PublicParticipation

FINAL REPORT
STUDY ON
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND
ACCESS TO INFORMATION IN AMDAL
AMDAL REFORM PROGRAM (PHASE 2)
LINKING POVERTY, ENVIRONMENT, AND DECENTRALISATION
AUGUST 2005
SUBMITTED TO THE WORLD BANK
BY PT. QIPRA GALANG KUALITA

this page is intentionally left blank

i
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of Study 1
1.2 Objective and Expected Output 1
1.3 Link to Other Work 2
1.4 Structure of This Report 4
Chapter 2 METHODOLOGY 5
2.1 Study Approach 5
2.2 Empirical Study 7
Chapter 3 CASE-STUDY FINDINGS 11
3.1 Announcement 11
3.2 Public Consultations for KA-ANDAL Preparation 15
3.3 Data Compilation and Documentation 24
3.4 Representation at the AMDAL Commission Meetings 25
3.5 Access to Information 31
Chapter 4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 37
4.1 AMDAL Public Involvement in the Current
Sociopolitical Condition
37
4.2 Limiting & Critical Success Factors 41
4.3 Key areas for improvement 46
Chapter 5 RECOMMENDATIONS 49
ATTACHMENTS
A Case-Study Description
B List of Case-Study Resource Persons
C Preparatory Steps and Preconditions for Public Involvement in
AMDAL
D Minutes of Meeting and Participation List from “Discussion on
Public Involvement in AMDAL’
E References

Final Report – Study on the Public Participation and Access to Information in AMDAL
ii

iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A Study is conducted to review the level, quality and
effectiveness of public involvement in the AMDAL process
since the issuance of the Decree of the Head of BAPEDAL
No. 08/2000. The Study is expected to identify patterns of
implementation, limiting and key success factors. The
ultimate aim of the Study is to provide recommendations as
input for the national-level effort for AMDAL revitalization,
and more specifically the revision of the decree on public
involvement and information disclosure in AMDAL.
The Study uses 10 case-studies as the basis of an empirical
analysis on public involvement and information disclosure in
AMDAL. Additional literature and resource persons were also
used to develop recommendations. Results of the case-study
analysis indicate that although public involvement and
information disclosure in AMDAL has been implemented
(albeit in varying degrees), the outcome of these efforts have
not been significant. Comments received from the Concerned
Public have varying value, but largely has not significantly
contributed to a better AMDAL process and decisions based
on the AMDAL process. Where comments have been
significant in terms of numbers and relevance to the AMDAL
process, the amount of preparation and resources spent was
substantial.
Reasons for limited success from public involvement in
AMDAL is attributed to a combination of problems related
to: a) poor understanding of AMDAL objectives, scope and
process; b) lack of understanding of public involvement in
AMDAL and expected output; c) weak communication
between the public and government on needs and aspirations
for economic development and social welfare (outside the
AMDAL process); d) still evolving democratic process and
institutions
The Study presents recommendations that are expected to be
useful in Government deliberations on revising the public
involvement regulations and guidelines. This Study assumes

iv
that the current AMDAL procedures will be modified in the
near future, and the deliberations to formulate the
modifications will occur in the next few months. In order to
accommodate possible changes, the recommendations
provided here do not prescribe a single solution. The ultimate
aim of the recommendations is to create a public involvement
and information disclosure for AMDAL that is effective,
efficient, credible and contextual to the Indonesian
development picture.
This Study recommends the following changes to the current
AMDAL-public involvement regulations and guidelines:
• More specific statement of objectives, and detailed
objectives for each of the key components of the
AMDAL process;
• Establish a set of qualitative criteria for ‘good’ public
involvement;
• Establish clearer division of responsibility among the
three key parties, namely the Responsible Environment
Agency, the Local Government, and the Project
Proponent;
• Define more clearly who is meant by Affected
Communities and their legitimate representatives;
• Allow some degree of freedom to the Project Proponent
to determine the mix of techniques used for information
disclosure and public involvement;
• Develop links and formalize ties with other agencies’
programs for public involvement in development
planning outside of the AMDAL process;
• Develop a program to assist different stakeholders to be
able to contribute to the AMDAL-public involvement
process;
• Identify sources of finances to support Government
agencies and Affected Communities’ involvement in the
AMDAL process, and to enhance public education on
AMDAL and public involvement in AMDAL.
Finally, the lesson learned in the 4 years of implementing a
formal public involvement process is that any process
developed for the AMDAL system should fit into the
sociopolitical mechanisms that are being developed for overall
democratization in Indonesia. The task to increase public
involvement in AMDAL cannot be taken lightly and entails

v
concerted effort to develop capacity and infrastructure to be
used by all stakeholders. If public involvement in AMDAL is
to be successful, the Government must allocate significant
resources and play an active role in developing the necessary
parts of the process.

vi

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND OF STUDY
The prevailing Government Regulations on AMDAL (PP 27,
1999) lays the foundation for public involvement in the
AMDAL process. This was followed by the issuance of
detailed guidelines on the subject through a Decree of the
Head of BAPEDAL No. 08, 2000 (Kepka 08/2000). Since
the issuance of this guideline, the Ministry of Environment
(and BAPEDAL, before it was merged with the Ministry) has
received many inquiries, observed and themselves experienced
many challenges with implementing the regulation. Put into
context, the guidelines became effective about the same time
that regional autonomy was first being introduced, as well as
very eventful period in the national government and politics
(elections of 1999, electing president Abdurachman Wahid,
who was then replaced by Megawati in 2001). During this
period multifaceted reforms (‘reformasi’) entered all segments
of society and all sectors of development.
Only 2 years after the issuance of the Kepka, the Ministry of
Environment was beginning to consider the need to evaluate
the guidelines. Portions of the Kepka were difficult to
implement, while others were seen inappropriate, and overall
the guidelines did not seem successful in meeting the
objective of public involvement in AMDAL.
As part of the ‘AMDAL Reform Program’, a Study on Public
Participation and Access to Information is conducted in an
effort to improve this portion of the AMDAL system.
1.2. OBJECTIVE AND EXPECTED OUTPUT
The objective of the study is as follows:
1. Assess the level, quality and effectiveness of public
involvement in AMDAL since issuance of the

2
government regulation Kepka 08/2000;
2. Develop recommendations for improvement based on
empirical experience in Indonesia and World Bank
projects;
3. Provide inputs for the national-level AMDAL
revitalization effort conducted by the Ministry of
Environment.
The specific outputs of the Study covers:
1. An overview of how AMDAL-related public participation
has taken place since the issuance of relevant government
regulations;
2. A set of critical success factors that enable public
participation in AMDAL, as well as challenges faced by
stakeholders involved;
3. Recommendations regarding improvement necessary to
the general practice of public participation in AMDAL,
and regarding changes/ modifications to the existing
government guidelines/ regulations.
The topic of ‘access to information’ is seen as a necessary
component of the public participation process. It is not
treated as a separate item in the study, rather as an integral
part of the entire analysis.
1.3. LINK TO OTHER WORK
REGIONAL
PILOT
PROJECT
The Study on Public Participation and Access to Information
(PPAI) is conducted concurrently with the Regional Pilot
Project Component of the ‘AMDAL Reform Program’, as
well as the Good Practices Study undertaken by the World
Bank. By design, the results of the PPAI Study are intended
to inform the Regional Pilot Project, particularly in the
development of the Provincial AMDAL System. Therefore,
the results of the PPAI Study are expected to be available
during the time the Regional Pilot Project team is in the
process of developing the Detailed Mechanism of the
Provincial AMDAL System.
The link between the PPAI study and the Regional Pilot
Project has in fact been two-way. Discussions held under the
Regional Pilot Project have produced some comments from

3
stakeholders and findings relevant to the public participation
requirements of AMDAL. This link also exists between the
PPAI Study and the Good Practices Study, where some
findings from the case-studies are relevant to the PPAI Study.
RELATED
PAST WORK
In 2002, the World Bank assisted the Ministry of
Environment in the development and publication of informal
guidelines for public participation in AMDAL. Two
publications were produced and disseminated, namely:
a) Public Consultation in AMDAL - A Practical Guide for
Project Proponents
b) Public Involvement in AMDAL – Information Booklet
for the Public.
The guidelines were developed through a combination of
activities, namely:
• Review of guidelines for public participation in EIA/EA
in other countries and international organizations,
• Discussion with stakeholders to identify the main
challenges and current practices in implementing public
participation for AMDAL.
The guidelines were then disseminated through a Training
Course and workshops (in 2003) involving a total of 56
(fifty-six) participants from regional environment agencies
(provincial and some kabupaten/kota), universities and
consultants.
Through the course of these activities, many comments,
observations, and ideas were obtained from stakeholders.
Many of these comments were based on experience in the
field, and demonstrated an overall confusion on the intent
and implementation of the Kepka 08/2000.
As reported in the Final Report to the World Bank
(December 2002), the Consultant provided the following
recommendations for follow-up:
• Socialization to all stakeholders to improve
understanding of the objective and implementation of
public participation in AMDAL;
• Issuance of local regulations and guidelines to ensure
application of the Kepka are consistent with local social
conditions;
• Real evidence of the benefits of Public Consultation to

4
disseminate and convince stakeholders on the value of
public consultation related to AMDAL;
• Comprehensive review of Kepka implementation to
identify constraints in implementing the Kepka and
identify the need to clarify or revise the Kepka.
This Public Participation and Access to Information (PPAI)
Study is regarded as a follow-up to the last of the above
recommendations.
1.4. STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT
The outline of this report follows a proposed outline for the
Final Report. The report is structured in the following
manner:
Chapter 2: METHODOLOGY –
provides a description of the methodology used in the PPAI
Study and sources of information;
Chapter 3: CASE-STUDY FINDINGS –
provides a summary of the key findings from the case-studies,
and discusses common threads found from the case-studies;
Chapter 4: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION –
provides a discussion on public involvement in AMDAL in
the larger context of development in Indonesia, and offers
some light as to the limiting and critical success factors
identified in this study.
Chapter 5: RECOMMENDATIONS –
describes recommendations offered to improve public
involvement and information disclosure in AMDAL, to feed
into the Government’s efforts to revise the existing
regulations and guidelines on public involvement in
AMDAL.

5
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
2.1. STUDY APPROACH
Public involvement in the AMDAL process is defined in the
Government Regulation (PP) No. 27, 1999 on AMDAL, and
is further elaborated in the Decree of the Head of BAPEDAL
No 08, 2000 on Public Involvement and Information
Disclosure in the AMDAL Process (Kepka 08/2000).
This Study is an assessment of the effectiveness of the
government policy on public involvement in the AMDAL
process. The assessment is guided by a set of questions that
have emerged in various discussions previously. The questions
are divided into:
a) over-arching questions that revolve around the objectives,
scope and expectations of public involvement in the AMDAL
process at a general level; and
b) procedural questions that question whether the prescribed
procedures in the Kepka 08/2000 support effective public
involvement process.
Over-arching questions includes:
• Does public participation in fact improve the quality of
the AMDAL study or decisions related to AMDAL?
• What measures can be used to determine that sufficient
public involvement has been done for an AMDAL/EIA?
• What are the specific roles (and limits thereof) of each
stakeholder in the AMDAL-related public involvement
process (government, proponent, public), especially in
the era of regional autonomy?
• Can public participation in AMDAL be effective only if
proper public involvement has been done for spatial
planning and other development planning processes?
Procedural questions include:
• What are the outcomes of the key elements of Kepka
08/2000: a) announcement in mass media, b) public

6
consultation at the TOR phase, c) access to AMDAL
information, d) representation of affected community in
the AMDAL Evaluation Committee?
• What are the obstacles to conducting and attaining the
objectives of AMDAL-related public involvement
processes in Indonesia ?
• What approaches have been implemented to provide
access to information on AMDAL?
• What are the critical success factors that support effective
public involvement processes that are deemed effective?
The study is designed to answer the question:
• What impact has public involvement had on the AMDAL
process?
• Has Kepka 08/2000 been effective in producing AMDAL
documents and decisions on environmental feasibility that
are more sensitive to the needs and concerns of the public?
• How should the government regulations and guidelines be
modified to improve public involvement in the AMDAL
process?
This Study is a qualitative analysis that tries to answer the
above question using empirical information, observations and
opinions from experts and practitioners.
The study combines several approaches, namely:
1. Empirical Study; It involves assessment of case-studies
where public involvement is practiced in an AMDAL
study. The case-studies are expected to divulge the: a)
different patterns of implementing Kepka 08/2000 that
has emerged in the field; b) identify problems or
constraints as well as expectations of stakeholders
regarding public involvement in AMDAL; c) record
where public involvement has succeeded in meeting the
objectives for a ‘better AMDAL process and decision’,
and identify critical success factors. A more detailed
description of the Empirical Study is provided below.
2. Review of Literature and Expert Opinions; It is expected
to provide additional inputs regarding: a) guidelines or
regulations issued by other countries and international
organizations; b) the implementation of such guidelines
or regulations in other countries (especially non-

7
industrialized countries). Such international perspective is
expected to provide a wider perspective on what is
achievable (or achieved) and not in public involvement in
EIA/EA in other countries. This perspective is deemed
important to bridge the gap between the theoretical and
ideal goals of public involvement in EIA/EA (which is the
basis of Kepka 08/2000, and found in various
international documents) with the reality of
implementing it in the field. Compilation of Expert
Opinions involves compiling and reviewing comments
and ideas obtained through interviews and discussions
with various experts and practitioners outside of the case-
study stakeholders. Included are results of discussions
held in 2002 and 2003 for the preparation of the
guidebook and workshops. Under the course of this
study, additional interviews are conducted. The expert
opinions are expected to enrich, supplement and/or
complement the findings of Empirical Study and inform
in the development of recommendations.
2.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY
The empirical segment of the study is designed to provide a
foundation for this study. By collecting information on how
public involvement has been practiced in Indonesia and what
results have been achieved, a snapshot on the effectiveness of
the Kepka is developed.
Ten (10) case-studies were selected to build this empirical
snapshot. There is no pretension that the 10 case-studies are
representative of the wide variety of projects, geographic and
social diversity of Indonesia. But considerable attempt has
been made to ensure that the 10 cases cover a range of project
characteristics, such as:
a) project-types, i.e. private sector investment and
public sector infrastructure project;
b) AMDAL status, i.e. AMDAL has been approved
(public participation process completed) and
AMDAL in process (public participation process
recent and ongoing);
c) Complexity of project, i.e. single/ simple project and

8
integrated/ complex project.
Another criteria used in the final selection and confirmation
of the case-studies is access to information. Some case-studies
placed on the candidate list were dropped because of
difficulty in reaching and obtaining confirmation from the
key stakeholder. A list of the final case-studies is provided in
Table 2.1.
Table 2.1. List of Case-Studies
PROJECT AND
LOCATION
PROPO-
NENT
AMDAL
COMMIS-
SION
PROJECT
TYPE/
SECTOR
AMDAL
STATUS
NAME
USED IN
THIS
REPORT
1. Hazardous
Waste Landfill,
Kab. Karawang,
West Java
PT. Indobarat
Rayon
(private)
Central
(KLH)
Hazardous
Waste
Landfill/
private
AMDAL
approved
Indobarat
2. Gonggang
Dam, Kab.
Magetan, East Java
Kabupaten
Government
of Magetan
(government)
East Java
Province
Water
Resource/
public
AMDAL
approved
Gonggang
Dam
3. Housing and
Recreation Area,
Bandung, West
Java
PT Dam
Utamasakti
Prima
(private)
Kota
Bandung
Housing &
tourism
development/
private
KA review Punclut
4. Metro Trade
Center Mall, Kota
Bandung, West
Java
PT
Margahayu
Raya (private)
Kota
Bandung
Commercial
development/
private
AMDAL
approved
Metro Trade
Center
5. Coal Mine,
Kutai Timur, East
Kalimantan
PT Kaltim
Prima Coal
(private)
Kabupaten
Kutai Timur
Mining /
private
AMDAL
approved
KPC Coal
6. Double Track
Railway Kutoarjo
– Yogya, Central
Java-DI
Yogyakarta
Ministry of
Transpor-
tation
(government)
Central
(KLH)
Land
transportation
/ public
AMDAL
approved
Double Track
7. Jakarta Outer
Ringroad (JORR),
Jabotabek
PT Jasa
Marga/
Ministry of
Public Works
(government)
Central
(KLH)
Road
development/
public
AMDAL
approved
JORR
8. Banyu Urip
Oilfield Devt.,
East Java
ExxonMobil
Oil Indonesia,
Inc (private)
Central
(KLH)
Oil-gas
development/
private
AMDAL
approved
Banyu Urip

9
9. Sadewa Oilfield
Devt., Kab. Kutai
Kartanegara, East
Kalimantan
Unocal
Indonesia
Company
(private)
Central
(KLH)
Oil-gas
development/
private
KA
preparation
Sadewa
10. Housing
Estate, Kec.
Gunung Putri,
Kab Bogor, West
Java
PT. Karya
Cantika
Kusuma
(private)
West Java
Province
Housing
development/
private
AMDAL
approved
KCK
Housing
CASE STUDY
PROCESS
For each case-study, information was collected regarding the
process and results of the various steps in public involvement
in AMDAL, namely:
• Announcement
• Public Consultation in the KA-ANDAL Preparation
• Representation in the AMDAL Commission
• Access to Information.
The case-studies were built from various sources of
information, namely:
1. Stakeholders involved, representing at least 3 (three)
parties:
• Project proponent or consultant;
• AMDAL Commission or local environmental
institution;
• Affected Communities or Observer Groups (NGOs
near the project site).
2. Review of documents related to the case-studies:
• KA report (TOR-ANDAL),
• ANDAL report,
• Report on public consultations (attachment to the
KA report), where available,
• Record of Discussion (Berita Acara) of the KA and
ANDAL/RKL-RPL evaluation meetings, where
available.
Stakeholders from the 3 parties were interviewed using a
semi-structured interview method. Names of interviewees
from the Affected Communittes or Observer Groups were
obtained from the Record of Discussion (attendee list) or
from the AMDAL Commission or local Environmental

10
Agency.
ANALYSIS Results of interviews and document reviews were compiled
and compared. This allowed identification ‘patterns of
implementation’ based on empirical experience, and
identification of problems and key success factors found from
the case-studies. The findings were then analyzed against the
content (and intent) of the government regulations and
guidelines, and reviewed against comments and observations
from other resource persons and literature.

