FTSL-ITB

KU-1282 PENGANTAR REKAYASA INFRASTRUKTUR

FAKULTAS TEKNIK SIPIL DAN LINGKUNGANINSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG Lecture 2

FTSL-ITBTujuan Pembelajaran

Tujuan sesi ini adalah memperkenalkan mahasiswa mengenai aspek ekonomi dari infrastruktur, baik dari sisi perannya maupun dari sisi kebijakan investasi.

FTSL-ITB

Infrastructure for Economic Development

• Improve regional connectivity• Reduce the cost of regional (and global) trade• Help reduce poverty• Help narrow the development gap among the

regional economies• Promote more efficient use of regional resources• Ensure inclusive and environmentally sustainable

economic growth• Help create a single regional market

(ADB/ADBI 2009)

FTSL-ITBEmpirical Evident (1)

• World Development Report 2004– On average, a 1% increase in infrastructure stock is

associated with a 1% increase in GDP. • Esfahani and Ramirez (2003)

– Applying cross-country regressions over the period of 1965-95 to a structural model of infrastructure and growth

• The contribution of infrastructure services to economic growth is substantial

• In general, it exceeds the cost of provision of those services.

– The potential of the effect for economic growth depends on institutional capabilities and organizational arrangements in infrastructure sectors.

FTSL-ITB

• Calderon and Serven (2004)– An empirical evaluation of the impact of

infrastructure development on economic growth and income distribution

– Panel data set of over 100 countries for the period of 1960-2000.

• Growth is positively affected by the stock of infrastructure assets

• Income inequality declines with higher infrastructure quantity and quality.

• Infrastructure development can be highly effective to combat poverty.

Empirical Evident (2)

FTSL-ITB

10

100

1000

10000

100 1000 10000 100000GDP per capita 1900 (PPP $)

Sub-Sharan Africa South AsiaEast Asia and Pacific Europe and Central AsiaLatin American and Caribbean Middle East and North Africa

Infrastructure stock per capita, 1990 (1985 prices)

Source: World Development Report 1994. Figure 1.

Empirical Evident (3)

FTSL-ITB

Road Infrastructure vs. Income per Capita

Energy Infrastructure vs. Income per Capita

Empirical Evident (4)

FTSL-ITB

Water Supply vs. Income per Capita

Telecommunication vs. Income per Capita

Empirical Evident (5)

FTSL-ITB

USA - 1950 - 1988PGNP = -3.39 + 1.24(LPR)R2 = 0.93

Cross section of 98 developing countriesPGNP = 1.39(LPR)R2 = 0.76

Canada - 1950 - 1988PGNP = 0.86 + 1.33(LPR)R2 = 0.88

By Queiroz and Gautam, “Road Infrastructure and Economic Development - Some Economic Indicators

PGNP = GNP per capitaLPR = length of paved road per 1,000 inhabitants

Empirical Evident (6)

FTSL-ITBApa artinya gambaran tersebut?

Pertumbuhan ekonomi (kesejahteraan masyarakat) sangat dipegaruhi oleh tingkat pertumbuhan ketersediaan dan investasi infrastruktur

Infrastruktur yang baik sangat diperlukan bagi mendukung kesejahteraan masyarakat

Kebutuhan akan investasi infrastruktur lebih penting pada negara-negara berkembangan daripada negara-negera yang telah maju

FTSL-ITB

Economic Growth & Infrastructure Investment

0-4% 4-7% Over 7%

Over 7% Thailand China

Vietnam

4-7% Mongolia Lao PDR

0-4% Philippines Cambodia

Indonesia

GDP Growth (90-00)

Investment in Infrastructure as per GDP (90-00)

Source: Fujita et. al (2005)

FTSL-ITB

Country/Region

From Transport Infrastructure

From Communication Infrastructure

P.R. China 14.0 0.7

Indonesia 25.3 6.6

Malaysia 11.4 1.7

Philippines 15.6 0.0

Thailand 12.1 5.9

Vietnam 13.2 3.1

Bangladesh 12.9 9.9

India 21.6 11.7

Pakistan 12.9 1.2

Sri Lanka 10.6 6.5

Central Asia 11.5 12.1

Rest of Asia 20.3 21.3

Accumulated Reduction in Trade Costs Resulting from Infrastructure Investment, 2010-2020 (% of trade value)

Source: ADB/ADBI(2009) , Zhai 2009)

FTSL-ITBPoverty Reduction and Infrastructure

Growth Service Access

Poverty Reduction

Infrastructure Growth Determinants

Access Determinants

FTSL-ITBPoverty Reduction and Infrastructure (1)

• The link between infrastructure and poverty reduction is most often indirect, and depends on the degree of “trickle down” and distributional effects of economic growth.

