Reminder: An audio conference with the topic "Protection of water consumer's rights in Indonesia" will be held on this page today, June 2, 19.00-20.30 (GMT+0) -- that's around 1.a.m. Jakarta Time (GMT+6)! The discussion will be in Bahasa Indonesia. Materials are available below. Read here for previous announcement.

I tried googling “water law” in Google.com (the Indonesian term is “hukum air”) and on the first google page, I found no reference to any site relevant to my search. If you click on the link, you will find that everything on the page is related to the religious law pertaining water for prayers or religious activities. None of them refers to water law.

I then googled “privatisasi air” (water privatization). Voila, everything in the first page is relevant. I scrolled down unto the 6th page, and everything reflects the true meaning of my google query.

From my queries, I can infer that water law is simply not (yet) a substantial part of the public discourse. But conversely, privatization is. So talks about water in Indonesia is dominated with the privatization discourse. What is interesting, the discourse of water privatization is much focused in the privatization of ‘water utilities’. If you speak bahasa Indonesia and google “privatisasi air”, you will find that most of the pages are critical towards the privatization of water utilities. Only one or two discusses water privatization in another context. Another thing: almost none (at least in google’s 1-3rd page) discusses sanitation.

On the one hand, it is a positive thing that privatisation is becoming a part of public discourse, but on the other hand, it is a pity that the debate is dominated only with privatisation of water utilities. What we need now is a better governance of our water (both resources and services) and law, is an important tool of governance. Privatization of utilities is only a small – albeit important and vital – part where law comes into play. But that’s not everything. We also need to think on how our resources is managed and how our services (both when they are public and private) are run.

It is not adequate for us to speak “against privatization”. We must also say what should be done when privatization is already the fact of life and what should be done when public ownership becomes the mode of delivery. Irrespective of the model (privatization or public ownership), in the end of the day, it is the consumer that needs to be defended. They need water to flow to their tap and they need the law to be on their side.  

Hence, water law should be in the discourse.

ps: if your google search (for hukum air) returns this post on the first page, then we might have contributed the “hukum air” meme into the discourse

The HRW 2010 report released earlier this May focused on Indonesia’s defamation law. According to the Human Rights Watch’s press release:

The 91-page report, "Turning Critics into Criminals: The Human Rights Consequences of Criminal Defamation Law in Indonesia," documents recent cases in which criminal libel, slander, and "insult" laws have been used to silence public criticism. Criminal defamation charges have been filed against individuals after they held public demonstrations protesting corruption, wrote letters to the editor complaining about fraud, registered formal complaints with the authorities, and published news reports about sensitive subjects.

In an SMH op-ed published today, the author of the report argue:

Not everyone in Indonesia who airs critical facts or opinions ends up accused of a criminal offence. But the arbitrary enforcement of such laws, and even the mere threat of enforcement, has a damaging chilling effect on civil society, the media, and private citizens' willingness to express critical thoughts or opinions, especially online.

The cover page of the report pictured Prita Mulyasari, the housewife sent to trial under the defamation law for complaining for a bad health service she had received from a hospital. In my earlier op-ed, I emphasize the need for an efficient and effective out of court settlement in health cases, such as that involving Prita’s:

In a market-based solution, the parties stay out of court. If the health service provider does something wrong, they pay the patient and the patient can agree not to sue at a price. If providers don't do anything wrong, they ask the patient to issue a public apology and a sum of money to the extent that they can pay. The cost expended in this mechanism is much lower compared to going to court. This mechanism requires the government to reduce information asymmetry in the market as parties can only negotiate when the evidence is available.

