Voice from Ring One - Case Study Report of Community Score Card

��

Voice from Ring OneCommunity Score Card: Environment and Social Aspects of Oil & Gas Operations

By Pertamina Petrochina East Java (PPEJ) in Sukowati Block, Bojonegoro District, East of Java

Prepared by: Maryati Abdullah

2012

Research Report

Voice from Ring One

Community Score Card: Environment and Social Aspects of Oil and Gas OperationsOf Pertamina Petrochina East Java (PPEJ) in Sukowati Block, Bojonegoro District, East of Java

Lead Researcher Maryati Abdullah

Field ResearchersJoko PurwantoMuhammad Hamdun

All Rights ReservedIssue I, September 2012

This book is published with support from

Affiliated Network for Social Accountability East Asia Pacific (ANSA-EAP)Revenue Watch Institute (RWI)

All publishing rights are protected by Law. Quotes are allowed, provided credits are given to authors and sources as are applicable in writing ethics.

PATTIRO is a member of Publish What You Pay IndonesiaJl. Intan Ujung No.81, Cilandak Barat, Jakarta Selatan 12430Telp/Fax: +62-21 7512503 Email: [email protected] | [email protected]

2

Contents

Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 4

1.Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5 2. Problem Statement ..................................................................................................................... 6

3. Method and Approach ............................................................................................................... 7 Preparatory Groundwork & Research Input Tracking Defining Indicators, Questions and Score Scoring (Communities, Company and Local Government) Interface Meeting

4. Findings and Analysis .............................................................................................................. 12

5. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................ 23

Profiles ......................................................................................................................................... 24

3

Summary

Communities living in the vicinity of mining or extraction of oil, gas, or minerals are the first ones to be exposed to environmental and social impacts of the extractive activities. To address these issues, companies are encouraged to embrace or adopt good mining practices, including implementing HSE (Health, Safety and Environment) and community development programs as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Programs. Bojonegoro is located in the inland part of northern Java plain on the banks of the Bengawan Solo river, the largest river in Java. Bojonegoro was a major producer of teak and tobacco, but overexploitation caused the drastic reduction of the teak forests and vegetation. Bojonegoro is the seat of an on-shore oil field, believed to be one of the biggest reserves in

Indonesia. The Joint Operating Body-Pertamina Petrochina East Java (JOB-PPEJ) has been operating an on-shore oil extraction in Bojonegoro, a province located in East Java for 16 years. In its company reports, JOB-PPEJ states that its CSR Programs include HSE and community development programs, including simulation of emergency handling, buildings of worship (mosques), schools, community health centers, and other infrastructure. Mostly, the community development program devided to some villages based on its distance from the well head, namely ring-1 (with radius from 0-7 km) and ring-2 (from 7 km and more). Eventhought the resource of program was directly disbursed to the group of people by proposal requested, many people in the villages are not satisfy with the program and find the elitism problem in its implementation. on the other side, the kick gas often happen as well, where the gas of hidrogen dioxide (H2S) was sucked by the people in the village and it caused swoon.

NGOs PATTIRO and Bojonegoro Institute used the community score card (CSC) to assess the performance of JOB PPEJ in implementing its commitment to provide HSE and community development components of its CSR. The social audit (CSC) involved three stakeholder groups: (1) communities in the vicinity of the mine (3 villages in ring-1), (2) local government and (3) the company itself. Indicators were based and generated from 2 global standards of the extractive industry (UN-Global Compact and ISO 26000) and national standards set in a legislation and in technical regulation. The indicators were scored by the stakeholder groups, who then brought the group scores for discussion in the interface meeting. They discussed the gap scores and came up with recommendations for improving company accountability in implementing HSE standard and Community Development program.

4

1. Introduction

Standards for responsible mining require operators and contractors of oil and gas to implement health, safety, and environmental (HSE) standards and community development programs (Comdev) in support of sustainable development. Included in the HSE requirement is the implementation of a contingency or emergency plan to ensure safety of communities living in the mining site vicinity.

In Indonesia, the Oil and Gas Law and Environmental Protection and Management Law, the national policy governing the oil and gas sector, embodies these HSE and Comdev requirement. These are further spelled out in the implementing rules and technical rules. Implementation of such legislation and regulations are monitored by BPMIGAS, whose function includes assistance and monitoring of contractors holding KKS-Kontrak Kerja Sama (Production Sharing Contract). At the global level, global standards require extractive industry to implement responsible mining practices. These global standards include the UN Global Compact, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Equator Principle, and ISO 26000, among others. Although participation and compliance with global standards is voluntary, such compliance can be used as a barometer of company performance, especially for the public to participate in assessing the social accountability of the company.

Inputs and involvement of stakeholders in evaluating activities of the extractive industry are important in assessing company’s compliance with global and national standards and policies. One of the tools to gain community’s appraisal and inputs/feedback is Community Score Card (CSC). CSC is a social audit instrument to assess the social accountability of extractive companies. Advantages of conducting participatory appraisal such as the CSC include: a) for the community, i.e., those living in the vicinity of the mines can advocate for improvement in company programs and projects ensuring that these are responsive to community needs; b) companies that espouse participatory mechanisms, aside from enhancing their reputation for adopting social accountability (implementing transparency, accountability and participation measures), can also ensure that communities actually benefit from projects of the company, eventually securing the company’s license to operate. These open and participatory assessments will facilitate social accountability to be mainstreamed in the work program of the extractive company. c) governments can formulate and enforce policies that require participatory assessment of company performances.

PATTIRO and Bojonegoro Institute chose this instrument to assess the operation of JOB PPEJ in Block Sukowati. Three villages in Ring-1 were involved in the CSC initiative, as well as the local government and the company, JOB PPEJ.

5

2. Problem Statement Bojonegoro is a district in East Java Province. It lies in the border of East Java and West Central Java Province. It has poverty rate of 38% of total population, which is 1.432 million. In this district, 2 big blocks of oil and gas operate; they are Block Sukowati (JOB PPEJ) and Block Cepu (JOA MCl-Pertamina). The latter is relative new. During their operation, more than ten accidents of gas kick1 occur. Hundreds of people are exposed to H2S 2 gas because of these accidents. Although standard contingency plan had been simulated, local community members are often still confused with evacuation processes when gas leakage occurs. Villages in Ring-1 lament about the health impacts of JOB-PPEJ’s operations in Bojonegoro, even as there is company assurance of the implementation of the HSE standards. As well, funds and financial assistance are reportedly provided by JOB-PPEJ for community development projects. The lack of information (or poor information mechanisms) about the company’s projects on HSE and community development initiatives is identified as a cause of Ring-1 villages’ lack of trust and confidence in the JOB-PPEJ. The local government of Bojonegoro does not know much about community development programs implemented by two companies in the area. These information issues are the main focus PATTIRO-BI’s scoring or survey in October – December 2011.

