Dalam pelaksanaannya di Indonesia beberapa indikator yang diusulkan oleh TAI telah diubah dan disesuaikan dengan konteks Indonesia yang menitikberatkan pada pelaksanaan prinsip Good Governance yang masih belum terlaksana di Indonesia. Misalnya, indikator "independensi peradilan" ditambahkan sebagai salah satu elemen sehubungan dengan pentingnyaisu tersebut di Indonesia. Secara konstitusional hak atas informasi telah diakui dalam Amandemen Kedua Konstitusi sebagai bagian dari pengaturan tentang Hak Asasi Manusia. Pengaturan lain tentang jaminan akses informasi dan partisipasi masih bersifat umum (enabling provision), kecuali akses informasi dan partisipasi dan partisipasi dalam proses AMDAL yang diatur di dalam PP No. 27 Tahun 1999 tentang AMDAL dan Putusan Kepala Bapedal No. 8 Tahun 2000.

 

Namun definisi hukum tentang informasi lingkungan, publik dan badan publik belum diatur dalam hukum positif tetapi hanya pada RUU Kebebasan Informasi yang diusulkan oleh Koalisi NGO untuk Kebebasan Informasi. Ketidakjelasan tentang definisi dari ketiga hal tersebut mengakibatkan multi-interpretasi oleh otoritas publik dalam penyampaian informasi. Dalam pemantauan (monitoring) terdapat ketentuan yang mewajibkan pemerintah untuk melakukan pemantauan, namun tidak ditemukan ketentuan yang mengatur tentang frekuensi kegiatan pemantauan yang harus dilakukan pemerintah.

 

Adapun mekanisme pengaduan masyarakat sebagai salah satu elemen dari akses terhadap keadlian belum diatur secara tegas dalam Peraturan Perundang-undangan. Indonesia belum memiliki sistem tanggap darurat yang memadai. Hal ini diperparah dengan budaya birokrasi yang panjang dan berbelit-belit sehingga layanan informasi kepada masyarakat tidak dapat sasaran. Usaha monitoring kualitas air, kualitas udara, maupun hasil swapantau perusahaan secara umum telah dilaksanaan secara komprehensif, tetapi masyarakat masih sulit untuk mengakses hasilnya, karena distribusi informasi hanya terbatas untuk memenuhi kebutuhan internal dari otoritas publik (distribusi horizontal). Kendala untuk mengakses informasi ini pun disebabkan karena dalam kurun waktu 10 tahun terakhir ini, ternyata pemerintah Republik Indonesia tidak memiliki laporan neraca kinerja lingkungan nasional. Ketersediaan SDM dan fasilitas untuk mendukung pengelolaan informasi dan pelayanannya kepada publik masih sangat terbatas. Proses penyususnan PROPERNAS tidak didahului dengan notifikasi publik serta pelibatan partisipasi publik masih bersifat terbatas dan belum optimal.

 

Ketiadaan notifikasi dan ketidakoptimalan pelibatan pun terjadi pada proses penyusunan AMDAL dan pemberian izin HPH. Prosedur pengambilan keputusan dalam komisi AMDAL tidak didukung oleh keberadaan mekanisme penyelesaian perbedaan pendapat (dispute resolution) sehingga peengakuan peran serta masyarakat secara normatif dalam proses AMDAL berujung pada partisipasi yang sifatnya hanyalah simbolik (pseudo). Seluruh pemangku kepentingan tidak memiliki strategi yang jelas untuk meningkatkan kapasitasnya dalam melaksanakan ketiga akses. Dalam melaksanakan kiprahnya, LSM masih menghadapi ancaman yaitu berupa ancaman fisik (intimidasi dan instrumentasi pidana) dan juga menghadapi ancaman yang dimunculkan oleh UU No. 16 Tahun 2001 tentang Yayasan.

 

UU ini membuka peluang penguasa untuk membubarkan sebuah yayasan hanya dengan alasan terjadinya konflik internal. Organisasi yang memberikan layanan bantuan hukum tersebar di berbagai wilayah Indonesia dan sudah memiliki prosedur pemberian pelayanan bantuan hukum yang relatif mudah bagi masyarakat yang tergolong tidak mampu. Dalam hal peningkatan kapasitas SDM dalam pengelolaan lingkungan hidup, beberapa sekolah telah memberikan pelajaran tentang lingkungan hidup walaupun dengan keterbatasan dukungan literatur. Dalam kurikulum pendidikan tentang lingkungan hidup tersebut, nilai-nilai tradisional tidak diberi tempatyang sewajarnya sebagai salah satu sumber referensinnya. Ketiadaan akses informasi lingkungan juga tidak ditunjangoleh media massa yang tidak memberikan ruang bagi pemberitaan lingkungan dengan kualitas yang memadai.

 

Kesimpulan Tingkat pengintegrasian 3 akses dalam ketentuan Peraturan Perundang-undangan di Indonesia belum dilakukan secara maksimal. Upaya aktualisasi 3 akses dalam praktek penyelenggaraan pemerintahan di Indonesia belum dianggap sebagai bagian dari kebutuhan strategis pembangunan nasional. Masih rendahnya prakarsa dan kemampuan masyarakat untuk mengupayakan perwujudan 3 akses sehingga tidak mendorong adanya kontrol publik yang efektif terhadap praktek penyelenggaraan negara sesuai dengan prinsip Good Governance. Ketiadaan kontrol publik yang efektif tidak mendorong motivasi yang kuat dari penyelenggara negara untuk mengaktualisasikan sumber daya (resources) yang memadai guna pengaktualisannya.

