A qualitative content analysis of environmental impact assessment in Indonesia: a case study of nickel smelter processing

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research methodology.

Table 1. General structure of the EIR in Indonesia.

A. Terms of Reference (ToR)	2. Detailed Description of the Initial Environmental Setting
1. Introduction	2.1 Environmental Components Affected
1.1 Background	2.1.1. Geophysical-Chemical Aspect
1.2 Objectives and Benefits of Project	2.1.2. Biological Aspect
1.3 Related Regulation	2.1.3 Socio, Economic and Cultural
2. Screening and Scoping	2.1.4 Public Health Condition
2.1. Description of the Business Plan	2.2 Existing Activities Surrounding Project Site
2.2. Status and Scoping of Study	3. Forecasts of Important Impact
2.3. Activity in Surrounding Project Area	3.1 Pre-Construction Stages
2.4. Alternative of Study	3.2 Construction Stages
2.5. Environmental Setting Description	3.3 Operation Stages
2.5.1. Affected Environmental Component	3.4 Post-Operation Stages
2.5.2. Evaluation of Potential Impact	4. Comprehensive Evaluation on Environment
2.5.3. Classification of Hypothetical Potential	4.1 Review of the Relevance and Interaction of Potential Hypothetical Impacts Impact
2.6.Results of Community Engagement	4.2 Review and Direction as the Basis for Environmental Management
2.7. Important Hypothetical Impact	C. Environment Impact Mitigation and Management Plan (EIMMP) and Environment Impact Monitoring Plan (EIMP)
2.8. Space and Time Boundary	1. Introduction
3. Methods of study	1.1 Background
3.1 Method of Data Collection and analysis to be used.	1.2 Statement of the Purpose and Objective EIMMP and EIMP
3.1.1. Geophysical-Chemical Components	1.3 Environmental Policy from Project Proponent
3.1.2. Biological Condition Throughout All Operation Phase	2. EIMMP Matrix Description
3.1.3 Socio,Economic and Cultural Components	3. EIMP Matrix Description
3.1.4 Community Health Status	4. Applicant Statement of Commitment to Implement EIMMP and EIMP Document
3.2 Impact Forecasting Methods to be used
3.2.1. Forecast Magnitude
3.2.2. Forecast Important Impact
3.3.Evaluation Method of Environmental Impact
B. Environmental Impact Analysis (EIAn)
1. Introduction
1.1 Description of Project
1.2 Hypothetical Important Impact
1.3 Boundaries Area and Time of Study

Table 2. Evaluation criteria to review performance of EIA.

Criteria Cluster	Keywords Topic
Screening and Scoping Process	role of screening and scoping categorization of project to undergo EIA approach systematic or not
Public Participation	general implementation of public participation role and stakeholders involvement public participation and information disclosure
Evaluation, Mitigation and Monitoring	EIA database management role of monitoring on EIA improvement area of monitoring process identification and evaluation of the important environmental impacts of all the actions analysis of alternatives
Review EIA reporting	structure of EIA report length of EIR prescribed content requirements and evaluation quality of EIR to achieve the purpose of assessment

Table 3. Principal EIA regulation and guidelines in Indonesia.

Regulation	Content
Law No 32/2009	Environmental protection and management
Government Regulation No 27/2012	Environmental permit governance in EIA and environmental management measure
Decree of Minister of Environment No 05/2012	Screening criteria (type or scale or magnitude of activities requiring EIA)
Decree of Minister of Environment No 16/2012	Guideline on preparation of environmental document
Decree of Minister of Environment No 17/2012	Community participation and information disclosure in environmental impact assessment
Decree of Minister of Environment No 8/2013	Procedures assessment and examination of environmental document and issuance of environmental permit
Decree of Minister of Environment No 3/2013	Certification of competence of environmental auditors
Decree of Minister of Environment No 45/2005	Guidelines for preparation of mitigation, management and monitoring report
Decree of Head of BAPEDAL No 299/11/1996	Technical guidelines for social aspect review in preparation of EIA
Decree of Head of BAPEDAL No 56 Year 1994	Guidelines on potential impacts

Table 4. Characteristics of respondents.

Respondent	Institution	Code	Number (persons)
National Government	Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR)	NG(1); NG(2) NG(3);NG(4)	4
Local Government	Environmental Agency of Serang Regency Environmental Agency of Cilegon Regency Environmental Agency of East Java Province Environmental Agency of Gresik Regency Environmental Agency of South East Sulawesi Province Mineral Resources Agency of South East Sulawesi Province	LG(1); LG(2) LG(3) LG(4) LG(5) LG(6);LG(7);LG(8) LG(9)	9
EIA Experts	Center for Environmental Studies (CES) Gadjah Mada University University of Indonesia	EX(1); EX(2) EX(3)	3
Nickel Smelter Industry	Located in Serang Regency	NI(1); NI(2)	2
Total			18

Table 5. Project descriptions.

