laws and regulations and procedures (the issue of screening). However this is not a crucial issue. Syahrul Arifin (BAPEDALDA East Java Province): This study should have used a founded sampling method so that statistically its reliability level can be accounted for. A too low number of samples will create a bias. Why not evaluate all existing EIA documents? Sampling can be done based on activity sectors. For example, for the industrial sector the results would be more focused and representative. A good implementation of EIA is not only caused by the Commission alone, but also by all parties. This study does not sufficiently highlight the industrial and investor community. The assessment that has been made constitutes a step in the right direction, however it would be better if an assessment of poor EIA were also made. The experience of East Java Province: The Governor has requested that the EIA settlement would not exceed 30 days. At this opportunity we request permission from KLH to apply said trial test. Diah Sulistyawati (BAPEDALDA East Java Province): Why was the Toll-road case taken for East Java Province? This case was halted half-way. Actually there are a lot of better case examples. The performance of the EIA Commission and EIA regulations in East Java are quite sufficient already. However because the selected case examples were not quite right, said good examples were not identified maximally. RKL/RPL have not yet been implemented because the activities are not yet under way, so that for this category there is no good EIA application example yet. If the case example were taken from the industrial sector, then a good implementation of RKL/RPL would be recorded by this study. It is true that East Java Province will apply the EIA Study process in 30 days. If the licensing related to EIA cannot be accepted by other agencies because they consider it to create an obstacle, it is better to remove this aspect from PP. 27/1999. Soedarmadji (BAPEDALDA DI Yogyakarta Province): Yogya has limited natural resources. Even slight changes will result in turbulence in the community.
The selection of case studies faces various constraints because of the stipulated criteria such as: It must be after the era of regional autonomy The EIA study must already have been ratified Is this study statistically accountable? Bearing in mind the limited number and type of activities. As we all know EIA is just of a complementary nature. The EIA is usually compiled after other feasibility studies (technical and economic) have been performed. Therefore, the EIA is at the end of a certain activity’s feasibility process, so that it results in the activity plan “having to” or “forcedly” being approved. If the EIA would consistently be compiled from the beginning or jointly with the other feasibility studies, then the real EIA function would be realized. The role of the community and the NGOs is extremely pronounced, because Yogyakarta is characteristically a small province with limited energy resources. In the case study of PT. Sarihusada in Yogya City: Why are its RKL and RPL implementations good? This is more due to the “need” of the initiators to meet the interest/ duties of environmental management. My question to the World Bank and KLH is, what will be the follow up of this study and workshop? Burhanuddin Laside (BAPEDALDA South Sulawesi Province): Correction regarding the reason for the choice of the case by the Province of South Sulawesi. Actually the reason of choosing the harbour case should be ‘the technical feasibility being influenced/changed’ and not ‘good ANDAL study quality’. This is merely an editorial mistake (the above mentioned reason was switched with the reason for the PLTU case). In principle, our views and input have already been accommodated in the draft report of this study. On the slide presentation page 25, point 1: There is no clear connection between the EIA and planning. We propose that the word ‘No’ be replaced by ‘Not yet effective’. Experience in South Sulawesi, at the instruction of the Governor, BAPEDALDA is currently actively facilitating the compilation of EIA for government projects in order to set a model for other parties that are mandatory obliged to compile an EIA. In several cases the EIA document analysis quality is not good enough. There is now a tendency not to conduct quantitative evaluations/analyses compared to earlier times when the emphasis was on quantitative analyses. We agree with not so good findings in the aspect of implementing RKL/RPL . Each RKL/RPL document is frequently not equipped with a clear and detailed management design, so that new experts are required for this purpose. Generally the initiator is not prepared to add such expert staff because of the cost, so that the engineering design is carried out by already available experts. We in South Sulawesi make it a requirement to have an explanation of the environmental management up to the engineering design.
