Salam teman-teman yang baik,
For an answer to Witjaksono's question see:
PT. FREEPORT INDONESIA IN IRIAN JAYA - A PRELIMINARY BIBLIOGRAPHY (March
1998) at
http://coombs.anu.edu.au/Depts/RSPAS/RMAP/ijbib2.htm
Among many other articles:
Beanal, Thomas 1992a.
'Environmental impact of mining activity in the Timika area and its
surroundings (Irian Jaya).'
Written October 1992. In PNLH Draft Report, pp.37-39.
Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) et al. 1995.
'Stop Freeport Mine's destruction of Irian Jaya biodiversity.'
NGO statement at Biodiversity Convention Conference of Parties II. CIEL,
WALHI et al., 14 November 1995
Dames & Moore 1996.
PTFI Environmental Audit Report / Laporan Audit Lingkungan PTFI.
Jakarta: Dames & Moore. 25 March 1996.
(summary available at
http://www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/motherlode/freeport/audit.html -
for an expert opinion on the report see
http://www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/motherlode/freeport/minewatch.html
)
Dick, John 1990.
Freeport Indonesia Inc. Tembagapura Copper-Gold Project, Irian Jaya.
Report on Site Visit, May 18th - 23rd, 1990. Review of Environmental
River Study, 1990.
Recommendations for ANDAL Report. EMDI Project. May 1990. 20pp.
Flannery, Tim 1998.
Throwim Way Leg: an adventure.
Melbourne: Text Publishing.
INFID 1996. INFID Statement on Freeport McMoRan Mining Operations in
Irian Jaya.
Statement issued by the International Non-Government Organisation Forum
on Indonesian Development (INFID) at the Tenth INFID Conference, 26-28
April 1996, Canberra, Australia.
WALHI-YPMD 1991. Laporan Kunjungan WALHI-YPMD ke Freeport Indonesia di
Tembagapura. Ts, 14pp.
Also see
http://www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/motherlode/freeport/freeport1.html
For Freeport's side of the story see
http://www.fcx.com/mainpages/esp-home.htm and
http://www.fcx.com/esp/envraudit.html
And finally, for a bi-lingual summary of the 1999 Montgomery Watson
audit: available at http://www.fcx.com/news/fcxaudit.pdf (1257KB! -
given the uncritical qualifications used, I seriously question
Montgomery Watson's independence)
If you have read (some of) the reports listed above, I think no one in
the world (including Freeport) will deny Freeport's operations damage
(and will keep damaging) the environment. As such, the only sustainable
solution to the problem is given in the letter of one of the readers of
the Jakarta Post attached below. It comes from the March 11, 2000 issue.
===
Freeport and the environment
In his letter (The Jakarta Post, March 7, 2000 Not a catastrophe), Mr.
Bruce E. Marsh sounds like a nice and sincere person. However, he is in
the mining business, so there is one question he will not ask and that
is whether the destruction of a mountain, a river system and its
associated delta is worth the ore taken out of that mountain. For Mr.
Marsh as a member of the mining industry, the answer has to be yes. For
the rest of us, the answer is not so clear.
Mr. Marsh points out the number of experts working with Freeport. So?
This is a public relations war, so each side can find experts to promote
their point of view. The term "expert" sounds so neutral, so objective
-- not so. There are conservative experts and liberal experts, and I am
sure that Freeport uses only the experts that agree with Freeport.
Mr. Marsh talks about the community and social programs run by the mine.
I have seen some of them and they have their good points, but they are
peripheral. Freeport is a business and Freeport's purpose is to make
money. There is nothing wrong with that, but Freeport is an industry
which traditionally destroys an area to get to the ore and then walks
away. This industry has been fighting environmentalists and the socially
conscious forever, and like most mining companies, Freeport will only go
as far as it is pushed. Being socially and environmentally responsible
costs money -- environment and social programs are cost centers, not
profit centers.
Then we get to the options for disposing of the tailings. I enjoyed
Freeport's advertisement in the name of "Transparency". I didn't find it
all that transparent given the jargon and convoluted language of the
report. Here is what I got out of that report. Two alternative options,
upland and lowland storage pose environmental risks and would be
expensive. So, the best practice is to damp the tailings into a river,
turning it gray from top to bottom and destroying the ability of the
rivers delta area to maintain its original vegetation.
The "best practices" designation for dumping the tailings in the river
was decided because all three are environmentally bad, but dumping in
the river is free to Freeport. Therefore, there is no "best practice".
It is not clear if the actual environmental impact of using the river is
worse or less worse than the potential environmental impact of the other
methods, but the use of the river is cheaper for Freeport than the
alternatives.
That begs the real question. Is the current method good enough. It may
be "best practice", but it is still bad. Freeport claims this is
international standard. Well it appears that "International Standard"
isn't very high. If they were serious about being environmentally
responsible, I would think they would choose U.S. or European standards
to shoot for. Of course, that would be expensive. I am pretty sure, that
if that mine was located in the U.S. or Europe, Freeport would not be
dumping those tailings in the river. But since the mine is out in the
wilds of Irian Jaya and the New Order government was much more
interested in cash than the environment, they dump away.
The bottom line here is what are the actual costs (financial,
environmental and social) of getting the copper and gold out of that
mountain in Irian Jaya and who bears those costs. Destruction and
degradation of the environment is a major component of those costs, and
one that is getting higher as the world continues to rapidly loose its
forests and biological resources. Freeport clearly doesn't want to pay
the cost -- so Irian Jaya, Indonesia, and "the environment" are paying.
This represents quite a large subsidy to Freeport, its shareholders, and
consumers of copper. The only real, long term, sustainable solution to
this problem is for Freeport to internalize all the costs of production,
including protecting the environment, and pass that cost on to its
customers. If we, since we all use copper, refuse to pay that cost, then
the mine in Irian Jaya is not viable and should be closed down. If we
all agree to pay the full cost, including protecting the environment,
then no problem. In either case, we all win.
FRANK PAGE
Jakarta
==
Hope this helps.
Salam lestari,
Ed
--
Ed Colijn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Indonesian Nature Conservation Database
http://www.bart.nl/~edcolijn/
witjaksono wrote:
>
> Could somebody please provide background information regarding the
> environmental damage that Freeport have caused. Is there any published
> scientific papers, technical reports, etc documenting this damage? I would
> appreciate it very much if citation (at least the author and year of
> publication) is included in the discussion. The inclusion of citations
> would convey massages that such data exist; and discussion are based on
> something real and not illusion.
>
> Witjaksono
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
