PHYSICAL CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR … · Physical Cultural Resources i Management Plan for Wae Sano PHYSICAL CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GEOTHERMAL EXPLORATION

Physical Cultural Resources i

Management Plan for Wae Sano

PHYSICAL CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GEOTHERMAL EXPLORATION PROJECT IN WAE SANO,

WEST MANGGARAI REGENCY

Physical Cultural Resources ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................... II

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ III

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................... III

LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................... III

DISTRIBUTION LIST .......................................................................................IV

AMENDMENT RECORD .................................................................................IV

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW .................................................................................. 1

1.2 OBJECTIVE .................................................................................................. 1

1.3 LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................. 2

1.4 DEFINITION .................................................................................................. 2

2.0 PCR FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 1

2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF PHYSICAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................... 1

2.1.1 Physical Cultural Resources in the Proximity of the Project Facilities .......................................................................................... 1

2.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS .................................................................................. 4

3.0 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........................................................ 5

3.1 DURING ESIA DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 5

4.0 MANAGEMENT MEASURES ................................................................. 9

4.1 PRINCIPLES ................................................................................................. 9

4.2 RISK MANAGEMENT AND INTERNAL CONTROL ................................... 10

4.2.1 Technical Risk ............................................................................... 10

4.2.2 Procedural Risk ............................................................................. 10

4.3 ESIA RECOMMENDATION FOR IMPACT MANAGEMENT PLAN ............. 10

4.4 MANAGEMENT OF IMPACTS ON THE IDENTIFIED PCR ......................... 11

4.4.1 Avoidance of Impacts .................................................................... 11

4.4.2 Relocation of Potentially Impacted PCR ........................................ 11

4.4.3 Consultation to Use Lake Sano Nggoang Water ............................ 12

4.4.4 Management of Disturbance of Access to PCR ............................. 13

4.5 CHANCE FIND PROCEDURE FOR PHYSICAL CULTURAL RESOURCES DISCOVERY ........................................................................ 13

4.5.1 Steps and Process ........................................................................ 13

4.5.2 Protection of PCR .......................................................................... 17

4.6 SOCIALIZATION OF THE PROJECT IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN AND CHANCE FIND PROCEDURE ............................................................ 18

5.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ....................................................... 18

Physical Cultural Resources iii


5.1 THE PROJECT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE .................................... 18

5.2 STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVEMENT ............................................................. 20

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE .......................................................... 20

7.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING ........................................................ 21

7.1 MANAGEMENT OF IMPACTS ON THE IDENTIFIED PCR ......................... 21

7.2 CHANCE FIND PROCEDURE ..................................................................... 21

8.0 CLOSING STATEMENT........................................................................ 21

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Concept Definitions of Physical Cultural Resources Management............................... 2

Table 3 Risk to the Project Activity against the Continuity of Physical Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 4

Table 4 Stakeholder Consultations concerning Physical Cultural Resources Issues................ 5

Table 6 Chance Find Procedure Steps and Process ............................................................... 13

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 The Project Location, ESIA 2018 .................................................................................. 1

Figure 2 Potential Physical Cultural Resources Location, ESIA 2018 ........................................ 3

Figure 3 Physical cultural resource chance find process flow chart ......................................... 16

Figure 4 Exploration Site Team ................................................................................................. 19

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A1 Form of Project Impact Mitigation on Physical Cultural Resources

Appendix A2 Well Pad B Location and Sensitive Receptor Map

Appendix A3 Stakeholder Consultation Documentation

Physical Cultural Resources iv


DISTRIBUTION LIST

The following individuals/firms have received this document:

Name Firm Hardcopies CDs Email FTP

Eviyanti Wafroni PT Sarana Multi Infrastruktur –

PMU Geothermal - - -

AMENDMENT RECORD

This report has been issued and amended as follows:

Issue Description Date Approved by

1 First version 2018-08-21

2 Second version 2018-10-12

3 Third version of Physical

Cultural Resources

Management Plan for Wae

Sano

2018-10-26

4 Fourth version following

World Bank comments and

additional stakeholder and

community consultation

2019-09-25

Physical Cultural Resources 1


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

PT Sarana Multi Infrastruktur (SMI) as the implementer agency for the Geothermal Energy Upstream

Development Project (GEUDP) is planning to develop its first site in the vicinity of Wae Sano Village,

Sano Nggoang District, Manggarai Barat Regency, in Flores Island of Nusa Tenggara Timur Province

(see Figure 1). As of yet, the steam field remains largely unexplored; however, it is expected that the

main project will initially develop 10 to 32 MW of generating capacity.

Currently, the exploration activities will be carried out in a maximum area of 1.5 ha for slimhole well

pad and 3.5 ha for standard hole well pad, and is planned in 2 phases. Phase 1 will include three

slimhole drillings selected at Well Pad A, B, or E. The scope of activities in Phase 2 will include one

standard hole drilling at any selected well pad after Phase 1 is completed. Alternative locations for

well pad are prepared to anticipate the Project change. Supporting facilities including spoil disposal,

water treatment plant, drilling base camp, laydown area, and upgrading access road. All facilities are

within the Sano Nggoang District – the potential geothermal pad sites and the main supporting

facilities are located within Waesano Village; however, some road upgrades will take place in other

few villages that will be traversed by the Project mobilization (e.g. Wae Lolos, Golo Kondang and

Golo Mbu).

In order to meet the standards of the environmental and social management processes,

especially related to financing and investment activities, project development, and the provision of

consulting services from projects funded by the World Bank, PT SMI seeks to manage physical

cultural resources located around the Waesano Geothermal Exploration Project (hereafter referred as

“the Project”). The definition of physical cultural resources (PCR) in this document refers to the World

Bank's OP 4.11, which are defined as movable or immovable objects in the form of sites, structures,

collections of structures, and natural features and landscapes that have archaeological,

paleontological, historical, architectural, religious, aesthetic, or certain cultural significance located in

remote urban or rural areas, and maybe located below the ground or under water.

The form of physical cultural resources included in the definition above can be in the form of cultural

heritage that has been passed in accordance with Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 11 Year

2010 concerning Cultural Conservation, which includes, among others, Cultural Conservation

Buildings, Cultural Conservation Structures, Cultural Conservation Sites and Land Reserves on land

and/ or under water that need to be preserved because they have important values for history,

science, education, religion and/or culture and/or other physical cultural resources that are not defined

through the mechanism stipulated by the government.

Physical resources management is embodied in the Physical Cultural Resources Management

Plan (PCRMP) document initiated by the Geothermal Project Management Unit (PMU) as a part of

Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) of the Project. The PCRMP document refers to

World Bank’s OP/ BP 4.11, national, provincial, and regency regulations, and other International Best

Practices.

1.2 OBJECTIVE

The preparation of the PCRMP aims to:



To provide practical and implementable actions for the developer/contractor to follow, to

avoid, mitigate, remedy, offset or compensate for impacts or damage to PCR;

Protect physical cultural resources from the adverse impact(s) of the Project and support

preservation; and

Promote fair sharing of benefits from the use of Physical Cultural Resources (PCR).

1.3 LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The PCRMP refers to several regulations, international best practices, and internal guidelines of the

Company, including:

Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 32 of 2009 concerning Environment Protection and

Management;

Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 11 Year 2010 concerning Cultural Conservation;

Government Regulation Number 27 of 2012 concerning Environmental Permit;

Regulation of the Minister of Environment and Forestry Number 17 of 2012 concerning

Guidelines for Community Involvement in the Process of Environmental Impact Analysis and

Environmental Permit;

The World Bank Environmental and Social Standards 8 (ESS8) on Cultural Heritage

The World Bank Operational Procedure (OP) 4.11 on Physical Cultural Resources (PCR);

and

Geothermal Energy Upstream Development Project (GEUDP) Environmental and Social

Management Framework (ESMF).

1.4 DEFINITION

In terms of preparing a Physical Cultural Resource Management Plan (PCRMP), there are several

limitations (definitions) that need to be understood, which are provided in Table 1.

Table 1 Concept Definitions of Physical Cultural Resources Management

Concept Definition / Limitation

Cultural Heritage (Law

No.11 Year 2010) Referring to object with cultural heritage value, in the form of building, structure,

sites, and areas, on land and/ or water required to be preserved, due to its

important historical, science, education, religious, and/ or cultural values,

stipulated by government.

Physical Cultural

Resources (World Bank OP

4.11 on Physical Cultural

Resources), or tangible

cultural heritage (World

Bank ESS8 on Cultural

Heritage)

Movable or immovable objects in the form of sites, structures, collections of

structures, and natural features and landscapes that have archaeological,

paleontological, historical, architectural, religious, aesthetic, or certain cultural

significance located in remote urban or rural areas and maybe located below the

ground or under water.

Cultural Conservation (Law

No.11 Year 2010) Material cultural conservation in the form of cultural resources, cultural

heritage buildings, cultural heritage structures, cultural heritage sites and land-



Concept Definition / Limitation

based cultural and/ or conservation areas that need to be preserved because of

their important values for history, science, education, religion, and/ or culture

through the process of stipulation by the government.

Cultural Heritage Objects

(Law No.11 Year 2010) Natural and/ or man-made object, whether movable or immovable, in the form of a

unit or group, or parts thereof, or remnants that have a close relationship with the

culture and history of human development.

Cultural Heritage Buildings

(Law No.11 Year 2010) Composed of built-in natural objects or man-made objects to meet the needs of

walled and/or non-walled, and roofed spaces.

Cultural Heritage Structure

(Law No.11 Year 2010) Composed of the structures which are made of natural objects and/or man-made

objects to meet the needs of the activity space which is integrated with nature,

facilities and infrastructure to accommodate human needs.

Cultural Heritage Site (Law

No.11 Year 2010) Location that is on land and/or underwater containing physical cultural

resources, cultural heritage buildings, and/ or cultural heritage structures as a

result of human activities or evidence of past events.

Cultural Heritage Area (Law

No.11 Year 2010) Geographical space unit that has two or more cultural heritage sites located close

together and/ or shows typical spatial characteristics.

Procedure Written guideline to do something in accordance with the standards and provisions

apply in the Company, nationally and internationally.

Risk Potential occurrence of an event, both predictable and unpredictable which can

have a negative impact on the achievement of the Company's vision, mission,

goals/ objectives.

International Best Practices International procedure standard that is considered the best practice as a

reference for the preparation of procedures at the national level and the Company.

Management Action/activity that aims to plan, organize, implement and/ or maintain, and

supervise physical cultural resources in order to reduce the risk of greater

damage.

Implementer Person/unit appointed by the Company to carry out the tasks of managing physical

cultural resources.