11
CHAPTER 3
CASE-STUDY FINDINGS
CASE-STUDY
RESULTS
Information obtained from the case-studies shows
considerable variation on how the provisions in the Kepka
are interpreted and implemented. This section describes the
patterns that have emerged from the case-studies for each of
the major steps prescribed in the Kepka, as well as the
outcomes that are observed from the public involvement
process.
The intent of this chapter is to portray the different
interpretations and provide a general discussion on the major
obstacles to implementing public participation in the
AMDAL process. The chapter is divided into several sections,
each describing a major component of the public
3.1. ANNOUNCEMENT
The Kepka (article 2.2) mandates that the Project Proponent
and the Responsible Environment Agency place
announcements in a national and local print media, notices
in public places, in electronic media, and other media. The
content and format of the announcement are specified in the
Kepka. Table 3.1 presents a summary of announcements
made in the 10 case-studies.
PRINT MEDIA In nine out of ten case-studies, the Project Proponent placed
an announcement in the national and/or local newspaper.
There is some variation in terms of placement:
• Only in a national newspaper (Indobharat Rayon, KPC
Coal, JORR),
• Only in local newspaper (Metro Trade Center,
Gonggang Dam, Punclut),
• In both national and local newspapers (Banyu Urip,
Double-Track Railway, Sadewa).
The only Project Proponent that did not place an

12
announcement in a print media is the KCK Housing.
In terms of content, most of the newspaper announcements
do not fully follow the prescribed content in the Kepka
(which includes a wide range of information). Particularly
absent from the newspaper announcements are location map,
type and volume of waste, waste management approaches. In
some cases, also missing is the address of the Responsible
Environment Agency (Gonggang Dam) and the deadline for
sending in written comments/ suggestions (Gonggang Dam,
KPC Coal). All announcements use Bahasa Indonesia, as
prescribed in the Kepka.
In the 10 case-studies, none of the Responsible Environment
Agencies have made their own announcements. The
Environment Agencies have relied fully on the Project
Proponent to place announcements in the appropriate media.
In most cases, the name and address of the Responsible
Environment Agency are included in the newspaper
announcement (except for Gonggang Dam).
Table 3.1 Summary of Announcements & Responses in 10 Case-Studies
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
ANNOUNCEMENT by Project Proponent
National
newspaper
v v v v v vPrint Media
Local newspaper v v v v v v
Notice board at
project site
v v v v v
Notice board at
Proponent office
near project site
v
Notices at village,
kelurahan or
kecamatan offices
v v v v v
Around Project
Site
Posters at public
places
v
Electronic
Media
Radio v v
ANNOUNCEMENT by
Responsible Agency
- - - - - - - - - -
COMMENTS RECEIVED in
response to Announcement
6 0 7 0 0 1 0 9 10 0
AROUND
PROJECT SITE
Notices were placed at or near the project site for all case-
studies. The specific location includes:

13
• At project site (Indobharat Rayon, Punclut, Metro Trade
Center, KPC Coal, JORR)
• At the project proponent’s office near the project site
(Gonggang Dam)
• At the village or kelurahan or kecamatan offices (Punclut,
Double-Track Railway, JORR, Banyu Urip, Sadewa),
• At other public places frequented by community (KCK
Housing).
Many of the Notices do not contain information prescribed
in the Kepka. The most common missing information relates
to location map. However, a few notices only contain
announce “x project will be built on this location” (Metro
Trade Center, KPC Coal, Gonggang, Indobharat).
All notices used Bahasa Indonesia, as required in the Kepka.
ELECTRONIC
MEDIA
Radio announcements were used in only two cases, namely
Punclut and Banyu Urip. In the Banyu Urip case, local radio
stations announced the time and place of upcoming public
consultation meetings to inform villagers on such events.
RESPONSE TO
ANNOUNCE-
MENT
Of the 10 case-studies, written responses were received for 6
Proposed Projects. No written responses were received for the
Gonggang Dam, Metro Trade Center, KPC Coal, JORR
announcements. In terms of number of written responses, 6
letters were received on the Indobharat Rayon, 7 letters on
Punclut, 1 letter on the Double-Track Railway, 8 letters for
Banyu Urip and 10 letters for Sadewa case-study. Many of
the written responses did not meet the requirement in the
Kepka, which requires submission of the identity (name and
address) of the source of the comments.
DISCUSSION The 10 case-studies show that the majority of project
proponents have adhered to the requirements of the
Government to place an announcement in the print media
and other media as appropriate. However, a significant
finding is that the Government (ie the Responsible
Environmental Agency) has not fulfilled its obligation to
place announcements separate from that of the Project
Proponent.
In most cases, the cause for the Government’s failure to

14
comply is that it has no funds for such announcements.
Advertisements (announcements) in daily newspapers,
especially at a national scale, are expensive. Government
agencies find it difficult to budget for announcements, since
it is impossible to anticipate the number of AMDALs that are
likely to be processed in the coming year. Even the Ministry
of Environment has not been able to comply with this
requirement set out in the Kepka 08/2000. As a result, the
Responsible Environment Agency generally requests its name
to be included in the announcement placed (and funded) by
the Project Proponent.
In terms of content, the Kepka’s prescription to include in
the announcements technical information on the project and
potential impacts may be unrealistic. To include all
information would require upscaling the size of the
announcement, and thus increasing the cost.
There has also been much comment about the Kepka’s
prescription on the language used in announcements, ie
Bahasa Indonesia. In many rural locations, the language
commonly used may be the local dialect, especially for the
current adult population. Use of Bahasa Indonesia for
information dissemination at the local level may not be the
most effective language.
The response obtained from placing a newspaper
announcement is not deemed commensurate to the cost.
Even when announcements are placed in more than 1
newspaper, there is no guarantee that it would generate a
large number of responses from the public (Double-Track
Railway). And even in the urban case-studies, where the
populations to be reached by the announcements are
presumably more educated, the level of response is low
(Punclut, Metro Trade Center, JORR).
The lack of response to newspaper announcements may be
attributed to:
• Announcements are not visible or attractive enough to
catch attention of readers;
• There is little interest among readers to respond to the
announcement, and or little interest in AMDAL of a
proposed project;

15
• Information in the announcements are not sufficiently
clear to be commented on;
• Indonesians generally are not accustomed to writing and
sending written responses.
A more effective means to reach Affected Communities
appear to be announcements or notices placed in public
places near project site and announcements via radio. Such
announcements can be more cost-effective, but serves a
different purpose than the newspaper announcements. As the
Banyu Urip case indicates, this media can be used to inform
the public about the existence of a proposed project, an
upcoming AMDAL study, the basics of a project design, and
the timing and venue of public consultation meetings in a
particular area. However, there is no evidence that such
announcements would trigger sending in of written
comments/ responses from the public.
3.2. PUBLIC CONSULTATION FOR KA-ANDAL
PREPARATION
Kepka 08/2000 (Article 3.2) states that the proponent is
obliged to conduct consultations with the Affected
Communities and Observer Groups during preparation of
the KA-ANDAL document. Results of public consultations
are to be used as consideration in the scoping process. In
these consultations, the Proponent is required to provide
information on the proposed project, environmental
components potentially impacted, and key issues. The
Proponent is expected to announce the time, place and
method of consultations to be conducted. Possible methods
of consultations are given in the Kepka as examples, ie. public
meetings, workshops, seminars, focused discussions, and
other methods for two-way communication).
The case-studies show that consultations are implemented by
all Project Proponents, however, there is a wide variety on the
approach and preparations done. Table 3.2 below provides a
summary of different approaches.
IDENTIFYING
AFFECTED
Two approaches were found to be used to determine the
Affected Communities to be the target for public

16
COMMU-
NITIES
consultations:
• through a pre-survey as in the case of Sadewa and Banyu
Urip. This entails conducting a field survey to
understand the social structure of the communities,
identify opinion leaders, common mode of
communication and use of media; and
• through secondary information obtained from local
authorities (village head or Lurah) and local documents,
as in the case of Indobharat Rayon, Gonggang Dam,
Punclut, Metro Trade Center, Double-Track and others.
In the case of JORR, there was additional effort to identify
informal community leaders through the land-acquisition
effort that was ongoing parallel to the AMDAL study.
Proponents of Sadewa and Banyu Urip found that a pre-
survey is critical to identifying who should be consulted,
ensure different elements of the community are consulted
and determine the best approach for consultations, including
the venue and timing of consultation meetings.
Even with such a pre-survey, the proponent of Sadewa
project had difficulty in identifying the affected communities
for its off-shore project in the Makassar Straits. Fishermen
operating in that area come from different parts of Sulawesi
and Kalimantan. Data on fishing permits did not provide
sufficient information on the origin of the fishermen.
Table 3.2 Summary of Preparations for Public Consultations
PREPARATIONS for PUBLIC
CONSULTATIONS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Preliminary Survey v vIdentification of
Affected
Communities to
be Consulted
Secondary information
(from local officials and
documents)
v v v v v v v v v v
Time and place of
meetings determined by
Proponent/Consultant
alone
v v v
Time and place of
meetings determined
with assistance from
Lurah, Head of Village
v v v v v v
Planning of
Consultation
Meetings
Local Government
becomes organizer of
Consultation Meetings
v
Implementation
of Public
Meetings at village or
RW level
v v v v v v v v

17
Meetings at Kecamatan
level
v v v v v vConsultation
Meetings
Meetings at Kabupaten
and or Province level
v v
Determined by Village
Head, Lurah or Camat
v v v v v v v v
Based on preliminary
survey
v v
Community
Members Invited
to/ Attended the
Public
Consultations Opened to public v v
Dissemination of
Additional
Information prior
to Consultation
Meetings
Distribution of booklet/
flyers or posters placed
around project site
v
ORGANIZA-
TION
Although generally viewed as part of the AMDAL
consultant’s scope of work, there is variation in terms of who
takes the lead in organizing the public consultation events
among the three parties involved: a) Project Proponent, b)
AMDAL Consultant, c) Responsible Environment Agency
and local government authorities. Three patterns emerge
from the case-studies. (see Table 3.2)
In several case-studies, the venue, time and participants were
determined by the Project Proponent and the Consultant. In
the Banyu Urip case, the pre-survey provided the basic
information for the public consultation consultant to
determine the best venues and target groups for the meetings.
In the JORR, KCK Housing, KPC Coal cases, the proponent
and consultant set the time and place.
In other cases, the project proponent and/or AMDAL
consultant requested assistance from the local Lurah or
Village Head. In the Indobharat, Punclut, Metro Trade
Center and Double-Track Railway cases, the village head
determined the time, place and participants to be invited to
the public consultation meetings.
In one case-study (Sadewa), the project proponent fully
engaged the Provincial and District level environment and
other agencies to act as organizer of the public consultation
meetings. The local government agencies were involved in
deciding how many meetings were going to be held, the
locations, invitees, who to lead the meetings. The Project
Proponent’s role in the public consultation meetings was
only to present a technical presentation on the proposed

18
project and respond to questions of technical nature. Such
arrangement was agreed to between the parties in a workshop
initiated by the proponent. In this case, the Proponent
intentionally reduced the role of the AMDAL consultant,
since the Proponent felt most competent and knowledgeable
to describe the proposed activity and respond to questions
from the audience.
PUBLIC
CONSULTA-
TION
ACTIVITIES
All case-studies used public meetings, seminars, discussions
and focused group discussions to consult with the public.
In most case-studies, the proponents and AMDAL
Commission members interviewed use the term
‘socialization’ (sosialisasi) to refer to public consultation
meetings held. The term ‘socialization’ is usually used to refer
to a meeting where a new product/ program/ regulation is
introduced or disseminated to the public. Although the
terminology is incorrectly used in this context, records show
that in fact a two-way communication was achieved in the
public consultation meetings in the 10 case-studies reviewed.
The number of public consultations range from 1 event for
the Punclut, KCK Housing case-studies, 6-7 meetings for the
Gonggang and Double Track case-studies, to 36 meetings for
the Banyu Urip case-study. This appears to be linked to the
size of the project area and estimated impacted areas.
There is also variation in terms of the level of community
where the public consultations are held. The following
indicates the patterns that are observed:
• Meetings at only the village and neighborhood level (RW
in urban setting) were done for the Double-Track,
Punclut, Metro Trade Center and KCK Housing;
• Meetings were held only at the Kecamatan (sub-district)
level in the case of KPC Coal and JORR;
• Meetings were held at village/RW and Kecamatan levels,
such as for Gonggang Dam and Indobharat;
• Meetings held at village/RW, Kecamatan and higher
levels, such as Banyu Urip and Sadewa.
In general the public consultation meetings took around 2-4
hours. All consisted of opening remarks by local officials, a
presentation on the proposed project, and a question/answer
session. Some meetings were held in the night-time to

19
accommodate the schedules of the communities (Metro
Trade Center, JORR).
In many of the case-studies, questionnaires were used by the
proponent as an additional method to capture the
participants’ opinions/ concerns, as well as information
regarding the project location. Interviews with community
members who attended the public consultation meetings
were conducted after the meeting closed.
ATTENDANCE Attendance at public meetings also varied. In some cases, the
Village Head, Lurah or Camat determined who should be
invited to the public consultation meetings (Indobharat,
Gonggang Dam, Metro Trade Center, JORR, KPC Coal). In
two cases (Banyu Urip and Sadewa), invitations were
determined based on the pre-survey done to identify Affected
Communities to be consulted. In one cases (Banyu Urip),
consultation meetings were announced through the radio to
invite any community members interested in attending.
In the case of Double-Track, determination of invitees for
the consultation meetings was based on residents living along
the existing railroad tracks. The Affected Community was,
therefore, relatively easy to identify and invite
Where attendance was limited to invitees, the participants of
the consultation meetings were mainly elected community
leaders, such as the BPD (village representative board), RT
(neighborhood officer), LPM (community development
organization), Kepala Desa (village head), and in some cases,
informal leaders (women’s group, PKK).
For the JORR case, the Affected Communities included not
only ‘common persons’, but also representatives from
manufacturing companies (factories), Pertamina, and a Navy
housing complex, which have facilities located near the
location of the proposed toll-road. Representatives of the
companies attended the public consultation meetings.
COST Data on the cost to hold public consultations were not
obtained from all case-studies. However, there is indication
that the unit cost varies considerably. The cost per public
consultation meeting range from Rp 1 million (Metro TC),
Rp 5-10 million (JORR) to approximately Rp. 20 million

20
(Sadewa). This is generally to cover costs such as rental of
venue, snacks, rental of sound-system, transportation costs
especially if meetings are held out-of-town. In the Banyu
Urip case, over Rp 600 million was spent for the entire
process of a pre-survey, development of the consultation
strategy, design and production of information materials,
implementation of public consultation meetings and
reporting.
In many cases, the above cost also includes a small sum of
cash to cover transportation cost for community
representatives/ members attending public consultation
meetings. Such ‘compensation’ was deemed necessary to
compensate for the transport cost incurred by community
members to attend the meeting or for the opportunity cost of
not working that day. Compensation is not seen to have
influence on the recipient’s opinion towards the proposed
activity.
RESPONSE
FROM THE
PUBLIC
In most case-studies, less than 20 comments/inputs were
obtained from the public consultation events. Only in the
case of Banyu Urip were there a significant number of verbal
comments from participants of the public meetings (total
538 from 36 meetings). In this case-study, the Prepared list
of questions to be raised in public meetings of various
information they required to assist in determing the scope of
the ANDAL study. Affected Communities thus had specific
issues to comment on. Table 3.3 below provides a summary
of comments received during the public consultations.
In the public consultation meetings, the range of topics raised
by the public covers the following:
• Comments related to existing environmental conditions;
• Concerns regarding biogeophysical environmental
impact of proposed activity;
• Suggestion regarding changes in the design of the
portions of the proposed project;
• Suggestion for biogeophysical impact mitigation efforts;
• Concerns regarding social impact such as criminality,
relationship with in--migrants;
• Request for public facilities such as clean water, road, etc;
• Request for use of local workforce;

21
• Request for compensation of land acquisition;
• Suggestions for relocation;
• Request for community development.
The suggestions and requests from the public were noted by
the proponent/ consultant, and the public was informed that
their inputs will be considered in the study and further
decision-making on project design/ activities. However, most
KA-ANDAL documents reviewed did not explicitly describe
how the above comments from the Affected Community
have influenced or not influenced the definition of the
ANDAL study scope.
In several of the case-studies, the communities present at
public consultation meetings were persistent on the issue of
compensation. In the case of JORR, the proponent
representatives successfully diverted further discussion,
explaining to the audience that they were not authorized to
deal with land acquisition and compensations (note: a
different unit in the proponent’s organization is responsible
for this process). In one case, Indobharat Rayon, the public
consultation meeting was concluded with Joint Agreement
letter between the proponent and the communities
establishing the level of compensation.
Table 3.3 Summary of Results of Public Consultation Meetings
RESULTS of PUBLIC
CONSULTATIONS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Request information
on project
v v v v
Re existing
environmental
conditions
v v
Re biogeophysical
impacts of project
v v v v v v v
Suggestion on
project design
v v v
Suggestion on
mitigation efforts of
biogeophysical
impacts
v v v v v v
Concerns regarding
social impacts such
as criminality,
relations with
migrant workers
v
Comments
Raised
Request for public
facilities such as
clean water, roads,
v v v

22
etc.
Request for
recruitment of local
workers
v v v v v v v v
Request for
compensation of
land acquisition
v v v v
Suggestion on
relocation
Request for
community
development
v v v v v
Number of
comments
6 18 10 19 11 ? 11 538 6 5
DISCUSSION The case-studies demonstrate variance in interpretation (and,
in fact, confusion) as to a number of important aspects
regarding public consultations in the KA-ANDAL
preparation stage. These questions are:
• Who is to be consulted during this stage?
• What is the role of the local government?
On the first question (Who, in the community, should be
consulted?) the case-studies reveal the existence of two points
of view:
1. The Affected Community can and should be represented
by formal leaders, such as Village Head, BPD, LPM,
RT/RW heads, Lurah, since they have the mandate and
legitimacy to represent the communities, and have, at
least, knowledge of the different interests in the
community;
2. Formal leaders (such as Village Head, BPD, LPM,
RT/RW heads, Lurah) do not necessarily represent the
interest of communities, and may in fact have vested
interests of their own with regard to a proposed project.
AMDAL public consultations should reach the ‘common
person’ or community members who do not hold any
formal office, and/or informal leaders recognized by the
community, such as religious leaders, leaders of trade
organizations (farmers, fishermen, traders), etc.
The second point of view requires that the Project Proponent
spends substantially more effort and finances to conduct
multiple consultation meetings, to identify the target groups

23
for consultations, and to prepare materials to inform the
general public. Furthermore, Project Proponents view
consultations with community members as potentially
exposing the Project Proponent to uncertain (possibly
volatile) situations. The probability is high when
consultations are used as a venue to make demands on the
Project Proponent, and when other interests (such as land
speculation, see Purnama, 2003) infiltrate the consultation
meetings. Since the Kepka does not specifically define ‘which
community (ies)’ need to be consulted, Project Proponents
have freely interpreted this to minimize time, operational
difficulty and complications.
In most cases, the ‘common person’ is not accustomed to
being involved in development consultations. An interview
with a community member for the Indobarat Rayon case,
indicates this farmer was not interested in attending public
consultation meetings because he felt it was the job of the
village officials/ leaders. Lack of interest or impetus to
participate in public meetings related to EIA is also reported
in Bulgaria, where “securing the basic necessities of life
commands immediate attention” (Almer & Koontz, 2004).
The role of local government (autonomous regions of
Province and Kabupaten) in public consultations is unclear.
Although the Kepka 08/2000 was conceived during the time
regional autonomy law was also being drafted and publicly
discussed, there is insufficient recognition or definition as to
the role of the local government in organizing, planning
and/or facilitating public consultations for AMDAL. The
case-studies show three potential roles of the local
government:
a) supporting role to the Project Proponent, eg providing
information on persons to invite;
b) full partner to the Project Proponent, eg taking part in
presentations and responding to questions/comments raised
in the public consultation meetings;
c) lead role (with Project Proponent playing supporting role),
eg convening the public consultation meetings, facilitating in
the dialog between the Affected Communities and the
Project Proponent.

