Introduction

Background, Objective and Method

The development of mining industry in the world is in the fast growing pace as mineral commodity continue to gain good price and high demand continue to come from the fast growing new economic centers like China and India. The two factors contributed to expansion of mining industries into areas not yet entitled to any concession. This has also brought resurgence of existing concessions that are not yet developed due to uneconomic price and financial institutions’ reluctance to finance projects that would yield only small revenues.

Laos has been regarded as one of the most attractive investment destinations for extractive industry in South East Asia, particularly in the Mekong Subregion. The country with total land area of 230,800 square kilometers indeed has great potential for the development of extractive industry such as mining, energy, and industrial plantation. It is seen not only by Lao government itself but also the neighboring countries in the region such as Vietnam, China, and Thailand who already become centers of industrial growth in Indochina region. This is indicated by the intensive investment and trade deal involving Lao and those countries in the extractive sector.

While development of extractive industries is often deemed as a shortcut to generate quick revenue required for financing the country’s development, it is also seen as type of industry that brings social and environmental consequences. The revenue gained from mineral excavation has been made at the cost of the environment and population affected by mining projects. On behalf of development the environmental and social impacts of mining are often overlooked while there’s a growing number of facts show mining companies’ continued reluctance to restore its impacts to environment and people. The degradation of environment, loss of natural resources and biodiversity, and falling down of local economy later become burden of local government and local population.

However, this sector continues to receive support from international organization such as the World Bank. This most powerful development financing institution continued to bolster industrial development throughout the region via establishment of Mekong Subregion Economic cooperation. The initiative later adopted by each country in region to be multilateral agreement brings consequences to their national economic policy such as opening of natural resources sector for private investment. There will be significant increase in the number of investment in extractive sector with the potential spread of social and environmental problems throughout the country. A very deep and wise analysis re development policy and risk mitigation is called for prior to development of mining projects. Otherwise, Laos will just to replay the old cassette of poverty and environmental devastation left by extractive industries in Asia and South America.

The policy research entitled “ Environmental and social security framework of mining sector in Lao PDR “ will be conducted with objective to study the policy that drives the development of mining sector in Lao PDR and the social and environmental security provided by the country’s legal framework. The study will be conducted by doing analysis on a number of policy and legal documents related to development of country’s mining sector. The object of this study is therefore as follows;

1. Policy of Lao PDR government,

2. Multilateral agreements,

3. International organizations policy on Lao PDR,

4. The country’s laws and decree related to mining sector e.g. Mining Law and Environmental Protection Law

This study will also be accompanied with case study on the status of population and environment around selected mining site. Field observation will be conducted to collect information with particular source local population. The output of this study will be analysis on the adequacy of the social and environmental security provided by the country’s legal framework with some recommendations for improvement.

Vientiane, August 2007

Author

(This study report is currently under review by the Science Technology and Environment Agency of Lao PDR and is therefore unable to made public yet)

In between the mood for tourism and mining

Vang Vieng (pronounced “wang wiang”) is one of the most tourist-attracting spot in Lao PDR. As the other major recreational places in Lao, Vang Vieng shares the beauty of big river and valley. This plateau has been well-known among travelers and backpackers for quite reasons.

Nature

Firstly, Vang Vieng is of course naturally enchanting. This plain was formed by the River (Nam) Song valley and limestone formation that goes along the valley. This combination has become natural attraction that enables tourism developer to arrange several adventure packages like trekking, biking, caving, tubing, kayaking, and rock climbing. Those who love adventure sport can spend days here trying the different sort of excitement.

However, the more adrenalin taking attraction is river jumping. The latter isn’t subject to neither certain package nor payment. You just have to queue among the others getting curious about and standing in line at the jumping pad. This bungee jumping like is most tried by those spending time at the bank of Nam Song after doing rock climbing or tubing.

Location

Secondly, Vang Vieng is located between the capital city Vientiane and the old kingdom and World Heritage Site Luang Phabang. As if Bali for Indonesia, Luang Phabang even better known than Laos itself. Tourists coming from Europe (mainly France) always take Luang Phabang as first destination. They usually then take road trip to Vang Vieng before visiting the modern Laos capital Vientiane and further go south to witness the charm and wilderness of southern waterfalls. Vang Vieng also represent as hub for two major tourism areas in Laos, the North which characterized by mountainous area with many curves on its road (some remote areas even hardly accessible) and highland communities, and the South with relatively flat landscape, more accessible road and river with islands.

Visiting Season

Vang Vieng is never really in low season for tourism. During the said low season between April and October this town still host hundreds of western (European, Australian, US) backpackers and Asian (Japan, Thai, China) visitors. Sometimes, one must struggle to get the cheap and favorite guest house here. Otherwise, you would have to take the ones available. However, for the best choice to outdoor activity, make sure that you don’t visit during the really rainy days between July and September.

Food

Food is never been problem in Vang Vieng. Western and Asian food are all available at local restaurants. Local and famous food/dessert is pancake with variety of flavor, from banana to cheese and durian.

Accommodation

As the food accommodation is convenient too in Vang Vieng. There are a lot of Guest Houses to suit different choices, from budget to mid end. The travel guide books are accompanied with detailed information re this. In Vang Vieng you won’t get trouble with accommodation just because you keep the out of date travel guide book.

Attraction

The notorious though mocked activity in Vang Vieng is watching movie at bar and restaurants that always play Bean, Friends, and Simpson episodes. It is not something I personally recommend but you will apparently always encounter there. There are many outdoor activities suit local nature. You can try rock climbing at nearest limestone along side Nam Song. The local ecotourism provider sells package with experienced guide. But if you want to reduce expense you can just rent the equipment for lower price. The charge for a climbing package is USD 20 per person with at least 4 people in one package.

The tubing and kayaking can also easily be arranged at local ecotourism provider. The most well known one is green discovery.

Biking and trekking to countryside is another interesting attraction. While the town of Vang Vieng is so full with western facility and lifestyle the countryside retain the modest agriculture-based lifestyle. The roads are normally not asphalted and there are buffaloes crossing and walking on it. Locals live in traditional raised platform wooden house.

The tourism-based economy in Vang Vieng seems to be the sustainable economy of the town and its surrounding countryside. However, another resources extractive activity may present as threat to its sustainability. It is the development of cement factory in Vang Vieng.

Nowadays, two cement factories are already in production phase in Vang Vieng and are owned jointly by Lao Government and Chinese investor. The raw material needed for cement factory is limestone. Limestone is remarkable as source of huge water resources that will ensure water supply for agriculture and any economic activities to run smoothly.

