Está en la página 1de 15

Mining

and Sustainable Development in Colombia: A Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impact Assessment Processes Kathleen Hurley, MS, MA mkathleenhurley@gmail.com Summary and Recommendations President Santos named mining as one of the locomotives for the economic development of Colombia, however sustainable development is a key component of the Colombian constitution. Mining in any form impacts land, biodiversity, and water resources. In order to reconcile the extraction of non-renewable resources, such as gold and coal, with the core concepts of sustainable development, Colombia must strategically review each project in the context of water for consumption and for hydroelectric use, biodiversity and important ecosystems, agriculture and population centers and mineral resources among other factos. Many of Colombias mines are located in areas of high precipitation and seismic activity; these conditions require greater technical rigor in evaluation of any new mining project for adequate control of impoundment lagoons, wastewater management, and acid mine drainage. Excellent environmental protection laws exist in Colombia, but environmental governance is generally weak. The Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, responsible for setting environmental policy, lacks a presence outside of the capital. Developing a greater presence throughout the country in collaboration with the Corporaciones Autonomas Regionales (CARS) is essential to fortify environmental governance in the country. Environmental governance related to mining is not a problem exclusive to Colombia; it exists throughout Latin America and the world. To seriously evaluate new mining projects, several steps must be implemented.1 Strengthen the rigor of the environmental impact assessment; Improve transparency in the process; Improve the capacity of technical personnel at all levels of authority; Implement a credible public participation process; Develop and enforce a meaningful program for clean up and maintenance during and after mine closure. To align mining projects with the principles of sustainable development, rigorous evaluation of new projects from their inception to mine closure is essential. The environmental permitting process provides an opportunity to better align mining with sustainability because the purpose of permitting is to protect human health and the environment by defining (in a transparent, accountable manner) legally binding requirements for individual sources of significant environmental impact.2 A robust and transparent environmental permitting process is essential to minimize the environmental impact of industry, support compliance with domestic law, and to promote 1 Rossi A. 2012. Ambiente y minera en Amrica Latina: Problema, dilemma u oportunidad? Hydria 41: 20- 23. Junio 2012. 2 OECD. 2007. Guiding Principles of Effective Environmental Permitting Systems. Paris, France.

innovation. According to the OECD, modern permitting systems are transparent, rely upon broad public participation, and the regulators have discretionary power. Many countries within the OECD utilize an integrated permitting process to consider the individual and cumulative impacts of emissions to air, water, and land as well as other environmental impacts. Regulators set permit conditions to achieve the best possible protection of the environment overall. This analysis evaluates the environmental impact assessment process for four other major gold and coal producing countries as a comparative analysis to Colombias process. Based on this evaluation, the key considerations for improving Colombias environmental permitting process are the following: In Australia and the United States, multiple agencies consult on evaluation of proposed projects; each agency has discretionary authority. Colombia lacks a process of obligatory and clear consultation among authorities for new mining project approval. Time frame for approval of new mining projects ranges from 1.5 years to seven years, in the countries evaluated. Mining projects are complex and have long-term impacts, thus regulators need an adequate amount of time to review documentation and these time frames should be clearly communicated to the project applicants. With over half the land area in Colombia available for mining development, integrated planning using geographic information systems (GIS) is essential to properly evaluate a projects proximity to other mining development as well as identification of overlap among agriculture, mining and energy, environment, water resources, population centers, biodiversity hotspots, national parks or buffer zones. There is an urgent need to develop a national strategy for assessment of mining projects, not just prohibition of mining in ecologically sensitive areas (e.g., paramo), but related to other land uses. Transparency and public involvement are key to any environmental impact assessment process, public involvement and consultation within Colombias EIA process remains weak. Information available to the public through public meetings, distribution of documents, the Internet, and others. Stakeholder input should be sought at regular intervals throughout the permitting process. Clear timelines for each stage of the permitting process. This will reduce costs for the applicants and improve accountability and responsiveness of the relevant government agencies.