• Brenneman and Kerf (2002) – Strong evidence of positive impacts of infrastructure on

education and on health outcomes.

• Datt and Ravaillon (1998)– Significant variations in changes in poverty levels between

1960 and 1990 across Indian states can be explained by infrastructure variables.

– The better infrastructure and human resources lead to significantly higher long-term rates of poverty reduction.

FTSL-ITB

Poverty Reduction and Infrastructure (2)

• Deninger and Okidi (2003)– Exploring factors underlying growth and poverty reduction in Uganda

during the 1990s. – Improving access to basic education and health care depends on

complementary investments in electricity and other infrastructure.

• Fan et al. (2002)– Critical role of infrastructure development, particularly roads and

telecommunications, in reducing rural poverty in China between 1978 and 1997.

– Poverty fell because of the growth in rural non-farm employment that followed expansion of economic infrastructure.

• Leipziger et al. (2003) – Differences in access to safe water explain about 25 percent of the

difference in infant mortality between the poorest and richest quintiles, and 37 percent of the difference in child mortality. Similarly, the difference in access to sanitation between the poorest and richest quintiles accounts for 20 percent and 10 percent, respectively, of the difference in the prevalence of malnutrition.

FTSL-ITBInfrastructure Financing

INFRASTRUCTURE

growth

TAX PAYERS

USERS

STATE

BUDGET

FINANCIERS

PROVIDERS

FTSL-ITBInfrastructure Financing

FTSL-ITBSkema Pembiayaan Infrastruktur

Fasilitas Inftarsuktur PublikPembiayaan Pemerintah (APBN/APBD)

Pinjaman Luar Negeri

Pendanaan Masyarakat /Publik

FTSL-ITB

PEMERINTAH

Proses Perencanaan dan Penganggaran

LEMBAGA TEKNIS

Department/KementerianLPND

BAPPENAS

Departemen Keuangan

PERLEMEN(DPR)

PERLEMEN(DPR)

FTSL-ITB

PEMERINTAH DAERAH

Proses Perencanaan dan Penganggaran

LEMBAGA TEKNIS

DinasBiro

BAPPEDA PARLEMEN(DPRD)

PARLEMEN(DPRD)

PEMERINTAH PUSAT

LEMBAGA TEKNIS

Departments/MinistriesNon-Departmental Agencies

BAPPENAS

DEPKEU

PERLEMEN(DPR)

PERLEMEN(DPR)

FTSL-ITBInfrastructure Business Process

BUILD OPERATE UTILIZE

Questions:•How does the system operate? How do they do it?•Where does the resource (money) come from? Where does it go?•What justifies infrastructure investment?

FTSL-ITB Infrastructure Life Cycle Costing

total cost

operating cost

ownership cost

$

timeeconomic life

min tot. cost

(depreciation, investment) (maintenance, repair)

FTSL-ITB Infrastructure Costing

FTSL-ITB Infrastructure Life Cycle Costing

FTSL-ITBInfrastruktur & Pendanaan

• Infrastruktur melibatkan skala pendanaan yang besar dan berkesinambungan

• Diperlukan strategi pendanaan yang baik• Perlu strategi pemanfaatan dana yang tepat

dan optimal• Perlu melibatkan stakeholder terkait secara

optimal

FTSL-ITBPihak2 yang mungkin terlibat

• Pemerintah/Unit Usaha Pemerintah :– Lebih berorientasi pada pelayanan– Kurang efisien

• Swasta– Lebih berorientasi pada keuntungan finansial– Lebih efisien

FTSL-ITBPada awalnya…..

• Pelayanan sistem infrastruktur yang dikelola oleh pemerintah melalui unit teknis ataupun unit usaha (BUMN, BUMD, Perum dll)

Hasilnya….

Tidak efisienPengalokasian sumber daya tdk optimal..Perlu subsidi (eksplisit ataupun implisit)Dll..

FTSL-ITBFaktor2 Penyebab Inefisiensi

• Adanya kepentingan yang bertentangan (Conflicting objectives)

• Bercampurnya tujuan komersial dan non-komersial

• Pengawasan yang lemah (oleh pihak yang sistem insentifnya lemah)

• Tidak adanya otoritas yang jelas• Kurangnya akuntabilitas

FTSL-ITBLantas….