It is expected that if the government continues to run the project to the remaining hills the beautiful panorama of limestone domes will be flattened by excavator. If that is to happen then there will be no more tourism and the livelihood of hundreds families depending their life on guesthouses, food shops, and guiding will be put into end. We can expect that in the next 10 to 20 years there will be massive exodus of people leaving the previously lucrative Vang Vieng for seeking job in other regions.

Reported from VV trip, 11-13 July 2007

artikel ini juga dimuat di indoprogress

Pada 26 Desember 2004 lalu Samudera Hindia dilanda gempa dahsyat yang mengakibatkan tsunami dan menelan korban ratusan ribu jiwa di Aceh, belum termasuk di negara-negara lainnya. Paska peristiwa dahsyat itu, banyak ahli menyerukan pentingnya memasukkan manajemen bencana dalam perencanaan pembangunan. Tujuannya, agar jika terjadi gejala alam luar biasa seperti tsunami atau gempa bumi kerugian jiwa, harta dan infrastruktur dapat diminimalkan. Manajemen bencana tidak sama dengan menghilangkan sama sekali kemungkinan terjadinya bencana. Manajemen bencana memungkinkan kita menghindari lebih banyak kerugian dengan cara mengurangi kerentanan kita terhadap bencana.
Investasi Tambang di Pantai Barat Sumatera

Ketika para pakar bencana sibuk mengumpulkan data dan menyimpulkan tingkat kerawanan pantai barat Sumatera akan ancaman tsunami dan gempa volkanik, pulau ini juga tengah mengandung resiko bencana akibat kegiatan industri, yakni pertambangan. Saat investasi tambang berbondong-bondong memasuki pulau Sumatera, tidak banyak perhatian diberikan walaupun resiko lingkungan dan sosial sektor ini telah dikenal lama sejak sebelum tsunami. Biasanya, kita baru sadar setelah terjadi dampak, saat gambar-gambar korban ditayangkan di televisi.

Bersamaan hiruk-pikuk pembangunan kembali Aceh, di barisan yang lain derap investasi tambang di belahan barat Pulau Sumatera juga melaju kencang. Ini ditandai oleh banyaknya kuasa pertambangan baru yang dikeluarkan. Begitu pun konsesi-konsesi lama seperti Martabe (Oxiana Resources), Meluak dan Anjing Hitam (Herald Resources), serta Pungkut (Oropa Mining) juga bergairah menambah investasinya untuk melaju ke konstruksi dan produksi sejak pasar mineral dunia tumbuh pesat dua tahun terakhir.

Di Sumatera Barat, lima dari sekian KP baru dimiliki oleh junior miner yang baru memulai debutnya di Australia Stock Exchange (ASX) tahun lalu yaitu Coziron Resources. Ia mendapatkan KP ekpslorasi pasir besi di Rawang Gadang dan Kunyit, timbal dan seng di Lubuk Gadang, batubara di Inderapura, serta emas-tembaga di Singkarak. Hampir semuanya di sekitar Padang dan Solok. KADIN propinsi Sumatera Barat menyebutkan perusahaan Cina juga telah mendapatkan Surat Ijin Penambangan Daerah (SIPD) untuk pasir besi seluas 100 ha di Solok.

Junior miner lain yang kini mengkapling provinsi tapak tsunami adalah East Asia Mineral dari Vancouver (Kanada). Perusahaan ini memiliki sejumlah KP di provinsi NAD meliputi KP Takengon, Miwah, Barisan 1 dan 2, dan Tangse di wilayah tengah hingga pantai Barat Aceh. Bersamaan derap rekonstruksi Aceh, proyek-proyek tersebut tanpa perhatian banyak lembaga masyarakat sipil giat mengeksplorasi emas, perak dan tembaga.

Tidak hanya di Sumut, Sumbar, dan Aceh tapi juga Lampung dan Jambi. Proyek-proyek baru di jalur volkanik Sumatera singgah di dua propinsi ini. Finders Resources, junior miner lain dari Kanada mengeksplorasi kawasan yang dinamai Ojolali (Lampung) serta satu KP di Jambi. KP Ojolali meliputi wilayah seluas 3450 hektar.

Di lampung sebenarnya tidak hanya KP Ojolali, tetapi juga konsesi setingkat Kontrak Karya milik Mekhatarra Mining di Way Linggo, serta KP milik Apollo Gold bernama Napal Gold project.

Hingga kini, paradigma mengelola resiko di sektor pertambangan masih tertinggal jauh. Ini ditunjukkan oleh kerapnya terjadi dampak lingkungan dan social di seputar industri pertambangan. Longsornya timbunan batuan limbah atau terowongan, pecahnya pipa tailing, atau tumpah maupun ditumpahkannya merkuri ke badan air atau ke udara sudah jamak terjadi. Pertambangan juga memiliki resiko sosial-ekonomi yang sering tidak ditangani, seperti hilangnya mata pencaharian warga setempat, jatuh miskinnya mereka ketika lahan pertaniannya diserobot, sumber air bersihnya dikotori hingga harus mencari sumber air yang jauh dari kampungnya.

Pertanyaan penting untuk diajukan; akan seperti apa tambang-tambang baru itu dikelola? Tanpa perubahan drastis di sektor ini serta tanpa pengawasan ketat untuk penaatan regulasi lingkungan oleh korporasi, korban-korban baru akan berjatuhan. Mulai dari korban penggusuran, pencemaran, kehilangan mata pencaharian hingga kekerasan.

Tipuan klasik pertumbuhan dan laba

Ketika masyarakat dan lingkungan terus-menerus menjadi korban maka ini menyiratkan minim dan sempitnya pemaknaan manajemen dalam industri pertambangan. Ini disebabkan perusahaan menempatkan soal-soal lingkungan dan sosial sebagai eksternalitas. Efisiensi hanya dinilai dari besarnya laba dan rendahnya biaya, bukan dari kemampuan mengelola dengan baik semua resiko yang ditimbulkan. Itulah ironi perekonomian kita ini hari. Meskipun perusahaan melakukan perusakan lingkungan besar-besaran, selama masih mampu membayar dividen kepada pemegang saham dan bunga bank, ia tetap mendapat nilai positif dari pasar.