After the regional autonomy era there has been a kind of „tug-of-war“ in competencies between the Province and the Regency. Sometimes the Regency evaluates an EIA that based on a Ministerial Decree belongs to the competency of the Province. If this happens, with all its consequences the Province will write a letter to the Regency stating that said EIA evaluation is not valid. That is the only measure that the Province can take; there is no sanction whatsoever that can be applied and there is no follow up. It often happens that the activity has already started while the EIA process is still under way. This is because there are no clear regulations that connect EIA to licensing. BAPEDALDA as the institution that validates the EIA does not have the competency to issue activity licenses. Even though there is coordination among agencies, yet in its implementation the issuance of licenses (the competency of which mainly rests with the Regency) is still done without observing the EIA status. Angus Mackay (World Bank): There are two things expected to be achieved by this study, namely: Vertical dissemination: the findings of the study and input from the discussion participants will make a contribution to revitalize the EIA on a national scale. Horizontal dissemination: Environmental Institutions in the regions may benefit from the study results and further develop these in the region. The follow up of this activity in fact depends on what the Region desires and what it will do. The World Bank will consider the proposals submitted by the Region in the frame of enhancing good EIA application in the region, and the opportunity for cooperation is opened wide. Waty Suhadi and Nila Oktaviany (World Bank Consultants): This study is a case study, so that the applied methodology is not the same as sampling research methodology. The study results graphs (in the slide presentation) are based only on 10 cases that were evaluated. Considering that this study covered the EIA process evaluation (not only the AMDAL documents evaluation) and the restrictions (of time, funds etceteras), we have chosen the case study method. It is true that the study results cannot represent the actual situation in Indonesia, however as an initial approach until the time that a similar study will be conducted in the future with better methods, these results are able to provide a picture of the condition that generally prevails in the regions. The choice of the toll road in East Java Province was made because the activity was located in two regencies, so that it was possible to observe the cross Regency impact (in particular in the regional autonomy era) in the EIA process. On the slide page 25, these points are a conclusion of the EIA coverage evaluation performed earlier by the World Bank in 2004; it is not a conclusion of this study. What is true is, that the conclusion of said evaluation appears to be contradicted by this study. That means, we found good EIA application examples.
It is true that no examples of KLS application/regulations were found in this study. Syahrul Arifin and Diah Sulistyawati (BAPEDALDA East Java Province): In the use of an environmental feasibility alternative method amongst others you mention KLS, environmental risk study and cumulative impact study. Please eliminate the cumulative impact study because it is part of the EIA study and not a separate study. Dadang Purnama (KLH): To the extent that these study results will be utilized for a revitalization assessment, this will be done prudently and focused. Clarification: the dissemination of these study results will be done by KLH to avoid misunderstanding at the time of replication to other regions. WB occupies the ole of supporting partner, so the responsibility of the dissemination remains with KLH and KLH will carry it out. Regarding the 30 days EIA evaluation and validation term, this is not against the law because in the regulation a term of maximum 75 days is mentioned. A probable constraint might be how much time will be necessary to examine, distribute and discuss the EIA documents. We must bear in mind: an acceleration of the time should not sacrifice the quality of the EIA document. There will be a special discussion on the pilot project in East Java. Said Sadiman (Bandung Regency Environmental Service): The ANDAL assessment is already quite good, yet the RKL/RPL are not operational. Why? The RKL/RPL need not cover detailed designs, dimensions, etceteras. How could the RKL/RPL document be detailed if the engineering detail design is not yet made at the time that the EIA document is compiled? Proposal: The EIA should be made more mandatory for a location license, and not for a fixed business license. For example, for housing no business license is required. Muhamad Askary (KLH): The number of EIA documents in Indonesia runs into tens of thousands so that there must be a justification why the selected case studies (10 cases) are considered representative to explain good EIA application. Is it true that a good EIA application amongst others includes not observing the regulations: An example is found in the category of screening. I am afraid that there will occur EIA malpractice, namely applying good EIA by violating regulations. This will create bad precedents and is in conflict with the law enforcing aspect of EIA itself. The aspect of zone planning is very important. We suggest that the experience of EIA application in other regions under more specific conditions may also be presented. Aside from the good things, the bad aspects of EIA also need to be assessed.
