IUP ( Mining Business License)

( IUP /Mining Business Permit )

Chapter VII Part I 

Law No 4 Year 2009

Article 36

(1) IUP consists of 2 Stages :

a. IUP Exploration which  covers General Survey, Exploration and Feasibility Studies

b. IUP Production Operation which covers Construction activity, Mining, processing and purifying,  transportation and sales.

(2) IUP Exploration and the holder of IUP Operation Production can perform part or the entire of the activities as meant under paragraph (1)

Article 37

IUP is granted  by :

a) Bupati/Walikota if the WIUP ( Mining Business Permit Area)  is located  in 1(one)  Kabupaten/City Area 
b) Governor if WIUP is located in the Kabupaten ( Regency) /City Cross Area in 1 (one) province after obtaining recommendation from the Head of Regency/City of such place in accordance with the rules and law.
c. Minister if the WIUP is located in the province cross area after obtaining recommendation from the Governor/Bupati/Walikota(Mayor) of such place in accordance with the rules and law 

Article 38 
This IUP is granted to :
a. Legal Entity
b.Cooperative
c.Individual

Note :

Based on the above, it appears that the Granting of  the  IUP ( Mining Business Permit)  is not related to the measurement area of the Mining Area, but is more emphasized to the Location of such Mining Area or Mining Business Permit Area.

For instance if a Mining Coal Area is located in 1(one) Kabupaten (Regency) /City(kota) than the Bupati or Major is the Authorized Officer who grants such IUP. The next question shall be whether such request for IUP is based on tender of such Mining Coal Area conducted by the Bupati/Major. In order to answer such question we have to check more further on the rulings under such New Mineral and Coal Law No 4 Year 2009.

From our research with the Directorate Technical Mineral and Coal, it appears that checking  must be made to the Directorate Pengusahaan within the Directorate Technical Mineral and Coal. It appears that there  is a  reorganization within the Directorate Technical Mineral and Coal, where there will be a Directorate of Mineral and Director Of Coal where at this present moment the Directorate of Coal according to the staff that I asked appears to be no longer existing.

We also found out from the information given by said staff  from  he Directorate Technical Mineral and Coal, that the PP or Governmental Regulation as the implementation of the Law No 4 Year 2009 had not yet been issued. Relating to the news in the Kompas which raised uncontrolled Coal Mining Activities in Kalimantan which was granted in the overlaping Forestry Conservation Area,  and the Non-Reclamation of the Holes left by the Coal Mining Area, we were informed by the staff of the Directorate Technical of Mineral  and Coal that the  Directorate Of Coal  were  the first  Government Institution to implement the Autonomy ruling on the issuance of this IUP or  formerly KP. He also indicated that inputs to the Newspaper usually came from the LSM (Non-Governmental Organization).  However, it seems that the Bupati in granting the Mining Authority does not observe and investigate  whether the location of the Coal  Mining KP which is granted to a Coal Mining Contractor is overlapping with the Forestry Conserve Area.

I  mentioned to the staff of the Directorate Technical of Mineral and Coal, that as a Business Lawyer we have to give clear certain legal data to our Clients who are Coal Mining Companies and intending  to invest their money in the Coal Mining Sectors in Indonesia, who needs legal certainty on the application of this IUP.

We have to be certain that the IUP (Mining Business License)  is granted by the proper Authority either from the Regional Level or at the Central Level, pursuant to the Mineral and Coal  Laws  No.4 Year 2009  and its implementation rulings to avoid overlapping with the Forestry Conservation Area, which could result loss of  monies  invested   in the Coal Mining Sectors in Indonesia suffered by the Coal Mining Investors as raised in the Kompas Media Newspaper recently dated around 26, 27 January 2010.