Manipulasi atas pemaknaan efisiensi melegitimasi pasar menuntut dihilangkannya insentif-insentif bagi publik dan lingkungan serta menggantikannya dengan keleluasaan makin besar kepada perusahaan. Ini dapat dilihat dari inisiatif perusahaan-perusahaan pertambangan untuk mengamandemen Undang-undang Kehutanan agar boleh melakukan penambangan terbuka di hutan lindung, mengeluarkan limbah tambang (tailing) dari kategori bahan berbahaya dan beracun (B3), serta diberlakukannya pembuangan tailing ke laut. Jika semua tuntutan tersebut dipenuhi maka perusahaan akan semakin leluasa menghancurkan sisa-sisa hutan yang ada dan membuang limbah ke badan-badan air.

Ilusi ini terus-menerus dipupuk dalam praktek ekonomi yang salah mendefiniskan pertumbuhan. Mestinya bukan pertumbuhan jika ia menghancurkan pondasinya sendiri, yaitu alam. Bukan pertumbuhan yang utuh jika hanya terjadi di akumulasi kapital perusahaan tambang, bank-bank kreditor, serta industri-industri jasa kontraktor, konsultan, dan suplier. Sementara di sisi lainnya terjadi kemusnahan sumber daya, penurunan keragaman spesies, meningkatnya pengangguran dan kemiskinan. Pertumbuhan memang terjadi tapi hanya di negara-negara maju, di negara-negara sumber bahan mentah kehancuran lah yang ada.

Ring of Fire

Selain resiko-resiko intrinsik yang sudah melekat dengan karakter industri tambang, ada resiko yang datangnya dari luar. Semua proyek tambang lama dan baru di atas berada di kawasan yang oleh para geolog dinamai Sumateran Fault Zone, wilayah pegunungan vulkanik yang kaya cadangan mineral terbentang dari ujung utara hingga selatan Pulau Sumatera. Meskipun kaya cadangan mineral namun kawasan yang juga jalur pegunungan berapi “ring of fire” ini rawan gempa dan letusan gunung. Karenanya, akan muncul kerentanan yang tinggi bila dilakukan operasi pertambangan raksasa.

Kita jelas tidak berharap datangnya lagi tsunami dan gempa dahsyat seperti di Pangandaran, Aceh, Jogjakarta, Padang, lalu Solok. Tapi para penentu kebijakan mesti sadar bahwa ribuan orang di pulau Sumatera hidup di kawasan yang rawan terjadi bencana. Sudah semestinya tindakan yang diambil adalah untuk serta merta mengurangi derajat kerusakan jika terjadi bencana berikutnya. Termasuk di dalamnya, bagaimana cara membangun dan berinvestasi yang tidak menambah kerentanan manusia terhadap bencana alam. Resultante dari kerawanan terhadap bencana alam lawan resiko intrinsic pertambangan bisa menjadi bencana besar bila terjadi gempa atau letusan gunung.

Gempa di Solok awal tahun ini menyebabkan permukaan air danau meluap setinggi 10 meter dan membanjiri kawasan sekitarnya. Akan seperti apa kejadiannya jika yang meluap adalah tailing dam? Kecelakaan demikian terjadi belum lama berselang di Filipina, tepatnya di pulau Rapu-rapu tahun lalu. Badai dan gelombang laut menyebabkan retaknya tailing dam yang lalu memuntahkan limbah tailing ke pemukiman dan kawasan pertanian penduduk pulau.

Sementara itu, Komite Internasional untuk Dam Raksasa (ICOLD) juga mencatat telah terjadi 221 kecelakaan tailing dam akibat faktor alam (gempa, cuaca buruk) dan human error di seluruh dunia. Laporan ini mengindikasikan rentannya factor keamanan dalam industri pertambangan dari gejala-gejala alam luar biasa. Mereka terbukti belum andal menangani resiko-resiko tersebut.

Akuntabilitas

Resiko lain yang mesti diperhitungkan penyelenggara Negara adalah akuntabilitas perusahaan. Seringkali perusahaan tambang tidak dapat mempertanggung jawabkan dampak yang telah disebabkannya. Dalam kasus luapan lumpur panas di Sidoarjo, kita menyaksikan bagaimana saham Lapindo diupayakan dijual ke berbagai pihak lain untuk menghapus beban penanganan semburan Lumpur kepada pihak pembeli. Meskipun upaya ini sempat digagalkan oleh BPK namun belakangan pemerintah juga harus berepot ria menalangi dana kompensasi dan rehabilitasi luapan Lumpur sebesar 900 milyar rupiah.

Pemerintah harus menjamin jangan sampai perusahaan meninggalkan tambangnya dengan mewariskan pencemaran. Satu contoh pewarisan pencemaran untuk masyarakat local akibat lemahnya akuntabilitas perusahaan terjadi di Rawas Gold project di Kabupaten Musi Rawas oleh junior miner pemiliknya, Laverton Gold NL. Laverton meninggalkan bencana lingkungan untuk masyarakat Muara Tiku. Pada tahun 1998-1999 Laverton dilanda masalah keuangan dan menawarkan konsesi Rawas ke berbagai perusahaan, antara lain DRD Gold (Afsel). Namun DRD kemudian membatalkan pembelian Rawas project. Sejak itu tidak diketahui siapa pemilik Rawas project karena Laverton sudah tidak bisa dilacak keberadaannya dan statusnya di ASX sudah delisted sejak 2006.

Jika begini, siapa yang akan mempertanggungjawabkan pencemaran sungai Tiku, sumber air warga setempat? Pemerintah Daerah merasa tidak pernah memberikan ijin kepada Laverton, sedang Pemerintah Pusat berdalih sekarang sudah era otonomi daerah. Lagi-lagi masyarakat lokal yang harus memecahkan sendiri masalah yang tak pernah dibuatnya. Dengan raibnya perusahaan, hilang pula kemungkinan menjerat Laverton atas kerusakan lingkungan dan pemiskinan masyarakat. Walaupun kita semua paham kemungkinan itu di sini sangat sangat kecil.

Dari pengalaman itu penting bagi pemerintah menuntut perusahaan menyediakan dana jaminan (bond) untuk setiap jenis resiko yang dapat muncul dari proyek sebelum proyek itu sendiri dimulai. Tujuannya untuk memastikan akuntabilitas dari korporasi dan menghindari tindakan melarikan diri lewat spin-off jika terjadi bencana atau kecelakaan yang membuatnya harus membayar biaya pemulihan. Tanpa adanya jaminan itu posisi pemerintah dan rakyat lemah terhadap perusahaan. Persis seperti posisi korban lumpur panas yang harus menerima ganti rugi sebesar perusahaan mampu membayar.

