The Tangguh gas extraction and liquid naturalgas (LNG) installation in the Bird's Headregion of West Papua got the final go-aheadfrom BP on March 7th. As a result, the areawill experience massive social, environmentaland economic changes. Despite companycommitments to transparency, communitydevelopment and human rights, the concernsover the impact of these changes aremounting.

Community statementConcerns over adat (customary) land rightshave been voiced by the indigenous Papuancommunities who hold rights to the landbeing used for the Tangguh development. AnAugust 2004 statement by the Soway,Wayuriand Simuna indigenous communities calledfor a halt to project activities until problemshave been addressed.The statement remindsIndonesia's oil and gas regulatory body(BPMigas) that 50 hectares of land taken forthe Tangguh project remains the property ofthe Soway clan.The statement signatories saythere is nothing on paper to say that therewas a "voluntary" handover of land belongingto all three communities in 1999. They alsostate that the land acquisition process wasnot legally valid "because it did not reflectwhatsoever the value we place on land as asource of livelihoods which has been handeddown to us through the generations".

The statement continues:"...So far, the presence of the Tangguhproject has only caused conflict betweencommunities, and the social disadvantageshave outweighed any advantages. We ask

that all activities on our customary lands bestopped as from the date of this statementuntil the problems have been fullyaddressed..." (see translation of fullstatement, page 6).

Civil society letterOn December 8th 2004, three hundredNGOs and individuals - including manyPapuans - felt sufficiently worried about theimpacts of the project that they wrote to BP’schief executive, Lord Browne, urging him notto give final approval for construction untilconcerns over human rights, transparencyand Tangguh's wider political context hadbeen addressed. The letter, which was alsosigned by Down to Earth, shows that fearsover the project becoming a focus of humanrights violations against local people, have notbeen allayed.

Wider contextLeading Papuan human rights advocate, JohnRumbiak, has repeated calls for Tangguh to beconsidered in the wider political context. "BP

knows recent political developments havemade West Papua a time bomb. But GeorgeMitchell of TIAP [Tangguh IndependentAdvisory Panel - see page 3] and BP itself areignoring the reality of the wider politicalcontext and not using their influencepositively with the Jakarta government toimprove the situation." (Tapol Press release 8December 2004)

The wider context for Tangguhincludes a serious human rights crisis in thecentral highlands, political confusion overWest Papua's status as one, two, three oreven five provinces (see p5); violentsuppression of any peaceful opposition toIndonesian rule and a growth in anti-independence militias supported by themilitary. International funding forhumanitarian programmes and Special

Tangguh - ignoring the realityIn February 2004, DTE took a detailed look at BP's controversial gas project in Bintuni Bay,WestPapua. One year on, we ask how far concerns over human rights, security and local people's rights

have been addressed.

No. 65 May 2005

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

“BP claims to have human rightspolicies but they are constantlyviolating the rights of the local

indigenous people."

(Bustar Maitar, Perdu, regional representativefor JATAM, Indonesia’s mining advocacy

network, in Tapol press release,8 December 2004).

Inside...Focus on West PapuaTangguh:

Security and human rightsTIAP criticisedIndigenous communities speak outCivil society letterTangguh Update

Forests:Targeting illegal logging

Indigenous resources:AMAN in West PapuaMilitary base for Wasur Park

Regular issuesMining: Legal challenge to mining in

protected forestsRio Tinto closes Kelian

This issue of DTE has a special focus on West Papua.Send your feedback todte@gn.apc.org

Protesting against the splitting up of West Papua,Jakarta, 2004 - see page 5 (DTE)

23678

12

1517

18

20

2

DOWN TO EARTH No. 65, May 2005

Autonomy are reported to have been usedfor military operations, while there are plansto bring thousands more troops to the areaover the next few years (see also p5).International attention has been drawn to anexposé of widespread official involvement inthe rampant illegal logging and log smugglingtrade in Papua (see p12).

The military special forces’(Kopassus) campaign of killing, wounding anddestroying homes and crops in the highlandPuncak Jaya area, which began last year, led toover 6,000 villagers taking refuge in theforests. Reports of many deaths fromstarvation and sickness have been filtering outof the region, where church humanitarianworkers and journalists have been deniedaccess. In March, UK-based human rightsorganisation Tapol received a handwritten listof fifty three people, aged from 15 to 89years, who had died in the forest (see TapolBulletin 178:18 for a fuller account of thesituation).

A December appeal by a Coalitionof West Papuan church, human rights andstudents organisations and tribal councilsreported how attacks on police officers hadbeen orchestrated by Kopassus operativeswho had infiltrated the OPM, Papua’s pro-independence organisation.

"Increasing militarization, coupledwith human rights abuses and unmetdemands for independence, have turnedIndonesia's easternmost province into a timebomb waiting to go off", warned the coalition.

The groups asked for internationalsupport to urge President Susilo BambangYudhoyono to halt the operation, allowproper investigation into the recent spate ofkillings, allow emergency relief to be providedto the refugees and their return to theirvillages without fear of reprisal. The appealalso called for Indonesia's human rightscommission to be permitted to investigatethe military's excesses and for concrete

policies, including a withdrawal of the massivetroop presence in Papua and dismantling themilitias (Appeal, 21/Dec/04, via email).

Security and human rights at TangguhOne of the major concerns with the Tangguhproject is whether its community-basedsecurity strategy, which uses locally recruitedsecurity guards, can effect a clean break withthe way things usually work in Indonesia andWest Papua. NGOs and others haverepeatedly focused on the project'srelationship with the security forces and inparticular the military (TNI). In otherresource extraction projects, such as thenotorious Freeport/Rio Tinto copper andgold mine, also in West Papua, andExxonMobil's gas installations in Aceh, theoperating company typically makes paymentsand/or provides equipment, buildings,transport etc to security guards drawn fromthe military or police. Previously, the militaryinsisted that it had a legal obligation to guardprojects classed as "vital national assets" but,under recent reforms, this is no longer thecase.

Such security arrangements haveprovided lucrative business opportunities fora military that relies on extra-budgetaryfinancial revenues to cover an estimated 70%of its needs. The TNI is widely known toprovoke unrest and violence in order tojustify its presence in conflict zones such asAceh and West Papua and create the need fortight security at foreign-owned projects.Evidence of this in the case of Freeport hasemerged from investigations by the humanrights group ELSHAM. These indicate thatmilitary involvement in the killing of threeFreeport employees in 2002, may well belinked to the fact that the company hadstopped making monthly payments(amounting to US$5.6 million that year) into

the personal account of the regional militarycommander, Maj. Gen. Mahidin Simbolon,before the attack.(http://www.greenleft.org.au/).

The conflicts also guarantee astrong military presence in resource-richareas like West Papua and Aceh, wheremilitary-owned business empires can benurtured - to the disadvantage of the localeconomy. (See for example TNI involvementin logging in West Papua, p12 and DTE 55:1).

The entrenched position of themilitary leaves very little room for newapproaches like BP's community-basedsecurity strategy, which largely excludes themilitary from security arrangements andallows for TNI assistance only as a "lastresort" at the coordinated request of BPsecurity and the Papua police (see TIAPreport 2005, p24). This point was put to BPearlier this year by Uwe Hummel, of theGerman West Papua Network, who said thatthe TNI had "no other way to go" than tocreate such an insecure situation that BP isobliged to call for its assistance at Tangguh.

The BP-appointed TangguhIndependent Advisory Panel (TIAP - see boxnext page) presents an optimistic view of thesecurity situation. It notes that the militaryreform law passed at the end of formerpresident Megawati's administration requiresthat the TNI divest itself of all its businessactivities within 5 years and excludes theguarding of vital national assets from TNI corefunctions. While casting doubt on whetherthis will happen in the allotted time, TIAPwelcomes this as a positive development*.

TIAP panel chairman, US SenatorGeorge Mitchell, stated that BP’s securitystrategy was now "official" and that it hadbeen accepted both by the TNI and thepolice. However, the military have proven tobe far more circumspect than the police insigning up to any formal agreement.

Police Agreement alreadybroken?In April last year, the police agreed to a Letterof Joint Decree concerning Field Guidelinesfor the Implementation of the Joint SecurityMeasures within the Work Area of theTangguh LNG Project. The Field Guidelineswere eventually made public, following civilsociety pressure. They commit both BP

* A BBC News Report (12/Apr/05) refers to anannouncement which appears to bring forwardthe 5-year deadline. Military chief GenEndriartono Sutarto said the military would beclosing down all its business ventures within 2years i.e. 2007.

However, earlier,TIAP panelist Rev. HSaud said the TNI would still be allowed toretain their interest in “small” companies.

(continued next page)

West Papua’s Bird’s Head region

security and the Papua police to upholdinghuman rights principles and to solvingproblems without resorting to violence orintimidation.The Field Guidelines incorporatethe standards of the Voluntary Principles onSecurity and Human Rights and the 1990 UNBasic Principles on the Use of Force andFirearms by Law Enforcement Officials*.

The Field Guidelines are supposedto exclude the police from guarding theproject, unless they are called in at therequest of BP security, when a “dangeroussituation” arises. However, a 2005 report bythe regional representative of Indonesia’smining advocacy network, JATAM, says thatthere are already two policemen at theTangguh base camp - a fact which apparentlyalready contravenes the agreement. Thisreport also highlights plans to place policeand Babinsa (non-commissioned villagemilitary officer) in Saengga village itself. Apolice post has already been completed, but isnot yet operational. The plan is being initiatedby BP, on the grounds that there is an increasein drunkenness in the village which isdisrupting BP’s activities.The plan is opposedby almost all villagers, who believe they canresolve village problems by themselves anddon’t need to invite outsiders to get involvedin village affairs (police from the nearby townof Babo have already been called in severaltimes). Alcohol was available in the villagebefore the project started. However, its usehas increased since, as more money has comeinto circulation. It is brought in from an oilpalm transmigration site and on shipsdelivering goods to the Tangguh base camp.According to the report, the higher levels ofdrinking are triggered by dissatisfaction withthe company’s unfulfilled promises.

East Timor connectionPapua's police chief is now Brig. Gen. DodiSumantyawan, who replaced Col. TimbulSilaen in October 2004. NGOs have criticisedBP's negotiations with Silaen, who was incharge of police operations in East Timor inthe run-up to the August 1999 referendum,when military-backed militias were permittedto terrorise the East Timorese. Campaignersbelieve that by signing the security agreementwith Silaen, BP has already broken the

DOWN TO EARTH No. 65, May 2005

3

The BP-appointed Tangguh watchdog,TIAP(the Tangguh Independent Advisory Panel)has been criticised for paying scantattention to ongoing human rights violationsby the Indonesian security forces.

At a March 2005 London meetingwith investment fund managers, NGOs andother concerned individuals, the team wasalso criticised for ignoring West Papua'sbiggest unresolved political problem: the factthat Papuans were denied the right to self-determination under the fraudulent 'Act ofFree Choice' in 1969.

The TIAP team - US SenatorGeorge Mitchell, Rev. Herman Saud fromWest Papua, Sabam Siagan, a formerIndonesian Ambassador and Lord Hannay,from Britain - presented the findings fromtheir third visit to Tangguh, in December2004. BP has given the team the task ofinvestigating and reporting on the non-commercial aspects of Tangguh.

The TIAP report points to what itconsiders to be positive developments inmilitary reform, while mentioningoperations in the Central Highlands thathave led to "allegations of excessiveviolence against civilians". It refers to thestatement by president Susilo BambangYudhoyono, reported in the press,instructing the TNI that "the operationshould be conducted wisely and carefully,and that the people should not suffer fromexcesses" (TIAP p11).

At the London meeting, RichardSamuelson, of the Free West PapuaCampaign, criticised the failure of BP andTIAP to acknowledge the scale of atrocitiessuffered by Papuans in the CentralHighlands. He unfurled a Papuan morningstar flag to demonstrate political oppressionin the territory. In December last year, twoPapuans - now Amnesty Internationalprisoners of conscience - were arrested forraising the flag in the Papuan capital,Jayapura. Filep Karma and Yusak Pakagewere also beaten up and are now on trialfor treason. Samuelson said that BP andTIAP were not being open and honestabout the true context of the Tangguhproject.

Former vice-president of BPIndonesia, John O’Reilly agreed with theFree West Papua campaigner, adding that BPwould be guilty of 'the complicity of silence'if it stood by and did nothing about thewider human rights abuses.

O'Reilly, who left the company in2003, was a signatory to the letter callingfor a halt to the Tangguh project untilconcerns over security and human rightshad been dealt with (see page 7).The letterwas copied to TIAP prior to its visit, but thepanel's report makes no reference to the

concerns raised.The letter contradictsTIAP's overall view that, despite"uncertainties, questions and tensions"among some of the affected people, "thereis a substantial consensus that Tangguh willbenefit the local communities and is goodfor Papua generally" (TIAP p2).

BP staff at the meeting appearedto be shaken that one of their formercolleagues was speaking out so stronglyagainst them. On top of that,TIAP memberReverend Saud - the team's only Papuan -responded by stating that the US, UK andDutch governments do not respect thePapuans, but were only interested in Papua'sgold, timber and oil. However, he added thathe hoped for positive changes under thenew president.

