2. 2
Agenda
2:30pm: Welcome by Leith Doody (Consultant Team Member)
and introduction of Dr Luky Eko Wuryanto, Deputy
Minister in Infrastructure and Regional Development
of CMEA
2:45pm: Introduction of Dr Dedy Supriadi Priatna, Deputy
Minister in Infrastructure Affairs of BAPPENAS
3:00pm: Keynote Dr Hermanto Dardak, Vice Minister of MPW
3:15pm: Session 1 – Status of Indonesian Infrastructure Centre
- Prof Colin Duffield, Consultant Team Member
4:00pm: Session 2 – Establishment of Indonesian Centre for
Infrastructure
⁻ Ways forward: Operational issues; financial
model; Organization
⁻ Founding members
5:00pm: Discussion
5:30-5:40: close
5:45-6:45 Buka Puasa Bersama
6. 6
Session 1: Concept and status of Indonesian
Centre for Infrastructure
Moderator: Prof Danang Parikesit
- Prof Colin Duffield (University of Melbourne)
8. Progress and history
1. Concept of an infrastructure research centre proposed
(Parikesit, Black, Lea and Strang 2012)
2. Indonesian Infrastructure Initiative engaged UoM to investigate
the feasibility for the establishment of an Indonesian Centre for
Infrastructure Policy (July 2013)
3. Stakeholder meetings and special interest group sessions (Sept
2013)
1. Water supply and sanitation
2. Energy supply
3. Integrated metropolitan infrastructure, Commercial Transport
4. Regional, rural and social infrastructure
5. Policy, planning and procurement
4. Stakeholder workshop (Oct 2013)
5. Industry discussions and phase one report (Apr 2014)
6. Continued industry and governmental discussions
leading up to workshop 2 (July 2014)
9. Early Recommendations
• Should be a vehicle for supporting broad-
based infrastructure-led economic
development
• “Separate but close” to government
• Core focus – “value adding” through
enhanced sectoral skills and capabilities
• Membership base – strength in diversity
10. Findings from phase 1 of feasibility study [1]
• There is an urgent need for the establishment of a new multi-partner
Indonesian infrastructure centre.
• That sufficient broad-based stakeholder interest has been mobilised,
expressed and observed to support a solid recommendation that the
concept of a new institute meets thresholds of need and relevance
across the private sector, state-owned enterprises, government
organisations and units, and international financial institutions.
• The role and function of the proposed centre is separate to that
required for government purposes.
• The potential impacts and benefits of a potential institute are
seemingly large, broad-ranging and important, given the centrality of
infrastructure implementation to Indonesian economic and social
progress. By contrast, conceivable funds and resourcing needs for a
new multi-partner institute appear minimal, attainable and
manageable. This balance between impact and resourcing specifics
requires further investigation and clarity in the short term.
• There is strong support that such a centre has a broad based
membership involving input from industry, government and
academia.
11. Findings from phase 1 of feasibility study [2]
• The main activities of the centre include: project advocacy, research,
training and capacity building, and the development of lessons learnt
from past projects.
• There is a clear and consistent message that the centre should focus
on getting projects moving and that the centre should outsource
many of the tasks it has identified and prioritised (i.e. it has a role as
a clearing house rather than that of a research institute).
• The centre would be best located in Jakarta, at least initially.
• Infrastructure topics and themes to be covered by the new centre
would change over time and thus the centre needs to be flexible. The
need for private finance and an understanding of how to stimulate
this was consistently raised and social infrastructure was recognised
as important.
• Subject to further information and specifics, strong interest has been
expressed consistently across: the private sector; government
ministries; state-owned enterprises; and International Financial
Institutions.
12. Summary of findings from feasibility study
1. Overwhelmingly all stakeholders agreed that a well
constituted centre focusing specifically on progressing
Indonesia’s infrastructure development is needed. Some
differences of opinion have been expressed as to the
nature and focus of the centre but all agree that the
centre should be independent (albeit with a powerful
Patron) and not replicate the work being undertaken by
other existing organizations.
2. There was little support for a research led institute but
enormous support for an evidence led centre for
discussion that led to infrastructure outcomes.
3. The infrastructure industry sought a united voice rather
than division via sectorial interests.