6

1 Gas kick is an uncontrolled gas influx into the wellbore that causes or leads to combustion or flaring of the gas released through flare stacks. Pollutants such as carbondioxide (CO2) and Hidrogen Sulphide (H2S) are dispersed over wide areas and can cause problems to human health (Sierra Club Report, Unhealthy Effects of Upstream Oil and Gas Flaring, Sydney NS, January 2002)

2 H2S is Hydrogen sulphide gas a colorless, flammable, extremely hazardous gas with a 'rotten egg' smell"). It is found in natural gas operations, in manure pits as well as in sewer lines. It can cause suffocation and eye irritation. (Occupational Health and Safety Administration, OSHA)

3. Method and Approach

Choosing Community Score Card, PATTIRO-BI undertook the research to allow community a voice in holding JOB-PPEJ accountable. (WaterAid: 2004). The process of CSC was followed, ranging from a) preparatory groundwork and research (Phase 1); b) Input tracking (Phase 2); c) development of indicators, questions, and scores; d) Stakeholder scoring: community scoring, government scoring and company self-scoring; e) Interface meeting.

Preparatory groundwork & Research: In the preliminary research, we collected data and information on global standards that the company refers to, existing legislations that serve as national standard, and other technical standards issued by BPMIGAS.

In the ‘Sustainability Report 2010’ issued by the headquarter of PPEJ, namely Petrochina Inc., there is an avowal that Petrochina uses the UN-Global Compact and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) as references. However, even as the general PPEJ report says that the company subscribes to the GRI, there is no reference that the PPEJ-JOB actually use the GRI as a standard of local company practice. Hence, in this CSC, we refer to 2 standards: the UN-Global Compact and ISO 26000, particularly on the clauses on environment and community development.

In addition to the 2 global standards, this CSC refers to national legislations: the Law on Oil and Gas, the Law on Environmental Protection and Management, and Technical Regulation from BPMIGAS on HSE and Comdev.

Choosing the community.The main criterion in choosing the community for the CSC was the location of the villages from the oil well, those located in Ring-1, i.e., within 0-7 km radius of the oil well. 3 villages belonging Ring 1 were identified: a) Sambiroto village in eastern side; b) Ngampel in the south side; and c) Campurejo village in west and north.

In each village, by the stakeholder analysis we selected 15 respondents. These included village apparatus/agency, farmer, seller, women, youth, religious leader, customary/traditional leader, community prominent figure, and traditional miner. Respondents from local government included civil servants from several offices: environment, energy and mineral resources, economy, social, and local development planning. Respondents from the company included company representatives from HSE and Comdev divisions.

Before score card was strarted, researcher had conducted communication firstly with company regarding the objectives of score card and asking for readiness of company to be scored. In the first approach, company had perceived worrying if score card would cause something to appear bad image for their operations. Company had agreed to be scored when they got explanation that

7

score card would just improve their performance through collecting community’s and government input for their standard on oil & gas operations. They had give commitment to be scored if researcher provided that the scoring would not be published to the media.

Input Tracking. This phase aims at collecting inputs from company, community, and local government, on parameters to be scored in the scorecard. This input tracking phase is also an opportunity for collecting problems faced by stakeholders and for mapping initial condition in field. The inputs are then compiled into matrix form and serve as material for defining scoring parameters.

The input was collected through focused groud discussion (FGD) for looking out the main problem and communities complains regarding the environment standard and its impact as well as the implementation of community development program to the communities surrounding mining operations. Together with the input tracking, company, communities and local government also introduced the method of scorecard which would be conducted by their involvement. The input tracking matrix resulting from the process is as follows:

Impact of Parameters Actual Conditions (Actual Problems)

Impact during Construction Phase (Material and equipment mobilization, oil well drilling, payment of productive facilities, pipage, etc.)

-Commities said that the materials and equipment mobilization causes roads covered with dust and badly destroyed, disturbing transportation.

-Activities of heavy equipment causes high-level noises, also there is gasoline smell and lubricating oil spill from rig flowing into citizens’ rice fields.

-No dissemination of information yet before the oil-drilling activities.-Once the drilling starts, water table of citizens’ wells fall so low that the citizens have difficulties in obtaining water for their daily household needs. Water in rivers becomes muddy and smelly, particularly in dry season.

-Pipeline is too close to villages nearby. If the pipeline tampers dangerously, it will put the villages at risk of oil leak. Soil near the pipeline (within a radius of 50 meters) dries out faster.

Impact during Operational Phase (operating the production facilities, fuel burning in flare stacks, water disposal, and so on)

-When the production facilities are operated, there is a high probability for oil spill in the immediate vicinity of the rig, emitting foul odor

-The citizens are always haunted by the risk of leakage because it happens many times.

-Crop production declines as the result of hydrogen sulfide burning and too-bright lighting from drilling areas. During burning/flare gas phase in stack, people have complaints about high temperature and bad smell.

Specific impact on the environmental (the quality of air, sound, water, and soil)

-Quality of air declines because of dust and bad smell in the immediate vicinity of the drilling location

-Rising temperature is experienced particularly in the immediate vicinity of the flare stack

-Unwanted sound or noise is produced, especially at nighttime-Surface water (in river) look much muddier-People in villages complain about the depth of the water table in their wells-People do not know information about Dangerous Poison Substances (Bahan Beracun Berbahaya, B3)

8

Impact of Parameters Actual Conditions (Actual Problems)

Industrial activity impact on Public Health

-Most diseases caused by air pollution are Acute Respiratory Infections (Infeksi Saluran Pernapasan Akut, ISPA) and psychological impacts such as anxiety, inducing previously-existing diseases (for example, heart disease).

-H2S is produced when the gas-kick accident happens, where people who inhale the gas will be unconscious (the gas produced as the result of drilling-well leakage within a radius of 150 meters can be harmful to health)

-There is scant and infrequent dissemination of information on the impacts of the drilling activity.

Contingency planning (contingency plans, its procedure, dissemination of information , and coordination)

-Dissemination of information on contingency plans is rare; the simulation of which is still limited.

-When accident happens, the equipment for evacuation is minimal-People do not know much yet about the contingency plans.

Access and openness to information on contingency plans and its documents, oil-and-gas operational activity, and other environmental documentation.

-Community’s access to information and document on contingency plans, the development activity in the field (kegiatan pengembangan lapangan, POD), and environmental impact analysis (AMDAL, RKL/RPL, and so on) is minimal.

