Indonesia: Land fire arsonist sentenced
Indonesia: Land fire arsonist in Riau sentenced for two years
(Source: Riau Kompas, 2 October 2001)
Selasa, 2 October 2001
General Manager Adei Plantation and Industry, C. Goby in the last court sessionin Bangkinang Court, Pekanbaru, Riau Province, Indonesia, Monday (1 October2001) was sentenced two years by a judge committee (consist of one chief and 2members) headed by judge Hamdi. This is for the first time in Indonesia thatland fires cases being punished using “corporate crime” after manycases that usually used criminal act directly to the person who found guiltyusing fire in the field like it happened made by workers or labourers.
Sentenced a criminal case of using fire in the land preparation belong toMalaysian oil palm company in Riau should pay also a compensation of 250 millionrupiahs or 6 months in the jail.
This court session attended by high level staff from BAPEDAL (IndonesianEnvironmental Impact Management Agency) under the Minsitry of Environments suchas Mr. Sudarsono, Ms. Masnelyarti Hilman and Mr. Mas Achmand Santosa (from theIndonesian Centre for Environmental Law) so called ICEL (NGO). During the courtsession, the local NGO “KAMPALA” spread out a pamphlet that askedjudge to give Mr C. Goby serious/severe punishment.
In their decision, judge committee stated that Mr. C. Goby, a Malaysian citizen,was found guilty against the law that cause air pollution and environmentaldestruction. According to the judge statement, things that seriously happenedwas that Indonesian good images was polluted in front off the internationalcommunity due to the smoke rooted from land fire that disturbed already thepeople in the neighbouring countries like Malaysia and Singapore. Beside thatthe suspect also (Mr. C. Goby) did not show any feel guilty during the courtsession. To the sentenced, Mr. Jabaik Haro, a public prosecutor, who sentence 4years and 500 million rupiah as a compensation at last July court session statedthat he will thinking about the punishment made by the judge while the suspectdid not receive the punishment.
In the court session, Judge Hamdi stated that principal punishment given to Mr.C. Goby was based on a public prosecutor sentence which act by the name ofBAPEDAL as a party who make sentence based on corporate crime of EnvironmentalLaw No.23/1997. An additional, Mr.Goby also violated the environmental law,Article 41, by doing something by arson which cause air pollution andenvironmental destruction.
First case
Made an evaluation to the judge punishment in the court session, Ms. Masnelyartisaid that this was a good precedent for law enforcement for similar cases. Shesatted also that judge explanation was based on the fact founding during thecourt session is a good things.
Meanwhile, ICEL founding fathers Mas Achmad Sabtosa added that first casepunishing using corporate crime to the land fire case was a good precedent forlaw enforcement especially in environmental aspects, because a businessman whowill manage the forest should rethinking again to open the land with firebecause they will receive the same punishment. Until now punishing usually givendirect to the person who found using fire in the land like workers or labours.
Opening land method using fire actually prohibited by the government.Unfortunately the businessman have tried many times since hey knew that lawenforcement is not working well and also monitoring activity from theinstitution who dealt with it is so weak. The facts shown that forest and landfire done many times in Indonesia as it happened in 1982, 1987, 1991, 1994, and1997 and 1998 that was the worst forest fire happened in the last 15 years.
Due to the suspect wanted to appeal to a judge at higher court level, Mr.Santosa hopes that the case can be finished as soon as possible in this year inhigh court and supreme court. This was due to a prediction that long dry seasonwill happen in the year 2001 that maybe a chance for forest fire cases willemerge that cause transboundary haze pollution to the neighbouring countries.
Masnelyarti stated also that BAPEDAL now arranging for “perdatacharge” (Charge for government assets destroyed) by Adei Plantation andIndustry. Because the destruction to the environmental damages belong to thegovernments assets was 508 billion rupiahs. This damages did not include nonmaterials.
