(This is a translation by WALHI - The original document was written in Indonesian.)November 8, 2022

To:
Ms. OKU Mami
Mr. SASE Hiroshi
The Examiners for Environmental Guidelines
Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC)(Mr. HOSHINO Kazuaki and Mr. TOYONAGA Shinsuke, the Former Examiners)
Cc: Mr. HAYASHI Nobumitsu, Governor, JBIC

Opinion on the Report of the JBIC Examiners regarding the Cirebon Coal-fired Power Plant Project – Unit 2 in West Java, Indonesia
We have read the "Examination Report on Objection to Cirebon Coal-fired Power Plant Project - Unit 2, West Java, Indonesia" (the Report), and are very disappointed
and even resentful.
First of all, JBIC's objection procedure is supposed to be a kind of remedy for residents who have been damaged by projects in which JBIC is involved. However, due tothe fact that the Examiners for Environmental Guidelines (the Examiners) has so disregarded the testimonies of residents like ourselves, and has analyzed and judged,
focusing on so-called "comity" to the Indonesian government, we can't help but wonder for whom this objection procedure was created. Neither the examiners nor JBIC
should forget that they are addressing the environmental, social, health, and cultural issues of the same human beings, whether in Japan or in Indonesia.
The report also states that "As a result of our investigation, we could not find that the actual damages stated by the Requesters have been incurred or that is likely to be
incurred in the future. In addition, no violations of the Environmental Guidelines by JBIC were found.” However, we believe that the examiner's understanding,investigation, and verification were extremely inadequate, as described in the opinion in the table below.
We would appreciate it if you could review our opinions compiled below, re-examine whether JBIC has properly confirmed the environmental and social considerations
with respect to the specific issues raised by us in our objection letter, and reconsider the status of compliance with the Guidelines on the issues pointed out.
Finally, we reiterate our strong request to JBIC not to provide further financing for Cirebon Unit 2 in order to avoid worsening the environmental and social impacts on
our community.

1

Opinions on individual contents of the report
Relevant part in the JBIC Examiners’ Report(a) Loss of livelihood and income opportunities by small-scale
fishermen (Para 2)(i) regarding the results of the plankton and benthos monitoring
carried out by the Project Proponent from 2014 to 2020, a third-party
organization assessed that the sea water contained sufficient nutrientsfor fish and shellfish, (ii) statistics about the fish catch near the Projectsite show that, while there are variations, the catch is largely stable,(iii) the Requestors have only expressed the reduction in fish catch
before and after the Cirebon Project Unit 1 was completed as well as
before and after the Project is forecast to be completed in terms of
how they perceive it, and (iv) the Requestors have not presented
documents showing details of their income before project completion,
we could not find the reduction in fish catch and its likelihood as wellas the loss of income opportunities and their likelihood.

(b) Worsening air pollution and damage to health (Para 2)
symptoms of coughing etc. are held to vary significantly depending on
environmental conditions and individual patterns of health behavior
and health. Therefore, the reasonable probability that symptoms ofcough etc. are occurring due to the completion of the Project is notconsidered likely.
(b) Worsening air pollution and damage to health (Para 2 and 3)
the report from a third-party organization