-Some documents are classified as confidential, so public can not have access to them.

Implementation of community development program

-Company committed programs include projects on social and economic development, education, health, community empowerment, donation for environmental measures, religious, and infrastructure. However, not many people know much about mechanism of the proposal submission for that purpose. regarding it is the public who implement the programs in the end

-Minimum information on fund allocated to each village-There is complaint about minimum coordination between the implementer of the comdev program and the local government.

Community involvement in community development (comdev) program’s need assessment and implementation

-There is community involvement in the comdev program’s need assessment and implementation, but which is limited to some village elite such us the village apparatus

-The comdev program has reached the impacted community, particularly villages within Ring-1 Area and the immediate vicinity of which.

Access to information and document of comdev program implementation

-Minimum access to information and document on comdev programs - both planning and implementation documents, and reports

-Actually the local government gets the comdev program reports from the third party or outsources as the comdev program implementer, instead does not receive any when the Company implements directly the programs for community.

Defining Indicators, Questions, and Score.

Indicators are derived from referenced global standards (UN-Global Compact and ISO 26000), national legislation, and existing technical regulations of oil and gas extractive industry.

Indicators from global standards used in this CSC include:

ISO 26000:2010

Core Subject : EnvironmentIssue-1 : Prevention of pollutionIssue-2 : Sustainability resources UseIssue-3 : Climate change mitigation and adaptationIssue-4 : Protection the environment, biodiversity, and restoration of natural habitat

9

Core Subject : Community Involvement and DevelopmentIssue-1 : Community involvement Issue-2 : Education and culture Issue-3 : Employment creation and skill development Issue-4 : Technology development and accessIssue-5 : Wealth and income creationIssue-6 : HealthIssue-7 : Social Investment

UN-Global Compact

Principle-7 : Business should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenge

- Develop a code of conduct or practice for its operations and products that confirms commitment to care for health and the environment. Develop a company guideline on the consistent application of the approach throughout the company.

- Create a managerial committee or steering group that oversees the company application of precaution, in particular risk management in sensitive issue areas.

- Establish two-way communication with stakeholders, in a pro-active, early stage and transparent manner, to ensure effective communication of information about uncertainties and potential risks and to deal with related enquiries and complaints.

- Use mechanisms such as multi-stakeholder meetings, workshop discussions, focus groups, public polls combined with use of website and printed media.

- Support scientific research, including independent and public research, on the issue involved, working with national and international institutions concerned. - Join industry-wide collaborative efforts to share knowledge and deal with issues, in particular production

processes and products around which high level of uncertainty, potential harm and sensitivity exist.

Principle-8 : Business should undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility -Re-define company vision, policies and strategies to include the 'triple bottom line' of sustainable development — economic prosperity, environmental quality and social equity.

-Develop sustainability targets and indicators (economic, environmental, social). -Establish a sustainable production and consumption programme with clear performance objectives to take the organisation beyond compliance in the long-term.

-Work with suppliers to improve environmental performance, extending responsibility up the product chain and down the supply chain.

-Adopt voluntary charters, codes of conduct or practice internally as well as through sectoral and international initiatives to confirm acceptable behaviour and performance.

-Measure, track and communicate progress in incorporating sustainability principles into business practices, including reporting against global operating standards.

-Ensure transparency and unbiased dialogue with stakeholders.

Principle-9 : Business should encourages the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies

10

-Establishing a corporate or individual company policy on the use of environmentally sound technologies. -Making information available to stakeholders that illustrates the environmental performance and benefits of using such technologies.

-Refocusing research and development towards ‘design for sustainability’.-Use of life cycle assessment (LCA) in the development of new technologies and products. Employing Environmental Technology Assessments (EnTA).

-Examining investment criteria and the sourcing policy for suppliers and contractors to ensure that tenders stipulate minimum environmental criteria.

-Co-operating with industry partners to ensure that ‘best available technology’ is available to other organizations.

Questions was derivated from these indicators, and set a scoring system. Scoring was set at range of 1 to 5, ascribed the following qualitative weights: 1 : Very Poor; 2 : Poor; 3 : Fair; 4 : Good; 5 : Very Good.

Scoring

The scoring process including: Community scoring (by Ring-1 communities), government scoring (by local government), and selfscoring (by the company itself). The scoring process is facilitated by facilitator which is involved the lead researcher and field reseacher, with assistance from a facilitator assistant (assistant of field researcher) and a process recorder.

The scoring process was going through facilitation process to give score to each question of scoring. The facilitators explained the meaning of each question and asking for opinions or respons of respondents. Because of the unit score of this score card was the community/stakeholder group, the score was agreed and concluded by the unit score itself. Interface meeting

Scoring results have been processed along with the recommendations. Stakeholders who attended the interface meeting discussed the score results, sought clarification on the score results, and discussed the gap scores. The interface meeting was facilitated with the aim of reaching agreement on heart of every problem, find solutions, and define roles which stakeholders have to take in implementation of HSE standard and Comdev of oil and gas extractive activities.

11

4. Findings and Analysis

4.1. Scores

Aspect of scoring ScoringScoringScoringScoringScoring

Justification of ScoreAspect of scoring

Village-1*

Village-2 **

Village-3 *** Loc. Gov Company

Justification of Score

IndicatorVillage-

1* Village-

2 **Village-3 *** Loc. Gov Company


ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT

The existence of Health Safety and Environment (HSE) StandardThe existence of Health Safety and Environment (HSE) StandardThe existence of Health Safety and Environment (HSE) StandardThe existence of Health Safety and Environment (HSE) StandardThe existence of Health Safety and Environment (HSE) StandardThe existence of Health Safety and Environment (HSE) StandardThe existence of Health Safety and Environment (HSE) Standard

The existence of HSE Standard/Regulations in the industry.

(the existence of the standard, its implementation and dissemination of information on it)

2/5 5/5 4/5 5/5 5/5

Community (good) : The community confirmed that the company has an existing SOP. But the SOP is more applied to its employees (internally), instead of being disseminated widely.