Relativelyslow
Masnelyarti stated that environmental case handling was so slow in thecourt. In order to speed up the punishment and compensation, BAPEDAL willarrange technical guidelines which dealing with the article that has a linkabout the government force as it written in the environmental law No.23/1997.Until now, any rules about the government force to industry or company toimprove their environment and their waste facility was never applied, becausethe article does not seem to be clear. Whereas, that article is needed to forceand industry that is not obey administration sanction to expend money for theirenvironmental rehabilitation. Until today, direct to the criminal charge takestime until sanction given and compensation sanction is not as big asenvironmental damages caused.
Aboutper data charge that will be submitted by BAPEDAL, Mas Achmad santosa sure itwill be positively accepted
Original NewsReport in Bahasa Indonesia
Pembakar Lahandi Riau Divonis Dua Tahun
Riau, Kompas
Selasa, 2 Oktober 2001
General ManagerAdei Plantation, C Gobi, dalam persidangan di Pengadilan Negeri Bangkinang,Pekan Baru, Senin (1/10), divonis dua tahun penjara oleh majelis hakim yangdipimpin oleh hakim Hamdi SH. Ini adalah untuk pertama kalinya kasus pembakaranlahan di Indonesia dijatuhi hukuman dengan pasal tindakan pidana korporasi,setelah sekian lama pidana hanya dikenakan pada pelaku langsung seperti buruh dilapangan. Terdakwa kasus pidana pembakaran lahan di areal perkebunan milikperusahaan Malaysia di Riau ini juga dikenakan denda Rp 250 juta atau penjaraenam bulan.Persidangan ini dihadiri jajaran pimpinan di Badan PengendalianDampak Lingkungan (Bapedal) Pusat seperti Sudarsono, Suharsono, dan MasnelyartiHilman, serta Mas Achmad Santosa dari ICEL. Sementara persidangan berlangsung,kelompok LSM lokal yang menamakan dirinya Konsorsium Pembakaran Hutan dan Lahanmenggelar pamflet yang bertuliskan desakan untuk menjatuhkan vonis padaterdakwa.
Dalam putusannya, majelis hakim menyatakan, Gobi yang berkewarganegaraanMalaysia terbukti bersalah melawan hukum yang mengakibatkan pencemaran danperusakan lingkungan hidup. Menurut hakim hal yang memberatkan adalah pencemarannama baik Indonesia di dunia internasional, karena pencemaran asap yang berasaldari pembakaran lahan ini telah mengganggu penduduk negara tetangga Malaysia danSingapura. Selain itu terdakwa juga tidak memperlihatkan rasa bersalah selamapersidangan berlangsung.
Terhadap vonis tersebut, Jaksa Penuntut Umum Djabaik Haro SH yang mengajukantuntutan empat tahun penjara pada akhir Juli lalu, menyatakan masih akanpikir-pikir, sedangkan terdakwa menyatakan naik banding.
Dalam persidangan itu, Hamdi mengatakan dasar putusannya adalah pada tuntutanjaksa yang mengatasnamakan Bapedal sebagai pihak yang mengajukan gugatanberdasarkan Pasal 46 tentang Tindak Pidana Korporasi pada Undang-Undang Nomor 23Tahun 1997 tentang Lingkungan Hidup. Selain itu terdakwa juga dikenai Pasal 41undang-undang yang sama tentang kesengajaan melakukan aktivitas yang menimbulkanpencemaran dan kerusakan lingkungan hidup.
Kasuspertama
Menilai tentang putusan hakim dalam persidangan tersebut, Masnelyarti mengatakanhal ini merupakan preseden baik bagi penegakan hukum bagi kasus-kasus sejenis,yang bermunculan saat ini. Ia menilai baik penjelasan hakim yang mengangkatfakta-fakta yang dikemukakan dalam persidangan sebelumnya.
