FTSL-ITB

KU-1282 PENGANTAR REKAYASA INFRASTRUKTUR

FAKULTAS TEKNIK SIPIL DAN LINGKUNGAN
INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG
Lecture 2
FTSL-ITB
Tujuan 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-ITB
Empirical 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 100000
GDP per capita 1900 (PPP $)
Sub-Sharan Africa South Asia
East Asia and Pacific Europe and Central Asia
Latin 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 - 1988
PGNP = -3.39 + 1.24(LPR)
R
2
= 0.93

Cross section of 98 developing countries
PGNP = 1.39(LPR)
R
2
= 0.76

Canada - 1950 - 1988
PGNP = 0.86 + 1.33(LPR)
R
2
= 0.88
By Queiroz and Gautam, Road Infrastructure and Economic Development - Some Economic Indicators
PGNP = GNP per capita
LPR = length of paved road per 1,000 inhabitants
Empirical Evident (6)
FTSL-ITB Apa 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-ITB
Poverty Reduction and Infrastructure

Growth Service
Access
Poverty
Reduction
Infrastructure
Growth
Determinants
Access
Determinants
FTSL-ITB
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.
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-ITB
Infrastructure Financing

INFRASTRUCTURE
growth
TAX
PAYERS
USERS

STATE
BUDGET
FINANCIERS
PROVIDERS
FTSL-ITB
Infrastructure Financing
FTSL-ITB Skema Pembiayaan Infrastruktur
Fasilitas Inftarsuktur Publik
Pinjaman
Luar Negeri
Pendanaan
Masyarakat /Publik
FTSL-ITB
PEMERINTAH








Proses Perencanaan dan Penganggaran
LEMBAGA TEKNIS
Department/Kementerian
LPND
BAPPENAS
Departemen
Keuangan

PERLEMEN
(DPR)

FTSL-ITB
PEMERINTAH DAERAH







Proses Perencanaan dan Penganggaran
LEMBAGA TEKNIS
Dinas
Biro
BAPPEDA
PARLEMEN
(DPRD)
PEMERINTAH PUSAT








LEMBAGA TEKNIS
Departments/Ministries
Non-Departmental Agencies
BAPPENAS
DEPKEU
PERLEMEN
(DPR)
FTSL-ITB
Infrastructure Business Process
Provider
Government
Private
Operator
Government
Private
User
Community
at Large
Private
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
$
time economic life
min tot. cost
FTSL-ITB
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

Swasta
Lebih berorientasi pada keuntungan finansial
Lebih efisien
FTSL-ITB
Pada awalnya..
Pelayanan sistem infrastruktur yang dikelola
oleh pemerintah melalui unit teknis ataupun
unit usaha (BUMN, BUMD, Perum dll)
Hasilnya.
Tidak efisien
Pengalokasian sumber daya tdk optimal..
Perlu subsidi (eksplisit ataupun implisit)
Dll..
FTSL-ITB
Faktor2 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-ITB
Lantas.
Perlu adanya keterlibatan Swasta
Keterlibatan Swasta diperlukan untuk :
Meningkatkan efisiensi
Transparansi
Menciptakan iklim persaingan yang sehat

FTSL-ITB
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
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-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
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
T
i
n
g
k
a
t


P
e
m
e
n
u
h
a
n

K
e
p
e
n
t
i
n
g
a
n

M
a
s
y
a
r
a
k
a
t


PEMTH
SWASTA
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Case A
Case B
Case C
FTSL-ITB
Implikasi Role-sharing
Tingkat
Keterlibatan
T
i
n
g
k
a
t


P
e
m
e
n
u
h
a
n

K
e
p
e
n
t
i
n
g
a
n

M
a
s
y
a
r
a
k
a
t


PEMTH
SWASTA
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Case A
Case B
FTSL-ITB
Implikasi Role-sharing
Tingkat
Keterlibatan
T
i
n
g
k
a
t


P
e
m
e
n
u
h
a
n

K
e
p
e
n
t
i
n
g
a
n

M
a
s
y
a
r
a
k
a
t


PEMTH
SWASTA
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Case A
Case B
FTSL-ITB
Tingkat
Keterlibatan
T
i
n
g
k
a
t


P
e
m
e
n
u
h
a
n

K
e
p
e
n
t
i
n
g
a
n

M
a
s
y
a
r
a
k
a
t


PEMTH
SWASTA
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Case A
Case B
Implikasi Role-sharing
FTSL-ITB
Kebijakan 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-ITB
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
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
Maximise
Economic
Welfare
Costs Revenues
Financial
Rate of
Return
FINANCIAL
ASSESSMENT
Financial Return
to a Specified Body
Contribution to
Social Welfare
Technical
Assessment
Environmental
Assessment
COMPREHENSIVE
APPRAISAL
Project
Impacts
Socio-
Economic
Value
Net Present
Value
ECONOMIC
ASSESSMENT
Value System
Goals
Appraisal
Method
OUTPUTS
FTSL-ITB
Kebijakan Investasi
Kelayakan
Finansial
Kelayakan
Ekonomi
1
2
3
4
FTSL-ITB
Bagaimana menarik Swasta ?
Kelayakan
Ekonomi
Kelayakan
Finansial
FTSL-ITB
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
Tapi, ingat.
Kepentingan publik jangan dikorbankan
FTSL-ITB
Kriteria 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-ITB
Infrastructure Policy Road Map
Policy and
Regulation
Reformation
Improving
the
Effectivity of
State Budget
Projects
New Sectoral Laws
Infrastructure Road Map 2005-2009
New Implementation Regulation
Sectoral Restructurization (Rearranging for Regulator and Operator)
Done
On Going
Improving State Budget
Multi-year contract for priority projects
E-Procurement to accelerate the procurement
Implementation of Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF)
Government
Support for
PPP projects
(Public-Private
Partnership)
Infrastructure Fund (PT. Sarana Multi Infrastruktur)
Risk Management Unit under Ministry of Finance
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 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-ITB
Infrastructure 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 projection
Rp.365.36 Tn (USD34.8bn)
Source: Bappenas
FTSL-ITB
Indonesia 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-ITB
Strategic Infrastructure 2010-2014
Indonesia
Infrastructure
Economic
Competitiveness
(efficiency)
1. National Railways Revitalization
2. Capacity Improvement Primary road in Sumatera,
Kalimantan, Sulawesi, dan Papua
3. Main Airport establishment dan pioneer flight
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
8. 10.000 MW Power Plant Establishment, Stage 2
9. Optic Fiber Network Establishment
Basic
Needs
Equality
10. Basin/Dam and Irrigation Establishment to Support National
Food Security
11. Flood Control in Big Towns
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
FTSL-ITB
Public 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 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 Airport-
Manggarai (USD 700 mio)

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

Electricity/Power
8. 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 Finance
PP 66/2007 Juncto PP 75/2008
PT. SMI
100% ownership
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
JV JV IIFF*
Founder:
PT. SMI
ADB
IFC
DEG
Other Private
Sector Investors
*Indonesia
Infrastructure
Financing
Facility
Indonesia
Infrasructure
Fund (PT. SMI)
FTSL-ITB
Indonesia Infrastructure Fund Framework
Improving the capacity of Infrastructure Development Acceleration
PT SMI
FACILITATOR/CATALYSATOR
for Project Owner & Investors
Human Resources
Development
Poverty Reduction
Job Creation
Distribution
Improvement
Industrial
Competitiveness
Improvement
Goals Related Parties
I
N
F
R
A
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
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-ITB
diskusi
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-ITB
Tugas #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