Physical Cultural Resources Management Plan for Wae Sano 1 Hatfield Indonesia

Figure 1 The Project Location, ESIA 2018


2.0 PCR FINDINGS

2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF PHYSICAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

PT SMI has identified presence of the physical cultural resources around the Project during the

preparation of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) document. Based on the

identification results, there are a number of physical resources around the Project; however, these

physical resources have not been stipulated by the West Manggarai Regency Government as cultural

sites or cultural conservation areas.

The following sections present:

Cultural heritage stipulated by Manggarai Barat Cultural Regency; and

PCR identified from the ESIA study.

2.1.1 Physical Cultural Resources in the Proximity of the Project Facilities

The ESIA study has indicated a number of potential physical cultural resources surrounding the

Project location acknowledged by local communities, based on participatory mapping with

representatives of communities from the three surrounding villages i.e. Wae Sano, Sano Nggoang,

and Pulau Nuncung, also site visit to some of the accessible locations.1

Among the identified physical cultural resources defined in the ESIA as the Project Area of Influence/

AOI, the followings were identified located within the proximity of the proposed Project facilities (see

Figure 2):

1. Approximately 140 m from the proposed WS-A: artifacts such as Compang (historical relics

i.e. altars made of stones, placed in the centre of the Old Village) and an old cemetery at

Dusun (Sub-Village of) Lempe.

2. Compang (or sacred stone) was found near the boundary of the proposed WS-B in area

considered as Lingko Laja Old Village (named as Compang Lingko Laja)2.

3. According to the Head of Village, there was also found another ancient cultural object named

Nekara or in Flores Island which was known as Moko. Currently, the Nekara is kept at the

house of Former Head of Wae Sano Village.

4. The old church of Wae Sano, built from wood and located at the edge of Lake Sano Nggoang.

This church is the center of the first spread of Catholicism in Wae Sano village and the

surrounding area. The church located approximately 250 m from WS-B.

5. Golo Lampang (Lampang Hills) Old Village was identified about 140 m from the proposed

WS-D, east of Lake Sano Nggoang, is considered as cultural heritage due to historical

attachment of Mata Wae people, as the lake area was known as the first settlement location

1 PT. Sarana Multi Infrastruktur. June,6th, 2018. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of Wae Sano Geothermal

Exploration Activity. 2 Based on discussion with Community Leaders, the Compang is possible to be removed due to community decreased belief on compang, however further consultation (to agreed and with evidence in writing) is required.


of Mata Wae ancestors when they first came to Sano Nggoang. However, the inherited

cultural value of the lake has started to fade with the presence of church and government

development program. There was no special ritual or cultural ceremony being practiced

pertaining to lake. This area is considered as the Old Village of the ancestors of the current

Nunang communities. Compang and an old cemetery were found at Lampang Old Village.

6. The Old Village of Wewa was identified about 380 m from the proposed WS-E. Some relics

were found in the area, i.e. Compang, the foundation stone of the building, former hedge,

settlement patterns and traditional public space (Nantas) patterns.

In addition to the above, the ESIA also identified a number of locally known tourism potential sites

with cultural values; however, some are located relatively in distant with the proposed Project area.

The identified cultural tourism sites including as follow:

1. Lake Sano Nggoang – this lake is the largest lake in East Nusa Tenggara and has an

interesting ecotourism potential and considered as cultural heritage due to historical

attachment of Mata Wae people, as the lake area was known as location of Mata Wae

ancestor when they first came to settle in Sano Nggoang. However, the inherited cultural

value of the lake has started to fade with the presence of church and government

development program. There was no special ritual or cultural ceremony being practices

pertaining to lake. The lake is located approximately 5 m for the nearest Project facility (i.e.

water treatment plant/ WTP 1);

2. Golo Dewa Peak – for cultural and religious tourism, tourist can visit a complex of Old Village

on Golo Mblecek hills. This village is the village ancestor of Nunang community. It is located

460 m from WS-B;

3. Water spring – traditionally known as Wae Bate Teku, which is one of five main things that

Manggarai people need to survive, as water spring is needed for drinking, bathing, washing

and other activities. The closest water spring is located approximately 140 m from WS-A and

WS-B; and

4. Watu Nggoang – in Sano Nggoang village, the stone is located was an Old Village and the

grave of Nggoang ancestor. Before 1970 the stone was believed to be shine at night, but not

known the cause of the stone do not shine anymore. Until this study was conducted, the place

was still preserved and used as the place to deliver offerings to the ancestors on a particular

ceremony or when a village citizen wants to live outside the village. Nggoang sub-village

people requested not to disturb or move the shrine place by any reason because it is believed

would cause any unwanted matters.

Potential impacts on these cultural resources acknowledged by local communities are discussed in

the following Section 2.2.


Figure 2 Potential Physical Cultural Resources Location, ESIA 2018



2.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS

The ESIA has identified potential significant impacts on a number of culturally significant objects and

sites in the Project AOI which are located within/ in direct adjacent with the Project boundary as

described in Section 2.1.2, which are mainly categorized into the followings:

Impacts on disturbance to the historical relics in areas acknowledged by locals as Old Village,

characterised by the presence of Compang i.e. in WS-A and WS-B. Based on ESIA

consultation, Tu’a Golo Lempe has indicated that the Compang in Lempe (where WS-A will

be developed) relocation is possible. However, with regards to presence of Compang near

the boundary of WS-B, the Wae Sano Village Head did not recommend using the land for

development in order to honor the ancestors of the Nunang people. Therefore, further

consultation with the Tu’a Golo and the family clan owner of the land was recommended to

ensure appropriate relocation mechanism.

The Project plan to use Lake Sano Nggoang water for well drilling has the potential to create

impacts on the traditional cultural value of the lake. Although cultural practices of Mata Wae

people have started to fade with the presence of church and national government

development program in the area, these culturally important structures and sites are included

as sensitive receptors the Project should be aware of.

Other potential impact which may occur is related to access to cultural sites such as to water

springs that are identified located in adjacent to the proposed Project facilities.

Summary of the impact assessment is presented in the Table 2 below.

However, further consultations regarding the significance of the identified cultural resources have

been conducted by SMI following the ESIA completion, in October 2018 and February 2019, which

indicates decrease cultural values of Old Village land area potentially impacted by the Project, as

seen from agricultural activities (i.e. animal farming activities) on the land; therefore impacts are not

considered significant. Stakeholder consultation details are presented in the following Section 3.

Table 2 Risk to the Project Activity against the Continuity of Physical Cultural Resources

No

Project

Facilities/

Location

PCR

(Object/

Site)

Severity Sensitivity Impacts

Significance

Risk to the

Project

Activity

1 WS-A

(including

laydown

areas and

waste

disposal 3)/

Lempe, Wae

Sano Village

Compang

Lempe Severity is predicted

to be medium,

largely due to the

identified Compang

which characterized

Old Village area,

within/ in direct

adjacent with the

proposed WS-A and

WS-B.

Although these

objects could be

relocated with

further consultation

The local

Manggaraian/ Mata

Wae community

respects ancestor

land and water

resources as their

valuable property,

while Lake Sano

Nggoang is

considered having

historical cultural

value. However

cultural practices

related to the

Moderate Project

activities may

result in

damage or

disturbance to

physical

cultural

resources.

2 WS-B/

Nunang,

Wae Sano

Village

Compang

Nunang in

area known

as the Old

Village of

Lingko Laja



No

Project

Facilities/

Location

PCR

(Object/

Site)

Severity Sensitivity Impacts

Significance

Risk to the

Project

Activity

3 Well drilling/

Wae Sano

Village

Lake Sano

Nggoang

water

and approval from

the cultural leaders

and the family clan

owners, further

mitigation actions

must be undertaken

to enable the

Project to do it.

object/ site has

started to fade, and

they do not have

the formal

acknowledgement/

stipulated by local

government as

cultural heritage (by

Law). Therefore,

sensitivity of the

receptors is also

assessed as

medium.

4 Project

access to

WS-A to

WS-B

Water

spring

The impact assessment was based on ESIA study conducted in November 2016, March and

November 2017.

3.0 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

In managing physical cultural resources, PT SMI will involve the community through public

consultation(s) to get their attention, suggestions, and opinions related to the existence and potential

impacts to physical cultural resources. This is in line with World Banks’s OP/ BP 4.11 which requires

consultations regarding the management of physical cultural resources around the Project site.

The following sections present consultation meetings that have been undertaken to date, since the

ESIA development up to recently ongoing consultation during the preparation of this document.

3.1 DURING ESIA DEVELOPMENT

PT SMI has conducted several public consultations during the preparation of the ESIA document and

the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP)3 that considers the importance of physical cultural

resources, including:

Table 3 Stakeholder Consultations concerning Physical Cultural Resources Issues

No Date Consultation Title/ Participants Location Issues and Inputs

1 15

September

2016

Pre-ESIA Socialization/

- PT SMI

- World Bank Representative

- ESDM Ministry Representative

- Regency government,

community representative

including Head of District,

Cultural Figure, Youth Group

Labuan Bajo Concern regarding potential

impacts on Lake Sano Nggoang

3 PT. Sarana Multi Infrastruktur. 6 Juni 2018. Stakeholder Engagement Plan (Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

Waesano Exploration Geothermal Adtivity).




Lead, and Environmental NGOs

2 November

3, 2016

ESIA Public Consultation/

- PT SMI


- Head of Village and Community

Representative from the 3

Village of Wae Sano, Sano

Nggoang, and Pulau Nuncung

Wae Sano

Village Office

Local community

acknowledgement on physical

cultural resources related to the

historical value of Lake Sano

Nggoang and land in the Old

Village. They consider the

existence of the Project may

create potential impact on local

cultural resources.

Recommendation to further study

potential impacts on local culture.

3 March 21-

23, 2017 Participatory mapping to identify

sensitive receptors/

- Community Representative from

the 3 Village of Wae Sano,

Sano Nggoang, and Pulau

Nuncung

Wae Sano

Village Participatory mapping of physical

cultural resources that are

considered important by the

community such as cultural

heritage, religious places, springs,

and others.

4 May 11,

2018

Stakeholder consultation/

- Tu’a Golo Nunang

- Tu’a Beo Nunang

Wae Sano

Village

- Consultation regarding

community cultural tradition,

custom, and practice.

- Cultural structure and role of

Tu’a Golo

- History of Village

- Information regarding Nekara

which was found from

underground (within the

proposed WS-B area).

5 May 14,

2018

Walktrough the proposed project

area and boundaries, with

community representatives/

- Head of Sano Nggoang Sub-

district and staff

- Tu’a Golo Lempe

- Tu’a Golo Nunang

(representative),

- land owners

There were some different

perceptions (between community

members and village head)

concerning the status of the land

that is proposed for WS-B location.