Is the EIA a feasibility study or a technical guidance? There are still numerous different perceptions on this subject. It should be observed that this good EIA application is not something that is situated in ‚heaven’. Ridwan Pandjaitan (BPLHD DKI Jakarta): It is difficult to connect EIA with the licensing process. As a ‘newcomer’, EIA is considered a deterrent in the licensing system. In DKI Jakarta, the EIA mechanism that is connected to the Building Permit is already fully implemented. However the connection of EIA with Fixed Business Licenses (IUT) is still being fought for. It is hoped that the EIA (RKL/RPL implementation) will also be integrated in the IUT. It takes too long to compile an EIA study; there must be a definite time limit. There must be moral accountability in compiling a good EIA. Since the beginning the RKL RPL were indeed not operational. The initiators met with difficulties in interpreting and applying the RKL/RPL. To this end DKI Jakarta has undertaken improvement measures amongst others by providing training in compiling the RKL/RPL planning matrix and implementation report for RKL/RPL implementers. DKI Jakarta has not been too rigid in adhering to the regulations in KepKA 08/2000, because it appeared that announcements via the electronic and printed media often were not effective in snaring input from the community. Announcements are only made through the printed media and on boards at the project site. Whereas socialization (public consultation) is always done by involving the Village/City Councils. The experience of DKI Jakarta: BPLHD gives a response at the latest 10 days after receiving the draft EIA document. Bapak Sarjuni (BAPEDALDA DI Yogyakarta Province): A licensing apparatus connected to EIA at regency and municipality level is not yet available. Case example in Yogya: an activity of which the EIA is not yet completed appears to already have a Building Permit. This case was brought before the State Administration Court, and the government lost in the court proceedings. This shows that at municipality and regency level a regulation system that is in accordance with the correct EIA procedure is not yet adequate. Rudy Tambunan (DKI Jakarta): In DKI Jakarta, all developers must compile an EIA. The BPLHD has raised the discourse that there is a section in the City Structure Service that must carry out coordination with BPLHD. In the fifth year after the EIA mechanism was carried out in DKI Jakarta, the City Structure Service has become the target for creating order. In the example of the Kelapa Gading Boulevard case, the construction of buildings in the field appeared not to be in accordance with the design that was submitted during the EIA evaluation process. As a consequence there were
floods in said area. Here we can see the importance of monitoring after the EIA is approved. To date there already have been 3000 AMDAL studies evaluated, 400 have carried out RKL/RPL. With this number, the BPLHD experiences difficulties to monitor. To reduce the RKL/RPL monitoring load, BPLHD has delegated to monitoring task to the Municipalities. DKI Jakarta also applies the environmental estate management concept to diminish the monitoring load. For a certain estate monitoring will become the responsibility of the estate operator. Session 3: Moderator: Rudy Tambunan (DKI Jakarta) Angus Mackay (World Bank): It is interesting to discover the connection between EIA and market-based Proper. On what is it founded? Of all the good EIA application findings, what are the joint causing factors? If we see that the considerably high community participation in this study appears not to be supported or not being equivalent to a high access to information too, what is the cause of this? A proper technical discussion appears not to be balanced by good implementation too. Why is this so? Sarjuni (BAPEDALDA DI Yogyakarta Province): The Proper System could become a stimulant so that the initiator will carry out the EIA (RKL/RPL). Administrative sanctions are applied in Yogya. In several cases activities are categorized as being EIA mandatory but they do not possess an EIA document. We propose that the environmental management document compilation is arranged at regional level. There are strategies to invigorate EIA implementation. Diah Sulistyawati (BAPEDALDA East Java Province): Aside from cultural values, also introduce social and economy aspects. In addition, there are activities that were initially UKL/UPL and became EIA because of the Regional Head policy. The connection between the Proper system and EIA encourages the implementation of EIA in particular the implementation of RKL/RPL. Soedarmadji (BAPEDALDA DI Yogyakarta Province): In view of the spate of violations of regulations, the question is whether the EIA is still necessary. The EIA is still necessary. However we need to simplify the EIA (procedure and bureaucracy). One of the strategies for the initiator to adhere is to turn the EIA into a necessity, and not solely an obligation. Prepare clear legal sanctions. In case there is indeed no EIA, do we need a substitute model? However, it is better to improve what we have rather than make something new.