The TIAP report itself, whileindeed failing to consider the wider politicalcontext in Papua, is critical of some aspectsof the Tangguh project itself.The teamdisplays some impatience with BP for failingto address problems pointed out in the firstand/or second reports.These include: theneed to address rising tension in villages onthe north shore of Bintuni Bay, who areseeing most of the benefits being given tothe south shore communities; the lack ofcommunication about the project to peoplein the region; and the delay in revenuesflowing into the region, until some yearsafter project start-up and the possiblenegative impact of a sudden influx of cashthereafter. TIAP states again that finding away to smooth the revenue flow is apriority. See Tangguh Update, page 8, formore on these points.

The 2005 report by JATAM’sregional representative finds that TIAP failsto address the fundamental problemsaffecting the communities in the projectarea.These include land, the deaths ofinfants in a north shore village in 1996 (seeDTE 50:2001) and environmental threats. Itis also critical of TIAP’s own lack ofcommunication: its reports are never givento local communities.TIAP is considered thesame as other BP teams who come and askquestions then go away again and thecommunity doesn’t know what happens as aresult.

(Source: notes by Hugh Dowson,Independent Researcher, and RichardSamuelson, Free West Papua Campaign.TheTIAP reports, and BP's responses to them,are on the BP website at:http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2011067&contentId=2019320;JATAM report: Brief Report Proyek Tangguh danIsu Hak Asasi Manusia Teluk Bintuni,WestPapua, Bustar Maitar, 2005).

TIAP accused of playing down rights abuses,former BP vice-president joins the critics

* These instruments can be viewed athttp://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/2931.htm and(http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp43.htm.For the Field Guidelines agreement itself, seehttp://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/T/Tangguh_Field_Guidelines_BP_Papaun_Police.pdf for English version andhttp://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/T/Tangguh_Field_Guidelines_BP_Papaun_Police_Bahasa.pdf for Bahasa Indonesia version.

(continued next page)

4

DOWN TO EARTH No. 65, May 2005

Voluntary Principles, even before the projecthas got off the ground. This is because theVoluntary Principles state that "individualscredibly implicated in human rights abusesshould not provide security services for theCorporation." And there is no question thatTimbul Silaen is such a person: he has beenindicted on crimes against humanity chargesby a UN-backed tribunal in East Timor.

His replacement served as Aceh'spolice chief in 2000 in a period of escalatingviolence, despite the so-called 'humanitarianpause' agreed between the Indonesiangovernment and the Free Aceh Movement

A 2004 human rights and securityreview co-authored by Gare Smith (the USexpert who carried out an initial humanrights impact assessment of Tangguh in 2002)points to the fact that the Field Guidelines arethe first case of the Indonesian governmentcommitting itself to abiding by the VoluntaryPrinciples. It notes, however, that BP faces anumber of "significant legal and reputationalrisks related to security and human rightsissues".These include the fact that the police'sagreement to implement the VoluntaryPrinciples will be of limited value unless policepersonnel receive effective education andcapacity-building to implement the principles.The report recommends that BP shouldwork with the police and other potentiallyinterested parties, such as the InternationalCommittee of the Red Cross (ICRC) andIndonesia's national human rightscommission, Komnas-HAM, to ensure thatsuch training is carried out. (Summary Analysisof Human Rights and Security Review, by TonyLing, Security Consultant to BP/BTC, GareSmith, Foley Hoag; see also DTE 57:5 on the

2002 Human Rights Impact Assessment).TIAP points out that the

establishment of West Irian Jaya province (seep5) has implications for Tangguh security,because there is likely to be a new regionalpolice command in Manokwari which willtake over from the Papua regional commandin matters related to the BP project.The teamsays that BP must take the necessary steps toguarantee that any new police commandadopts the Field Guidelines agreed with thePapua police. BP's response states thatdiscussions of a new police command remainspeculative and that, as informed by thepolice, the agreement is binding on the newcommand.

Who will pay?The Guidelines provide for all costs, paymentsand provision of supplies to be open andtransparent with either side permitted todisclose the information publicly. Accordingto the TIAP report, if BP requests securityassistance from the Papua police, costs maybe recovered from Indonesia’s state oil andgas regulatory body, BPMigas. "In nocircumstances will BP provide or pay for anyweapon, weaponry, ammunition or anyfunding that supports the procurement ofthese items". In other words, the police willstill benefit from being called in to deal with asecurity disturbance; they just won’t be paiddirectly by BP.

TNI support?As for the military's commitment to thecommunity-based security policy, TIAPreported a discussion with Papua's regional

commander [Major General Nurdin Zainal]as follows:

"While pointing out that Tangguh is a vitalnational Project [there was some doubtover the project's status previously], hedescribed principles of integratedcommunity based security as the newmechanism for security at projects like

This new publication from CIIR (CatholicInstitute for International Relations) byPapuan writer, Neles Tebay, gives anoverview of West Papua’s history, includingthe fraudulent ‘Act of Free Choice’ of1969. It analyses Indonesian andinternational policies towards West Papuaand outlines the main threats faced byPapuans today. It also gives an overview ofpeace-building initiatives and ends with areminder to the international communityof their responsibilities towards Papuans.

“It is morally unacceptable if theNetherlands, the US and other powerfulstates continue to sacrifice the very survival ofthe Papuans for the sake of their own politicaland economic interests.”

Available from CIIR, £GBP2.00 contactciir@ciir.org

CIIR is part of the Papua, Land of Peaceinitiative of the Faith-based Network onWest Papua.

Environmental impact inthe global context:

Against a background of global warming,rising sea-levels and unpredictable weatherpatterns, BP's continued exploitation offossil fuels - including Tangguh's gas - isanything but environmentally and sociallyresponsible corporate behaviour.

The company admitted anincrease in its own production ofgreenhouse gases in 2004 to more than 85million tonnes, up from 83.4m tonnes in2003.This output is roughly twice that ofArgentina. Use of BP's petroleum productsby customers generated an additional1.376 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases -around 5% of global greenhouse emissions."BP also says it has increased its oil andgas extraction for the 12th consecutiveyear, how on earth is that compatible withits commitment to climate change?" saidFriends of the Earth campaigner, HannahGriffiths.

Health and safety, recordprofits

BP's international health and safety recordleaves a lot to be desired too: the 11deaths of employees and contractors inaccidents included in a BP report for 2004were more than doubled by the 15workers killed in an explosion at thecompany's Texas City refinery in the US.Acompany report also showed a 50% rise inthe amount of oil that BP spilled to 5.7mlitres (Guardian 12/Apr/05).

Protesters occupied treesoutside BP's London headquarters in April,in protest at the company's environmentaland social record.The same day, thecompany announced its highest everprofits - $5.5 billion for the first 3 monthsof 2005.The protest, by members ofLondon Rising Tide, was against BP'simpact on climate change, the company'sreported connections with death squads inColombia, its efforts to gain access to Iraqioil reserves, and the 'environmentaltimebomb' of its Baku-Tbilisi-CeyhanCaspian Sea pipeline (LRT press release,received April 26, 2005).

(continued next page)

DOWN TO EARTH No. 65, May 2005

5

Tangguh. He made it clear that there wouldbe no TNI forces stationed at or in proximityto Tangguh and that TNI involvement wouldoccur only as a last resort if BP internalsecurity and the Papua police requestedassistance. In his view, there are no securityproblems in the Bintuni Bay area at this timebut he expressed concern about possiblefuture provocations to indigenous people

from in-migration during the period ofconstruction or production.” (TIAP, p25).

Undermining this assurance fromthe TNI regional commander is the fact thatthe military have been active in the area - forexample in April last year, when TNI personnelkilled four Papuans in Meryadi village, just20km from Tangguh (see NGO letter, page 7).Moreover, a new district military command islikely to be set up soon in the town of Bintuni,following the establishment of the Bintuni Bayarea as a new district (kabupaten) in 2003.There are currently ten district militarycommands (Kodim) in West Papua, the nearestto Tangguh being in the towns of Manokwari,FakFak, Nabire and Sorong.

Troop numbers in West Papuaoverall are due to increase substantially overthe next few years. Plans announced in Marchinclude establishing a third division of thearmy's Strategic Reserve Command(KOSTRAD) in Sorong (see map). The newKOSTRAD division will mean an increase of12,000-15,000 troops in the 2005-2009period.According to one estimate, this meansan almost 50% increase in current troopnumbers in Papua to 50,000 men. TheIndonesian NGO, Solidarity for Papua, haspublicly protested against the plannedincrease in troop numbers, saying that this willwork against civil society’s ‘Zone of Peace’initiative for Papua (SNUP Press Statement,29/Mar/05,WestPapuanews.com 22/Mar/05).

The commander's concern aboutin-migration could also be read as a threat,given that the military are known to besupporting provocation in the form of militiagroups, which recruit non-Papuan Muslimsand inflame religious and ethnic tensions. Justsix years ago, in East Timor, similar, military-funded militias were involved in thebutchering of hundreds of East Timoresecivilians following the referendum which ledto the territory's independence fromIndonesia.

* * * * * * *

Given the past record of the Indonesianmilitary and police in Papua, it is not surprisingthat many Papuans and NGOs remain deeplysceptical about a community-based securitystrategy at Tangguh. How can the military betrusted to act with restraint in one part of

Papua, when the same commander is presidingover the slaughter of civilians in another? TIAP(and BP) may well find that it is testing thisstrategy at the expense of people's lives.

Special autonomy and 'West Irian Jaya'The uncertainty over the official status ofPapua as one, two or three provinces, hasbeen further muddied by the Indonesia'sConstitutional Court. In October last year thecourt ruled that former president Megawati'sPresidential Instruction, dividing Papua intothree provinces was unconstitutional becauseit violated the decision-making mechanismincluded in Papua's Special Autonomy law.However, the court decided that, since theprovince of West Irian Jaya had already set upits administration and elected representativesto the national parliament, it should remain inexistence. In 2003 the inauguration of a'Central Irian Jaya' province had to beabandoned due to violent clashes which leftseveral people dead.

The new situation, which is stillcontested by many Papuans, has severalimplications for Tangguh, since the project liesin the newly-created West Irian Jaya province.In 2003, before Susilo Bambang Yudhoyonogained the presidency, he assured the TIAPpanel that Special Autonomy would be fullyimplemented in Papua. It remains to be seenwhether he will keep his word. If Special

How much information?What has and hasn't BP

disclosed?

BP prides itself on its transparency, butexactly how much information does thecompany really share with the public - inWest Papua, Indonesia and internationally?

TIAP reports: BP posts these on itswebsites, in Indonesian and Englishversions - seehttp://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2011067&contentId=2019320.However, key documents appended to the2002 TIAP report are not available on thesite.These include charts predictingrevenue flows, showing that the lion'sshare of income from Tangguh will flow toIndonesia, not Papua.

Contracts: BP has not made public itsproduction-sharing contracts for the threegas blocks, despite repeated requests fromstakeholders.The company says it has notyet done so due to "business confidentialprovisions" and needs to explore with theIndonesian government what can bepublished. Contracts for BP projects inother countries have been made available.

Human Rights Impact Assessment(HRIA), 2002 and subsequent humanrights and security reviews: onlysummaries of these have been madeavailable, despite requests from NGOs forfull publication.

BP's responses to TIAP and HRIA:these are published in full, but, since thesesometimes allude to points in theunpublished original reports, questionsremain as to their value.

AMDAL (Environmental ImpactAssessments): these have been madeavailable upon request to BP, but are notcurrently downloadable from the BPwebsite.

Agreement with police: this was madeavailable after NGOs pressed for itspublication. Links to versions in English andIndonesia are posted on the Tangguh pageof BP’s website, www.bp.com

BP ranks low intransparency report

A 2005 report on revenue transparencyplaces BP's Indonesia operations in a poorposition.The report, by Save the ChildrenUK, provides information on theperformance of a range of companies inseveral countries, including Indonesia. BP,which has gas operations in Java as well asWest Papua, ranks 11th out of 15companies researched, falling below fellowoil companies Unocal, ExxonMobil andPremier.

The best performance inIndonesia is by Canadian company Talismanwhich, according to the report, "is clearevidence that disclosure of revenuepayments is possible in Indonesia." Thisundermines BP's arguments that thepublication of revenue sharing in itscontracts is limited by businessconfidentiality provisions.

(Beyond the Rhetoric, Measuring revenuetransparency: company performance in the oiland gas industries, Save the Children, 2005,is downloadable fromhttp://www.publishwhatyoupay.org/)

on BP’s contract with the Indonesiangovernment....

“BP derives its authority to act froman occupying power in the midst of

an attempted genocide. How crediblethen, are its claims that its hands are

clean?”

(George Monbiot, In bed with the killers,Guardian 3/May/05)

Statement by the people of Soway,Wayuri & Simuna as the landowners ofthe site where the Tangguh natural gasproject is being developed.

To the Indonesian Oil & Gas ManagementBody - BPMigas

We have reviewed the process anddocuments relating to the loss of traditionalrights of the Simuna, Soway,Wayuri people inconnection with the Tangguh natural gasproject under development by Pertaminaand BP, facilitated by the Manokwari localgovernment in 1999.We, the Soway,Wasuriand Simuna, have carried out consultationswithin each clan and between the threeclans and with our ancestors.As a result, wehave reached agreement and issue thefollowing statement.