Therefore, further consultation

specifically for WS-B location was

recommended.

6 May 15,

2018 ESIA disclosure/

- PT SMI

- World Bank Representative


- Finance Ministry Representative

- Regency government

- Local Figures including head of

village and religious leader from

3 Village of Wae Sano, Sano

Nggoang, and Pulau Nuncung

Wae Sano

Village Disclosure of the Project update,

result of the ESIA study (including

potential impacts and

recommended mitigation

measures).

Open discussion on community

concern, expectation, and input

regarding the Project description

plan and mitigation measures.

There was a concern from the

village head regarding the

proposed WS-B location.

7 May 15, Additional visit to ensure the Discussion around community




2018 location of sacred land within the

proposed WS-B location

- Regent Secretary

- Head of Wae Sano Village

- Former Head of Wae Sano

Village

concern regarding WS-B location

and status/ boundary of the sacred

land within the area, however there

was no clear boundary of sacred

land.

8 May 16,

2018

Consultation regarding the

proposed WS-B location

- Tu’a Beo Nunang

Wae Sano

Village

According to Tu’a Beo, there were

different perceptions in the

community about the significance

of sacred land within the proposed

WS-B area, due to decreasing

custom and cultural practice in the

community.

9 July 4,

2018

Consultation with community in

Taal regarding the project activities

- Tu’a Golo Taal

- Around 30 Taal community

members

Wae Sano

Village

No sacred sites in the project area

in Taal sub-village.

10 July 5,

2018


Lempe regarding the project

activities

- Tu’a Golo Lempe

- Around 40 Taal community

members

Wae Sano

Village

PMU can continue the

geotechnical survey in Lempe.

There is a Compang in the project

area in Lempe, but it can be

transferred. A traditional ceremony

us required to transfer of the

Compang.

11 July 14,

2018


Nunang regarding the project

activities

- Tu’a Golo Lempe

- Around 50 Nunang community

members

Wae Sano

Village

PMU can continue the

geotechnical survey in Nunang.

Before starting the construction

activities, PMU need to conduct a

traditional ceremony.

12 August 19-

29, 2018

LARAP socio-economic census/

- Land acquisition affected people

- Head of Sano Nggoang Sub-

district

- Head of Wae Sano Village

- Customary leaders from Wae

Sano Vilage

Wae Sano

Village

Concern toward potential impacts

on natural preserve and cultural

resources.

Concern regarding distance of

WS-B to residential area.

13 October

17-19,

2018

Site visit and discussion for land

matters and verification of cultural

heritage objects within the Project

site boundary/ PT SMI, World Bank

representative, and 2 person of

local communities from Wae Sano

Village

Wae Sano

Village

Key survey result:

- There was no cultural object

found within the WS-B

boundary

- Although some community

members mentioned about the

Old Village land in adjacent with

the boundary, however the site

visit identified agricultural

(animal farming activities) is

conducted on the identified area




which indicates decrease

cultural value of the area

14 February

1, 2019

Consultation of PCRMP/ Cultural

Heritage Preservation Agency

(BPCB) for Bali, NTB, and NTT

Province and AECOM

BPCB for Bali,

NTB, and NTT

Province

Office

Key results of consultation include:

- In NTT, spread of Nekara (or in

Flores more known as Moko

which is the small version of

Nekara) is very common. We

have to further identify whether

the object is cultural heritage of

significance (which is need to

be preserved) or just recently

made object (without any

specific historical value).

- Regarding chance find

procedure, first step is to report/

consultation with the Cultural

Agency of Manggarai Barat,

before coordinated with BPCB

and Archaeological Agency

(BALAR). Formal letter should

be equipped with attachments:

of: project map, location of the

cultural heritage finding, and

chance find protocol procedure.

- If the findings of cultural

resources not yet determined

by government as cultural

heritage, preservation/ cautions

and measures should still be in

place if the survey by Cultural

Agency/ BPCP/ BALAR

identified them as significant.

15 February

1, 2019

Consultation of PCRMP/ Udayana

University Expert/ Archaeologist

and AECOM

Udayana

University

Campus,

Denpasar, Bali

Key result of consultation include:

- Although no thorough research

yet in the whole Flores Island or

NTT, however it is known that

the likely significant cultural

heritage in the Island is Old

Village (kampung tua) with

megalithic objects and graves

commonly found in the area.

Therefore, justification from

expert team and related

institutions is required to

confirm the status

- According to Law each agency

should appoint/ have expert

team to be involved if any

cultural heritage is found they

will be responsible to assess

and provide recommendation

for preservation. There is no

specific procedure or




classification of cultural heritage

significant, therefore each

agency is observed to have

expert team to investigate

further any archaeological/

cultural heritage findings.

- With regards to chance find

protocol, the steps have to refer

to UU however implementation

the Project needs to be assisted

by expert team from the

Cultural Agency from each

Regency, if not available,

involvement of university expert

could be appointed directly by

the Project proponent

Source: Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP), 2018 and Abbreviated LARAP, 2018

4.0 MANAGEMENT MEASURES

4.1 PRINCIPLES

The PCRMP refers to the applicable principles, including:

Prudent so that the risk of damage can be assessed, measured, monitored and controlled,

and adequately mitigated;

Participatory involvement of local communities by providing input, suggestions, and opinions

in managing physical cultural resources;

Collaboration with the authorized agency becomes an obligation to ensure that the physical

cultural resources get proper management;

Professionalism in conducting mitigation measures to reduce larger

risk to physical cultural resources through the implementation of International Best Practice in

each project site;

Fairness for all stakeholders in utilizing the findings of physical cultural resources at the

project site;

Transparent and accountable in managing the benefits of physical cultural resources that is

fair to all parties and as an effort to comply with good governance; and

Sustainability by ensuring that the physical cultural resources shall be managed well for the

sake of next generation.



4.2 RISK MANAGEMENT AND INTERNAL CONTROL

The implementation of the PCRMP is inseparable from the presence of risk, and as such, the

implementer needs to manage risks that are likely to occur and take mitigation actions against the

various types of risks, namely:

4.2.1 Technical Risk

This risk is usually caused by lack of technical capacity of the implementer in technical management

or caused by human error that can lead to the negative impact on physical cultural resources, such as

damage, destruction, etc.

To mitigate the technical risk, the implementer of PCRMP need to get proper training, or capacity

building on a regular basis in rotation so that they can easily understand and comply with the

procedures.

There are several actions to take to mitigate the technical risk as follows:

Training on PCRMP and CFPs to the workers that involve in the earthworks, which have the

potential to find unexpected objects of Cultural Heritage;

Briefing to introduce PCRMP to PMU staffs, contractor and sub-contractors prior to the

construction activities started; and

To refresh about PCRMP, briefing should be conducted each six months to relevant staff,

such as community relations officers, site manager, construction supervisor, etc.

4.2.2 Procedural Risk

This risk arises due to ignorance of the procedures that have been established and/or lack of

socialization of the procedures. This type of risk can also arise due to the length of the

procedures taken that needed a long time in decision making. As a result, the implementer may make

their own decisions without involving the relevant stakeholders.

This risk can be mitigated by conducting six monthly socialization for the implementer related to the

relevant mechanisms/process flow.

4.3 ESIA RECOMMENDATION FOR IMPACT MANAGEMENT PLAN

The ESIA document explained how to mitigate the impact of the Project on physical cultural resources

around the Project design plan as stated in World Bank’s OP/ BP 4.11, as defined in its ESMP as

follow:

Physical cultural resources management measures were recommended to manage impacts

on the identified cultural heritage of significance for local community of Manggaraian and

Mata Wae Sub-ethnic.

A Chance Find Procedure will be established to initiate a process to avoid and/or minimize

the Project impacts on cultural heritage resource materials that will be implemented over the

whole Project area. The procedure will define the management of previously unknown cultural



heritage uncovered during land and excavation works. Adherence to the Chance Find

Procedure will be included as a condition in the construction contract.

In addition, referring to the SEP recommendation for the ESIA, socialization of the Project impact

management plan on PCR is required to ensure the plan is well understood by the Project EPC/ main

contractors and construction workers, particularly those involve in earth work. In addition, to ensure

adequate information is received by all groups of affected community.

4.4 MANAGEMENT OF IMPACTS ON THE IDENTIFIED PCR

This section elaborates measures to manage the already identified cultural resources. Management

measures can be done through the following, as further discussed in the following sections:

1. Avoidance of impacts through exploring project and design alternatives, such as adjustment

in the Project boundary others

2. Relocation of potentially impacted PCR;

3. Consultation to Use Lake Sano Nggoang water; and

4. Management of Disturbance of Access to Water Spring.

4.4.1 Avoidance of Impacts

During ESIA process was intended to identify impacts associated with the Project activities, including

identify any impacts to cultural heritage, and ways of dealing with them during the planning and

design phase of the Project. Therefore, the ultimate goal of the assessment process is to, if possible,

to avoid negative impacts. Incase there is cultural heritage idetified, preserve any cultural heritageas

important by integrating the preservation of cultural heritage info the management plans. Site projects

to avoid adverse impacts to cultural heritage, where possible by exploring design and alternatives,s

such as adustment of project boundary. .

4.4.2 Relocation of Potentially Impacted PCR

In the case of tangible cultural heritage that is replicable and not critical, avoid adverse impacts on the

tangible cultural heritage. Where avoidance is not possible, apply the following mitigation hierarchy:

Minimise adverse impacts and implement restoration measures, in situ, that maintain the

value and functionality of the cultural heritage;

Where restoration in situ is not possible, restore the functionality of the cultural heritage in a

nearby location;

Carry out any permanent removal of historical and archaeological artefacts and structures

according to nationally and internationally recognised principles

Where cultural heritage may be affected, consult with Affected Communities to decide how to manage

the impact to the cultural heritage; the following consultation steps are recommended:

Cultural leaders and family clan owners of the affected land area to consult the culturally

acceptable ways to relocate any cultural objects identified within the proposed Project

facilities locations.



Consultation with related government agency will be in place i.e. Manggarai Barat Cultural

Agency to assist PT SMI in consulting and seek approval from local communities, particularly

if any different opinions and perspective between communities.

If needed, as per advice from the Manggarai Barat Cultural Agency, consultation with BPCP

(as responsible agency for protection and preservation of cultural heritage) and BALAR

(responsible agency for research on archaeological object), or experts e.g. Archaeologist from

University Udayana that is actively involved in studies eastern Indonesia area will be

conducted to provide objective point of view and input of appropriate relocation process.

