KU-1282 PENGANTAR REKAYASA INFRASTRUKTUR

FTSL-ITB

FAKULTAS TEKNIK SIPIL DAN LINGKUNGAN

INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG

Lecture 2

Tujuan Pembelajaran

FTSL-ITB

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

Infrastructure for Economic Development

FTSL-ITB

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)

Empirical Evident (1)

FTSL-ITB

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.

Empirical Evident (2)

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.

FTSL-ITB

Empirical Evident (3)

Infrastructure stock per capita, 1990 (1985 prices)
10000

FTSL-ITB

1000

100

10 100 1000 10000 GDP per capita 1900 (PPP $) Sub-Sharan Africa East Asia and Pacific Latin American and Caribbean
Source: World Development Report 1994. Figure 1.

100000

South Asia Europe and Central Asia Middle East and North Africa

Empirical Evident (4)

Road Infrastructure vs. Income per Capita

FTSL-ITB

Energy Infrastructure vs. Income per Capita

Empirical Evident (5)

Water Supply vs. Income per Capita

FTSL-ITB

Telecommunication vs. Income per Capita

Empirical Evident (6)

USA - 1950 - 1988 PGNP = -3.39 + 1.24(LPR) R2 = 0.93 Cross section of 98 developing countries PGNP = 1.39(LPR) R2 = 0.76 Canada - 1950 - 1988 PGNP = 0.86 + 1.33(LPR) R2 = 0.88

FTSL-ITB

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

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

Apa artinya gambaran tersebut?

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

FTSL-ITB

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

Economic Growth & Infrastructure Investment

FTSL-ITB

GDP Growth (90-00) Investment in Infrastructure as per GDP (90-00)

0-4%

4-7%

Over 7%

Over 7%

Thailand

China Vietnam

4-7%
0-4%

Mongolia
Philippines

Lao PDR
Cambodia Indonesia

Source: Fujita et. al (2005)

Accumulated Reduction in Trade Costs Resulting from Infrastructure Investment, 2010-2020 (% of trade value)
Country/Region P.R. China Indonesia Malaysia Philippines Thailand Vietnam From Transport Infrastructure 14.0 25.3 11.4 15.6 12.1 13.2 From Communication Infrastructure 0.7 6.6 1.7 0.0 5.9 3.1

FTSL-ITB

Bangladesh
India Pakistan Sri Lanka Central Asia Rest of Asia

12.9
21.6 12.9 10.6 11.5 20.3

9.9
11.7 1.2 6.5 12.1 21.3

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

Poverty Reduction and Infrastructure

Poverty Reduction

FTSL-ITB

Growth

Service Access

Growth Determinants

Infrastructure

Access Determinants

Poverty 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.

FTSL-ITB

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.

Poverty Reduction and Infrastructure (2)

FTSL-ITB

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.

Infrastructure Financing
FINANCIERS

FTSL-ITB

STATE BUDGET

PROVIDERS

INFRASTRUCTURE
TAX PAYERS USERS

growth

Infrastructure Financing

FTSL-ITB

Skema Pembiayaan Infrastruktur

Fasilitas Inftarsuktur Publik

FTSL-ITB

Pinjaman Luar Negeri

Pendanaan Masyarakat /Publik

Proses Perencanaan dan Penganggaran

PEMERINTAH
BAPPENAS LEMBAGA TEKNIS
Department/Kementerian LPND

FTSL-ITB

PERLEMEN (DPR)

Departemen Keuangan

Proses Perencanaan dan Penganggaran

PEMERINTAH PUSAT

FTSL-ITB

PERLEMEN (DPR)
DEPKEU

LEMBAGA TEKNIS
Departments/Ministries Non-Departmental Agencies

BAPPENAS

PEMERINTAH DAERAH
BAPPEDA LEMBAGA TEKNIS
Dinas Biro

PARLEMEN (DPRD)

Infrastructure Business Process

BUILD
Provider

FTSL-ITB

OPERATE
Operator

UTILIZE
User

Government Private

Government Private

Community at Large Private

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?