 

Rekomendasi 1.Diperlukan suatu strategi bersama antara pemangku kepentingan (stakehoulders) untuk mengaktualisasikan 3 akses sebagai penjabaran dari prinsip 10 Deklarasi Rio. Sehubungan dengan itu, diperlukan peran aktif Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup untuk mengambil prakarsa dalam merumuskan strategi bersama; Momentum proses pembentukan RUU PSDA, revisi UU 23/1997 tentang Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup, WSSD, dan prakarsa pembentukan Dewan Nasional Pembangunan Berkelanjutan perlu dimanfaatkanuntuk mengaktualisasikan :tiga akses" secara komprehensif dalam kebijakan nasional; Pengembangan kapasitas SDM pada komunitas Civil Society perlu dilakukan sehingga memiliki kemampuan dalam mendorong pengaktualisasikan 3 akses. Diperlukan suatu inisiatif yang bersifat proaktif dari penyelenggara negara (eksekuti dan legislatif) untuk menciptakan good practice dari ketiga akses, tanpa perlu menunggu keberadaan pengakuan normatif atau prosedur serta mekanisme pengaktualisasian.

 

English Version Principle 10 of Rio Declaration provides that the management of the environment must be carried out in a participatory manner. It means that the making of policy in managing the environment must provide access to information, access to participation, and access to justice (Three Pillars). To verify the degree of the implementation of the tree pillars in a state, several NGOs, under The Access Initiatives (TAI) coalition, proposed a few indicators which are aimed at changing government behavior and improving its policies which have significant influence towards the management of the environment. The method used in examining the three pillars is juridical empirical study. In implementation this verification in Indonesia, some of indicators proposed by TAI have been modified and conformed with the Indonesian context ,emphasizing on the implementation of the principle of Good Governance, which has not been fully implemented in Indonesia.

 

For example, indicator "independence of judiciary" is added as one of existing elements due to the importance of the issue in Indonesia. Right to information has been recognize in the second Amendment of the 1945 Constitution as a part of human rights provisions. However, regulations concerning warrantee of access to information and participation are still in a general manner (enabling provision), except the access to information and participation in the preparatory process of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as stipulated in Government Regulation Number 27 of 1999 and Decree of the Head of Environmental Impact Management Agency (Bapedal) Number 8 of 2000. However, legal definitions concerning environmental information, public, and public institution have not yet been developed. Such definitions could only be found in the Bill on Freedom of Information which was proposed by NGOs Coalition for Freedom of Information. Lack of clarifications and definitions concerning this matter brings about multi-interpretation by public authority in disseminating information.

 

With regard to monitoring, there are several provisions which merely oblige government to carry out monitoring activities. Nevertheless, provision pertinent to frequency of monitoring activities which should be conducted by government is nowhere mentioned in any legislation’s. The same thing happens to reporting mechanism by public as one of elements of access to justice. The mechanism is not explicitly provided for in any legislation’s. In addition, Indonesia does not have an adequate emergency response mechanism. This is worsened by complicated bureaucracy. Accordingly, information service to public could not be realized in proper time, place and target. Efforts to monitor water and Air quality including self-monitoring carried out by companies are generally comprehensive.

 

However, public finds difficulties to get access to the results of those monitoring because the distribution of information is still limited to the fulfillment of the internal need of public authority (horizontal distribution). The impediment to get access to information is caused by the fact that within the last 10 years, the Government of Indonesia does not have the State of National Environmental Performance. The availability of human resources and facility to support information management and information service to public is still very limited. The process of drafting National Development Planning Program does not properly involve public notification and public participation prior to a decision. The involvement of public participation through out the process is still limited and not yet optimal. Absence of notification and lack of public participation also occur in the preparatory process of EIA and the issuance of forestry concession (HPH). Decision making procedure in EIA Commission is not supported by the availability of dispute resolution mechanism. As a result, legal recognition of public participation in EIA process finally and merely becomes pseudo participation.

 

All stakeholders do not have clear strategy to improve their capacity in implementing three pillars. In carrying out their activities, NGO’s still face threats in the form of physical threat (intimidation and criminal victimization) and threats resulting from the provisions of Act Number 16 of 2001 on Foundation. The Act enables the authority to liquidate a foundation for only a minor reason such as an internal conflict occurring in the foundation. With regard to the legal aid services, there are many NGOs are widely spread all over Indonesia, which provide the services. They also have had standard procedure in providing relatively easy legal aid service to public that are clustered as poor people. With regard to improvement of capacity of human resources in managing the environmental matters, a few schools started providing a course or subject pertinent to the environment although the availability of literature is still limited. In the syllabi of environmental course, traditional environmental values are not placed as one of sources of references. The unavailability of access to information is also caused by mass media which do not provide adequate space for environmental news.

 

CONCLUSION The Degree of integration of three pillars into Indonesian laws and regulation are not maximum. Efforts to actualize the pillars in Indonesian practice of governance are not regarded as a part of strategic need for national development. Public efforts and ability to gain the three pillars are low that they do not support the existence of effective public control towards state governance performance which conforms with the principle of Good Governance.

 

Absence of effective public control do not support the existence of public authority’s strong motivation to actualize the three pillars, including to allocate adequate resources necessary to implement the three pillars. RECOMMENDATION There is a need to create a common strategy among stakeholders to actualize the three pillars as required by Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration. For that purpose, the Environment Ministry must play an active role to take lead in formulating the common strategy; The momentum of drafting process of the Bill on Natural Resources Management and revising process of Act Number 23 of 1997 on Environmental Management, and that of initiative to establish National Council for Sustainable Development must be utilized to actualized the three pillars in an national policy comprehensively; Human resources capacity development in Civil Society must be conducted so as to stimulate the actualization of the three pillars; Proactive initiative of the Executive and Legislative is required to create good practices of the three pillars without necessarily waiting for normative and procedural recognition as well as actualization mechanism.