Coal Mining Activities in Kalimantan

As we all are aware The Minerals and Coal Mining Law No. 4 Year 2009 was passed by the DPR ( House of Representatives)  on 16 December 2008 and was signed by the President on 12 January 2009.  After 30 Years enjoying COW (Contract Of Work), and Work Agreement For Coal Mining Enterprises  (CCOWs) Indonesia enters into a new era where new licensing regime is introduced replacing the rulings of  COW  to conduct Mining Business Operations in Indonesia.  There are significant changes and several new provisions being introduced. Up to this moment we are still waiting for the Implementation Rulings of this New Law which usually  are done by rulings made by the Government  through the issuances of PP (Government Regulations) as frequently  being mentioned in such  Minerla and Coal Laws. Besides the Government Regulation that may also be several  Decrees issued by the Respective Governmental  Officers such as Presidential Decrees, Ministerial of Mines and Energy Decree, Decree from the Directorate of General Mining as well as  Decree from the Directorate of Coal.  In the Regional Local Level, The Governor or the Bupati  and the DPRD ( Regional House Of People  Representative) in coordination with the Governor shall issue Regional Government Rules.  As we watch the news relating  to Coal Mining Activities in Kalimantan  made by Kompas  during these last days,  we  understand that several rulings relating to Coal Mining Permits had been made  by the Department of Forestry, as well as the Bupati,  where The Department of Forestry  had issued the permit to lend and use the part of land of located within the the Forestry Protection or Forestry Conversation Area. It is indicated that the Bupati and the Walikota had issued several Kuasa Pertambangan Batubara ( CoaL Mining Authrotity Permit), which according to the Governor of East Kalimantan there are around 1.180 Coal Mining Permits issued by the Local Regional Government (Pemerintahan Kabupaten/Kota) and 32 Coal Mining Authority Permits issued by the Central Government.  On the other hand,  Kompas Newspaper dated 27th January, 2010,  said that the Bupati  of Kutai Timur (East Kutai) had revoked 12 KP from 38 KP which was issued by the previous Bupati. The reason in revoking this 12 KP is because 7 KP was issued within the Kutai National Park Conservation which is in violation of the rules. The other  5 KP is revoked since no progress of following up the permit from General Survey to Exploration is performed. Several other KP are being evaluated with the reasoning that no reclamation was made, no seriousness in continuing the Coal mining is conducted and overlaping with other activities.  Since Otonom Region was introduced in 2001 up to the New Law No. 4 Year 2009, Kompas, says  that  there are thousands of Mining Aurthority being issued by the Regional Government, many of which are not in accordance with the allotment of the land. One of the Sources said that the Reclamation of the ex Coal Mining Area Holes should actually not be treated as Burden, but rather as Investment by the Coal Mining Investors. Brief Awareness of the NEW Mineral  and COAL LAW No. 4 Year 2009.  Before we continue in observing the Kompas newspaper Highlights of this indicated  Un - Controlled Coal Mining Activities in Kalimantan,  it is wise,  to educate our selves with  Brief Key Issues on the New Mineral and Coal Law No 4 Year 2009 to enlighten ourselves upon the New Minerals and Coal Law  in Indonesia. This New Mining Law  does not differentiate between mining licenses for domestic and foreign investors. All investors must have either :  a Mining Business Permit (Izin Usaha Pertambangan-“IUP”), a People’s Mining Permit (Izin Pertambangan Rakyat-“IPR”) or   a Special Mining Business Permit (Izin Usaha Pertambangan Khusus-“IUPK”)  to engage in mining activities.  INDONESIA: Take-over leads to $1,200,000,000 coal mining contracts, PT THIESS CONTRACTORS INDONESIA [Indonesia/Australia] - Order #: 119103.: An article ... & Plant Operations in the Developing World An IPR will only be given to : an individual (for a maximum of 1 Ha),  a group of people (for a maximum of 5 Ha) and  a cooperative (for a maximum of 10 Ha).  An IUP and IUPK is granted to Private Companies with certain size limitation.   The IUP/IUPK is divided into an Exploration and a Production Operations IUP or IUPK.  The Exploration IUP/IUPK covers General Surveys, Exploration and Feasibility Studies, and the Production Operations  IUP/IUPK covers construction, mining, processing and refining activities as well as transportation and sales.  Each type of IUP/IUPK has its own term and area limitation.    Significant Key Features of the Law No 4 Year 2009 :  Duration :  Exploration IUP:    Metal: up to 8 years for a concession area between 5,000 Ha and 100,000 Ha;  Non-metal: up to 3 years for a concession area between 500 Ha and 25,000 Ha;  Specific non-metal: up to 7 years;  Rocks: up to 3 years for a concession area between 5 Ha and 5,000 Ha; and  Coal: up to 7 years for a concession area of between 5,000 Ha and 50,000 Ha.  Production Operations IUP:  Metal: up to 20 years for a concession area of up to 25,000 Ha, extendable for 10 years a maximum of twice; Non-metal: up to 10 years for a concession area of up to 5,000 Ha, extendible for 5 years a maximum of twice; Specific non-metal: up to 20 years extendible for 10 years a maximum of twice;  Rocks: up to 5 years for a concession area of up to 1,000 Ha, extendible for 5 years a maximum of twice; and Coal: up to 20 years for a concession area of up to 15,000 Ha, extendable for 10 years a maximum of twice.  An IUPK is granted for a National Mining Reserve Area.  Durations and concession areas of IUPK:  Exploration IUPK:  Metal: up to 8 years for a concession area of up to 100,000 Ha; and  Coal: up to 7 years for a concession area of up to 50,000 Ha. Production Operations IUPK:  Metal: up to 20 years for a concession area of up to 25,000 Ha, extendible for 10 years a maximum of twice; and Coal: up to 20 years for a concession area of up to 15,000 Ha, extendable for 10 years a maximum of twice.  