How Illegal Tin Mining Undermined Indonesia’s Economy and Ecology
Learning the meaning of environmental justice from Indonesia biggest corruption case on illegal mining
Recently, Indonesia was shocked by what is alleged to be one of the biggest corruption cases involving famous personalities. The case revolves around illegal tin mining activities conducted under the mining business permit of PT Timah Tbk in Bangka Belitung from 2015 to 2022.
PT Timah Tbk is said to have facilitated these illegal mining activities by renting out smelters and purchasing the illegal tin materials without reporting them. It is reported that this practice has caused a loss of Rp 271 trillion (equivalent to ~USD 17 billion) to the state. This figure encompasses various types of losses, including environmental and economic losses, as well as recovery costs.
As of April 2024, various investigations are ongoing into this case. Mining locations were found to be situated in protected forest areas, permanent production forests, convertible production forests, conservation forests, and national parks. Specifically, the mines cover an area of 170,363 hectares, whereas PT Timah Tbk’s mining business licenses only cover 88,900 hectares. Crazy.
The jaw-dropping loss of 271 trillion rupiah got me thinking deeply: just imagine the positive impact that money could have had on millions of lives and on million hectares of nature. We could have done so much, and yet, human greed precedes us.
Far from being just and sustainable development, this illegal mining saga perfectly encapsulates environmental injustice. It has shown to us everything that could go wrong when development is pursued with selfish interest. It has shown to us everything that is not “environmental justice”.
What is environmental justice?
95 percent of Indonesia’s tin supply comes from Bangka Belitung (wow!). The Bangka Belitung Islands province, which has the world’s second-largest tin mineral reserves, relies heavily on this commodity as the backbone of its economy and growth driver. However, when discussing economic growth, we often overlook the costs in terms of environmental and social aspects. In development theory, there is a concept known as environmental justice.
I’d like to define environmental justice as the pursuit of fair treatment and involvement of all individuals in defining, implementing, and enforcing environmental program/policies. So irregardless of races, cultures, and socio-economic background, we should not see any environmental impact, be it positive or negative, systematically impacting one group of people disproportionately.
All of us have equal right to enjoy what was given by nature, and none of us deserve to feel the impact of our wrongdoings to nature more severely than others. The concept of environmental justice began to gain prominence in the United States during the 1970s and 1980s, particularly with the emergence of grassroots movements protesting against environmental inequalities and injustices experienced by marginalised communities. These movements drew attention to the disproportionate exposure of minority and low-income populations to environmental hazards such as pollution, toxic waste sites, and industrial facilities.
This scenario should ring familiar to us. It is a common sight in Indonesia to see districts rich in natural resources but surrounded by impoverished indigenous communities. Despite the abundance of resources such as gold, tin, oil, nickel, and others beneath our feet, the benefits rarely trickle down to the local people. Instead, they bear the burden of polluted air, contaminated water, and loss of biodiversity.
This is the toll of prioritising economics over everything else in development. We often overlook the hidden costs associated with extractive industries, such as environmental degradation. There needs to be a balance in our ecosystems and our reliance on nature’s resources.
I’d like to delve deeper into the essential factors to consider when pondering the concept of environmental justice, using the illegal mining saga as a case study to illustrate my point. In essence, I believe there are three fundamental principles for achieving justice:
- Environment: Sustainable development that strives to restore ecosystems
- Equality: Equal access for all communities to natural resources
- Governance: System that supports sustainability and equity in development
Environment: Have we consider the long-term environmental impacts?
Extractive activities like mining undoubtedly have negative impacts on the environment. However, there are measures to mitigate these impacts. That is why the Mining Business License is crucial for controlling extractive activities within acceptable limits, allowing nature a chance to recover. Unfortunately, illegal mines often ignore these limits, leading to significant ecological losses. Without regulation, humans often exceed nature’s limits. Without proper permits, illegal miners have less incentives to engage in environmental restoration and conservation.