Meskipun opsi ini terasa sulit diwujudkan, mengingat untuk membayar royalti 1% untuk hutan yang dibabatnya saja perusahaan tambang enggan, pemerintah perlu mendorong kebijakan ini. Salah satu manfaatnya, ketika terjadi bencana pemerintah tidak perlu pusing dan repot melindungi perusahaan dan justru berposisi berhadap-hadapan dengan warganya sendiri yang jadi korban.

Kita memang hidup di Negara kepulauan yang sangat rawan bencana alam. Tapi jangan dilupakan bahwa bencana juga sedang mengintip dibalik investasi asing yang masuk berbondong-bondong ingin berebut kapling di republik ini.<end>

Kepustakaan:

1. Appollo Gold Quarterly Report 15 may 2007
2. East Asia Minerals, Indonesia project description
3. International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD)
4. Vandana Shiva, the Earth Democracy

Setelah Ingold, Newcrest, dan ANTAM yang lama bercokol, kepulauan Maluku dan sekitarnya segera menyambut hadirnya pemain baru di sektor tambang mineral. Investor yang baru saja meneken kesepakatan dengan pengusaha lokal ini adalah Asia Gold (South Gobi) kongsi tambang dari Vancouver, Kanada.

Dalam rilisnya South Gobi menyatakan telah menandatangani kontrak dengan anak perusahaan Harita Group untuk melakukan eksplorasi di dua KP seluas 25.771 Ha di Bacan, Maluku dengan prospek tembaga-emas. Dengan model joint venture ini kelak SG berhak atas 85% saham di perusahaan yang didirikan bersama sekutu lokalnya.

AG mengklaim saat ini di lokasi prospek sudah siap bekerja 50 orang dan sudah didirikan gardu eksplorasi. AG dimiliki oleh Ivanhoe Mines yang baru saja berpartner dengan BHP untuk pengembangan tambang emas-tembaga di Mongolia Selatan. Maluku telah menjadi saksi atas konflik sengit yang melibatkan usaha pertambangan mulai dari kasus Ingold Maluku Satu di pulau Haruku hingga Nusa Halmahera Minerals di Halmahera.

Tambang-tambang Baru di Pulau Jawa

Saat membicarakan hiruk-pikuk dunia pertambangan dengan berbagai kasus dan polemik yang terjadi, yang sering terbayang di kepala adalah kawasan-kawasan di luar Jawa yang dulunya berhutan lebat dengan sungai-sungai yang mengalir deras. Tambang emas, timah, nikel, atau tembaga dll banyak berada di pulau-pulau Sumatera, Kalimantan, juga pulau-pulau kecil seperti Bangka dan Belitung. Namun di era keemasan industri pertambangan dan otonomi daerah ini, Jawa pun bisa disulap jadi lahan investasi tambang.

Belum banyak diungkap kecuali dalam laporan-laporan perusahaan, beberapa kuasa pertambangan (KP) baru yang segera beroperasi di Jawa, antara lain yaitu;

1. Cibaliung Gold Project (Austindo Resources, konstruksi) Ujung Kulon, Jawa Barat

2. KP Pekalongan (Austindo Resources, eksplorasi), Jawa Tengah

3. KP Trenggalek (Austindo Resources, eksplorasi), Jawa Timur

4. Kuda prospect (Straits Resources, eksplorasi), Garut, Jawa Barat

5. Indomines, (Feasibility Study) di Kulonprogo, DIY

Austindo perusahaan yang berkedudukan di Australia. Di proyek Cibaliung Austindo memegang 89% saham sementara sisanya dimiliki ANTAM. Di beberapa proyeknya di Jawa Austindo diperkirakan menjadi operator utama. Cibaliung Gold project sejak tahun lalu memasuki tahap studi kelayakan lalu konstruksi. Meskipun sempat mengalami penundaan karena perhitungan biaya yang berubah dengan terjadinya tsunami di Pangandaran (Austindo harus mengeluarkan biaya mitigasi resiko tsunami) namun proyek ini terus melaju sepanjang 2007. Australia & New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ) adalah salah satu garda financial Austindo, dan bagi kebanyakan junior miners dari negeri kanguru.

Proyek Cibaliung akan segera berproduksi (menurut versi Austindo) pada kuartal pertama 2008. Tambang Cibaliung akan dioperasikan dengan metode tambang tertutup (underground mining) selama 6 tahun umur tambang. Meskipun banyak pihak menganggap resiko lingkungan tambang tertutup lebih kecil dari tambang terbuka namun tidak menjamin akan bebas dari pencemaran. Jika di dalam tambang emasnya terkandung pyrite dan senyawa sulfida lainnya maka resiko munculnya air asam tambang menjadi persoalan serius. Sumber-sumber kontaminasi bisa berasal dari lorong tambang, waste rock dump, serta tailing dam.

Di Petungkriyono (Pekalongan), Austindo juga memperoleh KP eksplorasi dari pemerintah setempat. Petungkriyono adalah kecamatan yang berada di pegunungan Dieng, dikelilingi hutan produksi pinus yang cukup luas serta hutan alam di ketinggian lebih dari 1000 meter dpl. Jauh sebelum Austindo memulai eksplorasi, kawasan hutan produksi ini sudah jadi sengketa antara organisasi tani setempat dengan PT Perhutani. KP Pekalongan meliputi area seluas 5,618 ha. Sedangkan KP Trenggalek meliputi kawasan seluas 17,586 di daerah bernama Buluroto dan Sentul. Kedua prospek ini pertama kali ditemukan pada survey di tahun 1990an. Austindo merencanakan pengeboran di kedua prospek ini mulai awal 2008.

Straits Resources, perusahaan dari Australia ini memiliki proyek tambang yang sangat menguntungkan di Kalimantan Tengah. Lewat akuisisi atas kepemilikan Aurora Gold di PT Indomuro Kencana tiap tahun Straits memproduksi emas dan perak dari pedalaman Kalteng yang dulu hanya dikelola oleh penambang tradisional masyarakat Dayak. Straits juga merupakan pemilik tambang batubara di Pulau Sebuku (Kalsel). Sejak beberapa tahun belakangan Straits mendapatkan ijin eksplorasi di wilayah Cijulang (Garut).

Satu lagi proyek tambang yang nampaknya akan melaju mulus dan tidak mendapat banyak sorotan adalah tambang pasir besi di pesisir Kulonprogo. Operatornya adalah Indomines, perusahaan yang berkedudukan di Australia, mendapatkan Kuasa Pertambangan (KP) yang diterbitkan kepala daerah setempat lewat akuisisi saham. Kawasan ini nampaknya banyak digunakan warga sekitar sehingga resiko sosialnya cukup tinggi. Berikut adalah beberapa keterangan tentang proyek:

- Jumlah cadangan yang akan ditambang 300 juta ton pasir besi, produksi diperkirakan 300 ribu ton pertahun selama 15 tahun.

