Plans to
construct a nuclear power plant in Indonesia have received global attention as
anti-nuke activists from Japan meet with local campaigners
 |
The installation of a nuclear research reactor at an operation hall of the
National Nuclear Energy Agency (Batan) complex in Serpong on April 23,
2013. (AFP Photo) |
Yogyakarta/Jakarta.
A government-backed plan to construct nuclear power plants in Indonesia has
been met with backlash by several local groups in the archipelago, highlighting
the tensions nuclear power projects face in a post-Fukushima world.
Recently
announced plans to make the West Java district of Subang the site of
Indonesia’s fourth nuclear reactor has pushed a decades-long conflict back into
the spotlight, pitting those who view the establishment of nuclear power plants
as a valuable addition to Indonesia’s energy portfolio against others who say
the social and environmental risks of radioactive contamination outweigh the
potential benefit.
Critics
point out that Indonesia’s geologic position atop the “Ring of Fire” makes it
particularly vulnerable to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions — events that
drastically increase the odds of a nuclear tragedy. These concerns are
augmented by fears that rampant corruption and graft will undermine the
government’s ability to implement and then manage costly safety protocols.
In January,
Japanese representatives from No Nukes Asia Actions (NNAA), a Tokyo-based
anti-nuclear coalition, gathered with Indonesian activists in Balong, Central
Java, to discuss resistance strategies and the prospects of an international
partnership to thwart the prospect of nuclear power in Indonesia.
“With
Fukushima, the whole world witnessed the terrible effects of nuclear disaster,”
NNAA rep Seung Choo told some 200 residents in Balong over two days of talks.
“Now, we must say no more nuclear plants — not here in Indonesia or anywhere
else.”
Balong
provided a fitting backdrop to the event: in 2007, growing fears over a
proposed nuclear power plant cohered into an alliance of local residents,
business owners, religious groups and students that eventually thwarted
government plans to break ground in 2014.
In 2007,
the Jepara branch of Nahdatul Ulama (NU), Indonesia’s largest Muslim
organization, even issued a fatwa against the proposed plant, drawing the ire
of state officials who had been courting the group for support.
But nuclear
plans in Indonesia have been on the table for a large chunk of the nation’s
modern history.
Nuclear
power plays
The
National Nuclear Energy Agency (Batan), created by former President Sukarno in
1964, has been Indonesia’s most strident nuclear energy advocate. The
organization has aired hopes to establish three fully operational nuclear power
plants in the country by 2025, a plan that has been embraced as part of
Indonesia’s Master Plan for the Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia’s
Economic Development (MP3EI).
Batan
spokesman Eko Madi Parmanto says claims of public resistance to nuclear power
have been greatly exaggerated in Indonesia.
“We’ve
periodically conducted surveys to measure people’s acceptance of the nuclear
plant plan,” Eko told the Jakarta Globe last week. “The latest national survey
in 2013 indicates that 67.6 percent of respondents support the plan.”
The agency
views nuclear energy as an alternative to Indonesia’s addiction to
unsustainable fossil fuels that pollute the environment and contribute to
climate change. Indonesia has a wealth of potential in safe, renewable energy
sources such as solar, hydro and geothermal, but oil, coal and natural gas
still provide more than over 80 percent of the nation’s power. Only 12 percent
of the country’s energy is provided by renewable sources.
In
geothermal power alone, Indonesia is operating at a mere 4.2 percent of its
potential output, despite sitting astride 40 percent of the world’s geothermal
resources.
Oil, which
accounts for about 30 percent of the country’s current energy supply, is now
mostly imported, leaving the country vulnerable to unhedged price volatility
together with currency fluctuations. In addition, oil — along with coal and
natural gas — powers an electrical grid still suffering from chronic energy
shortages throughout the country. Millions of poor, rural Indonesians,
especially in eastern Indonesia, remain without electricity, and struggles to
meet existing electricity needs are made worse by an 8 percent annual rise in
demand.
The
situation requires huge government subsidies in fuel and electricity just to
keep up, consuming 41 percent of all government expenditures; more than what is
budgeted for education, environmental protection, health, and housing combined.
In 2013, some 13 percent of the nation’s subsidized fuel was used at power
plants, according to government agency data.
According
to Batan, nuclear power plants would play only a minor role in addressing these
multi-pronged energy woes, adding just 5 percent to Indonesia’s total energy
production if the government’s 2025 energy diversification goals were met.
 |
Gus Nung presents in front of the Japanese representatives of No Nukes
Asia Actions (NNAA) on January 12, 2014. (JG Photo/Cory Rogers) |
Resistance
to Batan-led advocacy
At the
local level, Batan has drawn criticism for its attempts to win support among
populations living near proposed plants, which over the years have included
sites in Balong, Bangka-Belitung, Kalimantan and Madura.
The promotional
efforts carried out by Batan were key in galvanizing opposition to the proposed
plant back in the mid 2000s, said Daviq, the secretary of the Balong Community
Union (PMB), a local anti-nuclear energy group.