There are parts of the SOP that are not fulfilled or implemented yet (for example, in relation to kick gas accidents where its occured there are no sweeper staff in the immediate vicinity of the drilling well, even it obligated)

Local government (very good) : they believe that the company has SOP that being applied and being disseminated to the community

The Company (very good) : every new drilling activity will be informed to the community

Prevention and control of air, sound, and water pollutions: Reducing greenhouse gasesPrevention and control of air, sound, and water pollutions: Reducing greenhouse gasesPrevention and control of air, sound, and water pollutions: Reducing greenhouse gasesPrevention and control of air, sound, and water pollutions: Reducing greenhouse gasesPrevention and control of air, sound, and water pollutions: Reducing greenhouse gasesPrevention and control of air, sound, and water pollutions: Reducing greenhouse gasesPrevention and control of air, sound, and water pollutions: Reducing greenhouse gases

Prevention and control of the emitted gas of SO2 and NO2


2/5 4/5 0/5 5/5 5/5

Community (fair): the community do not know in particular about the existence f the standard because of the minimum dissemination

Local government (very good): they believe that the company has standard for controlling SO2 and NO2 gases, which is being applied and disseminated. The Company (very good): regular monitoring quality control, having detectors, doing maintenance of the drilling equipment/machine, and regular examination by third party.

Prevention and control of heat emitted from gas flares

(standard distance between the flare stacks, dissemination on it, and there is complaint about the emission)

2/5 3/5 2/5 2/5 4/5

Community (poor) : distance between flare stack is accordance with the standard but the community feels the minimum dissemination of the information so that still there are worries, and complaints, about the heat emission from the gas flaring

Local government (poor): distance between the flare stacks is accordance with the standard, although this information is not being disseminated and there are many complaints from the community

The Company (good): PPEJ during last 8 months has been using EHTF (enclosed high temperature flare) system; to the communityʼs complaint, when flaring activity occurs, PPEC gives compensation (Rp. 300,000 to Rp. 500,000 per head of family/month-depending on the radius).

12



Village-1*

Village-2 **



IndicatorVillage-

1* Village-



Prevention and control of H2S gas leakage from drilling well


2/5 5/5 4/5 5/5 5/5

Community (fair): they believe that there are standards for preventing and controlling the gas leakage. Still, there are many complaints about its application (because the leakage still happens), there is minimum, uneven dissemination of information Local government (very good): they believe that the company has standard control of H2S leakage, being applied and disseminated properly by the company through simulation.

The Company (very good): Because they hold regular monitoring, have H2S detector and sweepers.

Prevention and control of sound pollution Prevention and control of sound pollution Prevention and control of sound pollution Prevention and control of sound pollution Prevention and control of sound pollution Prevention and control of sound pollution Prevention and control of sound pollution

Prevention and control of noises


2/5 2/5 0/5 3/5 4/5

Community (poor): they believe that the company has standard which has not been disseminated properly. There are complaints, especially on the noise at night. Local government (fair): they believe that the company has standard of prevention and control of noises, although it is not disseminated properly, and the community has complaints about it, sometimes.

The Company (good): Periodic monitoring of noise levels according to standard quality of sound.

Prevention and control of water pollutionPrevention and control of water pollutionPrevention and control of water pollutionPrevention and control of water pollutionPrevention and control of water pollutionPrevention and control of water pollutionPrevention and control of water pollution

Prevention and control of water pollution (underground)


2/5 4/5 4/5 3/5 5/5

Community (fair) : they believe that the company has the standard, sometimes being disseminated, however, still there are complaints about the muddiness of water in the river close to the drilling location and the lowness of water table

Local government (fair): they believe that the company has the standard, which is not disseminated properly though, and that there is no complaint.

The Company (very good): they apply the standard prevention and control of oil spills and provide equipment for handling the spills.

Control of waste water disposal

(the existence of the waste water disposal, the injection, and the communityʼs complaints)

2/5 4/5 2/5 5/5 5/5

Community (fair): The Company has disposal tank into which waste water is being injected, but there are complaints about its strong odor from that.

Local government (very good): they believe that the company has disposal tank into which waste water being injected, and that there is no complaint at all.

The Company (very good): Because waste water produced from crude oil separation has been injected into disposal tank and that that has been disseminated properly to the community during meeting with them

Prevention and controls of Dangerous and Poisonous Substance Waste (Limbah Bahan Beracun dan Berbahaya, B3)Prevention and controls of Dangerous and Poisonous Substance Waste (Limbah Bahan Beracun dan Berbahaya, B3)Prevention and controls of Dangerous and Poisonous Substance Waste (Limbah Bahan Beracun dan Berbahaya, B3)Prevention and controls of Dangerous and Poisonous Substance Waste (Limbah Bahan Beracun dan Berbahaya, B3)Prevention and controls of Dangerous and Poisonous Substance Waste (Limbah Bahan Beracun dan Berbahaya, B3)Prevention and controls of Dangerous and Poisonous Substance Waste (Limbah Bahan Beracun dan Berbahaya, B3)Prevention and controls of Dangerous and Poisonous Substance Waste (Limbah Bahan Beracun dan Berbahaya, B3)

Prevention and control of Dangerous and Poisonous Substances (Bahan Beracun dan Berbahaya, B3 )

(the existence of special pool for the B3 waste, the usage, and the communityʼs complaints)

4/5 5/5 2/5 5/5 5/5

Community (good): the company has the B3-waste tank, but sometimes there is the communityʼs complaint about the transporting vehicles. Local government (very good): they believe that there is a disposal tank into which waste water being injected, and that there is no complaint.

The Company (very good: the B3 waste is pooled in temporary disposal (tempat pembuangan sementara, TPS) then given to the third party that will handle it.

Prevention and treatment of diseases resulting from the mining activitiesPrevention and treatment of diseases resulting from the mining activitiesPrevention and treatment of diseases resulting from the mining activitiesPrevention and treatment of diseases resulting from the mining activitiesPrevention and treatment of diseases resulting from the mining activitiesPrevention and treatment of diseases resulting from the mining activitiesPrevention and treatment of diseases resulting from the mining activities

13



Village-1*

Village-2 **



IndicatorVillage-

1* Village-



Prevention and treatment of majority/special diseases resulting from the mining activities

(the existence of the program, the implementation, and the dissemination of it)

2/5 4/5 2/5 4/5 5/5

Community (fair): the program exists, (namely, free health-care), there is some dissemination of information, but there are many complaints about the rise of respiratory diseases and headache since the oil-drilling activity started.

Local government (good): they believe that the program exists, and is running, minimal dissemination of information though.

The Company (very good): they have collaboration with village clinics and that they hold health care for free

Periodic explanation/dissemination on impact of mining activities to human health

(the existence of the program, time of the implementation, and the included areas)

2/5 1/5 2/5 4/5 5/5

Community (very poor) : there is illumination, not periodic though, only before the drilling activities start and just involves a few persons (villagesʼ agents)

Local government (good): they believe that the program exists, is running, minimum in dissemination though.