- Wilayah diindikasikan mengandung potensi pasir sedalam 10 meter berada sepanjang 22 km garis pantai dan lebar 1,8 km ke darat

- Survey topogaphy dikerjakan oleh Universitas Gajah Mada

- Management explorasi oleh Mackay & Schnellmann

- Drilling dilakukan oleh PT RB Drilling – Jakarta

- Analysis Laborat oleh ALS (Perth)

KP Indomines terbentang dari Kali Progo hingga Kali Bogowonto, selebar hampir dua kilometer ke darat. Sulit membayangkannya, akan seperti apa kawasan pantai ini setelah selesai ditambang. Satu pengalaman pahit tentang tambang pasir pantai bisa dilihat dari kasus pesisir Banten yang menyebabkan abrasi dan mematikan usaha perikanan.

Diperkirakan lebih banyak lagi KP baru akan dikeluarkan di Jawa karena survey geologi dan mineral juga aktif dilakukan walau tidak banyak publikasinya. Salah satunya yang disponsori oleh JICA di Jawa Timur (2001-2004) dan Tasikmalaya (2004-2007). Sementara itu di daerah Cigaru (Sukabumi) sekitar 15 km dari Pelabuhan Ratu, eksplorasi juga sedang giat dilakukan oleh perusahaan lokal PT Humanas. Konsesi yang dinamai Jampang prospect ini mencakup 8 KP seluas lebih dari 7000 hektar yang segera diakuisisi oleh Can-Asia dari Canada sebanyak 90%.

Proyek-proyek baru ini ibarat cermin yang mengingatkan pada nasib para korban kasus-kasus lama yang tidak kunjung selesai. Belum cukupkah Lapindo, Freeport, dll ???

this article was published in the Jakarta Post daily on July 7, 2007

The Jakarta Post Daily, in the Opinion and Editorial page published 21 June 2007, quoted an article written by Yolanda Torrisi, who is renowned as the publisher of ASIA Miner Magazine in Melbourne. The article began by raising a concern over protracted legislation of the Indonesian new mining Bill called Undang-undang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara (Minerba) and attempts to further discuss the matters being debated, however it introduces other topics with poor valid data apparently only from single source, thus the article becomes tendentious and far from objective.

The main concern raised by the writer was the postponement of some mining companies’ operation due to administrative conditions that are not yet fulfilled by project owners. The cases brought in by the writer included the Toka Tindung Mine in North Sulawesi operated by Archipelago Res. subsidiary PT Meares Soputan Mining (MSM) and Dairi Zinc-lead project in North Sumatera owned by Herald Res. Both the owners are Australian companies.

The Toka Tindung gold mine is now facing severe problem since it has not yet received an environment certificate (EIA/AMDAL) from the Ministry of Environment. It has also failed to obtain the consent of local population and authorities. The writer’s comment that Toka Tindung project is supported by local communities lacks verification from other independent sources. I can only conclude that this comment has been made based only on the company’s press release. The facts suggest that the majority of the population around the mine living in Batuputih, Rindondoran, Pulisan, and Kalinaun villages rejected the project development. Their rejection has been delivered to various institutions from village to province and national levels based on concerns over environmental factors and the social security of the population around the mine. The biggest protest against MSM, in which more than 5,000 locals participated on July 13^th 2006, resulted in attacks against protesters by thugs. MSM was suspected of being involved in this action since two of the main perpetrators were MSM employees.

Toka Tindung will be mined using the open pit method, which requires the conversion of large amounts of land without backfilling in the closure of mining. Together with the waste rock dump, the access road, the tailing dam, and the factory it occupies hundreds of hectares of land, which used to be productive plantations and the main source of livelihood to the local population. There’s no scenario put in place by Archipelago to replace the loss of livelihood among land owners. One thing for sure is that project won’t be able to employ them all. MSM is suspected of having forcefully taken over and occuping the land of locals. This is illustrated by a number of land disputes filed by 6 families in the State Court of Manado, North Sulawesi.

The bigger risk threatens coastal communities whose daily income is dependant on fishing activities in the nearby sea. More than 3,000 locals are involved in the fishing activities in the neighboring waters, using different sorts of equipment and different sizes of ship, which allows them to build fishing zones to prevent high competition. Fishing in this area has sustainably harvested marine resources for generations.

This established local production system is put in danger by MSM’s gold mining plan in terms of risk from the discharge of hazardous materials, both those materials put into the gold processing or those which originally come from the earth. Among the major risks are Acid Rock Drainage (ARD) and heavy metals from the open pit, the tailing dam, and the waste rock dump. Gold deposits are often associated with sulphuric rocks such as pyrite which can form acid once it has contact with water and oxygen. MSM’s record in handling the discharge matter is poor, so the security of the population and environment downstream has become vulnerable. On March 12^th this year, a huge overflow of mud and water swiftly rolled down from Toka Tindung and flooded Rinondoran village. The video news broadcasted in national TV channel shows the flood was as waist high. Aside from the material loss, the flood also killed a lot of fish and created the biggest disaster event in the area. Rinondoran had not been hit by flash flood for a long time, until MSM cleared so many lands and crops in Toka Tindung that are classified as protected areas according to local land use regulation (RUTR). Locals also reported that MSM had diverted the river Maen to obtain water for its gold processing. This was all undertaken by MSM even before it secured the valid environmental certificate thus MSM has committed a violation of the Minister of Environment Decree on Environmental Impact Assessment.

MSM (Archipelago Res.) has frequently been warned by local communities, academics, civil societies, and even the Governor of North Sulawesi himself to submit to local land use regulation, which classifies Toka Tindung as a protected area. If only the company had the willingness to hear this concern and had conducted proper and honest risk assessments, then such accidents could be prevented. The mining companies in Indonesia tend to be convinced that they can do everything at the cost of the people and environment once the Contract of Work has been secured from central government. Now if they encounter problems with wide-spread objections against their destructive mining practice and plan, they blame the critics for creating non conducive climate for foreign investment while in fact they are damaging the mining investment climate themselves by refusing to apply best mining practices.

Archipelago therefore cannot be said to have “ fully complied with due process, having spent much of 2006 revising comprehensive environmental impact analysis documents that meet all Indonesian and International banking requirements” as the author has written.

