Indonesia Mega Projects and The Lack of Public Participation

In September 2023, we often heard in the media about the conflict between the police and the indigenous community in Rempang, Batam, Indonesia. Why does this conflict arise? Community relocation due to the development of mega projects, called Eco-City of Rempang, is the leading cause. The Indonesian government has planned to build a multibillion-dollar Chinese-owned glass factory and an eco-city, which is predicted to attract business investment (Llewellyn, 2023).

However, the project tends to ignore the voices of the local people by excluding them from the discussion since the planning stage. The government announced that the indigenous community should move from home at the end of September 2023. After this announcement, the protests escalated, and dozens of people were arrested by the police.

Another issue is the absence of the AMDAL and social impact assessment documents, which are crucial before the project to assess the impact on the environment and society in the affected area. The development of those documents should be done by involving affected communities in a participatory manner. While critique arises, the Indonesian government claims the documents are still in progress. The claim, however, appears to be an excuse because if it is still in progress, why should relocation be done promptly? A non-profit organisation that focuses on the environment, WALHI argues that the Batam government forces residents to ‘voluntarily’ move without consultation in advance.

Well, is it possible?

Public Participation Leads to Project Ownership

The fundamental purpose of public participation is to ensure community legitimation of the project. Glucker et al. (2013) explain that community involvement can develop a sense of ‘ownership’ over the process, and project sustainability can be achieved. Additionally, affected communities can mitigate the project’s impacts and, together with the government, can minimise the risk.

In contrast, when public participation is missing, affected people see the project as a dangerous threat for them. Vanclay (2023) argues that minor issues can lead to frustration and annoyance if a project has no legitimacy. This leads to protests against decisions and potentially hampers the project’s implementation (Glucker et al., 2013).

This was observed in Rempang. In early September 2023, the government forced approximately 7,500 residents to move out of their villages before the end of the month (Llewellyn, 2023). Many of them are Malay Indigenous people who live by relying on the sea (Chen, 2023). However, because of the project, they must move approximately 60 km, which is far from their source of income (Llewellyn, 2023). Therefore, researchers and activists argue that relocating indigenous people from their ancestral land will exacerbate their condition. Communities will lose not only their livelihoods and homes but also their cultures.

Giving money as compensation cannot replace their collective memory and identity as local indigenous people (Chen, 2023). Wilson, a lecturer in politics and security studies at Murdoch University, implies that governments are destroying people’s lives in the progress of many projects’ development by focusing on infrastructures (Llewellyn, 2023).

The case of Rempang is not the first time the Indonesian government has forced relocation to make the easiest way for investors. Another notable example of a project lacking public legitimacy is the limestone-mining project in Kendeng, Central Java, Indonesia.

In 2010, a plan was to extract karst from the mountains of North Kendeng. The location has abundant limestone for cement and other commercial products (Hadi et al., 2020), which will increase national economic development. However, the indigenous communities believe they should protect Mother Earth because mountains are water sources for their household and agricultural purposes (Firdaus, 2020; Hadi et al., 2020), which will support the balance of life in surrounding areas.

These contradictory views lead to high tensions between the indigenous communities, the government, and the industry. Although the project has appointed social impact assessment practitioners to conduct several public consultations, it seems to be more tokenistic as people’s concerns regarding protecting water sources for human life are disregarded in the documents (Firdaus, 2020).

Until recently, the community saw the industry and government as threatening their livelihoods (Firdaus, 2020); therefore, they collaborated with local NGOs to conduct social mobilisation through cultural events, protests, and negotiations. As Hadi et al. (2020) explain, after several protests and negotiations, the indigenous communities won the Indonesian Supreme Court to cancel the project.

However, in practice, after the following years, Ganjar Pranowo, the former governor of Central Java, with support from the national government, provided legal permission to the mining industry to revise the SIA documents and continue mining activities (Firdaus, 2020; Hadi et al., 2020). As a result, the project is ongoing.

Hence, tensions are mounting in the relationship between residents, companies, and local governments because the community is not heard and involved in providing aspirations in decision-making (Firdaus, 2020).

Rather than gaining public legitimacy and ownership, the case studies underscore that excluding indigenous rights and aspirations leads to tension between the community, the private sector, and the government. These case studies also highlight the ignorance of infrastructure projects of local voices in the name of economic development.