General Summary of EIA Processes Country Average Exploration Mining # Agencies/ Established time for Permit Development Ministries EIA new mining required? Permit involved in Process? permit (Y/N) required? EIA process (Y/N) (Y/N) Colombia Mining Yes (permit) Yes (license) Depends on Yes, but permit ban size of lacks rigor. in effect project until August 2012 USA 3-7 years Yes Yes 12 Yes Australia 22.5 months Yes Yes 10 Yes South Africa 1 year Yes, Yes 7 Yes, but minimum integrated lacks rigor. into mining permit process Indonesia unknown unknown Yes unknown Yes, but lacks rigor and laws frequently change United States of America: Permitting Process The United States of America (USA) ranks as the worlds third highest gold producing country3 and the worlds second largest coal producer.4 The USA ranks third in global exports of coal, while Colombia ranks as the worlds fourth largest coal exporter. In addition, the USA is a megadiverse country; as such, the regulatory system within the USA is a useful reference point when analyzing the permitting process for new mining projects within Colombia. The permitting process in the USA is a complex, multi-phase regulatory process. The average time to approve a new mine in the USA is seven years; the length of time is 3 Bloomberg 2011, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-05/top-10-gold-producing-countries-in- 2011-table-.html, accessed July 17, 2012 4 World Coal Association, http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/, accessed July 20, 2012

generally related to the complexity of the mine sites and addressing opposition to new mines.5 Mining regulations in the USA are subject to requirements under several laws at both the state and federal level. These laws may include the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, Section 106 Historical and Cultural Resources Protection, Coastal Zone Management Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and various state requirements. At the federal level the following agencies may be involved in the decision process: US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) US Forest Service National Park Service At the state level, the following agencies may participate in the decision process: Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Department of Ecology (or Environment) Department of Fish and Game Native American groups Primary gold producing states are Alaska, Nevada, California, Colorado, and Utah. As of 2010, the top gold-producing mines in the United States were located in Nevada, Utah, Alaska, and Colorado.6 Mining areas in Colombia are generally located in areas with high levels of precipitation and seismic risk; therefore the mining permit process will be compared to Alaska, which shares these characteristics. Mines located in Nevada, Utah, and Colorado operate in arid climates which presents a different environmental management context. Exploration & Exploitation of Mineral Resources A typical mining permit process in Alaska begins with initial exploration; the environmental studies commence with the advanced exploration stage that follows the initial exploration stage. Permits are required for the exploration phase and are submitted to the State of Alaskas Department of Natural Resources Mining, Land and Water division.7 Applicants must complete a land use permit as well as the applicable supplemental questionnaires. Note that mining projects must apply for both a mining license and a mining permit; these have distinct functions. A license is used to track the
5 Wall Street Journal,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703822404575019123766644644.html, accessed August 1, 2012 6 IndexMundi, http://www.indexmundi.com/en/commodities/minerals/gold/gold_t3.html, accessed 8/22/12 7 State of Alaska, http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/forms/?tab=mining, accessed 8/28/12

