The Freeport Case, government's lost conscience
Tue, December 13 2011 17:09 | 2553 Views
Dr. (cand.) Dewi Aryani, M.Si
Dewi Aryani
Related News
The
Political and security situation in Papua is still heating up,
beginning with the repeated shootings spree at PT Freeport's employees
then protesting workers demanding for better welfare and most recently
that took the life of Kota Mulia police chief, Adjunct Commissioner
Otto Dominggus Awes and Brimob personnels. It seems that other persistent upheavals may still arise because until now no identity of
the ones who commit these atrocities are
ever revealed.
The turmoil in Papua (Freeport) has not just
happened for this time but along its 44 years of mining activities. PT
Freeport Indonesia in Papua has incised a bad record internationally for
Indonesia in respect with human rights, environmental destruction,
local communities’ poverty, robbery of the traditional rights, violence
and repeated murder of Papuans around Freeport -- all of which become
national and even international communities concern.
However,
the government has no administrative, systematic and holistic solution
to address these protracted issues. If we have to be honest, the real
root causing this chaos is about the Freeport's Contract of Work
itself, the state's fragile mining policy as well as the corrupt
administration system.
Contract of Work sided whom?
On
April 5, 1967, the Indonesian government and Freeport Sulphur Company,
through its
subsidiary PT Freeport Indonesia Incorporated (Freeport) signed the
First Contract of Work (CoW) which not only became the first generation
of CoW signing in Indonesia but also the basis for the preparation of
the Mining Act No. 11 year 1967 which was enacted in December 1967 or
eight months after the signing of CoW.
So far, PT Freeport
Indonesia has conducted two explorations in Papua, first in Hertzberg
mine (1967 to 1988) and second in Grasberg mine (1988-present), both in
Tembagapura, Mimika District. The exploration land which the government handed over to Freeport covers an area of 10,908 hectares for
30 years long contract, commencing from the first carried out
commercial activity. In December 1972, Freeport shipped 10,000 tons of
copper from the Hertzberg mine for the first time to Japan.
The
First CoW contains many fundamental flaws and is very detrimental to
the Indonesian side. In
mining operations, the government of Indonesia does not have the
proportional benefit to the enormous economic potential in the mining
area. Due to the lack of provision on the environment at the time, the
company had to dispose of tailings to Ajkwa River since the beginning
causing environmental damage.
Taxation arrangement did not
correspond with the settings in the Tax law that applicable for example,
Freeport is not obliged to pay the Land and Building Tax or VAT. There
is no obligation for Freeport to do community development.
Consequently, the existence of Freeport in Irian Jaya has no direct
positive impact on local communities.
Freeport also obtains
fiscal space, among others; tax holidays during the first 3 years after
starting production. For the next year for 7 years, Freeport is only
taxed at 35 percent. After that, the taxes imposed increased to approximately 41.75
percent.
We do not have accurate data on the amount of
production from the Hertzberg mine. In planning and the initial agreement, it seems agreed that this mine will only produce copper
(tembaga), and this becomes the basis why the initial location of
mining is called Tembagapura. Besides copper, the Hertzberg mine also
produces gold. Gold, which was originally assessed only by-product, it
later became the main product of Freeport. This is supposedly due to
the higher concentrations of gold and silver in minerals and deposit
that was found.
We're not too sure about claims of gold is a
by-product, because at that time no Indonesian follows the purification
process of concentrates. Moreover, in the early period of mining,
refining concentrates were done abroad, either in Japan or in America.
In addition, Freeport had not yet become a public company that must
follow the principle of good corporate
governance. Thus, it could be true that since the beginning Freeport
has produced gold and even silver, but not declared, or intentionally
hidden from the government.
In 1995, Freeport officially
recognized the gold mining in Papua, having previously (1973 to 1994)
claimed only as a copper miner. The total volume of gold mined during
the 21 years was never known publicly, even by the Papuans themselves.
Freeport
continued to achieve huge profits, until the first CoW was extended to
second CoW that was not renegotiated optimally. Indonesia did not have
the benefit comparable to the huge profits achieved by Freeport. The
provision of fiscal and financial subjected to Freeport was much lower
when compared with the prevailing countries of Asia and Latin America.
The
extension of second Contract of Work should have provided greater
benefits because Freeport had discovered the huge potential of
new reserves at Grasberg. The contract was extended in 1991, when the
first Contract of Work only ended in 1997. The second CoW has not been
improved much to provide additional financial benefits that are meaningful to the Indonesian side. The changes occured only in terms of
shareholding and in terms of taxation. Meanwhile, the amount of
royalties did not change at all, despite the change in the amount of
gold reserves. Grasberg gold has been the largest gold reserves in the
world ever discovered.