The relevant Regional Government issues a WIUP (Wilayah Izin Usaha Pertambangan/Mining License Business Area) to a business entity, a cooperative or an individual.   A Metal minerals or Coal WIUP can be issued through public tender, while a Non-metal minerals and Rocks WIUP can be issued through an application for a reserve area.  State Reserve Areas (Wilayah Pencadangan Negara-“WPN”) are to be determined by Central Government with prior approval from the DPR ( House of Representatives). These areas may be exploited under an IUPK which may be issued to an Indonesian Legal Entity including a State Owned Enterprise, Regional Owned Enterprise or private sector entity.  State/Regional Owned Enterprises are given priority in obtaining IUPK and if not taken,  the Private Sector can obtain it through public tender.  TRANSFER OF IUP/IUPK - Ownership -shares of Company Holding IUP / IUPK An IUP/IUPK cannot be transferred. However ownership or shares in a Company holding an IUP/IUPK can be made.  Transfer of ownership or shares in the Indonesian Stock Exchange may only be permited if : the company has found 2(two) prospective areas during the Exploration Period, and   there must be a  prior notification to the Minister, Governor, or Regent/mayor in accordance with their authorities and such transfer is not contrary with the applicable laws and regulations.  The Central Government, after consultation with the House of Representatives, can determine policy on giving priority to minerals and coal for domestic interests, including the authority to determine production levels for each commodity in each year on a Province-by-Province basis. This provision may have an impact on the annual production limit of a company holding a license to export to the international market.   As we are  aware inthe Oil and Gas Sectors in Indonesia, Domestic Market Obligation Private (DMO) is also regulated where 25% of its annual production has to be sold for  Domestic Needs. In the Coal Sectors, it appears that Coal commodities are also needed by the Local Power Plant,  by which  DMO on Coal shall also be implemented.     Government  Regulations will be made for implementing this DMO ruling. Holders of IUP and IUPK must increase the value of their minerals and/or Coal resources through Mining, processing and refining, and the use of the minerals and coal. Accordingly, they must process and refine the minerals and coal domestically. This provision are also found in the existing COW for General Mining of Cooper, thus  this  is a continuation of the policy of the Government which are also found and implemented by other Countries.  A license holder can cooperate with other holders of Production Operations IUPs for the same minerals and coal processing and refining.  The companies can either build their own processing/smelting facilities or use existing processing/smelting facilities in Indonesia owned by other parties. Relating to the Cooper Product of PT Freeport Indonesia, PT Smelter in Surabaya was the realization and implementation of this smelting facilities requirement.  Existing Contracts of Work (CoWs) which are already in the production phase, have a 5 year grace period to comply with this obligation.  Sharing Net  Profits ot of Coal production :  Holders of Production Operations IUPKs for metal minerals and coal must pay a production fee of 10 % of their net profits as of production, with 4 % going to the Central Government and 6 % being shared between the relevant province and regencies. A temporary suspension can be granted to a holder of an IUP/IUPK, in case of force majeure, or conditions which hamper mining activities, cause some or all mining activities to cease or the environment can no longer support the mineral and/or coal production activities. This temporary suspension will not reduce the duration/ term of the IUP.  The duration of a Temporary Suspension may be up to 1(one)  year and is extendable once for 1 (one) year.  Divestment  :  After 5 years of production, all companies must divest any shares owned by foreign parties to the Central/Regional Government, a State/Region owned enterprises or local companies. This provision will be regulated more  further through a Government Regulation. Usage of Local / National Mining Services. Holders of IUPs or IUPKs must use local and/or national mining services companies. If no local companies are found available, foreign companies whom are deemed as Indonesian legal entities may be used. Holders of IUPs and IUPKs may not use subsidiaries or affiliates to provide mining services, unless Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources approval is being obtained.  Corporate Crime . The New Mining Law No. 4 Year 2009 adopts  the concept of corporate crime. Sanctions can  be imposed on Contractors as legal entities. If crime is committed by a legal entity, the legal entity and/or its management will be charged with the crime. If found guilty, they are ordered to pay the regulated fine plus an additional 1/3. Besides the criminal sanctions, the business license and legal entity status  of such Company can be revoked. Any dispute arising from the implementation of an IUP, IPR or IUPK is to be settled through the courts and arbitration domestically under the prevailing laws Transition Period. Existing CoWs and CCoWs remain valid until the expiration of their terms. However, the contract terms and conditions must be adjusted to the provisions of the New Mining Law within 1 (one) year of the enactment of the New Mining Law 12 January 2010 except concerning state revenue. It appears that this New Mining Law does not rule any transitional provision for KPs (Mining Authorizations) issued to Indonesian companies regarding whether KPs already issued will remain valid and whether they must be adjusted to the New Mining Law, as is the case of the existing CoWs and CCoWs as described above. It appears that this may be  further regulated in the implementing regulations. The implementing regulations (Government Regulations, Ministerial Decrees and directives) for the implementation of the provisions of the New Mining Law, are to be made  within 1 year after the enactment of this New Law No. 4 Year 2010.