	Case Study
Characteristics	S-1	S-2	S-3	S-4	S-5
Location	South Sulawesi Province	Southeast Sulawesi Province	Southeast Sulawesi Province	Southeast Sulawesi Province	East Java Province
Concession area (ha)	190,000 (including mining area)	22	100	70	14
Types of final products	Nickel in Matte	High Nickel Pig Iron (HNPI)	Nickel-Iron with 8–15% Ni	9–12% Ni	Nickel Metal (Ni> 95%)
Capacity per year (tons)	102,000	165,000	600,000	1.400,000	12,000
Processing Technology	Pyro-metallurgy	Mini Blast Furnace (MBF)	Rotary Kiln-Electric Furnace	Mini Blast Furnace (MBF)	Hydro-Metallurgy and Pyro-Metallurgy

Notes: Data processed from EIR of case studies in 2018.

Table 6. Matrix scoping of nickel smelter case studies.

Criterion	S-1	S-2	S-3	S-4	S-5
Regulation
Conformity with spatial planning	✖	▲	▲	▲	▲
Environmental aspects
Description of local climate	▲	▲	▲	Δ	▲
Geo-physical description	▲	✖	▲	▲	Δ
Air quality and noise	▲	▲	▲	Δ	✖
Water quality	▲	▲	▲	Δ	✖
Soil characteristic	▲	Δ	▲	Δ	✖
Vegetation	▲	▲	Δ	✖	▲
Fauna	▲	▲	Δ	✖	▲
Aquatic biota	▲	▲	Δ	▲	Δ
Socio-economic aspects
Socio-economic and cultural characteristics	▲	▲	▲	Δ	▲
Public health component	▲	▲	▲	▲	▲
Environmental sanitation	▲	▲	▲	▲	▲

✖: No complete data Δ: Partially complete data ▲:Fully complete data

Table 7. Public participation of EIA process on case studies.

Location	Media for public announcement	Number of participants	Stakeholder	Venue
S-1	Local newspaper	No mentioned	No mentioned	No mentioned
S-2	Local newspaper	53. People	local government staffs, academics, Local leaders	Hall of environmental agency
S-3	Local newspaper	50 people	Local government staffs, academics, Local leaders, NGO	Hall of environmental agency
S-4	Local newspaper	33 people	Local government staffs, academics, Local leaders,	Sub-district office
S-5	Newspaper Banner	40 people	Local government staffs, academics, Local leaders, medical staff, police, army	Village office

Table 8. Public concerns and their consideration in the EIA report.

		Level of Public Concern
Type of impact	Concerned Topic	High	Moderate	Low
Environmental impacts	(a) baseline environment data	–	S-1; S-2; S-3; S-4	S-5
	(b) air and noise pollution during construction	S-1	S-2; S-4; S-3; S-5	–
	(c) impacts on flora and fauna	–	S-1; S-2; S-3; S-4	S-5
	(d) environmental impacts due to industrial emissions	S-1; S-2; S-3; S-4	S-5	–
	(e) hazardous waste handling and disposal	–	S-3; S-2	S-1; S-5; S-4
Socio-economic impacts	(a) job provision for local people	all case study	–	–
	(b) accidents causing fatality	S-1	S-4	S-2; S-3; S-5
	(c) foreign workers	S-2; S-3 S-4	S-5; S-1

Note: Low: only mentioned; Moderate: discussed in detail; High: discussed in detail and included in mitigation measures

Table 9. Matrix of impacts evaluation and monitoring plan.

