IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Residential space transformation as the
EIA/Amdal in risk society: A study in developing legitimacy space A case study: Magersari
Ndalem Sasanamulya Baluwarti Sunanate
country Indonesia Palace of Surakarta
Avi Marlina

- Misleading mathematical legitimacy and

To cite this article: Toni Kumayza and Sundek Hariyadi 2022 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1114 critical passivity: discussing the irreversible
012024 expansion of an ideal gas with beginning
teachers
Laurence Viennot

- Improving coastal and marine resources

management through a co-management
View the article online for updates and enhancements. approach: a case study of Pakistan
Zafar Ullah, Wen Wu, Xiao Hua Wang et
al.

This content was downloaded from IP address 36.78.202.4 on 06/05/2023 at 00:11

9th International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1114 (2022) 012024 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1114/1/012024

EIA/Amdal in risk society: A study in developing country

Indonesia

Toni Kumayza1,2 and Sundek Hariyadi3

1
Student of Public Administration Science Doctoral Program at Gadjah Mada
University,Indonesia
2
Public Administration Science Department, Kutai Kartanegara University, Indonesia
3
Faculty of mining Kutai Kartanegara University, Indonesia

corresponding author: Kumayza@unikarta.ac.id, sundecktambang@unikarta.ac.id

Abstract. Although coal mining activities have an Environmental impact assessment

EIA/Amdal, these activities still pose serious risks to communities in rural Indonesia. This
study links EIA/Amdal with the social context of a risk society. This study aims to evaluate the
legitimacy of Amdal for coal mining in Indonesia. The legitimacy of the Amdal for coal
mining is based on the beliefs of experts, science, and technology (Rational model). The survey
and interviews involved stakeholders in 6 coal mining villages and the Indonesian Mining
Experts Association (PERHAPI). The results show that rural stakeholders are increasingly
distrustful of Amdal (rational model) in avoiding risk. Meanwhile, mining expert groups still
rely on rational models in making environmental decisions.

1. Introduction
The current uncertainty of life according to Giddens [1] is caused by Manufacture risk (MR). MR is
caused by human efforts to develop science and technology in order to increase their control over
natural history. MR can be said to be a human action to exploit nature. According to Giddens [2],
science will offer security, even certainty for individuals and political authorities, but science,
technology and industry have raised risks of high consequences that cannot be controlled by humans.
Ulrich Beck [3] refers to a type of industrial society as a risk society. Risk society according to Beck is
the increasing risk to society stems from the progress of the industry itself. Furthermore, Beck [4]
explains that the risk society causes a loss of trust in science and experts due to several factors:

 The language of science and technology excludes the public and further alienates them from
decision-making;
 There is a growing reliance on science and technology that presents risks to a global
environment over which individuals have no control;
 Scientific predictions and expert opinion are often proven wrong.
 Global environmental risks strike anyone regardless of each person's relative wealth.

East Kalimantan Province is the largest source of coal in Indonesia based on the Master Plan for
the Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia's Economic Development (MP3EI) 2011-2025 [5]. East
Kalimantan has 58 mining concession permits. Permits in the form of mining business permits by local
governments and work agreements (PKP2B) by the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources [6].

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
9th International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1114 (2022) 012024 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1114/1/012024

Kutai Kartanegara Regency has the most coal mining business license issuance in 2017 [7]. Coal
mining has great risks to the environment in the form of landslides, floods, former mining pits,
relocation of settlements, and losses of trillions of rupiah [8]. Environmental impact assessment
(EIA)/Amdal as an environmental decision-making instrument based on Law No. 32 of 2009 and
amended through Law 11 of 2020. EIA according to Weston [9] was developed and introduced in the
1960s and is dominated by three major social influences. The first is the demand for modern
environmental care, the second is the demand for more rational, scientific and objective environmental
decision-making, and the third is the demand for public participation in environmental decision-
making. The legitimacy of EIA at that time was based on the fulfillment of these three demands, but
now respect for experts and trust in science are decreasing in the risk society. The legitimacy of the
EIA is increasingly being questioned against MR. This survey aims to explore the opinion of rural
stakeholders at the coal mining village regarding their trust in EIA. Furthermore, the opinion of the
expert group will evaluate the EIA in accordance with the context of the risk society.