24
Definition of this role is important since communication
with the public ultimately has a bearing on local development
plans, investment projection, permits and spatial plans. The
local government should share responsibilities with the
project proponent (especially private sector companies) on
communications with the Affected Communities.
In terms of comments expressed during the public
consultation events, there seems to be no doubt that there are
constructive suggestions, information and comments from
the public related to the ANDAL study. However, in all
cases, it is inevitable that the consultations also become a
venue to express views and ‘wish-lists’ regarding social/
community development, workforce recruitment and
compensation. In fact it these issues that carry-through to the
AMDAL Commission phase, and one that is held most
strongly by community representatives in some cases.
Although the latter issues give indication for the ANDAL
study (socio-economic component) some of the major issues
of concern to the Affected Community, these issues cannot
be resolved through the AMDAL process. For compensation,
land acquisition and resettlement, there are a separate set of
government procedures that apply. It is arguable that
community development and social facilities are the
responsibility of the project proponent. Such development
programs should be the main task of local governments, and
contributions from private companies operating in an area
should be arranged between the local government and the
private companies. The fact that some public consultation
meetings ended with signing of agreement letters between the
proponent and community on compensation, indicates a
misunderstanding with regard to the purpose of public
consultation for AMDAL as well as the objective of the
AMDAL itself.
3.3. DATA COMPILATION AND DOCUMENTATION
The Kepka 08/2000 (article 2.2 items 2, 3 and 4) explains
that the Responsible Environment Agency is charged with
the task of:
• Documenting and analyzing written comments/

25
suggestions from the public,
• Preparing a summary of the above,
• Presenting its opinion (position) regarding the above to
the AMDAL Commission.
With regard to comments/ suggestions/ inputs obtained from
the public consultation process, the Kepka 08/2000 places
responsibility of documenting, summarizing and analyzing
on the project proponent or its consultant. The results of this
process are to be documented in a separate report, attached to
the KA-ANDAL report.
BY
RESPONSIBLE
ENVIRON-
MENTAL
AGENCY
From the 10 case-studies, none of the responsible
environment agencies performed its obligations with regard
to written comments from the public received in response to
the announcements. Where written comments were received
by the environment agency, these were passed on to the
project proponent or AMDAL consultant to be further used
and analyzed.
BY PROJECT
PROPONENT
In all 10 case-studies, inputs gained from the public
consultation events were documented and analyzed. Most of
the case-studies also produced a report which was attached to
the KA-ANDAL report. However, how comments/
suggestions from the public are treated in the process of the
AMDAL study is generally not described well in the KA or
ANDAL reports.
DISCUSSION In all case-studies, the compilation, documentation and
analysis of comments and suggestions from the public were
done by the AMDAL consultant/ project proponent. None
of the Responsible Environment Agencies in the case-studies
fulfilled their responsibilities. The main obstacle appears to
be the lack of manpower to undertake this task, but likely it
is also due to lack of intent. There is a common
understanding that analyzing the data is the job of the
AMDAL consultants.
The impact is that the AMDAL Commission solely relies on
what is reported in the KA-ANDAL report and the
attachment on public consultation to understand the
comments/ suggestions from the public. There is possibility
of distortion or omission of comments/ suggestions that do

26
not support the project proponent.
3.4. REPRESENTATION AT THE AMDAL
COMMISSION MEETINGS
Article 2.1 point 3 and Article 3.3 of the Kepka 08/2000
stipulate that representatives of the Affected Communities
must attend the AMDAL Commission meeting to evaluate
the AMDAL documents. Article 2.1 point 3b) states that the
Affected Communities must select for themselves the
representative to sit in the AMDAL Commission. Criteria
and requirement of the Affected Community representative
are further described, ie:
a) someone recognized as spokesperson of the community
and/or has obtained a mandate from the community;
b) voices all aspirations and opinions in the community;
c) conducts regular communication and consultations with
the community represented.
Two meetings are held by the AMDAL Commission,
namely:
1. To review the KA-ANDAL document,
2. To review the ANDAL and RKL/RPL documents.
During the process of evaluation of the KA-ANDAL
Document, the Observer Groups can also provide written
comments to the Responsible Agency or Proponent up until
3 days prior to the AMDAL Commission meeting. For the
ANDAL, RKL/RPL documents, the Observer Groups have
45 workdays to submit additional comments.
Of the 10 case-studies, 1 case-study had not proceeded to the
AMDAL Review Commission stage (Sadewa), and 1 case-
study had only gone through the KA-ANDAL review
meeting (Punclut) at the time of this Study. Of the
remaining 8 (eight) case-studies, the Affected Community
was represented at the AMDAL Commission meeting by at
least 1 (one) representative, with the exception of JORR case-
study. The level of representation, the patterns of
representation, and breadth of aspiration represented
demonstrates different patterns.
NUMBER OF The number of representatives attending the AMDAL

27
REPRESENTA-
TIVES
Commission meetings range from 1 (Gonggang) to 20
(Punclut). Most of the case-studies indicate attendance
between 3-10 representatives of affected communities.
Similar numbers are observed between the AMDAL
Commission meeting to review the KA-ANDAL and the
ANDAL, RKL/RPL documents.
Where large (>4) number of community representatives are
present, AMDAL commission chairmen have found that
meetings are more difficult to manage. The feel the number
of representatives should be limited and made explicit
Table 3.4 Summary of Affected Community Representation at the AMDAL
Review Commission
REPRESENTATION AT THE
AMDAL REVIEW
COMMISSION
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
KA=ANDAL
Review meeting
3 1 20 3 2 5 0 4 n/a 3Number of
Affected
Community
representatives
ANDAL,
RKL/RPL Review
meeting
3 1 n/a 10 2 4 0 3 n/a 5
Formal leaders
(Village Head,
Lurah, BPD,
LPM, RW & RT
head)
v v v v v v n/a v
Community
members
v v n/a
Representation
by
Other community
leader(s) or local
NGOs
v v v v v n/a v
Assigned by
Affected
Communities
v n/a
Appointed by
formal leaders
v v v n/a v
Selection of
community
representative
Appointed by
Project Proponent
v v v n/a
Routine communication/ consultation
between Affected Communities and
their representatives
- - - - - - - - n/a -
Understand why they have been
invited to Attend meeting
v v
n/a = AMDAL Review meeting had not been conducted at the time of this Study
REPRESENTA-
TION OF
AFFECTED
COMMUNI-
The case-study reveals that the Affected Communities are
represented by a mix of the following:
• Formal community leaders, defined as Head of Village,
Lurah, BPD, LPM, Head of RT/RW (neighborhood

28
TIES councils) who are regarded as representatives elected by
the community;
• Other community leaders, defined as local groups,
including trade group (eg fishermen’s group), youth
group, local NGO;
• Common citizens, defined as individuals who are not
attached to any organization.
Data for this portion of the study were obtained from records
of attendance in the AMDAL Commission meetings, thus
depends on self-proclamation of each participant on the
attendance list.
Almost in all 8 cases, Formal Leaders attend the AMDAL
Commission Meeting to represent the Affected
Communities. In many cases, the Formal Leaders are
accompanied by Other Community leaders, while only in 2
cases are there two representatives claiming to be Common
Citizens (Metro Trade Center and Double-Track Railway).
In one case-study (JORR), the representative who claimed he
was a Community Representative turned out to be a staff of
the Kecamatan Office (sub-district government); and thus in
this analysis, the JORR case-study is regarded as not having a
community representative.
The selection of representatives to attend the AMDAL
Commission meetings also varies. In the case of Indobharat
Rayon and Banyu Urip, formal community leaders were
specifically invited by the project proponent or
environmental agency based on their participation in the
public consultation meetings. Yet for the Gonggang, Metro
Trade Center, and KPC Coal, representatives were selected
by the Camat or Lurah. In the Punclut case, it appears that
the proponent arranged for community representatives to
attend the KA-ANDAL review meeting. Only in the case of
the Double-Track Railway, was there a community selection
process (through a Focussed Group Discussion) whereby the
Village Head and Head of BPD were appointed to attend the
AMDAL Commission Meeting on behalf of the Affected
Communities.
In terms of representation of interests, it is important to note
that in the case of Punclut and Gonggang Dam, only

29
representatives of supportive communities were in attendance
at the KA-ANDAL Commission meeting. In both cases,
media coverage and interviews with stakeholders indicate that
there were communities unsupportive of the proposed
projects. However, the opposing point-of-view was not
represented in the KA-ANDAL evaluation meeting.
At the AMDAL Commission meetings to review the
ANDAL, RKL/RPL, most case-studies show slight difference
in representation than that attending the KA-ANDAL
evaluation meeting. In some cases, a substantially larger
number of representatives attend the ANDAL, RKL/RPL
review meeting (Metro Trade Center). In many cases, it
appears that the same community representatives attend the
two Review Meetings (Indobarat Rayon, Banyu Urip,
Double Track, KCK Housing, Gonggang Dam).
COMMENTS
FROM
COMMUNITY
REPRESENTA-
TIVES
In the KA-ANDAL evaluation meetings, comments from the
community representatives include:
• Comments on environmental impacts of concern
(Indobharat Rayon, Double-Track, Banyu Urip,);
• Request related to socio-economic programs,
compensation for land-acquisition, recruitment of local
people (KPC Coal, KCK Housing);
• Support for the project, or requesting the Government to
approve the Proposed Project (Gonggang Dam and
Punclut);
• Suggestion for the name of the Proposed Project
(Gonggang Dam).
In the ANDAL-RKL/RPL review meeting, comments
expressed by community representatives relate to:
• Requests related to socio-economic programs,
compensation for land-acquisition or environmental
impact, recruitment of local people (Metro Trade
Center, Double-Track, Gonggang, KPC Coal, KCK
Housing);
• Concern over environmental impacts and suggestions for
environmental management, such as air quality,
drainage, regreening, early warning system for marine
pollution (Indobharat, Gonggang, Metro Trade Center,
Banyu Urip, Double-Track, KCK Housing).

30
Comments did not appear to refer to specific sections of the
AMDAL documents being reviewed.
COMMUNICA-
TION
BETWEEN
COMMUNI-
TIES AND
THEIR
REPRESENTA-
TIVES
In none of the 10 case-studies, is there indication that
community representatives assigned to attend the AMDAL
Review meetings conduct routine consultations/
communications with the community.
As such, it is difficult to determine whether the comments/
requests raised during the AMDAL review meetings do in
fact represent the aspirations of the wider public.
Even in the case where the community appointed a
representative to attend the AMDAL Commission meeting
(Double Track Railway), there is no routine communication
or consultations held by the appointed representative.
UNDERSTAND
PURPOSE OF
ATTENDANCE
When asked, in interviews for this Study, whether the
community representatives understand why they have been
invited to attend the AMDAL Commission review meeting,
most answer that they do not understand. The exception
holds for the JORR and Banyu Urip case-studies. For the
JORR case-study, however, it should be noted that the
community representative present at the review meetings was
a staff of the Kecamatan office.
Most of the community representatives did not receive
AMDAL documents prior to AMDAL Commission
meetings. A few interviewee who claimed they received the
document (Indobarat and Banyu Urip case), said that they
did not read the document because it was too thick and
difficult
DISCUSSION The AMDAL Commission meets to review the KA-ANDAL
and ANDAL/RKL-RPL documents. The objective of the
review is to ensure the scientific validity of the documents,
provide comments for revision of the documents, and,
finally, approve the documents.
In all case-studies, the community representatives attending
the AMDAL Commission meetings do not fully understand
the objective of the Commission, nor what is expected from
them in the meeting. Community representatives generally
have not reviewed the documents prior to the AMDAL

31
Commission meeting. The comments expressed in the
meeting are general comments on aspirations or concerns,
whether or not they have been addressed in the documents
being reviewed.
There are three obstacles in play:
1. The community representative did not receive the
AMDAL document in sufficient time;
2. The AMDAL documents are too scientific and not
amenable to being understood by the laymen;
3. The community representatives have not been informed
about their role or duty in the AMDAL Commission
meetings.
The Kepka states that the Responsible Environment Agency
is tasked with providing, to the public, information regarding
the process and results of reviewing the AMDAL documents.
None of the community representatives interviewed in this
study had received prior information on AMDAL or public
involvement in the AMDAL process. However, it is worth
noting also that most AMDAL commission members from
the Environment Agency are also unclear as to the role of
community representatives in the AMDAL Commissions;
whether they are expected to fully participate in decision-
making on the AMDAL report (approvals) or only to provide
additional input. This point needs to be clarified
As with public consultation meetings, representation again is
an issue in the AMDAL Commission. Affected Communities
represented by formal community leaders/ village officials can
demonstrate legitimacy of representation, while it is more
difficult to ascertain legitimacy when common citizens attend
the AMDAL Commission meeting.
In the cases where community representative present at the
AMDAL Commission meeting are only from the supportive
communities (Gonggang and Punclut), raises the question of
how to ensure that all interests are represented. In these cases,
the project proponent played a role in arranging who should
attend the AMDAL Commission meetings. None of the 10
case-studies, community representatives are biased towards
objecting the project (although discussion with KLH
indicates that this seems to occur with relative frequency).

32
Regardless of who is representing the Affected Communities,
the cases studies do not show communication between the
representatives and the community being represented to
determine the issues to be raised in the AMDAL
Commission meeting. Such an effort requires that the
representatives review the materials, discuss the content with
the communities, and formulate agreed comments to bring
to the AMDAL Commission. It also requires that after the
AMDAL Commission meeting, the representative reports
back to the community results of the AMDAL Commission.
This finding is consistent with general observations on the
current political process in Indonesia, where elected leaders
or parliamentarians are not in regular communication with
their constituents.
3.5. ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Providing relevant information to the public is an integral
part of the public participation process. Two components of
access to information that should be fulfilled are:
• Access or delivery channel; and
• Information content and media.
This section describes findings on practices from the 10 case-
studies, outside of the announcement already discussed in
Section 3.1.
To facilitate the process of public involvement in AMDAL,
the following information should be provided to the public:
• Regulations and guidelines related to the AMDAL study,
process of approval, and public involvement procedures
and goals;
• Proposed project and potential impacts for preparation
of public consultations for the KA-ANDAL;
• Results of the environmental impact assessment (in the
form of draft KA-ANDAL, ANDAL and RKL/RPL
documents) prior to AMDAL Commission meetings.
The objective of providing information is ensure that the
Affected Communities and Observer Communities have
sufficient basis to formulate comments, suggestions and
inputs regarding their concerns, information to be shared,

33
and so on. Without the appropriate information, the public
will be unable to constructively participate in the public
Table 3.5 Summary of Efforts to Provide Information to Affected Communities
ACCESS TO INFORMATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Affected
Communities
- - - - - - - - - -Received
information
regarding
regulations on
public
involvement in
AMDAL
Observer Groups v v
Through posters or
flyers
v v v
Information
provided in
Proponent’s office
v
Additional
information on
Proposed Project
made available
prior to public
consultations Information
provided by other
(non-AMDAL)
Proponent
representative
v
KA, ANDAL,
RKL/RPL
documents
Reviewed
documents prior to
attending AMDAL
Commission
meetings
- - - - - - - - - -
REGULATIONS
AND GUIDE-
LINES ON
PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT
IN AMDAL
All representatives of Affected Communities interviewed for
the 10 case-studies were asked whether they were familiar
with the contents of government guidelines regarding public
participation in the AMDAL process (mainly Kepka
08/2000). None of the interviewees were not aware of and
did not know of the government guidelines. Only a few
representatives of Observer Groups interviewed were aware of
and understand the content and objectives of Kepka 08/2000
(Punclut and Metro Trade Center). These groups happen to
be environmental NGOs active in the Bandung area. All
interviewed felt there has been no dissemination of
information from the government regarding the guidelines.
Most project proponents were aware of the the Kepka
08/2000 either from keeping updated with current
regulations (through regulation books or internet) or were
informed by the AMDAL consultant. In the case of
Gonggang Dam, the proponent (Magetan Kabupaten
Government) did not know of Kepka 08/2000. All claimed

34
there has been no dissemination by the government.
FOR PUBLIC
CONSULTA-
TIONS
Aside from the notices placed near the project site and the
announcements in newspapers, few of the case-studies
prepared and disseminated additional information on the
proposed project and its impacts. The few cases are Banyu
Urip, KCK Housing and Double-Track Railway, which
produced posters and placed them in facilities often
frequented by the communities. In the case of Banyu Urip, a
booklet was produced and disseminated during the public
consultation meetings that provided more detailed
information on the project design, the expected impacts, and
how the public can transmit comments/ suggestions.
In the case of Indobharat, the proponent claimed they made
additional information available at the project office (near the
project site). However, they did not announce to the affected
communities that such information was available and
accessible to the public. Community representatives
interviewed related to the Punclut and JORR shared that
they expected to receive written information, but this was not
available.
In one case (JORR), however, the Affected Communities
were already aware of project plans from other teams that
have surveyed or consulted them. Prior to the AMDAL
Study, Affected Communities had already been approached
and provided information by proponent teams dealing with
land acquisition and feasibility study of the toll-road.
PRIOR TO
AMDAL
COMMISSION
MEETINGS
The AMDAL Commission Secretariat is required to send
draft KA, ANDAL and RKL/RPL documents to all members
of the AMDAL Commission prior to the meeting date. In
most cases, these documents are received by the AMDAL
Commission members only a few days prior to the meeting.
For the community representatives interviewed for the case-
studies, the KA-ANDAL or ANDAL, RKL/RPL documents
are considered too thick to review in a few days. Even when
received by the Head of the Village, the content is deemed to
‘difficult’ to absorb. As a consequence, most community
representatives present at the AMDAL Commission were not
familiar with the findings or results of the study as expressed

35
in the documents.
DISCUSSION Information access in the 10 case-studies shows significant
deficiency. An important finding is that community
members or leaders generally have not received information
regarding public involvement in the AMDAL process. Their
knowledge of the objectives and scope of the AMDAL study,
the public consultations and the AMDAL Commission
meetings and the role as community representatives are
limited to any explanations given during the public
consultation and AMDAL Commission meetings.
Case-studies show that information for the public needs to be
delivered to the community, in close proximity to their areas
of activity. Only providing access (such as government or
proponent’s offices) is not an effective method, since very few
community members would venture out to seek information
located outside their immediate neighborhoods.
In the 10 cases studied, there is limited delivery of
information to Affected Communities prior to specific public
involvement activities. Information provided to the public
depends solely on information made available by the project
proponent or their consultants. Such information is usually
provided not long before activities related to public
involvement in AMDAL are held.
Obstacles to delivery of information are as follows:
• Central government agencies have limited resources to
disseminate information to all levels of community. They
disseminate information to the provincial government
with the expectation that the province will disseminate
information to the Kabupaten agencies, and from
Kabupaten to Kecamatan level, and so on. The reality is
this chain reaction has not occurred;
• NGOs also have limited resources to disseminate
information to all levels of community. Even major
environmental NGOs with relatively large resources have
limitations in disseminating information;
• In rural areas, access to any information is limited (not
only with regard to AMDAL or environmental issues).
Information resources common in the industrial
countries, such as public libraries or community centers

36
are not available in Indonesia. Internet use is extremely
limited.
In addition to delivery problems, the substance of the
AMDAL documents is also of concern. Since KA, ANDAL,
RKL/RPL documents are written as scientific reports, they
are not digestible to members of most Affected
Communities. Delivery of AMDAL documents are not an
effective method to prepare community representatives to
participate in the AMDAL Commission.