We hope that all relevant parties will givethis letter serious consideration and thankyou for your attention.

Saengga, 30th August 2004

Signed,

Alfons,Amandus, Simon & David SimunaMarcelino, Hengky,Andarias & CosmasSowayYance,Yohannes,Yusur & Gerson WayuriPlus Hengky Soway, community head ofSaengga II

Sent to Indonesian President, minister ofmines & energy, provincial governors, districtand local government officials, head ofPertamina, BP in London & Jakarta, Papuan,Indonesian & international NGOs and thepress.

STATEMENT BY THE SIMUNA, SOWAYAND WAYURI CLANS

In view of developments related to theTangguh natural gas project of theIndonesian Oil & Gas Management Body(BPMigas) which is managed by BP Indonesiaon the customary lands of the Soway,Simuna and Wayuri people.We - the threeclans who have ancestral rights over the landto be used for the Tangguh gas processingplant - state that:

1. The 50 hectares of land in OldTanah Merah village which, according to theminutes of the 1999 meeting, was handedover voluntarily by the community remainsthe property of the Soway clan becausethere has been nothing on paper to datethat states that the people of Soway handedover the land to Pertamina in 1999 for thedevelopment of the Tangguh gas project.2. We are of the opinion that theprocess whereby the Soway,Wayuri andSimuna relinquished land to Pertamina in1999 was not legally valid because it did notreflect whatsoever the value we place onland as a source of livelihoods which hasbeen handed down to us through thegenerations.Also, when our land wastransferred in 1999, we were not givencompletely clear information about thestatus of that land or its location.We werenever given a chance to study the minutestaken by Pertamina before signing thedocument. For these reasons, we request areview of the status of this land.3. The various activities carried outin our village(s) by BP Indonesia, such as thecommunity development project, the plansto develop a new settlement and theproposed community fund plus various

other things, are part of BP Indonesia's socialcommitment as set out in the EnvironmentImpact Assessment document.They areabsolutely nothing to do with the issue ofthe status of the land that we aredemanding.4. We refuse to negotiate or discussissues about our customary lands with BPIndonesia, as this company is only thecontractor for the Tangguh natural gasproject.5. We will only discuss the status ofour customary land that is to be used forthe Tangguh project buildings with theIndonesian Oil & Gas Board (BP Migas) asproject owners.6. We note that, so far, the presenceof the Tangguh project has only causedconflict between communities and that thesocial disadvantages have outweighed anyadvantages.7. We ask that all project activitieson our customary lands be stopped witheffect from the date of this statement untilthe problems in this statement have beenfully addressed.8. No-one is allowed to negotiatewith anyone at all on behalf of our threetribes without a mandate from us.

This is our statement that we hope will beacted on immediately.We will not give ourapproval under customary law for anyactivities carried out by the Tangguh projectuntil the issues above have been settled.Wewill not take responsibility for anything thatmay happen if the Tangguh natural gasproject is pushed ahead before this is done.

Signed Saengga, 30th Aug 2004 as above.

6

DOWN TO EARTH No. 65, May 2005

Autonomy is fully implemented, the questionsremain: will it be applied to West Irian Jaya aswell as to Papua and will West Irian Jaya haveits own Papuan People's Assembly (MRP)? TheMRP is one of the key provisions for Papuaunder Special Autonomy. It is due to beelected late in 2005 and will be made up ofone third adat (customary) leaders, one thirdreligious figures and one third women. It willhave limited powers, including theresponsibility to consider and approve anyproposed further division of West Papua*.The TIAP report notes a "clear intention" atpresidential level to apply Special Autonomy"fully but separately" to West Irian Jaya, addingthat new legislation will be needed and thatany need for parliamentary approval will

create further uncertainty about the outcome(TIAP p10).

Another key concern is how therevenues from Tangguh will be shared outunder a divided Papua. If West Irian Jaya, as aprovince, is now entitled to all the provincialrevenue flows - and this is 70% under SpecialAutonomy - this will mean a massive influx ofcash into a much smaller area than if therevenues were going to benefit the whole ofPapua. TIAP warns that this could lead totensions between different parts of WestPapua - see also Tangguh Update, p8.

*See Watch! Indonesia 4/Mar/05 UngraciousReception of SBY's Kado Natal for Papua for adetailed analysis of the MRP in the currentsituation - watchindonesia@snafu.de

Indigenous communities speak out on Tangguh

Free West Papua Campaignlaunched in UK

A new West Papua freedom campaign waslaunched in Oxford in March, by Papuantribal leader and political exile BennyWenda, with support from local MPsAndrew Smith and Evan Harris, local MEPCaroline Lucas and the Bishop of Oxford,Richard Harries.

Email: media@freewestpapua.org

Homepage: http://www.freewestpapua.org

(continued from page 5)

(Translated by DTE)

7

DOWN TO EARTH No. 65, May 2005

The following letter, slightly abridged here, wasaddressed to Lord John Browne, CEO of BP, and isdated December 8th 2004.

As individuals and organisations in West Papuaand internationally who are closely followingthe Tangguh LNG Project in West Papua, weare writing to express our mounting concernsand to call for your immediate intervention……Our concerns are centred on:- inadequate progress on key human rightscommitments - a worrying lack of transparency - a failure to acknowledge the disturbing

realities of the wider West Papuan context We believe that the company

should not proceed to full project sanctionuntil significant movement is forthcoming toaddress these issues. The credibility of theTangguh Independent Advisory Panel (TIAP)as an effective instrument for 'assurance' isalso at stake.

Tangguh Human Rights Issues While we welcome BP's renewedcommitment to its mandatory human rightsobligations and note positively some of theproposed initiatives contained in the letter [ofNovember 12th]*, the fact remains that theselegal commitments were published two yearsago as part of the Project's statutory socialand environmental requirements. Weemphasise, and BP well knows, that theseobligations are entirely within the company'scontrol, and are not dependent on theoutcome of the current discussions with theIndonesian security forces. That so little hasbeen achieved in this period is profoundlydisturbing.We urge you to make this a criticalpriority: in particular, we call on the TIAP tobecome actively involved in ensuring BP'srigorous and rapid compliance with itscommitments.

Lack of Transparency The Tangguh project has frequently declaredits intention to set new standards foroperations in highly sensitive environments.Transparency and openness with stakeholdersare fundamental to this objective.Yet, sadly, thereality is falling far short of expectations.

In the letter of November 12th, BPpromises to provide a 'summary' of theprovisions of the MoU with the Papuan police.But this MoU was signed in April, over sevenmonths ago, and the company would havedone nothing on communicating its contentsuntil challenged by stakeholders.And why willonly a summary be issued and not the fulltext? What is being hidden? We note that theBTC project has just published the entiretexts of its security agreements with thegovernment of Georgia. The imperative ofopenness is even greater in locations as WestPapua where the abuses of human rights for

over 40 years by the Indonesian military havebeen systematic and endemic. [Note: the fulltext of the agreement was subsequentlypublished - see www.bp.com]

We are also disappointed that onlya "short summary" will be produced Of theforthcoming report by Gare Smith onTangguh's human rights performance. Thecompany seems determined to maintain asecrecy that so eroded its credibility in 2003with its refusal to publish the original TangguhHuman Rights Impact Assessment by Messrs.Smith and Freeman.

This is hardly the way to build trust.

BP and West Papuan Political Context The letter of November 12th contends thatmajor destabilising events as the arbitrarydivision of West Papua are matters for"governments and civil society". The notionthat West Papuan civil society played any partin the diktat is preposterous; and the companydoes itself no justice by such an extraordinaryformulation.

No stakeholder is suggesting thatBP should not obey the law, but we docontend that it has a responsibility to make itsviews known. Key components of the TangguhIntegrated Social Programmes, including theDiversified Growth Strategy, RevenueManagement and indeed the securityframework, have been predicated on a unifiedWest Papua. The establishment of the so-called West Irian Jaya Province, whose status isfurther confused by the recent ConstitutionalCourt ruling, has a direct impact in the Project. BP feels nocompunction about raising questions of tax,environmental and regulatory policies withthe Indonesian Government. Why thereforedoes it choose to be supine on issues whose negative consequences for West Papuans alsosignificantly heighten the many operating risksfor the company and its shareholders?

Specifically, the division of WestPapua will mean that Tangguh Revenues willnow flow largely to West Irian Jaya and not toPapua Province as a whole, thus exacerbatingthe potential for horizontal conflict andeconomic inequity. However, there is currentlya state of complete confusion as to therelative distribution of revenue between thetwo provinces, as the 2001 Special AutonomyLaw, which was supposed to cover suchmatters, was passed assuming there wouldonly be one province, Papua, and SpecialAutonomy has in any case yet to beimplemented.

There is also the alarming possibilitythat new TNI and other security structurescould be established that will reinforcepolitical intimidation and longstanding militarycorruption and violence, (such as occurred inApril this year [2004] a mere 20km along theBay from the project base when the TNI

attacked Meryadi Village, Vorwata District,killing four Papuan civilians -- as reported inthe Stakeholders' Update in May, and is alsotaking place at this very moment in thePuncak Jaya region of the central highlands).

These are matters that affect BPdirectly and in so doing they also Havefundamental human rights implications forthose communities whom the Tangguh Projectmost affects. In these circumstances, we assertthat BP must carefully re-examine itslegitimate sphere of influence in West Papua. Ithas a moral and commercial obligation to doso.

ConclusionWe are neither supporters nor opponents ofthe Tangguh Project.The local communities inBintuni Bay and broader civil society in WestPapua should be the ultimate arbiters thoughwe doubt that this is possible In a continuingclimate of oppression, notwithstanding thededication and commitment of Tangguh's fieldteam of young West Papuans and others. Butthey and other stakeholders are entitled thatcorporate human rights commitments madewill be commitments honoured in full and in atimely manner. At present, this is nothappening to anything like an acceptableextent in the areas we have identified.We askthat BP and the TIAP give the highest priorityto rectification.

Yours sincerely,

Carmel Budiardjo,Tapol, the Indonesia HumanRights Campaign, [on behalf of 300 signatoriesfrom West Papua and internationally].

In response, BP gave the assurance that theletter had contributed to BP's thoughts anddiscussions “as we progress the project tosanction”. On BP's role in the wider politicalcontext, Group Vice President Gary Dirkswrote "we do not engage in political activity,not should we", and had no mandate to carryout political roles.

This clearly ignores the fact thatBP's decision to develop a huge, long-termproject in a disputed territory is immenselypolitical, since this will bring substantialeconomic benefit to the Indonesiangovernment (as well as huge profits to its ownshareholders) and implicitly supports thatgovernment's long and brutal history ofrepression in West Papua.

*This letter reconfirms BP's commitment tothe Voluntary Principles, including provisionson monitoring and reporting allegations ofhuman rights violations and urgingappropriate investigations and actions to thegovernment. It mentions a forthcoming visitby human rights and security expert GareSmith, to “help ensure we have the processesand procedures in place to meet our human

International concern: a letter to BP

(continued bottom of next page)

8

DOWN TO EARTH No. 65, May 2005

Status of the project: the ‘final investmentdecision’ to proceed with Tangguh came onMarch 7th, after many delays. Theconstruction phase of the US$5 billionproject is now expected to start in late 2005.Tangguh will be operational in 2008, with twofull gas production units or 'trains' (Reuters7/Mar/05,TIAP 2004).

One of the delays was due to aneed to extend the gas field contracts. Theproject plans to exploit three production-sharing contract (PSC) blocks fields in BintuniBay - Muturi,Weriagar and Berau (see map).These PSCs were due to expire between2017 and 2023 whereas the sales contractsexpire later, between 2026 and 2028. InJanuary this year, Reuters reported thatJakarta had agreed to extend the gas fieldcontracts so that Tangguh could fulfil its long-term sales contracts (Reuters 13/Jan/05), but alater report by the Jakarta Post said theextension still needed presidential approval(JP 27/Jan/05).This same report also referredto 'tough negotiations' over several clauses inthe Principles of Agreement between theIndonesian government and BP, including afinancial risk guarantee in case of policychanges which prevent the plant from fulfillingsupply commitments. A further problemrelated to regional autonomy and thepotential for increased powers of the districtheads (JP 27/Jan/05).

The final decision from BP to goahead with the project was first expected inOctober last year, then by the year-end,delayed again until January 2005, and finallyissued in March 2005.

The Environmental ImpactAssessment (AMDAL) for the project was

approved in 2002. In October 2004, a ministryof environment team made its first visit to thesite to monitor achievement of commitmentsmade. According to BP’s quarterly TangguhLNG Project Stakeholder Update (Q4, 2004), theresulting report found that "Tangguh wasmaking significant progress in areas meetingAMDAL social mandates", a point contestedby NGOs who say that human rightscommitments are not being followed up.

BP's CEO Lord Browne visitedTangguh in November 2004, going on to meetPresident Yudhoyono and “other members ofthe national leadership” (Q4, 2004).