income tax obligation to the State and has nothing to do with evaluation of project impacts. The permit is required to document potential impacts, such as environmental, social, or indigenous, on the surrounding area. On average, the environmental studies for new mining projects last six years. In Alaska, the average length of the permitting process is three years, including time to complete the environmental and the feasibility studies; nationally, the average permitting time for a new mining project is seven years. Importantly, there is no single authority or permit that grants an approval for new mining projects. If the proposed project is located in Alaska, the project proponent submits a Mining Application with the required fee, which is reviewed by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for completeness. The DNR then distributes the application to all state and federal authorities involved in the permitting process. At minimum, 14 authorizations from state authorities and 14 from federal authorities are required for the mining project approval in Alaska. Three outcomes are possible after agency review of the application: 1) a permit is issued, may include stipulations; 2) request more information before issuing a permit; 3) deny the permit under statutory and regulatory authority or by order of court injunction.8 Importantly, the project that is approved usually never is the same as the originally proposed project. Authorizations and Permits Required for new mining projects State Level (Alaska) Federal Level Plan of Operations (DNR) US EPA Section 402 NPDES Water Discharge Permit Reclamation and Bonding (DNR) US EPA Air Quality Permit review Waste Management Permits and Bonding US EPA Safe Drinking Water Act (UIC (ADEC) Permit) Certification of NPDES and Army Corps of US ACOE Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit Engineer Permits (ADEC) Sewage Treatment System Approval (ADEC) US ACOE Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act Air Quality Permits US ACOE Section 106 Historical and Cultural Resources Protection Fish Habitat and Fishway Permits (DNR) NMFS Threatened and Endangered Species Act Consultation Water Rights (DNR) NMFS Marine Mammal Protection Act Right of Way/Access (DNR/DOT) NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Tidelands Leases (DNR) Dam Safety Certification (DNR) NMFS Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Cultural Resource Protection (DNR) USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species Act Consultation Monitoring Plan USFWS Bald Eagle Protection Act Clearance 8 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 2010. Fact Sheet: Mining Permits through the Annual Placer Mining Application, http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/forms/?tab=mining, accessed 8/29/12.

(Surface/Groundwater/Wildlife)(DNR/DEC) Coastal Zone Consistency Determination USFWS Migratory Bird Protection (DNR) USFWS Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
DNR: Department of Natural Resources ADEC: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation DOT: Department of Transportation EPA: Environmental Protection Agency NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service US ACOE: United States Army Corps of Engineers USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Most new mining projects are subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as they are considered a major federal action via Environmental Protectin Agency (EPA), the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), or other federal agency. The NEPA process is a decision making tool to determine the scope of potential impacts of a project and requires an environmental assessment (EA) to determine if an environmental impact assessment/statement (EIA/EIS) is required. The purpose of the EA is to determine if significant impacts to the environment are expected as a result of the project. The applicant produces the EA. A determination of no likely significant impacts or likely significant impacts is made by the NEPA lead agency. If a determination of likely significant impacts is made, then the project applicant must prepare a more detailed EIS. Public comment periods are included within this process, specifically during the evaluation of the EA, after the issuance of the findings of impact (a 30-day public comment period), and after the publication of the draft EIS (a 45-day public comment period). Content of an EIS describes impacts to hydrology, air and water quality, noise, wetlands, fish and aquatic habitat, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, socioeconomics, land use, subsistence, cultural resources, visual resources, recreation, safety and feasibility, and cumulative impacts. Furthermore, it must include measures to manage, mitigate, and remediate impacts caused by the mine. This includes detailed plans, including topographic maps, hydrological studies, and waste management strategies. The NEPA process is as follows: 1. Application 2. Scoping/Scoping Responsiveness a. Tribal Consultation b. Threatened and Endangered Species under Endangered Species Act c. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 3. Draft EIS 4. Comments 5. Final Draft EIS 6. Comments 7. Record of Decision

Mine Closure Financial assurance, in the form of a bond, a letter of credit, cash, or collateral, is required to provide for long-term reclamation and maintenance of a mine site. Trust funds, established by the companies are to be used for long-term obligations. The amount of required financial assurance varies based on the extent of long-term obligations, such as water treatment, monitoring, etc. The amount of financial assurance is reviewed every five years during the environmental audit. Financial assurances for Alaska mines currently range from $3.5 million to $154.9 million dollars, which may be altered during the review cycle. Mine closure approval is based on a detailed understanding of the chemistry of the mines ore, waste rock, and tailings; this information is reviewed by a multi-agency team of experts in mine design and closure. Australia The megadiverse country of Australia is the worlds second largest producer of gold9 and ranks fourth in the world for coal production.10 The majority of Australian coal mining is located in eastern Australia while gold mines are located throughout Australian territory. However, greater densities of gold mines exist in western Australian than in eastern Australia. Please refer to these maps for further information on gold and coal mining operations within Australia (http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/) Australia is a constitutional monarchy and operates as a federalist system whereby the powers of government are divided between a central government and individual states. There are six state governments and ten territories outside the borders of the states. Each state has its own constitution and government branches to manage state matters that are not governed by the Commonwealth. Territories may be granted a limited right of self- government, while Commonwealth law exclusively governs the rest. Generally, the states and territorial governments are responsible for implementing environmental review and permitting of mining projects; if there is a conflict of laws between states and the Commonwealth, the laws of the Commonwealth prevail.11 Despite autonomy of states and some of the territories, there is a transparent process of consultation between the states, their internal authorities and the national level. Importantly, major mining development must be referred to the national level. For Australia, the state of Western Australia will be used as an example of the environmental permitting process within the country. Western Australia was selected because of its active mining sector. The Government of Western Australias Office of the Environmental Protection Authority manages the environmental assessment process for 9 Bloomberg 2011, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-05/top-10-gold-producing-countries-in-

