2015年-世界发展银行全球_Institutional_and_Regulatory_Assessment_of_the_Extractive_Industries_in_Myanmar_167页_92mb

Institutional and Regulatory Assessment of the Extractive Industries in Myanmar

Core Content

This report provides an institutional and regulatory assessment of the extractive industries in Myanmar, including the oil and gas, mining (including jade and gemstones), and hydropower sectors. It is an input to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) in Myanmar and highlights the current governance framework, challenges, and opportunities for reform.

Main Sectors and Governance Structure

Mining Sector

• Institutional Setup: The Ministry of Mines (MOM) oversees the sector, managing six State Economic Enterprises (SEEs) and two administrative departments.
• Key Statistics:
  • Estimated export value of minerals in 2013/2014: US$1,150.2 million.
  • Recorded jade exports in 2013/2014: US$1,011.6 million.
  • Gemstone production in 2013/2014: 17,286,64 carats.
  • Myanmar Gem Emporium sales in 2014: US$3.4 billion.
• Regulatory Issues:
  • Poor data quality and limited availability.
  • No formal mining cadastre system.
  • 139 large-scale and 1,315 small-scale mining licenses exist, but validity and ownership remain unclear.
  • Artisanal (subsistence) mining is widespread, with 24 permits, but lacks regulatory oversight and is associated with environmental harm.
  • Over 50% of jade in Kachin State is estimated to be smuggled to China.
  • Security of tenure and high upfront costs deter foreign investment.
• Community and Environmental Concerns:
  • Lack of community engagement, environmental degradation, and forced relocations are well-documented.
  • Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) are not widely available, but new legal frameworks are under development.
  • Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) have documented key issues with specific projects.

Oil and Gas Sector

• Institutional Setup:
  • Managed by the Ministry of Energy (MOE), which includes the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE), Myanmar Petrochemical Enterprise (MPE), and Myanmar Petroleum Products Enterprise (MPPE).
  • The legal framework is outdated, with the Petroleum Act dating back to 1934. A new Petroleum Bill is under discussion.
• Key Statistics:
  • Crude oil production (July 2013–June 2014): 6.2 million barrels.
  • Natural gas production: 500,190 million cubic feet.
  • Offshore fields supply gas for the Shwe, Yadana, and Yetagun pipelines.
  • Shwe Gas pipeline began production in 2013, Yadana in 1998, and Yetagun in 2000.
• Recent Developments:
  • 36 new oil and gas blocks were awarded in 2013–14, including Shell, Eni, Statoil, BG, and Woodside.
  • Concerns over beneficial ownership transparency in recent bid rounds.
  • Tax payments go to the Internal Revenue Department (IRD), while non-tax payments (e.g., royalties) are directed to MOGE.
  • Use of foreign accounts is permitted, raising transparency concerns.

Hydropower Sector

• Institutional Setup:
  • Governed by the Ministry of Electric Power (MOEP), which includes the Department of Hydropower Planning, the Department of Hydropower Implementation, and the Hydropower Generation Enterprise (HPGE).
  • A new Electricity Law and Electricity Regulatory Commission are under development.
• Key Statistics:
  • Total hydro capacity increased to 2,780 MW in 2013.
  • Shweli 1 and Dapein 1 are operational, with Shweli 1 generating electricity in significant commercial quantities.
  • Seven projects on the Ayeyarwaddy River are suspended, including the Myitsone dam.
  • Potential value of annual hydro production: US$15 billion (41 GW) if all FDI projects are approved.
• Challenges:
  • Limited data on river usage and hydro projects.
  • GOUM aims to make hydro the main domestic power source by 2030.
  • Revenue from hydro projects is managed through Chinese Joint Venture (JV) companies, with taxes paid via the Export Import Bank of China.

Key Issues and Challenges

• Weak Institutional Framework: The extractive industries operate within a framework of limited information and poor coordination between government, companies, and civil society.
• Legacy of Military Rule: The military still holds 25% of parliamentary seats, influencing resource governance.
• Data Gaps: There are significant gaps in data availability, especially in self-administered areas and contested regions.
• Transparency and Accountability: EITI requires greater transparency, particularly in contract management and beneficial ownership.
• Community and Environmental Impact: There are documented cases of environmental degradation, lack of community engagement, and social conflicts.
• Inter-Governmental Coordination: Coordination between ministries and SEEs is weak, with some operating on a self-funded basis.
• Use of Other Accounts: Multiple off-budget accounts exist, raising concerns about transparency and the need for integration into the formal budget process.

Role of Civil Society and EITI

• Civil Society Engagement: CSOs have been active in documenting issues related to extractive industries, and the Myanmar Alliance for Transparency and Accountability (MATA) has been established to support EITI.
• EITI Implementation: The EITI Multi-Stakeholder Group (MSG) plays a central role in the governance of the extractive industries, and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is expected to contribute to EITI reporting.
• Need for Reform: The report highlights the need for institutional strengthening, improved data collection, and enhanced transparency in contracts and beneficial ownership.

Conclusion

The report outlines the current institutional and regulatory landscape of Myanmar's extractive industries, identifying key areas for reform. It emphasizes the importance of EITI in promoting transparency, accountability, and sustainable resource management, while also highlighting the challenges posed by historical governance structures, data gaps, and community concerns. The findings can inform broader efforts to improve natural resource governance and support the development of fair and inclusive policies.