Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Menarik FDI vs Kepretan di Masela









Bisnis Indonesia, 21 Oktober 2015 (original link)

Bisnis.com, JAKARTA - Indonesia sedang menghadapi perlambatan ekonomi dan pelemahan mata uang yang berkepanjangan. Pertumbuhan ekonomi Indonesia terus menurun dari level 6,17% di 2011 hingga 5,58% di 2013 dan hanya 4,7% pada semester I/2015.
Dibandingkan tahun lalu, mata uang rupiah mengalami depresiasi 13,1% yang walau jauh lebih baik dibandingkan Brazil (59,6%), Rusia (55,3%) ,Turki (28,4%) namun masih nomor dua terburuk di Asia Timur setelah Malaysia (29,7%).
Jurus yang disarankan Keynes dalam menghadapi perlambatan ekonomi adalah menggenjot pengeluaran pemerintah, mendorong konsumsi dan menarik investasi. Franklin Delano Roosevelt berhasil menjalankan resep Keynes untuk mendorong Amerika keluar dari Great Depression pada 1930-an.
Negara berkembang berburu investasi asing langsung (FDI) yang memiliki dampak positif jangka pendek dan jangka panjang. Studi yang dilakukan Tintin (2012) di 125 negara pada periode 1970-2010 dengan metode panel data menemukan bahwa di negara berkembang, penambahan 10% FDI akan mampu menaikkan pertumbuhan ekonomi sebesar 3,9% dan meningkatkan Indeks Pembangunan Manusia (HDI) sebesar 0,5%.
Dalam hal daya tarik investasi, pengusaha kerap merujuk ke Doing Business Index. Pada 2015, Indonesia walau naik tiga tingkat tapi masih hanya menempati ranking 114 dari 189 negara/kawasan yang dikaji. Adapun beberapa indikator yang menyeret turun ranking Indonesia adalah kepastian kontrak (172), perpajakan (160), memulai usaha (155),  dan izin konstruksi (153). Apabila empat hal ini diperbaiki  secara serius maka ranking Indonesia bisa melesat sehingga masuk top 100 dan meraup banyak investasi.
INVESTASI MIGAS
Sektor migas sangat strategis bagi Indonesia. Pada dekade ‘80-an, migas merupakan tiga perlima ekspor dan sepertiga PDB Indonesia. R-APBN 2016 menargetkan penerimaan SDA dan PPH Migas Rp133,3 triliun yang merupakan 7,2% dari total target penerimaan.
Cadangan minyak Indonesia yang terbukti  (proven reserve) saat ini tinggal 3,7 miliar barrel yang akan habis 10 tahun lagi. Masih terdapat cadangan yang belum terverifikasi di Indonesia wilayah timur, lepas pantai (off-shore) atau laut dalam (deep water) yang lebih sulit dan mahal eksplorasinya karena faktor geografis dan kebutuhan teknologi serta sumber daya manusia.
Sektor migas sangat membutuhkan investasi dan eksplorasi baru untuk menambah proven reserve dan meningkatkan produksi yang terus menurun, berlawanan dengan konsumsi yang terus meningkat. Indonesia sudah menjadi net importer minyak bumi sejak 2008.
Namun investasi di industri ekstraktif, khususnya migas, membutuhkan waktu yang sangat panjang (10--30 tahun), modal yang amat besar, tenaga kerja yang handal dan resiko yang relatif tinggi. Tak heran yang menempati posisi puncak kriteria investasi di industri ekstraktif pada tahap eksplorasi adalah nilai deposit, profitabilitas, kepastian kontrak dan stabilitas kebijakan.
KEPRETAN MASELA
Dalam 15 tahun terakhir, tidak banyak ditemukan cadangan migas baru. Blok Masela yang terletak di Laut Arafura sudah mulai dieksplorasi sejak 1998 tapi masih terus tertunda dan belum memasuki tahap konstruksi sampai sekarang. Padahal berdasarkan data Lemigas (2015), cadangan terbukti Blok Masela mencapai 10,73 trillion cubic feet (tcf) yang tergolong sangat besar.
