The widespread pollution caused by bauxite mining left many lessons to be learned, both in the context of mining as well as general environmental management in Malaysia. Images of roads and highways in Kuantan scorched red due to transport of bauxite circulated on social media for months. Nearby residents suffered, as they inhaled airborne dust particles. Homes were also tainted red by bauxite dust.
The climax was perhaps the “red sea” incident which saw the coast of Pantai Batu Hitam turning red. Continuous rain a couple of days prior washed a massive amount of red sediment into rivers like Sungai Balok and Sungai Pengorak, which eventually made it to the sea. It is almost unfathomable that such a predicament can occur in a country like ours where there are established laws, regulations and enforcement agencies. Clearly, something is wrong somewhere.
Months before the mass contamination at Pantai Batu Hitam, several environmental specialists (including yours truly) issued reminders of the impending danger. Unfortunately, no one heeded our calls. Sadly, reminders by environmentalists are sometimes regarded as impediments to progress and development; perhaps considered nothing more than a “nuisance”.
There are times when the opinions of environmentalists are sought after, particularly by environmental authorities. Under such circumstances, a project proponent is usually compelled to take into account the recommendations made by the specialists and authorities, before a particular project is given the go ahead, or at least on paper they do.
This however, does not mean they fully appreciate the extent of the recommendations or will sincerely comply with them. In fact, some only agree to the provisions to get approval and will contravene the requirements the first chance they get. This is the reality of the situation. Many cannot appreciate the recommendations because the disaster has not yet transpired. Some environmental specialists and officers have even been reprimanded for being “too vigilant” in carrying out their duties.
Industries, including the bauxite mining industry, are geared towards profit generation. Wastes, either in solid, liquid or gaseous form are generated as a consequence of their activities. These wastes must be managed and treated to meet the requirements in the law.
However, scientific and technological advancements have made it possible to manage, control and treat the waste so that only very low levels are emitted from an activity. Sometimes, it is even possible to recover the waste completely. Many businesses are hesitant to invest in advanced treatment systems because of cost. They are content to meet the bare minimum requirement. The mindset is that waste treatment systems are an expenditure which do not generate returns.
What many do not realise is, some of the environmental provisions (pollutant limits in wastewater effluent, for example) only constitute minimum compliance. When compared with other, more developed nations, the environmental imposition in Malaysia is actually not very stringent.
This was purposely done in view of Malaysia’s status as a developing country. A “trade-off” is incurred such that the employed treatment technology or “best available technology” does not cost too much that it impedes growth of a particular industry.
I have often mentioned in my lectures: compliance to limits in law does not guarantee environmental preservation in Malaysia. What more if these laws are contravened?
The bauxite mining activities in Kuantan, on the other hand, did not employ any measure of control, even though the measures exist and are commonplace in other activities and industries. This was perhaps due to the lack of provisions in environmental laws to regulate bauxite mining. There was no enforcing entity which oversaw implementation of pollution control measures for bauxite mining in Kuantan (new laws have come into effect which do address the activity).
However, as enshrined in the Federal Constitution, land and water resources are under the purview of the state. Hence, in theory, the matter could have been resolved sooner if state authorities placed a firmer foot on it. Some attribute the situation to colliding interests of the federal and state authorities. In any case, the lag in response time is worrying and further emphasises the importance of effective synergy between state and federal authorities.
Malaysia is on the verge of becoming a developed nation, a target less than four years away. Will our developed status only be confined to the realm of material wealth while the environment suffers? Will we only be interested in environmental preservation if it is forced onto us? Will we only be interested in environmental preservation if it doesn’t cost us (much) money? Are we going to continue to pass the buck or are we going to grab the bull by the horns?
In this era of global warming and climate change, we need to realise that how we treat the environment has direct implications on us too. Rivers polluted by sediment will affect water supply, dust-laden air will incur a health impact, aquatic habitats are also destroyed, killing fish and other organisms, affecting the livelihood of residents and fishermen. There is no action without ramifications.
At the end of the day, the environment is the collective responsibility of every single one of us. Environmental preservation can only be successful when everyone participates. It is not wrong to make money. Only in the process, appropriate pollution control measures must be taken to ensure the impact is minimised. Bauxite mining generates a good amount of income for miners and workers. Steps must be taken to ensure sustainable mining practices are in place so the activity does not cause irreversible, negative effects on the environment and community.
Dr. Zaki Zainudin is a water quality and modelling specialist