With all the risks that created for the local environment and community, Archipelago (MSM) does not meet the provisions of the Equator Principle and the UNEP Statement by Financial Institutions on the Environment & Sustainable Development to which its creditor banks (West LB, ANZ, Societe Generale) are bound. Its violation and manipulation of local consent and Indonesian environmental regulations is, after all, the root of the problems it faces now. Mining proponents should put this matter right by taking into consideration the entire background and root of the problems from various sources and not just blindly demanding special treatment and exemption from the Government of Indonesia.

Last but not least, the citation made by the author that mining has contributed 30% to GDP of Laos is a false and is a misleading statement since in fact it only contributes 6%.[1] The study of World Bank in 2006 has just predicted that the sector’s contribution will increase to 10% of GDP by the fiscal year end.[2]

[1] National Social and Economic Development Strategy 2006-2010, Lao PDR

[2] Sector Plan for Sustainable Development of the Mining Sector in the Lao PDR. The World Bank 2006

Mineral is non-renewable resource and is therefore its development only deliver yields for certain period.(1) The availability of mineral resources is limited to the amount of reserves that lies underground. Once the reserve depletes the ore cannot be produced anymore. This fact brings two kinds of consequence.

Firstly, mineral resources become strategic commodity because they’re not always abundant. Not to mention is the significance of this commodity in the fulfillment of demand in technology, industry, construction and electricity nowadays. Countries endowed with mineral richness have potential to pursue advancement and wealth for its citizen. However, poor management of mineral resources could lead to control and extraction of a country’s mineral reserve by foreign countries and companies.

The second is recognition that mining is a business that will not sustain for all time. The economy of mineral extraction is short term economy so that needs to be replaced once it comes to closure. Relying national economy on mining industry isn’t good choice. The economy will collapse when mining is over and no replacement is already put in place as economic foundation.

It is therefore, mineral-endowed country shall consider doing the followings:

1.      Allocation of mineral to be used for export and domestic supply as well as reserve for future generation. This shall be made based on the calculation of total reserve available throughout the country.

2.      In relation with point number one, the government shall develop the other economic sector rather than just mining and ensure that development of mining sector doesn’t harm promotion of other sectors.

The opposite of the two mentioned above is the export-oriented mineral extraction policy. Export orientation will create more and more foreign demand to the country’s mineral resources that later leads to unending exploitation under foreign control. While, the amount of revenues generated from royalty and tax usually inconsiderable compared to loss of biodiversity, local population’s livelihood, and environment destruction the country will also lose its future mineral reserve and chance to pursue industrialization.

With regard to the analysis guidance presented above, several issues discussed in this paper i.e. ownership, management and implementation of mining resources, the relation between government, company, and national and foreign interest.

1. The Ownership and Management of Mineral Resources

There are 9 articles in total discussing the ownership and management of mining resources as presented in the following table.

Table 1. Provisions on ownership and management of mineral resources

The stipulation on who owns the country’s mineral resources is found in Article 3 Ownership of Mineral Resources;

“ All mineral resources above, under land and water within the territory of the Lao PDR are the property of the national community and under centralized and unified management by the State ”

This provision affirms that mineral resources within the territory of the Lao PDR are the property of the whole citizen throughout the country. However, this right is limited only as property right not the management and utilization right. Therefore, citizen were not allowed to conduct mining operation by themselves despite they’re the true owner of the state’s richness.

It is then stipulated that management of mineral resources is conducted centrally and unified by the state which is then represented by the central government. This provision gives the government an ultimate power to develop the mining resources, including area surrounding the mine. Article 14 re mining concession which says “Mineral concessions are areas determined by the Government as areas where mineral operations may take place“ again re-affirms the government’s single authority in the designation of mining concession.

To some extent this provision has its justification in order to ensure that important natural resources controlled by the state and not by the private parties. On the other hand, this provision has its negative side as well. Since the government has very strong and key position, it has the right to make any decision re mineral resources management, including issuing any concession for mineral processing and extraction without obligation to conduct any consultation with adequate stakeholders.

Very often, such provision translated by the government it can do anything with mineral resources and the surrounding environment at any cost. The rights and participation of the citizen, esp. local communities are then disregarded because the law doesn’t rule. This absolute position often leads to wrongdoing by the government and companies that resulted in the destruction of environment and illegal occupancy of community’s lands. The impacts to local population will be worse as very lack provisions protecting their rights available under this law. No articles in this law mentions consultation or community’s consent prior to mining operation take place. The rights of local population is only limited to receiving compensation and resettlement if impacted by mining project.

2. Implementation of Mining Activities via Concession

As normally found in some countries there are several types of mining permits in Lao PDR. The government itself can operate a mining project, as well as private company be it domestic or foreign owned. In case of foreign companies they must form a joint investment (joint venture) and to sign contract with the government of Lao PDR. Article 21 re Investment in Mining Activities discussed this matter.

While in the establishment of mining area the government is the single powerful authority, it doesn’t seem to have the similar standing in the implementation of mining concession. In Paragraph (2) of Article 21 the government of Lao PDR acknowledges the right of actors other than state to conduct mining operation by permission of the government. This article acknowledges the private companies (including foreign) to operate mining project within Lao PDR jurisdiction by forming joint venture with the government.

To some extent, this provision will help government of Lao PDR in providing fund for financing the mining projects since it will share the cost of operation with investment partner. However, this term will weaken the position of Lao PDR government because as parties bound by contract the position of the government will be equal with the company. If there is dispute among them, the government cannot sue the company for breaking the law because company will consider this as breach of contract and therefore will sue back the government via arbitration as ruled by this law (Article 55 Arbitration). Usually, government will drop its intention to sue the company once company state they will use arbitration which always said as long, tiring and costly procedure. The case of civil lawsuit of Government of Indonesia against Newmont Minahasa Raya Ltd. is a good example for this context. Newmont was able to force the government to enter agreement otherwise they bring the dispute into arbitration for breaching the contract item.

On the contrary, this type of license regime is very much favored by foreign companies because this gives them strong position equal with central government. In many cases, companies hold such contract have done everything they want and not to listen to any objection because it has position equal with central government.

This provision gives disincentive to people because their government cannot protect and fulfill their rights if it goes opposite way with the willingness of company. Company will sue government if it wants to protect the right of the people. In case they become victims of mining the government cannot defend them in the court.

The best position for the government should be standing as regulator, not party in contract. As regulator, government issues mining permit, supervise the operation, and it has power to revoke the permit anytime for considerable reasons. Under the contract regime, government’s position will be ambivalent because it cannot supervise the company that has the equal position with it while the other law (e.g. environmental protection law) rule that government must monitor the impacts resulted by any business activities. It is important to keep in mind that contract is a law to parties bound with it.

