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-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-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-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-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
Top Related