37
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
This section discusses the findings from the case-studies in
the context of the overall expected outcome of public
involvement in the AMDAL process. Key limiting factors and
success factors related to implementation of public
involvement in AMDAL in the case-studies are summarized
in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3. Analysis and discussion provided
in this section includes inputs from other resource-persons
(outside the 10 case-studies). The section ends with several
fundamental questions that have emerged from this Study,
and will be followed up in the section on Recommendations.
4.1. AMDAL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE
CURRENT SOCIOPOLITICAL CONDITION
The Government Regulation on AMDAL, PP 27, 1999
(article 34) states that: “Concerned public must be involved
in the preparation of the terms of reference, evaluation of
terms of reference, environmental impact analysis,
environmental management plan and environmental
monitoring plan”. In the subsequent guidelines issued in the
Head of BAPEDAL Decree (Kepka) 08/2000, the objective
of public involvement in AMDAL is provided. It is described
as follows:
1. To protect the interest of the public;
2. To empower the public in decision-making on planned
activities that have a potential to cause significant and
large environmental impacts;
3. To ensure transparency in the overall AMDAL process;
and
4. To create an atmosphere of equal partnership among all
concerned parties, ie. by respecting the rights of all parties
to obtain information and making mandatory for all
parties to provide information that must be known by
other parties affected.

38
Interspersed in various sections, the Kepka further states that
the public is expected to submit suggestions, comments and
inputs regarding the proposed activity. For example, the
Kepka states that comments received in the public
consultation process in the KA-ANDAL preparation stage are
expected to be considered in defining the scope of the
ANDAL Study. In relation to the AMDAL Commission,
however, the Kepka only states that community
representatives are expected to provide comments, suggestions
and inputs to the Commission. The specific role of
community representatives in the Commission decision-
making process is not described.
This study uses specific objectives that are implicit in the
Kepka (and commonly understood among practitioners) to
further define what is expected from public involvement in
the AMDAL process, as follows:
• Ensure the scope of the ANDAL study considers
issues of concern to the public;
• Influence design or location of proposed projects
(considers information provided by the public);
• Ensure that the decision of AMDAL Commission
acknowledges the concerns/ aspirations of the public.
When compared to the above specific objectives, the case-
studies show that, overall, public involvement in the AMDAL
process has not been effective. Although there is some
evidence that comments from the public do influence the
scope of the ANDAL study, project design or location and or
the decision or recommendation of the AMDAL
Commission, it is generally observed that the focus of
community representatives in either the public consultations
and in the AMDAL Commissions are not related to AMDAL
study. The issues that are carried through from the KA-
ANDAL preparation stage to the AMDAL Commission
review by the community representatives tend to focus on
issues of land acquisition, employment, compensation,
community development and social/ public facilities – issues
that are beyond the scope of the AMDAL process, and
beyond the capacity or authority of the environmental
agency.

39
The reason for this may be a mixture of the following factors:
• Limited understanding of the AMDAL objectives, scope
and process.
• Lack of opportunity for the public to discuss issues on
social/ public facilities, local development programs, etc.
with the local authorities.
• High expectations that the AMDAL process can resolve
issues such as compensation and land acquisition.
The combination of above factors manifest itself in differing
interpretations among the AMDAL stakeholders on the
question of: What is AMDAL capable of resolving?
In this study, AMDAL is understood only as a study to
identify and analyze potential environmental impacts, whose
result would assist decision-makers in determining whether
the project is deemed environmentally feasible. AMDAL is
seen to address issues related to environmental clearance
(feasibility) for the particular proposed projects. As such,
AMDAL is not seen as a process that can resolve (ie settle
disagreements, form a consensus) issues related to land
acquisition, compensation, social/ public infrastructure, and
social welfare. Resolution of such issues is outside of the
realm of AMDAL process. And yet, the case-studies show that
Affected Communities are most keen on obtaining
commitment on such issues. They are not interested in
discussing the AMDAL study per se.
The issues of most concern to the Affected Communities are
valid issues. People need jobs, to be fairly compensated, to be
provided clean water, proper schooling, etc. But, this study
argues that it is impossible to expect such issues to be resolved
in the AMDAL study, and many of these issues are not the
responsibility of the project proponent, but of the
government. What the AMDAL process can do is to identify
such issues in the ANDAL study, and feed it for follow-up by
the government (on social welfare, oversight of land
acquisition and compensation, etc.) and the project
proponent (compensation, community development
programs, recruitment plans).
The misinterpretation and high-expectations on the AMDAL
study, that is observed through the case-studies and emerge in

40
many discussions with resource persons, can be attributed to
several problems larger that AMDAL itself:
• Lack of public involvement in other (pre-AMDAL)
development planning process, such as in spatial
planning. The current spatial planning laws and
regulations require public involvement. But for the most
part, this is not implemented, and government agencies
responsible are not penalized for not involving the public
in developing spatial plans. Public objections regarding
land-use or changes in land-use should already surface in
spatial planning process, but now emerges in the project-
level AMDAL process;
• Democratic process in Indonesian society is still under
development. The requirement to involve the public in
AMDAL preceded the establishment of organic processes
of representation and communication with constituents
that are important elements of democratic societies in the
industrial world. Without these organic mechanisms, the
issue of ‘who represents whom’ in the AMDAL public
involvement will continue to be a contentious issue and
bring forward controversies at the project level.
Under such conditions, there are significant limitations on
what can be expected to emerge from public involvement in
AMDAL. Furthermore, any requirement for AMDAL public
involvement must be placed in the context of the overall
socio-political evolution in Indonesia. With such underlying
problems, the prescriptive procedural approach of the current
regulation and guidelines seem inappropriate and do not
produce the desired impact.
Such a problem is not unique to Indonesia. Literature from
other countries point to a questioning of “the effectiveness of
public hearings in EIA in developing countries, such as
Ghana, Chile and Brazil” (Almer & Koontz, 2004).
1
Public
involvement in EIA is based on experience of the US that has
relied on “a firm legal infrastructure, longstanding
constitutional rights, and an active civil society” (Almer &
Koontz, 2004). Literature from Canada states that “education
1
Although KLH officials say that public hearings are not required by the Government, case-
studies show that public consultation meetings held by Project Proponents are in fact public
hearing sessions.

41
and information dissemination are preconditions to fair and
effective public involvement” (Sinclair and Diduck, 2001).
The absence of such important elements of the democratic
process in Indonesia has led to less-than-optimal results from
the AMDAL-public involvement process.
4.2. LIMITING AND CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR
PROBLEMS
WITH THE
GUIDELINES
In the current socio-political condition, the guidelines for
public involvement in AMDAL are flawed in a number of
ways:
• Statement of objectives are too broad and vague (see
comparison in Table 4.1 below);
• The approach of the guidelines is too procedural;
• The procedures with regard to announcements are too
rigid and do not acknowledge the variation in channels of
information active in the public;
• The requirement for public consultation in the KA-
ANDAL stage lacks clarity as to who should be
consulted, and as to the role of the local government in
the era of regional autonomy;
• The requirement for representation in the AMDAL
Commission is misplaced, and confused as to the role of
the Commission, and unrealistic with regard to selection
of community representative.
Table 4.1. Comparison of Statement of Objectives of EIA-Public Involvement
SOURCE QUOTE
Decree of Head of
BAPEDAL No.
08/2000, on Public
Involvement in
AMDAL and
Information
Disclosure
1. Protect the interest of the public;
2. Empower the public in decision-making on planned activities
that have a potential to cause significant and large
environmental impacts;
3. Ensure transparency in the overall AMDAL process; and
4. Create an atmosphere of equal partnership among all
concerned parties, ie. by respecting the rights of all parties to
obtain information and making mandatory for all parties to
provide information that must be known by other parties
affected.
UNEP Training
Resource Manual
• Informing stakeholders
• Gaining their views, inputs and values
• Taking account of public inputs in decision-making
• Influencing project design

42
• Obtaining local knowledge
• Increasing public confidence
• Improving transparency and accountability in decision-
making
• Reducing conflict
A Basic Guide to the
Public Participation
Process of an EIA,
South Africa
• To inform the public about proposals
• To improve the scooping of the EIA
• To identify local concerns/ problems
• To allow wider discussion of the environmental and social
issues
• To improve the forms of mitigation
• To provide quality control of the EIA through acceptance by
the public
• To improve democratic governance
Public Consultation,
Ontario, Public Affairs
and Communication
Branch, April 1994
Public consultation is a process involving interactive or two-way
communication between the Ministry and the pubic, through
which both become informed about different perspectives on issues
and proposals, providing the public with the opportunity to
influence decisions to be made by the Ministry.
Public Involvement in
EA: Requirements,
Opportunities and
Issues, World Bank,
EA Sourcebook
Update, Oct 1993
Two levels:
Consultation – “involves soliciting people’s views on proposed
actions and engaging them in a dialogue. While decision-making
authority is retained by governments, interaction with people and
eliciting feedback allows affected populations to influence the
decision-making process…”
Participation – “is a voluntary process in which people, come
together with project authorities to share, negotiate and control the
decision-making process in project design and management”. “The
Bank requires the participation by affected people in project
preparation when the project affects indigeneous people or involves
involuntary resettlement.”
Table 4.2 presents a breakdown of limiting factors related to
the steps in public involvement in AMDAL.
Table 4.2. Limiting Factors in AMDAL Public Involvement
STAGE LIMITING FACTORS
ANNOUNCEMENT
Government does not have funds to place newspaper
announcements
Public, especially in rural areas, do not read newspaper
Public not accustomed to preparing written comments
Bahasa Indonesia often not the most effective communication
tool
1 Newspaper
Announcements
Cost is high
2 Notice board near Information limited

43
project site Cost
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS IN KA-ANDAL PREP
Difficulty in identifying legitimate community representatives to
consult
Difficulty in ensuring that all community views are represented
Different interpretations as to role of relevant environment
institution and local authorities in organizing public
consultations
Different interpretations as to legitimacy of formal community
leaders (BPD, Head of Village, Dewan Kelurahan, LPM, etc.) in
representing community interests
3 Representation
Costly to consult with all community elements and levels
Unrealistic expectations of public on what can be achieved in
public consultations (especially with regard to agreement on
compensation level, community/ social development programs)
4 Dialog during
public
consultations
Insistent on issues not relevant to AMDAL study, such as size of
compensation, recruitment of local workforce, community
development
REPRESENTATION IN AMDAL COMMISSION
Different interpretations on legitimate community
representatives to attend AMDAL Commission meetings
Selected representatives (including formal leaders) do not
conduct routine consultations/ communication with community
members
5 Representation
Transport and accommodation of community representatives
attending AMDAL Commission financed by proponent
Unrealistic expectations of public on what can be achieved in
public consultations (especially with regard to agreement on
compensation level, community/ social development programs)
Community representatives have not read AMDAL documents
to be reviewed, and feel unequipped to review documents
6 Discussion in
AMDAL
Commission
Insistent on issues not relevant to AMDAL study, such as size of
compensation, recruitment of local workforce, community
development
OTHER
Affected Communities not aware, and never received information
on AMDAL public involvement
Observant Communities that are not environmental
organizations are not aware of regulations and guidelines
Government does not disseminate information to all levels of
public, due to limited resources
7 Access to
Information
Major environmental NGOs do not have funds to disseminate
information to all levels of community or to NGOs throughout
Indonesia

44
CRITICAL
SUCCESS
FACTORS
Despite the many problems associated with implementing
public involvement in AMDAL, the case-studies have shown
some ingredients for success. The most significant success
factor is understanding the communities to be involved in the
AMDAL process. This knowledge becomes essential in
defining the approaches for information delivery/ access, to
identify the different groups and levels in the community to
be consulted with, and community representatives to involve
in long-term dialog beyond the AMDAL approval process (by
government and project proponent). This understanding is
achieved through a scoping or pre-survey of the communities
at the very beginning of the process, and through intense
communication with local authorities.
The case-study also shows that to obtain constructive inputs
for the AMDAL study/ process, it is critical to provide
information to the public. The better informed the public is
on the project, on AMDAL, on the process, the more useful
will the comments/ inputs be. However, it is not sufficient to
provide access, but it is necessary to deliver information to the
communities.
An underlying factor that makes possible the presence of the
above success factors is sufficient funds. From the case-
studies, the proponents that have spent time and money on
learning about the Affected Communities and deliver
information are multinational companies operating on behalf
of the government and proposing large, high-technology oil-
gas development. Funds for community pre-survey and
production and distribution of information are charged back
to the government. Furthermore, the multinational
companies have additional motivation to perform responsibly
due to international scrutiny. For the other cases, funds is
precisely the limiting factor for most project proponents,
either government or private sector. Developers of shopping
centers or medium-size housing estates find that spending
substantial amount of funds for public involvement is not
commensurate to the size of investment. Government
agencies acting as proponents find it difficult enough to have
budgets approved for AMDAL studies, let alone public
involvement processes.
An additional success factor that emerges in only 1 case-study

45
is that selected community representatives discuss comments
to be taken to the AMDAL Commission meeting. The
discussion at the beginning of this section indicates that such
dialog is more of a rarity than the norm in the current
Indonesian society. Outside of the 10 (ten) case-studies, there
is evidence that where traditional community leaders are still
an important part of society, legitimacy of representatives and
communication between representatives and community
members are less of a problem. Such local characteristics are
items that local (provincial) regulations can identify in more
specific guidelines for AMDAL public involvement.
Table 4.3. Critical Success Factors in AMDAL Public Involvement
STAGE CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
ANNOUNCEMENT
1 Newspaper
Announcements
Placement in more than one newspaper
Posters are located in many public places frequented by
community
2 Notice board near
project site
Multiple posters contain different types of information
3 Radio Effective as invitation to public consultation events
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS IN KA-ANDAL PREPARATION
Scoping or pre-survey of Affected Community is conducted
to understand social structure, formal and informal leaders,
different interests in the community
4 Representations
Local government and authorities (Kabupaten to Village/
kelurahan) are consulted in the planning
Local government/ authorities present and active in dialog5 Dialog during public
consultations
Proponent directly involved in dialog (instead of only being
represented by AMDAL consultants)
REPRESENTATION IN AMDAL COMMISSION
6 Representation The extent of Affected Communities is clear and can easily
select representative
7 Discussion in
AMDAL
Commission
Community representatives have discussed issues to be
raised in AMDAL Commission prior to meeting date
OTHER
Delivered to community members near place of activity8 Access to
Information
Presented in easy-to-digest format

46
4.3. KEY AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Several key questions have emerged from the empirical
analysis of public involvement and information disclosure
in AMDAL. These questions are fundamental, and must
be resolved and clarified, as well as commonly understood
by all stakeholders, before more meaningful results can be
expected from the process.
WHAT IS
EXPECTED FROM
AMDAL AND
PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT?
This question needs to be defined more clearly. Better
definition of the objectives and expected output of public
involvement in the different stages of AMDAL is needed.
Should it be defined narrowly and specifically to support
the AMDAL process? Or, should it be broader in scope
with long-term goals and ideals? Choice of language will
shape the results from efforts to implement public
involvement in AMDAL.
WHO ARE
LEGITIMATE
REPRESENTATIVES
OF AFFECTED
COMMUNITIES?
Any revised regulations need to better define what is meant
by “affected communities” and who must be consulted.
Given that democracy in Indonesia is still undergoing
‘growing pains’, who are the legitimate representatives of
the community needs to be defined. Is it sufficient to
consult with formal leaders during the entire AMDAL
process? Or must the AMDAL process involve informal
leaders and common citizens? If common citizens are to be
involved, what process would be necessary to identify these
citizens and ensure all interests are represented?
SHOULD PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT IN
AMDAL BE
REQUIRED OF ALL
PROJECTS?
Currently all projects that require an AMDAL need to
fulfill public involvement and information disclosure
requirements. The range of projects that fall in this
category is very wide, including medium-size activities
with known and manageable impacts (such as malls,
hotels), to large complex activities with a large mix of
impacts (oil-gas development, petrochemical plants, etc.).
Should these projects have the same requirements placed
on them? Or, is some differentiation justifiable?
WHAT IS ROLE OF
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT?
The role of local government must be clarified in the
revised regulations. Should they play the role of convener,
as is the case in Bulgaria, being a neutral party that
facilitates dialog between project proponent and Affected

47
Communities (Almer & Koontz, 2004). In cases where the
local government will issue permits to the Project
Proponent, should it serve as partner of the Project
Proponent in dialog with the Affected Communities, and
thus take on responsibility in describing development
plans and responding to questions?
WHO IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR
PUBLIC
EDUCATION?
If public involvement in AMDAL is expected to have real
value and contribution to the AMDAL process and
decisions based on AMDAL, there needs to be significant
effort to educate the public on AMDAL, on public
involvement and the role of the public. Whose
responsibility is this? Should the Government rely on the
project proponent to ensure that the public is prepared to
be involved in the AMDAL process, as is currently the
case?
WHO SHOULD
FUND PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT IN
AMDAL?
The public’s attendance at public consultation meetings
and AMDAL Commission meetings are currently funded
by the Project Proponent. Is this appropriate? Canada is
proposing the formation of an ‘independent participation
fund’ (Sinclair & Diduck, 2001). Early discussions in
Indonesia leading to the issuance of Kepka 08/2000 record
an idea to develop a ‘public participation fund’.
Deliberations to prepare revised regulations on public
involvement in AMDAL should address this issue.