2011-table-.html, accessed July 17, 2012 10 World Coal Association, http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/, accessed July 20, 2012 11 Australian Government, State and Territorial Government, http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our- government/state-and-territory-government, accessed 8/15/2012.

new mines in the territory of Western Australia. Environmental impact assessment within Australia is similar the US EIA process. The states are in charge of environmental review and permitting for mining exploration, prospecting and mine development. The two initial phases of environmental review are environmental scoping and environmental review documents. The environmental scoping document requires the following components:12 Applicable legislation and standards; Relevant environmental protection bulletins, environmental assessment guidelines, position statements, Guidance Statements and criteria; Attention to principles of environmental protection; Consultation with government agencies; Use of informational databases; Consultation with key stakeholders, particularly those with relevant knowledge; Perform site surveys and investigations; Review site-specific information within a local, regional and cumulative context; Identify environmental significance; Identify appropriate management approaches and mitigation measures In addition to these components, the environmental assessment must address the general environmental principles, factors and objectives, including five principles of environmental protection, 13 seven biophysical factors,14 seven factors of pollution management15, three social factors16, and decommissioning. Minerals Environment Branch (MEB) of the Department of Mines & Petroleum is responsible for administering the Mining Act 1978 and the Mining Regulations of 1981; environmental assessment and approval of mining activities are governed by the mining act. The Mining Act administers exploration and prospecting, which the government acknowledges encompass a range of activities. Permission for exploration and/or prospecting expires after 12 months, unless granted a special extension. Guidance issued by the Western Australian government defines exploration and prospecting as short-term transient activities which should not result in a long-term environmental impact, however the government acknowledges cumulative impacts from exploration and prospecting activities must be properly managed. The guidance documents emphasize minimization of clearing and/or disturbance as well as proactive environmental management. In order to engage in exploration or prospecting, the project proponent must submit a Program of Work for the relevant activity. 12 Government of Western Australia, Guide to EIA Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives 13 Precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity, improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms, waste minimization. 14 Flora, fauna, wetlands (wetlands, rivers), water (surface and ground), land (terrestrial), land (marine), conservation areas 15 Air quality, water quality (surface, marine, or ground), soil, noise, radiation, light, greenhouse gases 16 Social factors include heritage, visual amenity, and recreation.