Infrastructure Life Cycle Costing

$

FTSL-ITB

total cost
operating cost

min tot. cost

economic life

time

Infrastructure Costing

FTSL-ITB

Infrastructure Life Cycle Costing

FTSL-ITB

Infrastruktur & 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-ITB

Pihak2 yang mungkin terlibat

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

FTSL-ITB

Swasta
Lebih berorientasi pada keuntungan finansial Lebih efisien

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

FTSL-ITB

Hasilnya.
Tidak efisien Pengalokasian sumber daya tdk optimal.. Perlu subsidi (eksplisit ataupun implisit) Dll..

Faktor2 Penyebab Inefisiensi

Adanya kepentingan yang bertentangan (Conflicting objectives) Bercampurnya tujuan komersial dan nonkomersial Pengawasan yang lemah (oleh pihak yang sistem insentifnya lemah) Tidak adanya otoritas yang jelas Kurangnya akuntabilitas

FTSL-ITB

Lantas.
Perlu adanya keterlibatan Swasta

FTSL-ITB

Keterlibatan Swasta diperlukan untuk :

Meningkatkan efisiensi Transparansi Menciptakan iklim persaingan yang sehat

Alasan 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

Swasta tidak dilibatkan jika :

Sangat bernilai strategis Kepemilikan diperlukan untuk dapat mengendalikan dampak sosial Monopoli pihak swasta akan merugikan users

FTSL-ITB

Swasta tidak ingin terlibat jika :

Tidak ada kepastian inflow (revenue flow) Kemingkinan besar Pemerintah melakukan intervensi yang tdk menguntungkan Sunk capital tidak bisa dipulihkan

FTSL-ITB

Role-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

FTSL-ITB

Pola dan bentuk role-sharing akan berpengaruh pada :

Alokasi sumber daya yang harus disiapkan Pemerintah Tingkat pemenuhan kepentingan masyarakat

Implikasi Role-sharing
Case B
Tingkat Pemenuhan Kepentingan Masyarakat

FTSL-ITB

Case A

PEMTH SWASTA

Case C

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Tingkat Keterlibatan

Implikasi Role-sharing
Tingkat Pemenuhan Kepentingan Masyarakat
Case B Case A

FTSL-ITB

PEMTH SWASTA

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Tingkat Keterlibatan

Implikasi Role-sharing
Tingkat Pemenuhan Kepentingan Masyarakat
Case B Case A

FTSL-ITB

PEMTH SWASTA

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Tingkat Keterlibatan

Implikasi Role-sharing
Case B Case A
Tingkat Pemenuhan Kepentingan Masyarakat

FTSL-ITB

PEMTH SWASTA

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Tingkat Keterlibatan

Kebijakan Investasi Infrastruktur

FTSL-ITB

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

Kelayakan Finansial
Dihitung dari sudut pandang lembaga pengelola Yang diperhitungkan meliputi : biaya investasi, biaya operasi, biaya dana dan pendapatan Pada umumnya kelayakannya negatif

FTSL-ITB

Kelayakan Ekonomi

FTSL-ITB

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

SOCIO - POLITICAL SYSTEM

Value System Finance Welfare

FTSL-ITB

Goals

Maximise Financial Returns

Maximise Economic Welfare

Costs Appraisal Method

Revenues

Project Impacts

SocioEconomic Value

Financial Rate of Return FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT

Net Present Value

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

OUTPUTS

Financial Return to a Specified Body

Contribution to Social Welfare

Technical Assessment

Environmental Assessment

COMPREHENSIVE APPRAISAL

Kebijakan Investasi
Kelayakan Ekonomi

FTSL-ITB

2
Kelayakan Finansial

Bagaimana menarik Swasta ?

Kelayakan Ekonomi

FTSL-ITB

Kelayakan Finansial

Apa 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

FTSL-ITB

Tapi, ingat.
Kepentingan publik jangan dikorbankan

Kriteria Dasar Pelibatan Swasta

FTSL-ITB

True Partnership

Pelayanan utama (Core) tetap dipegang oleh Pemerintah Kepentingan masyarakat dilindungi

Optimal Risk Transfer

Perlunya pemahaman terhadap resiko Mampu memitigasi resiko

Lebih ditekankan pada Value for Money

Sustainability of Outcomes

Difokuskan pada kemampuan swasta untuk memenuhi kewajiban2nya Mekanisme finansial berbasis kinerja