The following process will be in place if the third step is taken:

The Project together with the Cultural Agency of Manggarai Barat, in coordination with Balai

Pelestarian Cagar Budaya (BPCB) in Gianyar and Balai Arkeologis (BALAR) in Denpasar;

Formal letter should be equipped with attachments of project map and location of the cultural

heritage finding which will be relocated;

Overlay the Project map/ data with the result of study/ research from BALAR or preservation

report from BPCB;

Site survey and FGD with the involved agencies, expert, and local communities to further

discuss about the findings and to provide confirmation regarding the significance of the

potentially impacted PCR and permission to relocate;

Regency level institution (i.e. Cultural Agency of Manggarai Barat) has the main responsible

for registration, and to further coordinate with BPCB and BALAR (if significant); and

Although BALAR responsible for the research, however preservation/ conservation of the

finding is BPCB’s responsibility (if significant).

Of note, since the potentially impacted PCR has not been acknowledged/ determined as cultural

heritage of significance by government, relocation is possible option, in consultation with the

community previously. Should any PCR identified as cultural heritage of significance by government,

according to the Law No. 11 Year 2010 relocation to safe location is allowed particularly if threats or

potential disruption is identified. However, it should be conducted in mechanism that guarantee the

rescue if the heritage under the coordination of the appointed Cultural Heritage Preservation Expert.

4.4.3 Consultation to Use Lake Sano Nggoang Water

Referring to ESIA study, Lake Sano Nggoang is the largest lake in East Nusa Tenggara and has an

interesting ecotourism potential and considered as cultural heritage due to historical attachment of

Mata Wae people, as the lake area was known as location of Mata Wae ancestor when they first

came to settle in Sano Nggoang.

The following steps will be in place prior to the use of Lake Sano Nggoang water for well drilling

purpose:

Consultation with local communities, particularly involving local leaders e.g. Head of Village,

Cultural Leaders, Youth Group, and Women Group, to inform further detail information

pertaining to the Project plan to use Lake Sano Nggoang water for well drilling purpose e.g.

water requirement, process, and management of potential impact to the lake;



Consultation with related government agency will be in place i.e. Manggarai Barat Cultural

Agency to assist PT SMI in consulting and seek approval from local communities; and

4.4.4 Management of Disturbance of Access to PCR

As identified in Section 2, there are a number of locally known tourism potential sites with attached

cultural values, including water spring. It is considered as one of five main things that Manggarai

people need to survive, as water spring is needed for drinking, bathing, washing and other activities.

Meanwhile the ESIA identified multiple water spring locations nearby the Project facilities.

The following steps will be in place to manage potential disturbance of access to the water spring and/

or any other identified PCR:

Identification of local community access route to PCR/ water spring;

If any piping or other construction works potentially create disturbance to the access,

information should be provided to local government and disclosed to local communities prior

to commissioning of works;

Alternative safe access to be provided, in consultation with local communities (particularly

local government/ community leaders); and

Health and safety measures to be in place (refer to the Traffic/ Safety Management Plan) e.g.

presence of safety personnel on site to ensure alternative access is acknowledged by local

communities.

4.5 CHANCE FIND PROCEDURE FOR PHYSICAL CULTURAL RESOURCES DISCOVERY

4.5.1 Steps and Process

Based on ESIA findings on multiple historical relics/ objects and sites in the surrounding of Lake Sano

Nggoang area, which is one of the earliest inhabited areas in the West Manggarai regency, there is a

likelihood of unknown or underground physical cultural objects scattered in the region. Therefore,

there is a possibility for chance finds of physical cultural resources, particularly during the earthworks

stage. To prevent any unintended impacts of any activities of the Project on physical cultural

resources, the following Chance Finds Procedure (CFP) will be implemented for physical cultural

resources findings.

If, during the course of the Project, any unmapped physical cultural resources are

found, the Geothermal PMU as well as its contractors and sub-contractors must:

Table 4 Chance Find Procedure Steps and Process

Phase Procedure Output

Screening Screening of area within the proposed project footprint e.g.

with metal detector to detect any potential metal artifacts

underground.

A University Expert/ Archaeologist will be appointed to

assist the Project supervision on the contractors/ sub-




contractors works, particularly during earthworks.

Finding When the PCR is found in the project site, the Staff,

contractor, or sub-contractor will report to the Community

Relation (Comrel) Officer or Site Manager.

The Contractor will submit a Chance Find Report within one

day of the find to the ComRel Officer. This report will

document: (i) Date and time of the discovery; (ii) Location

of the discovery; (iii) Description of the physical cultural

resource; and (iv) Estimated weight and dimension of the

find; Temporary protection that has been implemented.

ComRel Officer in coordination with Site Manager will take

the action to mitigate, as follows:

1. Intsruct the contractor to stop the project activity only

in the PCR site;

2. Delineate and protect the potential PCR from any

damage or loss;

3. Consultation with Village Government and Cultural

Leaders related to PCR finding;

4. Report to the following (maximum 30 working days

from the day of finding):

First step of report/ coordination with the

Manggarai Barat Cultural Agency;

Local Police Unit (in coordination with the

Cultural Agency) for immediate stop working;

and

As per advice from the Manggarai Barat Cultural

Agency, consultation with Archeological

Institution in Denpasar i.e. BPCB and BALAR of

Bali, NTB, and NTT Province.

Finding record/

documentation and photos

Documentation of each

observed steps

Assessment report of the

PCR finding, as per

consultation result

Reporting 1. The relevant institutions above will response the letter

approximately on maximum 14 working days;

2. Relevant institution above will send the certified PCR

expert team to conduct assessment of the finding

within 30 days; and

3. Get recommendation from Local Government and

Archeological Institution to PT SMI related to

assessment.

The contact persons will be as follows:

Cultural and Tourism Agency of West Manggarai

Regency located on Jl. Gabriel Gampur, Goron Talo

Village, Komodo Sub-district, West Manggarai

Regency. Mr. Ir. Theodorus Suardi, M.Si. (Head of

Letter to Local

Government, Archeological

Institution, and Local

Police.

Assessment of the

potential PCR finding by

the certified PCR expert

team.

Recommendation letter

based on assessment.




Agency) 0385 – 41170; and

BALAR or Indonesian Archeological Agency in

Denpasar located on Jl. Raya Sesetan No. 80,

Denpasar 80223 phone (0361) - 224703, fax (0361)

228661. Mr. Moko (0817832271)

Police office of West Manggarai Regency Jl. Batu

Cermin, Kecamatan Komodo.

Action 1. Develop PCR mitigation plan based on

recommendation letter involving Village Government

and Cultural Leaders. The PCR mitigation plan

hopefully developed in 14 days;

2. As soon as possible Comrel Officer conducting

socialization of the PCR mitigation plan to internal,

contractor, sub-contractor, and community;

3. Implement the mitigation plan;

4. Continue the project activity near the PCR site.

PCR mitigation plan

includes:

- PCR mitigation action

plan;

- Implementation

Schedule;

Documentation of

Socialization and

implementation of mitigation

plan;

Monitoring and evaluation

In summary, procedures for managing cultural heritage objects/ sites are presented in the following

figure:



Figure 3 Physical cultural resource chance find process flow chart



4.5.2 Protection of PCR

The PCRMP can be implemented based on the results of the assessment and mitigation plan of the

physical cultural resources in the Project area. The example of activities of the PCRMP

implementation will be based on Law No. 11 Year 2010 to prevent and overcome the PCR from

damage, destruction, and obliteration based on Law No. 11 Year 2010 that might be applied for

PUMG in the Project Site as follows:

Rescue is an effort to avoid and/or overcome the PCR from

damage, destruction, or obliteration. The activity could be applied in the normal condition and

emergency. The relevant action of the category is by moving the PCR to other secure place.

The moving process of the PCR should be conducted under supervision of the PCR expert;

Safeguarding is an effort to preserve and prevent PCR from threats and/or interference. The

relevant actions of the category are:

o Fencing the PCR area;

o Put up an information board;

o Keeping from the natural disaster and human threat;

o Providing security/ personnel; and

o Law enforcement for any violation.

Zoning is the determination of the spatial boundaries of the PCR Site and the PCR area

based on the needs. The PCR area could also utilize for educational, recreational,

appreciative, and/or religious purpose. The area could be divided into four zones, as follows:

o Core Zone;

o Buffer Zone;

o Development Zone; and/or

o Support Zone.

Maintenance is an effort to keep and care of the physical condition of the PCR to remains

sustainable. The relevant actions of the category will be described as follows:

o Cleaning;

o Preserve; and

o Repairing.

Restoration is an effort to restore the physical condition of a PCR object, a PCR building, and

a damaged PCR structure in accordance with the authenticity of the material, shape, layout,

and/or workmanship techniques to extend its age.

The budget of any required protection and/or restoration of the PCR will be borne by SMI.



4.6 SOCIALIZATION OF THE PROJECT IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN AND CHANCE FIND PROCEDURE

There are two mitigation approaches as follows:

Relocation process for the known PCR objects e.g. to Compang in WS-A and WS-B; and

Chance find procedure for unknown/ underground object.

Socialization of this PCRMP and the determined mitigation measures as per result of consultation

undertaken for each specific impact (as discussed in Section 4.4 and 4.5) should be conducted for the

following:

1. Induction/ training of the plan to all PT SMI internal workers, contractors, and sub-contractors,

particularly those involve in earthwork to prevent any unintended impacts to, both the

identified PCR and unknown underground objects, within and surrounding the Project area.

2. Communication of the plan to relevant government agencies, includes but not limited to Head

of Wae Sano Village, Manggarai Barat Cultural Agency, BPCB and BALAR of Bali, NTB, and

NTT Province.

3. Each six months, socialization is also carried out to communities who live around the location

of physical cultural resources to ensure adequate information regarding the Project effort to

manage impacts on the PCR. The involvement of the community to preserve the existence of

these cultural resources is also necessary.

Referring to the SEP developed for the ESIA, the following methods/ tools can be employed to consult

the plan:

Face to face discussions with local community representatives e.g. local government officials

and community leaders;

Meetings with small groups of the directly impacted people at village office or project office/

grievance post;

Public notices through posters and flyers; and

Formal written correspondence to local government.

5.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

5.1 THE PROJECT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Generally, PT SMI has established Jakarta Based and Site Based Project Management Unit/ PMU for

the Project implementation. Of this, internal officials authorized for implementation of this PCRMP are

as follow (see Figure 4 below):

EPM as supervisor located on Head Quarter office.

Community Relation as PCR Management Officer on project site.



Figure 4 Exploration Site Team

Source: PT SMI (Persero), 2018



Community Liaison Officer will be the main responsible officer on site, whose function is to:

Conduct socialization of project impacts mitigation plan on physical cultural resources,

including consultation as part of the chance find procedure mitigation; and

Manage and mitigate all identified cultural resources.