• Perlu adanya keterlibatan Swasta

Keterlibatan Swasta diperlukan untuk :

Meningkatkan efisiensiTransparansiMenciptakan iklim persaingan yang sehat

FTSL-ITBAlasan lainnya….

Pemerintah tdk mampu memberikan pelayanan yang baik

Berlebihnya pendanaan yang ada di sektor swasta

Swasta mampu mengelola secara lebih baik dan efisien

Swasta mampu memitigasi resiko

FTSL-ITB

• Sangat bernilai strategis• Kepemilikan diperlukan untuk dapat

mengendalikan dampak sosial • Monopoli pihak swasta akan merugikan

users

Swasta tidak dilibatkan jika :

FTSL-ITB

• Tidak ada kepastian inflow (revenue flow)• Kemingkinan besar Pemerintah melakukan

intervensi yang tdk menguntungkan • Sunk capital tidak bisa dipulihkan

Swasta tidak ingin terlibat jika :

FTSL-ITBRole-sharing

Beberapa Kemungkinan role-sharing dapat dilakukan antara Pemerintah dan Swasta dalam penyelenggaraan sistem infrastruktur, yaitu :

Case A : Peran Pemerintah 100% + Peran Swasta 0%Case B : Peran Pemerintah 80% + Peran Swasta 20%Case C : Peran Pemerintah 20% + Peran Swasta 80%dst

Pola dan bentuk role-sharing akan berpengaruh pada : Alokasi sumber daya yang harus disiapkan Pemerintah Tingkat pemenuhan kepentingan masyarakat

FTSL-ITB Implikasi Role-sharing

Tingkat Keterlibatan

Tin

gkat

Pem

enuh

an K

epen

ting

an M

asya

raka

t

PEMTH

SWASTA

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Case ACase B

Case C

FTSL-ITBImplikasi Role-sharing

Tingkat Keterlibatan

Tin

gkat

Pem

enuh

an K

epen

ting

an M

asya

raka

t

PEMTH

SWASTA

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Case ACase B

FTSL-ITBImplikasi Role-sharing

Tingkat Keterlibatan

Tin

gkat

Pem

enuh

an K

epen

ting

an M

asya

raka

t

PEMTH

SWASTA

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Case ACase B

FTSL-ITB

Tingkat Keterlibatan

Tin

gkat

Pem

enuh

an K

epen

ting

an M

asya

raka

t

PEMTH

SWASTA

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Case ACase B

Implikasi Role-sharing

FTSL-ITBKebijakan Investasi Infrastruktur

• Bagi pemerintah, kebijakan pengembangan infrastruktur sepenuhnya didasarkan pada kelayakan ekonomi dan ketersediaan sumber dana

• Bagi pihak swasta, keterlibatannya didasarkan pada kelayakan finansial

• Persoalannya adalah

– pengembangan infrastruktur pada umumnya layak secara ekonomi , tetapi tidak layak secara finansial

– pemerintah tidak memiliki dana yang cukup

FTSL-ITBKelayakan Finansial

• Dihitung dari sudut pandang lembaga pengelola

• Yang diperhitungkan meliputi : biaya investasi, biaya operasi, biaya dana dan pendapatan

• Pada umumnya kelayakannya negatif

FTSL-ITBKelayakan Ekonomi

• Dihitung dari sudut pandang publik (seluruh stakeholder)

• Seluruh komponen dampak yang dirasakan stakeholder, baik langsung maupun tidak langsung diperhitungkan

• Secara umum komponen dampak dibagi dua kelompok, internal cost (dirasakan oleh user dan operator) dan external cost (dirasakan oleh non-user)

• Analisis dampak dilakukan dengan membandingkan dua kondisi, “do something” dan “do nothing”

FTSL-ITB SOCIO - POLITICAL SYSTEM

Finance Welfare

Maximise Financial Returns

MaximiseEconomicWelfare

Costs Revenues

Financial Rate of Return

FINANCIALASSESSMENT

Financial Returnto a Specified Body

Contribution toSocial Welfare

TechnicalAssessment

Environmental Assessment

COMPREHENSIVE APPRAISAL

ProjectImpacts

Socio-Economic

Value

Net Present Value

ECONOMICASSESSMENT

Value System

Goals

AppraisalMethod

OUTPUTS

FTSL-ITBKebijakan Investasi

Kelayakan Finansial

Kelayakan Ekonomi

1 2

34

FTSL-ITBBagaimana menarik Swasta ?

Kelayakan Ekonomi

Kelayakan Finansial

FTSL-ITBApa yang harus dilakukan ?