The Company (very good) : periodic illumination/dissemination is given through community development program

emergency contingency plans : H2S exposure, oil leakage and spill, fire accident, and other potential emergenciesemergency contingency plans : H2S exposure, oil leakage and spill, fire accident, and other potential emergenciesemergency contingency plans : H2S exposure, oil leakage and spill, fire accident, and other potential emergenciesemergency contingency plans : H2S exposure, oil leakage and spill, fire accident, and other potential emergenciesemergency contingency plans : H2S exposure, oil leakage and spill, fire accident, and other potential emergenciesemergency contingency plans : H2S exposure, oil leakage and spill, fire accident, and other potential emergenciesemergency contingency plans : H2S exposure, oil leakage and spill, fire accident, and other potential emergencies

The contingency plans exist

(the existence of the standard /regulation, the dissemination of it, and the communityʼs complaints)

2/5 4/5 2/5 5/5 5/5

Community (fair): the standard SOP exists, but it is not disseminated and there are complaints about the loose application of it.

Local government (very good): they believe that the program exists, is running, minimum in dissemination though.

The Company (very good) : contingency plans are watched and required by BPMIGAS

There is contingency plan team

(the existence of the team, the dissemination of it, and its role during emergency)

2/5 4/5 2/5 5/5 5/5

Community (fair): there is the team (PKDB), but minimum in dissemination, and sometimes it has low performance when there is an emergency situation. Also, its members live far away from drilling areas.

Local government (very good): they believe that the contingency plans team exists, that about it has been disseminated, and that the team works well in emergencies)

The Company (very good): information about the team, the company has disseminated through PKDB (Penanggulangan Keadaan Darurat Bencana) forum

Coordination with stakeholders (local government and community) on the mining activity phases and contingency planning

(the existence of periodic coordination and multiparty dialogue)

2/5 3/5 2/5 5/5 5/5

Community (poor): there is socialiizations held before the drilling activities start, but it just involves villagesʼ agents. Usually, it is not until the community holds demonstrations against it they will be invited to join socializations. The dissemination of information by circulating informing notes.

Local government (very good) : they believe that there is periodic coordination involving multi-parties)

The Company (very good): they hold coordination every time drilling process will start and involve multi-parties in it.

14



Village-1*

Village-2 **



IndicatorVillage-

1* Village-



The existence of the early warning system and emergency signs

(the existence of the early warnings, emergency signs and its dissemination)

2/5 3/5 2/5 5/5 5/5

Community (poor): some equipment do not work well (for example, the siren not producing any sound), and no dissemination of what the emergency signs mean

Local government (very good): they believe that the company has an early warning system and emergency signs, disseminated properly.

The Company (very good): they have early warning detectors, alarm system, colored flag signs in areas (green means safe; red means danger)

The existence of contingency equipment

(the existence of equipment such as masker, gas detector, flashlight/spotlight, megaphone, communications radio, fire extinguisher, whistle, spill-handling equipment, etc., all of which work well and in sufficiency)

2/5 2/5 2/5 2/5 5/5

Community (poor): there is emergency-handling equipment, but function of some of them are doubtful, and not sufficiently available (for example: masker)

Local government (poor): they believe that the company has the emergency-handling equipment, although not all of them work well and not sufficiently available (for example: masker)

The Company (very good): the equipment is available in mining areas according to its purposes

The existence of evacuation route and shelters in emergency (contingency plan)

(the existence of the evacuation route and shelter, the dissemination of it and its usage)

2/5 4/5 3/5 3/5 5/5

Community (fair): there is evacuation route, but sometimes, the information is not disseminated. Minimal the route signs are available.

Local government (fair): they believe that there is evacuation route and shelters, that those are available in emergency, but many community members do not know about the route. The Company (very good): the equipment is available in mining areas for its purposes

The existence of medical staffs and security guards in emergency handling (contingency plan)

(the existence of the standby staffs and guards)

5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5

Community (very good): the existence of medical staffs and security guards, who are always standby.

Local government (very good): they believe that there are always standby medical staffs and security guards

The Company (very good): there are always medical staffs, standby in mining areas

Periodic dissemination on emergency handling (signs, procedure of rescue, and evacuation route)

(periodic dissemination and the impacted areas are included)

2/5 5/5 2/5 5/5 5/5

Community (fair): there is some information provided, but not done periodically and does not include the impacted areas

Local government (very good): they believe that there is periodic dissemination through the PKDB and that it covers already within in radius-2.

The Company (very good): the dissemination via PKDB forum

Periodic simulation on emergency-handling procedure

(periodic simulation implementation)

2/5 0/5 2/5 5/5 5/5

Community (poor): there is simulation but not regular or periodic

Local government (poor): they believe that there is periodic simulation involving the impacted community

The Company (very good): the dissemination goes through the PKDB forum

15



Village-1*

Village-2 **



IndicatorVillage-

1* Village-



Abandonment and Site Restoration Abandonment and Site Restoration Abandonment and Site Restoration Abandonment and Site Restoration Abandonment and Site Restoration Abandonment and Site Restoration Abandonment and Site Restoration

Fund for abandonment-and-site-restoration is allocated

(the existence of the fund allocated, and the easiness of access)

0/5 3/5 0/5 3/5 5/5

Community (fair): the fund is available, already allocated, but the fact that the fund is existent has not been disseminated; some of community membersʼ response is that they do not know anything about this Local government (fair): they believe that the company has allocated its fund for abandonment and site restoration, although that has not been disseminated and the company only gives the information upon request.

The Company (very good): they deposit the fund through a joint account with BPMIGAS.

Access and Openness to Public Information related to Environmental AspectAccess and Openness to Public Information related to Environmental AspectAccess and Openness to Public Information related to Environmental AspectAccess and Openness to Public Information related to Environmental AspectAccess and Openness to Public Information related to Environmental AspectAccess and Openness to Public Information related to Environmental AspectAccess and Openness to Public Information related to Environmental Aspect

Access to and openness to public information on standard HSE documents

2/5 2/5 2/5 5/5 5/5

Community (poor): the community thinks that the company has the required documents. However, the documents are not available at any time and are not given when the community request for them; some of community members have yet to request them though. Local government (very good): they believe that HSE documents actually exist, which are available at any time, and can be given any time upon request

The Company (very good): the documents may be given with the superiorʼs approval

Access to and openness to public information on standard AMDAL (environemntal impact analysis) and RKL/RPL (plan of work and monitoring) documents

(the existence of the documents, its availability and the easiness of access to them)

2/5 2/5 2/5 4/5 5/5

Community (poor): the intended documents are available but not at any time and not given when there is a request for them

Local government (good): they believe that the intended documents are available at any time, not necessarily given when there is a request though.