Opinion of the Requesters about the contents of the Report●Inappropriate analysis and conclusions- Regarding (i), the decision should first be based on the findings of an independent, credible
research team, not on the results of the operator's monitoring. In addition, the fact that "the sea
water contained sufficient nutrients for fish and shellfish” alone cannot be the basis for notrecognizing a decrease in fish catches. Other conditions of the marine environment (vibration,water temperature, etc.) should also be verified and concluded.
- The statistics in (ii) are presumably the figures traded at the TPI (auction sites) that remain withthe relevant local government agencies, and may represent the catches of fishermen who havefishing boats. Small-scale fishermen like the Requester who do not use fishing boats do not tradeat the TPI (TPI does not allow them to sell in small quantities, for example, less than 100 kg.
Thus, small-scale fishermen cannot sell their catch at TPI, even if they have 50 kg of catch. In fact,
there is no TPI in Kanci Kulon village.), but bring their catches directly home from the coast andconsume them at home or sell them to their neighbors. Thus, it is inappropriate to conclude
using the figures from the statistics.
- With regard to (iii) and (iv), as mentioned in (ii) above, the testimony is one of the mostimportant pieces of information because the catch of small-scale fishermen like the Requester
who do not use fishing boats is something that is not kept in statistics. Testimonies should not bedisregarded with the understanding that they "only expressed …… in terms of how they perceiveit.” Since the case should be judged by collecting as many testimonies as possible, the necessary
information should have been collected by using outside experts to conduct interviews in thefield for a longer period of time.
●Inadequate information collection- Testimonials, not statistics alone, are one of the most important pieces of information because"to vary significantly depending on …… individual patterns of health behavior." Since the caseshould be judged by collecting as many testimonies as possible, the necessary information
should have been collected by using outside experts to conduct interviews in the field for alonger period of time. Indeed, from the beginning we have requested that JBIC conduct an
independent investigation for at least six months.
●Insufficient information/explanation- The name of the third-party organization, the date the report was prepared, the figures andsurvey method described within the report, and detailed survey results should be provided as
documentation. A "List of materials that served as Basis for Judgment of Examiners" is not
sufficient.

2

(i) Procedures for Participation in Consultation
The Requestors state that JBIC overlooked that the procedures forresident participation in consultation with the Project Proponent etc.
were not conducted in an appropriate manner.
On this point, it can be considered that JBIC confirmed that, in
accordance with the Republic of Indonesia Minister of theEnvironment Regulation No. 17/2012 (hereinafter “Minister’sRegulation”), consultation meeting procedures such as listing
notifications of holding the meetings in local newspapers at least tendays before the meeting date were appropriately carried out whenholding public consultations with the Project Proponent etc.
(ii) Regarding Disclosure of Information
Moreover, regarding methods of information disclosure, according to
the Minister’s Regulation, it requires disclosure through TV, on theinternet, and/or bulletin boards when applying for environmental
permits as well as disclosure online and/or in mass media such as
newspapers when permits are issued. For the Project, we found that
disclosure was made via newspapers etc. at the time of applicationand on the internet at the time of permit issuance.
Therefore, we could not find that Grounds for Request A constitute a
violation of the Environmental Guidelines.
(b) Regarding Claim B (Para 4)(1) the legal effect of the Former Environmental Permits continued
until the New Environmental Permits were issued and the validity
relating to environmental permits was ongoing, (2) the West Java
Provincial Government issued the New Environmental Permits on July17, 2017, and (3) the initial court decision related to the legality of the
New Environmental Permits (the Second Judgement) reasoning thatthe issuance of the New Environmental Permits annulled the Former
Environmental Permits and at the same time was based on the First
Judgement, we could not find that JBIC’s financing violates the laws
and plans relating to the environment of the Republic of Indonesia.
(b) Regarding Claim B (Para 6)
courts in the Republic of Indonesia do not always specify in advancethe date that a decision will be handed down. Considering these two- Regarding the air pollution and damage to health, we believe that JBIC should makeindependent institutions conduct tests, rather than relying on a third-party organization which
could be close to the government or the project proponents.
●Insufficient verification- The Guidelines state, "sufficient consultations with stakeholders, such as local residents, must
be conducted via disclosure of information from an early stage where alternative proposals forthe project plans may be examined. The outcome of such consultations must be incorporated
into the contents of the project plan." On the other hand, the Examiners did not confirm orverify the residents' claim that "despite the fact that the residents explained their concerns
about the negative impacts on their livelihoods, the details of their concerns were neverincorporated into the AMDAL or the project plan."●Inappropriate analysis and conclusions- While referring to "disclosure through bulletin boards, etc.," during the online interview on July
6, 2022, the Examiners presented the Requestor with a photograph of the bulletin board notice
and asked whether the Requestor had ever seen such a posting. The Requestor responded
clearly that we had never seen such a notice. In this regard, the Examiners did not conduct a
proper analysis of whether meaningful disclosure of information had been made, rather thanmerely whether the disclosure was made as a formality.
- The fact that it is very rare for residents to purchase/subscribe to newspapers and that accessto the Internet is limited to a few residents has not been taken into account at all. In this regard,
our objection letter states that "Ministry of Forestry and Environment Regulation No. 17 of 2012
on Guideline for Public Participation in EIA and Environmental Permit stipulates theannouncement methods not only through the internet but also through notice boards at the
project site and/or activity that is accessible for the affected community."●Insufficient verification- The Requestor has informed JBIC and the Examiners that there was no proper disclosure of
information to the residents and even no consultation with the residents in the process of
issuing the new environmental permit. However, the Examiners have not conducted any factfinding or verification on this point.
- In fact, the residents, including the Requestor, received information about the new permit from
WALHI West Java, not from the provincial, district or village governments.

