T

he island'€™s most respected academy, Udayana University, caved in Monday to growing public opposition toward the planned reclamation in Benoa Bay.

Following a closed-door meeting of the university'€™s senate, Rector Ketut Suastika declared that the university found the plan unviable.

'€œWe concluded that the Benoa Bay plan is not viable for implementation,'€ he told journalists.

The conclusion was in stark contrast to a feasibility study several months ago carried out by a team of 15 experts, mostly from Udayana University. The study concluded that the reclamation plan was feasible as long as the investor abided by several requirements.

The study was commissioned by PT Tirta Wahana Bali International (TWBI), the primary investor for the reclamation plan, which reportedly has ties with influential businessman Tomy Winata. The company shelled out more than Rp 1 billion (US$91,300) to fund the study.

The feasibility study results and the recommendation letter from the Bali Legislative Council (DPRD) were two key documents used by Bali Governor Made Mangku Pastika to issue the controversial decree that granted managing rights to TWBI over more than 800 hectares of land generated through the reclamation.

The decree, and later on the feasibility study and the council'€™s recommendation, triggered public uproar as academics and activists rallied public support to oppose the plan.

Udayana University'€™s top brass tried to dodge the public'€™s anger by initially claiming that the result was still a preliminary one and not final. When that failed, they formed a team consisting of 13 experts tasked with reviewing the result of the feasibility study.

The university has yet to release detailed information on whether the reviewers carried out a comparative field study that yielded different results, or simply conducted a behind-the-desk analytical examination of the written documents produced by the feasibility study team.

The results of both teams were presented in the Monday meeting attended by 105 members of the senate. After a three-hour meeting, the senate decided to side with the team of reviewers and concluded that the planned reclamation was unviable.

Suastika said the development plan was unviable viewed from all four aspects covered by the study: technical, environmental, sociocultural, as well as economic and financial aspects. Unfortunately, Suastika refused to give the detailed conclusion of the study.

'€œAs it was urgent, we decided to establish a review team. To make the final decision, we discussed the study in the senate meeting. It is our legal procedure based on our internal regulations at the university,'€ Suastika said, explaining why the fate of a scientific study was placed on the hands of senate members, who were mostly not directly involved in the research.