This report sends a very strong message to the international community and create pressures to the government that a reform is urgent. Click on the image below to download the full report:

Related posts:
Bringing patients to court may not be efficient
Housewife on trial for defamation

The company refused to be blamed:

“The massive silting that broke the pump in Pulogadung was caused by the declining quality of water. We fixed the pump and parts of the pipeline network,” Yosua said. “This  shortage is not entirely our fault.”
He said it would take more time for water to reach areas located farther from the main pipelines, which had been empty for days.
“And there are people in several neighborhoods in North Jakarta who collect water from hydrants too, and this makes [the distribution of water] even worse,” Yosua added.
Aetra Air Jakarta said it was becoming increasingly difficult to provide millions of Jakartans with potable water.
“The city has become overpopulated, and the levels of pollution have increased exponentially,” Yosua said. “These two factors greatly contribute to water  shortages in the city.”

Consumers are entitled to water services based on the service level as determined by law (if there are components of the service levels which are based on contracts, then they will not apply, as the law automatically derogates them). In Indonesia, water quality level is determined by the decree of the ministry of health  907/MENKES/SK/VII/2002 and Government Regulation 16/2005 (GR 16/2005) Article 6.2. In Jakarta, the continuity of water services is guaranteed by Regional by Law 13/92 and 11/93.

If any of these service levels are violated, based on GR 16/2005, consumer shall have the right to compensation. Article  67.1.a and 68.2.e of GR 16/2005 stipulates (in Bahasa):

(1) Setiap pelanggan air minum berhak:
a. memperoleh pelayanan air minum yang memenuhi syarat kualitas, kuantitas, dan
kontinuitas sesuai dengan standar yang ditetapkan;
b. mendapatkan informasi tentang struktur dan besaran tarif serta tagihan;
c. mengajukan gugatan atas pelayanan yang merugikan dirinya ke pengadilan;
d. mendapatkan ganti rugi yang layak sebagai akibat kelalaian pelayanan; dan
e. memperoleh pelayanan pembuangan air limbah atau penyedotan lumpur tinja.

Hak dan Kewajiban Penyelenggara
Pasal 68
(1) Setiap penyelenggara berhak:
a. memperoleh lahan untuk membangun sarana sesuai dengan peraturan perundangundangan;
b. menerima pembayaran jasa pelayanan sesuai dengan tarif/retribusi jasa pelayanan;
c. menetapkan dan mengenakan denda terhadap keterlambatan pembayaran tagihan;
d. memperoleh kuantitas air baku secara kontinu sesuai dengan izin yang telah
didapat;
e. memutus sambungan langganan kepada para pemakai/pelanggan yang tidak
memenuhi kewajibannya; dan
f. menggugat masyarakat atau organisasi lainnya yang melakukan kegiatan dan
mengakibatkan kerusakan prasarana dan sarana pelayanan.

(2) Setiap penyelenggara berkewajiban untuk:
a. menjamin pelayanan yang memenuhi standar yang ditetapkan;
b. memberikan informasi yang diperlukan kepada semua pihak yang berkepentingan
atas kejadian atau keadaan yang bersifat khusus dan berpotensi akan
menyebabkan perubahan atas kualitas dan kuantitas pelayanan;
c. mengoperasikan sarana dan memberikan pelayanan kepada semua
pemakai/pelanggan yang telah memenuhi syarat, kecuali dalam keadaan memaksa
(force majeure);
d. memberikan informasi mengenai pelaksanaan pelayanan;
e. memberikan ganti rugi yang layak kepada pelanggan atas kerugian yang
dideritanya;
f. mengikuti dan mematuhi upaya penyelesaian secara hukum apabila terjadi
perselisihan; dan
g. berperanserta pada upaya perlindungan dan pelestarian sumber daya air dalam
rangka konservasi lingkungan.
(3) Pemberian ganti rugi sebagaiman dimaksud pada ayat (2) huruf e diupayakan
berdasarkan penyelesaian di luar pengadilan atau melalui pengadilan.
(4) Upaya penyelesaian di luar pengadilan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (3)
dilakukan dengan arbitrase atau alternatif penyelesaian sengketa sesuai dengan
peraturan perundang-undangan.