Headlines Observation on Coal Mining Activities Founded in Kompas Jan 26, 2010

It appears that Kompas Newspaper had made serious observations on the Coal Mining Activities in Kalimantan these last days from 25, 26, 28 30 January 2010. As a Business Lawyer who is advising Clients concerning Coal Mining activities in Indonesia, I really am interested in reading  such observation especially from the legal aspects. We are aware that there is the New Law No. 4 Year 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining which was legalized on 12th January 2009. 

According to Kompas Newspaper dated 26th January, 2010,  The Minister of Forestry, Zulfikli said that 169 holders of the Mining Permit are naughty. They had mined in the Forestry Conservation Area. Each Provincial must owned Forestry Area with the area of 30%. If the Forestry Area is damaged according to Zulfikli quoted in the Kompas Newspaper,  they will face law.

Relating to the indication that the envirornmental damage is geered   by the Overlapping Permits issued by the Forestry Department and the Local Government, the Head of the Forestry Centre Information Masyhud MM  according to Kompas explained 3 matters:  

• Firstly, The Minister of Forestry pursuant to the rules had never issued the pinjam pakai (Lending use) of the Forestry Area to the Conservation Forestry Area. 
• Secondly, the lending use permit forestry area for the mining activities is granted to the extent  it is complying with the applicable rules. Therefore, not every Mining Authority which is issued by the Bupati shall obtain ithe zin pinjam pakai ( lend use permit).  
• Thirdly, the Mining Activities which is outside the forestry area is not the authority of the Minister of Forestry.      