3. Whose resources?

Article 10. Protected or Restricted Minerals:

“ For efficient and sustainable use, the Government shall issue a periodical list of protected or restricted minerals from export, import or for which export under the form of raw material is limited.”

This article is regarded well from the national interest point of view. This provision provides strong liability for the government to ensure the long term availability of mineral resources for domestic use by keeping some of the reserves out from exploitation. It reflects the awareness among the drafters that mineral is non-renewable resource that needs to be used efficiently and to be reserved for future generation needs. However, without presence of implementing regulation that explains the amount of mineral for exploitation and for reserve, this provision will never be effective.

Very often, the decision up on which mineral reserves to be exploited or not is pushed by external actors such like investors and donor countries rather than the country’s government itself. Therefore, from the perspective of investors this provision will not be favored because it will reduce their possible investment expansion. This provision is good for the country but will face many hurdles once the government wants to use this.

It should also be taken into account the foreign multilateral agencies’ role like World Bank, ADB, or WTO that will not like this provision because it is regarded as barrier for investment proliferation. These institutions have established social and environmental safeguards for its projects to ensure that no barriers should hamper private investment although in many projects between the policy safeguard and its implementation are contradictive.

The integration of Indochina countries (Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, and China) into one free trade and economic region shall cause considerable increase of investment in extractive sector including mining. The agreement facilitated by ADB since 1992 and further supported by WB as well as other agencies aimed at facilitating the transfer of power, goods, service, and labors between countries in region which regarded as signal to dynamic regional market and industry growth. Since industrialization is impossible without supply on raw materials, there will be transfer of raw materials from the non-industrialized countries to industrialized countries. It won’t be easy anymore for Laos to prioritize its national agenda for mineral preservation while it has been bound with regional pact on trade and investment. Failure to meet demand for raw materials from the region can be regarded as impeding regional market growth. Laos can be alleged as breaching the multilateral agreement that could lead to political tension among countries.

MANADO, Sulutlink. Governor of North Sulawesi Drs. Sinyo Harry Sarundajang asserts that PT Meares Soputan Mining (MSM, Archipelago Res.) must halt all activities prior to Environmental Impact Assessment undertaken by Ministry of Environment is endorsed. The company is operating gold mining in the hilly region Toka Tindung, Likupang District, North Minahasa Regency. The Environmental Impact Assessment of the project is under review by EIA team of Ministry of Environment in Jakarta.“Thus, I will not allow MSM to continue operation. They must wait until the EIA is completed,” states the Governor when asked by Sulutlink regarding the current state of the gold mine corporation, in the middle of Seminar in Hotel Quality Manado, Monday (13/11).

Regarding the burning of MSM shelter by hundreds of locals coming from Kalinaun, Rinondoran, and Batuputih villages protesting the gold company’s operation on Sunday (12/11) afternoon, Sarundajang said they must be sentenced according to the law. Asked with the same question, the vice Governor Freddy Harry Sualang commented the community is allowed to organize protest action but they should not do this with anarchy. (Previous News: Villagers Burnt MSM shelter!,red)

(Translated from Sulutlink http://www.sulutlink.com/berita2006/sulut1114.htm)

North Sulawesi People’s Alliance against Mining Waste (AMMALTA)

The North Sulawesi People’s Alliance Against Mining Waste (AMMALTA) strictly refuses the plans of PT Meares Soputan Mining, owned by Archipelago Res. (85%) and Julius Tahija (15%), and PT Tambang Tondano Nusajaya to construct a tailings storage facility (TSF) on the concession land that stretches out over North Minahasa Regency and Bitung municipality on grounds as follow:

1. Satellite photos show that if tailings in amount of a total of 10 bio. Metric tons will be disposed of, that
a. 60 percent of the region of North Minahasa will be destroyed permanently. The land affected is settlements and farming land that is meant for long term and sustainable development;
b. 50 percent of the municipality Bitung will be destroyed permanently. The land affected are protected mountain and jungle areas that host the Wallacea fauna unique in the world.
c. This is not consistent with the long term development plans of the Province North Sulawesi which are based on Fishing, Agriculture and Tourism; gold mining has the potential to destroy all three of them.

The plans for a tailings storage facility violate chapter 16 (4), presidential decree No. 27/1999 and Law No. 24/1992 on spatial planning. Those specify that for activities planned that are not consistent with the spatial planning, an EIA shall not be processed at all. The EIA of PT MSM and PT TTN are being processed though, and it seems even pushed for, by central government institutions like the Department of Minerals and Energy and the Department of Environment – against the strong resistance of the people of North Sulawesi.

2. The public statements made by the two companies during the socialization process are strongly to be doubted as the companies tend to manipulate facts and spread public lies. There are strong indications of MSM purposefully spreading social unrest with dividing communities, using religion, handing out bribes and further mal-administration.
a. In the Manado Post edition of October 7th 2006 MSM and TTN declare that neither tailings nor rock material will contain toxics as e.g. cyanide in significant amounts (photocopy attached). They state that the tailings have undergone detoxification and toxics have been neutralized. Academicians oppose those statements though. The technical staff member of the Ministry of Fisheries and Ocean e.g., Prof. DR. Eng. Rizal Rompas, M.Agr., states in the newspaper Rakyat of the October 7th 2006 edition, “and there will be still particles washed out with the water. Tailings that enter the water system, be it directly, or having been detoxified, will still contaminate the environment and disturb the water quality.”
b. The contract of work held by MSM and TTN is a product of Corruption and Collusion of the former Soeharto era and has to be annulled. Then President Soeharto signed the government contract on November 6th, 2006 whereas the company MSM was only registered via notary act 52 on November 17th, 2006.
c. PT MSM is illegally and purposefully violating the law by constructing a jetty in the bay of Rinondoran without having valid permit nor EIA for it. Whereas presidential regulation PP no 70/2002 requires a permit from the Department of Traffic, MSM only holds a permit issued by the head of the regency’s division of Traffic and Telecommunication (no. 522/DPT-MU/29/5/06 dated May 18th 2006)
d. PT MSM has illegally acquired traditional land, violating human rights, as is proven by five ongoing cases of landright violations in Indonesian courts. One case about 30 ha was already decided by the Indonesian High Court Jakarta in favor of the land owning family (case number 19/Pdt/2004 dated April 28th 2005).
e. On February 10th 2003 the Provincial Parliament of North Sulawesi in a letter directed to the Governor no. 160/DPRD/130 demands that 1. all police force should be re-called from the company land, 2. all Brimob forces who have intimidated or injured local people should be processed according to valid law, 3. not to issue a permit for the company because eight years since its issue the company never contributed to the development of the province, 4. that MSM and TTN must immediately return the land to the original land owners.
f. On their way back from a peaceful mass demonstration against the mining companies a truck with villagers from Kalinaun was violently attacked out of the dark; the attack under the command of a security post of MSM and there are strong indications that it was ordered by MSM management.
g. Pretending to conduct communal church services an organization paid by MSM told people that “The government as is written in the bible is the minister of God in the world. Therefore every citizen must obey to the decisions of the government, otherwise he is opposing God. Who opposes government decisions is opposing God and will face His punishment.” During the so called services the people were convinced that the government had welcomed MSM and given permit to operate. In their EIA proposal MSM cites those “services” as part of their socialization in the communities which it conducted in June and July 2006