●Inappropriate analysis and conclusions- Instead of using the general standard of " not always specify in advance the date that a decision
will be handed down," the Examiners' decision should be based on what happened in the lawsuit
3

facts, this statement by the Requestors does not influence the above
conclusion.

(c) Regarding Grounds for Request C (Para 3)
it is clear that variations exist due to social and geographicalconditions because environmental regulation standards are not set atas threshold values above which damage to health would occur as well
as because there are no absolute standards globally common.
(c) Regarding Grounds for Request C (Para 3)
viewed from the perspective of comity based on respect for thesovereignty of the Republic of Indonesia, it cannot be said that there isa problem with the above decision made by JBIC.
(c) Regarding Grounds for Request C (Para 3)(Moreover, the Cirebon Project Unit 1, which precedes the Project, farfrom that, was highly praised by the competent authority the Ministryof Environment and Forestry for gradually reducing toxic substances
through the deployment of even more advanced technology thanpreviously.)(d) Regarding Claim E (Para 2)
the Examiners acknowledged that JBIC, in its environmental reviews
prior to the start of construction of the Project, had recognized thepossibility that there was a discrepancy between the spatial plan - theground of the Project - and the content of the Project but had deemed
it not necessary to seek the opinions of concerned organizations andstakeholders based on that environmental permits had been obtainedin accordance with the environmental laws and standards of the hostnation and local governments concerned,(d) Regarding Claim E (Para 3)
it can be said that the issue of the Bandung Administrative Court
judgement on April 19, 2017 (the First Judgement), that the Former
Environmental Permits were illegal was remedied by the issuance of
the New Environmental Permits based on that judgement (see theSecond Judgement). In addition, as mentioned above, the Project
Proponent and JBIC followed the intent clarified by a competentpertaining to this case. In this case, the judgment date was made known to the parties involvedin the lawsuit, and naturally the project proponent should have been aware of it. Since the loan
agreement was concluded on April 18, 2017, JBIC should naturally have confirmed the provisions
related to environmental and social considerations included in the contents of that agreement. If
JBIC did not confirm the progress of the lawsuit, or if the project proponent did not inform JBIC
of the judgment date, it can only be said that both parties disregarded the environmental andsocial considerations related to this project.
●Inappropriate analysis and conclusions- It is our understanding that the standards are set because exceeding the standards does not
immediately cause health hazards, but may lead to health hazards in the long term. Whether inJapan or in Indonesia, the same human health is involved, and therefore, from the perspective ofprevention, standards related to health should be handled in accordance with good practices.
●Lack of respect for the objections, claims, and testimony of residents- Although the JBIC emphasizes the comity based on respect for the sovereignty of the Republicof Indonesia, is it not important to respect the rights of residents in the objection procedures of
the JBIC Guidelines, which examines objections related to damage suffered by residents?
●Insufficient information/explanation- At least we have not received any explanation that more advanced technology is being utilizedin Unit 1 than previously. The information and data obtained by the Examiners should bepresented as documentation of what advanced technologies are being used and how emissionsof hazardous substances are being reduced. A " List of materials that served as Basis for
Judgment of Examiners " is not sufficient.
●Inappropriate analysis and conclusions- If JBIC was aware of the possibility of discrepancies between the spatial plan and the project
details, it should seek objective opinions from third parties even further, rather than making
decisions based solely on the opinions and actions of a government agency.
- Most of the government's opinions have not been verified by facts on the ground, so in thiscase we believe it is still important for JBIC to seek opinions from independent experts in spatialplan in Indonesia.