Major mining projects must be referred to the EPA. Other projects that require referral to the EPA include major mineral and gas refining projects, major infrastructure projects, significant contaminated sites where redevelopment is proposed, and major marine and coastal developments. Furthermore, any development proposal likely to affect an area with high environmental value (i.e., national park, nature reserve, specially identified areas, significant emissions) must be referred to the EPA. Importantly, the EPA in some cases has established a Memoranda of Understanding with the local decision making authorities to clearly identify which proposals should be referred to the EPA. Government departments involved in mining developments in Western Australia: Department of Environment and Conservation Department of Water Department of Mines and Petroleum Department of State Development Department of Fisheries Department of Planning Department of Indigenous Affairs Health Department of Western Australia Local Government Authority Project proponents have obligations under both Commonwealth law and state or territorial law. In particular, the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) identified several areas of national environmental significance, which are subject to assessment and approval by the Commonwealth. These include world heritage properties, national heritage places, wetlands of international importance, listed threatened species and ecological communities, migratory species protected under international agreements, Commonwealth marine areas, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and nuclear actions, including uranium mines (http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protect/index.html). If a proposed action has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on any of these items, then approval must be sought from the Australian Government Minister for the Environment. The Western Australian Environmental Protection Act (1986) authorizes the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to review development proposals under environmental impact assessment before implementation. The EPA is an independent authority with decision-making authority. Section 38 of the EP Act allows any person (proponent or third party) to refer a proposal that is likely to have a significant effect on the environment to the EPA. The proposal may address a project, plan, programme, policy, operation, undertaking, or development or change in land use or amendment of any of these. 17 Complete Mining Tenement Application for exploration. Exploration is defined as, searching a large area, generally with minimal or limited ground disturbance. 17 Government of Western Australia. General Guide on Referral of Proposals to the Environmental Protection Authority under Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

Apply for Mining Title an application for a mining lease is considered to be a primary approval for major mineral development projects, therefore the process upfront requires due diligence. Apply for a mining lease accompanied by a mining proposal at an office of the Mining Registrar. The mining application must be advertised under the Section 29 provisions of the Native Title Act 1993. Restrictions apply on mining proposals that may occur on part of various types of reserve (protected) land. o The Mining Proposal is a detailed document that accounts for the environmental management of the proposed project, including a detailed description of the proposed project and the existing environment - natural, social, and cultural. The mining proposal assesses environmental impacts related to the project and determines which are likely to be significant. The proposal must address these impacts and describe in detail how the company will manage and ameliorate the significant effects. The mining proposal is prepared by the proponent or tenement holder and contains detailed information on identification, evaluation and management of significant environmental impacts relevant to the proposed mining operations and the surrounding environment.18 Screening and assessment by the Department of Industry and Resources and referral to other agencies, often dictated by a list of factors that cause a referral to EPA; Recommending approval subject to further conditions; Environmental Bonds; Mining proposal approval from DoIR; Imposition of further conditions Generally, the process for development of new mining projects, after the exploration or prospecting phase has ended, is as follows. Scoping Communicate with appropriate State Government Departments and Local Authorities regarding impacts. Determine if the project requires registration and/or Works Approval and Licensing under Part V of the EP Act. DEC in consideration of any application will determine whether it needs to be referred to the EPA under Section 38(1) subject to environmental impact assessment under the Act. Acquire Landclearing Permit, if the project involves clearing of native vegetation. The process for evaluation of a mining permit lasts a minimum of three months and a bond is required for environmental management during and after mine closure. The government authorities calculate the bond amount. Mining is not allowed to proceed or expand until a satisfactory Bond is registered and approved by the department. It must be a guarantee by an approved financial institution. 18 Government of Western Australia, Department of Mines and Petroleum, Environment. 2006. Mining Proposals in Western Australia.