In order to implement the task, Community Liaison Officer who monitors the PCRMP implementation

will report to the EPM and coordinate with them to get direction of PCR management plan/ action.

In addition, PT SMI will appoint Dr. Adi Prasetijo from Diponegoro University to assist the Community

Relation Officer in monitor during earthworks activity, also during consultation with local communities

and government. In addition, support from Expert will be needed to implement the action plan if there

is cultural heritage identified during earthworks activity.

5.2 STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVEMENT

Stakeholder involved in the management of the potentially impacted PCR includes:

Local Government through Culture and Tourism Department of West Manggarai Regency;

Local Police in West Manggarai Regency;

Archaeological Institution in Denpasar i.e. BPCB and BALAR of Bali, NTB, and NTT Province;

Head of District Sano Nggoang;

Head of Wae Sano Village;

The relevant head of Dusun (hamlet/ sub-village);

Related Tua Golo (respected local eldery/ cultural leader);

Community around the Project site; and

Expert Team from reputable/ local universities e.g. Archaeologist/ Anthropologist/ Sociologist.

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

This Physical Cultural Resources Management Plan will be implemented with the following schedule:

Mitigation measures to relocate any affected PCR (e.g. Compang) to be implemented during

pre-construction stage or during land procurement process; and

Chance Find Procedure must be carried out prior to the implementation of the Project

involving earthworks (e.g. excavation and land clearing) of both the Well Pads and its

supporting infrastructure.



7.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING

7.1 MANAGEMENT OF IMPACTS ON THE IDENTIFIED PCR

Monitoring for the relocation of any affected PCR (e.g. Compang) will be conducted once prior to

commencement of construction/ any earthworks.

7.2 CHANCE FIND PROCEDURE

Change Find Procedure (CFP) shall be understood by Project Contractors and Workers. The

contractor and sub-contractors will be provided a brief or training about the CFP in the induction

session. Monitoring and ensuring the implementation of the Change Find Procedure will be

implemented if any physical cultural heritage is indicated within the project footprint area during land

clearing, construction and drilling.

Evaluation of completion of the agreed measures will be conducted bi-annually. The evaluation will

review the implementation of procedure observed in this PCRMP document, also the agreed

mitigation measures and activities. If needed the evaluation process involves consultation with related

stakeholders e.g. Cultural Agency, BPCB, BALAR, or University Expert.

Reporting will be provided for each evaluation process to demonstrate completion of the agreed

measures to manage the impact.

8.0 CLOSING STATEMENT

This Physical Cultural Resources Management Plan (PCRMP) is effectively valid through the

stipulation of the Directors Regulation. Any procedure or mechanism that has not regulated in this

document will be explained further through implementation manual/ technical instructions.

The stipulation of the PCRMP document also canceling any procedure of mechanism has regulated

before that have contradiction with this document.

Proposed by

Approved by

(PMU Geothermal) (Director of PT SMI)



APPENDICES

Appendix A1

Form of Project Impact Mitigation on Physical Cultural Resources

APPENDIX A1 PROJECT IMPACT MITIGATION ON PHYSICAL CULTURAL RESOURCES OF WAESANO GEOTHERMAL

EXPLORATION PROJECT, WEST MANGGARAI REGENCY

No. Project Activity Location Indicative PCR Potential Negative Impact on PCR

Mitigation Plan/Action

I. Land Clearing and Preparation

1 - Access Road Found no PCR None None

2 - Basecamp Area Lempe Sub-Village

There is a public cemetery close to the road of Lempe

Access to a public cemetery may be disturbed

Put up a sign by the existence of a cultural heritage;

To coordinate with adat leader prior to commence any activity surrounding the public cemetery.

3 - Laydown Area Lempe Sub-Village





4 - Area of WTP-1 Lempe Sub-Village





5 - Area of WTP-2 Dasak/Nunang Sub-Village

Near to access to the well pad B and C, there is an area called Kampung Laja or Lampang (old

village) that considered as a historical settlement in the area. In Kampung Laja, there is Compang (physical cultural resources).

Access road to Lampang Old Village will be disturbed;



6 - Spoil Disposal 1 Dasak Sub-Village

No potential PCHR found No impact No mitigation plan

7 - Spoil Disposal 2 Taal Sub Village There is a public cemetery close to the road of Taal




8 - Spoil Disposal 3 Lempe Sub-Village





9 - Spoil Disposal 4 Access Road Area: Wae Lolos village


10 - Spoil Disposal 5 Access Road Area: Wae Lolos village


11 - Spoil Disposal 6 Access Road Area: Taal sub village


12 - Area of Well Pad A Lempe Sub-Village





13 - Area of Well Pad B Nunang Sub-Village

Customary land The design for standard hole (well pad B) occupy the land that claimmed as customary land by some of local community group. However, based on discussion with Tua Golo that csutomary land is not using for any cultural activities by the local community.

The project will only conduct slim hole driling in well pad B and avoid to have activities in in standard hole

14 - Area of Well Pad D Dasak Sub-Village

Near to access to the well pad B and C, there is an area called Kampung Laja or Lampang (old village) that considered as a historical settlement in the area. In Kampung Laja, there is Compang (physical cultural resources).



To coordinate with adat leader prior to commence any activity surrounding the Lampang Old Village.

15 - Area of Well Pad E Taal Sub-Village There is a public cemetery close to the road of Taal




II. Wells Drilling - Slimhole Drilling Well Pad

A Lempe Sub-Village





- Slimhole Drilling Well Pad B

Nunang Sub-Village

Near to access to the well pad B and C, there is an area called Kampung Laja or Lampang (old

village) that considered as a historical settlement in the area. In Kampung Laja, there is Compang (physical cultural resources).




The design for standard hole in well pad B is located in the land that claimed as a customary land by some of local community group. But, the existence of customary land is not agreed by all the Wae Sano community members,

There is no significant impact to the customary land as the land is not using for any cultural activities by the local community. However, respecting the recognition of some of the residents, the project needs to avoid activities in the area claimed as customary land.

The project will only conduct slim hole driling in well pad B and avoid to have activities in in standard hole

- Slimhole Drilling Well Pad D

Dasak Sub Village





- Slimhole Drilling Well Pad E

Taal/Dasak Sub-Village





There is a public cemetery close to the road of Taal


Put up a sign by the existence of a public cemetery;


Appendix A2

Well Pad B Location and Sensitive Receptor Map

Appendix A3

Stakeholder Consultation Documentation

a. Minutes of Pre-Public Consultation Meeting b. Minutes of Public Consultation Meeting c. Minutes of Walkthrough Survey with

Community d. Minutes of Joint Survey e. Minutes of Site Survey with World Bank f. Minutes of Consultation Meeting with BPCB g. Minutes of Consultation Meeting with

Archaeologist Expert

Laporan Kegiatan Pra-Sosialisasi Labuan Bajo, 15 September 2016

Divisi Pengembangan Proyek dan Advisory 3

1

LAPORAN KEGIATAN

PT SARANA MULTI INFRASTRUKTUR (PERSERO)

Agenda

Sosialisasi rencana kegiatan eksplorasi panas bumi di Wae Sano Nusa Tenggara Timur

Peserta

Institusi Peserta

PT Sarana Multi Infrastruktur

(Persero)

1. Divisi Pengembangan Proyek dan

Advisory:

- Andy Budiman,

- Rizka Amorini

- Adyaksa Paripurna,

- Dewi Agustiani

2. Divisi Management Risiko

- Sunu Tantra

World Bank Bp. Jeffry

Pemerintah Daerah 1. Bupati Manggarai Barat

2. Wakil Bupati

3. Sekda

4. Asisten II

5. Kadis Pertambangan dan Energi

6. Ka BPM dan Perizinan Terpadu

7. Kadis Pariwisata

8. Ka BAPPEDA

9. Kadis PU

10. Sekretaris Distamben

11. Ekonomi Setda Kab.Mabar

12. Kabid Geologi Distamben

13. Sekretaris BAPPEDA

14. Kabid Pengawasan BLH

15. Kabid Perizinan pada bid. Energi dan

Migas

16. Kabid Energi Minyak dan Gas

Distamben

17. Sekretaris Dinas Kehutanan

18. Kabid Pengawasan Distamben

Tanggal :

Waktu :

Kegiatan :

Lokasi :

15 September 2016

15.00 – 18.00

Pra-Sosialisasi Publik

Hotel Bintang Flores, Labuan Bajo, Nusa Tenggara Timur

2

19. Kabag Tata Pemerintahan Sekda

20. Kakan Badan Pertanahan Nasional Kab.

Mabar

21. Kabid Bina Marga Dinas PU

22. Ka. PLN Manggarai Barat

23. Kasi. Potensi Tambang pada Bid.

Geologi

Perwakilan masyarakat 50 orang perwakilan masyarakat kecamatan

Sano Nggoang yang terdiri dari:

1. Camat

2. Wakil Camat

3. Tokoh Masyarakat

4. Tokoh Adat

5. Tokoh Agama

6. Tokoh Pemuda

7. LSM:

- GERAM

- Yakines

- Burung Indonesia

- Baku Peduli

- Swiscontact

- WWF

Perwakilan Kementerian ESDM 1. Direktorat Panas Bumi:

- Bp. Eddy Hindiarto Judoadi

- Bp. Agus Sudiaman

2. Badan Geologi:

- Bp. Nur hadi

Pelaksanaan Kegiatan

Kegiatan pra-sosialisasi publik dilaksanakan untuk memberikan pemahaman awal kepada

peserta kegiatan terkait pengembangan proyek panas bumi yang akan dilakukan oleh

Pemerintah sekaligus sebagai sarana untuk mendapatkan masukan dari masyarakat terkait

penyiapan kegiatan sosialisasi publik yang akan dilakukan pada tahap selanjutnya.

Kegiatan pra-sosialisasi publik yang dilaksanakan pada Hari Kamis, 15 September 2016,

pukul 15.00 dihadiri oleh Bupati dan Wakil Bupati Manggarai Barat, Satuan Kerja Perangkat

Daerah, perwakilan tokoh masyarakat, tokoh agama, tokoh adat, tokoh pemuda, dan

perwakilan lembaga swadaya masyarakat. Kegiatan juga turut dihadiri oleh perwakilan

Kementerian ESDM dari Direktorat Panas Bumi dan Badan Geologi, PT Sarana Multi

Infrastruktur (Persero) (“PT SMI), dan Bank Dunia.