Controlling Team 

According to Kompas the Controlling Team from the Environmental Department  is sent to South Kalimantan to solve the damaged terain/land resulted from the Coal Mining activities.  Eventhough major part of the Mining Authority Permit is granted by the Local Government, the Central Government can impose sanctions according to such Kompas news. Besides the Control Team sent by the Central Government, the Regional Control Team shall also be sent to clarify the damage of the enviromental resulted by the Mining is East Kalimantan.

Kompas quoted that Hermien as the Deputy Minister of Environmental   said that based on the Law No 32 Year 2009 concerning the Protection and Environmental Management (Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan) Article 77, the Minister of Environmental can impose  administrative sanction to the serious violators against the environmental protection and management.

The Coal Mining operation in South Kalimantan and East Kalimantan had left giant holes. These Giant Holes according to Kompas Newspaper dated 26 January 2010, is not only left by the Mining who owns the Mining Authrity Permit, but also by the holder of the  PKP2B  (Work Agreement For Coal Mining Enterprises).

According to Kompas, the data which are collected from Badan Lingkungan Hidup Daerah ( BLHD) (Regional Environmental Body of South Kalimantan) shows that the Mining Reclamation  Activities in South Kalimantan until October 2009 reached 3.132 Hectare from 20.000 Hectare opening Mine. The Reclamation is done by 16 Mining Companies holder of the  PKP2B  ( Work Agreement For Coal Mining Enterprises).  This means that there still exists 16.868 Hectares which Reclamation is not yet done. 





Kompas said as shown in page 15 of its Newspaper dated 26th January,  that acccording to the Head of  Badan Lingkungan Hidup Daerah ( BLHD) there are 2 Mining Holders of PKP2B  ( Work Agreement For Coal Mining Enterprises) who cannot afford to do the Reclamation, where Kompas mentioned PT Adaro Indonesia and PT Arutmin Indonesia.  The Head of  Badan Lingkungan Hidup Daerah ( BLHD) will restrain granting the AMDAL (Analisa Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan - Analysis concerning the Environmental Impact ) for increasing its coal  production of such company, if  there are no serious efforts to close such Mining Holes.  Kompas said that the Public Relation from PT Arutmin Indonesia had not yet received the explanation from its management relating to the non-performance of the Reclamation of the 17 Mining Holes. However, Kompas said that Arutmin as the Partner of the Government shall take notice of the guidance from Badan Lingkungan Hidup Daerah ( BLHD) (Regional Environmental Body of South Kalimantan).

According to Kompas  the Badan Lingkungan Hidup Daerah ( BLHD) (Regional Environmental Body of South Kalimantan) faced difficulties in getting the concrete data on the how much hoiles are left, since the Kabuoaten Government which issued such permit does not report to the Provincial Level. The manpower for controlling is limited upon the mining in such area.

There is also an indication that ther are Coal Mining Contractor in Kutai Kartanegara,  who does not provide  Reclamation Bond in the Mining Activities to the Local Government. However, the Company is still obligated to perform the reclamation upon the holes  which are finished being digged.


   

Analysis

Based on the above Kompas Oberservation, we can see that  there are sevral Siginifacant Issues that emerged :

 A. Overlapping Issues

a) The Overlaping implementation of granting  the  Lending Use of the Forestry  Area to the Mining Contractors, where there appears to be different of  policy between the Regional Government and the Central Government.
 b) Kalimatan seems to be rich of Coal Deposit and Coal Resources, for which for economic reasons Deleping and Mining such Coal Resources seems to be more attractive than keeping the place as a Forestry Conservation and Protection.
c) Thus there maybe a dilema situation faced by the Regional Government where they feel that Revenue for developing the Region is also considered important where the Resources of such Revenue are taken from developing and Mining The Coal Resources.

d) RECLAMATION 

• Relating to the  Reclamation, it appears that from the business side, Reclamation absorb Costs and expenses, and the Coal Mining Companies seems to avoid adding/ allocating the Costs /Expenses for Reclamation such Huges Mining Holes left after they completed their Coal Mining in such Area.   