Sementara itu, pendiri ICEL, Mas Achmad Santosa menambahkan, kasus pertamapenjatuhan hukuman dengan pasal tindakan pidana korporasi terhadap kasuspembakaran lahan ini merupakan preseden baik bagi penegakan hukum lingkungan,karena pengusaha hutan pasti akan berpikir ulang untuk membuka lahan denganmembakar hutan karena khawatir mendapatkan hukuman serupa. Selama ini hukumandikenakan pada pelaku langsung yaitu buruh atau karyawan di lapangan.
Metode membuka lahan dengan pembakaran sebenarnya sudah dilarang pemerintah.Namun, para pengusaha sering kali memanfaatkan kevakuman tindakan aparat hukumdan pengawasan dari pihak yang berkompeten terhadap kawasan hutan. Kenyataanmenunjukkan, kebakaran hutan dan lahan di Indonesia berulang kali terjadi.Misalnya tahun 1982, 1987, 1991, 1994, dan 1997/1998 yang merupakan kebakaranterburuk selama 15 tahun terakhir.
Dengan adanya permintaan banding dari terdakwa, Santosa mengharapkan agar kasustersebut diselesaikan secepatnya tahun ini juga di pengadilan tinggi dan diMahkamah Agung bila yang bersangkutan meminta kasasi. Hal ini mengingat adanyaprediksi terjadinya kemarau panjang pada tahun 2002 yang membuka kemungkinanmunculnya kembali kasus pembakaran hutan yag meluas hingga menimbulkanpencemaran asap lintas batas ke negara tetangga.
Dikemukakan pula oleh Masnelyarti, saat ini Bapedal tengah menyiapkan berkasgugatan untuk tindakan perdata untuk kasus Adei Plantation. Hal ini mengingatdengan adanya kasus tersebut negara dirugikan lebih dari Rp 508 milyar. Kerugianitu belum termasuk kerugian nonmaterial.
Relatif lambat
Penanganan kasus lingkungan hidup di pengadilan, Masnelyarti berpendapat selamaini relatif lambat. Untuk mempercepat penetapan sanksi dan ganti rugi, Bapedalakan menyusun pedoman teknis yang berkaitan dengan pasal tentang paksaanpemerintah yang tercantum dalam UU No 23/1997 tentang Lingkungan Hidup.
Selama ini, ketentuan tentang paksaan pemerintah bagi industri atau perusahaanuntuk memperbaiki lingkungan dan fasilitas pengolah limbahnya tidak pernahditerapkan, karena dianggap pasal tersebut kurang jelas. Padahal pasal itudiperlukan untuk memaksa industri yang mengabaikan sanksi administrasi, agarmengeluarkan dana bagi rehabilitasi lingkungan yang tercemar. Selama ini denganlangsung mengarah ke tuntutan pidana, selain memerlukan waktu lama untuk sampaike penetapan sanksi, sanksi denda kemungkinan juga tidak sebesar dengan kerugianlingkungan yang ditimbulkannya.
Mengenai tuntutan perdata yang akan diajukan Bapedal, Mas Achmad berpendapatpositif akan diterima. (yun).
Somescientific arguments to highlight the damages caused by illegal burning
Based onfield investigation, the data or information collected were as follows:
Generalconditions
1. Land is peat which mostly flat
2. 200 ha of land was burnt due to logs, branches and litter (later using datasatellite it has been know that burnt area was 2970 ha)
3. Burnt logs indicated that fire blow up with high intensity supported by 1 cmdepth of heat penetration on logs with 30-40 cm diameter.
4. All area burnt completely covered with ash and charcoal
5. Penetration heat depth averagely 10 cm recognized from the colours of burntpeat.
Based on thedata taken from filed investigation and laboratory analysis proved that fire inthis oil palm plantation which actually burned in the land preparation area wasplanned and systematically done in order to reach the target plantation with lowproduction cost. Without fire this company should pay for their land ready toplant is around Rp.8-10 million/ha while using fire they just needed Rp.700,000to Rp. 1 million/ha.