• Perlu dirumuskan pola pelibatan swasta yang layak secara finansial– Biaya investasi diuasahakan (terutama

infrastruktur) ditanggung pemerintah– Pihak swasta hanya menanggung biaya rolling

stock dan biaya operasi

• Tapi, ingat….– Kepentingan publik jangan dikorbankan

FTSL-ITBKriteria Dasar Pelibatan Swasta

Optimal Risk Transfer

Perlunya pemahaman terhadap resiko

Mampu memitigasi resiko

Lebih ditekankan pada “Value for Money”

Difokuskan pada kemampuan swasta untuk memenuhi kewajiban2nya

Mekanisme finansial berbasis kinerja

True Partnership Pelayanan utama (“Core”) tetap dipegang oleh

Pemerintah

Kepentingan masyarakat dilindungi

Sustainability of Outcomes

FTSL-ITBInfrastructure Policy Road Map

Policy and Regulation

Reformation

Policy and Regulation

Reformation

Improving the

Effectivity ofState Budget

Projects

New Sectoral LawsNew Sectoral Laws

Infrastructure Road Map 2005-2009 Infrastructure Road Map 2005-2009

New Implementation Regulation New Implementation Regulation

Sectoral Restructurization (Rearranging for Regulator and Operator)Sectoral Restructurization (Rearranging for Regulator and Operator)

Done

On Going

Improving State BudgetImproving State Budget

Multi-year contract for priority projectsMulti-year contract for priority projects

E-Procurement to accelerate the procurementE-Procurement to accelerate the procurement

Implementation of Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF)Implementation of Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF)

Government Support for PPP projects

(Public-PrivatePartnership)

Infrastructure Fund (PT. Sarana Multi Infrastruktur)Infrastructure Fund (PT. Sarana Multi Infrastruktur)

Risk Management Unit under Ministry of FinanceRisk Management Unit under Ministry of Finance

Guarantee Fund (PT. Penjaminan Infrastruktur Indonesia)Guarantee Fund (PT. Penjaminan Infrastruktur Indonesia)

Land Revolving Fund and Land CappingLand Revolving Fund and Land Capping

Land Freezing and Independent Land Appraisal Land Freezing and Independent Land Appraisal

Project Development Facility – PDF to improve FS qualityProject Development Facility – PDF to improve FS quality

Guidelines of Doing Business in InfrastructureGuidelines of Doing Business in Infrastructure Not Started

Status

Done

On Going

On Going

On Going

On Going

On Going

On Going

On Going

On Going

On Going

Done

Done

FTSL-ITBInfrastructure Allocation Fund 2010-2014

Rp trillion

Estimated Fund Required (2010-2014) Rp1,429 T

Rp978 T

Rp451 T Gov. Budget Allocation

Private Sector

69%

31%

Total PPP implementation ability projectionRp.365.36 Tn (USD34.8bn)

Source: BappenasSource: Bappenas

FTSL-ITBIndonesia Infrastructure Fund and Guarantee Fund

1. Indonesia Infrastructure Fund (PT. Sarana Multi Infrastruktur - PT. SMI)

PT. SMI was founded on 23 February 2009;

Initial capital is Rp. 1 Trillion which is allocated from State Budget, ADB and WB are willing to inject US$ 100 M as Loan and US$ 40 M as Equity; DEG is going to inject US$ 20 M;

Indonesia Infrastructure Financing Facility (IIFF) is still under discussion now with related stakeholders

2. Guarantee Fund (PT. Penjaminan Infrastruktur Indonesia - PT. PII)

Based on Gov. Regulation No. 35/2009, Government of Indonesia allocated Rp 1 Trillion from 2009 State Budget as Government Investment;

World Bank agrees to provide backstop facility amounted to Rp. 1.5 Trillion.

PT. PII has been launched on 30 December 2009.

Rp

FTSL-ITBStrategic Infrastructure 2010-2014

FTSL-ITBPublic Private Partnerships (PPP) Book

8 Project

18 Project

61 Project

3,094,000

26,527,500

Total Project Total Investment (US$ 000)

87 Project 34,139,500

4,518,000

Projects Ready to Offer

Toll Road1. Medan – Binjai (USD 129 mio)2. Medan - Kualanamu - Tb. Tinggi(USD 476 mio)3. Cileunyi - Sumedang – Dawuan(USD 395 mio)

Sea Transportaton4. Tanah Ampo Ferry Terminal, Karangasem (USD 24 mio)

Railway5. Palaci – Bangkuang (USD 740 mio)6. Soekarno Hatta Airport- Manggarai (USD 700 mio)

Water7. Bandung Municipal Water Supply,Cimenteng (USD 54 mio)

Electricity/Power8. Central Java Power Plant (2000 MW) (USD 2 Billion)

Project Ready to Offer

Priority Project

Potential Project

TOTAL

Source : Bappenas

FTSL-ITB

Indonesia Infrastructure Fund

Minister of FinanceMinister of FinancePP 66/2007 Juncto PP 75/2008

PT. SMIPT. SMI

100% ownership

Third Parties:

•Public, private sector

•State Owned Enterprises

•Banking

•Local Government

•Multilateral Organization (World Bank, ADB, etc.)