3. During the process of making and applying for the approval of the EIA MSM and TTN repeatedly violate the law, and there are indications that within the EIA evaluation team formed for the purpose awkward inconsistencies occur.
a. Deputy of the Environmental Law Division in the Ministry of Environment, Eng. Arie D.D. Djoekardi, MA, violates existing law when he issued the letter B-2865/Dep-I/LH/05/06 dated May 15th 2006 assuring MSM and TTN it is sufficient to just revise the old EIA instead of renewing it as the same Ministry stated before in December 2005 (Letter Meneg LH No.B-6395/Dep.I/LH/2005). And again he states in the EIA public hearing on September 27th 2006 in Gran Puri Hotel Manado “secondary data of he old EIA only have to be verified with new data if this is required”. That clearly violates presidential regulation 27/1999, chapter 24(1) and (2) relating expired EIA; and chapter 26(1) Relating to modification of production design or production process. The letter no. 660.1/08/DKLH/VII-2005 of the Forestry and Environment Division North Minahasa recommends that the EIA should be suspended November 22nd 2005).
b. Whereas presidential regulation 29/199, chapter 9(1) clearly states that the EIA evaluation team must include staff of the Department of Health, there is no member in the MSM EIA evaluation team involved.
c. Violating the government regulation Kep Bapedal 8/2002 that demands the transparency of EIA socializations and the involvement of the local people, MSM and TTN always tried to by-maneuver this, thus not taking account of the very strong resistance of the people of North Sulawesi against the planned gold mine. The Provincial Governor in his letter 545/2201/SEKR dated December 20th 2005 asks the Ministry of Minerals and Energy to temporarily hold all MSM activities as violence and social instability in the area is prone.
d. Despite all that the gold company pushes for operation and continuing construction although the EIA approval is still not finalized.
e. The company illegally constructs a jetty (violating PP 27/1999).

On the above given grounds AMMALTA North Sulawesi strongly refuses the plans for a tailings storage facility on Minahasa land. We call out for all people of North Sulawesi and all social organizations of North Sulawesi to stand together against the threat of the gold mine on our traditional Minahasa land. Let’s save our and our future generations lives!

Manado, October 2006

Dear Sirs,

We write to you as the CEO and investors involved with the Toka Tindung gold mining project in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. We would like to inform you of several facts that you must address in relation to your responsibilities regarding this project.

First, we’d like to notify you that the Environmental Impact Assessment of the project is still at the centre of debate and cannot be considered final. The EIA study dated 1998 has been declared to have expired by the Minister of Environment based on Indonesian environmental regulations. The Minister of Environment has recommended the company undertake a new EIA study, as well as advised it to halt operations prior to the completion of the new EIA. The company’s attempt to neglect this recommendation and issue a revised, rather than new EIA has triggered massive protests by more than 3,000 residents of two regencies fearing the impact of Submarine Tailings Disposal on the environment and fishermen’s livelihoods.

Secondly, we’d like to express our concern regarding a recent incident in which residents who took part in a peaceful rally against the revision of the EIA (instead demanding a new EIA) were attacked by group led by a person later known to be working with the Toka Tindung project. This has raised suspicion that the company is involved with the attack. In total 54 people were injured during the attack, while a pregnant woman suffered a miscarriage after being injured and harassed.

Investing in the project risks damaging the marine environment with mining waste and will cut off the forest of Tangkoko Dua Saudara Nature Reserve, constituting serious violations of several Indonesian laws on environment, water pollution prevention, forestry, and protection of biodiversity and natural habitats. It is not responsible investment to continue with an extractive project that threatens the livelihoods of local the community, is leading to violence and human rights violations, and risks devastation of the environment.

We demand that you, the company’s CEO and investors, address this problem by using your leverage to overcome the project’s possible social and ecological impacts. Considering the incomplete environmental permission (EIA) and public opposition against the project’s possible ecological and social impacts we demand you to halt the project until these issues are settled.

Finally, we remind you that some of you are banking institution bound with the Equator Principle whose commitment to invest only in the projects that are socially and environmentally accepted. Investing in Toka Tindung project is a violation to the Equator Principle and is therefore threatens your reputation as well as your whole investment.

Thank you very much for taking this matter seriously and we look forward to your responsible act addressing the issue.

Sincerely,

1. Mining Advocacy Network (JATAM)
Jl Mampang Prapatan II/30
Jakarta 12790, INDONESIA
Website: www.jatam.org
Email: campaigner@jatam.org

2. Indonesian Forum for Environment (WALHI)
Jl. Tegal Parang Utara No. 14
Jakarta 12790, INDONESIA
Website: www.walhi.or.id
Email: torry@walhi.or.id

3. Community Alliance against Mining Waste (AMMALTA)
Kelurahan Batuputih Atas Lingk.II, Kecamatan Bitung Utara, Kota Bitung
Sulawesi Utara, INDONESIA
Email : jtakaliuang@yahoo.com

Note:

* this letter was sent on July 15th 2006 to :

1. Mr. John Colin Loosemore (Managing Director)
Archipelago Resources Plc.
17 Strome Road
Applecross, Perth
West Australia 6153
Australia

2. ANZ (Australia and New Zealand Banking Group)
P.O. Box 537E
Melbourne
Victoria 3001
Australia

3. NM Rothschild & Sons
New Court, St. Swithin’s Lane
London EC4P 4DU
United Kingdom

4. Société Générale
17 Cours Valmy
Paris La Defense
France

5. WestLB
Herzogstraße 15
Düsseldorf 40217
Germany