48

49
CHAPTER 5
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations provided here do not follow the structure
of current procedures for public involvement in AMDAL.
This Study assumes that the current AMDAL procedures
will be modified in the near future, and the deliberations to
formulate the modifications will occur in the next few
months. In order to accommodate possible changes, the
recommendations provided here do not prescribe a single
solution, but instead attempt to present concepts for
consideration in designing a new public involvement
requirement for a revised AMDAL process.
The recommendations are prepared with full recognition
that the preconditions of an effective public involvement
process do not exist in the Indonesian society and
institutions, and fully recognizes the fluid nature of
Indonesian society today and in the coming years. The
recommendations therefore are constructed to assist in the
deliberations and decision-making process that will ensue in
the government to revise the current regulations and
guidelines.
The ultimate aim of the recommendations is to create a
public involvement and information disclosure for AMDAL
that is effective, efficient, credible and contextual to the
Indonesian development picture. However, the authors of
this report do not claim to be able to answer all issues related
to public involvement and information disclosure in
AMDAL.
The recommendations are divided into several sections based
on the topics, namely:
1. Objectives of Public Involvement and Information
Disclosure in AMDAL;
2. Criteria for Good Public Involvement and Information
Disclosure in AMDAL;
3. Division of Roles and Responsibilities;

50
4. Procedures and Techniques;
5. Public Involvement Outside of AMDAL;
6. KLH’s Role in Capacity Building and Provision of
Resources.
OBJECTIVES OF
PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT
AND
INFORMATION
DISCLOSURE
IN AMDAL
As previously discussed, the statement of objectives in the
current government regulations and guidelines is too vague
and has led to confusion at the operational level. More
specific statements of objectives are recommended for the
revised regulations and guidelines.
Justification: Sharper and more specific statement of
objective is expected to clarify the objective and expected
outcome of the public involvement process in AMDAL, and
allow for better understanding among all stakeholders. This
would complement efforts to clarify the objectives/ function
of AMDAL (ongoing under AMDAL Revitalization).
Revised regulations should also define the specific objectives
of public involvement in the key components of the
AMDAL process. This Study views there are 4 major
components of the AMDAL process namely:
Scoping – determination of the scope of the
ANDAL study;
ANDAL Study – the process of identifying,
evaluating and determining significant impacts to
be dealt with;
ANDAL Review– the review of ANDAL, RKL/RPL
documents by an AMDAL Commission to
determine the scientific validity of the study;
Decision on Environmental Clearance – the
decision by appropriate authorities on whether the
proposed project is deemed environmentally feasible
or not. This decision would be passed on to
authorities in charge of approving the proposed
project (final operating permits).
In the current AMDAL implementation, components 3 and
4 are often regarded as one and the same (ie. AMDAL
approval means that the proposed project is regarded as
environmentally feasible). However, KLH has underscored

51
in various discussions, that in fact these are different
decision-making processes, as experienced in many
controversial projects reviewed by KLH. This Study
recognizes the distinction between AMDAL Review process
and Decision on Environmental Clearance.
The table below offers specific objective statements for each
of the components, with the addition of Information
Disclosure, regarded as a necessary auxiliary component of
public involvement in AMDAL.
Proposed Specific Objectives of Public Involvement and Information Disclosure in AMDAL
Overall: Ensuring that the public has sufficient information on the proposed
project to be able to contribute meaningfully to the AMDAL process.
To inform the public on the proposed project (nature of activity, project site)
To inform the public of potential environmental impacts likely to occur as a
result of the proposed project
To inform the public of results of the ANDAL study
Information Disclosure
To inform the public of decision on the ANDAL study/ environmental
clearance of the project
Overall: Ensuring that the scope of the ANDAL Study takes into consideration
the concerns of the public regarding: a) potential environmental impacts
caused by the proposed project; b) environmental conditions of the area; c)
mitigation of environmental impacts caused by the proposed project.
To obtain information regarding existing environmental conditions around
the project area
To obtain information regarding environmental concerns of the public in
relation to the proposed project
Scoping Process
To obtain information regarding the affected community’s aspirations with
regard to the proposed project’s environmental impact mitigation
Overall: Ensuring that determination of significant impacts takes into
consideration the public’s (affected communities’) concerns and conditions.
To obtain in-depth information on affected communities’ concerns and
perception towards the potential environmental impacts
ANDAL Study
To obtain additional factors to consider in evaluating the potential
environmental impacts
Decision on AMDAL or
Environmental
Clearance (note: one or
Overall: Ensuring that the decision on environmental clearance or AMDAL
approval (issued by the Government) has taken into consideration the concerns
of all stakeholders, including affected communities and observer groups.
2
This Study recommends public involvement in either the AMDAL Review process or Decision
on Environmental Clearance, but does not see necessary that the public be involved in both
processes. If the public is involved in the AMDAL Review process, comments from the public
must be made available to authorities making decisions on environmental clearance, regardless of
the position/recommendation of the AMDAL Commission. Selection of which process to involve
the public should consider the following factors: a) the scientific nature of the AMDAL
documents, b) the main interests of the Affected Communities (more related to social welfare and

52
To feed the decision-making process of the Government with considerations
regarding environmental impact from all stakeholders
the other)
2
To document how the considerations regarding environmental impact has
influenced or not influenced the decisions of the Government
The above objectives should be explicitly stated in the
regulations and guidelines, and differentiated from
additional long-term benefits of public involvement in the
AMDAL process, namely:
• Commencement of long-term relationship between
project owner and surrounding (directly affected)
communities;
• Enhance awareness of public regarding
environmental conditions and the responsibility for
environmental protection;
• Enhance participation of public in environmental or
developmental decision-making;
• Improvement of communication between the
government and the public regarding development
programs and social welfare.
Specific statements should also be made that public
involvement in AMDAL is not intended to and cannot be
expected to:
• Resolve past conflicts between the proponent and
affected communities;
• Resolve community development commitments to
be conducted by the proponent;
• Resolve issues related to land acquisition and levels
of compensation;
• Resolve issues related to social welfare and
development programs to be conducted by the
government.
CRITERIA FOR
GOOD PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT
AND
INFORMATION
DISCLOSURE
Currently, the government does not have standard criteria to
judge whether public involvement has been conducted to a
‘good’ or ‘satisfactory’ level. It is recognized that the
subjectivity of ‘good’ or ‘satisfactory’ is high and likely to
remain so, and that quantitative measures are not
appropriate and difficult to enforce in this area. Therefore, it
compensation), and c) cost implications to solicit comments from the public. See also discussion
on Techniques.

53
IN AMDAL is suggested that a set of qualitative criteria be established
and laid out in the government guidelines.
Justification: A set of qualitative criteria would help provide
guidance to the Environmental Agency/ AMDAL
Commission and the proponent on how to, respectively,
evaluate and design an information disclosure and public
involvement process for the AMDAL of the proposed
project. Such criteria would help prevent questions or
disagreements at a later date.
Proposed Set of Qualitative Criteria
Criteria Measure/ Evidence
1 Sufficient efforts have been made to provide/ make
available information to the Affected Communities and
Observer Groups on the proposed project and the
ANDAL study components prior to solicitation of
comments.
Minimum requirements (or
agreement between Proponent
and Environment Agency) are
met and described in AMDAL
documents. See discussion on
‘Procedures and Techniques’
in this Chapter.
2 Content of the following has considered the comments,
aspirations, concerns of the Concerned Public:
• Scope of ANDAL Study;
• Determination of significant impacts;
• Approach for environmental impact mitigation.
Explicit description and
justification on how public
comments are treated, in the
following documents:
• KA-ANDAL
• ANDAL
• RKL-RPL.
3 Approval of the AMDAL documents or the decision on
environmental clearance of proposed project has
considered the comments, aspirations, concerns of the
Concerned Public.
Explicit description (how) and
justification (why) in Letter of
Decision on Environmental
Clearance or AMDAL
approval letter.
For item 2, explicit description and justification means
that the documents should state what comments/
concerns/ aspirations were expressed by the Affected
Communities and Observer Groups and how the
Proponent/Consultant treats them. If the comments,
concerns and aspirations are wholly or partially accepted
and has influenced the position of the
Proponent/Consultant, then it should be stated why. If
they are wholly or partially rejected and has not
influenced the position of the Proponent/ Consultant, the
documents should also explain why. The same applies to
how the comments from the Concerned Public are
treated by the Government/ AMDAL Commission in

54
item 3.
DIVISION OF
ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
As previously discussed, the role and responsibilities of the
different stakeholders need to be redefined and clarified if
effective public involvement and information disclosure is
desired. It is suggested here that some of the
responsibilities currently placed on the project proponent
should be shifted to the government, while the role and
responsibilities of the local government should be better
defined.
Justification: Project proponents operate at the project
level, which fall into a broader program or development
initiative established by the Government, manifested in
spatial plans, investment plans or policies, development
programs. Although there is much room for improvement
in the Government planning process, projects (and
project proponents) cannot be expected to undertake or
take on the responsibilities of the Government.
Conversely, the Government should not pass on their
responsibilities to project proponents for reasons of
inadequate budget or resources. In redefining AMDAL
public involvement, it is imperative that roles and
responsibilities of the each key player be put in
perspective. Public involvement in AMDAL is a big job
that requires significant effort from all key players.
Table 5.1 offers a proposed division of responsibility
among the three key parties, namely the Responsible
Environment Agency, the Local Government, and the
Project Proponent. The table deliberately uses generic
terms with the intent to return discussion to the basic
elements of public involvement and information
disclosure in AMDAL.
All parties must realize that if one party does not fulfill its
responsibilities, the entire process and the results of
AMDAL public involvement will be compromised.
Therefore, the Government (in this case KLH) should
make concerted effort to ensure that responsibilities are
fulfilled equally among all stakeholders.

55
Table 5.1 Division of Responsibilities among Key Players
RESPONSIBLE
ENVIRONMENT
AGENCY
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
PROJECT
PROPONENT
DISSEMINATE INFORMATION:
On AMDAL and public
involvement in AMDAL
L S
On Project basic information
(nature, location) potential
impacts/ ANDAL study
information and documents
L
On Project AMDAL:
• Potential impacts L
• Summary of ANDAL
study findings
L S S
• AMDAL approval or
decision on
environmental
clearance
L S S
IDENTIFY AFFECTED COMMUNITIES TO BE INVOLVED:
Identification of Affected
Communities to be involved in
AMDAL process
S L
Preparation/ assistance to
Affected Communities prior to
being involved in AMDAL
process
S L
OBTAIN & PROCESS COMMENTS & INFORMATION FROM AFFECTED
COMMUNITIES FOR AMDAL:
To feed into scoping of ANDAL
Study
L
To feed into determination of
significant impacts in ANDAL
Study
L
To feed into AMDAL review
process
L S
To feed into AMDAL approval
or environmental clearance
L S
Local Government here refers to Kabupaten/ Kota and Kecamatan levels
The role of Local Government (Kabupaten/Kota and
Kecamatan levels) should be detailed further, for example,
in the implementation of public consultation meetings. In
cases where the Responsible Environment Agency (eg
Provincial BAPEDALDA) is not in the Local
Government structure, then the potential role of the
Local Government (Kabupaten or Kecamatan
Government) is to assist the Project Proponent or even as

56
neutral facilitator in the public consultation meetings. In
cases where the Responsible Environment Agency is part
of the Local Government structure (eg AMDAL approval
is given by the BAPEDALDA Kabupaten), it may be
difficult for the Local Government (Kabupaten
government) to serve as neutral facilitator in the public
consultation meetings, so its role may be more focused on
disseminating information prior to the public
consultation meetings. Local government agencies
involved should not be limited to environment agencies,
but agencies overseeing economic development and/or
social welfare should also be engaged in the process of
public consultations.
NGOs have an important potential role in assisting the
process of information dissemination and public
involvement in AMDAL. Each of the three key players
listed in the table, have the opportunity and should be
encouraged to enlist the assistance of NGOs, either
residing locally near the project area or based in the
nearest major cities.
NGOs are envisioned to play an important role in the
following areas:
• Disseminating information on AMDAL and public
involvement;
• Acting as neutral facilitator to collect/ solicit
comments from the Affected Communities;
• Identifying Affected Communities or their
representatives to be involved;
• Preparing/ training Affected Communities prior to
consultation meetings with Project Proponent or
Responsible Environment Agency.
It is highly recommended here that KLH explores,
develop and implement a concerted program to engage a
number of established NGOs to serve as long-term
partners in developing capacity, spreading knowledge-
base and experience on public involvement in AMDAL.
KLH should identify NGOs that have an interest in this
area, has field experience in public participation,
community development or environmental management,

57
have extensive links with grass-root NGOs throughout
Indonesia, and can commit in the long-term. KLH
should recognize, however, the reality that most NGOs
have little resources of their own, and thus may require
substantial financial support. Coordination of resources
and programs with KLH’s Deputy for Environmental
Communication and Community Empowerment is
recommended.
Procedures and
Techniques
The current government regulation (specifically the
Kepka 08/2000) focuses very much on procedures.
However, description of the prescribed procedures is
unbalanced, with excessive detail on the announcement
and insufficient description on public consultations as
well as processes in the AMDAL Review Commission
(also mentioned in ADB, 2002). The case studies in this
Study show that implementation in the field inevitably
follow the conditions of the project area, the resources
available to and the level of ‘caution’ of the Project
Proponent. With the current definition of projects
requiring AMDAL studies being so wide in spectrum, this
Study recommends that the revised government
regulations not prescribe a single procedure or techniques,
but rather recognize the variety of needs and conditions of
different projects. This Study recommends that the
government allows some degree of freedom to the Project
Proponent to determine the procedure and mix of
techniques used for information disclosure and public
involvement.
Justification: Certain types of projects, by nature, invite
high level interest and reactions, regardless of locality of
operation, due to potential high risks to public health and
the environment – for example oil and gas operations by
multinational oil companies, surface mining operations,
dams, nuclear power plants, and sanitary landfills,
hazardous waste processing facilities. However, other
types of activities, such as malls, hotels, housing
compounds, roads, may or may not invite strong
reactions, since their impacts are largely commonly
known and manageable with relatively low cost. Projects
with higher potential risks should be required to conduct

58
more intense public involvement.
The recommendation presented here is intended to
underscore the need for the Government to establish a
‘minimum level of effort’ expected from Project
Proponents. This should be set along with an illustration
of the ‘maximum level of effort’ expected from certain
types of projects.
Table 5.2 below provides a sample of a minimum-
maximum spectrum. The spectrum is developed assuming
the current system of screening, in which projects
requiring AMDAL cover a wide variety of project types
and sizes. The maximum level of effort is developed partly
based on the case-studies considered to have done
significant effort to involve the public.
Each Project Proponent, during initial meetings with the
Responsible Environment Agency, consult and agree
upon which Level of Effort will be conducted for public
involvement and information disclosure for the said
project. The Responsible Environment Agency would be
guided by knowledge of the existing environmental
conditions and social issues in its area, as well as
knowledge of the nature and magnitude of potential
impacts from the said project type. Provincial and
Kabupaten/Kota environmental agencies are suggested to
develop guidelines to help decision-making. However, it
should be recognized that some degree of discretionary
judgement will play a role in such decision-making. KLH
should develop a program to assist Provincial and
Kabupaten/Kota environmental agencies in capacity
building and developing such guidelines.

59
Table 5.2 Spectrum of Level of Effort for Public Involvement in AMDAL
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
Announcement in national and local
newspapers
Notice board at
project site
(any combination
of techniques,
Notice board at project site
according to
project type,
Posters/ pamphlets at strategic areas near
project site
characteristics of
Affected
Communities,
Notice on website of proponent and
environment agency
Displays in local government offices, local
organizations offices
Information
Disclosure
Posters/ pamphlets
at strategic areas near
project site
other needs)
Radio announcements
Consultation with community leaders
(formal and informal) through Focused
Group Discussions, small meetings
Scoping Consultation with
formal community
leaders through
Focused Group
Discussions, small
meetings
Consultation with community members
ANDAL Study In-depth interviews In-depth interviews
Make available
summary of draft
ANDAL document
to formal
community
representatives
Presentation of key findings of ANDAL
study to community representatives
Delivery of draft ANDAL document and
summary to community representatives
ANDAL
Review
Allow written
comments to be
submitted by formal
community
representatives
Community representative participate in
ANDAL review
Decision on
Environmental
Final review by
Responsible
Environment Agency
of comments
received during prior
stages
Visit to affected community by
representative of Environmental Agency,
or
Community representative attend a
consultative meeting at the Environmental
Agency’s office
Clearance
Final review of all stakeholders’ position
by Environmental Agency
Figure 5.1 provides a diagram of the proposed public involvement
and information disclosure procedure, with a more generic
approach. Figure 5.2 depicts the existing public involvement
procedure as set in Kepka 08/2000.

60
Determination of
ANDAL Study Scope
ANDAL Study
Implementation
Preparation of ANDAL,
RKL/RPL Documents
Review of ANDAL,
RKL/RPL Documents
Decision on
Environmental Clearance
AMDAL ProcessPublic Involvement
Process
Screening & Initial
Meeting w Govt
SCOPING
ANDAL STUDY
ANDAL REVIEW
ENV’L CLEARANCE
DECISION
By Resp Envt Agency By Project Proponent
Information
Disclosure
Solicitation of
Comments/ Information
Socioeconomic Survey
Information
Disclosure
Review or Solicitation
Of Comments
Information
Disclosure
Figure 5.1 Diagram of Proposed Changes to Public Involvement Process in AMDAL
Figure 5.2 Current Procedure for Public Involvement in AMDAL
Minimum Level of Effort would apply to all project types
and sizes. It is envisioned that projects that can be allowed
to follow the Minimum Level of Effort would be projects
Concerned Public Responsible Env’t Agency Project Proponent
Announcement of
Proposed Activity
Announcement of
AMDAL Preparation
Suggestions, Opinion,
Comments
Preparation of
KA-ANDALPublic Consultations
Evaluation of
KA-ANDAL
Evaluation of ANDAL,
RKL, RPL
Decision on
Environmental Clearance
Preparation of ANDAL
RKL, RPL
Comments
Comments

61
that meet the following criteria:
• common in a particular locality,
• environmental impacts are commonly known and can
be mitigated easily,
• environmental wastes do not include hazardous and
toxic wastes,
• location is not in a sensitive environment or
immediately next to nature reserve or protected area.
The minimum public involvement required would entail:
• Information disclosure using notice boards at the
project site, and posters or pamphlets placed at
strategic areas around the project location;
• Solicitation of comments from the public through
small meetings with formal community leaders;
• In-depth interviews at the ANDAL study stage
(socioeconomic survey);
• Distribution of summaries of the draft ANDAL
document to formal leaders, and allowing written
comments;
• Final review of comments received from the public
during process of decision-making of environmental
feasibility/clearance.
Maximum Level of Effort involves conducting thorough
and intensive information disclosure and solicitation of
comments at every stage of the AMDAL process. Such a
maximum effort is envisioned to apply to projects with
more than one of the following characteristics:
• Project location covers a wide area (e.g. more than 1
kecamatan)
3
;
• Waste generated includes hazardous and toxic waste;
• Project causes involuntary resettlement of large
number of families (e.g. more than 100 families);
• Project located in area where population density is
high (use Human Development Index);
• Project likely to impact area where isolated traditional
communities reside or have activities.
3
Elaboration in brackets is given as illustration only; further discussion will be necessary to
determine thresholds.