Detailed flowcharts of the mining permitting process can be located at the Government of Western Australias Department of Mines and Petroleum website (http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/507.aspx). Average permitting timeline in Australia ranges from one to three years with an average processing time of 22.5 months. South Africa South Africa has an active mining industry; it accounts for one-fifth of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)19. It ranks fourth globally in production of gold and seventh in coal production. Under South African law, companies are obliged to set aside money for clean up and rehabilitation of mining operations as part of the mine closure process. However, this system has largely failed leaving the country with almost $400 million (US) in liability related to environmental clean up of abandoned mine sites. The National Environmental Management Act provides overall objectives for integrated management of the environment to optimize benefits while minimizing negative impacts. These objectives include integration of environmental management into environmental decision-making; identification, prediction, and evaluation of actual and potential impacts on the environment, socio-economic conditions, and cultural heritage, alternatives for mitigation in compliance with the principles of environmental management; assess impacts of activities on the environment with adequate consideration; and ensure adequate and appropriate opportunities for public participation.20 Preparation of an EIA does not mean a license for development will be approved. Weak governance and processes have characterized South Africas environmental governance in relation to the quality of Environmental Management Plans or Programs (EMPs), specifically there has been inadequate attention on water quality issues; EMPs with inadequate or lacking rehabilitation plans; ability to adjust bond rates either for inflation or changes in the projects, all leading to a large number of abandoned mines. A recent WWF-South Africa report indicates that the South African system requiring companies to set aside money to rehabilitate and clean-up mines is largely failing due to loopholes in regulation and weak enforcement leaving the country with costly and long- term environmental pollution. EIA is the responsibility of both national and provincial government institutions, however approval of EIAs is usually the jurisdiction of the provinces. The principal laws administering mining projects in South Africa include the following: Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (Act 28 of 2002, section 39 requires an EIA and EMP for mining activities) National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) 19 World Wildlife Fund South Africa. R30 billion is just the start of South Africas mining hangover. 15 August 2012. http://www.wwf.org.za/?6600/acid-mine-draining, accessed 9/1/12. 20 Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment. South Africa EIA Profile, http://www.eia.nl/countryprofile_detail_en.aspx?id=4, accessed 9/3/12.

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act #10, 2004 requires an EIA for any project that may pose a threat to any indigenous species or to the environment National Environmental Management Act regulations 386 and 387 National Water Act (36 of 1998) Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act (1965) Environment Conservation Act (1989) Additional permits and licenses: Water Use License Air Quality Certificate of Registration Clearance from South African Heritage Resources Agency Waste disposal permit EIA specific guidelines are published by the government and include guidance on public participation, alternatives, exemption applications, appeals, and interpretation of the listed activities that require an EIA. The environmental impact assessment (EIA) process generally follows these steps and takes at least one year: 1) Screening process to determine is an EIA is required 2) Determine if action may affect sensitive areas 3) Application to authorities 4) Submittal of starting document, including application form with supporting document (30 day timeline) 5) Scoping occurs only for major activities that require a full EIA and must include public participation with stakeholders (30 day timeline) 6) Assessment and Reporting -EIA/EMP 7) Review process relevant authorities and specialists should review the proposal. Public comment in this stage is not clear. (60 days timeline) 8) Record of Decision (ROD) must be made public and justified within 60 days. 9) Monitoring the EMP should provide the mechanisms for monitoring and compliance. Scoping is intended to inform authorities about the project and determine which special studies are needed in order to make a determination on the project. Scoping includes advertisement, public consultation with all stakeholders, a scoping report, including terms for further studies, plan of study for the EIA, and review by the public and other authorities. Finally, the scoping report will also include comments from authorities and a final approval. The EIA at minimum must include a baseline description of the environment, project description, consideration of alternatives, environmental impact assessment, environmental management program, including timeframes, responsibilities, and actions, rehabilitation and closure requirements, financial provision for closure, and a review by the public and relevant authorities.

Public participation consists of oral or written comments during public meetings, conferences, as press releases, survey responses, meetings and workshops. The project proponent is responsible for ensuring public participation.

South African mining permit timeline. From Colleen Parkins, Metago Environmental Engineers. Indonesia Indonesia is comprised of 33 provinces and 349 regencies, each with its own governor and legislative bodies. The provinces and regencies exert considerable control over their affairs, while the national government manages foreign policy, defense, the legal system, and the monetary policy. The hierarchy of authority consists of the chief of village, sub-district hear, regent, governor, and president. The chief of village is elected by popular vote and has authority over the local people. Indonesia is a developing democracy and faces challenges related to weak governmental institutions, risks from climate change and environmental degradation, and social services. The mining industry has been affected by changing rules related to mineral and mine ownership, tax structure, and export rules. Indonesia is the worlds top exporter of thermal coal and tin; mining contributes to 12% of GDP. In 2001, Indonesia introduced a broad decentralization scheme that affected the

