[Full Report] Coal mining polluting south kalimantan water by Greenpeace Indonesia

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

December 2014

GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA - INDONESIA Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 1

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

TABLE OF CONTENTS Tables/Figures, Abbreviations 3 Greenpeace Investigation: Map of South Kalimantan sampling sites 4 1. Executive Summary 6 2. Methodology 7 3. Background 8 History: The Coal Boom in Indonesia 8 South Kalimantan: A Major Player in Indonesia’s Coal Industry 10 4. Understanding the Environmental Context: Geo-Spatial Analysis 12 Purpose and Scope 12 Map Source 12 Definition of Mine Concession Stages for Licensing 13 Geo-Spatial Analysis Results 15 a) Coal Mining Concessions 15 b) Forest Cover Within Coal Concessions 17 c) River Catchment Area/Waterways Downstream of Coal Concessions 19 5. Environmental Impacts of Coal Mining in Indonesia 20 Open Cast Coal Mining 20 Coal Mining and Deforestation 20 Acid Mine Drainage 23 Health Impacts from Coal Mining Wastewaters on Humans, Other Animals, Fish, and Plants 25 Land Erosiion Leading to Water Quality Degradation and Flooding Risks 28 Post-Mining Reclamation and Long Term Recovery 28 6. Greenpeace Investigation 32 Purpose and Scope 32 Sampling Results 32 What Does the Sampling Mean? Breaking It Down 35 Poor and Non-Existent Signage May Indicate Inadequate Monitoring 35 Three In-Depth Case Studies: The Fuller Picture of What We Found 37 a) Top Toxic Trouble – Arutmin 37 b) Banpu – Environmental Threat 39 c) Tanjung Alam Jaya – Contaminating a Nearby Farm 40 7. Government Agencies Acknowledge Degradation of Water Quality 42 a) Government Acknowledgment in South Kalimantan 42 b) Government Acknowledgment in Other Regions of Indonesia 44 8. Conclusion and Demands 46 End Notes 50 Appendix 1. Analytical report Greenpeace Research Laboratories no. 04-2014 54

2 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Water

FIGURES/TABLES Figure 3.1. Indonesia Coal Production 1981-2013 Figure 3.2. South Kalimantan Coal Production Figure 4.1. Coal Mining Concessions in South Kalimantan 2013 Table 4.1. Coal Mining Concessions in South Kalimantan 2013 Figure 4.2. South Kalimantan, Coal Mining and Forests Table 4.2. Areas of Forest Cover within Coal Mining Concessions Figure 4.3. Potential River Pollution in South Kalimantan Table 4.3. Potential River Pollution in South Kalimantan Figure 5.1. Kalimantan, Coal Mining and Deforestation Figure 5.2. US EPA Organism Response to pH Table. 5.1. Compilation of studies on Indonesian Fish Species Response to pH Table. 6.1. Wastewater Quality Limit for Coal Mining Activities Table 6.2. Summary of Findings and Field Observations Figure 6.1. Relationships between pH and the dissolved concentrations of three metals in samples of water and wastewater collected in the vicinity of coal mining operations in Indonesia Figure 7.1. Field sketch : Sampling Point ID/IDN 14029 Figure 7.2. Field sketch : Sampling Point ID/IDN 14013, 14016, 14017 Figure 7.3. Field sketch : Sampling Point ID/IDN 14004

ABBREVIATIONS AMD Acid mine drainage AMDAL Environmental impact assessment procedure ANDAL Environmental assessment report ASM Artisanal and small-scale mining BAPEDAL Indonesian Environmental Impact Management Agency BLHD Badan Lingkungan Hidup Daerah (Provincial Environmental Protection Agency) BLT Biro Lingkungan dan Teknik, Bureau of Environment and Technology BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CCoW Coal Contract of Works COD Chemical Oxygen Demand CoW Contract of Works DGM Directorate General of Mines DO Dissolved Oxygen DTPU Directorate of Technical Mining EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EPA Environmental Protection Agency (Badan Lingkungan Hidup Daerah) ha hectares ICP-AES Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy IUP Izin Usaha Pertambangan (which are the new mining permits being implemented) KP Kuasa Pertambangan (coal concessions) MEMR Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources mg/l milligrams per litre MOF Ministry of Forestry Mt Million tonnes NGO Non governmental organisation pH measures the acidity or basicity of an aqueous solution PT Perseroan Terbatas (company incorporated in Indonesia) RKL Rencana Pengelolaan Lingkungun, Environmental management plan RPL Rencana Pemantauan Lingkungun, Environmental monitoring plan TSS Total Suspended Solids Îźg/l Micrograms per litre

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 3

Greenpeace Investigation:

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

LEGEND

South Kalimantan Sampling Sites

River Areas boundary Province Boundary District/Kabupaten Boundary Coal Production & Exploration BARITO SELATAN Construction and Feasibility Study

PT. Adaro Indonesia

BALANGAN BARITO TIMUR

PASER

RABALONG

12 HULU SUNGAI UTARA

Source: Coal Map of South Kalimantan, Petromondo, August 2013 Indonesia Basemap 1:250.000, Badan Informasi Geospasial, 2014 River Area, Ditjen Sumber Daya Air - Kem PU, Map Analysis

PT. Kadya Caraka Mulia An acid pond (pH 3.38) right beside a public road in a valley of paddy ﬁelds. 3 times the discharge limit for Manganese*

“.. Water scarcity is bad in this village. We never had it before the coal company came. Now every dry season, there's no water. Because the forests are gone. My village is high up so we don't get flash floods but this village gets a lot of flooding. The concession (well) is too deep. Like 100 m. And the community well is only 20 m deep…” (Villager of South Kalimantan, Age 32, on water scarcity, refer to testimony: Coal Impact on People (Not covered by Greenpeace sampling)

KAPUAS HULU SUNGAI SELATAN

PT. Tanjung Alam Jaya

BARITO RIVER AREA

A breach in the bank of an abandoned mine pit is leaking acid water (pH 3.74) into a stream used by the community

PT. Arutmin Indonesia

HULU SUNGAI TENGAH

SOUTH KALIMANTAN KOTA BARU

BARITOKUALA TAPIN

Acid water with 10 times the discharge limit for Manganese leaks from a set of ponds *

PD. Baramarta 9

1 4 12

pH 2.34; 40 times the discharge limit for Iron. * Also found higher levels of Ni, Zn, Cu, Cr, Co, Hg than other samples. This acid pond is right beside the main road used by villagers of Salaman, South Kalimantan.

KOTA BANJARMASIN

BANJAR KOTA BANJARBARU

PT. Jorong Barutama Greston

CENGAL-BATULICIN RIVER AREA

A leak was detected at point No. 025. (pH 4.4) TANAHBUMBU

26 An abandoned mine pit has become a 2 km long acid lake (pH 3.74). TANAH LAUT 24

26 25 27

20 14 15 29 19 18 21 17 13

NOTES : *In comparison to regulatory limits for discharge of coal wastewater: Manganese (Mn) = 4mg/L = 4000 µg/L; Iron (Fe) = 7mg/L = 7000 µg/L MOE (2003) Indonesia Ministry of Environment (MOE) Decree No. 113 on Wastewater Quality Limit for Coal Mining Activities ** Testing results from all 29 locations are available in Table: Concentration of Metals and Metalloids, Analytical Report 04-2014 SOURCE: Coal Map of South Kalimantan, Petromindo, August 2013, IndonesiaBasemap 1:250.000 Geospasial Information Agency, 2014 River Area, Dir. Gen. of Water Resource, Ministry of Public Work,, IMAGE: Erik Wirawan, Richi Raimba, DigitalGlobe, 2012-12-01 up to 2014-03-18, resolution spectral 60 x 60

5 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 5

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Greenpeace has uncovered evidence that the intensive coal mining activities in Indonesia’s South Kalimantan province are discharging toxic pollution into rivers, and in some instances, violating national standards for wastewater discharges from mines. Local environmental authorities have failed to stop or prevent the violations. Due to the large amount of coal mining, almost half of the province’s rivers are at risk of being affected by water pollution from the mines. In this report, Greenpeace is publishing findings from our first field-investigation on the impacts of large-scale coal mining on water quality in South Kalimantan. Coal mines are degrading the water in the region and harming the environment. Twenty-two of twenty-nine samples taken by Greenpeace from ponds and effluents associated with mining activities within five coal concessions across the province were found to have unacceptably high acidity. Of those samples, 18 had a pH below 4, and many of those contained elevated concentrations of metals. The actual leakage and potential for further overflow or seepage from such contaminated ponds in coal concessions poses grave dangers to nearby creeks, swamps, and rivers. Greenpeace research indicates that

around 3,000 km of South Kalimantan’s rivers - almost 45% of the total are downstream from coal mines and hence potentially at risk of toxic pollution from different coal concessions. Coal mining companies are

being allowed to violate the public’s right to clean water, and are jeopardising the current and future health and wellbeing of South Kalimantan’s people.

The Greenpeace investigation team on the ground discovered leaks and discharges of acid and toxic water well over legal limits set for discharges from operating coal mines and from abandoned mine pits. Scientific analysis of samples collected shows that wastes containing elevated concentrations of certain heavy metals, including iron, manganese, nickel and copper, are being released into the water bodies and surrounding areas at some of the sites, in addition to the presence of unacceptably low pH levels in the water. Around three quarters of all samples collected by Greenpeace had pHs outside regulatory norms for mine wastewater. Due to limited access, security threats, and time constraints, this sampling only covered a small number of the concessions in South Kalimantan, and thus it seems probable that there are many more violations. Moreover, every concession visited by Greenpeace revealed some evidence of environmental negligence. This report presents several cases of mining companies whose operations deserve deeper investigation by the relevant government agencies and subsequent regulatory control. Our research has focused on mining activities in South Kalimantan – one of the areas most affected by Indonesia’s coal mining boom. This report incorporates a snapshot of different sampling points from several mining concessions in the province. The samples consisted of waters collected from leaks, engineered water discharge channels and abandoned mine pits.

Greenpeace believes that there is a clear and present danger of hazardous materials being released into neighbouring water bodies and the surrounding environment. As you are reading

this report, neighbouring and downstream local communities may be using potentially contaminated water to bathe, wash, and farm. The risks they face are unacceptable. The mining companies who are profiting from these dirty and, in some cases, illegal operations have a legal and moral responsibility to reduce pollution into the water bodies that communities depend on, or they should be shut down. Moreover, companies found to be violating the law should pay for clean-up operations even if their mining licenses expire or are cancelled, since acid mine drainage (AMD) problems typically persist for many decades. Greenpeace’s research is not to be generalised as a survey of every discharge point in all mining activities in South Kalimantan, nor as a survey of all mining companies. The purpose of this report is to present the data from those sampling points we were able to access and to give a snapshot of the releases of wastewater and drainage water into the environment due to some specific coal mining activities, and to reveal how the state appears to be failing to protect the environment and the public’s right to clean water.

and the environment. These

companies must be brought to justice and made to pay for the clean-up of the water bodies they have contaminated, as well as being forced to pay compensation to the people whose health and livelihoods they have endangered. The people of South Kalimantan deserve better. All Indonesians are entitled

METHODOLOGY

Greenpeace conducted research over a period of nine months, including three months of scouting and sampling. The investigation team visited South Kalimantan three times and collected 29 samples from five mining companies’ concessions; PT. Arutmin Indonesia, PT. Jorong Barutama Greston, PT. Tanjung Alam Jaya, PT. Kadya Caraka Mulia, PD. Baramarta and several smaller concessions in the districts of Tapin, Banjar and Tanah Laut, as well as conducting field pH measurements in

additional mining concessions. Desk research reviewed publicly available data on the subject, with a focus on government data provided by the South Kalimantan provincial environmental protection agency, Badan Lingkungan Hidup Hidup Daerah (BLHD), and data from the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources Department of Mining. Data published by the Indonesian Coal Mining Association, along with other corporate data from coal companies, were also crucial to our desk review.

to justice and to a healthy, bright future, with clean water for them and their children.

©greenpeace Coal mining changes the landscape of Asam-asam, Tanah laut, South Kalimantan

Greenpeace’s field investigation findings correlate with a 2013 government water quality survey of the Barito and Martapura rivers, as well as other rivers, showing that the rapid expansion of coal mines over the previous fifteen years had contributed to the poor water quality in the region now, significantly driving up public spending to provide a safe drinking water supply. Indeed, some companies that Greenpeace investigated had previously been given fails (red rankings) and warnings from government authorities, which also found that these same companies were violating crucial regulations designed to protect human health

6 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 6

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

3 BACKGROUND

History: The Coal Boom in Indonesia

Twenty years ago, Indonesia was a marginal player in the world of coal. Between 2000 and 2009, a new era emerged, of massive expansion of coal alongside decentralisation: Indonesia developed the world’s fastest growing coal sector, with coal production increasing by 460% since 2000.1 Today Indonesia is the world’s largest thermal coal exporter and the second largest coal exporter overall, reaching this dominant position in a remarkably short period of time. In 2012, Indonesia supplied 39% of global seaborne thermal coal exports, up from 14% merely 10 years earlier in 2002.2 In just two decades, Indonesia’s rampant deforestation and coal mining boom has driven the nation to become the world’s third largest climate polluter, behind China and the US. Some action is being taken to address deforestation, in order to honour outgoing President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s 2009 voluntary commitment to reduce Indonesia’s emissions by up to 41% by 2020. However, the projected 460 million tonnes 3 increase in carbon emissions from coal mining expansion completely undermines this emissions reduction target. Indonesia’s coal production began to increase rapidly from 1989 to 1999, “during which time coal production grew from only 4.43 million tonnes (Mt) (1989) to 80.89 Mt (1999), a compound annual growth rate of 30 percent.”4 The spectacular boom in Indonesia’s coal production in the ‘90s heralded the government’s ever-greater dependence on coal. The 90s also saw Indonesia‘s major coal producers embark on serious exploration projects, with commercial production skyrocketing.5

8 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

In 1998, with the fall of Suharto, the Indonesian reform era began, and radically altered Indonesia’s political and administrative system - from highly centralised administration to decentralisation and towards a more democratic system. It also brought Indonesian coal companies to the fore and squeezed out international mining corporations. Increased autonomy devolved to the district/ municipal level, power to the provincial level became limited, and central government authority was curtailed. With political and administrative powers shifting to sub-national governments, the mining sector changed completely. Local authorities’ new regulatory power over the coal mining sector proved profitable, especially from the issuing of new mining licenses, exploration permits, or production permits (known at the time as Kuasa Pertambangan or KPs). Quickly, the issuing of local permits proliferated. The system of KPs is already in disarray and the local governments had granted over 10,000 permits. Many of these permits were overlapping or unmapped.6 As Indonesian corporations rose to unprecedented prominence, previously powerful international actors were sidelined and some of the world’s largest extractives companies were gradually excluded. Majority ownership of the biggest coal companies’ shifted to Indonesian investors, who rapidly became industrial giants.7 This was an era when tremendous amounts of money were made and lost, with Indonesian companies engaged in titanic struggles for dominance. Indonesia’s most highly respected, weekly investigative news magazine ‘Tempo’

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

Indonesia Coal Production (tonnes)

Figure 3.1. Indonesia Coal Production 1981-2013

450 421.00

425 400

386.00

375

353.27

350 325 300

275.16

275

256.18 240.25

250 225

216.95

200

193.76

175

152.72

150

132.35

125 92.54

100

77.04

75 50 25 0

114.28 103.33

22.36 27.58 13.84 8.70 10.73 4.49 3.03 0.40 0.59 0.65 1.47 2.00 2.59

32.87

41.84

50.35 54.82

73.68 62.23

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

YEAR

Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014

reported a proliferation of “Coal mafias” 8 and “coal wars” 9 ; thugs were hired; transparency lessened; corruption expanded; illegal mining operations mushroomed; government coordination diminished; and from the sky, much of Kalimantan, the Indonesian part of the island of Borneo, began to look more and more ravaged. By 2008 there were three enormous, legal coal mining contractors in South Kalimantan - but hundreds of illegal, unlicensed small-scale coal miners. “Almost every district of South Kalimantan Province

contains several illegal coal mines, and their numbers are growing. In 1997, 157 individuals or businesses of this type were recorded, rising to 445 in 2000 and 842 in 2004.”10 While large-scale concessions pollute more because of their size, smaller concessions may be worse in the intensity of their pollution, given the near total lack of environmental and other oversight in many cases. Some experts believe that “Artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) in Indonesia is undertaken with little or no environmental care.” 11

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 9

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

South Kalimantan: A Major Player in Indonesia’s Coal Industry Today, Indonesia’s coal production is geographically concentrated in Kalimantan.12 Kalimantan accounts for over 40% of the country’s reserves.13 Most Indonesian coal comes from East Kalimantan, but production in South Kalimantan is becoming a massive part of the Indonesian coal story, and is still growing. South Kalimantan produced roughly 79 Mt in 2008 14 rising to 118 Mt in 2011 (33% of national output).15 Reports estimated in 2009 that two-thirds of Indonesia’s coal exports were produced by around two dozen mines in East Kalimantan, while most of the remainder came from South Kalimantan.16 In 2008, there were 26 mining permits from the central government and 430 mining permits from local government in South Kalimantan.17 A 2013 map from the Indonesian Coal Association, included at the beginning of this report, listed 480 legal mining companies

10 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

in South Kalimantan (within that list, each company can have more than 1 concession).18 According to Greenpeace’s spatial analysis (see chapter 4), official mining concessions (illegal concessions excluded) cover approximately 1 million hectares (Mha) of South Kalimantan’s total area of 3.7 Mha. When factoring in the small-scale illegal coal miners that abound, almost a third of South Kalimantan has been given over to mining. South Kalimantan is more than just a major player in Indonesia’s coal industry. South Kalimantan’s burgeoning coal output and resulting huge increase in carbon emissions contributes to global climate change, given the dominant and growing role of Indonesian coal in the international coal market.19, 20

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Water

ÂŠgreenpeace/Laury Myllyvirta

Coal mining in South Kalimantan, Indonesia

Figure 3.2. South Kalimantan Coal Production Tonnes 50000000 47500000 45000000 42500000 40000000 37500000 35000000 32500000 30000000 27500000 25000000 22500000 20000000 17500000 15000000 12500000 10000000 7500000 5000000 2500000 0

Adaro Indonesia, PT Antang Gunung Meratus, PT Arutmin Indonesia, PT Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku, PT Bangun Banua Persada Kalimantan, PT Baramarta, PD Borneo Indobara, PT Jorong Barutama Greston, PT Kadya Caraka Mulya, PT Sumber Kurnia Buana, PT Tanjung Alam Jaya, PT Wahana Baratama Mining, PT Senamas Energindo Mulia, PT Additional companies[1]

2010

Source: Indonesia Mineral and Coal Statistics 2012

2011

[1] real numbers may be higher since local governments have not shared all their data.