That
advocacy campaign, which called for annual outlays of $2.5 million to fund
scholarship programs, social events and a host of other activities, highlighted
the benefits of nuclear power while, according to Daviq, making scant mention
of its risks. When public queries about the program failed to produce useful
information, many grew skeptical of the plan.
“We finally
made the decision that OK, if the government is not willing to give the
information to us, then we must seek it for ourselves,” he said.
Iwan
Kurniawan, a lecturer at the Jakarta-based Institute of Archipelago Business,
recalled similar transparency concerns at play in Madura, East Java, where in
2003 Batan was busy promoting another nuclear plant. Formerly a nuclear
physicist with Batan who left the agency over an undisclosed dispute, Iwan said
that in order to assuage safety concerns voiced by locals, Batan made spurious
claims regarding its capacity to install the latest and safest model plant in
Madura.
“The kind
of plant being discussed was still in its research phase in South Korea,” Iwan
said, explaining that such a plant could not be promised. He added that
localities targeted by Batan-led nuclear advocacy were frequently vulnerable to
this kind of misinformation.
“When Batan
comes and discusses the benefits, I come and discuss the risks to create a more
balanced perspective,” he said.
As in
Balong, once the risks of nuclear contamination became apparent, public
opposition stymied construction of the proposed plant in Madura. Activists
argued that given the amount of untapped alternative energy sources that
existed, the risks of nuclear disaster were avoidable and unjustifiable.
The
nation’s nuclear power agency denied the allegations, explaining that Batan
attempts to inform the public about leakage, natural disaster, and operators’
negligence risks as well as detailed information on how plant operators would
ensure safety.
“We’ve also
developed an information system on our website, and people can ask us via email
about this safety technology,” Eko said.
Socialization
campaigns remain crucial to successful implementation at proposed sites “only
if the government has seriously designed the nuclear power plant program,” Eko
explained.
“There are
currently no plans for research at other locations,” he said.
The global
business of nuclear power
If domestic
resistance to nuclear power has hinged on countering Batan’s campaigns, the
international strategy advocated by the NNAA seeks to shed a critical light on
the corporate interests driving nuclear energy.
According
to NNAA representative Seung Choo, business-friendly regulations in Japan that
reallocate risk to nuclear operators encourage investment by companies like
Toshiba, GE and Hitachi — the companies that build the plants. Japan’s 1961 Act
of Compensation for Nuclear Damages mandates that the nuclear power operators,
as opposed to the suppliers, assume exclusive accountability for any nuclear
damage caused by an accident, making taxpayers ultimately responsible for
damages.
This
creates what Seung Choo calls a “crisis of liability,” where corporations that
stand to profit from construction have less incentive to prioritize safety.
These laws
work to promote “the sound development of the nuclear industry,” the NNAA said
in a statement, and the group fears such business-friendly regulations will be
replicated elsewhere as nuclear suppliers seek to access markets like
Indonesia.
According
to Indonesia’s 1997 Nuclear Power Act, if the country were to successfully
establish a nuclear power plant, the suppliers would be responsible for up to
Rp 900 billion ($76 million) in damages to be doled out over a maximum period
of 30 years, regardless of the actual cost of damages.
Recent
studies have shown that radiation-induced cancer can take as long as 40 years
to develop, and the financial recovery of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power
Plant disaster will approach $250 billion dollars.
Attempts to
contact the Ministry of State-Owned Enterprises for clarification on current
regulations were unsuccessful.
In response
to the situation in Japan, where the corporate builders of nuclear power plants
are shielded from restitution, the NNAA is challenging whether the 1961 act in
court was constitutional.
Armed with
22 lawyers, their recently filed suit seeks redress for Japanese victims, and
to inspire citizens in other nations to “abolish special legal provisions that
protect nuke businesses all around the world,” the group said in a statement.
The suit
seeks 10,000 plaintiffs worldwide to sign over power of attorney so that the
NNAA can represent them in court. “Anyone can be a plaintiff,” Choo said. “Even
someone traumatized by the media coverage qualifies as a victim.” If the NNAA
wins, these foreign plaintiffs will receive a symbolic, one-dollar payout.
In Balong,
the NNAA made hundreds of documents available for signing. Many, including
Nuruddin Amin, the head of the Hasyim Asy’ari Pesantren (Islamic boarding
school) in Bangsri, Central Java, and a longtime supporter of the anti-nuclear
cause, expressed enthusiasm for the strategy.
“The
Fukushima accident is not only a tragedy for the Japanese,” Nuruddin said. “It
is a tragedy for the whole world, and I hope we all will join to sign this
power of attorney so that we can work on this issue together.”
Many
Indonesian activists, however, remained mindful that the first battle remains
on the home front, helping provide balanced information to communities
earmarked for nuclear power plant development.
For Iwan,
the resistance coalitions that fought a successful battle in Balong ought to
provide guidance and direction as the drive for domestic nuclear power
progresses.
“Here we
have a model of resistance that can be delivered elsewhere,” he said.
— Erwida
Maulia contributed to this report in Jakarta
Women shout slogans in front of the National Diet in Tokyo
on March 9, 2014 as they take part in a rally denouncing nuclear
power plants (AFP, Toru Yamanaka)
Related Articles:
