Asian Transformations in Action - Api-fellowships.org

40 PERSISTENT PROBLEMS, PROMISING SOLUTIONS AND BENEFICENCEresidents as they were of the view that pollutants inthe form of dioxins, heavy metals and ash from theincinerator plant would be hazardous to public safety,health and livelihood. The residents were worried thattheir daily life could be affected with the setting up ofthe incinerator and that the emissions of toxic gases andheavy metals from such plants could be the cause ofcancer and other diseases in the long term.Impact on water catchments in the areaThe incinerator site sat on a part of a forest reserve servingas a water catchment area, which supplies tributaryrivers (Sungai Takali and Sungai Seringgit) that runinto the Sungai Semenyih from which the JenderamWater Intake supplies drinking water to more than 333residential areas that consist of millions of householdsin KL and Selangor. The people were concerned thatthe site could reduce the water catchment potential ofthe area and affect the safety of the drinking water if thetoxic ash containment system fails.No intensive arguments on existing alternative plansOther cheaper and safer alternatives are definitelyavailable. However, before properly considering thecomparison of an incinerator with the overall wastemanagement plan, the government decided on theincinerator project as the immediate and prioritizedsolution.Consultations and local people’s participation in thedecision-making processMost people learned about the decision to locate theincinerator project site in Broga from the newspaperson 22 November 2002. Since then, the local peoplewho were concerned about the adverse impact of theproject tried various channels to raise the matter andengage with the authorities through dialogue. Uponrealizing that no response could be expected from thelocal elected representatives of the state, the residentssought the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia(SHAKAM)’s intervention. The Commission arrangedfor a dialogue between the authorities and residents inBroga on 30 January 2003. However, a second dialogueon 24 April 2003 was cancelled.Meanwhile, the authorities sometimes called meetingsin response to local people’s requests and also voluntarilyheld several briefings at the local level before the termsof reference (TOR), or the scoping phase, for the DEIAwas determined. However, these meetings were notsuccessful because the government did not allow theparticipants to ask questions, and even asked them tofurnish their names and whom they were representing.This was what happened at a briefing on 6 April 2003.Furthermore, the people who opposed the project weresometimes told that all the briefings were closed-door.In fact, during a briefing on 22 March 2003, they werechased out of the venue in Semenyih and were told notto create trouble there.As a whole, the local people were unable to have theirquestions answered or obtain much information. Infact, the DEIA report on August 2003 itself stated inthe section on Concerns Raised: “About 80 percent(of the local people) want more information.” Theinformation that the authorities provided was mostly onthe positive sides of the project, such as its use of cleanand sophisticated technology.The final decision of the government was thecancellation of the project, which was long demandedby the local residents’ group who were opposing theincinerator. However, it is still difficult to say that thepeople’s participation in decisionmaking process for theincinerator project in Broga was fully secured. Theirparticipation in the decisionmaking process was stilllimited as the government did not provide the venueto discuss people’s concerns with full informationdisclosure at the right timing. 2Japanese proponents’ performanceThe people in Malaysia easily learned through theInternet and other sources that Ebara Corporation hasone of the worst operational records for incinerator plantsin Japan. The credibility of Ebara was highly questionedby the local people, and the local residents’ group wentto the office of Ebara Environmental EngineeringMalaysia to meet with Ebara’s top management inDecember 2004. However, Ebara’s management refusedto meet with them and only received their letter outsidethe building. After that visit, no further response fromEbara Corporation was given.Ebara boasted that its latest invention, fluidized-bedgasification and ash-melting technology, promotes zeroemissions. This reflects the company’s main selling pointof sustainable development and environmentally-friendlywaste management. The Ebara Corporation also has itsown “self-imposed control” policy on environmentalaspects, or its “Environmental Policy.” Accordingto the policy, its basic stance to solve environmentalissues is by “developing technology and products” thatwill “contribute toward the conservation of the globalenvironment and the formation of a recycling-basedAsian Transformations in ActionThe Work of the 2006/2007 API Fellows