●Inappropriate analysis and conclusions- Although it states that "JBIC took all reasonable measures," JBIC clearly did not take any
reasonably possible steps to obtain information on the date of the judgment, which was the day
before the date of the loan agreement for this project, during the decision-making process
leading to the loan decision, including the environmental review. The date of judgment (April 19,2017) was made known in advance to those involved in the lawsuit. If JBIC had sincerely
intended to confirm compliance with the Guidelines, it could have sought opinions and4national agency, and JBIC took all reasonable measures. Therefore,
viewed from the perspective of comity based on respect for thesovereignty of the Republic of Indonesia, it cannot be said that there isa problem with the above decision made by JBIC.

(e) Regarding Grounds for Request F (Para 2)
the Project Proponent has installed fishing reefs and provided fishingnets to local fishermen. In addition, the Project Proponent wasrecognized for implementing a wide variety of CSR programs forresidents, such as mangrove protection and conservation activities,
microfinance, vocational training, life and accident insurance, and freehealth check-ups.
(e) Regarding Grounds for Request F (Para 2)
according to interviews with local residents by JBIC and on-site
inspections by the Examiners, CSR programs by the Project Proponent
are recognized as contributing to and becoming important activities
for local communities. Also, the programs were highly acclaimed in a
CSR program assessment survey conducted by a third-party
organization.

(e) Regarding Grounds for Request F (Para 3)
although the Examiners confirmed that there are residents who have
not received the CSR program benefits provided by the Project
Proponent, the receipt of CSR program benefits is not the obligation of
the target residents, so even if some of the subjects of the CSR
programs, including the Requesters, did not receive benefits, theabove conclusion will not be affected.
(f) Other (Para 2)
Whether the statement that the Project Proponent provided bribes togovernment officials is true or false is uncertain, and any relevance of

information from stakeholders, including the project proponent and relevant agencies, residents,
NGOs, etc. The fact that JBIC did not properly confirm the progress of the lawsuit can only bedescribed as a disregard for the environmental and social considerations related to this project.
●Lack of respect for the objections, claims, and testimony of residents- Although the JBIC emphasizes the comity based on respect for the sovereignty of the Republicof Indonesia, is it not important to respect the rights of residents in the objection procedures of
the JBIC Guidelines, which examines objections related to damage suffered by residents?
●Insufficient verification- Compliance with the Guidelines should be verified not in terms of the implementation ofvarious CSR programs, but in terms of effectiveness, i.e., whether the project propoments have
"improved their standard of living, income opportunities, and production levels, or at least
restored them to pre-project levels." In addition, data and information should be presented todetermine that such effectiveness of the program has been ensured.
●Insufficient verification- Although " CSR programs by the Project Proponent are recognized as contributing to andbecoming important activities for local communities," compliance with the Guidelines should beverified with respect to whether the program has "improved their standard of living, income
opportunities, and production levels, or at least restored them to pre-project levels." The
Requestor have informed JBIC and the Examiners that there has been no recovery or
improvement in the fishing grounds and catches of small-scale fishermen. However, theExaminers have not conducted any verification in this regard.
●Insufficient information/explanation- The name of the third-party organization, the date the report was prepared, the figures andsurvey method described within the report, and detailed survey results should be provided as
documentation. A "List of materials that served as Basis for Judgment of Examiners" is not
sufficient.
●Insufficient verification- Compliance with the Guidelines should be verified not in terms of whether or not the CSR
program was received, but in terms of its effectiveness i.e., whether the project propoments
have "improved their standard of living, income opportunities, and production levels, or at least
restored them to pre-project levels.".