Mining activities solely driven by financial gain pose a higher risk of pollution, especially during the tailing process. If we don’t account for environmental cost, the cost of proper waste disposal will always exceed that of dumping mine waste directly into the environment. This is often the case in illegal mining. In Bangka Belitung, improper tailing disposal has led to a decline in water quality and the accumulation of heavy metals in marine organisms, impairing traditional fishing practices and forcing fishermen into illegal mining to make ends meet. It is a vicious cycle.
In the case of PT Timah Tbk, many illegal mines are also located on reclaimed land previously owned by them. Reclaimed land still containing tin deposits facilitates easier illegal mining activities, resulting in the degradation of previously reclaimed land. The expansion of illegal (and legal to some extent) mining areas also leads to extensive habitat destruction for crocodiles, causing increasingly severe human-crocodile conflicts. More than 127 conflict cases have been recorded by the South Sumatra Natural Resources Conservation Center (BKSDA).
Equity: Are we equally affected?
While researching for this writing, I found myself pondering why there are so many instances of illegal mining in Bangka Belitung. Tracing its history, it becomes clear that uneven development stands out as one of the primary drivers of rampant illegal mining. Disparities emerge because the indigenous population of Bangka Belitung typically occupies low-wage positions in companies, while middle-to-upper positions are dominated by outsiders. This disparity becomes pivotal when discussing environmental justice in development. The benefits of natural resource extraction are disproportionately felt by certain groups, while the adverse effects are keenly felt by the most vulnerable and marginalised. The ongoing environmental crisis is intimately linked with the crisis of inequality.
The adverse impacts extend beyond environmental degradation to encompass health and education. Diseases tend to proliferate in mining areas, posing heightened risks to residents and workers alike. Prolonged exposure to heavy metals like lead and arsenic can result in various health disorders such as digestive, excretory, and respiratory disturbances. Illegal mining operations often overlook the necessary precautions to minimise these health risks.
What is particularly striking is the correlation between children’s education and mining activities. Data from the Central Statistics Agency indicates that the dropout rate in Bangka Belitung Province surpasses the national average, reaching its peak for high school/equivalent levels in Indonesia in 2022. The tin sector emerges as a major contributing factor. An article penned by a middle school teacher in Central Bangka once highlighted the high dropout rates in Bangka Belitung in relation to tin prices. Yet, discussions about addressing this systemic inequality caused by industrial development are often absent. If tin prices can influence student dropout rates, what is the purpose of building new school facilities? We are not addressing the root cause of inequality; instead, we’re widening the gap, making it harder to rectify.
Addressing environmental injustice requires a human-rights based, multi-disciplinary approach that addresses immediate environmental justice needs and tackles the structural inequalities that cause and perpetuate environmental injustice — UNDP
Governance: Have we involved everyone in decision making?
In the context of environmental justice, it is also crucial to ensure that the decision-making process is fair. This means that decisions are based on democratic principles where all affected parties have the opportunity to participate, provide input, and influence decisions. In the case of tin mining in Bangka Belitung, the question is whether local residents have sufficient access to participate in decision-making processes about their own resources. Has development taken into account local knowledge and the needs of indigenous communities?
Elinor Ostrom, a Nobel laureate in political economics, highlighted the significance of community involvement in collectively managing natural resources. Her research demonstrates that when resource users collaborate to establish and enforce their own regulations, they tend to sustainably manage local resources better than when regulations are externally imposed. She challenges the assumption that individuals are inherently self-serving and incapable of managing their resources independently, advocating instead for community engagement in decision-making and empowering them to manage resources based on their unique circumstances. Ultimately, sustainable resource management requires fostering inclusive and participatory governance frameworks to advance environmental sustainability and social justice.
So, is environmental justice important?
I hope by now I have convinced you that environmental justice is not an option. It should be a default.
Environmental justice means development is carried out with inclusive and sustainable principles. Inclusive because it is crucial to ensure fair and equitable distribution. The benefits and adverse impacts of natural resource extraction should be felt evenly by all citizens, rather than disproportionately affecting certain groups only. Sustainable because we have a responsibility to provide equal rights to the environment and nature for our children and future generations.
Final question: is there still hope for a development path that’s fairer, more inclusive, and participatory?