Kepastian prosedur dan kebijakan yang menjadi penyebab rendahnya ranking Indonesia pada Doing Business Index terganggu lagi ketika rencana pengembangan lapangan yang sudah dikaji mendetil dan disampaikan SKK migas pada Menteri ESDM hendak dimentahkan oleh Rizal Ramli yang pernah maju sebagai capres dan saat ini menjabat sebagai Menko Maritim. Kejadian ini sangat menambah ketidakpastian siapa sebenarnya yang memiliki wewenang untuk menyetujui.
Pasal 90 ayat (c) pada PP 35/2004 tentang Kegiatan usaha Hulu Minyak dan Gas Bumi menyatakan bahwa adalah peran SKK Migas untuk mengkaji dan menyampaikan rencana pengembangan lapangan  yang pertama kali akan di produksikan dalam suatu wilayah kerja kepada Menteri untuk mendapatkan persetujuan. Sudirman Said, Menteri ESDM, sudah menyatakan bahwa berdasarkan regulasi institusinya tidak membutuhkan persetujuan Menko Maritim soal Blok Masela.
Berbekal data yang tertukar (kedua kali setelah salah kepret tentang pulsa pra-bayar PLN), Rizal Ramli berpendapat bahwa lebih murah biaya dan lebih bermanfaat untuk masyarakat lokal apabila fasilitas pengolahan LNG terapung (floating) diganti dengan konstruksi pipa 600 km ke pulau Aru serta fasilitas pengolahan LNG di darat (Land Based LNG).
Berdasarkan studi SKK Migas, pembangunan pengolahan floating akan menelan biaya US$14,8 miliar. Jauh lebih murah daripada pembangunan pipa gas dari Blok Masela ke Kepulauan Tanimbar (yang jauh lebih dekat daripada ke Pulau Aru) dan pembangunan kilang di darat yang mencapai US$19,3 miliar.
Riuh rendah dan polemik yang terjadi sampai memerlukan Kepala SKK Migas datang secara pribadi ke kantor Menko Maritim. Selanjutnya, akan ditunjuk konsultan independen dan kredibel level internasional untuk mengkaji dua opsi ini sehingga keseluruhan proyek akan mundur beberapa bulan lagi.
Pada sistem PSC (production sharing contract) yang digunakan Indonesia, biaya konstruksi yang dikeluarkan oleh investor menjadi pengembalian biaya (cost recovery) yang dipotong dari pendapatan bersih setelah migas dijual. Pada perhitungan awal saja negara akan kehilangan 60% dari US$4,5 miliar selisih biaya yang seharusnya bisa menjadi penerimaan negara.
Dengan asumsi US$1 = Rp14.000, berarti setara Rp37,8trilliun yang seandainya digunakan untuk berbagai program pendidikan, kesehatan, dan kesejahteraan akan nyata dampaknya.
Perlu diingat bahwa studi awal (feasibility study dan plan of development) Blok Masela disusun ketika harga minyak sedang tinggi.
Adapun saat ini harga migas sedang turun dengan penambahan suplai di Amerika dan Iran sehingga margin operasi semakin tipis.  Jika biaya dan ketidakpastian terus bertambah, bukan tidak mungkin keputusan investor untuk menanamkan modal dan menjalankan operasi di Blok Masela akan ditinjau ulang.
Apalagi di Australia utara terdapat beberapa blok gas besar milik Australia (Blok Gorgon, Itchis, dan Prelude) yang akan memulai produksi dan bisa terlebih dulu menguasai pasar bila produksi Blok Masela tertunda lagi.
Pemerintah perlu segera merumuskan sikap dan satu suara tentang Blok Masela dengan tidak mengurangi daya saing investasi dan kepastian usaha di Indonesia pada sektor yang sangat strategis seperti migas. Sudah cukup banyak masalah yang Indonesia hadapi saat ini.
*) Berly Martawardaya, Pengajar Ekonomi Energi dan Mineral di Fakultas Ekonomi & Bisnis (FEB) Universitas Indonesia


Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Natural resources: from curse to blessing


Indonesia possesses the 2nd largest oil reserves in South East Asia with 3.6 billion barrels, the world’s 14th largest gas reserves with 103.3 trillion cubic tons and holds about 40% of the world’s geothermal reserves.
Furthermore, it is the 8th largest gold producer in the world, producing about 100 tonnes/year according to the 2013 US Geological Survey, the 5th largest producer of copper and nickel, and the 2nd largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), after China.
 
This phenomenon shows a contradictory relationship between natural resource wealth and economic performance.
Intuitively, a country with rich natural resources could provide better prosperity for its people.
However, the opposite seems to be the case. The natural resource curse presents itself in four perspectives.
The first is structuralist. This perspective explains how a primary commodity export boom causes the currency to appreciate, making exports uncompetitive and imports cheap.
The second perspective concerns transaction costs. This perspective shows how the high volatility of primary commodities tends to increase transaction costs over periods of time.
The third perspective explains how a shift from entrepreneurialism to a more complacent natural resource-based economy takes place. And the fourth perspective concerns institutional failure; how weak government becomes unable to manage the output of natural resources, and cannot funnel the benefits of natural resources to boost economic performance and improve other social indicators such as those listed in the human development index (HDI).
The issue is strategic one globally, especially for Indonesia. Natural resources are not renewable, and therefore wisdom in usage is imperative. The academics and scholars Martawardaya, Basuki, and Hanafi investigated the role of a non-tax shared fund from natural resource extraction on economic performance and some social indicators.
They divided 539 municipalities and regencies into five categories based on natural resource richness, indicated by the shared-fund of oil and gas from the central government. The results revealed that a higher share of natural resource fund has no impact on driving higher economic growth in the municipalities and regencies classified into the richest 20% in terms of natural resources.
Subsequently, it was also shown that the higher the shared-fund, the lower the probability of the local government to get a qualified (WDP) and unqualified (WTP) audit opinion from the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK). This fact strongly indicates that the natural resources curse is true for Indonesia, a curse that is exacerbated by institutional weakness.
Several countries have been successful in getting out from under the curse or at least minimising the negative impacts brought about by the curse. Dubai is the poster child for a country that managed to take a long term view before running out of oil. Dubai invested its natural resource wealth into its people and diversified the economy into services and finance.
The government of Norway established the “Government Pension Fund Global” to stabilise the flow of oil revenues into the budget and invest it for future generations, managed by Norges Bank Investment Management. Similar to Norway, The United Arab Emirates also established the “Abu Dhabi Investment Authority” to manage natural resource revenues including surpluses from oil exports for the benefit of future generations.
Moreover, Timor Leste also runs the “Petroleum Fund of Timor-Leste” to support its fiscal stability.
These policies are well-known as “Natural Resource Funds” (NRFs). The funds from an NRF policy can be further used to cover budget deficits, to save for future generations, to earmark for country and regional-level projects, or to invest abroad to mitigate the risk of the so-called Dutch-Disease.
Indonesia is no longer as rich in natural resources as we were taught to think. The oil reserves will last only for another ten to 15 years. But the situation is not irreversible. We still have time if we move quickly.
Local government expenditure has to be allocated mostly to education, health, social protection, as well as capital expenditures.
As of 2013, the largest proportion of budget spending went to personnel expenditures (20.93%) followed by capital expenditures (15.97%), education and health expenditures at 10.26% and 1.52% respectively.
A local government blessed with high revenues from natural resources, especially in oil and gas, can afford to educate its people, hire the best minds to assist in diversifying its economy and strengthen local government services.
The national government could offer a helping hand by sharing the knowledge and practices learned from local and international governments to prevent the fall into the curse of natural resources. – Jakarta Post, October 13, 2015.
Muhammad Fadli Hanafi is a researcher at Article 33, a think tank focusing on Indonesia’s environment and extractive sector. Berly Martawardaya is an economist at University of Indonesia and senior fellow at ANP Insight

Monday, October 12, 2015

Natural resources: From curse to blessing

Muhammad Fadli Hanafi and Berly Martawardaya, 
Jakarta | Opinion | Mon, October 12nd 2015, 4:41 PM


Indonesia is blessed with abundant natural resources. During the New Order period (1966-1998), primary school children were taught to think of natural resources as a source of development. 