•  We have to observe the Reclamation Rulings under the New Mineral and Coal  Mining Law No. 4  Year 2009 and we must also observed the Other Laws which are ruling such Reclamation issues which are associated to Mining Activities and Environmental Impacts due to the Coal Mining Operations, particularly relating to the Sanctions which may be imposed against the Coal Mining Companies if they fail to conduct such Reclamation Obligation..    

Observing Kompas news Concerning Coal Mining Activities in Kalimantan

I read in the Kompas Newspapers, the Indonesian Daily Newspaper 25 January 2010, Kompas had made some observations on the Coal Mining in East Kalimantan which according to Kompas is  annoying,   since the Mining Practice is not conducted properly. Kompas had made such observation in East Kalimantan and West Kalimantan, where according to such news paper the Massive Mining activities are  not -controlled.

According to Kompas Newspaper, the Taman Hutan Raya Bukit Soeharto (TAHURA - Forestry Park Mount Suharto) at Kaltim (East Kalimantan) and Forestry Protection Mount Meratus at East Kalimantan which is suppossed to be protected is not avoided from Coal Mining Operations.    

Kompas further said that at TAHURA, the land which are developed is actually part of the Center Research Tropical Forest University Mulawarman, Samarinda having the area of 40 Hectare.  The Developer /Management of PPHT according to Kompas Newspaper,  has no power since the Mining Permit is issued by  The Forestry Minister, with the reason that before the Decision of determining the border of the TAHURA by the Minister Decision No. 577 Year 2009, such location is located outside such Forestry Protection/ Conservation Area.    

One interesting news, shown in Kompas Newspaper is that 2 Contractors who are  supposed to develop House Glass Laboratorium at Telukdalam, Kecamatan Tenggarong  with the Area of 51,000 hectare, had developed Coal Mining after they realized and noticed  that Coal Deposit in such Area is plenty enough and good, without owning the Mining Authority.  

Furthermore in such Kompas Newspaper,  it indicates that on the Protection Forest not only there are plenty of owners of Mining Authority but there are plenty of big holes where the Coal had been completely mined. In such Location according to Kompas there exists 299 Mining Authorities, with the understanding that there are 299 Parties who are granted Permits To Mine Coal  at the Hutan Lindung Pegunungan Meratus      (Forestry Protection Meratus Mountain). Furthermore in such Newspaper it says that only few of those mining which request permit pinjam pakai ( borrowing use permit) of such forestry from the Minister of Forestry.

The other permit are being granted by the Local Bupati since they do not know that such location is within the Forestry Protection Area. According to the records of Kompas, during the last 6 Years (until 2009)  at 4 Provincial Area in Kalimantan there exists 2.047 Mining Authority. East Kalimantan according to Kompas  Newspaper is having the First Rank which issued Mining Authroity, that is 1.180 Mining Authority, followed by  Kalimantan Selatan (400-578), Center Kalimantan (427) and South Kalimantan (40).

According to Kompas, if one Mining Authority covers the area of 2.000 hectare, the location which had been dedicated for mining reached 4.09 million Hectare, which is more than the Area of  Kalimatan Selatan (3,75) hectare.     

Kompas says that the Governor of East Kalimantan cannot do much considering that the Minister of Forestry and Head Area Level II ( Bupati/Wali Kota) has the authority to issue the Mining Authority. It indicates that at the present moment in Samarinda around 70% of its Area (71.823 Hactare) is dedicated for Mining Area.

Kompas got the information from the Head of the RT, Kelurahan Sempaja Selatan , that the location of the living area is around 25 meter from the mining hole, resulting their  houses are frequently flooded. 


Farmers at Desa Separi (Village Separi) and Bangunrejo, Kecamatan Tenggarong  appears also to be affected since they failed to harvest their products due to the coal mining waste water  which entered into their rice field. This causes the farmer to sell their rice filed to the Mining Authority. The Sale price is high says several farmers according to Kompas Newspaper.