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 11

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

UNDERSTANDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT: GEOSPATIAL ANALYSIS

Purpose and Scope In order to understand how extensive mining activities impact South Kalimantan, Greenpeace has undertaken an in-depth geo-spatial analysis to attempt to answer 3 questions: 1. How much land area of South Kalimantan is given to coal mining, and what is the current status of each concession based on latest available information? 2. Of the areas assigned to mining concessions, what important natural resources are being impacted – forest and major river catchment areas? 3. Water system affected by coal mining - how much of the river system is downstream of coal mines and thus exposed to mining wastewater discharge?

Map Sources • Coal Map of South Kalimantan (production, exploration, construction, feasibility study both for KP & PKP2B permits by Petromindo August 2011 (scale 1: 250.000) • The coal maps contain boundaries of coal concessions with 8 classifications; Production PKP2B, Production KP, Exploration PKP2B, Exploration KP, Feasibility Study PKP2B, Feasibility Study KP, Construction PKP2B, Construction KP (scale 1: 250.000). Scanned copies of these coal maps were digitised using ArcGIS software.

12 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

• Land Cover Map (2011) from Republic of Indonesia Ministry of Forestry, (scale 1: 250.000). GIS digital data: From the land cover map, we included 6 classifications of forest cover; Primary Dry land Forest, Primary Mangrove Forest, Secondary Dry Land Forest, Primary Swamp Forest, Secondary Mangrove Forest, Secondary Swamp Forest. • Topographic Map (2010) by Geospatial Information Agency (scale 1: 250.000). GIS digital data: The map contains administrative boundaries, river networks, roads, land countours, rail networks and important places. River networks are used as the base for the potential river pollution analysis. • South Kalimantan River Area Map (2010) from Republic of Indonesia Ministry of Public Works. Scanned copies of the river area map were digitised using ArcGIS software. South Kalimantan province contains 4 river basins: Barito, Cengal-Batulicin, Kendilo and Pulau Laut. River areas, which extended beyond the South Kalimantan provincial border, were excluded from the map and the analysis.

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Water

South Kalimantanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s open cast coal mining

Definition of Mine Concession Stages for Licensing: According to the Ministry of Mining and Energy Resources Law No. 4/2009 1. Exploration: The stage of mining activities that aims to obtain accurate and detailed information about the location, shape, dimension, distribution, quality and measured resource of minerals, as well as information about the local social and environmental situation. 2. Feasibility Study: The stage of mining operations to obtain detailed information on all aspects that relate to the economic and technical feasibility of mining. This includes the analysis of the environmental impacts as well as postmining planning. 3. Construction: The stage of mining activities that covers the construction of all facilities related to production operations, including environmental impact control. 4. Production: The stage of mining activities that includes construction at the mining site, processing, refining, including transportation and sales, as well as a means of controlling environmental impacts in accordance with the results of the feasibility study.

ÂŠgreenpeace/Yudhi Mahatma

Data analysis: Using the spatial data from the above source maps, the area of each coal concession was calculated and aggregated. The area of river catchment areas and forest cover areas in each coal concession were also calculated using an overlay analysis and tabular analysis process. The length of rivers and streams that are within or downstream of the concessions was also calculated using an overlay analysis and tabular analysis process. The results are presented below:

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 13

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Water

Geo-Spatial Analysis Results Figure 4.1. Coal Mining Concessions in South Kalimantan 2013

14 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Indonesia

©greenpeace

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

Tanah Laut Regency, coal mines polluting South Kalimantan’s water.

a) Coal Mining Concessions

Result: official mining concessions (illegal concessions excluded) cover approximately 1 million hectares (Mha) of South Kalimantan’s total area of 3.7 Mha. When factoring in the small-scale illegal coal mines that abound, almost a third of South Kalimantan has been given over to mining.

This analysis is based on the Coal Map of South Kalimantan (production, exploration, construction, feasibility study both for KP & PKP2B permits), by Petromindo August 2011 (scale 1: 250.000)

Table 4.1. Coal Mining Concessions in South Kalimantan 2013 KENDILO SOUTH KALIMANTAN

CENGALBATU LICIN

BARITO

KENDILO EAST KALIMANTAN*

PULAU LAUT

TOTAL (Ha)

Sum in Ha

PRODUCTION (PKP2B)

81363

9.93%

109774

2.11%

183

88.24%

17941

0.00%

775

0.00%

210035

4.71%

PRODUCTION (KP)

45443

35.44%

114275

56.22%

530

4.34%

18323

67.14%

720

6.68%

179290

50.98%

0.00%

16176

2.53%

0.00%

531

0.47%

8101

78.78%

24809

2.37%

EXPLORATION (KP)

97083

8.34%

359301

4.07%

0.00%

75197

0.00%

687

0.00%

532685

4.68%

CONSTRUCTION (PKP2B)

27199

16.59%

13495

17.88%

417

5.51%

16.36%

7.00%

49172

17.16%

FEASIBILITY STUDY (PKP2B)

22838

29.70%

26023

17.18%

8478

1.91%

16.02%

7.53%

48860

20.10%

Grand Total

273926

100%

639044

100%

9608

100%

111992

100%

10283

100%

1044851

100%

Row Labels

EXPLORATION (PKP2B)

* As the GIS digital data that we extracted from the maps is based on coal concession boundaries, we have included some coal concessions that extend across the provincial border into East Kalimantan. However, as only small portions of these concessions extend across the border, we are confident that South Kalimantan level data is not distorted as a result. Source: Indonesia Mineral and Coal Statistics 2012 i

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 15

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Water

Figure 4.2. South Kalimantan, Coal Mining and Forests

16 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Indonesia

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

yllyvirta

ce/Laury M

©greenpea

ce/Richi Rai

mba

Table 4.2. Areas of Forest Cover within Coal Mining Concessions COAL MINING TYPE FOREST CONSTRUCTION (PKP2B)

Secondary Dry Land Forest

EXPLORATION (KP)

CENGAL-BATULICIN

BARITO

KENDILO SOUTH KALIMANTAN

KENDILO EAST KALIMANTAN

PULAU LAUT

GRAND TOTAL

Sum of Ha

3198.032318

13.05%

5069.931939

6.49%

6453.020864

92.08%

0.00%

14720.98512

9.84%

3198.032318

13.05%

5069.931939

6.49%

6453.020864

92.08%

0.00%

14720.98512

9.84%

12489.11793

50.97%

44894.44124

57.43%

23.77306323

0.34%

36532.32714

91.58%

0.00%

93939.65937

62.79%

Primary Mangrove Forest

0.00%

1010.91852

1.29%

0.00%

2.080982548

0.01%

0.00%

1012.999503

0.68%

Secondary Dry Land Forest

12489.11793

50.97%

41268.51743

52.79%

23.77306323

0.34%

33269.18438

83.40%

0.00%

87050.5928

58.18%

Secondary Mangrove Forest

0.00%

2554.817547

3.27%

0.00%

756.686052

1.90%

0.00%

3311.503599

2.21%

Secondary Swamp Forest

0.00%

60.18774325

0.08%

0.00%

2504.375728

6.28%

0.00%

2564.563471

1.71%

EXPLORATION (PKP2B)

0.00%

1779.417516

2.28%

0.00%

468.5992863

1.17%

0.00%

2248.016802

1.50%

Primary Mangrove Forest

0.00%

684.4239474

0.88%

0.00%

2.975003735

0.01%

0.00%

687.3989511

0.46%

Secondary Dry Land Forest

0.00%

427.7609936

0.55%

0.00%

0.004483713

0.00%

427.7654773

0.29%

Secondary Mangrove Forest

0.00%

667.2325749

0.85%

0.00%

465.6197989

1.17%

0.00%

1132.852374

0.76%

816.0839472

3.33%

599.7043391

0.77%

0.00%

1415.788286

0.95%

FEASIBILITY STUDY (PKP2B)

Primary Mangrove Forest

0.00%

169.1254057

0.22%

0.00%

169.1254057

0.11%

Secondary Dry Land Forest

816.0839472

3.33%

0.00%

816.0839472

0.55%

Secondary Mangrove Forest

0.00%

430.5789333

0.55%

0.00%

430.5789333

0.29%

7565.364518

30.87%

18300.68905

23.41%

529.5620622

7.56%

215.2660624

0.54%

0.00%

26610.8817

17.79% 0.08%

PRODUCTION (KP)

Primary Dry Land Forest

0.00%

124.6607225

0.16%

0.00%

124.6607225

Primary Mangrove Forest

0.00%

247.5618226

0.32%

0.00%

247.5618226

0.17%

Secondary Dry Land Forest

7565.364518

30.87%

15846.63261

20.27%

529.5620622

7.56%

18.8429986

0.05%

0.00%

23960.40219

16.02%

Secondary Mangrove Forest

0.00%

665.7673604

0.85%

0.00%

196.4230638

0.49%

0.00%

862.1904242

0.58%

Secondary Swamp Forest

0.00%

1416.066533

1.81%

0.00%

1416.066533

0.95%

434.9023897

1.77%

7530.743368

9.63%

1.515914771

0.02%

2673.636251

6.70%

34.34443664

100.00%

10675.14236

7.14%

PRODUCTION (PKP2B)

Primary Mangrove Forest

0.00%

340.1808285

0.44%

0.00%

13.1885721

38.40%

353.3694007

0.24%

Secondary Dry Land Forest

434.9023897

1.77%

6356.722506

8.13%

1.515914771

0.02%

239.891495

0.60%

0.00%

7033.032305

4.70%

Secondary Mangrove Forest

0.00%

833.8400335

1.07%

0.00%

2433.744756

6.10%

21.15586454

61.60%

3288.740654

2.20%

24503.5011

100.00%

78174.92745

100.00%

7007.871904

100.00%

39889.82874

100.00%

34.34443664

100.00%

149610.4736

100.00%

Grand Total

b) Forest Cover Within Coal Concessions This analysis is made by overlaying the Coal Map of South Kalimantan (production, exploration, construction, feasibility study both for KP & PKP2B permits by Petromindo August 2011 - scale 1: 250.000), with the Land Cover Map in 2011 from the Ministry of Forestry.

Result: Approximately 14% of total forested area in South Kalimantan is in coal mining concessions. Approximately 4% of the total primary forest in South Kalimantan is in coal mining concessions. Another 73% of forested area in Pulau Laut and 18% in Cengal-Batulicin is in coal concessions.

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 17

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Water

Figure 4.3. Potential River Pollution in South Kalimantan

18 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Indonesia

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

Table 4.3. Potential River Pollution in South Kalimantan length of river (km) RIVER POLLUTION River at risk of mining activities Not directly impacted by mining activities GRAND TOTAL

BARITO

CENGAL BATULICIN

KENDILO

PULAU LAUT

GRAND TOTAL

1532 2821 4353

1413 729 2142

234 339 573

72 45 117

3250 3935 7185

length of river (%) RIVER POLLUTION River at risk of mining activities Not directly impacted by mining activities GRAND TOTAL

BARITO

CENGAL BATULICIN

KENDILO

PULAU LAUT

GRAND TOTAL

31.18% 64.82% 100%

65.96% 34.04% 100%

40.82% 59.18% 100%

61.39% 38.61% 100%

45.23% 54.77% 100%

c) River Catchment Area/Waterways Downstream of Coal Concessions The river area map analysis is based on overlaying the Coal Map of South Kalimantan (production, exploration, construction, feasibility study both for KP & PKP2B permit by Petromindo August 2011 (scale 1: 250.000), with the River Area Map from the Ministry of Public Works. For the potential river pollution analysis, we calculated the length of river (km) flowing through coal mining concessions and traced the flows downstream using the Topographic Map by the Geospatial Information Agency (scale 1: 250.000) and the Coal Map of South Kalimantan, Petromindo August 2011 (scale 1: 250.000). The map may not show all the tributaries due to its scale. Our analysis only includes rivers, or sections of rivers, in the province of South Kalimantan.

Result: Approximately 3,000 km of South Kalimantan’s rivers - around 45% of all rivers in the province - are downstream from coal mines and hence potentially at risk of toxic pollution from coal mining activities. Careful analysis of multiple maps from the coal industry and government authorities indicates that several of South Kalimantan’s watersheds are at risk due to the high concentration of coal mining operations there. According to Greenpeace mapping calculations, 33% of the coal production concessions in the province lie in the Barito watershed and 58% in the CengalBatulicin watershed, making these the most coal affected areas (see Table 4.1).

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 19

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF COAL MINING IN INDONESIA

Open Cast Coal Mining

Coal Mining and Deforestation

Indonesia permits “open cast” mining, sometimes also called “strip mining” or “surface mining,” as well as “mountaintop removal mining”. Broadly speaking this is mining whereby all the soil and rock, which lie on top of the mineral being mined, are removed, often by bulldozing or blasting. Open cast mining is different from underground mining, where the surface is left more or less in place and where miners must remove minerals via shafts or tunnels.22

Massive land clearance for coal mining threatens forests, contributing to the critical deforestation brought about by palm oil plantations, logging, and other threats. When it comes to forests threatened by coal mining, dry land forests may be most at risk. Based on Greenpeace analysis of mining concession and land cover maps, see Tables 4.1 and 4.2, approximately 14% of total forested area in South Kalimantan is in coal mining concessions. According to Greenpeace mapping calculations, 33% of the coal production concessions in the province lie in the Barito watershed and 58% in the Cengal-Batulicin watershed, making these the most coal affected areas.

Open cast mining methods used to extract shallow coal reserves are common. In Indonesia generally, and in Kalimantan specifically, open cast mining is responsible for extreme and sometimes irreversible environmental destruction within the area mined, and with especially detrimental impacts on local water resources. Groundwater needs to be pumped out of the mine pits in order to access the seams, lowering groundwater levels over a large area. Forests need to cleared, and fertile topsoil is removed in order to access the coal. In the process, open cast coal mining can destroy valuable underground aquifers, streams and rivers. Moreover, barren lands are easily eroded, degrading the water quality and clogging up rivers downstream, leading to increased flooding risks. JATAM, the lead NGO for mining advocacy in Indonesia, estimates that for every tonne of coal extracted, 7 - 10 tonnes of soil need to be removed. According to JATAM, “in East and South Kalimantan… a great number of plantations and paddy fields that used to be productive have been turned into gaping mining holes.” 23

20 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

From the map below, looking at Kalimantan as a whole, Greenpeace mapping shows 0.13 million hectares being deforested in coal mining concessions between 2009 and 2011 – we estimate that around one-quarter of the total deforestation in Kalimantan between 2009 and 2011 appears to be attributable to coal, contributing 0.13 million to the total 0.44 Mha of forest cut down in Kalimantan. Coal mining could do far more damage in the future than we have already seen in the past two years. Coal mining could

be a deforestation time bomb waiting to happen. With 3.45 Mha of forests designated as coal mining concessions throughout the whole of Kalimantan in 2011, Indonesia stands to lose hundreds of thousands more hectares of forest if coal companies are permitted to mine them.

Open cast coal mining creates extreme changes in landscape. The rich topsoil is lost and may never be fully recovered. Coal mining potentially changes the landscape, Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia creates erosion, and alters natural waterways.