From the legal point of view, consumer has the right to receive the continuity, quality and quantity of water as prescribed by law. They should be compensated if these rights are interrupted or not fulfilled due to the negligence committed by water undertakers. GR 16/2005 above also prescribes that water undertaker must pay a decent compensation to consumer for the loss they sustained. Although GR 16 is not particularly clear on what it means by ‘loss’ but this is likely to be a term for ‘violation of service levels’. 

Hence, under the law, ‘whose fault’ is not really the question for consumer. GR 16 does not differentiate whether the fault lies on the part of the bulk water supplier (in this case, PT Jasa Tirta) or the treatment and distribution facility (in this case, Palyja or Aetra). What the law require is for the consumer to be compensated, irrespective of whose fault it is.

'Whose fault’ is more a question for the government. The government is the one responsible to provide accountability mechanism in response to the complicated structural arrangement in the water sector. The government should determine where the liability lies and direct the compensation fund from the liable party to consumer.

More in this issue: my interview with Kompas (in Bahasa). 

Related Posts:
14 Disturbing Facts about Jakarta's Water
Supreme Court Decision on Water Monopoly in Batam
Water companies duty to satisfy reasonable demands

If you are in England, UK:

Consumer Council for Water : Consumer Council for Water via kwout

If you are in Victoria, Australia:

Energy and Water Ombudsman (Victoria) via kwout

If you are in Indonesia:

Homepage ’ Website OMBUDSMAN RI via kwout

With one caveat however. The Indonesian Ombudsman does not deal particularly with water (or utilities issues). So I have no idea how they can help, especially when the service is privatized. Read my article here.

Related Posts:

Suppose you have just built a new home in a nice city. All your neighbours has water connection, unfortunately, the local water company refuse to extend their pipes into your property. Do you think they are acting against the law?

Before we argue on the basis of positive law, I will first raise the issue on what the law ‘should be’ : Do you think the law should obligate water companies to provide connections to consumer? To put it into other terms, can water companies refuse a connection request? If they can, under what basis?

The answer to the first question is ‘yes’. The reason is because water is a special kind of good. Many authors classify it into merit good and quasi public good, I do not wish to discuss this in a more detail. To illustrate, consider the differences of buying water from buying clothes. In buying clothes, you have a number of option, you can go either to debenhams, zara or marks & spencer. But for water, it is likely that you are stuck with only one company for the whole city. If that company refuses to trade, then you are doomed. This is what natural monopoly is all about in practice: consumer is stucked with few option or no option at all. Existing customer also find it difficult to exit from the market as no competitor is available in their local. So, unless the water company is regulated, they can do anything they want.

How should the law deals with this phenomenon?

The English Law obligates water companies to ‘satisfy reasonable demands’. This is what the Water Industry Act 1991 says:

Domestic connections

45Duty to make connections with main

(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to sections 46 and 47 below, it shall be the duty of a water undertaker (in accordance with section 51 below) to make a connection under this section where the owner or occupier of any premises in the undertaker’s area which—

(a)consist in the whole or any part of a building; or

(b)are premises on which any person is proposing to erect any building or part of a building,

serves a notice on the undertaker requiring it, for the purpose of providing a supply of water for domestic purposes to that building or part of a building, to connect a service pipe to those premises with one of the undertaker’s water mains.

(2)Where a notice has been served for the purposes of this section, the duty imposed by subsection (1) above shall be a duty, at the expense of the person serving the notice, to make the connection required by the notice if—

(a)the main with which the service pipe is required to be connected is neither a trunk main nor a water main which is or is to be used solely for the purpose of supplying water otherwise than for domestic purposes; and

(b)such conditions as the undertaker may have imposed under sections 47 to 50 below have been satisfied;

and, subject to section 51 below, that duty shall arise whether or not the service pipe to which the notice relates has been laid when the notice is served.

