Corruption and Environment

Today, on World Environment Day—and in the days to come—it is important to understand the ways in which corruption is entangled with environmental devastation, and so work is needed to mitigate the impact. Landau and Glandorf, 2020

That statement, in the context of World Environment Day 2020, looks set to always be relevant in the long term. That\'s because corruption that causes environmental damage in various parts of the world is still happening systemically, including in Indonesia.

In their article "Corruption is a threat to planet Earth", Kelsey Landau and Joseph Glandof mention four important statements.

First, massive corruption—where laws and regulations are produced by corrupt actors to their advantage—can have a disastrous impact on the protection of the global environment. Many of the business interests of large corporations have direct links to the highest levels of government and depend on weak environmental regulations for maximum profit.

Second, at national level, the government places these companies at the center of the development strategy, and provides them with ongoing support despite widespread environmental degradation. In fact, when the regulatory text strongly supports environmental protection, in its implementation it is enforced ineffectively and corruptly, which undermines all subsequent environmental protection.

Also read:

^ Concrete Proof Needed to Fight Black Campaign

^ The Regional Elections and ‘Cukongkrasi’

At local level, corruption can take the form of bribes from companies to override regulatory requirements, and on the other hand, enforcing legal requirements only on an ad hoc basis based on bribes.

Third, government systems in areas that extract natural resources (SDA) often lack funds and lack the staff or technical capacity to properly enforce environmental regulations. This creates severe law enforcement problems and poses a risk of corruption. In Indonesia, a permit issuing office and a district health office only have the resources to evaluate 25 percent of the 285 coal mining companies.

KOMPAS/RONY ARIYANTO NUGROHO

Buying and selling land is increasingly prevalent in Kuta Village, Cisarua, Bogor Regency, West Java, on Monday (1/2/2021).

Under such conditions, companies try to limit environmental inspections and law enforcement actions by paying bribes.

Fourth, the risk of severe environmental corruption around extractive project sites creates a center of threat and violence for environmental defenders.

Because extraction projects usually take place in relatively isolated areas with a weak state presence, communities often have few mechanisms at their disposal other than protest and disobedience to demand changes to environmental practices that threaten their lives and livelihoods.

In the most extreme cases, tensions between local residents and companies escalate, leading to direct violence against environmental defenders.

However, some companies have taken advantage of the weak role of the state to intimidate or threaten local residents. In this case, the government is generally unresponsive to local demands and monitors activists or restricts the movement of environmental activities. In the most extreme cases, tensions between local residents and companies escalate, leading to direct violence against environmental defenders.

Involving many actors

My experience while researching the issue of licensing on the use of natural resources in 2016-2018, such cases often involve corruption networks with many actors, including public officials, companies, security forces and sometimes organized crime networks. Each has a stake in the benefit of silencing activists and often the perpetrators of the violence go unidentified.

Academics and activists in Indonesia, especially those in the fields related to natural resources and the environment, in conducting their functions still face more complex challenges, and even dangers. Some experts have experienced threats and attacks. For corruption cases, threats and attacks tend to increase. At the Corruption Summit in Makassar in 2020, Transparency International Indonesia presented data on threats during 2004-2006 amounting to 19 and increased to 57 threats in 2012-2017.

Also read:

^ State-owned Land in Puncak for Free Transactions

^ Largest Payback in Corruption Case

Until the end of 2018, the threats have targeted 48 anticorruption groups, 21 law enforcement officers, 10 civil servants, 7 lecturers and students. In other countries, such as the Philippines, in 2018, at least 30 environmental activists were killed by members of paramilitary groups and unknown assailants. In the same year, at least 164 environmental defenders were killed worldwide.

Such criminal threats against the society and environmental or anti-corruption activists cannot be treated simply based on the conformity of the act with the articles in the legislation as a positivistic-instrumental process. The "criminal" act does not occur and must be proven true, but the crime is "made and perpetuated" through the process of dominating the differences in the positions of the citizens.

From my experience in following judicial processes in such cases, it can also be seen that the "criminal" act itself is thwarted or even blocked from the process as to why it happened—having its causality relations omitted, then corrected by using articles which are very far from the effort to realize a fair condition.

Therefore, it is easy to understand why in the management of natural resources and the environment, communities and activists are vulnerable and can easily become targets of criminalization. If we look into it, criminalization then becomes a way of using power to ignore the rights of others, which is produced repeatedly, and historically has reached a level of relative stability. Because crime has been rooted materialistically, it is itself a center for social action or an expression of power itself.

Democracy and the environment

The four statements by Landau and Glandof above are in line with the results of other studies regarding the relationship between corruption and environmental destruction. Marina Povitkina\'s study in “The Limits of Democracy in Tackling Climate Change” (2018) concludes that in general the quality of democracy in a country contributes to the commitment to implementing climate change control.

However, the relationship between democracy and climate change varies and depends on the qualities of democracy itself, including its tolerance for corruption. In this case it is argued that democracy can increase efforts to control carbon emissions only if corruption is low. When corruption is high, democracy looks no better than authoritarian regimes.

Also read: Agricultural Challenges 2019-2024

In some ways, according to Povitkina, the features of democracy actually hinder commitment to the environment. This is because political challenges continue through the electoral cycle, resulting in political leaders being carried away with narrow views. This view can prevent them from allocating budgets for the implementation of long-term policy programs such as environmental protection.

KOMPAS/RONY ARIYANTO NUGROHO

The situation of settlements and agricultural land in Kuta Village, Cisarua, Bogor Regency, West Java, Monday (1/2/2021).

For example, for Indonesia, the budget for the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK) is relatively small. Since 2016, the budget has ranged from Rp 6 trillion to Rp 8 trillion. That amount is about 40 percent of the budget requirement according to the ministry\'s strategic plan that has been set. Compared to the budget allocation of all ministries and institutions which amounted to Rp 1.03 quadrillion, the budget for KLHK is less than one percent.

These results prove, in the long run, the higher the level of corruption, the more environmental pollution.

The relationship between corruption and environmental protection, for cases in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, has been analyzed econometrically based on data for the 1970-2017 period. These results prove, in the long run, the higher the level of corruption, the more environmental pollution.

One example put forward is the occurrence of illegal waste disposal and illegal business activities which greatly affect environmental pollution and damage (Ridzuan et al, 2019). The same thing is experienced by 16 countries in southern Africa, corruption has a negative impact on all environmental sustainability (Double, 2020).

The results of the study of corruption in the mining industry, irrigation, agriculture, forestry, fisheries and conservation activities, with a focus on protected area management and wildlife trade, prove that corruption in these fields is systemic (Tacconi and Williams, 2020). Corruption has a significant negative impact on the environment and the economy, and in turn has a negative impact on social life.

The various facts above show that the efforts to maintain and improve the function of the global, national or local environment cannot be separated from the efforts to eradicate corruption. Corruption has proven to be a powerful means of relaxing environmental protection norms and practices.

ARSIP PRIBADI

Hariadi Kartodihardjo

Hariadi Kartodihardjo, Professor of Forestry Policy at IPB University

(This article was translated by Kurniawan Siswoko).