Further analysis found that the science and technology behind of those firesthat mostly done in March. Riau province is relatively humid with high rainfallbut not for March and July. This means that even though in March is relativelyhumid there will be a few days without rain at least for 7 to 10 days. This dryperiod will have an impact to the water table condition in peat layer. Watertable in peat layer will decrease for a few cm (10 to 15 cm) and this will havean impact to the fuel load at the top layer which will drier. If fire applied inthis period the penetration heat will have an average depth is around 10-15 cm,because below this lane the water will prevent fire to penetrate deeper. One ofthe reasons why they used fire in their land preparation is to increase peatacidity (pH) from low (around 3) to be around 6 which is trees normally growthand produce the fruits (oil palm). Without burning they should provide budgetmany times compared to using fire. 10-15 cm peat depth burnt is better than morethan 50 cm if the fire applied in the dry seasons which let them lost media forplanting. Only those persons who have a basic knowledge on agro-meteorologicalsense and have a basic of peat performance that can running this burning whichshould conducted carefully. Unfortunately economic benefit taken from using firein the land preparation is not theonly product resulted because negative impact to the environmental destruction occurred due to burning should be not tobe left and should be focus for rehabilitation. Ecological, economic andatmospheric impact due the fires in the land preparation area belong to this oilpalm company as is follows:
Ecologicalimpact
Peat layer has soil physical properties that have pores volume bigger than soilcompaction that is 80-90%. This bigger soil pores create a peat condition whichhas an ability to keep water big enough. Unfortunately, due to the fires thedepth of peat surface reduce 10 cm which causes the loss of water reserves of650 m3/ha. This situation cause no place for the water to be releasedout of burnt area due to the peat surface destroyed already which can not keepwater anymore, for a large area flood will usually emerge after rain.
Economicimpact
Lost of production time
Fire in just for a few hours which destroyed an average of 10 cm peat depth,while if it naturally used which can reduce annually it will take 15 years.Meanwhile to return back to 10 cm depth that is lost by fire will takes ca. 1000years and requires undisturbed conditions. During 15 years operation if there isno fire in the production area then profit loss will be around Rp. 102,025,000per ha as follow:
Theassumption:
– Oil palm plantation can be harvested at years 4
– CPO production will be around 3500 kg/ha/year
– CPO price
Every hectare of peat land destroyed by fire for 15 years will cause a profitloss:
3,500kg/ha/year CPO x Rp.2,600/kg x 11 years production time
(15-4 years): Rp. 102,025,000.00/ha
Economiclost due to burnt logs
a. Logs which actually can be used for chips:
10m3/ha x Rp.150,000,00/m3 : Rp. 1,500,000.00/ha
b. Logs which actually can be used for other purpose:
20m3/ha x Rp. 50,000.00/m3: Rp. 1,000,000.00/ha
Totallyeconomic loss per ha due to burnt logs was Rp. 2,500,000.00
Atmosphericimpact
Carbon released
Carbonreleased per ha due to the fire was 15.7 t. Per ton Carbon price is US$ 20:Rp.200,000.00 (1US$ = Rp.10,000.00). Lost due to carbon released per ha carbonis :15.7 t/ha x Rp. 200,000 t: Rp. 3,140,000.00
Tracegases produced during burning
Based on the method by Seiler and Crutzen (1980) trace gas produced duringburning was calculated. According to the measurement conducted in the burnt areait was found that average biomass per ha was 35 t. In 35 t biomass burning ithas been found that (based on the Seiler and Crutzen method) during burningtrace gases released were 15.75 t carbon, 6.06 t CO2, 0.06 t CH4,0.03 t NOx, 0.08 t NH3, 0.06 t O3, 1.1 t CO and 1.12 tparticles.
Source:
GFMC correspondent
Dr. Bambang Hero Saharjo
Forest Fire Laboratory
Division of Forest Management
Faculty of Forestry
PO Box 168
Bogor Agricultural University
Bogor 16001
West Java
Indonesia
Fax: +62-251-621256
Tel: +62-251-627750
e-mail: saharjo@indo.net.id
