Cohesiveness of NGOs and the community in the anti-coastal reclamation social movement

Abstract

This research is an elaboration of the response of the coalition of NGOs and affected communities in rejecting the sand mining in Takalar Regency, South Sulawesi. This study aims to analyze the motives and methods of advocacy carried out by NGOs and affected communities. This study also tries to examine the factors that influence cohesiveness between those who are resistant to this extractive industry. This research uses a qualitative approach. We got data in this study through interviews, observations, and document reviews. This study found that the primary motive of the Save Coastal Alliance Against the Sea Sand Mine in Takalar expresses resistance from NGOs and affected communities on the economic and environmental effects of the extractive industry of sand mining. The advocacy method adopted includes four step strategies. The first is conducting political education for citizens; Second, build alliances with other NGOs and; Third is conducting a lawsuit and; Fourth, through non-litigation. The study also found that cohesiveness between NGOs and affected communities was the dynamics of each group internally. This has contributed to building the context of relations between NGOs and the community.

Testing and Enhancing the 8R Framework of Responsible Land Management with Documented Strategies and Effects of Land Reclamation Projects in Indonesia

“…The CPI reclamation is similar to the Manado Bay reclamation, yet different in character and objective. [47][48][49]. The Indonesian government awarded the project to KSO Ciputra Yasmin, which in turn outsourced the land reclamation to the Dutch company Boskalis 2 .…”

“…On the issue of respect, the documentation of Baharuddin, Lubis, Mustafa, Arief, Gassing and Lubis [49] shows how NGOs and local communities formed an effective alliance to resist and reject the sand mining and reclaiming activities in southern Sulawesi, which reveal a clear distrust in the government interventions. They argue that the affected communities were not only left out of the communication and information distribution channels prior to the issuance of the license but were also falsely about the possible negative effects, which might occur.…”