Kerugian Ekologis dalam Pembangunan di Provinsi Kalimantan Timur [Ecological Cost in East Kalimantan Province Development]

Margiyono Margiyono, Ahmad Fauzi, Ernan Rustiadi, Bambang Juanda
| Abstract views: 486 | views: 423

Abstract

East Kalimantan is one of the richest provinces in Indonesia that is blessed with an endowed of natural resources. East Kalimantan’s Province average economic growth during the 1990s and 2000s was more than 7 percent per year; the third highest human development index (HDI) in Indonesia and the environmental quality index (EQI) were also very good. At present, East Kalimantan Province experiences a contraction in economic growth up to -1.28 percent, even of ecological disasters also increases. This shows that East Kalimantan Province experienced a wellbeing paradox and sustainability paradox. Therefore, is very interesting to research with the aim of knowing the value of ecological losses, their impact on welfare and the causes of ecological losses. To achieve that goal, an ecological account method is used. The results of the study showed that the highest environmental losses caused by the extent of the critical land, followed by sequentially losses due to the exploitation of coal, natural gas, and petroleum. The ecological losses have corrected the welfare level to 76 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Other result of this study showed weak environmental regional regulation and enforcement. Finally, this study provided some policy recommendations to elevate the development of East Kalimantan Province or similar others region with the same characteristic, that is to rehabilitate critical land by using it to support productive activities. Moreover, critical land rehabilitation should be followed by structural transformation towards renewable resource-oriented economy and also to revise environmental regulations by implementing incentive and disincentive approaches

Keywords: sustainable development, natural resources, disaster, ecological account, regulation

Abstrak

Kalimantan Timur adalah salah satu provinsi terkaya di Indonesia yang dikaruniai kelimpahan sumber daya alam. Rata-rata pertumbuhan ekonomi Provinsi Kalimantan Timur selama tahun 1990an hingga tahun 2000an mencapai lebih dari 7 persen per tahun, indeks pembangunan manusia (IPM) tertinggi ketiga di Indonesia, dan indeks kualitas lingkungan juga sangat baik. Namun saat ini, Provinsi Kalimantan Timur mengalami kontraksi pertumbuhan ekonomi hingga -1,28 persen yang dibarengi pula dengan peningkatan kejadian bencana alam. Hal ini menunjukkan indikasi bahwa Provinsi Kalimantan Timur mengalami paradoks kesejahteraan dan kelestarian. Oleh karena itu, tujuan studi ini adalah untuk mengetahui nilai kerugian ekologis, dampaknya terhadap kesejahteraan, dan penyebab kerugian ekologis. Untuk menjawab tujuan itu maka digunakan metode ecological account. Hasil studi menunjukkan bahwa kerugian ekologis tertinggi disebabkan oleh luasnya lahan kritis, kemudian secara berurutan kerugian akibat eksploitasi batu bara, gas bumi, dan minyak bumi. Kerugian ekologis tersebut telah mengoreksi tingkat kesejahteraan sampai 76 persen dari PDRB. Hasil studi lainnya menunjukkan bahwa tingginya kerugian ekologis disebabkan oleh lemahnya peraturan daerah yang berkaitan dengan lingkungan dan penegakan hukum. Akhirnya, studi ini merekomendasikan bagi para pembuat kebijakan bahwa dalam upaya untuk meningkatkan pembangunan di Provinsi Kalimantan Timur atau daerah lain yang memiliki karakteristik yang sama maka perlu merehabilitasi lahan kritis untuk aktivitas yang produktif, diikuti dengan transformasi struktur ekonomi yang lebih berorientasi pada sumber daya alam yang dapat diperbaharui, serta melakukan revisi peraturan daerah tentang lingkungan dengan menerapkan pendekatan insentif dan disinsentif.

Kata kunci: pembangunan berkelanjutan, sumber daya alam, bencana, perhitungan ekologis, regulasi

Keywords

pembangunan berkelanjutan; sumber daya alam; bencana; perhitungan ekologis; regulasi; sustainable development; natural resources; disaster; ecological account; regulation

Full Text:

PDF

References

Buku:

Fauzi, A. (2014). Valuasi ekonomi dan penilaian kerusakan sumberdaya alam dan lingkungan. Bogor: IPB Press.

Fauzi, A., Sugiyanto, C., Gumiri, S., Patria, D., Kuncoro, I., & Jaya, K. (2014). Strategi implementasi pembangunan di Heart of Borneo (HoB) melalui pendekatan ekonomi hijau. Dalam Bustanul Arifin & Irsyal Yasman (eds.). Kelompok Kerja Nasional (Pokjanas) Heart of Borneo (HoB). Jakarta: Kementerian Koordinator Bidang Perekonomian Republik Indonesia.

Freeman, A.M., III, Herriges, J.A., & Kling, C.L. (2014). The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and methods. Third Edition. New York: RFF Press.

Giaoutzi, M. & Nijkamp, P. (1993). Decision support Model for regional sustainable development: An application of geographic information systems and evaluation models to the greek sporades islands. Aldershot, U.K.: Avelbury.