	Evaluation					Monitoring
Impact	S-1	S-2	S-3	S-4	S-5	S-1	S-2	S-3	S-4	S-5
a. Pre-construction stage
Job provision and business opportunities	n/a	n/a	n/a	M	n/a	● (+)	●(+)	⊗(≈)	●(≈)	⊗(≈)
Public perception	n/a	L	M	L	n/a	⊗(≈)	⊗(–)	⊗(–)	⊗(–)	●(+)
b. Construction stage
Micro climate	n/a	n/a	n/a	M	n/a	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)	⊃(≈)	⊗(≈)
Air quality	L	L	n/a	M	M	⊗(–)	●(≈)	●(+)	⊃(≈)	●(≈)
Soil quality	n/a	n/a	n/a	H	n/a	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)	●(+)	●(≈)	⊗(≈)
Noise disturbance	n/a	M	H	H	H	⊗(≈)	●(≈)	●(≈)	●(≈)	●(≈)
Increased run-off	L	H	n/a	M	n/a	⊗(–)	●(≈)	●(+)	⊗(–)	⊗(≈)
Transportation disruptions	n/a	n/a	n/a	H	H	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)	⊃(≈)	●(≈)
Solid Waste	n/a	M	n/a	n/a	n/a	⊗(≈)	⊗(–)	●(+)	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)
Hazardous waste	n/a	M	n/a	n/a	n/a	⊗(≈)	●(≈)	●(+)	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)
Flora and Fauna	n/a	n/a	n/a	H	n/a	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)	⊗(–)	⊗(≈)
Water quality and aquatic biota	M	M	n/a	H	n/a	⊗(–)	●(≈)	●(+)	●(≈)	⊗(≈)
Public Perception	n/a	H	H	H	H	⊗(≈)	⊃(≈)	●(≈)	⊗(–)	⊗(–)
Job provision and business opportunities	L	L	M	L	H	●(≈)	●(≈)	●(≈)	●(≈)	●(≈)
Quality of sanitation	n/a	M	n/a	H	n/a	⊗(≈)	●(≈)	⊗(≈)	●(≈)	⊗(≈)
c. Operation stage
Job provision and business opportunities	n/a	L	M	L	H	⊗(≈)	●(≈)	⊃(≈)	●(≈)	●(≈)
Potential conflict	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)	●(+)	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)
Air quality	L	M	H	H	H	●(≈)	●(≈)	●(≈)	⊃(≈)	●(≈)
Soil quality	n/a	n/a	n/a	H	n/a	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)	●(≈)	⊗(≈)
Water quality	H	M	n/a	H	H	●(≈)	●(≈)	●(+)	⊗(–)	●(≈)
Biotic disturbance	n/a	M	n/a	H	n/a	⊗(≈)	●(≈)	⊗(≈)	●(≈)	⊗(≈)
Noise disturbance	L	H	H	H	H	⊗(–)	●(≈)	⊃(≈)	⊃(≈)	⊗(–)
Increased run-off	L	M	n/a	n/a	n/a	⊗(–)	●(≈)	⊃(+)	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)
Solid Waste	n/a	M	n/a	n/a	n/a	⊗(≈)	⊗(–)	●(+)	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)
Hazardous material	n/a	M	n/a	n/a	L	●(+)	●(≈)	●(+)	⊗(≈)	⊗(–)
Waste water	n/a	M	n/a	n/a	n/a	⊗(≈)	⊗(–)	●(+)	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)
Public perception	n/a	n/a	M	H	n/a	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)	●(≈)	⊗(–)	⊗(≈)
Public unrest	n/a	n/a	L	H	L	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)	●(≈)	⊗(–)	⊗(–)
Disease pattern and public sanitation	L	M	n/a	H	n/a	●(≈)	●(≈)	●(+)	●(≈)	⊗(≈)
d. Post-operation stage
Job provision and business opportunities	n/a	H	n/a	H	H	⊗(≈)	⊃(≈)	●(+)	⊗(–)	●(≈)
Public perception	n/a	H	n/a	H	H	⊗(≈)	●(≈)	●(+)	●(≈)	⊗(–)
Flora and fauna	n/a	n/a	n/a	M	n/a	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)	●(≈)	⊗(≈)
Air quality	n/a	n/a	n/a	H	n/a	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)	●(+)	⊃(≈)	⊗(≈)
Noise disturbance	n/a	n/a	H	H	n/a	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)	⊃(≈)	⊃(≈)	⊗(≈)
Transportation disturbance	n/a	n/a	n/a	H	n/a	●(+)	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)	●(≈)	⊗(≈)
Public health and traffic disturbances	n/a	n/a	n/a	H	n/a	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)	⊗(≈)	●(≈)	⊗(≈)
Number of impacts	9	22	10	29	13
Partial conformity (%)						44.4	81.8	90	72.4	61.5
Cumulative conformity (%)						77.7	86.1	52.7	77.7	80.5

Notes: n/a:Not available H: High, M: Moderate, L: Low ⊃: partially or limited on method on action, ●: completeand satisfied, ⊗: No information at all, (≈): close relationship, (+): precisely explain in detailed, (–): no adequate explanation

Table 10. Number of EIR pages of case study.

Type of document	S-1	S-2	S-3	S-4	S-5
(a)ToR
● Introduction	13	4	5	3	4
● Scoping	121	116	154	68	75
● Method of Study	33	27	26	32	21
● Appendix	n/a	147	185	103	100
Sub Total	167 (24 %)	294 (43%)	370 (44%)	206 (42%)	200 (36%)
(b) EIAn
● Introduction	11	50	91	29	59
● Description of the environmental setting	193	57	61	24	46
● Forecasts of important impact	101	43	26	46	48
● Comprehensive evaluation on environment	26	33	21	32	24
● Appendix	104	183	199	131	177
Sub Total	402 (59%)	366 (53%)	398 (47%)	262 (53%)	354 (63%)
(c) EIMMP and EIMP
● Introduction	5	3	3	3	6
● Environment Impact Mitigation and Management Plan	49	10	33	9	1
● Environment Impact Monitoring Plan	63	12	33	13	1
● Types of environmental license required	n/a	1	2	1	1
● Statement of commitment	1	2	2	1	1
Sub Total	118 (17%)	28 (4%)	73 (9 %)	27 (5%)	10 (2%)
Total Pages	687	688	841	495	564