An interview with Walhi's director on Indonesian mining operations

Notes: The Indonesian Environmental Forum or much popular called Walhi has been very critical, if not radical, on mining activities in Indonesia. The following are excerpts of an interview with Walhi's director Emmy Hafild on the organization's view and expectation.

Q: Walhi is so critical about environmental affairs in mining activities, why are you so concerned about the issue?

A: Like other environmental groups, Walhi works to advocate the interest of the public. If a mining company removes earth from the mountain, it is not only a matter of an internal affair of the company. It's about the interest of the people. If the mining operation then damages the environment, all the people in the country or even in the world will suffer. Our position is clear; all issues related to water, earth and air are of the public interest.

In fact, we are not only concerned about the environmental issues but also about human rights, about the people who suffer from mining operations. Walhi was born in Indonesia and we therefore should be concerned about the societal problem. If, for example, we express our critical view on the impact of 300,000 tons of tailings dumped into a river or billions of tons of mineral waste such as acid rocks by Freeport, we also have to pay our attention to the societal problem, which arise in the community. The people out there have been suffering and under pressure for along time. We could not also close our eyes with the reality being faced by the local residents due to, for example, the operation of KEM (PT Kelian Equatorial Mining). We try to help the victims to get a fair treatment.

We work to advocate the interest of the people, because unlike mining companies, which can hire the first class even the most expensive lawyers in the world, the local residents are helpless. We just want to balance the bargaining position of the villagers in fighting for a fair treatment from the mining operators. But we are not alone, we also receive assistance from foreign NGOs. In facing Freeport, we get assistance from NGOs based in the United States, for Rio Tinto we are helped by NGOs from Britain and Australia.

Q: Walhi is often charged as anti mining. What is your comment about the accusation?

A: If, let's say, a person is protesting investment, then we call him as being anti investment, it is totally wrong. I think charging Walhi as anti mining is a part if dirty strategies or disinformation works made by mining companies to stop us. For them, charging us as anti mining is much cheaper and easier way in dealing with their problem, rather than taking care of their disposal ground or to carry out reclamation works.

Actually since the Rio Summit in 1992, there have been no more anti-mining or anti development NGOs.

What we want is environmentally friendly mining activities. If a mining company is closed such as KEM in 2004, the question is what will happen after that. If the protection is not made, the hazardous chemical substance coming from the ex-mining sites will flow into the river and this will spread everywhere especially when the river is flooded. If we fail to monitor them, the chemical substance will haunt us in our all lifetime.

What we want is that the company should be responsible not only during the operation but also after the company left the mining sites. There should be a regulation that obliges them to do that.

A: So what is actually your position?

Q: What we want is mining operations, which are not only sustainable but also friendly to environment. If we could, it would be better for Indonesia to get rid of mining activities. Every country will some days get out from the so called economic mining. California, for example, was one of the bases for mining activities in the United States, but it has turned to manufacturing activities because of the bad impact of the mining operations. But in Indonesia, there is no indication that the country will go to such a direction. We have to have a target and create a clear mining policy.

We don't want the old mining tradition such as "take it all now and leave it after every thing is finished". This ill mining culture has caused most of ex-mining sites in the world to become ghost towns. We don't want this happen in Indonesia. How many ghost towns have been created by Rio Tinto? That's why mining companies should be responsible. They should operate in more sustainable way, not taking all the available mineral as quick as they could. Because if the production is not limited, the reclamation and rehabilitation works will not be able to catch up with the speed of the production activities.

Q: Do you have an idea how to force mining companies to operate in sustainable manner?

A: Beat them all together. I think that is what they want.

Q: About regulation?

A: What do you think you could expect from the government right now? The government could not afford even to pay the salaries of the police. In developed countries, mining companies could be regulated only after series of costly campaigns.

Q: Do you think a public pressure is still needed?

A: Certainly yes, it (public pressure) is getting strong nowadays. The network of anti mining in the world is getting stronger and stronger. In the United States, there is an underground anti mining group. There is also an alliance of victims of Newmont. With the fast development of the information technology right now, coordination is no longer difficult task. Mining companies should be more careful.

Q: What correction measures do you think we need to apply to minimize the damages?

A: The operation of a mining company should be limited to 12 years, and after the operation is completed all the pits should be closed. It means all the overburden should be returned to reclaim the pits resulting from the mining activities.

There should be also a major change in the present contracts of works (KKs) awarded to a mining company. None of KKs oblige mining companies to carry out mandatory mining closure and ?that related to the obligation to protect the environment. The requirement on mining closure is needed to require all mining companies to return the tailings and overburden to the pits resulting from mining activities. Mining companies should also make an affront payment for the cost of the rehabilitation works.

As an example, OPIC, an insurance company owned by the U.S. government, has cut its insurance coverage on Freeport Indonesia after the later rejected to allocate US$100 million to finance the rehabilitation works of the company's mining operations. OPIC will only cover the insurance if Freeport allocates $100 million for the rehabilitation works. (alex)