Several Rice Fields are sold by the Farmers to the Mining Authority holders and  converted to become Mining Area.

There are also many village roads which are curved - cut out  and developed to become Mining Area.  

Examples of such happening is at Kecamatan Siani, Kabupaten Tapin, where the inhabitants can no longer walk since part o the road had been changed into mining area. According to Kompas several of the inhabitants must be cautious upon the Project Vehicles,  where the inhabitants has to ask for permit to go across such location.

According to Kompas the changes of the Forestry had destroyed 7 - 12 ton of Carbon organic every Year. This Carbon is need by microorganisme for the continuation of the ecosystem. One of the sources being interviewed by Kompas said that the Coal Mining does not contribute much for improving the growth of such region. From the production value of Coal production Kalsel which reached 22 trilliun ( for production of 80-100 ton per year), the genuine revenue of the Region ( Pendapat Asli Daerah) does not reach Rp 1 trilliun.

According to Kompas despite the above, The Business of Coal Mining still said that what they had conducted provides positive effects. Mining absorb manpower and moved the inhabitant economy such as the emerging of warung (small shops) and living places. according to Maskur Achmad project Manager of PT Satria Bahana Sarana, a Coal Ming Contractor at Kecamatan Sangasanga, Kabupaten Kutai Kartanegara as quoted by Kompas Newspaper.              

         Analysis.

• Based on the above Kompas observation.,  we have to observe whether this Coal Mining Activities are in accordance with the proper standard operational mining procedures, to avoid disturbances felt by the people surrounding the area of such Coal Mining. 

• It also indicates that there are several overlapping mappings of activities between the Forestry Protection Area and such Coal Mining activities. 

•  Coordination between the Mining Directorate and the Minister of Forestry, the Bupati  and Governor have  to be intensified seriously. 

•  Socialization with the Local People are significant to be made by the Local Authority in coordination with several Departments concerned such as the Department of Directorate of Coal Mining,  Department of Forestry  and its subdivisions officers including Newspapers including the Coal Mining Rights and Authority pursuant to the Mineral and Coal Law No. 4 Year 2009
  

• INDONESIA: CONTRACT AWARD FOR PLANNED $137,000,000 COAL MINING PROJECT, CLOUGH ENGINEERING [AUSTRALIA] - Order #: 01732000.: An article from: WWP-Report ... & Plant Operations in the Developing WorldINDONESIA: CONTRACT AWARD FOR PLANNED $137,000,000 COAL MINING PROJECT, CLOUGH ENGINEERING [AUSTRALIA] - Order #: 01732000.: An article from: WWP-Business Opportunities in Asia & the Pacific     
  

Managing Your Cash Problems

When we are running our own Boutique Law Firm there are times that you have to seek  ways how to solve your cash flows. It is like other business, where you have to evaluate and start marketing yourself and shop around to your customers and show them that you are there to render the legal services which maybe required by your prospective client. Today I went to several of  my customers. After having been 11 1/2 years independent running my firm, now called Suleiman Agung & Co I realize that we have to manage your health and stamina in order for us to keep on  being independent as a Business Lawyer. Every institution or person regardless of the size of their firm, may  face some cash flow problem once a while  in their life time.

The significant element is that every person who are in this earth has a unique life experience where he or she has to struggle to keep on living. There is a motto : You are what you are. You are not changed by the outside infrastructure condition of your business, since the inner power is planted inside you by ALLAH The ALL MIGHTY and not outside you. Of course if you are lucky enough your outside infrastructure may be great. By becoming more old you tend to believe that every person has its own unique life journey, where he or she must  detect the best way to response every test or problem they are facing.

Yes, we really have to be honest and not run away from the problems that you are facing.  You have to have faith in life.You must be patient, tough and not easily surrendering yourself to  the down side  condition which you may face in your life. By writing in this Blog I am actually self talking to myself as a method to seek the answer which has to be  explored and founded by me in solving this cash problems.But talking to oneself is not enough. You must do the correct and  proper action to solve a certain unpleasant situation. 