Preparatory activities ("Early WorksPhase A Programme”) were due to becompleted in January 2005.These include theconstruction of a base camp for the LNGPlant contractor, KJP, at the plant site.Construction work already completedincludes a 1,300 metre airstrip at the nearbytown of Babo, enabling commercial flights tothe area, and new piers also at Babo. KJP isthe consortium of KBR (US), JGCCorporation (Japan) and PT PertafenikkiEngineering (Indonesian-Japanese jointventure) which won the bid for engineering,procurement and construction for theTangguh LNG complex, worth around $1.4billion.

KBR, formerly Kellogg Brown andRoot, is the engineering arm of Halliburton,headed by US vice-president Dick Cheneyfrom 1995 to 2000. As noted by Asia Times,Cheney is a key player in the Bushadministration's successful push to resumefunding for the US military trainingprogramme (IMET) with Indonesia. Congresshad blocked funding for IMET over the killing

of two Americans in 2002, in whichIndonesian military involvement is widelysuspected. (The Bush administrationannounced in February this year thatIndonesia had satisfied conditions forresuming IMET, see Tapol Bulletin 178:14 andAsia Times 4/Dec/04 for more on this issue).Halliburton is also the company awardedmajor contracts in post-invasion Iraq - see egwww.corpwatch.org andhttp://www.warprofiteers.com for moredetails.

An Italian engineering firm, Saipem,controlled by oil company ENI, won thecontract to build Tangguh’s offshoreinstallations (Reuters 7/Mar/05).

FPIC and adat rights: The principle of FreePrior and Informed Consent - wherebyindigenous peoples have the right to make adecision to accept or reject a project on theirland - was never applied at Tangguh. Instead,after the site location was identified, localcommunities were consulted on projectbenefits such as education, health and otherdevelopment programmes.

While the company has offeredreplacement housing to the villagers who hadto move to make way for the LNG site (TanahMerah), this has been built on customary landbelonging to other people and there remaintensions over long-term land ownershipclaims.

Part of the problem lies in the factthat the Indonesian government does not giveadequate recognition to indigenous adat(customary) rights over lands and resources,so that the interests of big business areafforded a higher priority than locallivelihoods.

The land for the LNG plant isclassified by the Indonesian government as'production forest'. According to BP, the landwas relinquished to the government bycommunities in 1999, prior to BP'sinvolvement in the project, and BP holds landuse rights (HGU) which last 30-50 years.After that the land reverts to thegovernment, which, according to BP, haspromised to return it to the original adatowners (see DTE 57:7). Problems over landhave been festering ever since the projectbegan, because the original handover of landwas involuntary and is disputed by thecommunities involved (see communitystatement page 6).

According to a 2005 report by theregional representative of mining advocacynetwork JATAM, BP reacted to thecommunity’s attempt to reclaim their land, bywithholding payments to members of theSaengga village development committee.When the community demanded that BPresolve the conflict, the company replied thatit is only a contractor to the government anddoes not have the capacity to take decisionsrelated to these problems over land.

Tangguh project Update 2005

rights commitments”.The letter does not giveany details of what these processes andprocedures may be. (Letter from EmmaDelaney to Tangguh Stakeholders, November12, 2004).The NGO letter refers to this and

previous correspondence in which BP agreesthat it must give practical effect to the legally-binding commitments to human rightsprotection in the 2002 Environmental andSocial Impact Assessment.

(continued from previous page)

Gas fields in Bintuni Bayand production sharing contract (PSC) areas

9

DOWN TO EARTH No. 65, May 2005

However, on another occasion, BP offered togive Rp1 billion (US$100,000) in cash to thethree land-owning clans, if this would beaccepted as a final resolution to the matter.The communities refused the offer. (BriefReport Proyek Tangguh dan Isu Hak AsasiManusia Teluk Bintuni, West Papua, BustarMaitar JATAM, regional representatives forWest Papua, 2005).

The Tangguh project has continuedto ignore the customary rights of villagers onthe north shore of Bintuni Bay who claimownership of the gas. The LNG processingplant is to be built on the south shore of thebay, but parts of the gas fields lie under thenorthern shore (see map p8).TIAP notes that"villagers on the north shore are jealous ofthe development of Tanah Merah, Saengga andOnar, which exemplifies to them a dramaticimbalance in benefits from BP. This jealousyand the confusion among north shorevillagers regarding the rationale for thisimbalance is not unjustified." The TIAP reportsaid that it saw little evidence of additionalsteps being taken by BP to diminish thetensions (TIAP, p130).

TIAP notes that the root of thetension lies in the north shore villagers' beliefthat, based on adat rights, they own the gas."While this claim has no legal validity underIndonesian law, it must be considered by BP."

Resettlement: The Tangguh LNG plantconstruction involves the relocation of thevillage of Tanah Merah. Construction of a newvillage started in February 2003 and the movetook place in mid-2004. Of 127 families inTanah Merah, 101 chose to move to the newsettlement near Saengga village (3 km awayfrom the old site), while 26 families opted tomove near to Onar village (12 km from theold village). The new sites were officiallyopened on July 17th 2004 (Stakeholder UpdateQ3).

TIAP judges the resettling ofvillagers from the site selected for the LNG

plant, when viewed in isolation, as a"resounding success". It reports that the livingconditions of all Tanah Merah villagers haveimproved dramatically, with the building ofnew homes and facilities in Tanah Merah Baruand Onar. Renovations in Saengga village [thevillage which owns the land used for the newvillage] also represent major improvements,according to TIAP. The new homes includeelectricity, running water, cooking and toiletfacilities, with every Tanah Merah familychoosing the location of their new house.

TIAP raises the concern that thevery success of the resettlement hasexacerbated tensions elsewhere and is a"glaring illustration of unfairness to villagers inthe north shore DAVs” [directly affectedvillages]. It also notes concerns expressed bya Jayapura NGO and some elected officialsthat the new homes are excessive andinappropriate.

It recommends that BP establish aseparate fund for north shore communitiesand explore with local and provincial officialspossibilities to support a housing assistanceprogramme (TIAP, p22).

The 2004 human rights and securityreview summary warns that jealousy andresentment over housing and compensation,particularly among north shore villages, plus“frequent misunderstandings regarding hiringpractices, benefits and other Project-relatedissues” could lead to serious securityincidents.

TIAP also points out the dangerthat Tanah Merah villagers are becomingdependent on the benefits provided by BP forfuel for electricity generation and on foodbaskets, both of which are due to be phasedout. "Villagers are concerned about thetermination of these benefits". TIAP advisesBP to abide by its scheduled phase-out toavoid over-dependency. It says BP shouldcontinue community programmes so that thenew village can become self-sufficient. Theseinclude agricultural projects, access to

fisheries, boat-building, trainingfor post-harvestprocessing ofmarine produce,small businessdevelopment andestablishing av i l l a g em a n a g e m e n tcooperative totake over theoperation ofvillage facilitiesand utilities(TIAP, p17).

In-migration and employment: TIAPmentions that the new homes and facilities inthe resettlement villages are likely to attractin-migrants. It says that this has already begunin Onar village. Resettled villagers may betempted to rent or sell their homes for cash.While migration and ownership must be leftto the residents and their leaders, BP shouldcarefully monitor developments "so as to beaware if any tensions arise." It points to areport by a separate Resettlement Panelwhich recommends an information campaignto discourage migration (p18).

BP responds by saying that it will beimplementing an education and awarenesscampaign with the villages and localgovernment officials this year to help alertcommunity members to the potential impactsof inward migration.

The 2005 report by JATAM’sregional representative mentions that theresettled villagers have themselvesquestioned how they will live once the foodaid stops, since they don’t have enough farmland to grow crops and they are notpermitted to fish in the seas around theproject. From discussions with villagers, itappeared likely that the new houses wouldnot stay long in the hands of the families theywere built for, but would be sold to outsiders.The report predicted that outsiders whowere better equipped to take advantage ofopportunities offered by the presence of thegas project would increasingly marginaliselocal people.

Around 150 people from outsidethe village (mostly from Sulawesi) had cometo Saengga village to seek work with BP, whenthe report was researched. Many more havearrived since, as the construction phasenears, it says.These migrants secure work onthe recommendation of the village head andvillage development committee and aretherefore counted as local people by BP.These workers rent rooms in Saengga on an‘emergency’ basis at around Rp500,000 permonth. Migrant workers pay the village headfrom Rp50,000 to Rp1 million (US$5-100)and give cigarettes to the developmentcommittee leader in return for therecommendations.

The report says that economicdomination by outsiders is already happeningaround the project area and that BP’s‘diversified growth strategy’ has failed toprevent it. The company’s efforts toencourage economic growth in Sorong,Manokwari and Fak-Fak thereby divertingmigrant labour away from Tangguh, lookunlikely to succeed.

TIAP reports that more than 500Papuans have now been employed by BP andits contractors, ranging from members of theCommunity Affairs Field Teams (CAFT), thesecurity force (named as Shields SecurityGuard Force) and support for the Babo base

Model resettlement house (K.Wilson, 2002)

10

DOWN TO EARTH No. 65, May 2005

camp and the Project site. It advises BP toensure that the company's commitment toproviding employment to at least onemember of every family from each of thedirectly affected villages is fulfilled by itscontractors and subcontractors and that allPapuan employees are treated fairly (p19).

BP says that it is training 28 Papuansat the Bontang LNG facility in EastKalimantan, which will enable them tobecome field operators at the Tangguh LNGplant. Over 100 Papuans have been trained tojoin the project’s Integrated CommunityBased Security force - a number that BPexpects to double in the near future.

There will be an estimated 3,500-5,000 workers at Tangguh during the 3-yearconstruction phase, reducing after that to afew hundred.

Community development: TIAP's 2004report says that BP's communitydevelopment fund for the nine directlyaffected villages - $30,000 per year pervillage* - has provided tangible benefits ineach village and has begun to provide socialand economic development benefits for theBintuni Bay area. Projects have so far includedclean water reservoirs, health clinics, schoolfurniture and books, a new jetty andrenovation of religious facilities (p19).

Education, along with health andconcerns about security, emerged as primaryconcerns of local people during BP'sconsultations with communities several yearsago. Yet, as is evident from the latest TIAPreport, there is much scope for concreteaction. The report notes that there is "littlevisible benefit to education despite the factthat at every governmental level in Papuaeducation was highlighted as a priority" (p20).

TIAP reports that in the new villageof Tanah Merah, a new secondary school plusdormitory has been built but, at the time ofthe panel's visit, these remained empty andunused due to a lack of both teachers andstudents.TIAP put this down to a "failure tocoordinate the construction and operation ofthe schools with officials in the BintuniRegency" (p17). It suggests that BP considerfunding scholarships for students in otherdirectly affected villages as a means ofspreading education benefits from Tangguh toall villages in the area (p18).

On the expenditure of communityfunds, TIAP emphasises the need for strictcontrols and transparent accounting, withboth BP and villagers being entitled to fullaccounting.

Local livelihoods and environment: As inprevious years, the 2005 TIAP reportexpressed concern over the potentialdisruption of local fishing activities in BintuniBay, once construction of the LNG plantbegins. It quotes a report by researchers atthe University of Papua at Manokwari(UNIPA) which finds that shrimp stocks maybe declining as a result of overfishing by largenon-Papuan trawlers (modern trawlersaccount for an estimated 95% of the shrimpcatch), and erosion and sedimentation fromforest concessions. TIAP recommends againthat BP continue to work with the localauthorities and the minister for fisheries todevelop a fisheries management plan toprevent overfishing by large trawlers (p30).

TIAP states in its report that theenvironmental NGOs it met commendedBP's work with USAID’s Global DevelopmentAlliance and its support for the publication ofan environmental atlas for the region. It notes,however, that the more direct environmentalimpacts resulting from the construction andproduction phases of the project will soonhave to be dealt with. BP should monitor andcontrol all effluent and other discharges bothonshore and offshore, and share these withthe appropriate authorities, says TIAP, to avoidthe 'difficulties' being faced by the US

company, Newmont (see page 19), (TIAPp33).

The Bintuni Bay Nature Reserve, 80km east of Tangguh, if successfully preservedwith BP's support, will, according to TIAP,"provide a recognizable ecologicalaccomplishment that will always beassociated with the Tangguh Project."

TIAP advises BP to be prepared tocommunicate accurately in the event of anyaccident or other adverse incident (p34).

BP says it is working with theUSAID-funded Coastal ResourceManagement Partnership (COREMAP)project, UNIPA, The Nature Conservancy,Bogor Agricultural University, forest ministryand government officials, plus “variousconservation organisations and civil societygroups” on a Bintuni Mangrove ManagementPlan to “develop this globally significant areawhile incorporating community needs” (p12).

Gas reserves: Tangguh holds 14.4 trillioncubic feet of proven and certified gasreserves, according to BP. Probable andpossible reserves bring the total to 24-25 tcf.

Shareholdings and financing: Tangguh’sshareholdings are as follows (as of May 2004):BP - 37.16%; MI Berau BV (held by MitsubishiCorporation and INPEX Corporation) -16.30%; CNOOC Ltd - 16.96%; Nippon OilExploration Berau - 12.23%; KG Companies(held by Japan National Oil Corporation,Kanematsu Corporation and OverseasPetroleum Corporation) - 10.0%; and LNGJapan Corporation (held by Nissho IwaiCorporation and Sumitomo Corporation) -7.35% (http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/tangguh/).