Kegiatan pra-sosialisasi diawali dengan sambutan pembukaan yang disampaikan oleh Bupati

Manggarai Barat. Melalui sambutannya, Bupati Manggarai Barat menyampaikan dukungan

atas kegiatan eksplorasi panas bumi yang dilakukan Pemerintah mengingat besarnya manfaat

yang dapat ditimbulkan dari kegiatan tersebut bagi masyarakat. Oleh karena itu, untuk

mendukung kegiatan tersebut, Bupati Manggarai Barat telah menerbitkan Keputusan Bupati

3

terkait pembentukan Tim Koordinasi yang di koordinasikan oleh Dinas Pertambangan dan

beranggotakan SKPD terkait. Bupati Manggarai Barat juga turut mengajak seluruh peserta

untuk ikut mendukung terlaksananya program Pemerintah tersebut.

Kegiatan dilanjutkan dengan sesi presentasi oleh para panelis perwakilan dari Direktorat

Panas Bumi dan Badan Geologi Kementerian ESDM, serta PT SMI. Sesi presentasi langsung

dilanjutkan dengan sesi diskusi dan tanya jawab dengan seluru peserta dan ditutup dengan

acara makan malam bersama.

Pembahasan dan Hasil Pembahasan

1. Peserta :Yanche Taban

Perwakilan : Badan Lingkungan Hidup

Saran dan masukan yang diberikan:

Agar kegiatan sosialisasi dapat memberikan kesempatan yang banyak kepada

perwakilan tokoh masyarakat untuk mengutarakan pertanyaan.

Pertanyaan dan jawaban:

Apa tahapan selanjutnya yang akan dilakukan oleh PT SMI dalam waktu dekat terkait

pengembangan proyek eksplroasi panas bumi di Wae Sano?

Jawab:

- Sebelumnya telah dilakukan pengeboran landaian suhu dan kegiatan surface

survey yang dilakukan oleh tim Pusat Sumber Daya Mineral, Batu Bara, dan

Panas Bumi.

- Setelah surface survey selesai dilakukan, selanjutnya akan dilakukan penyusunan

kajian lingkungan dan sosial. Penyusunan kajian lingkungan dan sosial akan

dilakukan oleh konsultan yang akan bekerja dengan mengikuti standar pedoman

lingkungan dan sosial World Bank yang cukup ketat untuk menghindari dampak

yang ditimbulkan dari kegiatan yang akan dilakukan.

2. Peserta : Pater

Perwakilan : Tokoh Agama

Pertanyaan dan jawaban:

a) Mohon dijelaskan sejelas-jelasnya apa saja dampak positif dan negatif dari

pengembangan panas bumi di Wae Sano?

Jawab:

Dampak Positif dan Negatif serta langkah yang dapat dilakukan untuk memitigasi

dampak negatif yang mungkin terjadi adalah:

- Terdapat banyak dampak positif dari pengembangan panas bumi di suatu

daerah. Selain dapat meningkatkan kapasitas listrik, pengembangan panas

bumi juga dapat meningkatkan perputaran roda perokonomian karena

4

meningkatnya ketersediaan listrik, panas bumi juga dapat dimanfaatkan secara

langsung oleh masyarakat misalnya saja untuk mengeringkan hasil perkebunan

serta dapat pula meningkatkan jumlah penyerapan tenaga kerja dalam wilayah

tersebut.

- Dampak negatif yang dapat terjadi adalah peningkatan aktifitas disekitar

lokasi, dapat terjadi peningkatan arus lalu lintas

- Namun untuk meminimalisir terjadinya dampak negatif yang terjadi akan

dilakukan kajian lingkungan dan sosial serta penyusunan UKL/UPL, dalam

kajian tersebut akan diformulasikan informasi terkait social mapping. Untuk

menghindari hal-hal yang merugikan masyarakat, Kementerian ESDM melalui

Direktorat Panas Bumi akan melakukan pengawasan terhadap seluruh kegiatan

panas bumi yang akan dilakukan, baik pada fase eksplorasi maupun

eksploitasi.

- Selain itu, akan dibentuk komite bersama yang terdiri atas Kementerian dan

lembaga terkait yang juga bertugas dalam memformulasikan langkah-langkah

yang akan ditempuh untuk kegiatan eksplorasi ini serta mengawasi kegiatan

yang akan dilakukan.

b) Bagaimana mengatasi dampak lingkungan terutama apabila terjadi bencana alam

seperti yang terjadi di Lapindo?

Jawab:

Contoh dampak negatif dari proses eksplorasi atau pengeboran yang terjadi adalah

Lapindo. Kegiatan pengeboran eksplorasi yang terjadi di Lapindo merupakan

pengeboran di sektor migas yang memiliki kontur dan komposisi tanah dan batuan

yang berbeda dengan sektor panas bumi. Pada sektor migas, kontur tanah dan

batuan cenderung lebih lembek daripada sektor panas bumi yang memilik kontur

tanah dan batuan yang keras karena umunya berasal dari magma. Kontur tanah

dan batuan di wilayah sumber daya migas menyebabkan besarnya kemungkinan

terjadi ledakan (blow out) seperti yang terjadi di Lapindo pada fase eksplorasi.

Keadaan tersebut berbeda dengan eksplorasi panas bumi, karena wilayah potensi

panas bumi umumnya memiliki kontur tanah dan batuan yang keras, maka sangat

kecil kemungkinan terjadi ledakan seperti yang terjadi di Lapindo. Hal yang

mungkin terjadi adalah adanya semburan air panas yang terjadi pada fase

eksplorasi, namun semburan tersebut dapat dimitgasi dengan teknologi blow out

preventer yang digunakan pada saat pengeboran eksplorasi dilakukan.

c) Jelaskan bagaimana sistem ganti rugi tanah dilakukan dalam pengembangan

proyek ini?

Jawab:

Proses ganti rugi tanah akan melibatkan SKPD serta badan-badan terkait.

5

3. Peserta : Bapak Simon

Perwakilan : Tokoh masyarakat Desa Sano Nggoang

Saran dan masukan yang diberikan :

Bapak Simon merasa bahwa sebenarnya tidak ada dampak buruk dari kegiatan

eskplorasi yang akan dilakukan bila seluruh tahapan dilakukan dengan baik.Tetapi

karena pada dasarnya kegiatan eksplorasi panas bumi merupakan hal baru dan asing

bagi masyarakat, maka masyarakat perlu dijelaskan secara detail terkait setiap tahapan

yang akan dilalui agar tidak terjadi penolakan dari masyarakat.

4. Peserta : Bapak Pasaputra

Perwakilan : Tokoh masyarakat Pulau Nuncung


a) Diharapkan agar dapat dijelaskan hal-hal terkait keadaan dan kontur tanah

disekitar lokasi potensi panas bumi di Kecamatan Sano Nggoang.

b) Dalam sesi presentasi konsultasi publik yang akan dilakukan nantinya, diharapkan

agar dapat dijelaskan secara mendalam terkait dampak-dampak yang dapat terjadi

dalam fase eksplorasi panas bumi kepada mayarakat.

c) Peserta memberikan saran kepada Pemerintah Daerah melalui Bappeda agar

membuat tata ruang lingkar danau secepatnya. Hal ini untuk mencegah terjadinya

bentrokan aktivitas tata ruang antara dinas pariwisata dengan kegiatan

pengembangan pembangkit listrik tenaga panas bumi pada wilayah tersebut,

mengingat Danau Sano Nggoang telah ditetapkan sebagai kawasan wisata yang

akan dikembangkan.

5. Peserta : Bapak Blaisius

Perwakilan : Tokoh Masyarakat Desa Wae Sano

Pertanyaan dan jawaban :

a) Bagaimana jika proses lelang Wilayah Kerja Panas Bumi (WKP) yang dilakukan

Pemerintah gagal atau tidak mendapatkan pemenang lelang, padahal sudah

dilakukan eksplorasi panas bumi pada wilayah tersebut?

Jawab :

- Apabila proses lelang yang dilakukan pemerintah tidak mendapatkan pemenang

lelang, maka secara Undang Undang, perusahaan yang melakukan eksplorasi

memiliki kewajiban untuk menutup kembali sumur yang telah di bor.

- Sebelum memberikan izin untuk melakukan kegiatan eksplorasi kepada

perusahaan, Pemerintah mensyaratkan perusahaan untuk menyetorkan dana

deposit sebesar 50% dari total biaya yang dibutuhkan untuk pelaksanaan

eksplorasi. Dalam hal kegiatan eksplorasi tidak berhasil, maka Pemerintah akan

6

menggunakan dana deposit tersebut untuk menutup sumur dan memperbaiki

lingkungan.

b) Siapakah yang akan bertanggung jawab jika terjadi kerusakan pipa yang

mengalirkan uap dari sumur panas bumi menuju pembangkit listrik?

Jawab:

Hal tersebut menjadi tanggung jawab perusahaan yang menjadi pengembang

pembangkit listrik panas bumi pada lokasi tersebut. Masyarakat diharapkan untuk

tidak khawatir akan hal tersebut karena seluruh kegiatan pengembangan dan

pengeoperasian PLTP akan diawasi oleh Pemerintah. Dalam proyek

pengembangan dan pengoperasian PLTP yang telah ada di beberapa daerah dapat

dibuktikan bahwa keberadaan proyek tidak mengganggu masyarakat dan

lingkungan, diantaranya sektor pertanian dan perkebunan di sekitar proyek tidak

terganggu.

c) Berapa luas lahan yang dibutuhkan untuk kegiatan eksplorasi panas bumi?

Jawab:

Untuk satu sumur dibutuhkan lebih kurang 2 hektar.

d) Sebelumnya masyarakat mengetahui bahwa Pemerintah sudah pernah melakukan

pengeboran panas bumi sebelumnya di daerah Kecamatan Sano Nggoang,

mengapa sumur yang telah di bor tersebut saat ini tidak pernah dimanfaatkan atau

dikelola lagi?

Jawab:

- Sumur bor di daerah Taal yang pernah di bor oleh Badan Geologi merupakan

pengeboran landaian suhu saja. Pengeboran landaian suhu merupakan

pengeboran kecil untuk mengetahui suhu di dalam bumi dan lubang bor

tersebut hanya sebesar botol air mineral. Sumur tersebut saat ini sudah ditutup

oleh semen yang kedap. Tidak dilakukan pengelolaan lebih lanjut pada sumur

tersebut karena memang pada sumur tersebut tidak dapat dimanfaatkan untuk

kegiatan lain dan hanya untuk mengambil data suhu saja.

6. Peserta : Bapak Ferry

Perwakilan : Perwakilan LSM Geram


Agar kegiatan sosialisasi/konsultasi publik dilakukan lebih sering kepada masyarakat.


7

a) Kegiatan pengeboran eksplorasi tentunya akan membutuhkan banyak air,

sementara warga kecamatan Sano Nggoang juga membutuhkan air untuk

keperluan sehari-hari, bagaimana jika masyarakat menjadi kekurangan air karena

kegiatan eksplorasi juga menggunakan sumber air yang sama dengan masyarakat?