In the second Contract of Work on the
provisions regarding royalties or exploitation/production fees (Article
13), it explains that the royalty system in Freeport's contract is not
based on percentage of gross sales revenue, but from percentage of net
sales. Net sales are gross sales after subtracting the cost of smelting,
the cost of refining, and other Freeport expenses incurred in the sale
of concentrate.
Percentage of royalties based on the percentage of net sales revenue
is also classified as very small, ie 1 percent-3.5 percent depending on
the price of copper concentrate, and one percent flat fixed for
precious metals (gold and silver).
On the Freeport contract, the
amount of fixed fees paid to the mining area ranged between U.S.$0.025
to 0.05 per hectare per year for the activities of the General Survey,
U.S.$0.1 to 0.35 per hectare per year for activities of Feasibility
Study and Construction, and U.S.$1.5 to 3 per hectare per year for
operating activities of exploitation/production. These contribution
rates, in all phases of activities are very small, even very difficult to accept with common sense. With the exchange rate of U.S.$1 equals
Rp9,000 then the amount of contribution is only Rp225 to Rp27,000 per
hectare per year.
Meanwhile, regarding the supervision of the
mineral content
generated, none of the Freeport contract explicitly mentions that the
entire operation and smelting and refining facilities must be fully
carried out in Indonesia and in the supervision of the Government of
Indonesia. Article 10, point 4 and point 5 regulates the operation and smelting and refining facilities that are implicitly emphasized the need
to be done in the territory of Indonesia, but does not express
explicitly that it should be entirely (100%) to be done or be in
Indonesia. Up to now, only 29 percent of concentrate production has
been purified and processed in the country. The remainder (71 percent) are sent abroad, outside the direct supervision of the Indonesian
government.
In the Freeport Contract, not a single article
explicitly set the premises that the Government of Indonesia may at any
time terminate the Freeport Contract. Also even if Freeport has been
rated of making offenses or do
not fulfill their obligations under the contract, still Freeport may
at any time terminate the contract when they assess a mining business
in the territory of its mining contract is no longer profitable
economically. In the second CoW, Freeport mining area currently covers
an area of 2.6 million hectares or equal to 6.2 percent of the area of
Irian Jaya, if compared with the initial operation where Freeport is
just getting concession area covering 10,908 hectares. Actually
Indonesia can get a proportional benefit from its own mine. This can be
achieved if CoW that has been signed, among others, contains provisions
for a fair, transparent, and impartial state and community interests.
Apparently the government in the past, until now, is not able to make
optimum benefit.
Others may enjoy
In 1981 Freeport
Minerals, Inc has merged with McMoRan Oil and Gas, Inc and formed the
Freeport Minerals, Inc
with its main asset the huge potential of copper, gold and silver
stored in Mount Hertzberg. In 1987 Freeport McMoran formed a subsidiary
called Freeport McMoran Copper Company, Inc by selling 85.4 percent of
its shares to PT Freeport Indonesia Inc. In 1988 after the discovery of
Grasberg, the third largest copper deposits and largest gold mine in
the world, Freeport McMoran Copper Company, Inc. (FCX) registered with
the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).
At that time, Freeport sold 5 million shares (23.4 percent) through an Initial Public Offering
(IPO) and gained U.S.$3.31 billion. Then in January 1991, the
subsidiary changed its name to Freeport McMoran Copper & Gold Company, Inc.
The people of Indonesia should be aware of the
lessons and the folly of the sale of these shares. Natural resources
belonging to the state and people of Indonesia have been sold and
mortgaged by Freeport to
investors in capital markets abroad. From the results of the sale,
Freeport raises capitals and increases firm value that is very large.
AS the nation of Indonesia does not have a significant stake and so it
does not automatically participate in managing of the company, it
cannot enjoy the rise of capital gains and value. The people of
Indonesia are just spectators of pleasures obtained by foreigners and
colonialists.
The fragile mining policy applied by the government
reappears in the fifth CoW of Freeport. Despite the government's
bargaining position in the fifth CoW that has little benefit, but it is
regarded as fair for Indonesia as the owner of natural resources of
mineral mines that are managed by Freepot.
A shift of the second
CoW to fifth CoW obliged Freeport to transfer shares to Indonesia's
national side, providing the transfer of up to 51 percent of shares to
companies/individuals
nationwide in 20 years. The Indonesian government had previously
received 8.5 percent of the shares of Freeport in 1976 and to 10 percent
until 1998. The fifth CoW also determines, five years after the
signing of the contract, 20 percent of Freeport shares must be owned by
the Indonesian nationals. Terms of divestment of shares to the
government in general applies to all companies that signed the fifth
generation of CoW. However, at that time, most companies that signed the
fifth generation of CoW are still in the stage of general exploration,
unlike Freeport that has been in production phase.