Recent estimates put the costs ofthe Tangguh project at US$5 billion - 5.5billion, of which BP and partners will cover $2billion - including funding for the early stagesof construction. The other $3 billion - 3.5billion is expected to be in the form of loans.In October 2004, the Jakarta Post reportedthat the project partners were completingthe loan agreement with foreign banksincluding the Japan Bank of InternationalCooperation (JBIC) (JP 30/Oct/04). DutchBank ABN AMRO might be hired tounderwrite the loans from Japanese andChinese banks, he said. A director of ABNAMRO in Asia confirmed the bank's interest(Reuters 26/Jan/05).

LNG sales: Tangguh is expected to producebetween 7 million and 8 million tonnes ofliquefied natural gas (LNG) per year in thefirst phase of production - enough to supplyaround 6% of current world demand. It nowhas 4 major sales agreements to supply a totalof 7.6 million tonnes. The last of these wassigned in October 2004 with US powercompany, Sempra Energy LNG Corp, for a 20-

TIAP ignores women

Indonesia's mining advocacy network,JATAM, and others have pointed out thatwomen will be hurt most by thetransformation of their environment, sinceit is they who do the crab fishing - a mainsource of protein as well as providing anincome - and depend most directly on themangroves of Bintuni Bay.

Nowhere in the TIAP report or the recenthuman rights review summary are thedifferent impacts of the project on menand women examined.There is noindication, for example, whether localemployment will take gender balance intoaccount, or to what extent prominentwomen are in decision-making bodies atvillage, district or provincial levels.

TIAP's own failure to address issues ofgender justice is evident from itsrecommendation that BP should workwith the authorities "to encouragegovernmental support for local fishermenin the form of more advanced fishing boatsand equipment…" (p30).

Where does this leave the fisherwomenand their specific fishing activities?

* This programme lasts for 10 years (see BPresponse to TIAP 2005 report p5).

11

DOWN TO EARTH No. 65, May 2005

year supply of LNG to markets in the US andMexico. The agreement is for 3.7 milliontonnes of gas per year from Tangguh for 15years, beginning in 2007, to the plannedEnergia Costa Azul LNG re-gasificationterminal in Baja California, Mexico.(Stakeholder Update Q4, Reuters 27/Jan/05).

The other companies are SouthKorea's K-Power Co; South Korea'ssteelmaker Posco and China's Fujianprovince. (Asia Times 4/Dec/04 and DTE 60).

Since some of the supply contractsstart in 2005-2007, the Tangguh partners willhave to source LNG shipments from othergas suppliers until Tangguh comes onstream.

Previously, a Philippines supplycontract was under discussion. More recently,the possibility of sales to Chile has beenmentioned by Indonesia's mining minister,Purnomo Yusgiantoro. According to thisreport, Jakarta has asked BP to build a thirdLNG production unit to boost meet growingdemand for LNG (Asia Pulse/Antara30/Nov/04).

Revenues for Papua: In its 2002environmental impact study, BP predicted thatrevenue flows to Papua should increase after2012 and, based on two gas production units(trains) under Special Autonomy, "could reacharound $100 US million per annum by2016...potentially remaining at that level formany years".The delay in revenues flowing toPapua is due to Tangguh's financingarrangements which prioritise repayments toinvestors.

The estimated share for theIndonesian government from production-sharing and tax revenues is US$12 billion forthe expected production from 18 tcf of gasreserves (ANDAL 5-175).

Indonesia will get the lion's shareof these revenues. According to research forthe Ethical Corporation in 2004, over thenext 30 years, it is expected that the centralgovernment could earn more than US$8.7billion from Tangguh, while the Papuangovernment could receive US$3.6 billion willgo to Papua (draft report, 2004).

In its second report (2003), TIAPwarned that the splitting up of Papua provincecould increase "political instability, inevitablyaffecting the Tangguh project." This year'sreport, drafted after the two-way split ofPapua had been carried out, warns that sinceincome from Freeport will, in the near future,

flow only to the remaining part of Papuaprovince,West Irian Jaya may be left withoutmany of the economic benefits of SpecialAutonomy until significant revenues fromTangguh start to flow into the province.Thiswill not be for at least 10 years (ie 2015 -later than predicted in the AMDAL) (p13).

Once Tangguh revenues do startflowing in, however, West Irian Jaya willreceive more funds than the total annualbudget of pre-divided Papua.TIAP regards thisrevenue "spike" - a massive and suddenincrease in funds - as something that must beavoided.

TIAP recommends (again) that amechanism be found to bring forward theflow of revenues from Tangguh. The reportmentions that the planning minister isparticularly interested in this and thatmultinational lenders, such as the World Bank,could implement a revenue-smoothingmechanism. BP should play a 'catalytic',facilitating role, says TIAP, in explaining thefinancial impact of the imbalance to keygovernment ministries and encouraging theirfocus on such a mechanism (p27). In 2003, theWorld Bank was reported to have expressedan interest in this idea - news which raisedquestions about its suitability to play such arole and the long term political impacts forWest Papua (see DTE 57:7).

On income from Tangguh....

“...who is Papua? There is nolegitimate government of the Papuan

people through which it could bechannelled.The “central, provincial

and local governments” to which BPwill be giving the money all answer to

Jakarta...”

(George Monbiot, Guardian, 3/May/05)

Representatives from Asian countries including Thailand, South Korea, Indonesia, EastTimor, Burma, Sri Lanka and the Philippines joined others from the USA, Canada,Australia,New Zealand, the UK and Ireland for an international solidarity meeting on West Papua inApril/May. One focus of the meeting, held in Manila in the Philippines, was violenceperpetrated against women in West Papua.

Indonesian media reports stated that the Indonesian government had asked the Philippinesgovernment to stop the meeting, which, it claimed, went against the Treaty of Amity andCooperation signed by members of ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations).

A statement issued by the meeting organisers congratulated the Philippines governmentfor not bowing to Indonesian pressure. Mark Doris from West Papua Action, said “Whatdoes the Republic of Indonesia have to hide? If there is nothing to hide, we call on..Indonesia to allow immediate and unfettered access to the international media andNGOs so that they can see for themselves the conditions under which West Papuans areliving.”

International journalists and NGOs are routinely refused access to West Papua.

(Source: West Papua Solidarity Meeting Clarification 3/May/05; Sinar Harapan 28/Apr/05)

Indonesian government attempt to block West Papuasolidarity meeting

Protest against the division of West Papua,Jakarta 2004 (DTE)

12

DOWN TO EARTH No. 65, May 2005

Targeting illegal logging in West PapuaAn NGO report shows how West Papua's rich, extensive forests are being stripped to satisfy China's demand fortimber.The Indonesia government, keen to demonstrate to the international community that it is taking illegal

logging and timber smuggling seriously, responded by promising action against corrupt military, police and forestrypersonnel. At the same time, indigenous Papuans are concerned that the crackdown is harming their community

forestry operations.

London-based Environmental InvestigationAgency (EIA) and the Indonesianenvironmental group Telapak published areport in February saying that Papua hasbecome the main illegal logging hotspot inIndonesia.As the forests of Sumatra, Sulawesiand Kalimantan are increasingly logged out,timber operations in West Papua arebecoming more commercially attractive.

Entitled The Last Frontier, the reportdescribes how some 300,000 cubic metres ofmerbau logs per month are smuggled fromWest Papua to wood processing factories inChina. The NGO investigation traced thisillegal trade through powerful internationalsyndicates of brokers and fixers in Indonesia,Malaysia, Singapore and China - each withtheir specific role. It also revealed that thelogging and timber smuggling operations aresupported and managed by high-rankingIndonesian military (TNI) plus othergovernment officials and law enforcers.

The pressure on Papua's forests hasincreased dramatically in recent years. Thereport identifies Sorong, Manokwari, Fak Fak,Nabire and Serui regencies as the main logginghotspots.The logs are shipped illegally to the

Chinese port of Zhangjiagang and thentransported to factories south of Shanghaiwhere they are made into wooden flooring.Over 500 flooring factories have been set upin the town of Nanxun in only 5 years.Thesefactories process at least one merbau log intoflooring every minute. Half of the hardwoodflooring is for export.

It is outsiders, from Indonesia,Malaysia and China, not the people of WestPapua who get most financial gain from thewholesale plundering of the forests. A smallnumber of timber bosses and brokers living inJakarta, Hong Kong and Singapore as well aswestern companies selling flooring fromChina are making huge profits from thisdestructive trade. Merbau (Itsia sp) is one ofthe most valuable tropical hardwood speciesin Southeast Asia but, according toEIA/Telapak: "Papuan communities receive justUS$0.46 for the timber needed to make onesquare metre of flooring. Manufactured andpackaged, merbau flooring at Shanghaibuilder's merchants sells for only $18 persquare metre….The same flooring on sale inthe US or UK costs up to $88."

EIA followed its report by exposinghow a leading American distributor ofhardwood flooring, Goodfellow Inc., is sellingproducts made from logs illegally felled inWest Papua. Goodfellow's president and CEOissued a public statement saying that thecompany was "committed to market productsonly where there is complete anddocumented legal chain of custody," and thatits suppliers would soon be discussing thisissue with Indonesian officials1.

The Indonesian government's responseForestry minister MS Kaban and environmentminister Rachmat Witoelar were promisingaction within a week of publication of theEIA/Telapak report. President Susilo BambangYudhoyono called a special cabinet meeting onthe issue at the end of February. He orderedNational Police chief Da'i Bachtiar to lead aco-ordinated crackdown on illegal loggers. A1,500 member team under the control of thenational police was instructed to take actionagainst anyone involved in 'illegal logging' in atwo-month operation called "Hutan Lestari"(sustainable forests). The integrated teamcomprises officials from the police, military,Attorney General's office, Department ofForestry, immigration and customs. Forestryminister Kaban is quoted as saying that,"personnel of the eastern navy, the police inPapua, the Trikora Regional Military Command[based in Papua's provincial capital ofJayapura], local offices of the ministries offorestry and immigration in Papua, all haveindications of being involved." Da'i also saidthat fraud squad detectives would investigatesuspects' bank accounts to check for evidenceof money laundering.

By late April, various claims for thesuccess of Operation Hutan Lestari werealready being made, but hard information wasmore difficult to come by. Officials hadreportedly seized more than 340,000 cubicmetres of logs, 19,000 cubic metres of cuttimber, 5 boats and 22 barges.The task forcehas apparently summonsed 157 people; 35have been detained and 14 case files have beenhanded over to the prosecutors. It is not clearwhether these include any of the 32 financiersof illegal logging operations in Papua and otherprovinces reported to the forestry ministerby EIA/Telapak. Many of those suspects areMalaysian. Tang Eng Kwee, the Malaysianpresident of PT Wapoga Mutiara Timber,which has 800,000ha of logging concessions inWest Papua, was prevented from leavingIndonesia.

At least three of the accused aremiddle-ranking Papuan police officers.National Police chief Gen. Da'i Bachtiar saidComr. Martin Renau, the Papua police chief ofspecial crimes division, would be investigated

1. Letter from Richard Goodfellow dated18/Apr/05

STOP PRESSThe following information arrived as DTE wasgoing to press:

Operation Hutan Lestari was 'ended' inmid-May after several delegations ofPapuans complained to parliament. In factthe operation’s legal action has not ended,and around 62 cases are still to be put totrial.

There will be an auction of the confiscatedtimber, but, to the chagrin of communitygroups, this may just be part of the chainof ongoing corruption that the operationnever solved.All the powerfulentrepreneurs are reported to have paidtheir way out of prosecution.Those in jail are indigenous Papuans whocannot pay.

An Indonesian law firm is prepared tohandle the case in the Supreme Court todetermine the legality of two apparently'conflicting' laws that affect local rights.

13

DOWN TO EARTH No. 65, May 2005

in Jakarta in the hope that he wouldcooperate in efforts to unravel illegal loggingsyndicates. The only two people currentlyfacing court cases are two local forestryofficials: Marthen Kayoi, head of the Papuanforestry office, and Marthen Luther Rumadas,head of West Irian Jaya district forestry office.One military officer has also apparently beenarrested, but not named.

Pronouncements not prosecutionsThe Indonesian government has said time andagain that it is getting tough on 'illegal logging'.Presidential statements are usually followedby well-publicised seizures of illegallyharvested logs and the arrests of local peopleand minor officials involved in illegal loggingoperations. Indonesian forest campaigners saythat these cases represent the tip of aniceberg and often only expose small-scaleoperators who were unable or unwilling topay the military, police, customs or forestryofficials sufficient bribes. Meanwhile, all themajor players in smuggling networks remainuntouched.

Soon after he became president,Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono declared "war onillegal logging". He made this speech onNovember 11th 2004 near Tanjung PutingNational Park in Central Kalimantan - one ofthe many protected areas in Indonesia whichhave been ravaged by illegal logging. Despitethis high profile speech and similarcommitments at January's CGI meeting, it waslate March before SBY issued a presidentialdecree to stop illegal logging (Inpres 4/2005).The current anti-illegal operation in WestPapua was due to end in May, but the deadlinehas now been extended until June 7th. Aspokesman for the Papua police force saidthis was because they were having problemshandling the large volume of case files. In WestPapua, several notorious figures in the illegallogging business have yet to be arrested,included one who is a member of the Houseof Representatives (DPR) and no-one inJakarta has been touched by OperationHutan Lestari.