62
If a project has only one or none of the above
characteristics, the Proponent has the opportunity to
design its own mix of techniques that lie in between the
Minimum and the Maximum Levels of Effort. This mix
of techniques must be consulted with the Responsible
Environment Agency during the Intial Screening Meeting
(see Figure 5.1).
In developing Minimum and Maximum Levels of Effort,
KLH should recognize that each effort (to disseminate
information, to hold consultation meetings, and so on)
entail significant preparatory steps and have a budgetary
and human resource consequences. To require a
Proponent to undertake the Maximum Level of Effort
requires that human and financial resources are available,
not only on the part of the Project Proponent, but also
the Responsible Environment Agency and local
government agencies (see discussion on Division of Roles
and Responsibilities). Preparatory steps required to
achieve the Maximum Level of Effort is given as an
illustration in Attachment C. The Attachment also lists
preconditions expected to exist that would allow for
successful implementation of the public involvement
process.
DEFINITION OF
AFFECTED
COMMUNITIES
TO BE INVOLVED
A looming question that consistently appears throughout
this Study and in most discussions and literature is “Who
is the Affected Community” and “Who are Legitimate
Representatives of the Affected Community” to be
involved in the AMDAL process. Most will agree that it is
very difficult for Project Proponents to ensure that all
elements of the Affected Community are consulted and
that all aspirations existing in the Community are
represented.
It is imperative that KLH defines more clearly who is
meant by Affected Communities and their legitimate
representatives. The recommendation of setting
minimum-maximum spectrum of public involvement
allows a clearer definition of Affected Communities.
Projects that are allowed to follow the Minimum Level of
Effort are expected to only consult with formal

63
community leaders. Whereas projects expected to follow
the Maximum requirements would be asked to consult
formal leaders, informal leaders and community members
(common citizens), whose interests may not yet be
covered by the two former groups. Projects that fall in
between the Minimum and Maximum thresholds would
be allowed to consult with only formal and/or informal
leaders of the Affected Communities.
Another alternative that KLH should seriously consider is
recommendations presented in the ADB Report on
Capacity Building for Decentralization of the
Environmental Impact Assessment Process. The report
presents an extensive account of the public participation
mechanisms that have been established in the government
planning process, such as P5D (Pedoman Penyusunan
Perencanaan dan Pengendalian Pembangunan Daerah),
P3MD (Perencanaa Partisipatif Pembangunan Masyarakat
Desa), etc. The authors of the ADB report recommend
that “consultations (for the AMDAL process) should go
through the existing mechanisms for reaching the people
at the RW and RT levels that are the lowest levels of the
governing system” (p. VI-21). Examples of the
mechanisms are: a) Development Meeting at the Village
Level or Musyawarah Pembangunan Tingkat Desa/
Kelurahan (Musbang); b) Development Meeting at the
Sub-District Level or Temu Karya Pembangunan
Kecamatan. Although the ADB report does not describe
how the existing mechanisms are currently performing
(especially since the regional autonomy era), it is
important that the AMDAL-public involvement is
anchored to a system that already exists and does not
attempt to create a separate mechanism that has weak
roots in terms of legal, administrative as well as social
legitimacy.
This Study further recommends that for AMDAL-public
involvement, representation of the Affected Community
is followed through from the scoping stage to any
consultations required during or to feed into the decision-
making process on environmental clearance of the said
proposed project. In order to ensure consistency in

64
representation, it will be necessary for the Local
Government or Responsible Environment Agency to
clearly document the identities and contact information
of the Community Representatives, and educate these
representatives on AMDAL and public involvement. In
the long-run, these Community Representatives can play
an important part in monitoring the performance of any
impact mitigation effort conducted by the Project
Proponent.
PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT
OUTSIDE OF
AMDAL
As mentioned in the previous chapter, it is difficult to
expect good results from AMDAL-public involvement if
public involvement in the upstream development
planning stages remains to be weak. If KLH intends to
provide leadership in enhancing public involvement (by
way of the AMDAL process), then it should develop links
and formalize ties with other agencies’ programs to
improve public involvement in development planning.
Specifically, there should be links with public
involvement in the development of spatial plans at all
levels of Government. Only through an integrated effort
can public involvement contribute to the AMDAL
process, and can AMDAL-public involvement contribute
meaningfully to the broader goal of increasing public
involvement in development.
KLH’S ROLE IN
CAPACITY
BUILDING AND
PROVISION OF
RESOURCES
KLH has a major task in building awareness and capacity
to support public involvement in the AMDAL process. It
is not sufficient for KLH to rely on dissemination of
written products (be it regulations or guidebooks)
through the normal method of seminars and internet.
The infrastructure and capacity needs to be built and
nurtured. Without such infrastructure or capacity, it can
be predicted that public involvement in AMDAL will
result in very little.
This Study recommends that KLH develops a program to
assist different stakeholders to be able to contribute to the
AMDAL-public involvement process, such as in the
following areas:
• Assist Environmental Agencies at the Provincial and
Kabupaten/Kota levels to develop local/ more detailed

65
guidelines on determining levels of public
involvement required for different projects or
localities, and in establishing AMDAL information
channels down to the community level (village or
RW).
• Develop capacity of NGOs to play a supporting role
in the process and disseminate information on
AMDAL and public involvement, as discussed in the
section on “Division of Roles and Responsibilities”.
• Enhance capacity of AMDAL consultants to
undertake proper public involvement. This can be
accomplished by working with key universities or
Environmental Study Centers to develop operational
guidelines for consultants or conduct additional
training courses on social aspects of AMDAL and
public involvement.
KLH will also need to tackle the issue of financial
resources for the Government agencies and Affected
Communities. Currently, the entire public involvement
process relies heavily on financial resources of the Project
Proponent. As of today in Indonesia, a ‘public
participation fund’ does not exist, and may be difficult to
establish. In the absence of such a fund, this Study finds
that it should be the prime responsibility of the
Government to provide financial resources at least to
complement that of the Project Proponent. KLH should
discuss with provincial and kabupaten/kota governments,
as well as technical departments, possible sources of funds
to support public involvement in AMDAL. In the case
government funds are not available, it is necessary to find
alternative solutions or alternative approaches to public
involvement with minimal expenses. It is not advisable to
add, by default, the financial responsibilities of the Project
Proponent.
Government funds are also needed for the enormous task
of educating the public on AMDAL and public
involvement in AMDAL. Without knowledge and
understanding at the community level, any effort to
involve the public in AMDAL will bear minimal results.

66
With limited funds, KLH may have to prioritize areas
based on the frequency of large-scale projects or sensitivity
of environmental conditions.
CONCLUSION Significant changes and rethinking of public involvement
in the AMDAL process is necessary. Part of the rethinking
necessary relates to defining more clearly what is and can,
realistically, be expected from public involvement in the
AMDAL process in the sociopolitical context of today,
and consistent with resources that can be made available.
Part of the changes will have to relate to the evolving
AMDAL process itself, especially improvements that are
required and being developed at this time.
If public involvement in AMDAL is to be successful,
concerted effort must be made to improve all
stakeholders’ ability to participate and contribute in the
process. The Government must develop and implement a
systematic program to develop capacity among
stakeholders, and prepare the institutional infrastructure
to channel information and dialog with the public. Even
if existing participatory mechanisms are utilized,
connections need to be made, formalized and recognized
by all parties. The Government cannot play a passive role,
but must actively pursue capacity building of
stakeholders. Should resources be limited, the
Government should prioritize its efforts and adjust the
requirements for public involvement in AMDAL
accordingly. Public involvement in AMDAL is an
enormous task, especially for an emerging democracy such
as Indonesia.

ATTACHMENT A
CASE-STUDY SUMMARIES
FINAL REPORT
STUDY ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND

Attachment A 1
ATTACHMENT A
CASE-STUDY DESCRIPTION
CASE-STUDY 1
Development of Fly Ash Landfill for PT Indo-Bharat Rayon
PT Indo-Bharat Rayon produces synthetic fiber for the textile industry. To meet higher demand,
PT Indo-Bhara Rayon intends to increase its production, which requires additional energy. The
company will build a coal-fired steam electricity generation plant. The plant will have a capacity
of 2 X 10,8 MW, and is expected to generate solid waste in the form of fly ash and bottom ash,
categorized as toxic and hazardous waste. For disposal of the waste, PT Indo-Bharat Rayon plans
to construct a landfill, with a capacity to accommodate + 200,000 m
3
of solid waste. The area
needed is + 4 hectares. The landfill will be located in the Village of Cilangkap, Kecamatan
Babakan Cikao, Kabupaten Purwakarta, Province of West Java. The AMDAL study has been
approved by the Central AMDAL Commission in 2004.
CASE-STUDY 2
Construction of Gonggang Dam – Government of Magetan Kabupaten, Province of East Java
The Development Planning Agency of Kabupaten Magetan (BAPEKAB) plans to construct a
dam to dam the Gonggang River. The dam will provide irrigation for 2,500 hectares of
agricultural land, clean water for 40,000 residents of Kecamatan Poncol, and support water and
land conservation. Indirect benefits include fisheries, animal husbandry, and recreation. The dam
construction will be located in three villages: Genilangit, Janggan and Gonggang, in Kecamatan
Poncol. A total of 25 hectares of land will have to be acquired. The volume of the water is
expected to be 1,975,000 m
3,
, and 11,1 hectares will be inundated. The AMDAL Study was
approved by the Provincial AMDAL Commission (East Java) in 2003.
CASE-STUDY 3
Construction of Office and Commercial Building Metro Trade Centre (MTC), City of
Bandung- PT. Margahayu Raya
PT. Margahayu Raya plans to develop a commercial center in the eastern side of Bandung City.
The center will consist of home-office and home-shop units, covering 3 floors and 1 basement.
The center will be located at Jalan Soekarno Hatta Km 10,76, covering 73,578 m
2
(4% of land
area will be developed). The AMDAL Study was approved by the AMDAL Commission of the
City of Bandung in 2003.
CASE-STUDY 4
Development of Recreation and Housing Complex in Punclut, City of Bandung - PT. Dam
Utamasakti Prima
The North Bandung area has a area of 38,548.33 hectares, covering the administrative regions of
Kabupaten Bandung, City of Bandung and City of Cimahi. Punclut is located in the City of
Bandung, covering an area of 268 hectares. PT. Dam Utamasakti Prima intends to construct an
integrated recreation and housing complex in an area of 80 hectares in Punclut.

Attachment A 2
The current plan is a revision from a previous plan that had an AMDAL study conducted in
1995. The previous plan entailed development of 140 hetares of land in the Kelurahan
Ciumbuleuit, Kecamatan Cidadap dan Kelurahan Dago, Kecamatan Coblong, City of Bandung.
The current plan (2004) involves 80 hectares, located in Kelurahan Ciumbuleuit, Kecamatan
Cidadap.
The development will comprise of a conservation area, management office, restaurant and food
court, cinema and open performance area, resort hotel, club house and driving range, sport
centre, home-shop and mini market, kindergarten and playgroup, camping grounds, housing
(large villa, medium villas, and townhouses), main roads and neighborhood roads. Housing will
cover 26.46 hectares. The project has attracted a lot of interest among citizens of Bandung, taking
the controversy in the media. The Observer Community is opposed to development, considering
North Bandung is designated as a conservation area. However, the Affected Community
immediately around the proposed location is supportive of the development, primarily due to
plans for road construction.
CASE-STUDY 5
Increase Capacity of Coal Production - PT. Kaltim Prima Coal Mine, Kabupaten Kutai
Timur, Province of East Kalimantan
PT. Kaltim Prima Coal (KPC) is a coal mining company that has been in operation in East
Kalimantan. Since 1990, PT KPC started to coal mining in the Sangatta area with open cut pit,
and initial planned production capacity of 6 million tons per year. In 1999, PT KPC planned an
increase in production at Bengalon up to 7.5 million tons per year. Until the end of 2003, an
increase of 16.7 tons has been realized, all from the Sangatta mine. The Bengalon mine had not
been in operation at that time.
The Sangatta Mine expansion will involve increase in width, and depth, merging of existing pits,
and opening of new pits in the western side of the existing mine. The operation of the Bengalon
Mine will include 3 new pits, Pit A in East Bengalon, and Pit B and C in West Bengalon. This
expansion will be located in Kecamatan Sangatta, Kabupaten Kutai Timur, Province of East
Kalimantan. The AMDAL study has been approved in 2004 by the AMDAL Commission of the
Kabupaten Kutai Timur.
CASE-STUDY 6
Construction of Double-Track Railway between Kutoarjo and Yogyakarta - Directorate
General Land Transportation, Department of Communications, Government of Indonesia
The trans Kutoarjo-Yogyakarta segment is located between two major hubs of Jakarta and
Surabaya. The objective of constructing the Double-Track is to (1) increase use of railway, which
is a shorter duration than road transport, (2) reduce the occurrence of late train arrival, (3) reduce
accident risk, (4) minimize operating cost, (5) improve passenger safety and comfort.
The double-track railway will mainly be built on government land (PT Kereta Api Indonesia)
along 65 Km passing through areas in the Kabupaten Sleman, Bantul dan Kulon Progo in the
Province of DI Yogyakarta, and the area of Kabupaten Purworejo in the Province of Central Java.
The AMDAL Study for this project has been approved by the Central AMDAL Commission in
the Ministry of Environment in 2004.

Attachment A 3
CASE-STUDY 7
Construction of the Jakarta Outer Ring Road/JORR, Segments W1, E2, E3 and Tanjung
Priok Access - PT. Jasa Marga
The Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR) was planned since mid-1990s to develop the outskirts of
DKI Jakarta to serve as the Central Business District (CBD) or commercial areas for DKI Jakarta.
JORR is the main toll-road located at a radius 10 - 13 Km from the center of Jakarta city. JORR
consists of 7 sections : (1) Section W1 (Penjaringan-Kebon Jeruk), (2) Section W2 (Kebon Jeruk-
Pondok Pinang), (3) Section S (Pondok Pinang-Jagorawi), (4) Section E1 (Jagorawi-Cikunir), (5)
Section E2 (Cikunir-Cakung), (6) Section E3 (Cakung-Cilincing), (7) Section N (Cilincing-Yos
Sudarso) which is modified to the Tanjung Priok Access Road (TgPA).
Sections of JORR that has been constructed are : (1) Kebon Jeruk-Penjaringan, (2) Kebon Jeruk-
Pondok Pinang, (3) Pondok Pinang-Jagorawi-Cikunir and (4) Tanjung Priok-Cilincing-Cakung-
Cikunir. The JORR sections W1, E2, E3 and N already has a valid AMDAL approved by the
Minister of Public Works. However, since there was no construction 3 years after the AMDAL
document was approved, a new AMDAL study was required for the sections W1, E2, E3 and
Tanjung Priok Access. The new AMDAL Study was approved in 2004 by the Central AMDAL
Commission in the Ministry of Environment.
CASE-STUDY 8
Development of the Banyu Urip Oilfield – ExxonMobil Oil Indonesia, Kabupaten Tuban &
Kabupaten Bojonegoro, Province of East Java
BP Migas and Mobil Cepu Ltd (MCL, subsidiary of ExxonMobil Oil Indonesia) plans to develop
the Banyu Urip oilfield. When fully operating, the field is expected to produce 165,000 barrels of
oil per day. The facilities to be constructed will be divided into three areas: production and
support facility, onshore pipeline, and offshore facilities.
During full operations, crude oil will be transferred from the wellheads to the Central Processing
Facility (CPF) which will produce the oil. The oil will then be piped through underground
pipeline to coastal facilities in the Tuban area. From there, the oil will be piped through
underwater pipeline to the offshore ship (FSO) where the oil is stored and loaded onto tankers.
In the Kabupaten Bojonegoro area, production and support facilities will be built, consisting of 6
wellheads, the CPF, airstrip, employee housing, warehouse, workshops, and power generator.
Onshore pipeline will be build from Kabupaten Bojonegoro to Kabupaten Tuban. In the offshore
area of Kabupaten Tuban, offshore facilities constructed will include pipeline maintenance
equipment, the FSO, and boat mooring system. The AMDAL Study was approved in 2003 by
the Central AMDAL Commission in the Ministry of Environment.
CASE-STUDY 9
Development of Sadewa Field - Unocal Indonesia Company, Kabupaten Kutai Kartanegara,
Province of East Kalimantan
BP Migas and Unocal Indonesia Company plans to develop an offshore oilfield. The Sadewa
Field will be located in the Makassar Straits, 50 Km offshore from Muara Badak shoreline in the
Kabupaten Kutai Kartanegara. Development will involve 2 stages: a) installation of a main

Attachment A 4
offshore platform (Zulu) and an additional platform (Yankee), and oil and gas pipelines to
wellhead platforms; b) installation of wellhead platforms at 550 meter depths, and oil and gas
pipelines to the Zulu platform. The Sadewa Field is expected to produce natural gas (3000 mm
SCFD), oil/ condensate (20,000 BOPD) and produced water (20,000 BWPD).
The AMDAL Study in still in process. Public consultations for the AMDAL Study were held in
December, 2004. As of May 2005, the KA-ANDAL document was still under preparation by
UNOCAL’s consultants.
CASE-STUDY 10
Development of Housing Complex – PT. Karya Cantika Kusuma, Village of Bojongnangka,
Kecamatan Gunung Putri, Kabupaten Bogor, Province of West Java.
A housing complex will be built on land that has been purchased by the proponent since 1994.
The housing complex will cover an area of 150 Hectares, and is adjacent to existing residential
areas. Support infrastructure to be built include roads, drainage, facilities for solid waste
management and liquid waste handling.
The AMDAL Study was approved by the Kabupaten Bogor AMDAL Commission in 2003.

ATTACHMENT B
LIST OF CASE-STUDY RESOURCE PERSONS
FINAL REPORT

Attachment B 1
ATTACHMENT B
LIST OF CASE-STUDY RESOURCE PERSONS
PROJECT NAME PROPONENT
AMDAL
COMMISSION/
RESPONSIBLE
ENVIRONMENT
AGENCY
AFFECTED
COMMUNITY
INTERESTED
COMMUNITY
H.Gozali
Head of BPD
Cilangkap
Jl.Industri KM 9
Desa Cilangkap
Kabupaten
Purwakarta
1 Indo-Bharat
Rayon, Hazardous
Waste Landfill
Kabupaten
Purwakarta
Propinsi Jawa
Barat
Lely Retna, ST (Staff
General Affairs, PT
Indobharat Rayon)
PO BOX No. 9
Desa Cilangkap
Purwakarta – 41101
Jawa Barat
Tlp (0264) 202041
ibrfct@indosat.net.id
Dra.Nenden Naeni
Kurniati
(Head of AMDAL
Unit)
Dinas Lingkungan
Hidup & Tata
Ruang Kabupaten
Purwakarta.
Jl. Purnawarman
Timur
Tlp (0264) 212738
Iyam Imbar, SE
Head of Village
Cilangkap
Jl.Industri KM
10
Desa Cilangkap
Kabupaten
Purwakarta
Nurul Cholis
(Head of Sebukit
NGO)
Purwakarta
Tlp. 0812-
8915349
Puryadi
(Staff Ekbang
Kecamatan
Poncol)
Desa Gonggang
Tlp 0888 340
1871
HP
08563510151
Suyatno (village
official and
informal leader)
Desa Genilangit
Sukarjoyo (Head
of Village
Gonggang)
Dusun Kopen
Desa Gonggang
2 Gonggang Dam
Kecamatan Poncol
Kabupaten
Magetan
Propinsi Jawa
Timur
Ir.Eko Rusmartanto
(AMDAL Study Project
Leader)
Previously Head of
Physical and Regional
Infrastructure Section,
Bappeda Magetan
Jl. Basuki Rahmat Timur
No.1 Magetan
Tlp/Fax (0351) 895041
Dyah Larasayu
(Staff Bintek
AMDAL)
Bapedal Propinsi
Jawa Timur
Jl.Wisata
Menanggal 38
Surabaya – Jawa
Timur
Tlp (031) 8543852
Fax (031) 8543851
Misran (village
official)
Desa Janggan
3 Pembangunan
Kawasan Wisata &
Hunian Terpadu
Ir.Gunawan MT
(AMDAL consultant)
Ir.Eva Yoshida,
M.Si
(Kasubid AMDAL)
Deden Sepriadi
(community
representative
Dadang (NGO
activist)
WALHI Jawa

Attachment B 2
who attended
AMDAL
Commission
meeting)
Jl.Rereongan
Sarupi 130
PUNCLUT
Kota Bandung
Propinsi Jawa
Barat
Jl.Permai 17 No.15
Komplek Margahayu
Permai – Kota Bandung
BPLH Kota
Bandung
Jl. Sadang Tengah
Deden
Suparman
(community
representative
who attended
AMDAL
Commission
meeting)
Ketua LSM – FA
Kalbu
Jl. Bukit Raya 18
Bandung
Barat
Jl. Purwakarta
Sulistio (resident
of RW 03 &
attended
consultations)
Komplek
Margahayu Raya
Blok H2 No 61
Bandung
4 Metro Trade
Centre
(office & shopping
development)
Jl. Soekarno Hatta
Kelurahan Sekejati
- Bandung
Ir.Yuyun Mulyani
(AMDAL consultant)
Jl.Muararajeun No.7
Bandung
Ir.Eva Yoshida,
M.Si
(Kasubid AMDAL)
BPLH Kota
Bandung
Jl. Sadang Tengah
H.Ahmad
Duyeh
(community
representative
who attended
AMDAL
Commission
meeting)
(Head of LPM
Kelurahan
Sekejati)
Jl.Meteor Timur
II No.31
Sugiyanto
(attended FGD)
(Head of Village)
Desa Sentolo
Kecamatan
Sentolo
Yogyakarta
5 Double-Track
Railway
Kutoarjo -
Yogyakarta
Ir.Iwan Pujoriyadi
(AMDAL consultant)
PUSTRAL UGM
Komplek UGM No. E 9
Yogyakarta
Tlp (0274) 556928
HP 08122653878
Ir.Pieter Lawdayuh
(Kasie PDL)
Jl. Timoho No.1
Yogyakarta
Komplek Walikota
Tlp (0274) 515865
HP 0816676573
Mustofa (activist
NGO:
Suparlan
(Walhi/Jaringan
Transportasi)
Jl.Hayam Wuruk
No 110
Lempuyangan
Tlp (0274)
548499
HP
08179410865

