O

nce home to thick tropical forest, many parts of Papua seem to have been turned inside out and filled with holes as a result of overexploitation of natural resources. The rivers have changed color because of the accumulation of waste from mining operations for the last 50 years, including that of PT Freeport Indonesia (FI), which arrived in the mid-1960s.

Freeport alone has been held responsible for the damage of 30,000 hectares of rainforest, as well as the Ajkwa and Kopi rivers (Abrash and Kennedy, 2002). Other sources suggest that the mines have already released one billion tons of tailings into the local river system, resulting in copper concentrations in the river water double the tolerable limit (Indonesian Forum for the Environment, 2006) at the expense of indigenous people, primarily the Amungme and Kamoro tribes, who depend on nature for food, water and other basic needs and cultural practices.

Mining operations are also associated with conflict and violence. Labor and land disputes and human rights violations by companies as well as the military in suppressing labor unrest or protests have brought the state and society into conflict.

Mining operations that blatantly disregard the customary rights of the indigenous Papuan community have created structural injustice. Many Papuans feel that their natural riches have been stolen from them, their cultural and customary land rights neglected and their access to jobs denied.

This historical record needs to be reopened, especially now that the government is negotiating an extension of Freeport'€™s contract. The government has hinted its approval of the continuation of Freeport'€™s operation for the next 20 years, following the willingness of the US-based gold mining company to accelerate the regime change from contract of work (COW) into a special mining license (IUPK) before the contract expires in 2021.

However, there are still legal issues hampering this early negotiation process. Article 112B, paragraph (2) of Government Regulation No. 77/2014 states that a request for operation extension can only be submitted to the energy and mineral resources minister at the earliest two years and no later than six months before the expiry date, which in Freeport Indonesia'€™s case is 2019. This article will prevent the obtainment of an extension approval by Freeport from the government this year.

However, it seems that there will be tremendous efforts by Freeport and the government to resolve the issue before 2019. Nonetheless, there is still enough time for the government to formulate the terms and conditions to ensure that Indonesia maintains its sovereignty over the wealth of natural resources in Papua, as well as the freedom and authority to stop Freeport keeping all the wealth for itself.

The history of major liquid gas producer PT Arun NGL in Lhokseumawe, Aceh, should serve as a lesson. The company ended 36 years of operation on Oct. 15, 2014. Termination of the company'€™s operations raised fears of a rise in poverty in the area. Workers who were brought in from other areas to Lhokseumawe went back to their hometowns without transferring their knowledge and skills to the locals.

All this indicates that mining or resource-based companies have not made sufficient social and economic investment to ensure the sustainability of public welfare. Corporate social responsibility programs, as well as local governments, have failed to prepare local people to acquire skills and sustain economic activities.

PT Arun built good infrastructure and provided assistance to the local government, but without a sufficient maintenance budget, facilities degrade in no time. Lhokseumawe remains financially weak, educationally undeveloped and lacking in jobs. But a company'€™s exploitation of resources without an appropriate long-term exit strategy cannot improve the public welfare. This truth is borne out in regions across Indonesia.

If Freeport'€™s extension is granted, the company will operate until 2041, 26 more years of extracting gold and copper from Papua to send overseas. A huge amount of taxes and royalties will fill the government'€™s coffers, financial resources will flow to the Amungme and Komoro tribes for community development and education and health care will become available to surrounding communities. But the questions remain: Is the material reward proportional to the amount of natural resources and environmental damage caused? How will tax revenues and royalties, as well as corporate social responsibility, be utilized to develop human resources and sustain Papua'€™s future?

Papuans have never really benefited from their homeland'€™s incredible natural wealth. Discrimination against them in terms of employment remains unabated, as their skills remain poor. Conflicts and social tensions between residents and tribes persist, alongside the political conflicts that enflame longing for independence.

Negotiations within the framework of Freeport'€™s extension of operation have resulted in the agreement of a number of points, prompted both by the central government and partly by local administrations.

Of the 11 points raised by the Papua administrations, four especially need to be implemented, as they concern the future of Papua, especially after Freeport leaves. The four points in question concern the management of environmental impacts, the eventual closure of the mine, mining regulations and the role of local human resources.

Implementation of these four points will guarantee environmental protection and the dignity of the Papuan people. They need to be elaborated into concrete action plans, with implementation and progress open to public scrutiny or monitored by relevant civil society groups. Above all, Papuans must see improvements in living standards, welfare and dignity if Freeport is allowed to operate for the next 20 years.
_______________________

The writer is a senior researcher at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Jakarta.