Jakarta, 5 March 2024 – The development of Geothermal Power Plants (PLTPs) in Indonesia, although promoted as part of the energy transition, has social and economic impacts on local communities. Bhima Yudhistira, Executive Director of CELIOS, emphasized, “The capital-intensive nature of geothermal projects tends not to generate significant multiplier effects for the local economy. Instead, local communities often see geothermal development as an obstacle to productivity in agriculture and fisheries.” A CELIOS study projects that farmers’ incomes could fall by as much as IDR 470 billion, with tens of thousands of jobs lost at several sites in East Nusa Tenggara.
Beyond the economic impacts, the ecological impacts are also significant. Wishnu Try Utomo, Director of Mining Advocacy at CELIOS, stated, “Ecological restoration must be regarded as an integral part of developing clean and renewable energy systems. Energy procurement must not be dominated by corporate interests; communities must be placed in the role of both resource managers and beneficiaries.” Gas poisoning incidents in Mandailing Natal and disruptions to livelihoods in Dieng underscore the risks to communities living near PLTPs.
Residents affected by these projects and environmental advocates stress the need for an eco-centric and equitable approach. Agung Raihan from Dieng advised, “Energy extraction projects should be eco-centric, considering not only what is valuable underground but also the living things above ground.” Fanny Tri Jambore Christanto, Head of the Campaign Division at Walhi Nasional, added, “Geothermal energy systems also have the potential to exacerbate agrarian conflicts and increase the threat of criminalization facing local communities, in addition to the risks of disasters and ecological pollution.”
The development of Geothermal Power Plants ( PLTP ) in Indonesia, while promoted as part of the energy transition, has significant social and economic impacts on local communities. Bhima Yudhistira, Executive Director of CELIOS, emphasized, “The tendency of capital-intensive geothermal projects does not bring widespread benefits to the local economy. On the contrary, for local economies, the presence of geothermal is often seen as a barrier to productivity in agriculture and fisheries.” CELIOS projections indicate farmer income losses of up to IDR 470 billion and a decline of tens of thousands of jobs in several sites in East Nusa Tenggara.
Beyond economic effects, ecological impacts are also significant. Wishnu Try Utomo, Director of Mining Advocacy at CELIOS, stated, “Ecological restoration must be considered an integral part of developing clean and renewable energy systems. Energy procurement must not be dominated by corporate interests and must place communities as managers and beneficiaries of their resources.” Gas poisoning incidents in Mandailing Natal and livelihood disruptions in Dieng highlight the risks to communities near PLTPs.
Local residents and environmental advocates stress the need for an eco-centric and equitable approach. Agung Raihan from Dieng advised, “Energy extraction projects should be eco-centric, considering not only what lies underground but also what lives above it.” Fanny Tri Jambore Christanto, Head of Campaign Division at Walhi Nasional, added, “The geothermal energy system also has the potential to expand agrarian conflicts and increase the criminalization of local communities, in addition to environmental hazards and ecological pollution.”
Contact Person:
Kiki (0857-1158-9157)