2. Materials and methods

This study focuses on the opinion of mining rural stakeholders in Kutai Kartanegara and 21 mining
consultants from the Indonesian mining expert association (PERHAPI) on coal mining EIA as the MR
controller. Several mining villages as in Figure 1. were purposively selected to represent the object of
research. Loa Kulu sub-districts such as Jembayan Tengah Village and Sungai Payang, Tenggarong
Seberang sub-district such as Mulawarman village, Bukit Pariaman and Kerta Buana, Tabang sub-
district such as Gunung Sari village. These villages are coal mining locations and are at risk of
environmental damage.
This research uses a mix method. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the opinions of rural
stakeholders and qualitative analysis (deep interviews) were used to describe the opinions of the
mining expert group (PERHAPI). The primary data sources for qualitative research are words and
perceptions through key informants using purposive sampling, the rest is secondary data including
documents and others [16]. The analysis process will use an interactive analysis model according to
Mile and Huberman [17] such as data reduction, data presentation and data verification.

Figure 1. Research Location

3. Results and discussion

Indonesia has been practicing EIA/Amdal for more than 50 years since Law no. 4 of 1982. The
important question is the ability of EIA to eliminate public concerns about MR and the level of public
confidence in the predictions made. The opinions of administrators of 6 villages in Kutai Kartanegara
were asked to describe their level of trust. Their villages are coal mining sites that experience
environmental risks. Although the selected samples are a minimum sample of the number of mining
villages in Kutai Kartanegara they can provide a useful overview of the experience with MR.

2
9th International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1114 (2022) 012024 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1114/1/012024

3.1. Villages at risk of coal mining

The villages of Jembayan Tengah and Sungai Payang are located in the Loa Kulu sub-district.
Loakulu has a mining license area of 387.41 Km2 consisting of 8 mining companies such as PT
Alamjaya Bara Pratama, PT Mega Prima Persada, PT Bara Kumala Sakti, PT Cahaya Wisesa
Nusantara, PT Bumi Muller Central Kalimantan, PT Borneo Mitra Sejahtera, PT Ayus Putra Perkasa,
PT Multi Harapan Utama (MHU). MHU has the widest mining license area of 30,049 Ha and covers 8
villages in the sub-district of Loa Kulu such as: Sepakat, Sumber Sari, Ponoragan, Loa Kulu Kota, Loh
Sumber, Jembayan Tengah, Jembayan Dalam, and Sungai Payang. MHU's mining activities caused
damage to the land of the residents of Central Jembayan village [10], MHU's mining activities also
impacted deforestation in the upstream of the Jembayan river, Sungai Payang village was hit by a 4m
high flood due to the overflow of the Jembayan River [11]
The villages of Mulawarman, Bukit Pariaman, and Kerta Buana are located in the Tenggarong
Seberang sub-district. Tenggarong Seberang has a mining business permit area of 498.73 Km2
consisting of 13 companies such as CV. Ayu Wulan Lestari, KSU Karya Desa, Amanah Bersama
Agricultural Cooperative, PT Latahzan, PT Pintu Daya Mandiri, PT Bukit Baiduri, PT Mahakam
Sumber Jaya (MSJ), PT Dermaga Pratama Perkasa (DPP), PT Insani Bara Perkasa (INSANI), PT
Khotai Makmur Insan Abadi (KMAI), PT Jembayan Muara Bara (JMB), PT Kayan Putra Utama Coal
(KPUC), PT Azara Baraindo Energi Utama (ABEU). Mulawarman village operates three mining
companies, JMB covering an area of 6959 Ha, KPUC covering an area of 2315 Ha, and ABEU with
an area of 3409 Ha. The company has removed the residents' sources of clean water, caused air
pollution, and extraordinary vibrations when blasting. These companies are also eliminating people's
agricultural land. Mulawarman owns 2000 Ha of rice fields to 70 Ha [12]. Bukit Pariaman operates 2
mining companies INSANI covering an area of 7019 Ha and KMAI an area of 2748 Ha. The activities
of the two companies have an impact on flooding in 2020. The flood submerged 360 Ha of paddy
fields and harmed 1280 people[13]. Kerta Buana operates 2 mining companies, MSJ covering an area
of 20380 Ha, and DPP covering an area of 335 Ha. Mining activities have converted 50% of
agricultural land in the village of Kerta Buana. Mining activities eliminate clean water sources and
leave mud in people's rice fields [14].
Gunung Sari is one of the villages in the Tabang sub-district, Kutai Kartanegra Regency. Tabang
has an area of 7,764.51 Km2 and a coal mining business permit area of 33,293 Km2. Tabang owns 9
mining companies such as PT Brian Anjat Sentosa, PT Guruh Putra Bersama, PT Plan Mulia
Baratama, PT Tanur Jaya, PT Beringin Alam Raya, PT Tiwa Abadi, PT Ade Putra Tanrajeng, PT
Fajar Sakti Prima, and PT Bara Tabang. Gunung Sari village has a coal dock with a capacity of
700,000 tons and a coal loading capacity of 2000 tons/hour. Gunung Sari Village has 2 mining
business license areas, namely PT Guruh Putra Bersama covering an area of 3205 Ha and PT Planning
Mulia Baratama 3993 Ha. Coal mining activities certainly increase the risk in Gunung Sari village.
Gunung sari village and several villages in the Tabang sub-district experienced flooding in May 2022.
The flood caused 4,910 families and had to evacuate [15]. The risk of flooding is increasing every
year. They believe that mining activities in the upstream area of the Belayan River can increase the
risk of flooding. These mining activities have led to deforestation.