13. Synthesis of core functions
New research
& studies
Professional skills
development
Knowledge exchange,
communication &
dissemination
Independent analysis & peer
review of plans, policies
Integrating &
supporting diverse
stakeholders –
Jakarta & beyond
15. Best option
Combined model that involves:
• A small secretariat
• Strong industry connections and engagement
• The ability to outsource to maintain independent research and add to
flexibility
• Member driven but with close allegiances to existing industry bodies to
avoid duplication
• An ability to drive the infrastructure agenda and where necessary
establish best practice
It seems a “Clearing House Model” may be appropriate
The objective and focus of the centre would be that of a peak infrastructure
body for industry and government to provide the necessary thought
leadership and advocacy to progress and champion Indonesian
infrastructure projects.
17. Confirmation of support
We seek to confirm in principle support for the establishment of a new
Indonesian Centre for Infrastructure from the following organizations.
• Government
• State-Owned Enterprises
• Private sector participants in infrastructure
• The financial market
• Provincial and municipal representatives
• Other
Who else should be involved at this stage?
18. 18
Session 2: Establishment of Indonesian Centre
for Infrastructure
• Operational issues
• Financial model
• Organization
Prof Colin Duffield (University of Melbourne)
19. Operational issues: Services
– A forum for networking
– Dissemination of best practice information
– Advocacy for infrastructure projects (based on
application and needs driven robust, practical
research and analysis)
– Independent investigation, research and
development
– Up-skilling through professional development
20. Operational issues: Activities
Forum for networking
• Knowledge repository
• Dissemination of knowledge
• Communication
• Events – some closed for
members only and some public
• Showcasing of ideas
25. Operational issues: Start up
Need to start with significant activities – demonstration of value added
Conceptual activities per annum during startup (years 1 to ~3):
Establishment of Board of governance and development of charter
Public event Monthly (at least 2 held in provinces year 1)
Member only event Monthly (at least 2 held in provinces year 1)
Convene first member taskforce
Commission two significant research reports
Facilitate at least three capacity building workshops
Undertake a major membership drive
Indicative estimate of start up annual budget US$1.2m
26. Revenue streams
• Initial start up budget – Aid and/or
sponsorship
• Membership fees
• Functions and events
• Fee for service activities, e.g. training
• Research grants and sponsorship
• In-kind services provided by member
organizations
28. Proposed membership model
(based on CEDA)
Membership category breakdown:
• National Members: Rp X , say 8 Trustees
• Provincial Corporate Members (incl Gov): Rp
X/3, say 4 Trustees
• Provincial Business Members: Rp X/6, say 2
Trustees (SME & NGO)
• Individual Members: Rp X/10, say 1 Trustee
• Honorary Members: Individual
29. Benchmark budget to CEDA
CEDA
Indonesian
Centre for
Infrastructure
Annual budget $3.08m ~$1.2m
Events
Public functions
Trustee only events
Conferences
Training
309 30
Memberships
National
Provincial Corporate
Provincial Business
Individual
Honorary
48
289
298
61
39
Target (range)
15-30
50-150
50-150
0-10
-
Membership fee $30k ~$12k-$30k
Appears as if there is strong potential to be self sustaining after startup
30. Membership fee arrangements
• Contributions for membership primarily cash
but consideration given to in kind support
• Government may procure research and
training directly on a fee for service basis and
be granted equivalent membership
• For discussion
32. Charter concepts
• All decision makers are trustees who represent their
membership organization
• Memberships to include private sector, public sector
and academic sector
• Trustee only events may be hosted by members but
venue hosts are not permitted to be speakers at their
event
• Value for all members is sought in setting agenda for
events and research
• Additional key items ………
33. Key discussion points
• Comments on the overall plan
• Importance of foundation members …… who
should these organizations be?
• Is the proposed start up budget reasonable?
• Is the membership target achievable and is
the structure of membership sensible?
• What should be added to the Charter?
34. Agenda
2:30pm: Welcome by Leith Doody and introduction of Dr Luky
Eko Wuryanto
2:45pm: Introduction of Dr Dedy Supriadi Priatno
3:00pm: Keynote Dr Hermanto Dardak
3:15pm: Session 1 – Status of Indonesian Infrastructure Centre
–Prof Colin Duffield
4:00pm: Session 2 – Establishment of Indonesian Centre for
Infrastructure Ways forward: Operational issues; financial
model; Organization
– Founding members
5:00pm: Discussion
5:30-5:40: close
5:45-6:45 Buka Puasa Bersama