Rustiadi, E., Saefulhakim, S., & Panuju, D.R. (2011). Perencanaan dan pengembangan wilayah. Jakarta: Yayasan Pustaka Obor.

Samuelson, P.A. & Nordhaus, W.D. (1989). Economics. 13th Edition. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.

Tanter, R. (1990). Oil, IGGI, & US hegemony: The global preconditions for Indonesian rentier-militarization. In A. Budiman. (ed.). State and civil society in Indonesia. Melbourne: Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University.

Jurnal dan Working Paper:

Bronsteen, J., Buccafusco, C., & Masur J.S. (2013). Well-being analysis vs cost-benefit analysis. Duke Journal, 62 (1),603-1,689.

Clement, K., Hansen, M., & Bradley K. (2003). Sustainable regional development: Learning from Nardic experience. Stockholm, Sweden.

Costanza, R., Maureen, H., Posner, S., & Talberth, J. (2009). Beyond GDP: The need for new measures of progress. The Pardee Papers No. 4, January 2009, The Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future Boston University.

Eifert, B., Gelb, A., & Tallroth, N. (2002). The political economy of fiscal policy and economic management in oil exporting countries. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2899.

Fauzi, A. & Oxtavianus, A. (2014). The measurement of sustainable development in Indonesia. Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, 15(1), 68-83.

Kira, A.R. (2013). The factor affecting Gross Domenstic Product (GDP) in developing countries: The case of Tanzania. Europen Journal of Busniss and Management, 5(4), 148-158.

Lancker, E. & Nijkamp, P. (2000). A policy scenario analysis of sustainable agricultural development options: A case study for Nepal. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(2), 111-124.

Landefeld, J.S., Seskin, E.P., & Fraumeni, B.M. (2008). Taking the pulse of the economy: Measuring GDP. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(2), 193-216.

Posner, E.A. & Adler, M.D. (1999). Rethinking cost-benefit analysis. Chicago Jhon M. Olin Law & Economic Working Paper No.72 (2D series), University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound.

Rosser, A. (2004). Why did Indonesia overcome the resource curse?, IDS Working Paper 222, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, Sussex BN1 9RE, England.

Nababan, Y.J., Yusman, S., Bambang, J., & Slamet, S. (2014). Tantangan bagi pembangunan berkelanjutan di Kalimantan Timur menuju inclusive green economy. Masyarakat Indonesia, 40(2), 211-228.

Nijkamp, P. & Vreeker, R. (2000). Sustainability assessment of development skenarios: Methodology and application to Thailand. Ecological Economics, 33, 7-27.

Opeyemi, A.Y. (2012). Empirical analysis of resource course in Nigeria, National center for technology management. International Journal Economics and Management Science, 1(6), 19-25.

Wen, Z. & Chen, J. (2008). A cost-benefit analisys for the economic growth in China. Ecological Economics, 65(2), 356-366.

Yamani, A., Abubakar, M.L., Simarangkir, B.D.A.S., & Kristiningum, R. (2016). Analysis bioeconomy, growth and recovery stands felling forest based on local wisdom in Penajam Paser Utara Regency East Kalimantan Province. Jurnal Silvakultur Tropika, 7(3), S1-S3.

Disertasi:

Erlinda, N. (2016). Pembangunan wilayah berkelanjutan di Provinsi Jambi dan implikasi Model Jamrud. Disertasi. Sekolah Pascasarjana Institut Pertanian Bogor, Bogor.

Laporan dan Makalah:

BPS Provinsi Kalimantan Timur. (2016) Produk Domestik Regional Bruto (PDRB) Provinsi Kalimantan Timur menurut lapangan usaha tahun 2011-2015. Samarinda: BPS Provinsi Kalimantan Timur.

Nawir, A.A., Murniati, & Rumboko, L. (Eds). (2008). Rehabilitasi hutan di Indonesia akan kemanakah arahnya setelah lebih dari tiga dasawarsa?. Bogor: CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research).

Tappeser, R.S, Lukesch, R., Strati, F., Sweeney, G.P, & Thierstein, A. (1999). Instrument for sustainable regional development. The INSURED Project-Final Report (EURTS Report 9). Freburg, Germany.

World Bank. (2015). Kerugian dari kebakaran hutan, Analisa dampak ekonomi dari krisis kebakaran tahun 2015. Laporan Pengetahuan Lanskap Berkelanjutan Indonesia: 1. Jakarta: The World Bank.

Wesselink, B., Bakkes J., Best A., Hinterberger, F., & Brink, P.T. (2007). Measurement beyond GDP. Paper presented at beyond GDP: Measuring progress, true wealth, and the well-being of nations. International Conference, Brussels, 19 & 20 November 2007.

Artikel dari Website:

Fauzi, A. (2012). Ekonomi hijau untuk bumi. Diperoleh tanggal 29 Juni 2018, dari https://ekonomi.kompas.com/read/2012/07/07/02433372/ekonomi.hijau.untuk.bumi.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.