Recommendation: The Importance of Shifting Power to Local People

Three steps can be taken to involve the community in the policymaking process actively.

First, redistribution power is the cornerstone of achieving consensus in decision-making by considering diverse perspectives. It cannot be denied that power is unevenly distributed in society (O’Faircheallaigh, 2010b). O’Faircheallaigh (2010b) further explains that this can be seen by considering that certain groups are de facto excluded from meaningful participation in the decision process.

Along with the previous argument, Arnstein (1969) implies that local participation is synonymous with ‘citizen power’, focusing on redistributing power by including powerless people in the decision-making process.

Involving marginalised groups in decision-making is crucial in considering their aspirations and meeting their needs. Arnstein (1969, p.216) further asserts that participation ‘is an empty and frustrating process for the powerless’ without redistribution of power because the decision-makers will claim the benefits for their sides.

Second, acknowledging the affected people in the discussion process allows for information exchange between the community and the project. Two-way communication benefits public engagement in that citizens can learn about the costs and benefits of projects (Freudenburg & Olsen, 1983).

When the local community has a holistic view of a project’s costs and advantages, it can be actively involved as a decision-maker. In return, local participation potentially provides input for decision-makers to fill information gaps and make well-informed decisions without one dominating view (Freudenburg & Olsen, 1983; O’Faircheallaigh, 2010b).

Third, local participation is essential because it can provide local people with the leverage to negotiate their rights. The result of this negotiation comes in the form of agreements such as Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs).

Through this agreement, local communities are guaranteed to negotiate an agreement and ensure that the terms of the agreement are seriously considered (Gibson & O’Faircheallaigh, 2015). This agreement aims to improve positive outcomes and mitigate adverse effects on indigenous communities (Hanna & Vanclay, 2013).

Therefore, this agreement allows local individuals to self-expression and ensures that they reap the project’s benefits.

In doing so, public participation has the potential to gather affected communities’ aspirations and minimise the harm. Acknowledging local people leads to possible negotiations with the government and industries to benefit their communities.

Amsa is a social worker focusing on disaster management and the indigenous community. Currently, she is pursuing a Master of Development Studies at The University of Melbourne, Australia.

Image copy rights: Jakarta Post on Rempang Riot.

Reference:

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35 (4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Analysis of experience. World Development, 22 (9), 1253–1268. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(94)90003-5

Chen, H. (2023, September 19). Indonesian indigenous islanders are rallying against plans to build a Chinese funded factory on their homes. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/19/asia/indonesia-rempang-island-protests-chinese-factory-intl-hnk/index.html

Firdaus, F. (2020, November 13). The women of Kendeng set their feet in cement to stop a mine in their lands. This is their story. Mongabay Environmental News. https://news.mongabay.com/2020/11/the-women-of-kendeng-set-their-feet-in-cement-to-stop-a-mine-in-their-lands-this-is-their-story/

Freudenburg, W. R., & Olsen, D. (1983). Public Interest and Political Abuse: Public Participation in Social Impact Assessment. Journal of the Community Development Society, 14 (2), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103829.1983.12069105

Gibson, G., & O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2015). IBA Community Toolkit: Negotiation and Implementation of Imapact and Benefit Agreement (Summer). Walter & Duncan Gordon Foundation. https://gordonfoundation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/toolkit-english.pdf

Glucker, A. N., Driessen, P. P. J., Kolhoff, A., & Runhaar, H. A. C. (2013). Public participation in environmental impact assessment: Why, who and how? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43 , 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.06.003

Hadi, S. P., Purnaweni, H., Prabawani, B., & Hamdani, R. S. (2020). Community Movement for Sustainable Use of Natural Resources: Case study of North Kendeng Mountain Area, Central Java, Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 448(1), 012069. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/448/1/012069

Hanna, P., & Vanclay, F. (2013). Human rights, Indigenous peoples and the concept of Free, Prior and Informed Consent. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31 (2), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2013.780373

Llewellyn, A. (2023). Protests in Indonesia as thousands face eviction for Rempang ‘Eco-City.’ Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/15/protests-in-indonesia-as-thousands-face-eviction-for-rempang-eco