The Freeport
shares to be transferred within the first 5 years was 10 percent
because in the past five years after the signing of CoW the company had
plans to invest heavily in Grasberg. It specifically hoped that
divestiture of provisions in the fifth generation of CoW could be
commuted. Freeport was
successful. The government then issued Government Regulation (GR)
No.20 year 1994 that permited foreign investment in full (100 percent).
The GR was issued in 1994, while the fifth CoW with the Freeport was
signed in December 1991, or three years before the GR No.20 year 1994
issued. With this GR No.20 year 1994, the government opportunity to join
a majority stake in Freeport has lost.
Furthermore, we noted
how the government acted deliberately harming the state by not taking
advantage of the opportunity to buy 10 percent stake, which was a
continuation of the divestment program of 20 percent stake in Freeport.
The Government gave the opportunity to the Bakrie Group. At that time,
the Minister of Finance has just approved an increase of Indonesia
share ownership from 9 percent to 10 percent. The Finance Minister
deliberately did not want the government shares more than 10 percent.
Because of that,
then Freeport has to sell their shares to the Bakrie Group. The
problem of shares purchasing by the Bakrie Brothers has been under
scrutiny from various quarters, including from the Attorney General.
Papua
impoverishment, the government seemed 'blind'
Poverty,
on the other hand, continues to occur in parts of Mimika. The welfare
of Papuans does not automatically winches up with Freeport's presence
in the region they live. In the area of Freeport's operations, the
majority of indigenous people are under poverty line and are forced to
live by scavenging gold remainings in Freeport waste. Adding to the
problems of economic inequality, Freeport's mining activities also
damages the environment and leading to massive human rights violations.
Timika even becomes home of deadly disease like HIV/AIDS and scores the highest number of people living with HIV/AIDS in Papua. The
existence of Freeport has also
left human rights violations issues associated with the actions of the
Indonesian security forces in the past and present which meet the
government negligence. Until now, none of the serious human rights
violations are followed up by the government even the government seemed
'blind'.
The failure of development in Papua can be seen by the
poor rate of human welfare in the District of Mimika. Residents of
Mimika District, where Freeport is located, consist of 35 percent
indigenous and 65 percent migrants. Almost all of the entire poor
population of Papua is Papuans, with revenues of the local government of
thus far depends on the mining sector. From the year of 1975-2002 as
much as 50 percent more of Papua Gross Domestic Product was derived
from tax payments, royalties and profit sharing of non-renewable natural
resources, including oil and gas companies. This means that the
dependency on the
extractive sector revenue will create chronic dependency and
vulnerability for the future of Papua regions.
In 2005 it can be
seen that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Papua ranked third of 30
provinces in Indonesia. However, Human Development Index (HDI) of
Papua, which is expressed with a high mortality rate of pregnant women and young children due to malnutrition problems, was at 29th. Even
worse, pockets of poverty are located in the Freeport mining
concession.
Government's lost conscience
Freeport has
benefited from the abundant of mineral resources in Papua. These
advantages have propelled Freeport from a landless and unknown company
into a giant mining company in the world only in a short time. However,
the change becoming a giant company should be presumably obtained by
any fraud, manipulation, corruption, political pressure and far from
commendable and civilized rules of business
and state relationships patterns. Facing such conditions, the
Indonesian government should be more confident in using a high
bargaining power to get the optimum exploitation of resources.
Indonesian is the owner of the property not 'they' who come here to earn
a fortune!
The government which has lost its conscience should
now be willing to take decisive measures against Freeport that clearly
violated the law. While the legal basis for it is available such as laws
on environment, forestry and taxation, it is the government goodwill
that can stop this act of Freeport. The first step is by conducting an
environmental and financial audit of Freeport.
The government
should not let this injustice prevails. Therefore, the next step is that
the government should be confident to review and correct the policies
and content of Freeport's CoW. The CoW with Freeport should be modified
in accordance with the
mandate of Law Number 4 Year 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining. This law
ordered that all CoW operating in Indonesia before the Act was
published, should be adjusted. Specifically, Article 169 item b in the
transitional chapter has mandated that the content of the Contract of
Work, with the exception of Freeport's Contract of Work, to be adapted
to the contents of the Act no later than one year since the Act was passed. And this is the command of Act. Therefore, the government should
be confident to change the contents of Freeport's CoW. The government
that does not execute the command of the Act is not feasible to be
maintained. (*)
*Member of Parliament of Commission VII from PDI Perjuangan
Editor: B Kunto Wibisono
COPYRIGHT © 2011