ÂŠgreenpeace/Yudhi Mahatma

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Water

| 21

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Water

Figure 5.1. Kalimantan, Coal Mining and Deforestation

22 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Indonesia

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

Acid mine drainage (AMD) is the flow or runoff of polluted, acidic, metal-rich water from operating or old abandoned coal mines and areas with surface deposits of mine waste such as rock piles, tailings, open pits, underground tunnels, and leach pads. Depending on the area, the contaminated water may contain high levels of salts, sulphate, iron, aluminium, and toxic heavy metals such as cadmium and cobalt. 25 AMD occurs when metal sulfides, common in rock surrounding the coal seams, come into contact with water, generating acidity. 26 Water quality is further degraded because this acidic water is capable of dissolving harmful metals in the surrounding rocks. 27 AMD can have a direct impact on the quality of drinking water drawn from impacted surface water, on animal or plant life, and even cause the corrosion of equipment or structures. 28 As mentioned above, AMD is often linked to an increase in heavy metals in water bodies or rivers, dissolved iron oxides, sulphates, as well as increased acidity. 29 Many heavy metals bio-accumulate in tissue, and if they reach high enough concentrations they can cause health and reproductive problems in wildlife and humans. This is true not only now but for the long term future as well. Even if Kalimantan’s coal mining companies cleaned up their operations and complied with the regulations, their past operations would still threaten human health and the environment for many years to come. This is partly because metals can cause problems over many years, since they do not break down in the environment, but rather settle and persist in bottoms of streams. This creates long-term contamination for aquatic insects and any animals that feed on them. Existing technology does not enable us to stop acid mine drainage once the reactions have started. Indeed, coal mines that contaminate neighbouring streams with AMD will pose problems that future generations may have to address and manage for hundreds of years. Ideas and prognostications about how to manage such waste in the long run remain speculative. 31

©greenpeace/Richi Raimba

Acid Mine Drainage

“Acid mine drainage is considered one of mining’s most serious threats to water resources. A mine with acid mine drainage has the potential for long-term devastating impacts on rivers, streams and aquatic life.” 24 Worldwide it is known that coal mining can cause significant water pollution. In general, the impacts of acid mine drainage (AMD), primarily from abandoned mine lands, on hundreds and possibly thousands of stream miles globally that are affected by acidification, can include: • • • • • • • • •

Contamination of drinking water, Contamination of industrial water supplies, Killing or altering growth and reproduction of aquatic flora and fauna, Restricted stream use for washing, Skin ailments associated with exposure to contaminated water, Decrease in agricultural yields, Decrease in fisheries yields, Decline in food security for those depending on fishing or neighboring agriculture, Decline in value of real estate located near polluted water sources (housing sales data in some countries indicates that being located near a stream contaminated by acid mine drainage lowers the value of a property or house).

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 23

©greenpeace/erik wirawan

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

Acid Mine Drainage

A study of AMD in South Kalimantan by the College of Technology Geological Department at STTNAS Yogyakarta found considerable sources of AMD and examples of low pH. The study revealed that in Binuang area, South Kalimantan Province, coal mining produced waste dumps and AMD in many settlement ponds with a very low pH (of 2.8 to 4.4), with metals among others magnesium, manganese, iron and lead. AMD in the study area was found to be affected by local geological conditions, such as basin topography, weathering, occurrence of sulfide minerals (predominantly pyrites) and geological phenomena such as joints and minor faults (that increased permeability of rocks so that rain water could filter through more] freely.”), as well as rainfall and high temperatures. Around Binuang, at Tarungin, Simpangempat and Pakan, ponds contaminated with AMD varied in size from a few square metres to an area of more than

24 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

INFOBOX: South Africa: AMD is now “the greatest environmental challenge” In South Africa, the Department of Water and Sanitation told the Parliament that AMD is “the greatest environmental challenge ever” 32, as it impacted water security and had emerging impacts on drinking water. Emergency intervention was required in three basins - Western, Eastern, Central basins. At the hearing, the Chamber of Mines (industry association) pointed out that the liability and mitigation costs of AMD from mining legacies are the responsibility of the state.

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

25,000 m2. The study found that mining wastewater had mixed with groundwater, surface water, and rain water. 33 Since mining activities at this site are ongoing, the study concluded that the mine would continue to produce AMD in years to come, posing problems that needed to be overcome.34 A further study also found AMD from a PT. Berau mine in East Kalimantan, and found a low pH (3.96 to 4.49) at almost all monitoring points in 11 sub-catchments of the Ukud river downstream. It also found metals such as iron, aluminum, and manganese. 35 The study found that “in the past operation there was no segregation between potentially acid forming material and non-acid forming material when dumping the overburden in this catchment.” 36 Further afield, in Sumatra, similar problems of coal mines contaminating rivers with AMD have been identified as well – raising the possibility that what happens in South Kalimantan may not be an exception but rather the norm. One such study by Riza et al, surveyed and analysed water quality from April to November 2011 in several tributaries of the Singingi river, to understand the effect of coal mines in Kuantan Singingi Regency, Riau Province. Water samples contaminated by mines effluents were collected from four Singingi river tributaries, Sepuh river, Geringging river, Keruh river, and Tapi river. The study concluded that Geringging river and Keruh river were heavily polluted, and Sepuh and Tapi rivers were moderately polluted. 37 The Indonesian government has a responsibility to test all of the potentially AMD affected waterbodies in Kalimantan that may be impacted by coal mining, and to examine samples for: low pH, an increase in total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), biological oxygen demand (BOD), and heavy metal concentration.

Health Impacts from Coal Mining Wastewaters on Humans, Other Animals, Fish, and Plants Wastewater from coal mines can include elevated levels of aluminium, arsenic, cadmium, chloride, copper, fluoride, hydrogen sulphide, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, nitrate, nitrite, phosphate, potassium, sodium, sulphate, zinc and other contaminants. Different toxic pollutants, which typically emerge from coal mines, can potentially cause a variety of health problems,38, 39, 40 can harm crops when used for irrigation, as well as affect fisheries and freshwater ecosystems (see box below).

Figure 5.2. US EPA Organism Response to pH pH 6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

TROUT BASS PERCH FROGS SALAMANDERS CLAMS CRAYFISH SNAILS MAYFLY 44

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 25

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

Acid waste from coal mines can severely harm or kill fish, animals and plants, reducing or even eliminating fish populations. A pH of around 7 is healthy, neutral, and natural for most water bodies (although rainwater and upland water often has a pH below 7 through completely natural processes). Many streams that are affected by AMD from coal mining have pH values of around 4 or even less than 4. 41 At such low pH levels, plants, fish, and other animals can have trouble surviving. When water pH drops to 4 or 5, fish reproduction is affected and most fish eggs are not able to hatch; and adult fish can die at levels of 3 to 4: 42 Some plants and fish are more resilient than others and can withstand low pH better than more acid-sensitive species, but even in those cases, eggs and young fish tend to be more acidsensitive than adults. “The chart below shows that not all fish, shellfish, or the insects that they eat can tolerate the same amount of acid.”43

Table. 5.1. Compilation of studies on Indonesian Fish Species Response to pH Fish Species in Indonesia Ikan Nila (Nile Tilapia) Oreochromis niloticus

Respon to pH* At pH 4 -5 only 30% survived (red strain); other strains died with various gill damages. 45

Ikan Gabus (snakehead fish) Channa striata

At pH 5 only 72% survived. 46

Ikan Mas Cyprinus carpio

pH 6,5 - 8,5 - optimum. 47

Ikan Lele (Catfish) Clarias gariepinus

pH 6,5 - 8,6 - optimum. 48

*Compilation of studies, each measured under different testing conditions, including various environmental parameters and life’s stages.

The box above illustrates clearly how different aquatic species in the United States are affected by low pH, and although there is no comprehensive equivalent for Kalimantan, some information does exist on how a few popular fish that are widely consumed in Indonesia, respond to different levels of pH.

26 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

The US EPA also noted that all biological organisms are interdependent and interrelated to each other and to the environment in which they live. Thus, even if frogs are able to tolerate higher levels of acidity than mayflies, if they need to eat insects like the mayfly in order to survive, frogs may die when mayflies die – simply because their food supply has critically dwindled. “Thus, as lakes and streams become more acidic, the numbers and types of fish and other aquatic plants and animals that live in these waters decrease.” 49 Besides pH, metal contamination of water can have significant impacts on fish and other aquatic life, and the Indonesian authorities must investigate these impacts in and around South Kalimantan’s coal mines, to assess the magnitude of damage done. Aluminium, arsenic, manganese, nickel, cobalt and chromium are known to be harmful (and occasionally even lethal) to aquatic organisms at the concentrations detected in Greenpeace samples (see box below). 50 Water pollution from coal mines can have impacts far downstream, especially given the very large number of coal mines in the catchments of South Kalimantan’s main rivers. When not just one tributary but the entire river is polluted, dilution cannot be counted on to lower contaminant concentrations to safe levels. As previously noted, acid water releases metals from soils into lakes and streams; some metals are highly toxic to many species of aquatic organisms. Many aquatic organisms are extremely sensitive to copper, particularly in soluble forms, which are generally far more bioavailable and toxic to a wide range of aquatic plants and animals, 51 with some effects occurring even at very low concentrations. 52 Increased copper levels cause chronic stress that may not kill individual fish, but leads to lower body weight and smaller size and makes fish less able to compete for food and habitat. Greenpeace found copper at high concentrations in some waters (up to 1880 micrograms per litre or μg/l). Background concentrations of soluble copper in uncontaminated surface waters can vary significantly, but levels are typically below 10 μg/l, and often far lower. 53

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

For every species that locals notice have been affected, there may be many more that slip under the radar. Indeed, although biodiversity appears to be heavily affected, there is no reliable study on the exact extent of the loss of flora and fauna in coal-mining affected forests.

Greenpeace calls on the authorities to conduct such a study, as a matter of urgency. The need for such a study is all the more pressing given that studies in other countries’ mining affected areas revealed clear negative impacts of coal pollution on flora and fauna. One such report about streams in the Central Appalachian Coalfields in the US assessed the state of the science on

Potential Impacts of the Heavy Metals Detected in South Kalimantan Coal Mining Wastewaters Very few studies have been carried out on toxicity of heavy metals to Indonesian freshwater species and ecosystems. This box highlights findings from other parts of the world that clearly indicate that the detected levels of heavy metals can have serious impacts in Indonesia as well – and that groundwater flowing through active or abandoned coal mines often has depressed pH levels and elevated levels of dissolved metals such as arsenic, iron, copper and zinc, which can affect health of plants or animals. 55 Aluminium has greater toxicity in acidic water (pH 5.5 and below). Concentrations of 0.1-0.3 mg/l have been found to reduce survival of fish eggs and hamper growth in acidic water. Concentrations of 0.7-3.3 mg/l are reported to be chronically toxic in neutral water with effects including weight loss & impaired swimming and feeding ability (this relates to chronic or long term toxicity rather than acute toxicity). At higher concentrations, effects include damage to gills, clogging

environmental impacts of mountaintop coal mines and “valley fills” by coal companies (namely dumping so much mining waste into valleys that they were completely filled up and disappeared). The study concluded that mining harmed stream ecosystems in numerous ways. Springs and small streams had been completely lost due to mountaintop removal or burial under fill; concentrations of major chemical ions were found downstream; water quality was at “levels that are acutely lethal to standard laboratory test organisms”; selenium concentrations were so high that they “have caused toxic effects in fish and birds”; and “macro-invertebrate and fish communities are consistently degraded.” 54

and disturbance of gill function; changes in internal organs and reproduction. 56 Manganese concentrations of around 1 mg/l can cause toxic effects on organisms in streams, rivers and lakes, as shown by both laboratory tests and field observations. Effects include inhibition of growth & photosynthesis of algae; survival and hatching of crab embryos; can kill some fish and fish embryos, as well as amphibian embryos, already at concentrations well below the Indonesian discharge standards. Other documented effects include shell disease in crabs and discoloration in the gills of lobsters. Manganese is also toxic to some terrestrial plants, with toxicity varying widely with species; effects include marginal chloroses, necrotic lesions, and distorted development of the leaves. 57 Iron: Dissolved iron is toxic at high concentrations, such as those which can occur in acidic water lacking oxygen, such as mine discharge. Studies have suggested that dissolved iron concentrations in fresh water should be below 0.2-0.4 mg/l, based on impacts on freshwater fish, clams, insects and plants.58 Particulate iron can settle on the bottom of water bodies, destroying plants, bottom-dwelling invertebrates and fish eggs.

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 27

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

Nickel: In freshwater ecosystems, nickel can inhibit algae growth and harm the survival of the embryos of some fish species. Nickel can inhibit growth of crops. Besides inhibiting plant growth, other symptoms of nickel toxicity in plants include chlorosis, stunted root growth and brown interveinal necrosis.59, 60, 61, 62 Cobalt causes reduced survival and growth of fish embryos in some species, and it is lethal to toad larvae and sensitive invertebrate species. Cobalt is also toxic to a variety of food crops. 63

Land Erosion Leading to Water Quality Degradation and Flooding Risks Many of South Kalimantan’s coal mines and concessions are located in flood prone areas. Greenpeace investigators witnessed a flash flood while they were investigating coal mines in Kabupaten Tanah Laut, recognised as a flood prone area by the local government. Based on an analysis of the last five years by the local disaster management agency, there are 939 flood points in South Kalimantan, which are located in the districts of Banjar, Tanah Laut, Tanah Bambu and Hulu Sungai Utara.68 Coal mining contributes to flooding because land clearance destroys the water retention capacity of the soil, leading to quick runoff after rainfall, and because large amounts of sediment discharges clog waterways. Those waterways then overflow more easily when heavy rains come. Coal mining also exacerbates flooding because it is typically preceded by logging and, during mining, no trees are allowed to grow back in key areas. Logging trees increases the flood risk in the long term because trees soak up vast amounts of water. Without these forests there is nothing to soak up heavy rainfall, and it frequently leads to flash floods.

28 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

Chromium can cause allergic dermatitis through both skin contact and drinking. The condition is characterised by dryness, erythema, fissuring, papules, scaling, small vesicles, and swelling of skin. The U.S. EPA has proposed to classify chromium-6 as likely to be carcinogenic to humans when ingested, and an assessment is currently ongoing. In freshwater ecosystems, chromium decreases in survival and growth rates of aquatic animals; can cause DNA damage and effects on fertilization and blood composition in some species.64, 65, 66, 67

Post-Mining Reclamation and Long Term Recovery The wholesale destruction of vegetation and soil over large areas, as well as mine tailings and toxic pits left behind by mining, affect ecosystems and water resources for decades. Mining companies have an obligation to alleviate the impacts to the extent possible through post-mining reclamation, but in reality this poses terrible problems. In many cases, reclamation in South Kalimantan is completely neglected. When mining companies have removed all the coal they want, they often abandon giant pits, which fill with toxic water, leaving behind lagoons that are especially dangerous for fish, amphibians, other animals, and local communities. In many cases, post-mining reclamation in Kalimantan is done very poorly – although Greenpeace posits that there is no truly

good way to conduct reclamation, which is precisely one of the crucial reasons why strip mining should not be allowed. With bad reclamation, loss of topsoil, failure to save and reinstate original topsoil, re-planting with homogenous plantations of acacias,69 the land and its original biodiversity will never fully recover.

Coal Mining in South Kalimantan

There are severe limits to what can be achieved through reclamation. A University of California study by Karen Holl, University of California, reviewed the long-term effects of reclamation efforts of degraded landscapes on plant conservation to determine whether vegetation of reclaimed mines approximated the surrounding forest after a long period of reclamation. The study also evaluated “how intensive reclamation practices used to address short-term erosion and water quality concerns affect long-term recovery.” The hardwood forest reference sites in southwestern Virginia had not recovered. It was found that changes persisted, even on lands that had been reclaimed for over 35 years. This study’s results showed that planting with aggressive non-native ground cover species to minimize short-term erosion in highly disturbed sites may have slowed longterm recovery on the sites studied.70 This is particularly relevant because what reclamation there is in Kalimantan is often done on the quick and on the cheap, with inadequate soil replacement and planting of aggressive nonnative ground cover species such as acacia,

East Kalimantan: Environmental Devastation from Coal Mining East Kalimantan is Indonesia’s most significant coal export region. Over 200 million tonnes of coal was shipped out in 2011. If it was a country, it would be the eighth biggest coal producer in the world. Land erosion from deforestation and mining has dramatically increased the risk of flooding in the region. From 2010 to 2012, the city of Samarinda has recorded a total of 218 floods and has now acquired the reputation of “Kota Banjir”, or flood city. The coal mining boom in the past 15 years has also caused widespread water pollution in the Makaham river, which flows through rainforests and is home to 147 indigenous freshwater fish species.

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 29

©greenpeace/Laury Myllyvirta

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

©greenpeace

Tanah Laut Regency, coal mines polluting Coal Mines Polluting South water. Kalimantan’s Water South Kalimantan’s

rather than with any attempt to replant the species common to the original forest. A study for a PhD thesis by D. Setiawan from the Bogor Insitute of Agriculture in Indonesia 71 conducted on the PT. Adaro concession at four different locations, reported that reclamation was ineffective in terms of a striking loss of macrofauna biodiversity (including a dearth or absence of worms, which play an important role in soil fertility). Setiawan examined the effectiveness of reclamation with Sengon (Paraserianthes falcataria) and Acacia (Acacia mangium), which are typical plants most commonly used for reclamation of mining sites in Kalimantan. Setiawan’s analysis examined the lack success of land rehabilitation. The study also examined soil characteristics such as bulk density, aggregate stability, porosity, pH, and organic carbon. Setiawan found that although several indicators showed that reclamation had improved the stability of soil aggregates,72 no significant improvements could be noted in the ability of the soil to retain water for plants or in other key indicators during the period of observation. Another study conducted in 2012 73 on reclamation land owned by PT. Arutmin Batulicin in South Kalimantan (where typical Acacia and Sengon plantations were chosen due to their fast growing nature), observed loss of biodiversity by comparing these plantations

30 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

with the surrounding unharmed forest with vegetation such as Eusidexylon zwageri/the famous kayu Ulin, Shorea lepidota (damar putih), which is protected by Agriculture Ministry Decree No. 54/Kpts/Um/II/1972.74 In 2013, the South Kalimantan Environment Protection Agency released a statement acknowledging that surface mining would leave damaged land that might not fully recover. It found that even when previous topsoil had been piled and set aside to be reused for final covering of abandoned mining pits during land reclamation, the land would be different from the original state. The piled topsoil that was reserved to go back as the final layer of topsoil was already mixed, clearly different from its original state, and had suffered structure damage, with lower bulk density, worse permeability, and worse aeration.75 Reclamation of post mining land with inadequate soil replacement and acacia plantations cannot be called reclamation, and is not restoring the original biodiversity of Kalimantan. Post mining land characteristically loses its rich topsoil, limiting re-vegetation. Today many local communities in Kalimantan have been left with – at worst – a moonscape of bare dry land with ponds of acid waste or – at best – homogenous plantation forest with no economic, biodiversity, or historical value.