Infrastructure Policy Road Map

Infrastructure Road Map 2005-2009

FTSL-ITB

Status
Done
On Going

Policy and Regulation Reformation

Sectoral Restructurization (Rearranging for Regulator and Operator) New Sectoral Laws New Implementation Regulation Improving State Budget Multi-year contract for priority projects E-Procurement to accelerate the procurement Implementation of Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) Infrastructure Fund (PT. Sarana Multi Infrastruktur) Risk Management Unit under Ministry of Finance

Done
On Going On Going On Going On Going On Going

Improving the Effectivity of State Budget Projects

Done Done
On Going On Going On Going On Going
Not Started

Government Support for PPP projects (Public-Private Partnership)

Guarantee Fund (PT. Penjaminan Infrastruktur Indonesia) Land Revolving Fund and Land Capping Land Freezing and Independent Land Appraisal Project Development Facility PDF to improve FS quality Guidelines of Doing Business in Infrastructure

Infrastructure Allocation Fund 2010-2014

Rp trillion
69%

FTSL-ITB

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

31%

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

Rp978 T Rp451 T

Private Sector
Gov. Budget Allocation

Source: Bappenas

Indonesia Infrastructure Fund and Guarantee Fund

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

FTSL-ITB

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

Rp

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.

Strategic Infrastructure 2010-2014

1. National Railways Revitalization 2. Capacity Improvement Primary road in Sumatera, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, dan Papua 3. Main Airport establishment dan pioneer flight Economic Competitiveness (efficiency) 4. Main seaport establishment and pioneer voyage 5. Capacity improvement on inter-island transportation 6. Sumatera-JawaToll Road establishment 7. Completion on 10.000 MW Power Plant, Stage 1

FTSL-ITB

Indonesia Infrastructure

8. 10.000 MW Power Plant Establishment, Stage 2 9. Optic Fiber Network Establishment 10. Basin/Dam and Irrigation Establishment to Support National Food Security 11. Flood Control in Big Towns

Basic
Needs Equality

12. Village Telecommunication

13. Internet for Education 14. Town slum solution by establishing flat/ multi stories housing
15. Improvement on Piped Water Network for Household to Support Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by Revitalizing Local Government-owned Water Enterprise

Public Private Partnerships (PPP) Book

Total Project Total Investment (US$ 000) Projects Ready to Offer
Toll Road 1. Medan Binjai (USD 129 mio) 2. Medan - Kualanamu - Tb. Tinggi (USD 476 mio) 3. Cileunyi - Sumedang Dawuan (USD 395 mio) Sea Transportaton 4. Tanah Ampo Ferry Terminal, Karangasem (USD 24 mio) Railway 5. Palaci Bangkuang (USD 740 mio) 6. Soekarno Hatta AirportManggarai (USD 700 mio) Potential Project 61 Project

FTSL-ITB

Project Ready to Offer

8 Project

4,518,000

Priority Project

18 Project

3,094,000

26,527,500

Water 7. Bandung Municipal Water Supply, Cimenteng (USD 54 mio) Electricity/Power 8. Central Java Power Plant (2000 MW) (USD 2 Billion)

TOTAL
Source : Bappenas

87 Project

34,139,500

Indonesia Infrastructure Fund

Indonesia Infrasructure Fund (PT. SMI)

FTSL-ITB

Minister of Finance
PP 66/2007 Juncto PP 75/2008 100% ownership

PT. SMI

Third Parties: Public, private sector State Owned Enterprises Banking

JV

JV

IIFF*
*Indonesia Infrastructure Financing Facility

Founder:
PT. SMI ADB IFC DEG

Local Government
Multilateral Organization (World Bank, ADB, etc.) Private Funds
Benefits of the third parties involvement: Increase the capability of financial sources

Other Private Sector Investors

Increase the reputation & credit rating

Absorb the expertise, experience & other resources

Indonesia Infrastructure Fund Framework Improving the capacity of Infrastructure Development Acceleration
Related Parties
Regulator: Government Bodies Project Owner: Ministry/Bureau Local Government SOE/LGOE BPJT etc

FTSL-ITB

PT SMI
FACILITATOR/CATALYSATOR for Project Owner & Investors
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
I

Goals
Job Creation

N
F R A S T R U C T U R E D E V E L

Poverty Reduction

O
P M E N T

Human Resources Development

Industrial Competitiveness Improvement

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

Distribution Improvement

diskusi

FTSL-ITB

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 masingmasing alternatif.

Tugas #3

FTSL-ITB

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