Jawab:

Memang benar bahwa kegiatan eksplorasi panas bumi akan membutuhkan banyak

air pada saat kegiatan pengeboran berlangsung. Namun sumber air yang

digunakan bukan lah sumber air permukaan seperti yang digunakan oleh

masyarakat untuk memenuhi kebutuhan sehari-hari melainkan air tanah pada

kedalaman tertentu, sehingga tidak akan mengganggu penggunaan air milik

masyarakat.

b) Secara ekologis seberapa jauhkah radius area yang dapat terkena dampak dari

kegiatan eksplorasi ini?

Jawab:

Perihal hal tersebut, baru dapat di informasikan setelah penentuan titik bor

dilakukan dan konsultan lingkungan mulai melakukan proses pengambilan data

dan penyusunan kajian lingkungan dan sosial. Hasil penyusunan kajian tersebut

juga akan dipresentasikan pada konsultasi publik yang akan diselenggarakan

nantinya yang melibatkan para konsultan dan masyarakat agar masyarakat dapat

memahami secara mendalam terkait dampak yang dapat ditimbulkan dari kegiatan

eksplorasi tersebut.

7. Peserta : Bapak Hendrikus



a) Mohon jelaskan lokasi titik-titik bor untuk eksplorasi?

Jawab:

Penetuan titik bor saat ini masih dalam tahap pembahasan lebih lanjut dan tentunya

akan mempertimbangkan lokasi air, kawasan hutan, perkebunan masyarakat.

b) Bagaimana jika air danau menjadi kering karena kegiatan eksplorasi?

Jawab:

Kegiatan eksplorasi tidak akan mempengaruhi jumlah air danau karena air danau

hanya sedalam 600m sedangkan kedalaman titik bor mencapai 3000m dan tidak

menggunakan air danau untuk kegiatan eksplorasi. Selain itu air danau bersifat

asam dan korosif sehingga tidak dapat di gunakan untuk kegiatan eksplorasi.

8

c) Bagaimana jika suara bising dari kegiatan eksplorasi dapat memberikan dampak

buruk yakni membuat burung-burung kabur dari habitatnya pada hutan disekitaran

danau?

Jawab:

Dalam kajian dampak lingkungan dan sosial yang akan disusun oleh konsultan,

akan dilakukan juga kajian terkait fauna burung yang tentunya untuk mengetahui

dampak yang ditimbulkan dari kegiatan eksplorasi pada fauna burung disekitar

lokasi dan bagaimana cara memitigasi dampak tersebut.

8. Peserta : Bapak Stef

Perwakilan : Perwakilan Dinas Kehutanan

Saran dan masukan yang diberikan:

Agar rencana kegiatan eksplorasi dapat disampaikan kepada Dinas Kehutanan

sehingga diketahui apakah titik-titik bor eksplorasi berada pada kawasan hutan atau

tidak.

Tanggapan panelis:

Tentunya akan dilakukan koordinasi dengan Dinas Kehutanan. Karena ada izin-izin

yang perlu diurus pada tingkat kabupaten terlebih dahulu.

9. Peserta : Bapak Fredi



Dengan adanya kegiatan eksplorasi, bukan tidak mungkin harga tanah juga akan

melonjak, makas sebaiknya pemerintah menetapkan regulasi harga tanah.

Dokumentasi

Bupati Manggarai Barat sedang memberikan

sambutan pada kegiatan pra-sosialisai.

9

Peserta kegiatan pra-sosialisasi

Kesimpulan

- Pemerintah Daerah bersedia memberikan dukungan terkait pengembangan proyek

eksplorasi panas bumi di Wae Sano yang dilakukan oleh Pemerintah. Salah satu

bentuk dukungan yang telah dilakukan oleh Pemerintah Daerah adalah melalui

pembentukan Tim Koordinasi yang beranggotakan SKPD terkait melalui

penerbitan SK Bupati.

- Melalui kegiatan pra-sosialisasi yang diselenggarakan, telah diterima masukan

dan saran yang sangat bermanfaat dari seluruh peserta kegiatan sosialisasi yang

akan menjadi catatan untuk penyelenggaran sosialisasi publik kedepannya.

- Tokoh masyarakat berharap agar kegiatan sosialisasi kepada masyarakat dapat

lebih sering dilakukan untuk terus memberikan pemahaman dan informasi terkait

tahapan yang dilalui dalam proyek.

Tindak Lanjut

Kegiatan sosialisasi publik akan diselenggarakan sekitar akhir Oktober 2016 atau di bulan

November 2016 di Kecamatan Sano Nggoang dengan mengundang seluruh masyarakat Desa

Sano Nggoang dan Desa Wae Sano.

1

Minutes

Meeting name Walktrough

Subject 3 wellpad, 2 basecamp and 2 disposal area

Attendees Suryo M (JACOBS), Novianto, Reneica, Yuniawan, Camat Sano Nggoang, Kades Waesano, BPD Waesano, Tua Beo Nunang, Tua Mukang Nunang, Tua Golo Lempe, Adyaksa & Inten (PT SMI)

Meeting date 14 May 2018

Time 09.00-13.00

Location Waesano Village

Project name Waesano Geothermal Exploration Project

Project number JKTD17002

Prepared by Yuniawan Setyadi

Ref Action Initial

01 Wellpad B di Dusun Nunang:

- Pak Suryo (JACOBS) menunjukkan jalan rencana lokasi jalan masuk menuju slimhole B, dan

teridentifikasi berapa pemilik tanah di lahan tersebut.

- Ditunjukkan juga gambaran luasan area untuk pengembangan setelah slimhole B dinyatakan

berhasil.

- Dalam area untuk pengembangan ini menurut Tua Mukang Nunang (bp Herman Hemat)

terdapat tempat keramat sejak ditemukannya Nekara di lokasi tersebut. Menurutnya, dulunya

tempat tersebut merupakan tempat persinggahan leluhur, warga khawatir masih terdapat

benda serupa di sekitar lokasi penemuan Nekara tersebut. Menurut pandangannya Nekara

tersebut dapat melindungi warga Nunang sehingga tidak boleh diganggu.

- Masih ada perbedaan pendapat mengenai status wellpad B, sehingga perlu disepakati oleh

warga Dusun Nunang.

Pada Hari Jumat 18

Mei 2018 akan

diadakan pertemuan

warga Nunang yang

juga akan dihadiri

Kepala Desa, Tua Golo

dan tetua desa untuk

memutuskan status

Wellpad B apakah

boleh dilakukan

eksplorasi atau tidak.

02 Wellpad A di Dusun Lempe:

- Peninjauan Wellpad A diikuti langsung oleh Tua Golo Lempe.

- Pak Suryo menunjukkan rencana titik eksplorasi dan lokasi water treatment.

- Menurut Tua Golo Lempe ada beberapa pemilik tanah di lokasi tersebut, termasuk beliau

sendiri.

- Tidak ada penolakan warga tentang lokasi wellpad A, hanya perlu dipastikan batas-batas

lahan untuk menentukan siapa pemiliknya.

Akan dilakukan

pengukuran area dan

batas lahan oleh

GeoIndo sehingga

diketahui siapa saja

pemilik lahan di lokasi

wellpad A dan Water

treatment.

03 Basecamp Driller dan Disposal Area

- Lokasi berada di tanah milik pribadi sehingga memungkinkan untuk pengadaan lahan.

Akan dilakukan

pengukuran batas

lahan dan

penghitungan aset

lahan oleh GeoIndo.

04 Wellpad E di Dusun Taal

- Lokasi ini merupakan pindahan dari sebelumnya wellpad E yang ditolak oleh masyarakat

karena berlokasi di kampung tua (Wewa).

- Menurut Tua Mukang Nunang (Herman Hemat), lahan merupakan milik pribadi (bukan adat)

sehingga bisa digunakan untuk pengeboran.

Akan dilakukan

pengukuran batas

lahan dan

penghitungan aset

lahan oleh GeoIndo.

05 Spoil Disposal 1 di Dusun Dasak

- Lokasi di kampung Dasak yang secara klan masih masuk wilayah Tua Golo Nunang.

- Lokasi disposal ini berada dekat wellpad D yang berada di kawasan kehutanan.

Akan dilakukan

pengukuran batas

lahan dan

penghitungan aset

Minutes Walktrough

AECOM 2

Ref Action Initial

- Menurut Tua Mukang Nunang, lokasi merupakan lahan milik pribadi masyarakat sehingga

bisa digunakan untuk proyek dengan kesepakatan pemilik lahan.

lahan oleh GeoIndo.

1 / 2

RISALAH RAPAT

PT SARANA MULTI INFRASTRUKTUR (PERSERO)

Agenda

1. Survey tapak proyek terkait dengan rencana pengadaan lahan; 2. Verifikasi adanya potensi benda cagar budaya/purbakala di dalam tapak proyek, khususnya pada

Well Pad B d Dusun Nunang

Uraian

1. Melihat adanya potensi isu terkait pengadaan lahan yang digunakan untuk rencana kegiatan perbaikan jalan akses, well pads dan sarana penunjang lainnya;

2. Pada rencana tapak proyek termasuk Well Pad B di Dusun Nunang, tidak ditemukan adanya

makam atau benda cagar budaya pada permukaan tanah di dalam rencana tapak proyek. Makam ada di seberang jalan dari rencana tapak proyek Well Pad B;

3. Dari hasil konsultasi dengan masyarakat yang telah dilakukan, sebagian warga menyatakan bahwa

area tapak well pad B merupakan tanah keramat, tetapi saat pengamatan di lokasi rencana tapak well pad B terlihat adanya hewan (babi) di atas tanah yang dimaksud. Apabila merupakan tanah keramat, maka seharusnya tidak boleh ada hewan berada di atas area yang dianggap keramat tetapi tanah keramat masih dapat digunakan sebagai lahan pertanian;

Tanggal : 19 Oktober 2018

Kegiatan : Kunjungan ke lokasi tapak proyek untuk Rencana Kegiatan Eksplorasi Panas Bumi Waesano

Peserta : Tim World Bank: 1. Ninin K. Dewi

Tim PT SMI: 1. Sapto Kuncorohadi 2. Harni Wijayanti 3. Dwi Apriyanti 4. Eviyanti Wafroni Warga Desa Waesano: 1. Mans 2. Vinsi

Lokasi : Desa Waesano, Kecamatan Sano Nggoang

2 / 2

4. Ada pendapat dari sebagian masyarakat, bahwa di dalam tapak well pad B terdapat nekara. Dari hasil pengamatan di lapangan, tidak ditemukan adanya nekara atau benda cagar budaya di atas pemukaan tanah.