Attachment B 3
YABIMA)
Jl.Khudori
No.14
Wates Kulon
Progo
Tlp (0274)
778309/773337
6 Increase in
Production
Capacity,
Kaltim Prima Coal
Mine, Sangatta –
Kutai Timur
Propinsi
Kalimantan Timur
Prof.Marlon Aipassa
(AMDAL consultant)
Jl. Ki Hajar Dewantara
No.7 Samarinda
Hp 08125503612
Suryansyah, S.Hut,
M.Agr
(Kabid AMDAL)
Dinas Lingkungan
Hidup
Kabupaten Kutai
Timur
HP 08125465985
Imamsyah
(Head of village)
Desa Muara
Bengalon
Kecamatan
Muara Bengalon
Kabupaten Kutai
Timur
HM.Bohari
(attended
AMDAL
Commission
meeting)
(activist NGO:
Wawasan)
Kecamatan
Sangatta
HP
081346350159
7 Jakarta Outer
RingRoad/JORR),
Segment
Penjaringan-
Kebon Jeruk
(W1), Cikunir-
Cakung (E2),
Cakung-Cilincing
(E3) and Tanjung
Priok Access
(TgPA)
Dwi Cahyo , SH
(AMDAL consultant)
Pacific Consultindo
International Indonesia
Jl. Warung Buncit Raya
No. 23 Pejaten
Telp: 79197060Faks:
7989603
Dr. Supardio M.Pd
(Head of BPLHD)
Kotamadya Jakarta
Utara
Kantor Walikota
Jakarta Utara,
Jl. Yos Sudarso No.
27-29 Tg. Priok –
Jakarta Utara
Telp/Fax :
4358794, HP
08158897655
Osmia Panjaitan
(Attended
AMDAL
Commission
meeting, and
consultation
meeting)
Kepala Seksi
Prasarana
Umum
Kecamatan
Cilincing,
Jakarta Utara
Dyah Susilowati
(Kasubdit
AMDAL)
Bapedalda Propinsi
Jawa Timur
Jl.Wisata
Menanggal 38
Surabaya – Jawa
Timur
Tlp (031) 8543852
Fax (031) 8543851
Soekoer
(attended
AMDAL
Commission
meeting)
(Secretary of
Village
Brabowan)
Kecamatan
Ngasem,
Bojonegoro
8 Development of
Banyu Urip
Oilfield – TAC
Contract Area
Cepu, Exxon
Mobil
East Java
Yuyun Surya (consultant)
FISIP-UNAIR
HP: 0811312635
yoeysurya@yahoo.com
Dyah Larasayu
(Staf Bintek
AMDAL)
Bapedalda Propinsi
Jawa Timur
Jl.Wisata
Menanggal 38
Heri Wahono
(attended
AMDAL
Commission
meeting)
(Village Head
Palang)
Kecamatan
Slamet Riyadi
LP3ES (Lemabga
Penelitian,
Pendidikan dan
Penerangan
Ekonomi dan
Sosial)
Jl. Letjen S.
Parman No. 81
Slipi, Jakarta
11420
Telp/Faks
56967127,
email:
Phl2@lp3es.or.id

Attachment B 4
Surabaya – Jawa
Timur
Tlp (031) 8543852
Fax (031) 8543851
Palang, Tuban
H. Samir (Muara
Badak Ulu
community
leader and
fishingboat
owner)
Herwan TR
(Head of
Fisheries and
Marine Office)
9 Sadewa Oilfield
Development,
Makassar Straits
Mirza Indianto and Sahat
Hutahean (ESS
Department)
UNOCAL Indonesia Co.
Pasir Ridge Complex
Balikpapan
East Kalimantan
Ir. Nazrin
(Kasubid AMDAL)
BAPEDALDA
Propinsi
Kalimantan Timur
Hasyim
(extension
worker for
marine/ fishing
activities)
Anonymous
(NGO activist)
Muara Badak
10 Karya Cantika
Kusuma Housing
Estate, Bogor
Yudi and Liantono
PPLH IPB (AMDAL
Consultant)
Institut Pertanian Bogor
(PPLH-IPB)
Kampus Darmaga
PO.Box 243 Bogor
Telp. (0251) 621262,
621085, 621087, 626936
Faks. (0251) 622134 E-
mail :pplh-
ipb@indo.net.id
Adi
Secretary Village
Kelurahan
Bojongnangka,
Kecamatan
Gunung Putri,
Kabupaten
Bogor, Provinsi
Jawa Barat.

ATTACHMENT C1
PREPATORY STEPS AND PRECONDITIONS FOR
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN AMDAL
FINAL REPORT

Attachment C1 1
ATTACHMENT C1
PREPARATORY STEPS AND PRECONDITIONS FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN AMDAL
ACTIONS FOR PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT IN AMDAL
PREPARATORY STEPS PRECONDITION to ensure
EFFECTIVENESS *
Announcement in national and local print
media
Selection of information to be announced
Design & layout for announcement
Selection of appropriate print media
Print media is widely read by affected communities
Notice board at project site Selection of information to be included
Design of notice board
Production & placement
Posters/ pamphlets at strategic areas near
project site
Selection of information & language
Design & layout of posters
Production & placement
Identification of strategic areas frequented by affected
communities
Notice on website of proponent and
environment agency
Selection of information
Design & layout of website
Posting
Displays in local government offices Selection of information
Design & layout of displays
Production of display panels
Radio announcements Selection of information & language
Selection of appropriate radio stations
Recording
Consultation with community leaders (formal
and informal)
Identification of affected communities
Identification of community leaders
Preparation of project information
Preparation of support materials
Preparation of questions to be raised (information needed by
Proponent)
Community leaders knowledgeable of AMDAL process and
public involvement objectives & process
Community leaders regularly discuss with community
members regarding general concerns and aspirations
Consultation with community members Identification of affected communities
Identification / mapping of key stakeholders in affected
communities
Preparation of project information
Preparation of support materials
Preparation of questions to be raised (information needed by
Proponent)
Community knowledgeable of AMDAL process and public
involvement objectives & process
Community knowledgeable of public consultation objectives
and limitations

Attachment C1 2
In-depth interviews Development of interview guide/ questionnaires (linked to
potential impacts being evaluated in ANDAL study)
Determination of sample size and/or target groups
Presentation of summary of ANDAL study Preparation of summary of ANDAL study findings (significant
impacts, area of impacts, etc.)
Preparation of visual aides for presentation
Preparation of questions to be raised
Delivery of draft ANDAL document and
summary to community representatives
Preparation of summaries and copies of documents
Delivery to community representatives
Community representative participate in
ANDAL review
Community selects representatives to attend ANDAL review
Community representatives review documents
Community representatives discusses with community
members
Community representative prepares comments to be taken to
ANDAL review meeting
Arrange transport and accommodations
Community representatives knowledgeable of AMDAL
process
Community representatives understands function of
AMDAL Commission and its role in review meetings
Visit to Affected Communities by representative
of Responsible Env’t Agency
OR
Responsible Agency assigns official to visit
Official reviews ANDAL documents
Official visits affected communities or representatives to discuss
proposed project
Community understands nature and objective of visit by
Responsible Env’t Agency official
Community representative attend consultative
meeting at Environment Agency Office
Community selects representatives to attend ANDAL review
Community representatives review documents
Community representatives discusses with community
members
Community representative prepares comments to be taken to
ANDAL review meeting
Responsible Env’t Agency prepares special meeting for
community representatives
Record comments from community representatives
Community representatives knowledgeable of AMDAL
process and public involvement objectives & process
Community representatives regularly discuss with
community members regarding general concerns and
aspirations
Final review of all stakeholders’ position by
Responsible Env’t Agency
Responsible Env’t Agency reviews comments from Affected
Community, recommendation from AMDAL Commission,
comments from Observer Groups and other sources
Responsible Env’t Agency prepares letter of decision and
documentation of how comments from stakeholders have been
considered
* In the absence of items listed under “Preconditions to ensure Effectiveness”, it is advised to select an alternative approach, or to conduct additional
preparations to ensure preconditions are met.

ATTACHMENT C2
SAMPLE OF PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
IN AMDAL DEVELOPED BY UNOCAL
INDONESIA
FINAL REPORT

Attachment C2 1
ATTACHMENT C2
SAMPLE of PROCESS for PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT in AMDAL
DEVELOPED by UNOCAL INDONESIA
Prepare Draft of Public
Announcement and discuss with
BPMIGAS. KLH and BAPEDALDA
Announce the Activity Plan
through national and local news
papers
Send notification letter to
BPMIGAS, KLH and BAPEDALDA
regarding public announcement
Contractor conduct Pre-survey
(should not be on behalf Unocal)
Coordination meeting with
BAPEDALDA of Regency/City and
Province to prepare Workshop
Workshop
Public Consultation
Writes Team of Reference (TOR)
Submit TOR to Unocal for review
and inputs
Submit TOR to BPMIGAS for
review, presentation and inputs
Submit TOR to BAPEDALDA for
review, presentation and inputs
Submit TOR to KLH for review,
presentation, inputs and approval
Waiting for TOR approval
Carry out Field Survey study,
sampling and analysis refer to
approved TOR
Writes ANDAL, RKL and RPL
Submit ANDAL, RKL and RPL to
BPMIGAS for review, presentation
and inputs
BAPEDALDA for review,
presentation and inputs
KLH for review, presentation and
obtaining inputs and
recommendations
Waiting for Approval
Notes :
AMDAL :
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Analisa Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan /
Envrironmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
KA : Kerangka Acuan / Term of Reference (TOR)
ANDAL : Analisa Dampak Lingkungan / Environmental
Impact Analysis (EIA)
RKL : Rencana Pengelolaan Lingkungan /
Environmental Management Plan (EMP)
RPL : Rencana Pemantauan Lingkungan /
Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP)
Flowchart of Current Practice of Environmental
Impact Assessment Process

ATTACHMENT D
MINUTE OF MEETING AND PARTICIPANT LIST
FROM “DISCUSSION ON PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
IN AMDAL
WORKSHOP, 20 JULI 2005
FINAL REPORT

Attachment D 1
ATTACHMENT D
MINUTES of MEETING and PARTICIPANT LIST from
“Discussion on Public Involvement in AMDAL”
Workshop, 20 July 2005
Acara : Diskusi Keterlibatan Masyarakat dalam Amdal
Tempat : Grandkemang Hotel, Jakarta
Tanggal / Waktu : 20 Juli 2005 / 09.00 – 17.00
Peserta : Terlampir
TUJUAN ACARA
Tujuan diskusi adalah untuk memaparkan hasil studi “Keterlibatan Masyarakat dan Keterbukaan Informasi
dalam AMDAL”, dan mengangkat dalam pembahasan intensif beberapa pertanyaan penting yang muncul
dalam studi. Hasil diskusi digunakan sebagai tambahan pertimbangan dalam melakukan finalisasi laporan
studi.
SUSUNAN ACARA
Acara dimulai dengan presentasi hasil studi
“Keterlibatan Masyarakat dan Keterbukaan
Informasi dalam AMDAL” sebagai pengantar
diskusi.
Moderator menjelaskan proses diskusi, yang dibagi
menjadi 3 topik. Masing-masing topik dibahas
selama kurang lebih 1.5 jam. Diskusi menggunakan
metoda metaplan untuk menampung opini peserta
diskusi dan mengangkat dialog tentang alasan
pemilihan jawaban masing-masing peserta diskusi.
Diskusi Topik 1: Apa yang diharapkan dari keterlibatan masyarakat dalam Amdal?
Pilihan jawaban:
A. Mendapat masukan dari masyarakat berkepentingan untuk lingkup studi dan
identifikasi dampak penting.
B. Menyelesaikan/mencapai kesepakatan berbagai hal yang menjadi masalah,
seperti pembebasan lahan, pembayaran ganti rugi, pembuatan fasilitas umum.
C. Menyebarkan informasi tentang proyek ke masyarakat berkepentingan
D. Memperoleh dukungan/persetujuan masyarakat berkepentingan terhadap
proyek
E. Mendapat masukan dari masyarakat berkepentingan sebagai bahan
pertimbangan untuk pengambilan keputusan
F. Lainnya.
Pilihan peserta diskusi:
Pilihan Jumlah/Keterangan
A 18
B 04
C 02
D 03
E 12
F • Mendapatkan masukan dari masyarakat hal yang terkait proyek
• Meningkatkan kesejahteraan masyarakat
• Menampung dan mempertimbangkan kepentingan masyarakat
• Informasi lain dan penting yang belum diketahui
pemrakarsa/konsultan
• Membuat masyarakat mengerti Amdal dengan long term benefit

Attachment D 2
• Pemberian informasi saat pengumpulan data dalam tahap study
Andal
• Harapan dari kegiatan untuk memberi masukan perbaikan
lingkungan setempat dan/ peningkatan daerah.
1 Evaluasi dampak penting tidak bisa diperoleh dari masukan masyarakat. Sangat
mungkin dilakukan oleh masyarakat yang mempunyai latar belakang cukup tetapi
maksudnya untuk bahan pertimbangan.
Dadang
2 Masukan dari masyarakat digunakan untuk bahan pertimbangan dalam mengambil
keputusan
Isna
3 Biasanya untuk evaluasi dampak memakai 6-7 kriteria, tapi bisa ada yang terlewat
misalnya tidak besar tidak penting tapi mempunyai nilai-nilai tertentu dan sering
tidak tercover. Hal-hal tersebut yang dapat diperoleh dari konsultasi masyarakat.
Taufiq
4 Misal setelah proyek disetujui ternyata ada masalah dengan ganti rugi bisa
menghambat pembangunan yang telah berjalan. Ada salah komunikasi antara
pemerintah dengan masyarakat.
Dede
5 Saat ini persetujuan masyarakat menjadi penting, karena izin dari masyarakat
diperlukan untuk izin kegiatan. Saat ini izin ada 2 macam yang harus dipenuhi oleh
pemrakarsa; izin untuk beroperasi/memenuhi peraturan2 dan izin dari masyarakat.
Hermin
6 Pengalaman: pada saat sosialisasi, yang ingin diketahui masyarakat adalah masalah
pembebasan lahan.
Wiesje
7 Ada perbedaan pandangan antara tim dan pemrakarsa. Pengalaman: pada saat
konsultasi tidak langsung membicarakan kompensasi karena khawatir masyarakat
hanya memikirkan hal tersebut dan tidak memberi masukan. Pada saat penyusunan
Amdal atau UKL UPL, Unocal ingin memperoleh inspirasi dari masyarakat.
Sebelum tim teknis bekerja ada pertemuan lagi dengan masyarakat untuk
membicarakan ganti rugi. Pemrakarsa tidak mencari dukungan masyarakat tapi
hanya memetakan secara sosial, secara implisit memang memerlukan dukungan
masyarakat tetapi tidak secara terbuka.
Akhmad
8 Poin B walaupun saat ini menjadi isu, tapi tempatnya tidak di Amdal. Tetapi
menjadi kewajiban penyusun Amdal untuk menyinggung masalah tersebut dan
dapat membawa isu tersebut sehingga dapat diselesaikan oleh pemrakarsa. Konteks
“menyelesaikan” kurang tepat, mungkin memfasilitasi. Poin D, yang diharapkan
dalam konsultasi masyarakat tidak semata-mata mencari dukungan. Dalam
konsultasi masyarakat ada tahapan2. Ke depan bisa duduk bersama dengan
masyarakat untuk mengambil keputusan.
Tina
9 Ada peraturan sendiri bagaimana cara membebaskan lahan, pembangunan fasilitas
sosial dan umum Tidak bisa semua masuk ke Amdal, jadi tidak fokus. Sangat
mengkhawatirkan kalau dukungan masyarakat disebutkan secara eksplisit. Contoh
di Filipina, hal tersebut harus ada dulu baru kemudian Amdal. Poin D, memang
akan ke arah sana, tapi tidak langsung disebutkan dalam konsultasi masyarakat.
Dadang
10 Masalah persetujuan masyarakat masih baru di Indonesia, bagaimana
mendapatkannya?
Isna
Diskusi Topik 2: Siapa wakil masyarakat terkena dampak (MTD) yang sah?
Pilihan jawaban:
A. Tokoh formal (Kepala Desa, Lurah)
B. Tokoh informal (Kepala adat, pemuka agama, pimpinan kel tani, nelayan)
C. Warga masyarakat lainnya
D. Lainnya
A 12
B 16
C 13
D 02
Ket • Kalau ada masyarakat yang memiliki keahlian tertentu
• Tergantung sebaran dampaknya (menentukan komunitas yang
terkena dampak)

Attachment D 3
• Wakil MTD di komisi Amdal: benar MTD dan yang mengerti
masalah
• Tergantung isu dan dampak yang dibahas
1 Kenyataan di lapangan: satu pihak tidak mengizinkan tetapi pihak lain tetap jalan,
akhirnya ke atas dipolitisir atau ke bawah lewat jalur premanisme.
Taufiq
2 Contoh di Jepang: konsultasi masyarakat berlangsung sampai satu tahun,
pertemuan berlangsung tiap dua minggu.
Askary
3 Kekurangan saat ini, pada saat sosialisasi dari kecamatan sampai provinsi,
keterlibatan masyarakat sangat kecil.
Firkan
4 Pengalaman: pada saat survey masyarakat setuju dengan proyek pembangunan,
hanya kurang mendapat informasi. Masyarakat juga tidak mengetahui kemana
harus bila akan memberikan usulan.
Ricko
5 Amdal adalah alat bantu untuk mengambil keputusan, jadi Amdal bersifat sebagai
rekomendasi
Askary
6 Pengambil keputusan satu orang, tetapi masukan dari pihak lain sangat penting.
Dalam Amdal aspek sosial dibahas sangat dangkal.
Hermin
7 Apakah presentasi di daerah bisa untuk persetujuan atau hanyamasukan? Karena
keputusan ada di pusat>
Akhmad
8 Pemrakarsa harus menghubungi tiap bagian yang punya otoritas. Kewenangan ada
di provinsi, kota dan daerah berperan di komisi.
Dadang
9 Di negara lain untuk kriteria ditentukan oleh komisi Askary
10 Masyarakat memerlukan informasi apa yang akan dibangun, untuk berperan serta
dan mengambil keputusan.
Usul:
• Sudah ada peraturan lokal yang mengatur partisipasi masyarakat dalam
AMDAL, yakni KepGub No.76
• Pemda DKI menitipkan kepada BPLHD wilayah untuk mensosialisasikan
KepGub tersebut di tingkat kecamatan hingga dewan kelurahan, agar lebih
mengerti AMDAL
• Selama proses penyusunan Amdal kalau ada masyarakat yang ingin membahas
hal tersebut, tim proponen tidak boleh menolak.
• Pada saat dilakukan sosialisasi kepada masyarakat berkepentingan, apapun
yang dibicarakan harus dilampirkan dalam dokumen KA dan menjadi
masukan untuk proses scoping dan focusing
• Dalam pembahasan dokumen, masyarakat yang berkepentingan didahulukan
terutama yang berkaitan dengan gangguan bagi lingkungan warga.
• Hard copy RKL RPL yang sudah disetujui juga disimpan di kelurahan
sehingga jika ada yang tidak sesuai masyarakat bisa melaporkan impementasi
penyimpangan implementasi RKL/RPL ke BPLHD.
Rudy T.
11 Perlu diuraikan dampak proyek terhadap masyarakat itu maksudnya apa? Tidak
cukup jika dampak proyek dianalisis hanya terhadap masyarakat yang tinggal di
sekitar tapak proyek saja
Rudy Y.
12 Status formal dan informal dimasyarakat sangat tipis. Misalnya karena kaya
seseorang bisa menjadi kepala desa. Sehingga satu orang bisa menyandang beberapa
status sosial sekaligus.
Firkan
13 • Kepala desa dan lurah seringkali lebih dekat dengan konsultan dan pemrakarsa,
sehingga rekayasa banyak terjadi. Akhirnya seringkali langsung mengunjungi
mayarakat yang terkena dampak. Misal: pembangunan jalan berdampak pada
masyarakat yang tinggal di sepanjang pembangunan jalan tersebut. Untuk
kasus ini, untuk konsultasi lebih baik menyertakan A,B, dan C
• Dalam hal keterlibatan dalam komisi, setuju hanya mengundang A dan B saja,
karena untuk proyek jalan, lebih berdampak kepada daerah-daerah inter-urban
Widayani
14 Untuk mencari informasi sebanyak-banyaknya, sebaiknya A,B, dan C dijaring
dalam konsultasi publik. Masalahnya, proses konsultasi publik seringkali noise-nya
besar. Masing-masing kelompok memiliki biasnya sendiri-sendiri. Tidak bisa
dikatakan bahwa informasi dari satu kelompok lebih baik daripada kelompok
lainnya. Konsultan dan pemrakarsa yang harus pandai-pandai menjaring informasi
yang relevan dengan rencana kegiatan dan AMDAL.
Taufiq
15 • Sifatnya sangat situasional. Terkadang mengundang tokoh formal seperti lurah Askary