ÂŠgreenpeace/richi raimba

An acid coal mining activities Coalpond Mines from Polluting South Kalimantanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Water

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 31

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

6 GREENPEACE INVESTIGATION

Purpose and Scope The purpose of this report is to explore and explain the release of hazardous materials into the environment due to some specific coal mining activities and to reveal how the Indonesian government has failed to protect the public’s right to clean water. Greenpeace’s sampling of mine discharge aimed to provide a snapshot of the situation and to complement extensive desk research and prior investigations into the overall situation of coal mining in South Kalimantan. It is not a survey of every discharge point in all coal mining activities in South Kalimantan nor a survey of all coal mining companies in the area After, extensive desktop research, analysis of Google Earth and satellite maps, and a preliminary round of scouting in the field, Greenpeace teams returned to the field and collected water samples from coal concessions in South Kalimantan.

Sampling Results 29 samples of wastewater or surface water were collected and were sent to the Greenpeace Research Laboratories in Exeter, UK, in two separate batches, in July and August 2014. All samples were collected from locations associated with coal mining activities, with the first set collected between 19th-23rd July 2014, and the second set collected between 11th-14th August 2014. All samples were collected in pre-cleaned glass, screw-capped bottles and kept cold and dark before shipment to our laboratory in the UK for analysis. Samples were analysed quantitatively

32 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

for metals. The pH of each wastewater was measured both in the field using a number of calibrated hand-held devices for cross-checking and also upon receipt of the samples at the laboratory. (See Appendix for the full report: Greenpeace Research Laboratories Analytical Report 04 – 2014) All samples were analysed quantitatively for the presence of a range of metals. Concentrations of metals in both whole and filtered water were determined in order to distinguish between metals associated with suspended matter and those present in dissolved form in the water. For the majority of samples, the metal concentrations in the filtered sample were very similar to those in the whole (unfiltered) sample, indicating that these metals were present in these samples almost exclusively in dissolved forms rather than bound to suspended particles within the water. Wastewaters generated by coal mining activities are subject to regulation in Indonesia which sets maximum permissible limits for certain parameters, including iron (7 milligrams per litre or mg/l = 7000 μg/l), manganese (4 mg/l = 4000 μg/l) and pH (between 6-9).76 18 of the cases (see Table 6.2) were sampled from wastewater being discharged at the moment of investigation, or from water outside man-made pits and pools, which constitutes a direct violation of Indonesian regulation. In other cases, a violation is committed if the water is discharged without substantial treatment. For 22 of the 29 samples (76%), all of which were wastewater samples, the pH was below 6. In the

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

Table. 6.1. Wastewater Quality Limit for Coal Mining Activities77 Parameter

Indonesian Standard

World Bank Group Guidelines

pH TSS (Suspended Solids) Iron (Fe) total Mn total Chromium Nickel Zinc Copper

6-9 400 mg/l 7 mg/l 4 mg/l None None None None

6-9 50 mg/l 2 mg/l -0.1 mg/l 0.5 mg/l 0.5 mg/l 0.3 mg/l

(Indonesian standards are much weaker than those recommended by the USA78 or the World Bank Group guidelines).79 *World Bank safeguards are stronger than Indonesian regulation and practice. Wastewaters from many of the locations sampled in this study did not comply with these regulations at the time of sampling, due to elevated concentrations of manganese and iron, and/or due to high acidity (pH below 6).

case of these 22 samples, pH values ranged from pH 4.66 (IDN14007) to pH 2.32 (IDN14029), with 7 samples having a pH below 3. The concentrations of manganese exceeded the permissible limit for wastewater discharges in 17 of the 27 wastewater samples (63%), in both the filtered and whole sample in all cases, with concentrations in the whole sample ranging from 5350 μg/l (5.35 mg/l) to 40 200 μg/l (40.2 mg/l). The highest concentration, in sample IDN14029, exceeded the limit by 10 times. For all but one (IDN14001) of these 17 samples, the pH was also outside the allowed range (pH 6-9), and the highest manganese

Table 6.2. Summary of Findings and Field Observations Flows Out?

Results Above the limit set for discharge by the MoE?

Discharge/ flows out

Yes

Not a Discharge. Abandoned pit, water is few centimeters from overflowing

Yes

Wastewater

Discharge/flows out

Yes

Wastewater

Discharge/flows out

Yes

IDN14005

Wastewater

Discharge/flows out

Yes

IDN14006

Wastewater

Discharge/flows out

Yes

IDN14007

Wastewater

Not a discharge. Set of ponds located uphill, already breaking in the edge/Prone to landslide

IDN14008

Creek water

N/A

IDN14009

Wastewater

Discharge/flows out

Yes

IDN14010

Wastewater

Discharge/flows out

Yes

IDN14011

Wastewater

Discharge/flows out

Yes

IDN14012

Wastewater

Not a Discharge. The pond is already breaking in the edge. The pond is a few centimeter from overflowing to the road use also by the community.

Yes

IDN14013

Wastewater

Discharge/flows out

Yes

IDN14014

Wastewater

Discharge/flows out

Yes

IDN14015

Wastewater

Not a Discharge. The pond is already breaking in the edge. The pond is a few centimeter from overflowing to the road use by the community.

Yes – highest level of Iron, 40 times above standards

IDN14016

Wastewater

Discharge/flows out

Yes

IDN14017

Wastewater

Not a Discharge. Ponds are uphill, ± 112 m from a valley of swamp

Yes

IDN14018

Wastewater

Discharge/flows out

Yes

IDN14019

Wastewater

Discharge/flows out

Yes

IDN14020

Pond water

N/A

IDN14021

Wastewater

Not a Discharge.

Yes

IDN14022

Wastewater

Discharge/flows out

Yes

IDN14023

Wastewater

Discharge/flows out

Yes

IDN14024

Wastewater

Not a discharge. Abandoned Pit.

Yes

IDN14025

Wastewater

Discharge/flows out

Yes

IDN14026

Wastewater

Not a discharge. Abandoned Pit.

Yes

IDN14027

Wastewater

Not a discharge. Abandoned Pit.

Yes

IDN14028

Wastewater

Discharge/flows out

Yes

IDN14029

Wastewater

Discharge/flows out

Yes

Yes – highest level of Mn found, ten times above standards

Sample Code

Sample Type

IDN14001

Wastewater

IDN14002

Wastewater

IDN14003 IDN14004

Field Observation

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 33

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

concentration (40.2 mg/l) was found in sample IDN14029, which had the lowest pH (2.32). Of these 17 samples, 7 also had concentrations of iron that exceeded the maximum permissible level, with similar levels in both the filtered and whole sample in all cases. Concentrations of total iron in whole samples were in the range 9740 μg/l (9.74 mg/l) to 280 000 μg/l (280 mg/l), with the highest concentration exceeding the limit by 40 times. The highest iron concentration was also found in a sample with one of the lowest pH values (IDN14015, pH 2.34). These findings are consistent with the high acidity of many samples solubilising iron and manganese from minerals in the local environment. Three samples (IDN14015, IDN14017 and IDN14029) had notably higher concentrations of aluminium (94 700-184 000 μg/l, or 94.7184mg/l), nickel (1360-1690 μg/l), zinc (3210-3880 μg/l) and copper (100-1890 μg/l) compared to other wastewaters. Two of these samples (IDN14015 & IDN14029) had the lowest pH of all wastewater samples and also contained the highest concentration of either iron (IDN14015) or manganese (IDN14029). To a lesser extent, concentrations of chromium, cobalt, mercury and vanadium were elevated in some wastewater samples, particularly for IDN14015 and IDN14017. These additional metals may also be present in the samples at elevated concentrations as a result of having been solubilised from minerals in the local environment. Overall, the data indicate a strong link between high acidity (low pH) in wastewaters (particularly for those below pH 4) and elevated concentrations of metals (especially iron, manganese and aluminium), predominantly in soluble forms (see Figure 1). The data also indicate that there is commonly a link between high concentrations of iron and/or manganese in wastewaters and higher concentrations of other metals.

correlations apparent from the current study suggest that wastewaters from other similar locations which have been reported by others also to exhibit low pH may also have high concentrations of metals, particularly iron and manganese, and also that high concentrations of iron and manganese in wastewaters may also indicate high concentrations of other metals.

Figure 6.1. Relationships between pH and the dissolved concentrations of three metals in samples of water and wastewater collected in the vicinity of coal mining operations in Indonesia Concentration (ug/l)

Iron (Fe)

300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Concentration (ug/l)

Manganese (Mn)

45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Aluminium (Al)

Concentration (ug/l) 200000 180000 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0

The relevant regulation sets parameters only for pH, two metals (iron and manganese), and total dissolved solids. Nevertheless, the data and

34 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Source: Greenpeace Research Laboratories (University of Exeter, UK)

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

What does the Sampling Mean? Breaking It Down The low pH in 22 of Greenpeace’s samples (pH 4.66 to 2.32) means that the water we tested could harm or kill fish, insects, other living beings, and even plants – as well as harm people coming into direct contact with it. If this water and/or similar water from holding ponds and nearby water puddles were to leach or overflow or trickle into rivers and lakes downstream, it could harm flora and fauna there too (some samples were taken from waters which were leaching/overflowing at the time). As explained in the Acid Mine Drainage section, when water pH drops to 5 or 4, fish reproduction is affected, most fish eggs cannot hatch at pH 5 or below, and adult fish often die at levels of 4 to 3 or below. Other living organisms besides fish would also be affected by streams contaminated from runoff of ponds with such low pH, as would plants.

©greenpeace/Erik Wirawan

When testing for metals, Greenpeace found very high levels of iron and manganese in many of the water samples, and in some also high levels of toxic heavy metals including nickel, zinc, and

copper. The levels of iron and manganese that Greenpeace found in the water was often far above the legal limit set by the government for coal water discharge - with one case 40 times above the legal limit. There are legal limits for discharge from coal mines in Indonesia, and if the water is above those limits, and is being discharged or had been discharged without treatment into the environment and/or into rivers, this is a violation of the law. In addition, none of the ponds containing highly acidic water or high metal concentrations where Greenpeace collected its samples were lined or appeared designed to prevent seepage into neighbouring water bodies. Made of earth, they are vulnerable to seepage as well as overflow in the rainy season. Some were leaking when the samples were collected.

Poor and Non-Existent Signage May Indicate Inadequate Monitoring During their investigations, Greenpeace staff saw very few signs anywhere, for warning or monitoring. Even worse, there were no signs at

A fading sign “Penaatan”/”Compliance” marking a wastewater settling pond of a coal mine in Tapin District, South Kalimantan. Coal mining has left acid ponds that are prone to landslide, Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia overflows, and many without proper signage.

| 35

Source : DigitalGlobe, 2012-12-01 up to 2014-03-18, resolution spectral 60 x 60

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

Coal mining and wastewater ponds, Tanah Laut, South Kalimantan.

all at sites that we subsequently found to have the worst sampling results – lowest pH and highest heavy metal contamination. Greenpeace investigators identified two distinct kinds of settling ponds – a small number of official settling ponds with signage, which are treated and monitored, and a moonscape of abandoned mine pits with few or no signs and no evidence of being treated or monitored. The lack of signage may indicate that there is lack of monitoring and surveillance around the issuance of Wastewater Discharge Licenses (Ijin pembuangan limbah). In order to properly monitor wastewater, and to adequately track change over time, government compliance officers must use specific compliance points. The 2003 Ministry of Environment Decree No. 113 on Wastewater Quality Limits for Coal Mining Activities, Article 1.7 states that: “A Point of Compliance is one or more location that is the reference for monitoring compliance over wastewater limit.” According to articles 8, 9 and 11, the Regent or Mayor must issue licenses for wastewater discharge, which specify the

36 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

location of the Compliance Points. If there are changes in business location or activity, the company must report to get approval of new Compliance Points. Greenpeace saw poor evidence of Compliance Points, given the lack of appropriate signage. Greenpeace challenges the government to prove transparently what routine monitoring has been done, both by companies and by the government, by publishing dates, locations, and findings of its monitoring online for the public. Moreover, as many rural communities in South Kalimantan do not have internet access, it is also crucial for monitoring results to be published in local newspapers and posted on village noticeboards.

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Water

Three In-Depth Case Studies: The Fuller Picture of What We Found a) Top toxic trouble â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Arutmin The Arutmin concession in Asam Asam district was the worst of all the sites that Greenpeace sampled, with its scarred barren landscape, dead trees, lurid coloured toxic ponds, and abandoned pits. One sample (IDN14029) taken from the Arutmin concession had the lowest pH of all our samples: pH 2.32 As a comparison, the regulation on coal wastewater quality limits (MoE, No. 113, 2003) specifies that the pH should be between 6 and 9. The sample also recorded the highest manganese concentration: 10 times the legal limit for permissible discharges from coal mines. The Greenpeace investigation team documented clear evidence that the dirty, contaminated settling ponds were flowing into the broader water system. In this sample area Greenpeace field investigators were able to clearly identify tracks left from

water overflowing from a holding pond. Water was overflowing at the time in some places. Moreover, in other places there was evidence of previous overflow events: additional dry traces of previously overflowing water were unmistakable, although at the time of sampling it was the middle of the dry season. It was clear that one pond had recently overflowed into a puddle, and was 1-2 cm below the point of overflowing again. The dirty, contaminated settling ponds were observed at the time of sampling to be flowing into the broader water system. Moreover, the ponds, overflow puddle and the course taken by the contaminated water were all less than 20 metres from a public road that was frequently used by local villagers. In the same concession, but at a different location from where Greenpeace was able to sample, our field investigators documented a leak into a creek that flows into a river. There is a risk, therefore, that contaminated water from this Arutmin concession may be affecting the residents of neighbouring Salaman village.

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 37

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

Figure 7.1. Field sketch : Sampling Point ID/IDN 14029 Sketch is an illustration of field conditions; it doesn’t reflect the real scale

At another site in the same Arutmin concession (IDN14016), contaminated water flowed not only from one to a second, then to a third settling pond, but also flowed into a small creek, away from the official ponds. It then flowed under a road, then further away on the other side of the road, into a large yellow puddle, then into a greenish yellow puddle, and ultimately into a swamp. Almost all the trees in the swamp were dead. At the yellowish puddle at the head of the swamp the pH was very low (3.56). At the edge of the last pond above the road – the leaking pond (source of all the contaminated water), the pH was 3.43 (IDN14013). The contaminated swamp was a mere 200 metres away from a small creek. This small creek led 4.7 km away to Asam Asam river. Greenpeace investigators found an even more contaminated pond very close to the contaminated swamp (IDN14017), with a pH of 3.43 and high concentrations of copper, nickel, and zinc, which also contained chromium, cobalt, vanadium and mercury. This contaminated pond, which was a brown colour,

38 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

was not only near the swamp but was also elevated relative to the swamp – posing a risk of potential leakage especially with heavy rainfall. It also appeared not to be an official settling pond at all, but rather an abandoned mining pit, which had been allowed to fill up with rainwater. Whereas mining companies must post signs over their settling ponds detailing the results of routine monitoring and measurements, Arutmin had no such signs visible to Greenpeace investigators, recording any measurements. The only sign Greenpeace found was a lone sign proclaiming “no fishing or bathing” over an official settling pond above the road – nothing below the road, along the swamp, or at the abandoned mining pit. The third contaminated hotspot in Arutmin (IDN14015) had extremely low pH at 2.34 and the highest iron contamination of all samples, up to 40 times the legal limit. Also high were zinc and nickel concentrations, as well as elevated concentrations of copper, chromium, cobalt, and mercury. This pond was located less than 3 metres from a public road to Salaman village.

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

Drinking water should not exceed 0.3 mg of iron per litre (mg/l) according to the Indonesian authorities.80 The other heavy metals found in high concentrations in this third contaminated hotspot – zinc, nickel, copper, chromium, cobalt and vanadium – may also be of concern in relation to human health if they contaminate drinking water. b) Banpu – Enviromental threat Banpu and its fully owned subsidiary Jorong Barutama Greston have a concession that Greenpeace also investigated. The Greenpeace investigation revealed that the mine has a massive acid mine drainage problem. We found a large abandoned mine pit 200 m x 2 km (visible in a Greenpeace drone video) with acidity and manganese levels well above discharge standards (IDN14026). Yet there was an uncontrolled and unregulated discharge of acid water right next to the large pit (IDN14025). Moreover, smaller ponds tested by Greenpeace all around the large pit were all revealed to be acidic, with pH ranging from 3.15 to 4.66.