●Insufficient information/explanation- With regard to the bribery, the Report states only that " true or false is uncertain ", but theRequestor informed the Examiners that the Corruption Eradication Commission, an independent
5

this statement based on the Environmental Guidelines cannot befound.

(f) Other (Para 3)
along with the progress of the construction of the Project, thefishermen who were operating near the Project site are moving to themouth of the river on the east side of the Project site. Therefore, withregard to that fish catches near the mouth of the river are expected todecrease when the Project is completed, we could not find theoccurrence or the likelihood of such actual damage.

(f) Other (Para 4)
regarding the statement of the smell of chlorine due to inadequate
wastewater treatment in the site of the Cirebon Project Unit 1, andpolluting the sea, such as the discharge of wastewater into theseawater and the foaming of the seawater, we could not find suchfacts according to the statistical data on the state of seawaterpollution and the on-site inspection by the Examiners.

(3) Agreement between the parties on the encouragement of
dialogues and record of dialogues held between the parties
a. Date of dialogue promotion: April 13, 2016b. Content of dialogue: Explanation of the content of the CSR
programs, etc.

agency of the Indonesian government, is investigating the bribery. The Examiners should havedescribed such important information as well in the Report.
●Insufficient understanding- The Requestor provided the information because the said bribery is allegedly related to thepermit for the Project, which is also related to compliance with the Guidelines. It is simply a lackof the Examiners' understanding for the Examiners to state "any relevance of this statement
based on the Environmental Guidelines cannot be found."●Insufficient understanding- Due to the reduced catch in the vicinity of PLTU 1 and PLTU 2 and the impact on access tofishing grounds, small-scale fishermen who do not have boats have to go to the coastal areas inCirebon City (west side) and near the mouth of the river in Kalibangka, Pangarengan Village,
Pangenang District (east side), either by spending money on transportation or by swimming for along time. The Requestor emphatically informed the Examiners of such current situation.
However, this point is not mentioned at all in the Report. On the other hand, the fact that theReport only addresses the possibility of reduced catches near Kalibangka, as shown on the left
column, makes us question whether the Examiners fully and adequately understands the issues
that the Requestor is claiming.
●Insufficient information/explanation- It should have been explained what statistical data the Examiners reviewed and how the
Examiners drawn conclusions about the smell of chlorine and the discharge of wastewater/the
foaming of seawater.
●Inappropriate analysis and conclusions- Can the smell of chlorine and the discharge of wastewater into seawater/foaming of seawater
be judged solely on the basis of statistical data? In addition, since the smell of chlorine andfoaming of seawater do not occur constantly (24 hours a day), it is not possible to draw
conclusions from the on-site inspection by the examiner, which is a short inspection.
●Insufficient understanding- The meeting held in Bandung on April 13, 2016 was an AMDAL-related meeting and not a meeting
between the parties.
- Regarding the meeting with the project proponent, our objection letter states the following. It isquestionable whether the Examiners have a firm understanding of the contents of our objection
letter.
“As we already had experience no response from PT. CEP to our statement, we have tried to tellour concerns to Marubeni, one of the investors in PT. CEP and PT. CEPR, through an NGO, Wahana
Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI). WALHI had a meeting with Marubeni on May 18, 2016 in
Tokyo and explained our concerns and problems which we have already experienced from theUnit 1 Project and will experience from the Unit 2 Project in the near future. But Marubeni showed
the different view or recognition from ours on the facts we have raised about the Unit 1 and the6Unit 2 projects.”(Signed by the Requesters/Residents affected by Cirebon 2 coal-fired power plant)7