FTSL-ITB Infrastructure for economic development improves regional connectivity, reduces the cost of regional (and global) trade and helps reduce poverty. Infrastructure development can be highly effective to combat poverty.
FTSL-ITB Infrastructure for economic development improves regional connectivity, reduces the cost of regional (and global) trade and helps reduce poverty. Infrastructure development can be highly effective to combat poverty.
FTSL-ITB Infrastructure for economic development improves regional connectivity, reduces the cost of regional (and global) trade and helps reduce poverty. Infrastructure development can be highly effective to combat poverty.
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)
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