Taufiq Afiff (WB Consultant): Responding to Angus’ question: why is access to information low yet community participation high. In the commission meetings it frequently happens that the EIA report is not read by the Commission members. When pressed, they argue that the document was received only the day before. The community is probably not interested either in the EIA document, even though it is available through various systems, for example the Internet. The reading interest of the Indonesian community is still low. It would be better to make an EIA document version that is concise and easy to understand. In the Commission meetings, the enthusiasm of those present is quite high. At first the session progressed politely, however in the long run they may turn against one another, as if they are putting a “suspect” on trial. An active Commission meeting does not necessarily produce a positive proposal. The examination of the EIA report is not correlated to the RKL/RPL. The compilation of the RKL/RPL is still based on an activity plan that is not yet clear. There is no mechanism that arranges this matter. Dadang Purnama (KLH): EIA vs. Proper: the EIA oversight system is still inadequate. How often in one year does the RKL/RPL monitoring take place (at LH: 10 times per year)? Proper has a voluntary character. Oversight does not mean immediately applying sanctions, but holding mutual consultations to solve the problem. It begins voluntarily, however in its progress it becomes an “obligation”. Community participation: it would be better that the KA is already prepared in advance. So the public will have material to review/study prior to conducting socialization/consultations. The EIA report is too voluminous: there should be a summary report that is easy to understand. Legal sanctions are important and constitute a necessity both for the licence issuing agency as well as for the initiator who tries to violate rules. RKL/RPL that are no longer up to date can be amended. KLH has already issued KepMen 45/2005 on oversight of RKL/RPL implementation. Because the RKL is of a dynamic nature, it can be adjusted with the approval of KLH. However, this must be done prudently, because it could happen that the proposed amendment is just a manipulation of the initiator. It must show that the operation alternative is logical and for that purpose the RKL needs to be amended. Muhamad Askary (KLH): RKL/RPL may be amended. The mechanism will be arranged. There are 3 aspects that underlie such amendment: 1) the trend of environment quality change, 2) compliance with the standards that are in force, and 3) whether the critical point is surpassed (exceeding the standard quality).
EIA will be positioned as a section of the feasibility study; it must comply with the standard quality regulations. How said standard should be achieved is not the issue. Said Saidiman (Bandung Regency Environmental Service): KepMen 45/2005: for activities that have been completed (for example, a residential estate that has been constructed by a developer), who will be responsible for further RKL implementation? Isna Marifa (Qipra Galang Kualita): The EIA actors are enthusiastic in discussing the EIA. In West Java there is no end to the EIA discussion. The EIA issue is multi-layered, and has several dimensions. To improve it there are many options but none is optimal. A Good EIA Application Study: it appears there are examples of good EIA. There are already enough challenges. There is nothing wrong when we start with the good things. However in the Discussion, there are always problems like the two sides of a coin. Thus the discussion of the bad side of EIA cannot be avoided as well. What we have discussed today can become input for KLH. For the regions they are expected to be more alert, for example in the matter of screening, the relation to licensing, etceteras. There is homework not only for KLH but also for the Environmental institutions in the regions. Dadang Purnama (KLH): EIA revitalisation will be formulated maximally and consistently. Let us begin. There will be no end in looking for weak spots.
Annex E: References
Dollaris Suhady and Nila Oktaviany (2005). Case study report. Good Practices of Environmental Impact Analysis (AMDAL) in Indonesia. Prepared for the World Bank Indonesia, in support of the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Indonesia. Inter-American Development Bank (2001). Review of Environmental Impact Assessment in Selected Countries of Latin America and the Caribbean: Methodology, Results and Trends. IDB Center for Development Studies. METAP (2000). Evaluation and future development of the EIA system in Egypt. Report prepared under the METAP EIA Institutional strengthening project. METAP (2001). Evaluation and future development of the EIA system in Turkey. Report prepared under the METAP EIA Institutional strengthening project. METAP (2003). Working together to manage the environment: strengthening EIA systems in the Mediterranean Region, compiled by the Centre des Technologies de l’Environnement de Tunis (CITET). Ministry of Environment (2005). Preliminary Report Environmental Impact Analysis Revitalisation Program. Results of the Analysis and Improvement Concept on the EIA System in Indonesia. Purnama, Dadang (2003). Reform of the EIA process in Indonesia: improving the role of public involvement. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23 (2003) 415-439. Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (2002). Report to the World Bank for the period May 2001 – April 2002. World Bank (2002). Environmental Impact Assessment Systems in Europe and Central Asia Countries. Europe and Central Asia Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Department. World Bank (2002). Environmental Impact Assessment Systems in Europe and Central Asia Countries. Poland Country Report. World Bank (2003). A Review of Environmental Assessment Systems. Russian and International Experience. Europe and Central Asia Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Department.
World Bank and Hydro Quebec International (2004). Capacity Enhancement for Impact Assessment – A summary of Seven Regional Studies. A contribution to the IAIA Marrakech Declaration and Action Plan for Capacity Development Workshop. World Bank (2004). Opportunities for Innovation in Indonesia – A Preliminary Assessment of the State of AMDAL.