Water management, Fatwa MUI, and Government’s Responsibility

Note: I wrote this article and sent to one Indonesia's paper. They didn't published it. Well, we don't need them, do we :) Its a little late, but I post it anyway.

On April 24 2008, the East Java branch of Indonesia Cleric Council (MUI) issued their decree, ‘fatwa’, concerning the Surabaya River. MUI was asked to deliver the decree by Ecoton, an environmental non-governmental organization supposedly tired of the ever-failing efforts to restore the Surabaya River and its ecosystem. MUI declared that it is ‘haram’ to dump domestic (human-generated) and industrial waste into the Surabaya River without prior treatment. “With Fatwa, you are responsible to God,” said Abdusshomad Buchori, the East Java MUI, during the press conference. Other demands from Ecoton and its partners were that the Surabaya River: 1) should not be used for washing before praying (wudhu), 2) should not be used to bathe babies, 3) should be categorized as ‘Najis’, 4) should be periodically monitored for water quality by government agencies, and 5) to oblige governor of East Java to apply measures in restoring the ecosystem of Surabaya river. Personally I think that this is a positive step to include religious leaders in natural resources management. However, while reading about this several questions come to my mind.

According to Prigi Arisandi, director of Ecoton, as the quality of the river has been worsening, this could be the last hope they have to restore the Surabaya River from its total deterioration. Dissolved oxygen levels are well below the national standard, and other water quality parameters are also quite problematic, including bacteria and heavy metals such as mercury, cadmium, lead, and copper in the water column and sediment. The river has also been used as toilets and garbage bin by people residing on the river banks. There have been continuing episodes of mass kills of fish and other organisms due to low oxygen availability or simply by toxic effluent from industries along the river. Ecoton has been working on these issues for quite some time, including monitoring of water quality parameters, campaigns and dialogs, without much of success. So, this fatwa was asked to be declared out of frustration with the current situation. Reading through the list of what was to be fatwaed, I am a little surprised to learn that MUI actually could issue fatwa to the government, and to decide on technical issues like level of pollution. I am curious to know what standards they use. Now, if with fatwa comes the responsibility to God, I wonder how effective this effort is, especially when fatwa only affects the Muslims. Owners and operators of most of the polluter industries are not Muslims, according to Prigi, therefore, I am afraid this is not the most strategic advocacy effort. I am also curious why only Islamic leaders were involved in this effort, when Surabaya is quite a diverse area.

Should MUI denounce any kind of use of the river, one very possible adverse outcome, which I believe Ecoton and other stakeholders (including MUI themselves) did not adequately assess, is the consequences it brings to the poor people that use the Surabaya River. I bluntly assume that these people are poor just because I don’t think people who could afford better quality water would use this polluted water for their wudhu or any other purposes. Asking these people to stop using water from the Surabaya River is the same as asking them to stop drinking, washing, and praying, i.e., stop living. Water resources issues, as other natural resources issues, have to be solved in an integrated manner. Protecting a national park is great but marginalizing people living in that area is deplorable. Thinking about fish and shrimp in the river is noble, but you cannot neglect people living on the river bank. The reality is that they are here and that asking them to stop using the only water available to them is unacceptable.

Water management, government and the role of civic society

Water management is an integrated effort. Integrated in its true sense is an integration of water quality-quantity; integrated sectors: water, soil, land, forest, upstream-downstream, ecosystem-human, economic, socio-politics, cultural, and integrated stakeholders. The partial water management has proved to be failing, and the complexity of the issues makes it inherently impossible to be solved by just one or two actors. Whereas all stakeholders have concerns about, are affected by, and are the causes of water issues, it is the government that has the mandate to lead a sustainable water resources management. There are at least 3 obligations of the government: 1) government’s duty to respect invokes the government to respect the freedom of individuals to access resources for fulfilling their needs, 2) government’s obligation to protect requires the government to protect rights of individuals and prevent violations by other individuals and other actors, including issuing policies that protect water resources from polluters, and 3) government’s obligation to fulfill requires the government to provide sufficient basic services and related infrastructure. This includes making sure that all people in their jurisdiction have their daily need of safe, affordable, and accessible water. When people are still using dirty and contaminated Surabaya River water for drinking, washing, and other religious needs then government is obviously failing in all three obligations. All of these issues are addressed in Indonesia’s Law No. 7 on Water Resources 2004 article 15 and 16.

Unfortunately, more often than not, government fails in fulfilling their obligations. This is where non-state actors can play pivotal roles. Non-state actors consist of citizens groups, non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, religious leaders, community leaders, and local communities. Non-governmental organizations often contribute as ‘leaders’ in many of such activities. Common issues with activities led by non-governmental organizations are that often the activities are biased towards the focus of the organization. For example, if the organization’s mission is to focus on ecosystem sustainability, the initiative will be heavier towards protecting the ecosystem, and if the organization is focusing on human rights, then the activities tend to lean towards the other extreme. These common mistakes are usually not intentional, but often happen due to different factors such as availability of technical expertise or lack thereof, or simply donor’s demands. While it appears that Ecoton also considers the well-being of people living on the banks of the Surabaya River, for me, this case shows that the sustainability of the ecosystem is still the main concern.

As the integrated notion goes, management of water resources implies the active participation of all stakeholders. It is common for religious and/ or community leaders to be asked to participate in resources issues such as this. That is because traditionally and culturally these leaders play an important role in the life of communities, and that the cultural component is of importance for successful management of resources. Ecoton has been able to include the related agencies in solving the issues. One stakeholder, a very important one in my opinion which is not in the list, is local communities who are supposedly polluters of the river. Do their opinions matter? I think they do without a doubt. If we are going to make some big decision that potentially will affect their lives, it is only fair for us to hear what they have to say about the issues.

The purpose of this article is not to criticize the good work of Ecoton. I am simply pointing out some potential issues which could end up taking this good work in some other direction. Ecoton has done a terrific job. Note that together with LBH Surabaya (community legal assistance), Ecoton has taken the East Jawa governor to court over these water management issues, and that their action resulted in the governor ‘giving in’ to civic society demand, a first in national river management history. Personally I think that this was very effective work which they obviously should be proud of. I would suggest for Ecoton and partners to continue their advocacy work along these lines. Efforts should be made to bring those polluters to justice, educating while protecting the rights of the poor and the disadvantaged communities, and to hold government responsible for their lack of action.

Going back to MUI’s fatwa, I believe that while this has been regarded as a positive step, the implications of this decree need to be carefully considered and the wider consequences definitely need to be assessed. A well-planned program that recognizes the vast array of potential outcomes early on would help Ecoton and other stakeholders to better shape their advocacy agenda to the government through demands and campaigns, as well as to the community through education. I would also urge Ecoton to include in this effort other religious and community leaders. An effective non-state alliance could potentially save the ecological integrity of the Surabaya River for the sake of both people and the environment. While asking government and polluters to be more responsible to God could make a compelling demand, I believe that it will be more effective to channel their energy into efforts such as strengthening the network, increasing capacity towards integrated management, and sharpening skills with effective methods and techniques. Recognizing the roles, rights and responsibilities of each stakeholder will help organizations in positioning and strategizing their advocacy efforts. Good luck, and may our water resources be more sustainable for generations to come.

---

Ñ Water resources specialist, currently living in the USA