Attachment D 4
bisa sangat tepat, karena mewakili masyarakat. Akan tetapi kadang kepala desa
ada juga yang tidak mewakili masyarakat dan lebih “berbaju” pemrakarsa
• Sulit untuk digeneralisasi karena banyaknya variabel yang mesti
dipertimbangkan. Di Jawa, kepala desa/lurah dianggap bisa mewakili karena
masyarakat pada umumnya mau “mengikut” pimpinannya. Di daerah lain bisa
lain lagi kondisinya.
16 • Sebaiknya semua isu yang dijaring difokuskan pada relevansinya terhadap
AMDAL. Hal terpenting adalah mesti melihat sejauh mana sebaran dampak
yang ditimbulkan dari kegiatan tersebut.
• Komponen masyarakat yang dilibatkan bisa saja semua (A,B,C) bergantung
pada sebaran dampaknya.
• Perlu memperhatikan pranata sosial di daerah tersebut dan sistem pengambilan
keputusan di daerah tersebut. Banyak konsultan AMDAL yang tidak peka
terhadap hal tersebut
• Sulit untuk mendefinisikan keterwakilan masyarakat
Tina
17 OK setuju dengan dilakukannya survey masyarakat. Tapi jika KA mesti dibuat
dalam 1 bulan, akan sulit melakukan survey/studi tsb
Isna
18 Sangat bergantung kepada jam terbang konsultan. Perbah ditemui konsultan yang
memiliki jam terbang tinggi, waktu 1 bulan ternyata cukup untuk melakukan studi
dan hasilnya baik
Tina
19 • Sebelum konsultasi perlu mengenal masyarakatnya
• Harus dipilih mana yang dipercaya untuk menyalurkan aspirasi
• Selain tokoh formal, ada wakil-wakil alami yang muncul?
Isna
20 Pengalaman: kalau BPLHD yang menentukan, masyarakat yang datang sudah
ditentukan.
Taufiq
21 • Jika memang sempat, memang lebih baik dilakukan pra-survey. Dalam
prosesnya pengalaman Unocal, pemrakarsa lebih bersifat “lepas baju” saat
dilakukan survey tersebut, sehingga tidak ada istilah “pemrakarsa”, dll. Survey
tersebut memang bergantung pada sebaran dampaknya dan hasil pemetaan
kelompok mana yang terkena dampak. Misal: kelompok nelayan terkena
dampak akibat kegiatan Unocal di lepas pantai
• Pada saat sosialisasi, dilakukan pemetaan kelompok terkena dampak. Hasilnya
kemudian didiskusikan dengan LH
• Semua pihak (A,B,C) mesti selektif dipilih, terutama B dan C. Untuk A
sebaiknya memang harus selalu ikut
• Pertanyaannya, bagaimana dengan kondisi yang sifatnya lintas
kabupaten/wilayah administrasi?Misal adanya nelayan dari Jawa Timur atau
dari kabupaten lain di kaltim yang turut beraktivitas di pantai tersebut, meski
dengan frekuensi dan intensitas rendah, apa mesti dilibatkan juga? Apakah ada
pengalaman dalam seleksi masyarakat terkena dampak yang telah melewati
batas 12 mil (propinsi) dan 4 mil (kabupaten/kota)?
Akhmad
17 Di sidang komisi, MTD wajib hadir, kepala desa yang diminta menentukan MTD.
Misalnya di Irja kepala gereja dihadirkan sebagai tokoh masyarakat.
Askary
18 • Ada contoh kasus proyek di lepas pantai Tuban yang ternyata mempengaruhi
fishing ground-nya para nelayan dari Lamongan, sehingga mereka pun diakui
sebagai bagian dari MTD
• Tidak berarti mengabaikan pihak-pihak yang terkena dampak tidak langsung,
tapi mesti dilihat sejauh mana sebaran dampaknya dan tingkat kemampuan
pemrakarsa. Meski memang pada umumnya masih diutamakan pihak-pihak
yang terkena dampak langsung.
Tina
19 Apakah KLH mengevaluasi apakah MTDnya sudah sesuai? Isna
20 Ada kasus-kasus yang diselesaikan di luar Amdal (di luar komisi) Tina
21 MTD perlu kriteria tersendiri Esther
22 Pra survey berapa lama? Tokoh vokal belum tentu tokoh masyarakat yang
bersangkutan. Keputusan menjadi bias.
Lis
23 Pra survey biasanya dilakukan oleh konsultan selama kira-kira 1 minggu sudah
mencukupi. Aktivitas yang dilakukan berupa screening di wilayah tapak kegiatan,
identifikasi stakeholder dan informal leader yang ada di lokasi. Mereka yang
teridentifikasi ini kemudian dilibatkan dalam konsultasi publik
Akhmad

Attachment D 5
24 • Secara resmi belum pernah melakukan pra survey. Untuk menentukan
masyarakatnya dilakukan tanya jawab. Dari metodologi banyak cara, misalnya
snowballing method. Tujuan konsultasi untuk mengetahui apakah akan ada
persoalan di masyarakat atau tidak.
• Komisi tidak mempunyai mekanisme untuk memperbaiki sistem. Bisa terjadi
masyarakat pada saat konsultasi tidak setuju (gebrak meja menentang) tapi saat
sidang KA setuju (gebrak meja setuju).
• Tidak ada kewajiban untuk mengumpulkan masyarakat tetapi hal itu cara
yang cepat untuk mendapat informasi.
Taufiq
24 • Konsultasi publik dilakukan hanya sekadar untuk ikut aturan?
• Konsultasi publik yang baik perlu modal besar dan hanya bisa dilakukan oleh
perusahaan besar?
Rudy Y.
25 • Penting untuk mengenali dan mengundang seluruh stakeholder dalam acara
sosialisasi
• Akibatnya kadang masyarakat yang diundang berlebihan. Namun hal ini lebih
baik daripada pada saat sidang komisi menjadi masalah karena dianggap
kurang mengundang masyarakat.
• Konsultan masyarakat kadang dilakukan untuk sekadar mengikuti aturan.
Namun untuk kasus Unocal, hal tersebut sangat perlu untuk dilakukan untuk
menghindari potensi masalah dan konflik di kemudian hari
• Konsultasi masyarakat perlu modal besar mungkin dapat dibenarkan.
Terutama untuk perusahaan PMA yang tidak hanya harus comply dengan
peraturan-peraturan lokal, tapi juga internasional
Akhmad
26 Menurut pengalaman, adanya disparitas harga yang cukup mencolok antara biaya
penyusunan AMDAL yang dilakukan oleh oil company dengan Pertamina.
Seringkali biaya yang dikeluarkan oleh Oil company jauh lebih besar
Wiesje
27 • Sebelum dikeluarkannya Kepka No.8, salah satu weak point dalam sistem
AMDAL di Indonesia adalah konsultasi publik
• Apa perlu mengumpulkan masyarakat? Contoh di Jepang terdapat koran
khusus yang berisi pengumuman termasuk Amdal, yang direspon aktif oleh
masyarakat. Malah masyarakat sendiri yang menghendaki adanya pertemuan
secara rutin tiap 2 minggu sekali
• Konsultasi publik penting untuk menjadi wahana pemberian masukan/input
bagi pemda lokal
Askary
Diskusi Topik 3: Apakah patut ada pembedaan kewajiban keterlibatan masyarakat dalam AMDAL
berdasarkan karakteristik proyek/ lokasi?
Jika ya, kriteria apa yang dipakai untuk membedakan?
Pilihan jawaban:
Ya/ Tidak
Jika ya, kriteria yang dipakai untuk membedakan:
A. Luas wilayah proyek
B. Kompleksitas proyek
C. Jenis kegiatan baru di wilayah tersebut
D. Sensitifitas penduduk setempat
E. Pemindahan penduduk
F. Proyek kepentingan umum atau bukan
G. Lainnya
Ya 10
A 04
B 07
C 03
D 09
E 02
F 01
Tidak 07
Ket • Pembedaan kriteria: batas administrasi, sosial, ekologi, proyek

Attachment D 6
• Pembedaan kompleksitas proyek: tergantung limbah yang akan
dihasilkan, B3 atau non B3
• Kegiatan yang sama, kriterianya sama dan sebaliknya.
• Sidang KA Andal akan menentukan perlu tidaknya wakil MTD
dalam rapat komisi.
• Tidak perlu dibedakan untuk lokasi seperti Bali kecuali untuk
daerah sensitif.
• Tidak perlu dibedakan karena umumnya kepentingan
masyarakat sama, tidak tergantung pada skala proyek.
• Tidak perlu dibedakan, dengan sendirinya karakteristik
proyek/lokasi akan menentukan.
1 Kegiatan yang tidak perlu konsultasi publik maka tidak perlu Amdal, mungkin
hanya UKL UPL. Apakah kegiatan diantara UKL UPL dan Amdal (grey area)
memerlukan konsultasi publik?
Taufiq
2 Prinsipnya kepentingan masyarakat sama, sehingga tidak perlu ada pembedaan
dalam hal kewajiban pelaksanaan konsultasi publik
Sorta
3 • Tidak perlu ada perbedaan tetapi perlu ada rambu-rambunya.
• Sebaiknya pemrakarsan menjajaki dulu lokasi proyek sebelum konsultan
masuk, sehingga lebih tahu bagaimana kebiasaan-kebiasaan penduduk, dll.
• Untuk PU, dirasa perlu untuk mengenali pola pelaksanaan proyek di daerah
Wida
4 Mencermati pertanyaannya, hak masyarakat adalah sama untuk terlibat dan
mendapatkan informasi, sehingga saya jawab TIDAK boleh ada pembedaan
kewajiban
Askary
5 Pada saat rapat pembahasan KA Andal masyarakat tidak perlu ikut, jadi pada saat
itu dibahas apakah perlu ada konsultasi masyarakat. Misal kegiatan di Aceh, jika
dilakukan konsultasi publik, bisa jadi yang hadir adalah orang yang macem2)
RY
6 Amdal dilakukan pada situasi normal, bukan pada saat perang atau bencana. Untuk
yang pada kondisi perang/bencana mungkin tidak perlu konsultasi
Askary
7 Yang membedakan mungkin teknis pelaksanaan. Jika dibedakan misalnya
berdasarkan kompleksitas proyek bisa jadi sulit menentukan kriterianya karena
sangat bergantung kepada variabel yang banyak sekali.
Esther
8 • Semenjak PP 51/1993 sebenarnya sudah ada kewajiban keterlibatan
masyarakat namun tidak diformalkan dalam Kepka tersendiri
• Sudah pasti akan ada pembedaan, tapi bukan pada kewajibannya, melainkan
lebih kepada sejauh mana keterlibatan masyarakat pada kondisi spesifik proyek
tertentu
Tina
9 • Tidak perlu ada pembedaan kewajiban. Tapi memang akan ada perbedaan
terutama pada point D dan E. Misalnya dialami pada kegiatan proyek
Tangguh atau Inti Indo Rayon yang akan memerlukan tingkat keterlibatan
masyarakat yang lebih intensif.
• Pada kenyatannya, tidak mungkin semua proyek kita anggap sama
Esther
10 • Tidak perlu dibedakan kewajibannya, tapi perlu juga menentukan formula
atau minimum requirement untuk proyek-proyek dengan skala kegiatan
tertentu pada kondisi lingkungan tertentu sesuai dengan kriteria pada point-
point A,B,C,D, dan E tersebut.
• Akan lebih baik jika ada mekanisme yang jelas tentang siapa saja yang layak
duduk di komisi, sehingga dapat lebih obyektif, fair, dan tidak ada bias, dan
tidak akan keluar dari frame AMDAL.
• Memang sulit untuk menghindari perbedaan pendapat, malah terkadang antar
ahli sendiri selalu ada perbedaan opini.
Akhmad
8 • Kewajiban keterlibatan masyarakat harus ada.
• Mungkin intensitas keterlibatan masyarakat yang membedakan (misalnya
karena kompleksitas dan sensivitas penduduk).
Dede
9 Keterlibatan masyarakat jangan ditentukan dari awal tetapi diputuskan pada saat
sidang KA Andal (perlu tidaknya wakil masyarakat). Seringkali keterlibatan
masyarakat dalam sidang KA sangat tidak efektif karena membicarakan hal yang
Rudy Y.

Attachment D 7
tidak relevan. Atau bisa juga yang hadir dalam sidang KA tersebut tidak sesuai
dengan isu penting, tapi turut diundang hanya karena dekat (proximity) dengan
tapak proyek
10 Pada sidang KA tergantung pada pemrakarsa siapa masyarakat yang harus datang.
Mungkin ke depan, komisi perlu memeriksa masyarakatnya.
Tina
11 Pada sidang KA, masyarakat sering bertanya hal yang seharusnya ditanyakan pada
saat konsultasi masyarakat. Hal ini diperparah karena sidang sendiri tidak mampu
mengarahkan pertanyaan-pertanyaan wakil masyarakat
Taufiq
12 KLH dalam proses untuk perbaikan mekanisme Amdal. Nantinya mungkin
pemerintah yang akan melingkup.
Askary
Daftar Kehadiran Peserta Diskusi Keterlibatan Masyarakat dalam AMDAL
No. Nama Instansi Hadir Tidak Hadir
1 Nurmala Simanjuntak,
M.Eng.Sc
BLP Dit. Bintek Dep PU v
2 Widayani BLP Dit. Bintek Dep PU v
3 Agung BLP Dit. Bintek Dep PU v
4 Mirza Indianto Unocal Indonesia v
5 Akhmad Hidayat Unocal Indonesia v
6 Wiesje Astrid Rondonuwu Konsultan v
7 Moh. Hidayat Ruhz Perkumpulan Relawan Sumber Daya
Alam
v
8 Drs. Rudy P. Tambunan Pusat Penelitian Geografi Terapan v
9 Riza Deliansyah Astra International v
10 Slamet Riyadi LP3ES v
11 Toni Pacifik Consultindo Int Ind v
12 Dede Hendriyana Dinas Pengelolaan LH Kota Bekasi v
13 Kania Bagian LH Setda Kota Depok v
14 Wisandana BPLHD Jabar v
15 Taufiq Afiff PPLH ITB v
16 Nila Konsultan Amdal v
17 Hermien Roosita KLH v
18 M. Askary KLH v
19 Sortawati Siregar KLH v
20 Esther KLH v
21 Yenny LC KLH v
22 Dadang P KLH v
23 Tini Artini KLH v
24 Harni Sulistyowati KLH v
25 Angus Mackay Bank Dunia v
26 Farida Zaituni Bank Dunia v
27 Isna Marifa Qipra Galang Kualita v
28 Rudy Yuwono Qipra Galang Kualita v
29 Firkan Maulana Qipra Galang Kualita v
30 Endro Adinugroho Qipra Galang Kualita v
31 Eka Jatnika Qipra Galang Kualita v
32 Jan Ricko Qipra Galang Kualita v
33 Laksmi Wardhani Qipra Galang Kualita v

Attachment D 8

ATTACHMENT E
REFERENCES
FINAL REPORT

Attachment E 1
ATTACHMENT E
REFERENCES
Asian Development Bank, Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Home Affairs. Capacity Building for
Decentralization of the Environmental Impact Assessment Process, Volume I. Research Triangle Institute,
in association with PT. Intersys Kelola Maju. 2002.
Almer, Heather L., and Koontz, Tomas M. “Public Hearings for EIAs in Post-Communist Bulgaria: Do
They Work?”. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 2004.
BAPEDAL, Laporan Pelaksanaan: Lokakarya Keterlibatan Masyarakat dan Keterbukaan Informasi dalam
Proses AMDAL. In cooperation with Collaborative Environmental Project in Indonesia (CEPI), 1999.
Clark, John. “Overview of Civil Society in Indonesia”, unpublished document, DFID. 2003.
Departemen Pekerjaan Umum. Direktorat Jenderal Prasarana Wilayah, Direktorat Sistem Jaringan
Prasarana. Pedoman Perencanaan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup Bidang Jalan. 2002.
Departemen Pekerjaan Umum. Direktorat Jenderal Prasarana Wilayah, Direktorat Sistem Jaringan
Prasarana. Pedoman Pelaksanaan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup Bidang Jalan. 2003.
Hadi, Sudharto P. “Public Participation in Indonesian EIA”. UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual –
Case Studies from Developing Countries.
Ontario Public Affairs and Communication Branch. “Public Consultation”. April 1994.
Purnama, Dadang. Public Involvement in the Indonesian EIA Process: Process, Perceptions and
Alternatives, Chapter 9. Thesis submitted for doctorate degree, University of Adelaide, 2003.
Purnama, Dadang. “Reform of the EIA Process in Indonesia: Improving the Role of Public Invovlement”.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23 (2003) 415-439.
Qipra Galang Kualita. “Final Report: Improving Public Consultation and Disclosure for AMDAL (EIA)”.
A Joint Effort between The World Bank and Ministry of Environment in Indonesia, 2002.
Qipra Galang Kualita. Report on Kick-Off Workshop: “Discussion on AMDAL System Development in
West Java Province”. February 2005.
Sinclair, A. John and Diduck, Alan P. Public Involvement in EA in Canada: a Transformative Learning
Perspective”. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 2001.
Sekretariat Tim Pelaksana P2TPD. Program Prakarsa Pembaruan Tata Pemerintahan Daerah. Volume 1.
“Panduan Operasional Persiapan F-Kab dan Fasilitasi Awal”. Draft 17 Maret 2005.
South Africa. “A Basic Guide to the Public Participation of an EIA”.
United Nations Environmental Programme. “Training Resource Manual”
World Bank, EA Sourcebook. “Public Involvement in EA: Requirements, Opportunities and Issues”.
October 1993.
World Bank, Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup and PT. Qipra Galang Kualita. Konsultasi Masyarakat
dalam AMDAL: Sebuah Panduan untuk Pemrakarsa. 2003.

PublicParticipation

More Related Content

Similar to PublicParticipation (20)

More from Firkan Maulana (9)

PublicParticipation