The Company (very good): the documents can be given by the superiorʼs approval

Access and openness to public information on contingency Plan documents

(the existence of the documents, its availability and the easiness of access to them)

2/5 2/5 2/5 5/5 5/5

Community (poor): the intended documents are available, but not at any time and not given when there is a request for them

Local government (very good): they believe that the intended documents are available and will be given when there is a request for them

The Company (very good): the documents may be given with the superiorʼs approval

SOCIAL ASPECT (Community Development Program)SOCIAL ASPECT (Community Development Program)SOCIAL ASPECT (Community Development Program)SOCIAL ASPECT (Community Development Program)SOCIAL ASPECT (Community Development Program)SOCIAL ASPECT (Community Development Program)SOCIAL ASPECT (Community Development Program)

Community development program planning Community development program planning Community development program planning Community development program planning Community development program planning Community development program planning Community development program planning

16



Village-1*

Village-2 **



IndicatorVillage-

1* Village-



Community development (comdev) program planning

(the existence of the planning, dissemination on it, and multi-party dialogue)

2/5 1/5 2/5 5/5 5/5

Community (poor) : Comdev plan exists but is not being disseminated; multi-partiesʼ involvement is minimal (the representatives consist of villagesʼ agents and the committee officials only, whereas the local government representatives are in separate coordination)

Local government (very good): they believe that the comdev activity planning exists, being disseminated and involving multi-party dialogue

The Company (very good): the program planning exists, being disseminated through comdev implementer team; there is multi-party dialog involving community members

Community development program coverage Community development program coverage Community development program coverage Community development program coverage Community development program coverage Community development program coverage Community development program coverage

Community development program coverage

(the program covers development in economic, educational, and health matters, public health, help with environmental means, religious matters, and infrastructure)

5/5 3/5 5/5 5/5 5/5

Community (good): the company does implement the community development program including all those sectors.

Local government (very good): they believe that the companyʼs program has included development in economic, educational, and health matters, public empowerment, helps with environmental means, and infrastructure.

The Company (very good): development programs of economic, educational, and health matters; public empowerment, helps with environmental means, and infrastructure.

Implementation of community development program Implementation of community development program Implementation of community development program Implementation of community development program Implementation of community development program Implementation of community development program Implementation of community development program

Implementation of program involving the public in its implementation

(involving the public as the implementer, the existence of the procedure and its dissemination)

2/5 5/5 2/5 5/5 5/5

Community (fair): majority of the implementation involve public as its implementer, but sometimes its procedure and dissemination involve executive committee/villagesʼ officials only, not including wide community though. Local government (very good): they believe that the comdev activity implementation may involve the public as its implementer with certain mechanisms and dissemination.

The Company (very good): implementation of the comdev program involves the public as its implementer; mechanism of proposal submission, about which information is disseminated, is available

Areas are included in implementation of community development program

(the included areas)

3/5 3/5 3/5 4/5 4/5

Community (fair): implementation of the comdev program includes the villages-producer, ring-1 and ring-2 villages. Local government (very good): they believe that the implementation includes the impacted areas (the villages-producer, ring-1 and ring-2 villages)

The Company (very good): the implementation of the program includes the impacted areas (the villages-producer, ring-1 and ring-2 villages).

Reports on progress and implementation of the community development program Reports on progress and implementation of the community development program Reports on progress and implementation of the community development program Reports on progress and implementation of the community development program Reports on progress and implementation of the community development program Reports on progress and implementation of the community development program Reports on progress and implementation of the community development program

Reports on progress and implementation of the community development program

(the existence of the reports, the dissemination, and the report submission to local government)

2/5 2/5 1/5 3/5 3/5

Community (poor): both the reports on progress and implementation are existent, but not made public although they are submitted to the local government

Local government (fair): they believe that the company makes reports on progress and implementation of the comdev program; in fact the company submits the reports to the local government although not make them public

The Company (fair): the report on progress is existent, not made public though, but is submitted to the local government

17



Village-1*

Village-2 **



IndicatorVillage-

1* Village-



Funds allocation for community development programFunds allocation for community development programFunds allocation for community development programFunds allocation for community development programFunds allocation for community development programFunds allocation for community development programFunds allocation for community development program

Allocation of fund for community development program

(existence of special fund allocation, dissemination and information of allocation per village)

2/5 3/5 2/5 2/5 5/5

Community (poor): the special-allocated fund is exist, but with minimal information provided to each village. Also, some community members didnʼt know how much fund allocated to the each village.

Local government (poor): they believe that the company has already specially-allocated fund, though no dissemination yet, and the local government does not know how much fund allocated to the villages each.

The Company (very good): the fund specially allocated to the community development is existent; allocation for each village will be informed.

Access and Openness to Public on community development program Access and Openness to Public on community development program Access and Openness to Public on community development program Access and Openness to Public on community development program Access and Openness to Public on community development program Access and Openness to Public on community development program Access and Openness to Public on community development program

Access to and openness of information on community development program planning

(the existence of the documents, its availability and the easiness of the access)

2/5 1/5 2/5 1/5 5/5

Community (good): planning documents are existent, but not available at any time and not necessarily given when there is a request for them

Local government (very poor): they do not know anything about the planning documents; all they have received is reports on the implementation .

The Company (very good): the documents are available at any time and can be given with the company authorityʼs approval

Access and openness to report documents on progress and implementation of the community development program

(the existence of the documents, its availability, and the easiness of the access)

2/5 1/5 2/5 5/5 5/5

Community (poor): the documents are existent, but not available at any time and not necessarily will be given when there is a request for them

Local government (very good): they believe that the intended documents are available at any time and will be allowed access upon request.

The Company (very good): the documents are existent, available at any time, and will be given with the superiorʼs approval

Access and openness to information about fund allocated to community development program per village

(the existence of the documents, its availability, and the easiness of the access)

2/5 1/5 2/5 5/5 5/5

Community (poor): the documents are available, but not at any time, and not necessarily will be given every time there is a request for them

Local government (very good): they believe that the intended documents are existent, available at any time, and allowed to access when there is a request for them.

The Company (very good): the documents are available at any time and may be given with the superiorʼs approval

* Sambiroto| ** Campurejo| *** Ngampel

18

4.2. Agreements reached at the Interface Meeting

Follow-up plans are produced by the Interface Meeting. These include:1. Company (JOB PPEJ) will evaluate CSR/Comdev Implementer Team on community’s

complaints on Comdev programs (as discussed in the scoring), and the evaluation results will be disseminated to the community. Follow-up action agreed is periodic holding multistakeholder meetings on Comdev mechanism.

2. The company will disseminate information and simulation on management of environmental impacts through PDKB Team (Penanggulangan Keadaan Darurat dan Bencana/Emergency Response and Disaster Team) in improving mechanism of PDKB Team work by considering representativeness of community in Ring-I, as well as disseminate names of PDKB Team members. Community will be informed of the updates and progress.