Even if they are weaker than in many other countries, Indonesia has legal limits on discharges of polluted water from coal mines. These regulations require that wastewater from mining is discharged through regulated discharge points and, in most cases, the water must be treated in settling ponds before discharge. Yet the team witnessed several cases where contaminated water was being discharged outside of the mine area past settling ponds and the monitoring points. The Banpu - JBG case was among the worst of these cases. Water in the large 200 m x 2 km pit that Greenpeace tested had a pH of 3.74 at the time of sampling, and the leaked or spilled water outside the mine had a pH of 4.48. Moreover, concentrations of manganese clearly exceeded regulatory levels. In 2010 the entire concession was closed by the authorities due to permit violation in a protected forest area. Later on the matter was resolved. 81 The concession received a “red” ranking (meaning: it failed) in the government environmental ranking system called “PROPER” from 2009 and 2010.82 Details of Banpu’s compliance were not made public. Within the

Figure 7.2. Field sketch : Sampling Point ID/IDN 14013, 14016, 14017

Sketch is an illustration of field conditions; it doesn’t reflect the real scale Real distances of ID 14013 - 14016 = ± 600 m; ID 14016 - ID 14017 = ±112 m; ID 14017 - ID 14013 = ± 558 m

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 39

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

PROPER system, rankings are issued by the Ministry of the Environment. A red ranking means that the company has broken the law and failed to protect the environment. PROPER, which has been long criticised by NGOs for leniency, weakness, lack of transparency, and enabling corporate greenwashing, is not considered widely to have stringent criteria. Yet even PROPER has found this concession to be failing, in the past.

adequate reclamation.83 A local NGO in South Kalimantan, MERAH PUTIH, also questioned Jorong’s reclamation, since it only planted acacia trees. (Acacia trees are known for being especially able to withstand low quality land with poor nutrients, drought, and are thought to be resilient to pollution). Greenpeace joins the call for Jorong to fulfil its legal responsibilities and to implement effective large-scale reclamation as a matter of urgency.

Greenpeace was physically prevented by security forces from testing further ponds and potentially contaminated creeks and rivers all around the giant 2 km-long pit, including by one individual wearing an army uniform.

c) Tanjung Alam Jaya – contaminating a nearby farm

Nonetheless, Greenpeace aerial footage from a drone indicates that many rivulets and creeks could well be contaminated by the many apparently toxic ponds in the Banpu-Jorong concession. These findings appear to be corroborated by an analysis of satellite imagery. NGOs and local parliamentarians representing the area around the Jorong concession have repeatedly complained about the lack of

Our third case study concerns Tanjung Alam Jaya, which was acquired by state owned tin mining company PT Timah’s subsidiary PT Timah Investasi Mineral in 2003.84 When Greenpeace sent investigators to sample in the Tanjung Alam Jaya concession, sampling sites revealed numerous problems. At one site, the west side of an abandoned pit had a pipe leading to a creek. Testing upstream and downstream of the pipe in the creek, Greenpeace found that the pH before the pipe was 7.45, which is considered neutral or natural, whereas the pH downstream was 3.74

Figure 7.3. Field sketch : Sampling Point ID/IDN 14004 Sketch is an illustration of field conditions; it doesn’t reflect the real scale

40 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

Source : DigitalGlobe, 2012-12-01 up to 2014-03-18, resolution spectral 60 x 60

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

Coal mining and wastewater ponds, Tanah Laut, South Kalimantan.

(IDN14004), which is highly acidic and toxic to many fish or other aquatic species. The contaminated acidic water flowed through the creek down to a pond. Two additional pipes led to that pond as well. Their origin point was unknown. That pond was very close to a public road. Worse yet, along the right side of the creek was a small plantation where a local farmer grew cassava, banana, and other crops. His “pondok” (a plantation hut) was less than 20 metres from the creek, which he used for bathing and drinking. Without the right equipment, it was not possible for Greenpeace to conduct tests on his crops, but the potential for contamination of soils and crops in the area is clear. Below the abandoned pit on the south side, a leak appeared to be leading to a swamp, which appeared, in turn, to be connected to the local water system. The location at which Greenpeace tested the creek was approximately 500 metres from the Mangkaok river, a tributary of the Martapura river. Greenpeace is not alone in noting problematic issues in this concession. In 2010, Tanjung

Alam Jaya was sanctioned by Indonesia’s Minister of Environment – for polluting water. In 2010, a settling pond in the Tanjung Alam Jaya concession leaked into Riam Kiwa River, Banjar regency. This created high turbidity, with high levels of suspended solids that surpassed the pollutant discharge limit for coal mines of 400 mg/l). “It was reported that turbidity levels… [were] threatening the death of fish in the river and also causing human health problems due to the water being used for bathing and daily consumption.”85 Due to this scandal, Tanjung Alam Jaya was subjected to administrative sanctions from the Environmental Ministry, alongside 4 other companies in South Kalimantan. They were given 6 months to clean up and fix their environmental management systems. Greenpeace now questions to what extent Tanjung Alam Jaya has truly cleaned up and improved its performance. The Indonesian Coal Mining Association reported that Tanjung Alam Jaya will be shut down in 2014,86 raising the question of reclamation. If operations are truly slated to end in 2014, why has reclamation still not been rolled out comprehensively throughout the entire concession?

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 41

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ACKNOWLEDGE DEGRADATION OF WATER QUALITY

Greenpeace is not alone in finding substantial contamination of water by coal companies in Indonesia. Government agencies confirmed serious degradation of water quality around numerous coal mines across Indonesia; and acknowledged that coal mining plays a significant role. This section outlines government studies of how coal is polluting waterways in South Kalimantan, as well as in several other regions to indicate the severity and scope of this problem nationwide.

a) Government Acknowledgment in South Kalimantan Greenpeace’s analyses, laying out data about pollution that indicts the coal companies, affirms the findings of the local Environment Protection Agency (Badan Lingkungan Hidup Daerah or BLDH) for South Kalimantan Province. Key conclusions of the ‘Annual Report: Regional Environment Status South Kalimantan Province 2013’ 87 • The testing results from several government sampling stations shows acidity (low pH), high Total Solid Solution (TSS), high Manganese (Mn) and high Iron (Fe). One sample even reaches 1,000% the allowed limit for Iron (according to Governor’s decree No. 05 from 2007). These indicators shows hazards that are posed to aquatic life; and show lower water quality due to intense land erosion, responsibility for which the government specifically attributes to the mining sector, naming coal mining as the culprit.

42 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

• Open cast coal mining creates extreme changes in landscape. Coal mining creates gaping pits that can never be fully reclaimed or covered. The rich topsoil, even if preserved on the side for later reclamation, undergoes mixture that eventually leads to earth with structure damage, lower bulk density (Bobot isi/BI), smaller porosity, worse permeability and aeration, and which is unfertile. Coal mining potentially changes the landscape, creates erosion, and alters natural waterways. • Further potential land damage in coal mining areas is the destruction of natural drainage in water bodies due to landscape changes, erosion, and landslides. In general, mining activity can create water pollution and leave behind unproductive land that can no longer be used for farming. In addition, the South Kalimantan government EPA report listed a number of key findings regarding the Barito river and coal: • The Barito river is impacted by the massive volume of coal transport on the river, amounting to approximately 65 million tons (±63,170,000 metric tonnes). • The transport takes place using barges with a capacity of around 5,000 tons (±4,500 metric tonnes), implying 13,000 loaded barges and the same amount of [returning] empty barges per year. • The barges and tug boats pulling them cause coal dust pollution, spread coal into the river (with spills and scattering of bits of coal from coal barges and tugboats), and cause turbulence.

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

• The physical condition of the riverside has degraded dramatically. It is impacted by the high frequency of coal transport by barges on a large scale. Heavy traffic from various activities, including coal transportation, has caused landslides.

• Damage to and destruction of the many mangrove forests can be seen on the riverbank in Laut Kuala Lupak, Tabunganen District.

5. Manganese (Mn): The highest measurement in 2013 was 0.5697 mg/l in the Alalak floating market, which was more than 5 times the allowed limit.

6. These indicators highlight hazards that are posed to aquatic life, and problems for the community water supply, and the government specifically points to the mining sector – especially coal – as the culprit.

• 252,677 people live along the riverside. • Government water quality measurement: 1. pH: low pH was due to the condition of the catchment area of the Barito watershed that receives wastewater from the mining sector. Low pH may determine the overall water quality especially since water acidity increases the dissolution of metals into the water. Low pH threatens the aquatic ecosystem as only certain fish can withstand higher acidity.

2. TSS: The highest TSS reached 117 mg/l in August 2013, surpassing the allowed limit of 50 mg/l in accordance with the Governor’s decree No. 05 Year 2007 on river water quality. TSS rises due to mud and fine sand that are mostly caused by land erosion, that impacts the water body. The many measurements of TSS surpassing limits in the Barito river are due to inputs from rivers where coal mining persists.

3. The watershed destruction and destruction of critical land in Kalimantan reaches 3 million hectares.

4. Fe (Iron): In almost every month of testing, Fe measurement results surpassed the

allowed limit set by the Governor decree No. 05, 2007. The Government claimed that one measurement even reached 1000% above the limit.

The South Kalimantan government EPA report also listed a number of key findings regarding the Martapura river and coal: • The Martapura river withstands the dumping of waste and numerous activities linked to various riverine industries including plywood, glue, rubber, sand mining, and coal mining (PT. Baramarta). Some of the monitoring points receive a burden of waste from the coal mining sector. • TSS: At many times and many station points, the measurement of TSS surpasses the allowed limit of 50 mg/l (Governor’s decree No. 05 Year 2007) on river water quality limit, for example 494 mg/l in October 2013. TSS rises due to mud and fine sand that are mostly attributed by the government to land erosion that was carried by the water body. The many measurement of TSS surpassing limit in the Martapura are found to be due to inputs from rivers where coal mining persists and that eventually flow into the Martapura. The government thus highlights

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 43

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

coal mining as a contributor to the unusually and unacceptably high TSS in this river. Water with high TSS has lower clarity and less sunlight, an ingredient important for vegetation to conduct photosynthesis, which supports the entire aquatic ecosystem. • Fe (Iron): All measurements taken in 2013, measured 5 times at 5 control stations, surpassed the allowed limit of 0.3 mg/l in accordance with the Governor’s decree No. 05 Year 2007. Fe levels in the Martapura river even reached 45 times the limit, due to the peat and mining sectors upstream. • Manganese (Mn): The presence of Manganese in the Martapura may be due to the mining sector. Measurements in April and March surpassed the water quality limit because of the rainy season, when the acid mine drainage cannot be managed, and enters the Martapura. • The report focuses on a residential area, 6000 ha of farmland, as well as the aforementioned industries.

b) Government Acknowledgment in Other Regions of Indonesia Various government documentation has been obtained by Greenpeace investigators, confirming that the official government acknowledgements that coal is also a source of water pollution in other regions of Indonesia. Excerpts and summaries of some of these reports are included below, in order to highlight the possible scope and severity of the problem nationwide. These reports also underscore that governmental acknowledgment of coal’s role in water pollution is not an isolated phenomenon, limited to one single report, but rather repeated acknowledgments by different agencies at different times. The East Kalimantan Environmental Status Reports prepared by the provincial government 88 show that the Mahakam river in East Kalimantan has been “heavily polluted” for as long as samples have been taken, since 2003. Total suspended solids, BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) and COD (chemical oxygen demand) have been high

44 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

throughout, but towards 2012 there was a significant increase in COD. Overall water quality degraded significantly from 2011 to 2012, and riverbottom (benthic) fauna downstream of Samarinda died entirely. The Environmental Status report by the provincial government attributes the worsening of water pollution and the die-off to water pollution from sludge or wastewater discharges into the river, and to water transport. Both impacts are dominated by coal mining, and the increase in COD without corresponding increase in BOD would be consistent with coal dust or other inorganic pollution, rather than organic matter from land erosion. Land erosion is also a major factor in the pollution of the river and coal mining is one of the main drivers. In March 2013, the head of the parliament of the East Kutai regency Legislative Council heavily criticized KPC for discharging coal mining wastewater into the Sangatta river. The discharges have destroyed and polluted the river that 10,000 people rely on as their source of water. 89 In 2009, the South Kalimantan environmental authorities told the local people downstream of Adaro’s Tutupan coal mine not to consume the water in the Balangan river, because of discharges of polluted water from the settling pond of the mine. They ordered the company to distribute clean water to the affected communities. 90 According to the East Kalimantan Environmental Status Report 2012 by the East Kalimantan Environmental Agency (BLH Kaltim), flooding increased in Samarinda from 2009 through 2012. Samarinda has become known as the “Flood City” (“Kota Banjir”). There is also a saying highlighting how flood-prone the city has become: “if it rains without flooding, the name of the city cannot be Samarinda” (“kalau hujan tidak banjir, itu bukan Samarinda namanya”). The government report says that (coal) mining contributes to flooding by destroying the water retention capacity through land clearance, and by clogging the waterways and drainage systems through sedimentation. Academic studies of other rivers regarding the impact of coal pollution on Indonesia’s

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

Coal mine, Tanah Laut, South Kalimantan

laying out a water quality index, show “that Geringging river and Keruh river were heavily polluted. While other tributaries are moderately polluted, these two rivers show high levels of TSS, pH, BOD5, COD, and dissolved oxygen (DO) compared to standards. Coal mining in Kuantan Singingi Regency is open cast mining, a practice that removes the surface land or soil to tap into coal resources…,[which] eventually creates acid mine drainage… Open cast mining removes the upper layer of land to another place and creates hills and valley that are deep enough to create small creeks in the surrounding areas, which eventually carry waste to the main river.” 91

@Greenpeace/erik wirawan

rivers, have findings quite similar to government reports. A survey and analysis of water quality was carried out in several rivers to assess the effect of coal mines in the district of Singingi, in Kuantan Singingi Regency, Riau Province. This is an area nationally renowned for its coal mining activity. The results of water quality compared with the Government Regulation No. 82/2001 and refers to the Ministerial Decree No.115/2003 on Guidance of Water Quality Status,

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 45

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

CONCLUSION AND DEMANDS

Conclusion Greenpeace’s investigation in South Kalimantan has found that the coal mining sector poses a serious and long-term threat to the province’s water resources.

Hazardous Wastewater from Coal Mining Samples were collected from ponds associated with mining activities within five coal concessions. In comparison to the national standard for coal waste water discharge, results from the 29 samples analysed showed : • 22 samples had pH below 6, with lowest pH 2.32. • 17 samples exceed Manganese limit; 7 samples exceed Iron limit, with the highest concentration up to 40 times the limit. The investigation uncovered mine discharge above standards in form of, seepage and leakage from settling ponds and abandoned coal mine pits. Some of the storage sites will likely flood during the rainy season, releasing highly toxic mining wastewater into the environment. Satellite image analysis also revealed that some mines placed their tailing ponds in close proximity to waterways, further increasing the risk of chronic seepage of toxic substances, and risk of large wastewater spills. The coal mining company Arutmin was found to have among the worst results – all wastewater samples showed low pH and levels of metals that is above the regulated limits; samples containing the highest concentration of iron (40 times the limit) and Manganese (10 times the limit) are from Arutmin mines. Combined with

46 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

on-site observations, the investigation clearly shows Arutmin’s poor management of on-site and offsite environmental effects including failure to prevent the formation of acid mine drainage and subsequent pollution of waterways and failure to prevent erosion of topsoil.

Serious Risk of Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) in the LongTerm The most serious threat to water resources is the formation of acid mine drainage, which will continue to impact the rivers decades after mine closure and are notoriously difficult and expensive to manage. In the investigation we have uncovered evidence that shows some of the mines already shows signs of AMD.

Recommendations: To the government of South Kalimantan, in particular the Provincial Environmental Protection Agency (Badan Lingkungan Hidup Daerah) of South Kalimantan: And, to the Ministry of Environment of Indonesia: 1. Immediate public investigation of coal mines’ water pollution in South Kalimantan In light of the findings and the threat to water quality and public health, Greenpeace calls on the Provincial Environmental Protection Agency (Badan Lingkungan Hidup Daerah) of South Kalimantan and the Ministry of Environment

@Greenpeace/richi raimba

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Water

An acid pond (pH 2.34) from Coal Mining Greenpeace Indonesia activities, rightSoutheast beside Asia the -main road used by villagers of Salaman, South Kalimantan.

| 47

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

(MoE) of Indonesia to conduct an immediate and thorough environmental investigation of coal mines operating in South Kalimantan. The investigation should cover on-site and offsite environmental effects including water pollution, wastewater treatment, site selection of mine waste ponds, preservation of topsoil and steps taken to prevent the formation of acid mine drainage. The MoE should publicly release the investigation findings, as well as records of the mandatory environmental audits undertaken by all coal mining companies since 2012. Under Indonesian laws and regulation, the Ministry of the Environment holds responsibility for environmental policy and its implementation is conducted by BAPEDAL, the provincial environmental offices. According to the environmental license (Government Regulation 27/2012) 92 companies are required to conduct mandatory environmental audits periodically, and if a company fails to carry out an environmental audit, the Minister for the Environment is authorised to carry out or appoint a third party to undertake the audit. The regulation also sets out that, “if the environmental license is revoked, the relevant business and or activities permits, which allow the business to operate, will also be revoked.”

48 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

Greenpeace calls on the MoE to publish the environmental audits of all coal mining companies since 2012 (when the regulations came into force) and reveal if any regulatory actions have been taken where violations were found. Local and or Central Government must revoke mining permits of violators. 2. Ensure strong environmental accountability in the mining licenses allocation process Greenpeace recommends that the mine license allocation process includes a much stronger consideration of company track records on environmental performance, to strengthen environmental accountability of the process and penalise companies that are repeat offenders. To protect the water quality and public health, the following need to be assessed as part of the licensing process and audit, with clear conditions: • Licensing agency should assess the proximity to conservation forests and headwaters. The siting of mine wastewater ponds: a wide buffer zone from rivers must be set in order to reduce flooding and spilling risks.