process of environmental impact assessment and enforcement of water pollution law. As of yet, it is not clear whether the decentralization has led to greater enforcement capabilities or weakened EIA procedures in the country.21 Indonesia has a fairly high level of corruption both within its region and in the world.22 Colombia ranks only slightly better on the Corruption Perceptions Index. The corruption within Indonesia means that enforcement remains weak, including within the environmental sector. 23 In 2009, Indonesia introduced a new environmental law that allows the government to revoke business licenses in the case of deliberate pollution. The law requires acquisition of an environmental license and an environmental assessment by those companies whose operations impact the environment. It also sets stringent consequences for polluters, including up to 10 years in jail and fines up to $1 million (US). Currently, Indonesia recently launched an audit to review the countrys mining permits to determine if mining concessions were granted in compliance with regulations.24 Without an EIA, the environmental ministry will not endorse extensions of mining concessions. There is currently a moratorium on issuance of new mining permits based on a 2008 law. Similar to Colombia, Indonesia faces a backlog of permit processing for mining licenses. The key environmental permits required in Indonesia are the environmental permit, the environmental impact analysis report (AMDAL) and an environmental management/monitoring efforts report (UKL-UPL). Any business that requires an AMDAL or an UKL-UPL also now is required to obtain an environmental permit. The authorities issue requirements and obligations in the approval of the AMDAL or UKL-UPL and additional conditions may be placed upon the project by other authorities. The AMDAL documents include the terms of reference, environmental impact statement, and environmental management and monitoring plans. It also is supposed to include a comprehensive consultative process with local, provincial, and central stakeholders. Public participation in the AMDAL process has been irregular and limited even though the Environmental Management Act 23 of 1997 states that every person has the right to have environmental information related to environmental management. A lack of public participation, lack of rigor in the process, and use of inappropriate outreach techniques have characterized Indonesian public participation.25 This results in EIAs that do not adequately address social and environmental impact issues. 21 Bedner A. 2010. Consequences of Decentralization: Environmental Impact Assessment and Water Pollution Control in Indonesia. Law & Policy 32(1): 38-60.
22 Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2011.

http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/, accessed 9/6/12. 23 Reuters. Time needed for Indonesia environment law: official, October 16, 2009. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/16/us-indonesia-environment-idUSTRE59F0T220091016, accessed 9/6/12. 24 Sihaloho MJ. 2012. Audit Agency to Review Indonesias Mining Permits, September 5, 2012. Jakarta Globe. http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/audit-agency-to-review-indonesias-mining-permits/542347, 9/6/12. 25 UNEP. EIA Training Resource Manual: Public Involvement.

The government entities involved in the implementation of AMDAL include the national government through its agencies and provincial governments, the Environmental Impact Management Agency, and the AMDAL commissions, located in each department, agency or provincial government, which review and make determinations on AMDAL submittals. The sectoral government departments and agencies are responsible for environmental management. The EIA process generally follows these steps according to the UNEP EIA Training Manual Case Study: Submittal of environmental component and project description; Scoping includes determination of significant environmental impact and area-specific studies resulting in the terms of reference; EIA data collection and analysis, development of an environmental profile, impact prediction, and impact evaluation; Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan The specific AMDAL commissions review the EIA and will make one of three recommendations: revisions to an incomplete document, approval the EIA document and the project may proceed, or the EIA may be rejected because of lack of technological management for the anticipated impacts. Information on the timeline for processing an EIA, approving a new mine, or requirements for exploration in Indonesia were not readily available. More detail regarding the government agencies involved in new mine project approval was also not accessible. In general, the EIA process within Indonesia is evolving in step with strengthened governance throughout the sector. Indonesia has passed strong legislation aimed at environmental protection, but the government has not been able to effectively implement these laws. In response to weak governance, Indonesia joined the International Partnership for Principle 10 (PP10) committing to improve meaningful public participation in environmental governance.26

26 World Resources Institute. 2006. Indonesia joins partnership to improve environmental governance,

public access to information. http://www.wri.org/press/2007/10/indonesia-joins-partnership-improve- environmental-governance-public-access-information, accessed 9/6/12.

Calificar