•Private Funds

Third Parties:

•Public, private sector

•State Owned Enterprises

•Banking

•Local Government

•Multilateral Organization (World Bank, ADB, etc.)

•Private Funds

Benefits of the third parties involvement:

• Increase the capability of financial sources

• Increase the reputation & credit rating

• Absorb the expertise, experience & other resources

Benefits of the third parties involvement:

• Increase the capability of financial sources

• Increase the reputation & credit rating

• Absorb the expertise, experience & other resources

JV JV IIFF*Founder:

•PT. SMI

•ADB

•IFC

•DEG

•Other Private Sector Investors

Founder:

•PT. SMI

•ADB

•IFC

•DEG

•Other Private Sector Investors

*Indonesia Infrastructure Financing Facility

Indonesia Infrasructure

Fund (PT. SMI)

FTSL-ITB

Indonesia Infrastructure Fund FrameworkImproving the capacity of Infrastructure Development Acceleration

PT SMI

FACILITATOR/CATALYSATORfor Project Owner & Investors

Human Resources Development

Poverty Reduction

Job Creation

Distribution Improvement

Industrial Competitiveness Improvement

GoalsRelated Parties

II

NN

FF

RR

AA

SS

TT

RR

UU

CC

TT

UU

RR

EE

DD

EE

VV

EE

LL

OO

PP

MM

EE

NN

TT

Regulator:Government Bodies

Project Owner:•Ministry/Bureau•Local Government•SOE/LGOE•BPJT•etc

Investors:•Lenders•Local Investor •Foreign Investor •Multilateral•Private Sectors•Banking•Infrastructure Pool of Fund•PIP

Internal Capacity Building •Fund Management•Fund Raising•Development of the fee-based income, e.g.: Investment advisory

External Capacity Building•Identification of Infrastructure Project Priority •Inter-departmental Coordination•Partnership with other entities to form JVs specializing in the infrastructure financing •Direct financing to other legal entities, in the form of loan or equity•Partnership with other parties in the form of BOT or BOO•Socialization on the infrastructure financing activities

FTSL-ITBdiskusi• Masyarakat di suatu desa selama ini belum tersambung dengan jaringan

air bersih yang dikelola oleh PDAM. Untuk memenuhi kebutuhan air bersihnya, sebagian dari anggota masyarakat ada yang menggali sumur dan sebagian lagi menggunakan pompa air.

• Persoalan timbul saat kemarau panjang. Sebagian dari sumur mengering dan sedangkan sebagian lainnya, karena lebih dalam tidak. Begitu juga bagi mereka yang menggunakan pompa air.

• Untuk menghadapi krisis air, ada usulan dari sebagian anggota masyarakat untuk melakukan pengelolaan air bersama. Di lain pihak, ada usulan agar pengelolaan air diserahkan pada pihak investor.

• Diketahui bahwa di pegunungan di sebelah utara desa tersebut dijumpai mata air yang cukup besar. Ada pemikiran untuk menampung mata air tersebut dan didistribusikan ke seluruh penduduk desa. Persoalannya adalah dibutuhkan investasi yang tidak sedikit untuk menciptakan sistem air bersih bersama ini.

• Diskusikan masalah ini, apakah sebaiknya dikelola bersama atau diserahkan pada pihak Investor ? Untuk itu diperlukan identifikasi tantangan teknis, finansial serta sosial yang harus dihadapi untuk masing-masing alternatif.

FTSL-ITBTugas #3

• Untuk persoalan rencana pengelolaan air bersih di atas yang didiskusikan di kelas, buat suatu ulasan lengkap mengenai masalah yang dihadapi masyarakat di desa tersebut dan berikan alternatif solusi serta konsekuensi yang harus dihadapi jika memilih masing-masing alternatif yang tersedia.

• Tugas disajikan dalam bentuk ketikan sebanyak 4-6 halaman A4 dan dikumpulkan kembali pada tanggal 20 Februari 2012.

54