3.2. Level of confidence in the EIA/Amdal of coal mining

Rural areas that have mining permit areas experience an increase in MR. The experience of the 6
villages above at least explains this. Environmental damage is caused by mining activities, especially
in the form of increasing flood risk. The risk of flooding occurs in mining villages that have river
flows. while the conversion of rice fields and loss of springs occurred in transmigration villages in the
Tenggarong Seberang sub-district. EIA is used as an instrument to allay public fears and avoid mining
risks. However, the predictions made are often not proven. The experience of the 6 villages, of course,
has a relationship with their level of trust in science and the EIA experts. The administrators of the 6
villages stated their level of trust in the coal mining EIA. The statement in Figure 2. below shows that
67% of them doubt that EIA/Amdal can protect against MR. The doubts are because the

3
9th International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1114 (2022) 012024 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1114/1/012024

implementation of EIA has not met their expectations. The hope is in the form of social demands for
environmental care as a space for life safety.

Figure 2. The level of trust of the mining village administrators in EIA

The head of Jembayan Tengah village stated that the EIA for coal mining was only a formality.
EIA is only made to obtain mining permits procedurally. Several other village heads stated that the
EIA did not help much to protect the natural damage caused by coal mining activities in their village.
The village government has been involved in the study of mining EIA located in their village,
although they think the language of EIA is too complex and complicated to understand. In the end,
they think EIA is only for mining projects rather than environmental safety.
Stakeholder statements from coal mining villages in Kutai Kartanegara show a crisis of confidence
in the EIA. EIA should be able to eliminate public fear of the risks of mining activities. Their
statement through three key explanations. First, EIA is widely used for the benefit of mining projects,
secondly, the language of EIA is difficult to understand, and thirdly, predictions in EIA are often not
proven. Lack of trust in coal mining EIA is a common theme. consultants who are members of the
Association of Indonesian mining experts (PERHAPI) provide a response to the attitude of the
community.

3.3. EIA/Amdal tends to accommodate the interests of mining companies.

The consultants stated that the company could impose its interests so that the project could be
implemented quickly at an affordable cost, some of the consultants stated that the consultant could
simply follow the wishes of the mining company because the data and survey results became the basis
for environmental feasibility. They added that the demands for professionalism, integrity, regulatory
compliance, and community involvement guide the preparation of EIA not always following the
interests of mining companies. Several consultants also suggested increased involvement and
oversight from the government, environmentalist, and affected communities

3.4. The information in the mining EIA/Amdal document is too technical and complex, so it is difficult
for the public to understand
The Consultants believe that the EIA document is a scientific study and has guidelines based on
applicable regulations. Even though the impact prediction is made technically, the EIA is a public
document that anyone can access. Some consultants suggest improving the standard structure of the

4
9th International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1114 (2022) 012024 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1114/1/012024

EIA document so that it can be easily understood by the public. According to them, "technical
discussions are still necessary, but the context of the language is easy to understand by the public".