Indonesia's forestry departmentsends out confusing messages, playing downthe extent of deforestation and ignoring evenits own evidence about the country'sdwindling forests.The Forestry Department'swebsite says that deforestation rates are 2.83million ha/year over the last five years causingannual revenues losses to the government ofRp30 trillion (over US$3bn)2.Yet governmentofficials have publicly admitted thatIndonesia's forests are disappearing at 3.8million ha/year3.

An examination of satelliteinformation on West Papua in 2000, when 42logging operations were still active, showedthat 1,697,000ha of the 9,854,000haconcession areas was already badly damagedsecondary forest. Nevertheless, the

department of forestry claims thatdeforestation there only averaged118,000ha/year over the previous decade.Similarly, over two years ago, an official pressrelease4 stated that timber was alreadyflooding out of West Papua illegally toMalaysia, China and other countries at therate of 600,000 cubic metres per month -twice that revealed in the EIA/Telapak report- at a cost to the government of Rp7.2 billionin lost revenues. Operations by an integratedteam set up by the Papuan governor in April2003 (SK Gubernor 50/03) provedineffective, mainly because the various partiesdid not work together effectively and thebudget soon ran out. Since then, logging inWest Papua has intensified. Without detailedpolicy measures which are fully funded fromthe National Budget, there will be nocoherent, long-term action.

The Indonesian office of US-basedNGO Conservational International has set upa database on illegal logging and wildlife tradein Papua.Although it was officially launched inApril this year, this project has been collectingdata from forestry and conservationauthorities in Papua for several years. CI'sPapua programme director, AgustinusWijayanto, stated that, to date, legal actionhad had very limited impact. In 2000-2002,there were 40 cases involving 44,532 cu m oftimber and, in 2003-4, only 18 cases involving68,718 cu m.The amounts of timber seized in4 years are a mere fraction of the monthlyflow of logs out of West Papua and therewere only 9 successful prosecutions duringthis period. The need for reliable data isobvious from the conflicting reports quotedabove.

The situation is not helped bytensions between Indonesia's police and theforestry department - each accusing eachother of inaction. Forestry minister Kabancomplained that he had submitted a list ofsuspects ranging from local businessmen tomembers of parliament to the police, but thatno investigations had taken place. He pressedthe police to take action by the end ofJanuary. "Detain them right now, don't justquestion them", he urged in vain. Meanwhile,the police were promoting the success oftheir own operations against people involvedin illegal logging in East Kalimantan in late2004.

Need for appropriate actionIllegal logging and log smuggling in West Papuamust be viewed against the background of along-term political dispute over thesovereignty of this territory. Although WestPapua is nominally under civil administration,the military control pervades every aspect oflife right down to the smallest village. Inaddition, Jakarta has tried to weaken the unityof the Papuan people by dividing the provinceinto several separate administrative areas.Thetension between Jakarta and the local

authorities in West Papua over the degree ofautonomy they should have is reflected inmeasures to control illegal logging. Theforestry minister and governor of Papua, J.P.Solosso, are locked in a dispute over who hasthe right to control logging in Papua's forests.

The two senior officials from thePapuan forestry offices who are facing trial asa result of Operation Hutan Lestari areaccused of illegally issuing community loggingpermits (IPKMA). Jakarta claims this violatesIndonesia's basic forestry law (No 41/99).Thecentral government had already issued 54licences for large-scale logging concessionscovering 13 million hectares in West Papua by2002. Solossa believes that Special Autonomylegislation (No 21/01) gives him the power togrant logging permits to local co-operatives.There are more than 300 so-calledcommunity logging co-operatives(KOPERMAS) in West Papua with IPKMApermits covering under 500,000ha. ThePapuan governor also issued his own decreeto defy the department of forestry's 2001 banon log exports and provincial forestry officialsrefused to stick to limits on logging imposedby Jakarta in 2003.

Marthen Kayoi's lawyer argues thatthe issue is the validity of IPKMAdocumentation in Jakarta's eyes. If the Papuanforestry official is found guilty of illegal loggingon these grounds, then the governor of Papuaand all communities which hold IPKMApermits are also guilty. Since the minister offorestry has banked payments for the PapuanIPKMA licences, he is also technicallyculpable!

The problem is that althoughKOPERMAS were intended to help localcommunities to make a living from small-scalesustainable logging enterprises, the systemhas been widely exploited by powerful elitesfor their own interests.Typically, businessmenwill use local forestry officials or the militaryto persuade indigenous communities to sign a'co-operation agreement'. Local people areoften promised a modest cash payment or achurch, outboard motors or generators. Evenif communities are reluctant to give up theirrights, it is hard to refuse if the intermediaryis a police or army officer. And if, as is oftenthe case, the logging operations fell muchmore timber than was agreed, local peoplehave no recourse. In this way, KOPERMAScooperatives currently bring far more profitto the wood processing companies andmanagers running them than to the localeconomy.

Nevertheless, some indigenouscommunities insist that their operations are

2. DepHut Press release 21/Mar/05. Figuresfrom 2003 (the most recent publiclyavailable)

3. See for example a paper presented by theHead of the Forestry Planning Department inNovember 2003.

4. DepHut Press release 15/Jan/03.

14

DOWN TO EARTH No. 65, May 2005

legitimate and that Jakarta's ban on IPKMAs iscausing unemployment and hardship. ThePapua Indigenous Community Federationissued a statement in March under theheading "Adat communities scapegoated forillegal logging - lack of political will?" Thestatement5, signed by Zadrak Wambu ofPapua's Adat Council, cites numerous clausesof Special Autonomy legislation whichrecognise adat community rights over naturalresources. It argues that, instead of revokingIPKMAs and prosecuting local officials forissuing them, the authorities should beinvestigating how these logging permits havebeen abused by business interests and localelites.The statement concludes by proposingthat licensing and management criteria forIPKMA should be strengthened to guaranteecommunity welfare in the long term. At thetime DTE went to press, there had been noofficial response. Forestry minister Kaban isquoted as saying that: "IPKMA permits areonly fronts for private businessmen to exploitour forests…These IPKMA permits areillegal."

While the forestry departmentcontinues to focus on banning IPKMAs, it isignoring two other, potentially greaterproblems. Firstly, the activities of 40 or sologging companies who continue to operatein West Papua under large-scale logginglicences. These cover about thirty times asmuch forest as community logging permits.Due to the vast areas involved, theremoteness of the concessions andunderstaffed local forestry offices, thesetimber companies behave much as theyplease with little or no supervision. Secondly,some indigenous communities have becomedependent on small-scale logging operationsfor their livelihoods. Young men who havereceived little education have few otherprospects for employment. The Departmentof Forestry and Papuan authorities need tosort out the contradictions between nationalforestry legislation and special autonomy, ifnecessary through the Constitutional Court.

It is also important that the two partiesnegotiate a new model for sustainablecommunity logging, in consultation withindigenous communities in West Papua.Recognising indigenous institutions andsecuring community rights over land andresources must be part of this. Indonesianforestry policy, exemplified through officialspeeches by government officials and thepreamble to forestry regulations stress thattackling conflict over natural resources andincreasing community welfare are primarygoals of Indonesia's forestry policy. It is timeto put this policy into practice in West Papua.

The Chinese connectionChina's voracious demand for raw materialsis a growing threat to Indonesia's forests.China is rapidly becoming one of the world'smajor consumers of forest products. Itconsumes nearly 280 million cubic metres oftimber a year, but can produce only half thisamount legally from natural forests andplantations. A joint study6 showed thatChina's imports of forest products rose fromUS$6.4 billion to $11.2 billion between 1997and 2002. Imports are estimated to havereached nearly US$13 billion in 2003.

China imposed stringent measuresto protect its own forests after massiveflooding in the 1990s was attributed todeforestation. Logging was banned in manyregions and large areas were designatednature reserves. At the same time, theauthorities closed down many thousands ofsmall pulp mills and factories which usedagricultural residues. In their place, large-scalemodern pulp and paper plants are being setup, which rely heavily on cheap Indonesianraw materials. The burgeoning economy,including wealthier Chinese who want biggerhouses and more books and newspapers,further increases demand for forestryproducts. The Chinese prefer to import rawmaterials and process them at home as thisgenerates added value and more localemployment.The combined effect is a boomin imports of timber and paper pulp, whileplywood imports slump.

Indonesia is a major supplier oftimber to China, both directly and indirectlyvia Malaysia and Vietnam. Russia is also animportant source. Much of this trade is illegal.A comparison of import and export figures inMalaysia and China indicates that more thanhalf the logs registered by Chinese customsas Malaysian actually came from Indonesia.The EIA/Telapak report states that around 2.3million cubic metres of Indonesian timber

were smuggled onto the Chinese market lastyear. Indonesian government estimates areeven higher at around 9 million cubic metresvalued at Rp 18 trillion (US$1.86 billion).

The trade in logs betweenIndonesia and China violates the laws of bothcountries. Indonesia banned the export ofraw timber in 2003.Also, China and Indonesiasigned a Memorandum of Understanding onillegal logging in December 2002 designed tohalt the purchase of illegal timber. In practicethis has had little effect. China has failed torespond to the Government of Indonesia'srequests to implement the agreement. Asenior official of China's State ForestryAdministration vowed last month to takeaction against importers and manufacturersreceiving smuggled logs, following theEIA/Telapak report. Nevertheless, China andIndonesia failed to reach agreement on actionagainst the trade in illegal timber at aministerial meeting in April. Indonesianforestry minister Kaban blamed the Chineseas they "did not care where the commoditiescome from". He claimed that all Chineseimports are considered legal under existingtrade regulations. Kaban's optimism thatnegotiations will eventually succeed may bemisplaced. As Indonesia wants to encouragetrade and investment with China in othersectors of the economy, it is unlikely to putmuch pressure on the Chinese to implementeffective controls against illegal timberimports.

(Sources: Jakarta Post 18/Feb/05, 19/Feb/05,3/Mar/05, 5/Mar/05, 12/Mar/05, 15/Mar/05,30/Mar/05, 21/Apr/05, 26/Apr/05, 29/Apr/05,30/Apr/05; Asia Times 28/Feb/05; Dept ofForestry press release 21/Mar/05;D e p h u t . g o . i d / i n f o r m a s i / i n f p r o p ;www.conservation.or.id; EIA Press Release17/Feb/05, 18/Apr/05; CI article inCendrawasih Post 29/Apr/04; Tempo 6/Feb/05;AsiaViews 15/Apr/05; BBC News Online12/Apr/05.)

The Last Frontier, EnvironmentInvestigation Agency & Telapak, Feb 2005and a video on illegal logging in Papua areavailable from www.eia-international.organd www.telapak.org

5.The DPMA statement (9/Mar/05) is availablein English and Bahasa Indonesia on DTE'swebsite at http://dte.gn.apc.org/camp.htm

6. Meeting China's Demand for Forest Products,Xiufang Sun, Eugenia Katsigris & Andy White,Forest Trends, the Chinese Center forAgricultural Policy & CIFOR, 2004.

International commitment

Concerted effort by the governments ofconsumer countries like China, USA andUK and producer countries like Indonesiais needed to stop destructive logging.Measures to stop smuggling syndicates andthe international trade in illegal timberform a part of this.The UK, USA, Canadaand other G8 countries are currentlynegotiating new measures to halt importsof illegally cut timber. On March 18th, G8environment and development ministersmet in Buxton, England and committed toaction against the illegal timber trade.Anagreement is expected to be signed byheads of state at a G8 meeting in Scotlandin July.

15

DOWN TO EARTH No. 65, May 2005

AMAN in West PapuaNotes from a discussion between DTE and Alex Sanggenafa, focal point for the Alliance of Indigenous Peoples of the

Archipelago (AMAN) for Yapen Waropen, Papua.

indigenous peoples

AMAN and indigenouspeoples: challenges in thePapuan contextPapuans' mistrust of the Indonesiangovernment remains as deep as ever; they stilltend to ask what hidden agenda lies behindany government efforts to win their heartsand minds.This attitude can be understood asan expression of cautiousness, or moreexactly, the prolonged trauma of oppression.Papuan people who identify themselves asindigenous or masyarakat adat, are treated ina discriminatory way under the government'sdevelopment process. This excludes Papuansfrom participating (in common with almost allindigenous peoples in Indonesia), despite thefact that participation in development is ahuman right - and the Indonesian governmentknows this. Development in Papua reallymeans exploiting natural resources. Resourceexploitation on adat (customary) lands isdone without the agreement of the localindigenous community and without evenconsulting them. What happens instead isforcible takeover, intimidation and thedestruction of Papuan values and ways of life.