Indonesia possesses the 2nd largest oil reserves in South East Asia with 3.6 billion barrels, the world’s 14th largest gas reserves with 103.3 trillion cubic tons and holds about 40 percent of the world’s geothermal reserves. 

Furthermore, it is the 8th largest gold producer in the world, producing about 100 tons/year according to the 2013 US Geological Survey, the 5th largest producer of copper and nickel, and the 2nd largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), after China.

 Questions remain. If Indonesia is so rich in natural resources, why then are there so many poor people in the country? 11.2 percent of the population live in poverty, according to BPS’ latest survey. Our level of development is far below resource-poor countries such as South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. Some academics call this phenomenon the “natural resources curse”. 

This phenomenon shows a contradictory relationship between natural resource wealth and economic performance. 

Intuitively, a country with rich natural resources could provide better prosperity for its people. 

However, the opposite seems to be the case. The natural resource curse presents itself in four perspectives. 

The first is structuralist. This perspective explains how a primary commodity export boom causes the currency to appreciate, making exports uncompetitive and imports cheap. 

The second perspective concerns transaction costs. This perspective shows how the high volatility of primary commodities tends to increase transaction costs over periods of time. 

The third perspective explains how a shift from entrepreneurialism to a more complacent natural resource-based economy takes place. And the fourth perspective concerns institutional failure; how weak government becomes unable to manage the output of natural resources, and cannot funnel the benefits of natural resources to boost economic performance and improve other social indicators such as those listed in the human development index (HDI). 

The issue is strategic one globally, especially for Indonesia. Natural resources are not renewable, and therefore wisdom in usage is imperative. The academics and scholars Martawardaya, Basuki, and Hanafi investigated the role of a non-tax shared fund from natural resource extraction on economic performance and some social indicators. 

They divided 539 municipalities and regencies into five categories based on natural resource richness, indicated by the shared-fund of oil and gas from the central government. The results revealed that a higher share of natural resource fund has no impact on driving higher economic growth in the municipalities and regencies classified into the richest 20 percent in terms of natural resources. 

 Subsequently, it was also shown that the higher the shared-fund, the lower the probability of the local government to get a qualified (WDP) and unqualified (WTP) audit opinion from the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK). This fact strongly indicates that the natural resources curse is true for Indonesia, a curse that is exacerbated by institutional weakness. 

Several countries have been successful in getting out from under the curse or at least minimizing the negative impacts brought about by the curse. Dubai is the poster child for a country that managed to take a long term view before running out of oil. Dubai invested its natural resource wealth into its people and diversified the economy into services and finance.

 The government of Norway established the “Government Pension Fund Global” to stabilize the flow of oil revenues into the budget and invest it for future generations, managed by Norges Bank Investment Management. Similar to Norway, The United Arab Emirates also established the “Abu Dhabi Investment Authority” to manage natural resource revenues including surpluses from oil exports for the benefit of future generations. 

Moreover, Timor Leste also runs the “Petroleum Fund of Timor-Leste” to support its fiscal stability. 

These policies are well-known as “Natural Resource Funds” (NRFs). The funds from an NRF policy can be further used to cover budget deficits, to save for future generations, to earmark for country and regional-level projects, or to invest abroad to mitigate the risk of the so-called Dutch-Disease.

 Indonesia is no longer as rich in natural resources as we were taught to think. The oil reserves will last only for another ten to 15 years. But the situation is not irreversible. We still have time if we move quickly.

Local government expenditure has to be allocated mostly to education, health, social protection, as well as capital expenditures. 

As of 2013, the largest proportion of budget spending went to personnel expenditures (20.93 percent) followed by capital expenditures (15.97 percent), education and health expenditures at10.26 percent and 1.52 percent respectively. 

A local government blessed with high revenues from natural resources, especially in oil and gas, can afford to educate its people, hire the best minds to assist in diversifying its economy and strengthen local government services. 

The national government could offer a helping hand by sharing the knowledge and practices learned from local and international governments to prevent the fall into the curse of natural resources. 
_____________________________________

Muhammad Fadli Hanafi is a researcher at Article 33, a think-thank focusing on Indonesia’s environment and extractive sector. Berly Martawardaya is an economist at University of Indonesia and senior fellow at ANP Insight.