• The conditions should be that there is no overlap between mine development and conservation zone, no mining in headwater regions and all possible efforts to avoid any releases from wastewater ponds, including through siting, design (e.g. lining), maintenance, monitoring and restriction of access to such ponds. • Licenses of coal concessions overlapping with conservation forests must be revoked. 3. Security fund for long term AMD management and liability GR 27/2012 also mandates the environmental license holder to set aside funds (an environmental bond) that will be used for environmental rehabilitation and recovery. Greenpeace calls for the MoE to disclose details of the security fund set up for South Kalimantan, and whether this is set at the sufficient rate to prevent long-term public liability from acid mine drainage after mine closure. 4. Greater transparency and public information The Provincial Environmental Protection Agency (Badan Lingkungan Hidup Daerah) of South Kalimantan and the Ministry of Environment of

Floating Coal Mines Polluting SouthMarket Kalimantan’s Water Community sells their product at the floating market in the Martapura river in Banjarmasin, South Kalimantan, Indonesia. The South Kalimantan Environment Agency (BLHD) in their 2013 annual report acknowledges that along with the Barito river, Martapura has to withstand the impact of coal mining activities, aside from other riverine industries.

Indonesia to publish water discharge violations on a regular basis. This helps investors, central government mining permitting body and NGOs to track company performance and provides a strong incentive for companies to improve their practice. This should be published on a regular basis. The Provincial Environmental Protection Agency (Badan Lingkungan Hidup Daerah) of South Kalimantan and the Ministry of Environment of Indonesia to make river quality reports publicly available – the Greenpeace investigation could only source the report after making several personal visits to the MoE and the local EPA; and only the most recent year is available.

The new government of Indonesia can and must do better in terms of monitoring, enforcing the existing laws, holding polluters accountable, and protecting its people and environment. Greenpeace looks forward to working with the Central and South Kalimantan governments to seriously tackle these problems and find real solutions.

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 49

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

END NOTES

Appendix 1 i Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources Republic Indonesia, Directorate General of Mineral and Coal, Directorate of Mineral and Coal Program Supervision. 2012.“Indonesia Mineral and Coal Statistics 2012”. http://www.minerba.esdm.go.id/library/ content/file/28935-Publikasi/bea3977b3c2b241a421c7640955ebf682013-03-12-12-28-12.pdf 1 Bankwatch, 15 November 2013, Banking on coal - Undermining our climate. p.33. http://bankwatch.org/sites/default/files banking-on-coal.pdf 2 Gresswell, ‘Asian Thermal Coal Markets in 2013 – Trends and Themes’, p.13. HDR Salva, corporate communication (Salva is a global exploration, mining and commodities consultant) https://salvareport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Thermal-Market Presentation-180613.pdf 3 Greenpeace International, Point of No Return: The massive climate threats we must avoid, p.45. http://www.greenpeace.org/ international/point-of-no-return/ 4 Ibid. 5 Lucarelli B., July 2010. The History and Future of Indonesia’s Coal Industry: Impact of Politics and Regulatory Framework on Industry Structure and Performance’, Program on Energy and Sustainable Development. Stanford Working Paper #93. p.25. http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22953/WP_93_Lucarelli_revised_Oct_2010.pdf 6 Devi, B. & Proyogo, D. (2013) “Mining and Development in Indonesia: An Overview of the Regulatory Framework and Policies,” March 2013. P.42. http://im4dc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Mining-and-Development-in-Indonesia.pdf 7 Lucarelli B. (2010). 8 Tempo magazine, 14 June, 2010, ‘Perang Mafia Emas Hitam (Mafia Wars; Black Gold). (subscription). 9 Tempo magazine (English), 4 March 2012, p. 59 “Mine Wars”. Not in Temp archive but reproduced here. Accessed 22 Nov. 2014. http://www.churchillmining.com/library/file/Tempo-Mine%20Wars-Mar2012.pdf 10 Luthfi Fatah, 2008. The Impacts of Coal Mining on the Economy and Environment of South Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. ASEAN Economic Bulletin Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 85–98.. 11 Gary McMahon, Elly Rasdiani Subdibjo, Jean Aden, Aziz Bouzaher, Giovanna Dore Ramanie Kunanayagam. November 2000. Mining And The Environment In Indonesia: Long-Term Trends And Repercussions Of The Asian Economic Crisis. EASES Discussion Paper Series. 21438. 12 Lucarelli B. (2010). 13 KP3EI Komite Percepatan dan Perluasan Pembangunan Ekonomi Indonesia (The Indonesian Committee for acceleration and expansion of Economical Development), “Kalimantan Perkembangan dan Kemajuan KE Kalimantan,” http://kp3ei.go.id/in/main_ind/content2/114/117 14 Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources of the Republic of Indonesia, “Berita, Coal, South Kalimantan Coal Production Expected to Increase,” RABU, 07 January 2009, http://www.esdm.go.id/news-archives/coals/52-coal/2206-south-kalimantan-coal- production-expected-to-increase.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page= 15 For national coal output post 2011, see the BP statistical review of world energy http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html 16 “Indonesian coal” Donald L. Ewart, Jr., and Robert Vaughn, Marstonne & Marstonne Inc. US, review the Indonesian thermal coal industry. Reprinted from May 2009 World Coal Asia Special. www.WorldCoal.com 17 Luthfi Fatah (2008): The “majority of the large-scale coal industries operated with a permit called the Coal Mining Exploration Project Agreement (CMEPA), which is in Indonesian is called a PKP2B (Perjanjian Karya Pengusahaan Pertambangan Batubara) permit. The small-scale coal industries included small firms as well as individuals and cooperatives. These operated with Mining Authorization (MA) permits, which in Indonesia are called KP (Kuasa Pertambangan) permits.” 18 2013 map of South Kalimantan Coal Consessions from the Indonesian Coal Association issued by Petromindo – on file with Greenpeace 19 The World Energy Council declared in 2011 that Indonesia’s coal reserves were over 5.5 billion tonnes, or 0.6% of the world’s total coal reserves. [See, ICRA Indonesia Rating Feature September 2012. Rating Methodology for Coal Mining Companies* Overview] The figures for 2011 are a substantial increase from the 2010 BP Statistical Energy Survey, which found that in 2009, Indonesia had “coal reserves of 4,328 million tonnes, 0.52% of the world total [and] coal production of 252.47 million tonnes, 4.55% of the world total.” [See, Sourcewatch, Coal Mining in Indonesia - Overview, “Indonesia and coal”. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index. php/Indonesia_and_coal] 20 Zacks investment research has estimated that over 90% of the estimated coal demand growth in Asia, which is 3.5 billion metric tonnes, is expected to come from Indonesia over the next 20 years: Zacks Investment Research, “Peabody’s New Coal Backup,” 21 December 2010. http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/44950/peabodys-new-coal-backup 21 Indonesia Mineral and Coal Statistics 2012, Directorate of Mineral and Coal Program, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. http://www.minerba.esdm.go.id/library/content/file/28935-Publikasi/ bea3977b3c2b241a421c7640955ebf682013-03-12-12-28-12.pdf 22 Determine Appropriate Post Mining Land Use in Indonesia Coal Mining Using Land Suitability Evaluation.(2011). Sri Maryati et al. Technical Paper for Kyushu University. http://ncrs.cm.kyushu-u.ac.jp/assets/files/JNCRS/JNCRS_Vol5_33-38.pdf

50 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Jatam (2010), Deadly Coal: Coal Extraction and Borneo Dark Generation. (Original title: Mautnya Batubara, Pengerukan Batubara dan Generasi Suram Kalimantan. Coal, Digging Indonesia’s grave, p.12. Earthworks Fact Sheet, 2002. Acid Mine Drainage. 2002. http://www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/FS_AMD.pdf [hereinafter Earthworks, AMD]; See also U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1993. Acid Mine Drainage from Impact of Hardrock Mining on the National Forests: A Management Challenge. Program Aid 1505. p. 12. and, US EPA, ’Abandoned Mine Site Characterization Cleanup Handbook’ August 2000, Chapter 3: Environmental Impacts from Mining, p30: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/remedy/pdfs/amscch.pdf Ghinwa M. Naja and Bohumil Volesky, 2009.Toxicity and Sources of Pb, Cd, Hg, Cr, As, and Radionuclides in the Environment.2.3.1 Acid Mine Draingae, p.35: http://biosorption.mcgill.ca/publication/HandB-Ch2.pdf James Williamson, Hale Thurston, Matthew Heberling, 2008. Valuing acid mine drainage remediation in West Virginia: a hedonic modeling approach. The Annals of Regional Science. 02/2008; 42(4):987-999. http://www.researchgate.net/ publication/23545340_Valuing_acid_mine_drainage_remediation_in_West_Virginia_a_hedonic_modeling_approach Ibid. Katoria, D. Sehgal, D. & Kumar, S. 2013. Environment Impact Assessment of Coal Mining. International Journal of Environmental Engineering and Management. 4 (3) : 245-250. http://www.ripublication.com/ijeem_spl/ijeemv4n3_14.pdf Munnik, V., Hochmann, G. Hiabane, M. & S. Law. 2010. The social and environmental consequences of Coal Mining in South Africa : A case study. Environmental Monitoring Group. January 2010, Cape Town, South Africa and Amsterdam, The Netherlands. http://www.bothends.org/uploaded_files/uploadlibraryitem/1case_study_South_Africa_updated.pdf McQuaid, J. 2009. Mountaintop Mining Legacy: Destroying Appalachian Streams. 360 Yale. 20 July 2009. http://e360.yale.edu/ feature/mountaintop_mining_legacy_destroying_appalachian_streams/2172/ Earthworks, AMD. For a mention of the persistent nature of coal-related water pollution, see also: Anderson, R.M., Beer, K.M., Buckwalter, T.F., Clark, M.E., McAuley, S.D., Sams, J.I. III, and Williams, D.R., 2000, Water Quality in the Allegheny and Monongahela River Basins Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, and Maryland, 1996-98: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1202, 32 p., on-line at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/circ1202/ or pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1202/major_findings.htm: “Mine-related influences have long been recognized as among the most serious and persistent water-quality problems in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 1996) and West Virginia (West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, 1998), as well as throughout Appalachia, extending from New York to Alabama (Biesecker and George, 1966).” Department of Water and Sanitation of South Africa, briefing to the National Assembly Committee on Water and Sanitation on Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) and its implications to ground water, rivers and dams, 5 November, 2014. Summary of the hearing and the briefing papers can be accessed at: http://www.pmg.org.za/node/48027 B.P. Simarmata, T. Listyani R.A., Sukartono, 2011. Simarmata, Acid Mine Drainage Identification At Binuang Area, South Kalimantan, and Its Alternative Treatment. Atlas Resources Geological Department, College of Technology “STTNAS Yogyakarta.” Jurnal Teknologi, Volume 4 Number 2, December 2011, 113- 119. Ibid. Abfertiawan M.S. and Gautama R.S. 2011. Development of Catchment Area Approach in Management of Acid Mine Drainage, presentation for the International Mine Water Association Congress 2011, 9 September 2011, Aachen, Germany https://www. imwa.info/imwa-meetings/proceedings/176-proceedings-2011.html or https://www.imwa.info/docs/imwa_2011/IMWA2011_ Abfertiawan_325.pdf M. Sonny Abfertiawan, Rudy Sayoga Gautama, Ginting Jalu Kusuma, Arief Wiedhartono, Firman Gunawan, “The Challenges in Acid Mine Drainage Management in Lati Coal Mine Operation, East Kalimantan” (authors based at PT Berau Coal, and the Indonesia and Department of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Mining and Petroleum Engineering, Institut Teknologi, Bandung, Indonesia) http://www.academia.edu/6968715/The_Challenges_in_Acid_Mine_Drainage_Management_in_Lati_Coal_Mine_ Operation_East_Kalimantan Riza, N., Thamrin, Siregar, SH, 2012. Analysis of water quality of Singingi river tributaries around the Kuantan Singingi coal mine. Jurnal Ilmu Ungkuan, 2012:6 (2) (Analisis Status Kualitas Air Anak-Anak Sungai Singingi Sekitar Tambang Batubara Di Kuantan Singingi) ISSN 1978-5283. © 2012 Program Studi Ilmu Lingkungan PPS Universitas Riau. http://download.portalgaruda.org/article.php?article=31887&val=2277 World Health Organization. 2007. Hydrogen Sulfide in Drinking-water, Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, WHO/SDE/WSH/03.04/07 http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/en/ hydrogensulfide.pdf (Originally published in Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Health criteria and other supporting information. World Health Organization, Geneva, 1996.) Qian Lia, Jack R. Lancaster Jr. 2013. Chemical foundations of hydrogen sulfide biology, Nitric Oxide Volume 35, 30 November 2013, Pages 21–34 (DOI: 10.1016/j.niox.2013.07.001) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1089860313002759 World Health Organization. 2008. Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. WHO/ SDE/WSH/03.04/08 (Originally published in Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Health criteria and other supporting information. World Health Organization, Geneva, 1996.): http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/i ron.pdf Carlos De Rosa & James Lyon, 1997. Golden Dreams, Poisoned Streams. Mineral Policy Center, Washington DC, 1997.

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 51

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

51 52 53

54 55 56 57 58

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

52 |

Impacts of pH on fish species were extracted from the US EPA Acid Rain study, other chemical components of acid rain were excluded. United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Effects of Acid Rain - Surface Waters and Aquatic Animals” website. http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/surface_water.html Ibid. Ibid. Hermiati & Sukmawardani. 2011. Resilience and Growth in some Tilapia (fish) strains in Acid Media. Bogor Institute of Agriculture, IPB Indonesia.http://repository.ipb.ac.id/handle/123456789/52208 Astria J., Marsi, Fitrani M. 2013. Survival rate and growth of snakehead fish (Channa striata) on various pH modification of swamp water mixed with soil substrate. University of Sriwijaya, Indonesia. Jurnal Akuakultur Rawa Indonesia, 1(1):66-75. Pescod in Rudiyanti, S. & Ekasari, A. D. 2009. Growth And Survival Rate Of Cyprinus Carpio Linn Juvenile On Different Concentration of Regent 0.3g Pesticide. University of Diponegoro, Indonesia. Jurnal Saintek Perikanan Vol. 5, No. 1, 39 – 47. http://core.kmi.open.ac.uk/download/pdf/11718503.pdf Ahmadi, H. Iskandar & Kurniawati, N. 2012. Addition of Probiotic in Commercial Feed to Growth of Sangkuriang Catfish (Clarias gariepinus) on Nursery II. University of Padjadjaran, Indonesia. Jurnal Perikanan dan Kelautan Vol. 3 No. 4. Refering to Indonesian SNI. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Effects of Acid Rain - Surface Waters and Aquatic Animals. http://www.epa.gov/ acidrain/effects/surface_water.html. For further examples of fish kills, where studies clearly linked fish dying with sudden onslaughts of low pH, please refer to Hohls, B.C. and Kühn, A.L. (2001). Field Guide to Fish Kill Assessments. Institute for Water Quality Studies, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa. http://www.dwaf.gov.za/iwqs/reports/fishkill/ FieldGuidetoFishKills.pdf or Fish Kills in NSW, Frequently Asked Questions, Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales government http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/402790/Fish-Kills-FAQ-August-2011.pdf Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 63, Manganese And Its Compounds: Environmental Aspects (First draft prepared by Howe, P.D., Malcolm, H.M., and Dr Dobson, S., Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Monks Wood, United Kingdom) World Health Organization, Geneva, 2004 http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/cicad/cicad63_rev_1.pdf and http://www.inchem. org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad63.htm#1.0 ATSDR (2004) Toxicological Profile for copper. United States Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, September 2004. See also Adams & Chapman 2006 Sandahl, J.F., Baldwin, D.H., Jenkins, J.J., Scholz, N. (2007) A sensory system at the interface between urban stormwater runoff and salmon survival. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(8): 2998-3004. ATSDR (2004) Toxicological Profile for copper. United States Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, September 2004. See also Comber, S.D.W., Merrington, G., Sturdy, L., Delbeke, K., van Assche, F. (2008) Copper and zinc water quality standards under the EU Water Framework Directive: The use of a tiered approach to estimate the levels of failure. Science of The Total Environment 403(1-3): 12-22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. The Effect of Mountaintop Mines and Valley Fills on Aquatic Ecosystems of the Central Appalachian Coalfields. EPA/600/R-09/138F. Washington DC http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay. cfm?deid=225743 Munnik, V., Hochmann, G. Hiabane, M. & S. Law. 2010. The social and environmental consequences of Coal Mining in South Africa : A case study. Environmental Monitoring Group. January 2010, Cape Town, South Africa and Amsterdam, The Netherlands. http://www.bothends.org/uploaded_files/uploadlibraryitem/1case_study_South_Africa_updated.pdf Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. 2003. Ecological Risk Analysis. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ ecorisk/documents/m5520ata.pdf World Health Organization. 2004. Manganese and its Compounds: Environmental Aspects. http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/ cicad/cicad63_rev_1.pdf Water Stewardship Division, Ministry of Environment, Province of British Columbia. March 2008. Ambient Aquatic Life Guidelines for Iron: Overview Report. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/iron/iron_overview.pdf and Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Iron Criteria and Implementation For Iowa Surface Waters. 11/28/2005 CD, 12/05/2005 CD, http://www. iowadnr.gov/portals/idnr/uploads/water/standards/iron_issue.pdf, referencing Gerhardt, A. 1995. Joint and Single toxicity of Cd and Fe related to metal uptake in the mayfly Leptophlebia marginata (L.) (Insecta). Hydrobiologia, 306:229-240. Brandt, H.H., 1948. Intensified injurious effects on fish, especially the increased toxic effect produced by a combination of sewage poisons. Beitr. Wass. Abwass. Fischerei-chemi. 15. Doudoroff, P. and M. Katz. 1953. Critical review of literature on the toxicity of industrial wastes and their components to fish. II. The metals, as salts. Sew. Ind. Wastes, 25:802. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 1976. Quality Criteria For Water. Washington, D.C. 20460. Warnick, S.L., and H.L. Bell, 1969. The acute toxicity of some heavy metals to different species of aquatic insects. Jour. Water Poll. Cont. Fed. 41(2):280. U.S. EPA 2000: Nickel Compounds. Hazard Summary. http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/hlthef/nickel.html Iyaka Y.A. 2011. Nickel in soils: A review of its distribution and impacts. Scientific Research and Essays. Vol. 6(33), pp. 67746777. 29 December 2011 Special Review http://academicjournals.org/article/article1380729502_Iyaka.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1984. Water quality criteria for European freshwater fish. http://www.fao. org/docrep/017/ap673e/ap673e.pdf Eisler R. 1998. Nickel Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey. http://137.227.245.168/eisler/CHR_34_Nickel.PDF British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2004. Technical Report - Water Quality Guidelines For Cobalt. http:// www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/cobalt/cobalt_tech.pdf U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2011. Chromium Toxicity. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem. asp?csem=10&po=10 World Health Organization. 2003. Chromium in drinking-water; Velma V et al 2009. Ecotoxicology of Hexavalent Chromium in Freshwater Fish: A Critical Review. Rev Environ Health. 2009 Apr–Jun; 24(2): 129–145. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2860883/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Basic Information about Chromium in Drinking Water. http://water.epa.gov/drink/ contaminants/basicinformation/chromium.cfm