In the Papuan context, thedevelopment of AMAN as an indigenouspeoples organisation has faced difficulties dueto negative experiences with the Indonesiangovernment. Mistrust of AMAN, which isviewed by some Papuans as part of thegovernment apparatus, still persists.1 We haveseen that the indigenous movement as awhole has had its successes and setbacks.Organisations expected to play a leading rolein motivating others often suffer frominternal problems which cause financialproblems and social tensions. This kind ofexperience has also resulted in someresistance to attempts to consolidateindigenous groups in some parts of Papua.Efforts to organise continue despite theseproblems and despite the fact that fundingand communication remain the biggestobstacles in Papua. The initiative toconsolidate2 Papuan indigenous organisationsis being done from the bottom up (starting atcommunity level) as this is believed to be themost realistic way, despite the long timeneeded. This approach is also being taken toavoid the clash of priorities that may arise if itwere done at a higher level, such as district or

provincial.At the moment,Alex is pioneeringconsolidation in his area by setting up theWaropen Area Indigenous Council.

Developing indigenousorganisations under SpecialAutonomyCurrent attempts to develop indigenousorganisations in Papua are taking place in aclimate of both opportunity and threat.This isespecially so in relation to the SpecialAutonomy Law3. Opportunity, if specialautonomy is immediately, fully and genuinelyimplemented; but threat if it is notimplemented wholeheartedly by centralgovernment. What is evident at the momentis the government's lack of commitment, sothat the Law is tending to become a threat tothe development and strengthening of Papuanindigenous peoples organisations. Since theSpecial Autonomy Law was passed, thegovernment has divided Papua into twoprovinces - Papua and West Irian Jaya - rather

than fulfilling the Law's mandate to establishimplementing regulations for autonomy.Furthermore, information about SpecialAutonomy was never properly disseminatedto the Papuan people. Local government'sattempts to implement it have been rejectedas invalid. A more realistic alternative is tomake use of the minister for internal affair'sdecree on local indigenous councils.

In the Third Adat Council Session inManokwari, in January-February 2005, adeadline was set (August 2005) for theproper implementation of special autonomywith clearer supporting regulations toimplement it. If this call does not get a goodresponse from central government, specialautonomy and the Government Regulationon the Establishing the Papuan ConsultativeCouncil (MRP) will be rejected and returnedto Jakarta.

Setting up the Papuan IndigenousPeoples Alliance (AMA Papua) is anopportunity to develop existing indigenousinstitutions - the Adat Council, the AdatConsultative Institute and the Presidium4 - atleast as partners, by developing andstrengthening capacity as well as the network.Clarifying the relationship between thesegroups and explaining how each organisationstrengthens its constituent communitygroups and encourages them to becomeautonomous organisations, has already raisedawareness of network development.

There are currently AMANmembers in 9 districts in Papua (and WestIrian Jaya).This shows the great potential forAMAN to become a large indigenous peoplesorganisation, but there has not yet beenenough consolidation. Issues surroundingSpecial Autonomy and the establishment ofthe Papuan People's Council can be used asan arena for consolidating and strengtheningthe indigenous position, especially as regardscontrol over natural resources managementand land rights. This will only happen if thePapuan Regional Government (provincial anddistrict levels) are serious about developingpeople's capacity, have confidence in peopleand give them scope to participate in theprocesses of implementing special autonomyand development in Papua.

The Yapen Waropen case provides alesson in how development can be sidelinedunder the guise of promoting development

(From Papuan publication, Deyai)

16

DOWN TO EARTH No. 65, May 2005

through creating new administrative districts.Previously three areas (Biak, Yapen andWaropen) were grouped in one district - Biak,then split into two (Biak and Yapen Waropendistricts) and finally became three districts(Biak, Yapen and Waropen). This would havebeen beneficial if carried out in the spirit ofdecentralisation, but this split was really aimedat strengthening central control over the area.This can be seen from the logicalconsequences of the move: more districtmilitary commands (Kodim), one for each newdistrict. Security and politics have been moreprominent considerations here thandevelopment and empowerment.

The development of humanresources is very poor in Papua. Indigenousdemands for community participation and theguarantee and protection of indigenous rightsto land and natural resources are seen asthreats to economic and political stability.Alex strongly stated that Papuan people areundergoing a process of genocide in allaspects (economic, political and social). Anexample of discrimination is the handling andresponse to the earthquake disaster in Nabire(Alex compared it to the handling of theearthquake-tsunami disaster in Aceh) and alsothe central government's attitude to buildingdialogue with the Free Aceh Movement(GAM), which is so different to the treatmentof Papua, where the armed and repressiveapproach alone is used to counter separatism.

The illegal logging issueThe operation to counter illegal logging inPapua is well-intentioned, but is not based onan adequate understanding of the socio-cultural and political-economic context inPapua or of special autonomy. An illegallogging operation based solely on the stateforestry law effectively negates Papuan SpecialAutonomy. The result is that communitylogging licences (IPKMA) are regarded as thecause of illegal logging, whereas it is really thelack of control/supervision by the regionalforestry office, which issues the permits, andthe implementing regulations for licences thatare at fault.These fail to involve and empowerPapuan communities who, as the owners ofthe forests, should be the key parties. IPKMAshould be developing the capacity of

indigenous Papuans to manage forestscommercially, but this has never been done.Instead IPKMA are exploited for short-termgain which promotes forest destruction.Operation Hutan Lestari II in Papua hasbrought suffering to Papuans because thepeople arrested are, for the most part,(indigenous) Papuans working in the field.People's access to the forests has also beenlimited by the police. Shots have been firedbetween police and military personnelsupporting illegal logging entrepreneurs -incidents which are seriously disruptingpeople's lives. Operation Anti Illegal Logging isfrequently a means of intimidating people,labelling people who are considered non-cooperative as members of the Free PapuaMovement (OPM).

It is unjust if forests are closed offand indigenous Papuans are denied access tothem, simply due to the mismanagement ofIPKMA and conflicting legislation issued bycentral government. The government isprioritising the exploitation of Papua's naturalresources under the guise of development.

The militaryThe military's significant role and high level ofcontrol over many aspects of life in Papua is anopen secret. The consequences for Papuansinclude low participation in political, economicand social development due to the authorities'distrust of the people. Usually, any kind ofmeeting of Papuans is supervised by themilitary; intelligence officers are posted in allcentres of community activity includingmarkets, and the military controls the work ofthe local government administrations. So it iseasy to imagine the military's power in Papua,quite apart from security business withmultinational companies, illegal and legallogging and many other activities.

The OPM or separatist label is oftenused to pressure people - there have beencases of arrest, beatings/torture and abductionwithout clear evidence or legal basis. Thisdisregard for the law is reflected in thedivision of Papua at district and provinciallevel, despite the Special Autonomy Law.

Also linked to the independencemovement issue is historical transparency.There have been systematic attempts toconceal and even distort the history ofPapua's inclusion into Indonesia. History mustbe set straight, for everyone's benefit,predominantly by those who played leadingroles in the so-called Act of Free Choice in1969.

Militarism, military oppression andthe many human rights violations in Papua,together with the half-heartedimplementation of special autonomy, areproviding more fertile ground for theindependence movement in Papua. People areeven starting to discuss their desire for areferendum and how to submit this to the

MPR [People's Consultative Assembly -Indonesia's highest legislative body].

For Alex, the key to holisticdevelopment in Papua is properimplementation of special autonomy, includinga serious commitment to building the capacityof its human resources and strengthening thepeople's participation in development.

DTE notes:1 AMAN is an independent indigenous

peoples' organisation, which, far frombeing a part of the government apparatus,usually finds itself in direct opposition togovernment policies and developmentstrategies.

2 For more on AMAN's consolidationprogramme see Gaung AMAN (AMAN'snewsletter) August 2003 athttp://www.aman.or.id/ina/publikasi.htm#ppr

3 Papua's Special Autonomy Law (No21/2001) was passed by PresidentMegawati Soekarnoputri in 2001.

4 Indigenous Papuan organisations withvarying objectives and functions. ThePresidium is the most overtly pro-independence from Indonesia and hasbeen targeted by the Indonesiangovernment as a result. In 2001 its leader,Theys Eluay, was murdered by specialforces (Kopassus) military personnel.

Eye on Aceh report, prepared by DTE, 2004Contact dte@gn.apc.org or 016977 46266for more details.Also downloadable from www.acheh-eye.org

17

DOWN TO EARTH No. 65, May 2005

Military base for Wasur National ParkWasur National Park, in southern Papua, managed by conservation organisation WWF, will host a new military

battalion as part of a large build up of military forces in West Papua.

The 413,510 hectare park, in the southerndistrict of Merauke, is close to the borderwith Papua New Guinea and forms part of alarger trans-boundary conservation areaacross the Fly River. It was established in 1990by the Forestry Department on thecustomary lands of indigenous communitiesincluding the Kanum, Marind, Marori-Mangoi,Yei and Kuper.

Wildlife in the park includes deer(Cervus timorensis), seven species of kangaroo,plus 115 species of birds including cockatoosand parrots. Lake Rawa Biru, which lies insidethe park, is home to around 32 species of fishand 23 species of waterbirds. The lake alsoprovides water for the local population in andaround Merauke of around 200,000 people.

The increase in troop numbers forWest Papua was announced in March thisyear (see p5) but plans to establish theheadquarters of Battalion 0775 in Wasur parkstarted months ago.According to a report inthe Indonesian daily, Kompas (4/Aug/04),members of the Kanum community havealready agreed to hand over 20ha of land forthe base; the nature and amount ofcompensation agreed was not reported.However, a neighbouring communitydisagrees with the development, saying thatthe impacts will reach beyond the 20hectares.

The base will include an office,store, accommodation for army employees,officers and soldiers, a football pitch, firingrange and domestic waste disposal site.Kompas reports that NGOs have expressedconcern about the development, with WWFbeing most consistently opposed because it isresponsible for managing the area, along withthe park authorities.

Indigenous communities'livelihoods are based on sustainably-managedhunting, trade in game and sago cultivation,but these resources are already under threatfrom outsiders who illegally shoot game andsteal timber. Indigenous Papuans are in theminority in the area. In previous decades,Merauke was a major resettlementdestination for Javanese migrants under thegovernment's ill-famed transmigrationprogramme and the resettlers have beenjoined by other ethnic groups from outsidePapua since then. Another threat to the areacomes from sand dredging, which makes iteasier for saltwater to enter the lake,according to the head of Papua's NaturalResources Conservation Agency, Benny Saroy.

A military base, housing hundredsof troops can only add to these pressures.Illegal hunting in the park is already known toinvolve military and police personnel. Non-indigenous hunters use weapons and

ammunition that are reported to be soldillegally, and are sometimes obtained from thepolice.

Given the military's history ofbusiness empire-building, it is notunreasonable to ask what economic incentivethere could be to attract the TNI to theMerauke region.

Indonesia says it needs the newsub-regional military command (KOREM) inorder to safeguard the border with PNG. But,as pointed out by journalist Greg Poulgrain,the only cross-border incursions in recentyears have been by Indonesian troops intoPNG territory. Writing in March, Poulgrainpoints to possible economic motivations,describing how, in the Oksibil region to thenorth of Merauke, 10,000 non-Papuans aremining alluvial gold which is flown out byhelicopter to Jayapura, then sent to Jakarta.The article also mentions February reports ofa major oil and gas deposit in the southernreaches of the PNG border area.

(Source: Kompas 4/Aug/04,WestPapuanews.com/news.com.au22/Mar/05, Jakarta Post 19/Apr/05)

Military involvement in thespread of HIV/AIDSReligious leaders have protested against thenumber of sex workers with HIV/AIDS whohave infected Papuans in Mappi district,adjacent to Merauke in southern Papua.

The supply of prostitutes fromoutside Papua, and alcohol, backed by securitypersonnel, is part of the lucrativeinternational trade in gaharu (eaglewood).According to a report in the Jakarta Post, thesex workers are offered to tribal chiefs inorder to secure their support for thebusiness.

Around 500 people staged ademonstration at the provincial assembly inJayapura in November 2004, calling for a stopto the practices, which, they said, thegovernment has ignored.

HIV/AIDS is spreading faster inWest Papua than in Indonesia, with over15,000 people reportedly affected. (JakartaPost 18/Nov/04)

West Papua

18

DOWN TO EARTH No. 65, May 2005

Legal challenge to mining in protected forestsIn an attempt to save forests and livelihoods, environmentalists have sought a judicial review of the government's

2004 decision to permit mining in protected areas.

mining / forests

The NGOs and individuals challenging thegovernment on its pro-industry mining policyare focussing on the negative environmental,social and economic impacts. The July 2004law allowing open-pit mining in lands classifiedby the government as 'protection forests'prioritises international mining investors overlocal communities' health, natural resourcesand livelihoods. Thirteen companies havebeen permitted to resume mining operationsin protected areas.

The 92 petitioners have called onthe expertise of two academics and a formerminister to back up their arguments. On thefirst day of the case, April 5th 2005,Indonesia's Constitutional Court heard fromformer plantations and forestry minister,Muslimin Nasution. He explained how thegovernment had enacted the 1999 forestrylaw, which bans open-pit mining in protectedforests, after it became aware of thedevastating effects. According to Muslimin,this law had been thoroughly discussed withthe mining and environment ministries. Themining ministry, prompted by the concerns ofmining investors, later pushed for the law tobe revised.