Rencana Tindak Lanjut

1. Perbaikan dokumen Physical Cultural Hertage Resources Management Plan (PCHRMP) terkait rencana mitigasi dan pengelolaan terhadap potensi adanya benda cagar budaya/benda purbakala dalam area tapak proyek, khususnya tapak well pad B;

2. Untuk mengantisipasi apabila ditemukan benda cagar budaya/benda purbakala di dalam tapak proyek saat pelaksanaan kegiatan konstruksi, maka perlu dibuat Change Find Procedure (CFP)

1

Minutes

Meeting name Consultation with Cultural Heritage Preservation Agency for Bali, NTB, and NTT Province

Subject Cultural Heritage Management Plan for Waesano Geothermal Exploration Project

Attendees 1 - Komang Anik (KaSie Perlindungan, Pengembangan, dan Pemanfaatan/ PPP) BPCB 2 - Artanegara (Staff PPP BPCP) 3 - Adi Prasetijo (Anthropolog) 4 - Agni Primitasari (AECOM)

Meeting date 1 February 2019

Time 10 am

Location Cultural Heritage Preservation Agency for Bali, NTB, and NTT Province Office


AECOM project number JKTD 17002

Ref Minutes Action Notes

01 AECOM previous study identified a number of

potential cultural resources of significance within

Waesano Geothermal Exploration Project area, based

on participatory group discussion with local

communities around Lake Sano Nggoang. Therefore

AECOM would like to consult significance level of the

identified cultural resources/ sites/ objects (e.g.

Nekara and Kampung Tua).

AECOM is commissioned to review and consult the

cultural heritage management plan developed by PT

SMI for Waesano Geothermal Project, including

updates on chance find protocol and mitigation

measures to manage potential impacts from the

Project activities.

- -

02 When undertaking survey, a Nekara was found in the

community (however not through direct excavation).

Community has owned the identified Nekara, inherited

by one of the community member. Therefore exact

location of finding is not known. Exact history of the

object also unclear from the community.

Queries from BPCB: When Nekara is identified, who

found the object?

According to BPCB: In NTT spread of Nekara (or in

Flores more known as Moko which is the small version

of Nekara) is very common. We have to further identify

whether the object is cultural heritage of significance

(which is need to be preserved) or just recently made

object (without no specific historical value).

If any further finding of likely

cultural object that may be

impacted during the Project

construction, formal process

refer to point No. 4 below.

03 Other than Nekara, other cultural resources identified

are: Old Kampoeng (Kampung Tua) which is already

abandoned with Compang (old stone).

However, as per result of AECOM consultation with

the Manggarai Barat Cultural Agency (in November

2017), there is no report on cultural heritage has been

Therefore, BPCB

recommendation to also

involve BALAR (as institution

responsible for cultural

heritage/ archaeological

research), while BPCP

Minutes Consultation with Cultural Heritage Preservation Agency for Bali, NTB, and NTT Province

AECOM 2


determined by regional/ national government within

the regency.

According to BPCB: there is no report yet on cultural

heritage of significance within Manggarai Barat area. It

means there are no cultural heritages have been

preserved yet in the regency.

However, it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist; it only

means that detailed/ further research on the area has

not been conducted.

responsible for protection/

preservation of the finding

object.

04 Regarding chance find procedure/ steps:

First step of report/ consultation with the

Cultural Agency of Manggarai Barat.

And then coordinated with Balai Pelestarian

Cagar Budaya (BPCB) and Balai Arkeologis

(BALAR)

Formal letter should be equipped with attachments: of:

project map, location of the cultural heritage finding,

and chance find protocol procedure

Once letter received, the following actions will be in

place:

Overlay the Project map/ data with the result

of study/ research from BALAR, preservation

report from BPCB

Site survey and FGD with the three agencies/

institutions and/ or communities to further

discuss about the findings and confirm the

significance (Justification whether the

identified cultural resource is highly sensitive

or not should be from Regional Cultural

Agency, BALAR, and BPCB)

If significant, Regional Agency has the main

responsible for registration and coordination

with BPCB and BALAR (if significant)

Although BALAR responsible for the research,

however preservation/ conservation of the

finding by BPCB (if significant)

In some cases, recommendation should be

consulted/ approved at national level

(ministry)




construction, formal process

should be:

First coordination

step should be via

Regional Cultural

Agency (Dinas

Kebudayaan

Kabupaten

Manggarai Barat)

Formal letter to Dinas

Kebudayaan

Kabupaten

Manggarai Barat (cc

BPCB and BALAR),

with complete

attachments as

requested

05 Our main concern to avoid any disruption to cultural

heritage, particularly those that are significant/ have

historical values.

In addition, should be attentions are impacts from the

Project to the lake as ancient site (likely

archaeological site of important) in Manggarai Barat.

If the of finding cultural resources not yet determined

by government as cultural heritage (belum ditetapkan),

preservation/ cautions and measures should still be in

place if the survey by Cultural Agency/ BPCP/ BALAR

Should any findings of

cultural resources during

construction stage, process

defined in No.4 above should

be applied.

Minutes Consultation with Cultural Heritage Preservation Agency for Bali, NTB, and NTT Province

AECOM 3


identified them as significant.

06 PT SMI is currently developed PCRMP including

chance find procedure.

The objective of chance find procedure: since the

proposed Project area is culturally sensitive, the

Project is observed to develop a plan which defined

some steps should be conducted when cultural

heritage is found. The Project is funded by World Bank

therefore chance find procedure is important.

In Indonesia regulation, the Law has defined the

steps. Therefore should make sure if the procedure

has aligned with Law requirements.

Update of PCRMP according

to Law No. 11 Year 2010

07 Contact for further coordination:

Komang Anik (KaSie PPP BPCB):

081239205145

Komang Yudari (KaBag TU BALAR):

08123608028

- -

1

Minutes

Meeting name Consultation with University Expert and Archaeologist

Subject Cultural Heritage Management Plan for Waesano Geothermal Exploration Project

Attendees 1 - Rochtri Agung Bawono (Arkeolog Universitas Udayana) 2 - Iwan Setiawan (Arkeolog Universitas Udayana) 3 - Adi Prasetijo (Anthropolog) 4 - Agni Primitasari (AECOM)

Meeting date 1 February 2019

Time 2 pm

Location University of Udayana


AECOM project number JKTD 17002


01 AECOM social study for impact assessment identified

a number of potential cultural resources of

significance within Waesano Geothermal Exploration

Project area, based on participatory group discussion

with local communities around Lake Sano Nggoang.

Therefore AECOM would like to consult significance

level of the identified cultural resources/ sites/ objects

(e.g. Nekara and Kampung Tua).

AECOM is commissioned to review and consult the

cultural heritage management plan developed by PT

SMI for Waesano Geothermal Project, including

updates on chance find protocol and mitigation

measures to manage potential impacts from the

Project activities.

- -

02 PT SMI as the Project proponent has developed a

chance find protocol/ cultural heritage management

plan however desktop based on the previous social

survey conducted by AECOM.

Protocol has included necessary steps, in reference

with the Law No. 11 Year 2010. However, it is

suggested to be consulted with BPCB and University

Expert/ Archaeologist.

Result of consultation to be

included in the PCRMP

03 If a potential cultural heritage is found, regional

agency will appointed its expert team/ person to

assess further.

According to Law each agency should appointed/

have expert team to be involved if any cultural

heritage is found they will be responsible to assess

and provide recommendation for preservation. There

is no specific procedure or classification of cultural

heritage significant, therefore each agency is

observed to have expert team to investigate further

any archaeological/ cultural heritage findings.

Expert team of 7 people include archaeologist,

historian, anthropology, and even architect (usually

architect is required if cultural findings are in the form

Should expert team at regency

level is not available, to work

directly with University Expert/

Archaeologist to assist in

coordination with Dinas, as

well as BPCB and BALAR.

Minutes Consultation with University Expert and Archaeologist

AECOM 2


of building e.g. Pura)

Although observed under Law however not all

agencies have formed this.

04 Very likely Cultural Agency of Manggarai Barat does

not have expert team yet.

Therefore often project proponent requires assistance

from University archaeologist during its development

period.

Archaeologist Team of Udayana University is the only

university team in Bali, NTB, and NTT. Therefore for

expert team of regional agency in the 3 provinces

usually appointed from Udayana Univ. Because

limited resource from local university. While other local

universities usually more on linguistic study rather

than archaeological objects.

There has no archaeologist research yet by BALAR/

BPCB for Manggarai Barat, of known by the Univesity.

As above

05 First formal step if any cultural heritage findings,

should coordinate with regional/ province agency

which would then appoint expert team and coordinate

with BPCB and BALAR.

See result of consultation with

BPCB

06 Although no thorough research yet in the whole Flores

Island or NTT, however it is known that the likely

significant cultural resources are old kampong/

megalithic objects and graves.

Research in NTT area still very minim no detail data

except old kampong still settled by community such as

Kampung Bajawa and Waerebo. Therefore BPCB

activities in the island mostly still focus on such areas.

Sign of presence of Old kampong/ Kampung Tua is if

there is old grave in front of houses. This is has been

like this since megalithic period.

Information to be added in the

PCRMP

07 Some areas identified by local communities as

Kampung Tua/ Old Kampong where compang (old

stone) are also found. However these areas have

been avoided by the Project.

Information to be added in the

PCRMP

08 Current issue is area where Nekara/ Moko was found,

although exact location could not found as the object

has been inherited (community could not appoint

exact location). This area is still restricted by some

community groups, as it considered as customary

land.

According to Udaya University Team, it is a common

issue in NTT e.g. customary land. However usually in

the area where private land ownership is still not

acknowledged/ recognised. Customary land is still

used communally.

Therefore justification from expert team and related

institutions is required to confirm the status.




construction, first formal step

is to coordinate with regional/

province agency.

Should expert team at regency

level is not available, to work

directly with University Expert/

Archaeologist to assist in

coordination with Dinas, as

well as BPCB and BALAR.

Minutes Consultation with University Expert and Archaeologist

AECOM 3


09 With regards to chance find protocol, the steps have

referred to UU however implementation the Project

needs to be assisted by expert team from Dinas

Kebudayaan Kabupaten.

Of if not available, involvement of university expert

could be appointed directly by the Project proponent.

Recheck if PCRMP has in

accordance to Law No. 11

Year 2010

10 Further Contact:

Rochtri Agung Bawono: 081236181784

- -

Documents

PHYSICAL CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR … · Physical Cultural Resources i Management Plan for Wae Sano PHYSICAL CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GEOTHERMAL EXPLORATION