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

68 Kompas. 2012. Points prone to flooding in South Kalimantan. http://regional.kompas.com/read/2012/11/19/171034/993.Titik. Rawan.Banjir.di.Kalsel 69 Characteristic post mining land has lost its rich topsoil, limiting re-vegetation options. Sengon (Paraserianthes falcataria) and Acacia (Acacia mangium), are typically used in post-coal mining reclamation plantations in the region. They are chosen due to their resilience. [Environment Protection Agency (Badan Lingkungan Hidup Daerah) South Kalimantan Province. Annual Report: Regional Environment Status South Kalimantan Province 2013.] They can live in various types of land, including dry land with minimal nutrients, with good or bad drainage and even land with salinity problems [Arista TH, B. 2012. Carbon prediction in Acacia mangium and Paraserianthes falcataria in post reclamation area of PT Arutmin Batulicin Kalimantan Selatan, Original title : Pendugaan kandungan karbon pada tegakan Akasia (Acacia mangium) dan tegakan Sengon (Paraserianthes falcataria) di lahan reklamasi pasca tambang batubara PT Arutmin Batulicin Kalimantan Selatan. Thesis, Bogor Institute of Agriculture, Indonesia]. However, Acacia is also associated with allelophathy that inhibits other plants from growing.[ Noumi, Z. & Chaieb, M. 2011. Allelopathic Effects of Acacia Tortilis (Forssk.) Hayne subsp. Raddiana (Savi) Brenan in North Africa. Pak. J. Bot., 43(6): 28012805, 2011]. 70 Holl, K. D. 2002. Long-term vegetation recovery on reclaimed coal surface mines in the eastern USA. Departement of Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz. Journal of Applied Ecology 39 : 960 – 970. http://people.ucsc. edu/~kholl/mining.pdf 71 Setiawan, D. 2004. The Change of soil characteristic at coal mine reclamation area which is revegetated in one, two, three and four years with Sengon and Acacia Plant. (Original title: Perubahan karakter tanah pada kawasan reklamasi bekas tambang batubara yang direvegatis selam satu, dua, tiga dan empat tahun dengan sengon dan akasia. Thesis. Bogor Insitute of Agriculture. 72 Ibid 73 Arista TH, B. 2012. Original title: Pendugaan kandungan karbon pada tegakan Akasia (Acacia mangium) dan tegakan Sengon (Paraserianthes falcataria) di lahan reklamasi pasca tambang batubara PT Arutmin Batulicin Kalimantan Selatan. (Prediction of residual carbon content of Acacia (Acacia mangium) and Sengon (Paraserianthes falcataria) in land reclamation after coal mining by PT Arutmin Batulicin in South Kalimantan) Thesis, Bogor Institute of Agriculture. 74 The Ministry of Forestry, Republic of Indonesia “Daftar Jenis - Jenis Pohon Yang Dilindungi” http://www.dephut.go.id/Halaman/PDF/kalbar04/tabel-46.pdf . 75 Environment Protection Agency (Badan Lingkungan Hidup Daerah) South Kalimantan Province. Annual Report: Regional Environment Status South Kalimantan Province 2013. 76 Indonesia Ministry of Environment (MoE). 2003. Decree No. 113 on Wastewater Quality Limit for Coal Mining Acivities (Baku Mutu Air Limbah Bagi Usaha dan atau Kegiatan Pertambangan Batu Bara). 77 Ibid 78 The monthly limits in the U.S. are more stringent than the Indonesian limits.Cornell University Legal Information Institute, “40 CFR 434.35 - New source performance standards (NSPS).” http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/434.35 79 International Finance Corporation, “Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Mining,” 2007. http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/ connect/1f4dc28048855af4879cd76a6515bb1 8/Final%2B-%2BMining.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&id=1323153264157 80 Ministry of Health, Republic of Indonesia (2010). Indonesian Ministry of Health Decree No. 492/MENKES/PER/IV/2010 on Requirement of Drinking Water. http://www.hukor.depkes.go.id/up_prod_permenkes/PMK%20No.%20492%20ttg%20 Persyaratan%20Kualitas%20Air%20Minum.pdf 81 Busrin Treerapongpichit, 2010. Banpu mine closed over encroachment: Indonesian rules need clarification. Bangkok Post, 12 February 2010 ftp://202.60.207.28/BP/2010/02_BP_Feb/12022010/BK120210B10.pdf 82 Republika Online. 2009. “Menteri LH Ancam Pidanakan Lima Perusahaan” (Environment Minister Threatens to sanction 5 Companies), 27 November 2009. http://www.republika.co.id/berita/shortlink/92102 83 Kompas. 2012. “993 Titik Rawan Banjir di Kalsel” (993 Flood-prone Locations in South Kalimantan), 19 November 2012. http:// regional.kompas.com/read/2012/11/19/1710346/993.Titik.Rawan.Banjir.di.Kalsel 84 The Indonesian Coal Mining Association, Indonesian Coal Book 2012/2013, June 2012. 85 Fokus Batulicin. 2011. River’s Water Quality in South Kalimantan is declining (Kualitas Air Sungai di Kalimantan Selatan Menurun). 11 April 2011. http://www.fokusbatulicin.com/2011/04/kualitas-air-sungai-di-kalimantan.html 86 The Indonesian Coal Mining Association Report,, Indonesian Coal Book 2012/2013, June 2012. Tanjung Alam Jaya entry showing that the concession will end in 2013-2014, page 427. 87 Environment Protection Agency (Badan Lingkungan Hidup Daerah or BLDH) for South Kalimantan Province, ‘Annual Report: Regional Environment Status South Kalimantan Province 2013.’ 88 Research and Development Agency East Kalimantan Province (2003). Research Report: Study on Water Concentration in Mahakam River, East Kalimantan Province BLH (Badan Lingkungan Hidup) East Kalimantan Environmental Status Report 2009 BLH (Badan Lingkungan Hidup) East Kalimantan Environmental Status Report 2010 BLH (Badan Lingkungan Hidup) East Kalimantan Environmental Status Report 2011 BLH (Badan Lingkungan Hidup) East Kalimantan Environmental Status Report 2012 89 “DPRD: KPC bertanggung jawab atas pencemaran Sungai Sangatta” (Parliament holds KPC responsible for pollution of the River Sengata) 18 March 2013. http://www.antaranews.com/berita/363941/dprd-kpc-tanggung-jawab-atas-pencemaran-sungaisangatta (According to this article, the Chairman of Commission III DPRD in East Kutai in East Kalimantan, member of parliament Kasmidi Bulang, asserted that PT Kaltim Prima Coal (KPC) was responsible for the pollution and damage to the Sengata River as a result of coal mine waste disposal into the river. Moreover, local legislator Palinggi Piter said that KPC must take responsibility for the waste stream flowing from the coal mine into the Sengata River and flowing into residential areas; and added that KPC should be responsible for cleanup operations. Officials reported having taken water samples at different points, and documenting varying levels of turbidity and quality, with a testing laboratory in Samarinda revealing very high turbidity, i.e. above 200 NTU.) 90 Kompas. 2009. “Limbah Pertambangan Batu Bara Cemari Sungai Balangan” (Coal Mine Waste pollutes Balangan river), 27 October 2009. http://regional.kompas.com/read/2009/10/27/19211180/limbah.pertambangan.batu.bara.cemari.sungai.balangan 91 Riza, N.,Thamrin, Siregar, SH. 2012. Analysis of water quality of Singingi river tributaries around the coal mine at Kuantan Singingi. Jurnal lingkungan 6 (2). Environmental studies PPS, University of Riau, Indonesia. http://download.portalgaruda.org/ article.php?article=31887&val=2277 92 GR 27/2012 on the Environmental License. As discussed in Devi, B. & Proyogo, D. (2013) “Mining and Development in Indonesia: An Overview of the Regulatory Framework and Policies,” March 2013. p.42. http://im4dc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Mining-and-Development-in-Indonesia.pdf

Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Indonesia

| 53

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Water

APPENDIX 1

Metals in Coal Mining & Processing Wastewaters from Indonesia, September 2014 Kevin Brigden, David Santillo & Paul Johnston Greenpeace Research Laboratories Analytical Report 04-2014

Contents

1. 2. 3.

Introduction Materials and methods Results and Discussion References Appendix 1.a : Details of methodologies

Greenpeace Research Laboratories School of Biosciences Innovation Centre Phase 2 Rennes Drive University of Exeter Exeter EX4 4RN, UKâ&#x20AC;&#x192;

1 |

Greenpeace Research Laboratories Analytical Report 04-2014

2 3 3 5 6

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

1. Introduction 29 samples of surface water or wastewater were received from Greenpeace Indonesia for analysis at the Greenpeace Research Laboratories in two separate batches, the first on the 29th July 2014 and the second on 21st August 2014. According to documentation supplied, all samples were collected from locations associated with coal mining activities, with the first set collected between 19th - 23rd July 2014, and the second set collected between 11th - 14th August 2014. The samples were composed of 27 wastewater samples, one sample of water from a creek (IND14008) and one sample from a pond (IND14020). Details of the samples received are provided in Table 1a (description) and Table 1b (GPS locations) All samples were analysed quantitatively for the presence of a range of metals. Concentrations of metals in both whole and filtered water were determined in order to distinguish between metals associated with suspended matter and those present in dissolved form in the water.

TABLE 1A: DETAILS OF SAMPLES RECEIVED AND ANALYSED AT THE GREENPEACE RESEARCH LABORATORIES Sample Code

Company/District

Date (dd/mm/yy) ; Time

Sample Type

IDN14001

Tanjung Alam Jaya/ Banjar

19/07/2014; 10.27

Wastewater

Collected from a small pond, an outfall ± 258 m downstream from a pit mine and ±370 m upstream from Mangkaok river, a tributary to Martapura river.

IDN14002

Tanjung Alam Jaya/ Banjar

19/07/2014; 11.05

Wastewater

Collected from an abandoned pit mine. Pit mine is ±628 m from Mangkaok river.

IDN14003

Banjar District

19/07/2014; 10.27

Wastewater

Collected from an abandoned pit surrounded by plantation. The pit is ± 310 m from Mangkaok river.

IDN14004

Tanjung Alam Jaya/ Banjar

19/07/2014; 11.05

Wastewater

Collected from a leak at a land wall of an acid abandoned pit mine , the leak flows into a small creek, ± 478 m from Mangkaok river.

IDN14005

Tapin District

20/07/2014; 10.24

Wastewater

Collected from the discharge of a mine water treatment pond. Discharge from this pond can over flow to the irrigation channel, in parallel with Tapin river.

IDN14006

Tapin District

20/07/2014; 13.04

Wastewater

Collected from a leak from the edge of a mine waste pond.

IDN14007

Tapin District

20/07/2014; 17.07

Wastewater

Collected from a leak from the edge of a mine waste pond

IDN14008

Baramarta/ Banjar

21/07/2014; 10.56

Creek water

Collected from a small creek, ±0.05 km upstream from Riamkiwa river.

IDN14009

Baramarta/ Banjar

21/07/2014; 12.20

Wastewater

Collected from mining wastewater treatment pond. The water flows to the direction of Riamkiwa river.

IDN14010

Baramarta/ Banjar

21/07/2014; 13.04

Wastewater

Collected from a pond with wastewater being pumped out of a pit mine, water flows to the direction of Riamkiwa river.

IDN14011

Baramarta/ Banjar

21/07/2014; 16.20

Wastewater

Collected from a leak at a mine waste treatment pond. Water flows in the direction of a swamp located ± 1.4 kmfrom the Riamkiwa river.

IDN14012

Kadya Caraka Mulia/Banjar

21/07/2014; 18.00

Wastewater

Collected from an abandoned pit mine beside a main road,with paddy fields on the other side of the road

IDN14013

Arutmin/Asam-asam

22/07/2014; 11.18

Wastewater

Collected from the edge of a mine wastewater pond from which water flows to a swamp. A river is located nearby (± 0.78 km) which is a tributary to Asam-asam river (± 4.7 km).

IDN14014

Jorong Barutama Greston/ Tanah Laut

22/07/2014; 12.14

Wastewater

Collected from a mining wastewater pond, adjacent to a villagers road (Desa Salaman), the pit leaks to a nearby creek (IND14019) which connects to Asam-asam River (± 7.6 km).

IDN14015

Arutmin/Asam-asam/ Tanah Laut

23/07/2014; 13.09

Wastewater

Collected from the edge/an opening at a mining wastewater pond, adjacent to a villagers road (Desa Salaman).

IND14016

Arutmin/Asam-asam/ Tanah Laut

11/08/2014; 11.55

Wastewater

Collected from a mining wastewater pond. The water flows to a swamp, towards a nearby river (± 0.15 km), a tributary to Asam-asam river (±. 4.7 km).

IND14017

Arutmin/Asam-asam/ Tanah Laut

11/08/2014; 12.38

Wastewater

Collected from a mining wastewater pond. The set of ponds are at a higher position than an adjacent swamp, separated by a high pile of land.

IND14018

Arutmin/Asam-asam/Tanah Laut

11/08/2014; 13.27

Wastewater

Collected from the edge/an opening of a mine wastewater pond which discharges waste water to an adjacent swamp, towards Asam-asam river (± 5.44 km)

IND14019

Jorong Barutama Greston/ Tanah Laut

11/08/2014; 14.50

Wastewater

Collected from a leak of a mine wastewater pond which flows to a small creek, a tributary to Asam-asam River (7.6 km).

IND14020

Tanah Laut District

11/08/2014; 15.32

Pond water

(Non-Mining) A pond marked: “Standard Source Water Embung-embung (area)”. This non-mining pond is 4 -7 km uphill the sampling points in the area.

IND14021

Jorong Barutama Greston/ Tanah Laut

11/08/2014; 18.37

Wastewater

Collected from a mine wastewater pond. This pond is part of a cluster of ponds, ±1-2 km from a nearby creek, a tributary to Asam-asam River (± 7.6 km)

IND14022

Arutmin/ Batulicin

13/08/2014; 16.51

Wastewater

Collected from the edge of a mine wastewater pond that flows to a swamp, in the direction of a nearby creek (± 0.95 km), a tributary to Batulicin River (± 14 km)

IND14023

Arutmin/ Batulicin

13/08/2014; 16.51

Wastewater

Collected from the edge of a mine wastewater pond that flow to a swamp, in the direction of a nearby creek (± 0.95 km) a tributary to Batulicin River (± 14 km)

IND14024

Jorong Barutama Greston/ Tanah Laut

14/08/2014; 10.40

Wastewater

Collected from an abandoned pit within a concession area which is generally is barren.

IND14025

Jorong Barutama Greston/ Tanah Laut

14/08/2014; 11.18

Wastewater

Collected from a mine wastewater pond which flows to the surrounding area.

IND14026

Jorong Barutama Greston/ Tanah Laut

14/08/2014; 11.57

Wastewater

Collected from a very large abandoned pit ± 2 km in length.

IND14027

Jorong Barutama Greston/ Tanah Laut

14/08/2014; 12.24

Wastewater

Collected from an abandoned pit.

IND14028

Jorong Barutama Greston/ Tanah Laut

14/08/2014; 14.13

Wastewater

Collected from a mine wastewater treatment pond. After treatment, the water flow to a swamp area.

IND14029

Arutmin/Asam-asam/Tanah Laut

14/08/2014; 16.46

Wastewater

Collected from the edge/an opening of a mine waste pond with leaks which flow to a lower plantation .