Haryadi Kartodihardjo from theBogor Institute of Agriculture, another expertwitness, agreed that forests and the variousservices they provide are irreplaceable oncedestroyed. He also argued that mining suchareas did not, as argued by the government,bring financial and development support forlocal governments. One of the 13 approvedcompanies, PT Karimun Granit, he said, hadbrought losses of Rp4.3billion (US$452,631)per year (see also below).

Another academic, Eko TeguhParipurno warned of impacts in terms ofdisasters such as floods, landslides, droughtand dam sedimentation. He said forestdestruction caused by mining also causedsocial disasters, due to the loss of assetswhich should belong to local communities.

Haryadi also pointed to the indirectimpacts of mining in protected forests, whichput yet more pressure on Indonesia's rapidlydeclining forests. Deforestation rates inIndonesia are the world's highest, estimatedat 3.8 million hectares per year.These indirectimpacts include better access to forests forillegal loggers, thanks to roads built for miningvehicles.

‘Unprotecting’ the forestsThe judicial review is the latest in a long battleby civil society groups to stop mining inprotected forests. A major blow to thecampaign came in July last year whenIndonesia's national parliament passed LawNo 19/2004. This confirmed that miningcompanies whose contracts were signedbefore the 1999 forestry law could resumeoperations in protected forest areas. ForestryLaw 41/1999, while criticised on manyaccounts, did at least attempt to limitdestruction to certain forests by prohibitingopen-pit mining in such areas. This had theeffect of outlawing the activities of around150 mining companies operating across theIndonesian archipelago. It affected theconcessions of companies at the explorationstage, as well as some operations which hadalready started commercial mining, such asUS/British-owned Freeport/Rio Tinto in WestPapua, Canada's Inco in Sulawesi andAustralian-owned Newcrest on HalmaheraIsland, Maluku.

The 1999 ban caused uproar in theinternational mining fraternity, whichpromptly started pressuring Jakarta to makelegal changes in its favour. After a prolonged

period of deliberations and despitewidespread support for a strong nationalcampaign to prevent mining in protectedareas, President Megawati gave way tobusiness and foreign government pressure.She issued emergency legislation in March2004 (Perpu 1/2004) and, later, a decreepermitting 13 of the affected companies toresume operations. It was this emergencylegislation that was then confirmed by thenational parliament last July (see DTE 61:6 formore background).

NGOs are demanding that the lawbe revoked, because both it and the Perpuwere illegal. There have also been allegationsof bribery in parliament where theamendment to the Forestry Act was passedby a narrow margin (just 29 votes, accordingto media reports). Afterwards, a group ofparliamentarians revealed that they had beenoffered payments of Rp50 million to Rp150million (US$5,000 - 15,000) to endorse thepro-mining legislation. Two parliamentaryfactions were reported to have unexpectedlychanged their position from anti to pro-mining on the morning of the vote.

What impact?The thirteen companies permitted to resumeactivities in protected forests are: FreeportIndonesia; Karimun Granit; Inco; IndomincoMandiri; Aneka Tambang (Buli-Mahit);Natarang Mining; Nusa Halmahera Minerals;Pelsart Tambang Kencana; Interex Sacra Raya;Weda Bay Nickel; Gag Nikel; Sorikmas Miningand Aneka Tambang (Bh Bulu Sultra).

Recent reports indicate that someof these projects are taking an unacceptabletoll on local communities, the environmentand local economies.They include:

PT Karimun Granit, which operates inthe Gunung Karimun protected forest, RiauIslands province, Sumatra. Kartodihardjo,the witness in the judicial review, saidcontinuing to mine the protected forestwould bring annual environmental losses ofaround Rp8.5 billion (US$900,000), basedon a calculation of impacts including waterpollution and increased illegal logging. Thelocal government received an income ofRp4.14 billion to Rp5.58 billion from thecompany in 2001-2003, meaning the overalldeficit would be between Rp2.9 bn andRp4.4 bn ($300,000 - 460,000). According

Anti-mining protest in Central Sulawesi

19

DOWN TO EARTH No. 65, May 2005

to the mining advocacy network, JATAM, PTKarimun Granit has been mining granite onKarimun island for around 32 years, and hasan extended contract which runs until 2013.The protected forest contains high levels ofbiodiversity and protects water courses. In2002, a study by the Bandung Institute ofTechnology calculated that mining theprotected forest would result in a loss of74,790 cubic metres of water per year, notincluding water used by the miningoperation itself.

Sorikmas Mining, which holds aconcession covering 66,200 hectares in theMandailing Natal district of North Sumatra.The concession is in the 108,000ha BatangGadis National Park, established in April lastyear in an area formerly classified asprotection and production forests. Thecompany is 75% owned by Australiancompany Oropa Ltd, who took overAberfoyle Pungkut Investments Pte Ltdfrom Pacmin and Western Metals CopperLtd. Aberfoyle's Indonesian partner inSorikmas is the government-owned PTAneka Tambang. The local government andpeople of Mandailing Natal reject mining inthe park, which guarantees supplies ofdrinking and irrigation water for rice-fieldsand plantation crops owned by thecommunities. The park is also home toendangered species such as the Sumatrantiger. According to former districtgovernment head Amru Daulay, illegallogging has become more prevalent in thepark due to Sorikmas's mining activities.Gold exploration by the company has alsoscarred the area, leaving 400 large pits closeto villages, according to Amru. Hequestioned why the central governmentallowed PT Sorikmas to operate in the parkwhen the company had no licence from theforestry ministry.

PT Weda Bay Nickel, which is planning toopen a nickel mining operation in theAketajawe Nature Reserve and Lalobataprotected forest on Halmahera island,North Maluku.The two areas were declareda national park in November last year andcover a total of 167,300 hectares of hill andlowland rainforest. According to theconservation organisation, BirdlifeInternational, the new park is of exceptionalbiodiversity importance and is essential forat least 23 bird species found only in NorthMaluku. Weda Bay's CEO John Lynchboasted that the Canadian company played"a leading role" in the "cooperation"between the Indonesian government andmining industry, which led to the decision toallow mining in such areas. The futureimpacts of mining on the indigenous TobeloDalam community and the new nationalpark have not been highlighted by thecompany. According to Birdlife, the Tobelo

Dalam's livelihoods are already under threatfrom logging and forest clearance forsettlements and plantations.

PT Nusa Halmahera Minerals, operatedby Australian gold mining company,Newcrest on Halmahera Island, NorthMaluku. Local people's protests against themine ended in violence in January 2004when Brimob special forces police shotdead one protester and beat up severalothers (see DTE 60:1). In July last year,shortly after the green light was given tomining in protected forests, a mass protestin North Halmahera district wascoordinated by village leaders, students andNGOs to reject Megawati's pro-miningdecree and to demand that Newcrest leaveNorth Maluku. Communities say thecompany must rehabilitate and restore theenvironment and the local economy whichhas been suffering since mining operationsbegan. They also demanded an end tointimidation and violence by security forcesand unfair treatment at the hands of thegovernment, plus the fulfilment of allpromises, including compensation andcommunity development funds. The massprotest followed an earlier action in May,involving hundreds of local people and theirsupporters, who reoccupied the Toguraciprotected forest, reclaiming their customarylands from Newcrest.

(Source: Jakarta Post 21/Apr/05, 14/Apr/05;http://www.oropa.com.au/current.html;http://www.madina.go.id/CONTENT/TNBG/TNBG.html; JATAM Press Release 2/Mar/04;Republika 19/Apr/05; ENS 12/Nov/04;Miningindo.com 28/Ju/04; Mineweb.com17/Jul/04, Kerebok,April 2004)

Indonesia's legal actionagainst Newmont

Indonesia's environment ministryannounced in March that it was takinglegal action, demanding millions of dollarsin compensation, against US-based miningmultinational Newmont.The company isaccused of polluting coastal waters near itsRatatotok goldmine in North Sulawesi.

In November last year, a government-sponsored study linked the company'smining operations to ill-health in the localcommunity and declining fish stocks inBuyat Bay.Villagers have complained of skindisease, lumps, breathing difficulties anddizziness, which may be symptoms ofarsenic poisoning, the study found.A five-month old baby died in July adding to a tollof more than thirty people whose deathshave been linked to pollution from themine. Newmont Minahasa Raya dumpsmine waste in Buyat Bay, but claims thatthere is no link to declining fisheries orhealth problems (see DTE 63:10 forbackground).

Five company executives, threeIndonesians, one American and oneAustralian, are also facing criminal chargesrelated to pollution, and could face up to15 years in jail. Indonesia is coming underpressure from Australia, which has warnedthat the legal action could undermineforeign investment.

Meanwhile, a former Indonesianenvironment minister has joined NGOs incalling for a ban on Submarine TailingsDisposal - the waste method used byNewmont both in North Sulawesi and atits much bigger copper and gold mine onSumbawa Island, in Nusa Tenggara Baratprovince. Sonny Keraf said it was mucheasier to control on-land tailings disposal,"because we can directly see the effect",whereas tailings could be spreadunderwater by strong currents, pollutingthe water.

(For more background on STD see DTE50:13, http://dte.gn.apc.org/cstd1.htm, andwww.jatam.org).

(Source: AP 27/Mar/05; Jakarta Postreceived 20/Dec/04)

“Stop mining in protected areas”,Indonesian Mining Advocacy Network - JATAM

DOWN TO EARTH No. 65, May 2005

Rio Tinto closes Kelianmine - history of humanrights abusesUK-based mining company Rio Tinto closedthe Kelian gold mine in East Kalimantan inFebruary this year after 13 years ofoperation.

The mine was developed on landowned by indigenous Dayak communitieswho were given no choice but to move. Itshistory has been punctuated by protests overevictions, violence and intimidation bysecurity personnel against people whoprotested, and violence against women aswell as environmental pollution.

According to a Jakarta Post report,Rio Tinto's mine closure programme includesconverting its 6,670-hectare area into aprotected forest plus communitydevelopment programmes through its AnumLio Foundation (YAL). US$11 million has beenset aside for the forest and $2.4 million forthe YAL programmes.

The community programmesincludes training programmes for employees,including farming, fisheries and technical skills.The company will also continue communitydevelopment programmes conductedthrough YAL, including a food securityprogramme to boost rice production and atuberculosis eradication programme in WestKutai district.

Deputy director for externalrelations, Anang Rizkani Noor, said thecompany would fill the mine's two 133-hectare pits and 455-ha tailings dam withwater, turning them into lakes.The processingplant site will be converted into a wetland tofilter the lakes' water and discharge through anatural bioremediation process. He said thecompany would continue to monitor thewater's pollution levels until 2013.

These plans have been criticised bycommunity representatives and by NGOs asinadequate for the long term health andsecurity of local people.A question preparedby DTE for Rio Tinto's annual general meetingin London two years ago remains relevant. Itoffered the criticism that the artificial lakes

and swamp will contain untreated sludgescontaining cyanides, heavy metals and othertoxic substances.

"These could contaminate water suppliesand enter the food chain. Theeuphemistically named 'wet cover' and'wetlands' methods are still experimental.Their long-term safety has not been provenscientifically. Ground and surface waterfrom these areas eventually drains into localrivers used by thousands of local people.Dams can fail or flood, again releasingpolluted water into local rivers.The existingacid rock drainage problem will not besolved solely by covering other waste heapswith soil."(http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Company/rioagm2003.htm)

The local community organisation LKMTLhas repeatedly asked Rio Tinto and KEM totake responsibility for the long-termenvironmental security and protection of thecommunity's health and livelihoods. Theirdemands include guarantees, independentenvironmental monitoring and free hospitalfacilities. LKMTL withdrew from KEM's MineClosure Committee and Working Groups in2003, because it felt the committee was onlya token gesture and did not take communityconcerns and solutions seriously. Itsrepresentatives were forced to return by PTKEM’s management who threatened towithhold payments promised to thecommunity organisation.

Rio Tinto says it has resolvedproblems relating to environmentaldestruction and human rights abuses, and haspaid compensation of up to Rp49 billion ($5.4million) as of 2004 for all claims. PT KEM hadpreviously agreed to pay Rp60 billion duringprotracted negotiations with the community.

The closure of the Kelian minedoes not mean that Rio Tinto will leaveKalimantan. Anang said the company wasregistering permits for copper and goldsurveys in Central and West Kalimantan andfor nickel in Central and Southeast Sulawesi.

Rio Tinto also earns 40% of theprofits from expanded production at the huge

Grasberg gold and copper mine in WestPapua - a project which also has a deplorableenvironmental and human rights record.

(Jakarta Post 31/Jan/05. See also DTE 57:3 formore background on Rio Tinto and Kelian).

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

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

The subscription is £10 a year for institutions and those organisations or individuals who can afford it. Please add equivalent of £1.50 if paying with non sterling cheque. Please make cheques payable to Down to Earth and send to Down to Earth, 59 Athenlay Road, London SE15 3EN, UK. Email: dte@gn.apc.org tel/fax: +44 207 732 7984

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

Broken Promises: How the WorldBank Group policies fail to protectforests and forest peoples’ rights

New joint publication from RainforestFoundation, CDMWatch, GlobalWitness, SinksWatch, Forest PeoplesProgramme, Environmental Defense,World Rainforest Movement and DTE.Includes a chapter on Indonesia.

Contact dte@gn.apc.org to order ordownload fromhttp://www.forestpeoples.org