3. Scores, recommendations, and commitments produced in this forum are not published to media, but to be forwarded first to the Bupati via recommendation letter.

4.3. Interpretation and Analysis of Scores

1. Environmental aspect- On availability of SOP on HSE, community believes that the company keeps the standard,

however, they do not disseminate the information adequately. For this reason and occurring complaints, community scores Poor (averagely 2). Local government and company, on the other hand, score maximum (5 = Very Good) because they believe that company develops, disseminates, and implements SOP on HSE.

- On air pollution prevention and management and green house gas emission reduction, community scores averagely 2.75. They give low score because they find minimum dissemination on the issue. Although their distance from flare stack complies with the standard, they worry about potential flaring and complain about heat radiation caused by flaring, gas leakage, and minimum availability of gas leakage anticipation tools, such as wind vane, siren, and evaluation route. Local government scores averagely 4.25 (Good) because they believe that the company produces and disseminates SOP, and develops disaster management standard, although the implementation is not very good (there are complaints on it). The company scores averagely 4.75 (Very Good) because they believe they develop and disseminate SOP, implement routine monitoring on quality standard (including those monitored by third party), use EHTF (Enclosed High Temperature Flare) in flaring system, provide emergency management tools, and provide compensations for complainers of flaring incidents at amount of Rp 300,000 – 500,000 per household/month, depending on the distance (radius) from the oil wells.

- On sound and water pollution prevention, hazardous waste management, and mining-related disease prevention, community scores fairly (2.84) , considering that they complain about noise from drilling activities, poor water quality, poor water flow, bad smell from waste water disposal well, bad smell from vehicles transporting hazardous waste, and increased incidents of respiratory tract diseases. Local government scores averagely 4.75 (Good) because they

19

confirm that the company develops SOP on waste management, has waste water disposal, has hazardous waste disposal system, and provides health education to community periodically, although they also see complaints from community. The company scores averagely 4.75 (Very Good) because they confirm that they develop SOP on waste management, monitors quality standard periodically, maintains waste water disposal well to inject liquid waste, transports hazardous waste out of mining area, and maintains cooperation with village-level clinic to provide health education periodically.

- On contingency plan and ASR (Abandonment and Site Restoration) aspect, community scores 1.85 (Poor), in which community believes SOP on contingency plan exists and finds medical and security personnel perform their duty, yet they also complain about under-optimized function of PDKB Team, danger warning system and tools (such as siren, gas detector, wind vane, evacuation route, and minimum amount of masks), minimum dissemination and simulation efforts, and minimum information on post-mining funds. Local government scores 3.7 (Good) because they believe that the company develops SOP on contingency plan, disseminates information, and facilitates simulation and adequate tools, although they find complaints. The company scores itself 4.5 because they confirm that they develop SOP on emergency and contingency plan, provide dissemination and simulation periodically, provide tools in mining location, and allocate post-mining funds that they submit to joint account of company and BP MIGAS.

- On information openness and access to information on environment documents, community scores averagely 2 (Poor). They give low score because they perceive HSE, Environmental Impact Analysis, RKL (environmental development plan), RPL (environmental monitoring plan), and contingency plan documents belong to company, and should be available for them when they request them. Community can access the information; however, the information is not readily made available and not accessible even when community request them. Local government scores averagely 4.67 because they consider that these documents are public documents that should be accessible to public, and that they (local government) can access them. The company gave the highest score (5) because they claim that the documents are available at any time, however, to access them may need approval from the central office in Jakarta.

2. Social Aspect - On community development (Comdev) program plan and coverage: Community scores 3

(Fair), as they view community development program planning exists and the scope is broad, and multiparty dialog exists, however, the Comdev planning and dissemination are limited to village apparatus only. Local government scores averagely 5 (Very Good) because they believe that Comdev program is developed through multistakeholder dialog and includes broad scope of interests. The company scores maximum (5 = Very Good) because they confirm that program planning process is disseminated to Comdev implementer committee, multistakeholder dialog involves community, and Comdev program includes economic

20

development, health, community empowerment, provision of environment facilities, religious facilities, and infrastructures.

- On program implementation and fund allocation of Comdev. Community scores averagely 2.66 (Fair) because they find fund allocation per village in Ring-1 and Ring-2, and program implementers are community members, however they complain about dissemination and implementation that only occur in village elites. Local government scores 3.25 (Fair) because they believe that the company allocates special fund and involves community in implementing Comdev. The company scores averagely 5 (Very Good) because they confirm that there is Comdev fund allocation per village, community involvement in Comdev program as implementer, producer villages, Ring-1 village, and Ring-2 village.

- On reporting of program updates and access to public information. Community finds that there is report on program updates; however, the report is not disseminated. They also find that there are documents on program planning, updates, and implementation, however, these documents are not accessible to the community when they ask for them. Therefore, community scores 1.67 (Poor). Local government scores 3.4 (Fair) because they believe that the company has Comdev programs that are available at any time, including documents on program planning, fund allocation, updates, and implementation reports. Local government (particularly Bappeda) also receives carbon copy of the reports, although they may not be directly accessible to the community. The company scores 4 (Good) because they confirm that they prepare Comdev implementation reports and send them to Bappeda, provide documents on Comdev program and made them available and accessible with approval from company chief in central office (in Jakarta).

Analysis of the score and interpretation is described as follows:- The company develops regulation and standard (SOP) on Health, Safety, and Environment,

including contingency plan and disaster management standard in oil and gas industry. Implementation of the standard is monitored by government agency that is responsible in education and monitoring in oil gas industry, namely BPMIGAS. However, actual implementation of standard has flaws, such as minimum dissemination, irregular simulation, low coverage (reaches only the elite of community), and minimum availability of emergency/disaster response of oil and gas industry (gas detector, masker, evacuation route and direction, siren, availability of personnel), etc. The scores reveal weaknesses that company should improve, in order to improve their HSE standard.

- On prevention and management standard of pollution (air, water, and sound), green house emission, and hazardous waste; most community is not aware of the standard, although they understand and experience the implementation made by the company. The scoring therefore should be noted by the company and drive them to disseminate the standard, raise community’s awareness of the standard implementation, and reduce community’s worry on potential oil and gas pollution/accident.

- On existence of Comdev program, community’s various level of acceptance on it reveals community’s level of involvement, existence of Comdev fund allocation per village, and

21

broad scope of Comdev activities. Comdev program is seen to be accessible for the elites only. If such condition is not anticipated, community may develop social jealousy. It is therefore important for the company to find ways to involve all levels/elements of community in Comdev programs and accordingly respond community’s needs. It is also important to build a complaint hearing and handling mechanism, in order to build social support to oil and gas industry in the area.