3.5. Impact predictions on EIA/Amdal documents are often not proven

The consultants believe that environmental impact assessment on EIA is very important. They argue
"After all, quantitative and technical numbers will be easier to measure than just narrative." Some
consultants consider public trust to be very important. They suggested that the public against the
project be involved. These efforts are to increase public trust. Another consultant believes that the
guidance and supervision of government agencies on the enforcement of regulations, and the
implementation of activities, on the EIA document needs to be improved and evaluated responsibly.
The main development of EIA is the advancement of scientific models in predicting impacts [9].
Failure to understand EIA in a changing social context can reduce its legitimacy of EIA. EIA is less
meaningful when people do not believe in the results of the assessment. The consultant (PERHAPI)
believes that public trust in the EIA is important. Although the consultants still rely on scientific
models for impact prediction, they believe that public trust can be built by involving people who
oppose coal mining projects, and responsible monitoring of impacts during the implementation of the
EIA.

4. Conclusion
Studies linking coal mining EIA processes and procedures to the nature of the community in coal
mining villages are very relevant and help advance the legitimacy model of coal mining EIA in the
future. This study will offer a risk society-based environmental policy. A study on risk society shows
that public trust is the main thing in the EIA for coal mining. Public trust in EIA has decreased
considerably. This opinion occurs in coal mining villages in Kutai Kartanegara district. 6 coal mining
villages that have experienced the risk expressed doubts by 67% of the EIA. Trust decreases because
predictions on EIA are often not proven. Some mining expert groups rely on the development of
scientific methods to predict mining impacts. A fundamental rethink is needed for the progress of the
EIA for coal mining. The Risk Society which lacks faith in science and the group of experts on EIA
development certainly does not stick to the rationalist model to increase public trust. The main social
demands in the 6 villages are environmental awareness as a safe space and their involvement in
environmental decision-making. Various efforts to build public trust have been proposed by expert
groups. The expert group suggested the involvement of groups against the project, environmentalists,
and affected communities in the making of the EIA. The next suggestion is for the government's
supervision of the EIA implementer responsibly.

References
[1] Giddens A 1996 Development and change journal 27 2
[2] Giddens A 1994 Beyond left and right, the future of radical politi (Cambridge, Polity Press)
[3] Beck U 1992 Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (London: Sage)
[4] Beck U 1995 Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk (Cambridge: Polity)
[5] Bapenas 2011 Masterpalan percepatan dan perluasan pembangunan ekonomi Indonesia 2011-
2025 (Jakarata: Bapenas)
[6] Modi ESDM 2022 Minerba one data Indonesia modi.esdm.go.id
[7] Antara Kaltim 2017 Kutai Kartanegara Miliki Izin Pertambangan Terbanyak
Kaltim.antaranews.com 2017/06/06
[8] Kumayza T 2019 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 389 61
[9] Joe W 2004 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47: 2, 313-325
[10] Koran Kaltim 2021 Panggil PT MHU, DPRD Bahas Pengrusakan Lahan Warga
Korankaltim.com 13/04/2021
[11] Tribun Kaltim 2018 Dahsyat! Sudah 2 Hari Banjir di Sungai Payang Capai 4 Meter

5
9th International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1114 (2022) 012024 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1114/1/012024

Kaltim.tribunnews.com25/03/2018
[12] Apriando t 2018 Pilkada di Provinsi Batubara, Begini Suara Warga (Bagian 1) mongabay.co.id
17/06/2018
[13] Pusaran media 2020 Antisipasi Banjir Meluas, BPBD Kukar Dirikan Tiga Posko di Bukit
Pariaman pusaran media.com 02/12/2020
[14] Yustinus S 2016 Kertabuana, Desa Penghasil Padi yang Merana Akibat Himpitan Tambang
Batubara mongabay.co.id 31/08/2016
[15] Pro Kaltim 2022 4.910 KK Terdampak Banjir di Kecamatan Tabang Kukar Kaltim.prokal.co
20/05/2022
[16] Creswell J W 2006 Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five
Approaches (California: Sage) p 73
[17] Mile M B and Huberman A M 1992 Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods
(CA: Sage) p 16