(3)A notice for the purposes of this section—

(a)shall be accompanied or supplemented by all such information as the undertaker may reasonably require; and

(b)if the notice has effect so that a requirement is imposed on the undertaker by virtue of section 46(4) below, shall set out the matters that have given rise to the imposition of that requirement;

but, subject to section 51(5) below and without prejudice to the effect (if any) of any other contravention of this subsection, a failure to provide information in pursuance of the obligation to supplement such a notice shall not invalidate that notice.

(4)The duty imposed on a water undertaker by this section shall be owed to the person who served the notice by virtue of which the duty arises.

(5)Where a duty is owed by virtue of subsection (4) above to any person, any breach of that duty which causes that person to sustain loss or damage shall be actionable at the suit of that person; but, in any proceedings brought against a water undertaker in pursuance of this subsection, it shall be a defence for the undertaker to show that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the breach.

(6)Where a water undertaker carries out any works which it is its duty under this section to carry out at another person’s expense, the undertaker shall be entitled to recover from that person an amount equal to the expenses reasonably incurred by the undertaker in carrying out the works.

(7)Nothing in this section or in sections 46 to 51 below shall impose any duty on a water undertaker to connect a service pipe to any premises with a service pipe to any other premises.

(8)In the following provisions of this Chapter a notice served for the purposes of this section is referred to as a connection notice.

Now let’s see what the Indonesian Law ( Government Regulation 16 Year 2005) suggests:

Hak dan Kewajiban Penyelenggara
Pasal 68

 

(2) Setiap penyelenggara berkewajiban untuk:
a. menjamin pelayanan yang memenuhi standar yang ditetapkan;
b. memberikan informasi yang diperlukan kepada semua pihak yang berkepentingan
atas kejadian atau keadaan yang bersifat khusus dan berpotensi akan
menyebabkan perubahan atas kualitas dan kuantitas pelayanan;
c. mengoperasikan sarana dan memberikan pelayanan kepada semua
pemakai/pelanggan yang telah memenuhi syarat, kecuali dalam keadaan memaksa
(force majeure);
d. memberikan informasi mengenai pelaksanaan pelayanan;
e. memberikan ganti rugi yang layak kepada pelanggan atas kerugian yang
dideritanya;
f. mengikuti dan mematuhi upaya penyelesaian secara hukum apabila terjadi
perselisihan; dan
g. berperanserta pada upaya perlindungan dan pelestarian sumber daya air dalam
rangka konservasi lingkungan.
(3) Pemberian ganti rugi sebagaiman dimaksud pada ayat (2) huruf e diupayakan
berdasarkan penyelesaian di luar pengadilan atau melalui pengadilan.
(4) Upaya penyelesaian di luar pengadilan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (3)
dilakukan dengan arbitrase atau

Sorry for non English speakers. Article 68(2) of GR 16/2005 regulates the  obligations of a water undertaker in Indonesia. Unfortunately, the obligations they owed is only towards existing customers. I am unable to find any provisions obligating the undertakers to extend their pipes to prospective customers. There is, however, a general obligation for the Regional Government to provide water services to citizens in their locale (See Art. 40.c).

Hence, if you complain why your water company refuse to extend their pipes to your newly erected building or homes, the law may not be on your side. Sorry :(

Related Posts:

Indonesian Water Services Suffering from a Lack of Governance

Supreme Court Decision on Water Monopoly in Batam 

• Worker safety during the manufacture of nanoparticles.
• Safety of consumers using products that contain nanoparticles.
• Safety of local populations due to chronic or acute release of nanoparticles from manufacturing and /or processing facilities.
• The impact on the various environmental compartments per se resulting from production, formulation and use, and on the potential for human re-exposure through the environment.
• The environmental and human health risks involved in the disposal or recycling of nanoparticle dependant products.

1. There has to be a regulation on the storage and transportation of nanoproducts which contain hazardous nanoparticle
   
2. Some nanoproducts shall not be sold for free
3. Producer can be exempted from liability if they can prove that they have provided adequate information on how a product should be treated