Description

Greenpeace Research Laboratories Analytical Report 04-2014

| 2

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

TABLE 1B: GPS LOCATIONS FOR SAMPLES RECEIVED AND ANALYSED AT THE GREENPEACE RESEARCH LABORATORIES

SAMPLE CODE

DEGREE MINUTE SECOND IDN14001 IDN14002 IDN14003 IDN14004 IDN14005 IDN14006 IDN14007 IDN14008 IDN14009 IDN14010 IDN14011 IDN14012 IDN14013 IDN14014 IDN14015

03º12’24.3” 03º12’23.6” 03º13’18.3” 03º13’14.5” 03º00’15.0” 02º58’33.1” 03º01’40.6” 03º12’57.2” 03º11’54.0” 03º11’58.2” 03º12’33.0” 03º15’13.5” 03º53’27.1” 03º51’51.4” 03º50’53.8”

115º09’36.7” 115º09’45.4” 115º09’19.5” 115º09’20.4” 115º12’02.2” 115º16’11.8” 115º10’12.2” 115º13’26.4” 115º16’04.9” 115º16’11.5” 115º15’17.4” 115º04’30.5” 115º05’35.9” 115º05’37.9” 115º07’01.1”

DEGREE MINUTE SECOND IND14016 IND14017 IND14018 IND14019 IND14020 IND14021 IND14022 IND14023 IND14024 IND14025 IND14026 IND14027 IND14028 IND14029

03º53’11.8” 03º53’15.0” 03º52’47.2” 03º51’53.7” 03º50’03.7” 03º51’56.8” 03º15’53.4” 03º15’54.5” 03º54’30.1” 03º54’35.3” 03º54’23.2” 03º54’38.4” 03º54’38.0” 03º51’15.5”

115º05’24.1” 115º05’22.4” 115º05’24.0” 115º05’35.0” 115º07’04.0” 115º05’37.1” 115º55’18.3” 115º55’17.5” 115º59’41.3” 114º59’52.8” 115º00’58.4” 115º01’11.4” 115º01’23.6” 115º06’59.1”

2. Materials and Methods All samples were collected in pre-cleaned glass, screw-capped bottles and kept cold and dark before shipment to our laboratory in the UK for analysis. Samples were analysed quantitatively for metals. The pH of each wastewater was measured both in the field using a number of calibrated hand-held devices for cross-checking and also upon receipt of the samples at the laboratory. Metal concentrations were determined for all samples by ICP atomic emission spectrometry (AES) following acid digestion and using appropriate intra-laboratory standards. Both the total concentrations in the whole (unfiltered) sample and the concentrations of dissolved forms in a filtered sample were determined separately for each sample. More detailed descriptions of the sample preparation and analytical procedures, including pH measurements, are presented in the Appendix 1. a.

3. Results and Discussion The concentrations of metals and metalloids in filtered (dissolved metals) and in whole waters (dissolved and suspended metals) are reported in Table 2, together with pH measurements recorded in the field. The pH measurements from the field were in close correlation with pH measurements of samples received at the laboratory.

3 |

Greenpeace Research Laboratories Analytical Report 04-2014

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

filter whole

IDN14006

filter whole

IDN14007

WW Creek WW WW

IDN14011

IDN14012

IDN14013

IDN14014

IDN14015

IND14016

IND14017

IND14018

IND14019

IND14020

Pond

IND14021

IND14022

IND14023

IND14024

IND14025

IND14026

IND14027

IND14028

IND14029

219

703

<50

12100

383

<10

<20

637

9460

<100

<10

226

815

<50

12300

397

<10

<20

641

3660

<100

<10

179

<50

6040

183

<10

<20

246

3700

<100

<10

232

<50

6050

195

<10

<20

254

3490

<100

<10

<20

<50

6340

181

<10

<20

250

3510

<100

<10

<50

6300

182

<10

<20

248

<100

<10

<20

<50

944

<10

<20

1990

<100

<10

551

<50

946

<10

<20

117

11700

<100

<10

139

20250

<50

13250

276

<10

<20

473

11600

<100

<10

137

21400

<50

13500

275

<10

<20

546

<100

<10

<20

<50

580

<10

<20

1130

<100

<10

268

<50

578

<10

<20

124

<10

<20

3140

<10

<20

<50

<100

<10

<20

<10

<20

<50

947

<10

<20

8.14

2770

<100

<10

<20

<10

1650

<50

1690

<10

<20

<50

<100

<10

<20

<10

<20

<50

942

<10

<20

1190

<100

<10

<20

<10

386

<50

1520

<10

<20

<50

<100

<10

<20

<10

<20

<50

133

<20

<10

<20

775

<100

<10

<20

<10

506

<50

428

<20

<10

<20

13900

<100

<10

207

698

<50

12600

411

<10

<20

652

14000

<100

<10

206

777

<50

12600

410

<10

<20

658

6500

<100

<10

278

<50

2060

124

<10

<20

100

6570

<100

<10

439

<50

2090

125

<10

<20

162

25400

<100

<10

196

5825

<50

12800

420

<10

<20

737

25400

<100

<10

197

6015

<50

12850

422

<10

<20

764

184000

<100

973

167

275000

<50

8350

1510

<10

<20

3820

182000

<100

972

166

280000

<50

8480

1530

<10

<20

3880

3710

<100

<10

283

<50

2240

149

<10

<20

200

4010

<100

<10

2000

<50

2270

150

<10

<20

201

92800

<100

294

1380

1880

173000

<50

13500

1680

<10

178

3480

94700

<100

297

1390

1890

176000

<50

13700

1690

<10

186

3500

49900

<100

318

111

114000

<50

8340

416

<10

<20

993

50100

<100

321

112

127000

<50

8480

417

<10

1000

21300

<100

<10

211

10000

<50

14800

384

<10

<20

698

21800

<100

<10

212

14400

<50

14800

381

<10

<20

693

<50

<100

<10

<20

<10

<50

<10

<20

<10

<20

694

<100

<10

<20

<10

4360

<50

455

<20

<10

<20

47000

<100

<10

194

5950

<50

7240

335

<10

<20

646

47000

<100

<10

194

6090

<50

7260

338

<10

<20

647

2340

<100

<10

199

<50

10350

263

<10

<20

116

2330

<100

<10

200

<50

10300

264

<10

<20

117

1620

<100

<10

<50

11800

280

<10

<20

115

1680

<100

<10

319

<50

11900

278

<10

<20

114

<50

<100

<10

<50

1640

130

<10

<20

184

742

<100

<10

388

<50

1640

130

<10

<20

184

139

<100

<10

<50

877

<10

<20

629

<100

<10

658

<50

875

<10

<20

2550

<100

<10

276

126

1780

<50

5280

410

<10

<20

697

2600

<100

<10

282

130

1910

<50

5350

418

<10

<20

713

8830

<100

<10

249

8340

<50

16400

401

<10

<20

928

9080

<100

<10

250

9740

<50

16500

404

<10

<20

941

229

<100

<10

149

<20

<50

3010

191

<10

<20

309

579

<100

<10

150

793

<50

3040

191

<10

<20

309

106000

<100

<10

787

77900

<50

39700

1360

<10

<20

3210

107000

<100

<10

784

100

79200

<50

40200

1360

<10

<20

3210

8.12 8.15 3.38 3.43 2.85 2.34 3.56 3.43 2.47 2.73 6.25 2.80 3.34 3.70 4.40 4.66 3.74 3.15 4.48

filter whole

Limit*

<10

2890

filter whole

<50

filter whole

<10

<50

filter whole

<100

<20

filter whole

9300

12200

filter whole

<20

<10

filter whole

<20

<10

filter whole

<10

<20

filter whole

<20

filter whole

8180

<10

filter whole

8150

<50

<10

filter whole

<50

4880

filter whole

<20

<10

filter whole

<10

filter whole

<10

filter whole

<10

<100

filter whole

<10

<100

filter whole

<10

<100

167

filter whole

<100

678

<50

filter whole

<50

7.30

filter whole

IDN14010

4.66

filter whole

IDN14009

2.85

filter whole

IDN14008

6.50

Zinc (Zn)

IDN14005

3.74

Vanadium (V)

whole

Selenium (Se)

filter

Nickel (Ni)

3.83

Mercury (Hg)

whole IDN14004

3.36

filter

Manganese (Mn)

whole

Lead (Pb)

Iron (Fe)

IDN14003

filter

Copper (Cu)

Cobalt (Co)

IDN14002

6.50

Chromium (Cr)

filter whole

Cadmium (Cd)

Arsenic (As)

IDN14001

Antimony (Sb)

TYPE

Aluminium (Al)

SAMPLE CODE

pH (field)

TABLE 2: CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS AND METALLOIDS (µG/L) IN WHOLE AND FILTERED SAMPLES OF WASTEWATER (WW), WATER FROM A CREEK OR FROM A POND. *LIMITS FOR WASTEWATERS GENERATED BY COAL MINING ACTIVITIES (MOE 2003)

2.32 6-9

7000

4000

Greenpeace Research Laboratories Analytical Report 04-2014

| 4

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

For the majority of samples, the metal concentrations in the filtered sample were very similar to those in the whole (unfiltered) sample, indicating that these metals were present in these samples almost exclusively in dissolved forms rather than bound to suspended particles within the water. The exceptions, for which the whole (unfiltered) sample contained a notably higher concentration of one or more metal compared to the equivalent filtered sample, were predominantly those samples of wastewater (IND14001, IND14005, IND14009, IND14010, IND14011), creek water (IND14008) and pond water (IND14020) which had pH above 6. Wastewaters generated by coal mining activities are subject to regulation in Indonesia which sets maximum permissible limits for certain parameters, including iron (7 mg/l = 7000 μg/l), manganese (4 mg/l = 4000 μg/l) and pH (between 6-9) (MOE 2003)1. Wastewaters from many of the locations sampled in this study did not comply with these regulations at the time of sampling, either due to elevated concentrations of manganese and iron, or due to high acidity (pH below 6). For 22 of the 29 samples (76 %), all of which were wastewater samples, the pH was below 6. In the case of these 22 samples, pH values ranged from pH 4.66 (IDN14007) to pH 2.32 (IND14029), with 7 samples having a pH below 3. The concentrations of manganese exceeded the permissible limit for 17 of the 27 wastewater samples (63 %), in both the filtered and whole sample in all cases, with concentrations in the whole sample ranging from 5350 μg/l (5.35 mg/l) to 40 200 μg/l (40.2 mg/l). The highest concentration, in sample IND14029, exceeded the limit by 10 times. For all but one (IND14001) of these 17 samples, the pH was also outside the allowed range (pH 6-9), and the highest manganese concentration (40.2 mg/l) was found in sample IND14029, which had the lowest pH (2.32). Of these 17 samples, 7 also had concentrations of iron that exceeded the maximum permissible level, with similar levels in both the filtered and whole sample in all cases. Concentrations of total iron in whole samples were in the range 9740 μg/l (9.74 mg/l) to 280 000 μg/l (280 mg/l), with the highest concentration exceeding the limit by 40 times. The highest iron concentration was also found in a sample with one of the lowest pH values (IND14015, pH 2.34). These findings are consistent with the high acidity of many samples solubilising iron and manganese from minerals in the local environment. The creek water (IND14008) also had a concentration of iron in the whole sample which exceeded the limit for wastewaters (12 200 μg/l, or 12.2 mg/l), though the concentration in the filtered sample was far lower (below detection limit of 20 μg/l), indicating that iron in this sample was predominantly present in forms bound to suspended particles within the water rather than in dissolved form.

MOE (2003) Indonesia Ministry of Environment (MOE) Decree No. 113 on Wastewater Quality Limit for Coal Mining Activities (Baku Mutu Air Limbah Bagi Usaha dan atau Kegiatan Pertambangan Batu Bara). http://jdih.menlh.go.id/

5 |

Greenpeace Research Laboratories Analytical Report 04-2014

No maximum permissible concentrations are set for other metals within such wastewaters. However, it is noteworthy that a number of other metals were present at relatively high concentrations in many samples, considerably above concentrations typically found in uncontaminated surface waters, especially aluminium (up to 184 000 μg/l, or 184 mg/l), and also nickel (up to 1690 μg/l, IND14017), zinc (up to 3880 μg/l, IND14015) and copper (up to 1890 μg/l, IND14017). Three samples (IND14015, IND14017 and IND14029) had notably higher concentrations of aluminium (94 700-184 000 μg/l, or 94.7-184mg/l), nickel (1360-1690 μg/l), zinc (32103880 μg/l) and copper (100-1890 μg/l) compared to other wastewaters. Two of these samples (IND14015 & IND14029) had the lowest pH of all wastewater samples and also contained the highest concentration of either iron (IND14015) or manganese (IND14029). To a lesser extent, concentrations of chromium, cobalt, mercury and vanadium were elevated in some wastewater samples, particularly for IND14015 and IND14017. These additional metals may also be present in the samples at elevated concentrations as a result of having been solubilised from minerals in the local environment. Overall, the data indicate a strong link between high acidity (low pH) in wastewaters (particularly for those below pH 4) and elevated concentrations of metals (especially iron, manganese and aluminium), predominantly in soluble forms (see Figure 1 below). The data also indicate that there is commonly a link between high concentrations of iron and/or manganese in wastewaters and higher concentrations of other metals. The relevant regulation set parameters only for pH, two metals (iron and manganese), and total dissolved solids. There may be other locations equivalent to those investigated in this study for which data are available for wastewaters from coal mining from other studies which are limited to these four parameters. The data from this study indicate that it is likely that wastewaters at other equivalent locations with low pH may also have high concentrations of metals, particularly iron and manganese, and also that high concentrations of iron and manganese in wastewaters may also indicate high concentrations of other metals.

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

FIGURE 1: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PH AND THE DISSOLVED CONCENTRATIONS OF THREE METALS IN SAMPLES OF WATER AND WASTEWATER COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF COAL MINING OPERATIONS IN INDONESIA

Appendix 1.a: Details of methodologies Preparation

Concentration (ug/l)

Iron (Fe)

300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Concentration (ug/l)

To obtain total metal concentrations, a representative portion of each whole water sample was acidified by the addition of concentrated nitric acid to give a final concentration of 10% v/v. Separately, a portion of each whole sample was filtered through a 0.45 micron filter and then acidified in the same way to enable determination of dissolved metal concentrations. 50 ml of each acidified sample was digested firstly overnight at room temperature, then using microwave-assisted digestion with a CEM MARS Xpress system, with a temperature ramp to 180ºC over 15 minutes followed by holding at 180ºC for a further 15 minutes. Cooled digests were filtered and made up to 50 ml with deionised water.

Analysis

Manganese (Mn)

45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Prepared sample digests were analysed by Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES) using a Varian MPX Simultaneous Spectrometer. Multi-element standards at concentrations of 0.5, 1.0, 2.5 and 5.0 mg/l respectively, and matrix matched to the samples, were used for instrument calibration. Any sample exceeding the calibration range was diluted accordingly, in duplicate, and re-analysed. Analysis of the arsenic, mercury and selenium content in the samples was carried out separately using cold vapour generation ICP-AES through reaction of the sample with sodium borohydride (0.6% w/v), sodium hydroxide (0.5% w/v) and hydrochloric acid (10 molar) with the resulting vapour carried in a stream of argon into the spectrometer. Two calibration standards were prepared, at 10 μg/l and 100 μg/l (mercury) and at 100 μg/l and 500 μg/l (arsenic & selenium), matrix matched to the samples.

Quality Control

Aluminium (Al)

Concentration (ug/l) 200000 180000 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Three samples were prepared for ICP analysis in duplicate and analysed to verify method reproducibility, along with a blank sample (10% v/v nitric acid in deionised water), and two mixed metal quality control solutions (4 mg/l and 0.4 mg/l for each metal respectively, other than mercury at 0.8 mg/l and 0.2 mg/l). All control samples were prepared in an identical manor to the samples. Calibration of the ICP-AES was validated by the use of quality control standards at 4 mg/l and 0.4 mg/l prepared in an identical manner but from different reagent stocks to the instrument calibration standards. For cold vapour generation arsenic, mercury and selenium analysis, the calibration was validated using quality control standard at 80 μg/l (mercury) and 400 μg/l (arsenic and selenium), prepared internally from different reagent stock.

pH Measurement The pH of each water sample was determined in the field at the time of sample collection. In addition, the pH of each wastewater was measured upon receipt of the samples at the laboratory. In both cases the measurement was recorded using a Hanna Instruments HI98129 pH meter calibrated using pH 4.01 and pH 7.01 Hanna buffer solutions, rinsing well with deionised water between samples.

Greenpeace Research Laboratories Analytical Report 04-2014

| 6

Coal Mines Polluting South Kalimantan’s Water

Acknowledgment: Abdul Aziz, Arif Fiyanto, Hilda Meutia, Hindun Mulaika, Riezky Ramadani, Sapta Ananda Proklamasi. Image: Erik Wirawan, Richi Raimba, Ulet Ifansasti, Yudhi Mahatma. Design: Babul Royani Contact: arif.fiyanto@greenpeace.org

Greenpeace Southeast Asia Greenpeace is a global organisation that uses non-violent direct action to tackle the most crucial threats to our planet’s biodiversity and environment. Greenpeace is a non-profit organisation, present in 40 countries across Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia and the Pacific. Greenpeace Southeast Asia - INDONESIA Mega plaza Lt. 5, HR. Rasuna Said Kav. C3, Jakarta 12920 greenpeace.org/seasia/id

7 |

Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Indonesia