- On access to information and information openness, the scoring reveals that most information and documents on Comdev program belong to the company and are accessible on approval from company’s chief in Jakarta, and that some of the documents are forwarded to local government. Therefore, to ensure community’s rights on public information and documents as stated in KIP (Law on Public Information Openness) no 14/2010, company should forward the documents to local government, and local government –as a public entity- should open public’s access to the documents. The access may be open by request from community, or be provided periodically or continuously.

22

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1. Conclusion1. Scores collected from community, local government, and company reveal appraisal gap

among these three groups. Such gap; may exist because of different perception on environment aspect (availability of SOP on HSE, air-water-sound pollution prevention and management, contingency plan, post-mining rehabilitation, and access to information and information openness) and social aspect (planning, programs scope, fund allocation, multistakeholder involvement, and access to information and information openness).

2. Appraisal gap occurs because of community’s information lacking –particularly information on HSE standard and Comdev program implementation- that should be provided by company to community, both by means of dissemination and opening community’s access to the information. Local government’s role in facilitating community’s interests in company in environment and social aspects is not yet optimum, which makes it appear that company and community solve problems between them without local government’s concern.

3. Through interface meeting forum, agreements are reached. The agreements need follow ups and monitoring by community and local government.

5.2. Recommendations1. Company needs to make regular dissemination and simulation on HSE standard in oil and gas

industry where they operate, thus community understands and is aware of the standard implementation.

2. On access and information openness, company needs to deliver all public information and documents to local government. Thus local government, as public entity that is subject to Law of Public Information Openness, can fulfill its role in promoting community’s rights on information access.

3. It needs monitoring and follow-ups to monitor commitments produced by the interface meeting forum.

4. It needs regular scoring to monitor and ensure company’s updates and performance improvement in implementing their environment and social standards.

23

Profiles

PATTIROPATTIRO is a non-governmental organization founded in 1999 that is dedicated to promoting and creating good governance, particularly at a local level. PATTIRO focuses on public service improvement, planning and budgeting system development, and stakeholder capacity building and strengthening. PATTIRO works in 20 districts in Indonesia and undertakes research and advocacy using a partnership approach with local stakeholders in order to build good governance and social justice. The majority of PATTIRO’s work is in the area of budget analysis, expenditure monitoring, public service policy monitoring, local economic strategies development, and budget revenue monitoring. PATTIRO has been facilitating multi-stakeholders dialogs to build oil and gas management transparency model at local level, especially in Blora and Bojonegoro. It includes issues of revenues, CSR, social and environmental impacts of oil and gas extractive industry. PATTIRO is a member Publish What You Pay (PWYP) Indonesia, a civil society coalition that promotes EITI and EI governance at national level.

Bojonegoro InstituteBojonegoro Institute (BI) is a civil society organization that has been establised for 7 years. Since it was born, BI has been maintaining concern in strengthening local governments and societies. In accomplishing its vision and mission, BI works mainly in budgeting and planning, public service, transparency and accountability issues. In the last 4 (four) years, BI in collaboration with PATTIRO, has been facilitating multi-stakeholders dialogs to build oil and gas management transparency model at local level. It includes issues of revenues, CSR, and social and environmental impacts of oil and gas extractive industry. BI has also assist local governments in making sustainable local plans in utilizing oil and gas revenues. Bojonegoro Institute (BI) join Publish What You Pay (PWYP) Indonesia, a coalition that promotes EITI and EI governance at national level.

24

Publish What You Pay (PWYP) Indonesia Publish What You Pay (PWYP) Indonesia is a coalition of civil society for transparency and accountability of extractive resource revenues and governance. PWYP Indonesia consists of 38 civil society organizations and non-government organizations from across large islands of Indonesia, particularly those of rich extractive resource regions. Scope of activity of Publish What You Pay Indonesia includes research, campaign, assistance, capacity building, and advocacy works on policy and regulation to promote transparent and accountable extractive resource management, including piloting in some extractive resource-rich regions. PWYP Indonesia is afiliated network of Publish What You Pay-a global network of civil society organisations campaigns for transparency in the extractive industries.

ANSA EAPANSA-EAP is a non-profit foundation registered in the Philippines. It is housed in the Ateneo School of Government under the Ateneo de Manila University. It was set-up in 2008 as a project of the Ateneo School of Government, a unit of the Ateneo de Manila University, with startup support from the World Bank's Development Grant Facility (2008-2011). ANSA-EAP has completed a study on 'Mainstreaming Social Accountability in the Oil, Gas, and Mining Industries of Selected East Asia-Pacific Countries'. The study examines the concept of social accountability as it applies to environmental management in extractive industries' specifically oil, gas, and mining in five countries of the East Asia Pacific (EAP) region. These countries include Cambodia, Mongolia, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea. The more common SAc approaches in the extractives industry in the EAP region include: citizen monitoring; citizen's involvement in public commissions and hearings; citizen advisory boards and oversight committees; participatory public policy-making, and public education about legal rights.

Revenue Watch Institute The Revenue Watch Institute is a non-profit policy institute and grantmaking organization that promotes the effective, transparent and accountable management of oil, gas and mineral resources for the public good. Through capacity building, technical assistance, research and advocacy, we help countries realize the development benefits of their natural resource wealth. RWI is the only organization dedicated exclusively to addressing the problems of countries that are resource rich. These are countries where poverty, corruption and armed conflict too often converge.

25

Social Accountability (SAc) in Extractive Industries (EI) is particularly relevant to promote transparency and good governance on mining operations and revenue management for sustainable development. Oil, gas, and mining companies often make direct payments to governments in the form of royalties, bonuses, and various types of taxes. Citizens have little or no access to information about payments because resource contracts are protected and revenue stream and calculation are not open. The absence of public awareness or participation in government processes related to revenue collection and distribution paves the way to corruption and mismanagement of public finances.

Oil, gas and mining operations also opten make direct impact to the health, environment and social aspect of society. Citizens have a chance to monitor the operations to make sure the company was operated in good mining practices standard. There is a clear need for corporations, citizens, and government to work together to integrate SAc into the EI value chain.

SAc in the extractive industry sector needed to empower civil society organizations to advance social accountability concerns with respect to the sector. Further is needed in Strengthening regulatory frameworks, policies, and governance systems; Building capacity for environmental monitoring and compliance assessment; Encouraging community health risk assessment tools and approaches; and Enabling Corporate Social Responsibility and environment, social, governance approaches.

26