There may be people who are lucky to succeed in their financial condition. During  the 11 1/2  years  being self employed,  there are some fruitful financial years but there are also some hard time in terms of cash in. Since you are conducting services done by  person, this really depends on the physical and stamina condition of your body. There is no free lunch in this world, nobody will help you but you yourself  has to rise back and take your grip and identify the action that has to be taken.

You must have gained lots of experiences during such time.Frankly speaking sometimes you feel really tired,  since there is no automatic continuous Clients who  always  use  your legal services. In reality there is no automatic on the air situation where Clients will always need your legal services. There is always a risk that you have to take and there are always the subsequent consequences you must face in the real life.  

You have to be really tough and patient. In terms of experiences of providing legal services I really have  a lot of experiences in rendering legal services  to various Business Clients. If you are running your own business legal firm, you have to remember that there are many competitors  who are also rendering  legal services that you are providing. So the competition is really tough, and networking might be a significant element.

One of the business strategy that I am doing as a Business Lawyer is writing legal aspects and your  real life experiences so that you can detect the phase of your life journey to cope with the problems, ups and downs of running you independent life as a Business Lawyer.

Legal Fee pricing of your legal services may also play a significant role, where frequently, Clients may request for a cheap and lesser price, which may be really hard for you to handle and manage your cash  flow.   It appears that Clients really do not care how your overhead expenses are. What they want is receiving legal services with cheap and lesser legal fee.These are my  cash flow experiences in running a boutique law firm in Indonesia now called Suleiman Agung & Co

I am not talking about theoretical cash flow here,  but really factual 11 1/2 Years experiences in running a self employ legal firm. Since I started from scratch and bottom rock, my only problem in running and continuing this self employ Legal practices is how to reduce my operational  expenses to enable balancing the cash in and cash out of my Legal Firm.

In terms  of rendering professional legal services, since I have 30 Years experiencing  working as legal professional Lawyer, I really feel confident in handling and providing the effective and efficient legal services. However in terms of cash flow I really have to combine the need of proper legal fee to cope with my needs  in maintaining healthy cash flows so that I can survive in feeding my family and the continuation of my self employ Legal Firm.                      

          

Legal Justice Versus Legal Certainty

The above issue appears to merge in Indonesia at this present moment. The people in Indonesia has the perception that the Legal Enforcement only applies to the powerless people. Whereas for the Big Powerful person or institution,  since they can hire Lawyers they feel that the are immune and untouchable by the law.

These perceptions was demonstrated by the Prita Case where a patient who makes complaint upon the hospital service through internet had been sued by the Hospital claiming that their good name was being damaged by Prita's writing in the Internet media.

There were 2 cases being filed, by the Lawyers representing the Hospital, one through the Criminal Court and the other through a civil claim. Initially the First Instance Court issued its Decision  against Prita where she was demanded to pay around Rp204 million to the Hospital. However, the public's Voices  through the support of the TV Media in Indonesia  had  made a protest against such verdict  by  collecting  coins to support Prita, where they succeeded in collecting  and raising around Rp600million. This is really fantastic amount which shows that the Indonesian People are voicing their rights for Legal Justice Treatment by the Court in Indonesia. In the progress the Criminal Court in the First Instance had rejected the Hospital claim.

This Coin Protest was actually a symbol of protest from the people against Injustice Court Treatment  that is felt  being imposed against the powerless  victims. Indonesia is a democracy society where we can freely make  protests against Injustice Legal Treatment felt by  the people being made by the Legal Institution in this Country of Indonesia.

Hospitals in Indonesia nowadays appears to be more of Commercial  rather than Social Institution, who must serve the sick people who needs medical care. Lawyers defending Hospital  against complain made by the patient must also be sensitive in handling cases like above. If there are complaints by the Patients,  the Hospital must actually appreciate such inputs for better services to its Patients. Eventually, in the progress after facing the public reaction,  the Hospital realize of their negative reaction,  for which  they  decided to revoke  their claim against Prita in the Court.

The above is really a good lesson for us  as Business Lawyers that we have to be sensitive upon issues relating to maintaining good services to its patients.