PROSEDUR OPERASI STANDAR (SOP) UNTUK

PENYIAPAN ANGGARAN

2

Reformasi Sistim Perencanaan dan PenganggaranBertujuan untuk mengimplementasikan:

•Disiplin Fiskal, yaitu prinsip untuk mengontrol kebijakan fiskal secara konsisten

•Efisiensi Alokasi, yaitu prinsip untuk memastikan anggaran dialokasikan pada kegiatan prioritas dan mencapai manfaat yang terbesar dari ketersediaan dana yang terbatas

•Efisiensi teknis dan Operasional untuk memastikan pelaksanaan anggaran dengan meminimalkan biaya untuk mencapai sasaran yang ditetapkan.

3

PERUNDANGAN YANG MENDUKUNG REFORMASI PROGRAM DAN PENGANGGARAN

1. PP-10 tahun 2010 tentang Penyusunan Renja dan RKA-K/L2. Per.Men. Menteri Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional

no.1/2011 tentang Tata Cara Penyusunan Inisiatif Baru3. Per.Men. Menteri Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional

tentang Petunjuk Penyusunan Rencana Kerja K/L4. Per.Men. Menteri Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional

tentang Kerangka Pemikiran Reformasi Perencanaan dan Penganggaran

5. Per.Men. Keu- Dit.Jen. Anggaran: Anggaran dan Medium Term Expenditure Framework

6. Per.Men. Keu. Nomor 104 tahun 2010 Review Pedoman PenyusunanRencana Kerja dan Anggaran K/L

7. Undang-Undang No.17/2003 tentang Keuangan Negara merupakan titik awal dari Reformasi dimana Penganggaran yang sebelumnya fokus pada mengelolaan input menjadi Penganggaran berbasis Kinerja dimana anggaran dipergunakan secara efektif untuk mencapai tujuan Kebijakan (MTEF)

4

TUJUAN DARI SOP

ADALAH UNTUK MEMBERIKAN PANDUAN TENTANG LANGKAH YANG HARUS DITEMPUH DALAM PROSES PENGANGGARAN BARU YANG MEMUNGKINKAN DJBM MEMPEROLEH MANFAAT LEBIH DARI PENERAPAN MTEF

• Dibawah Prosedur Baru Bappenas dari Kemen.Keu. melalui Prakiraan Maju berkeinginan agar proses Penganggaran dilakukan berdasarkan pilihan Kebijakan Strategis dari sekedar extrapolasi atas biaya kegiatan yang ada ke masa depan

• Kemen.Keu. Berkeinginan bahwa Prakiraan Maju/FE digunakan sebagai Dasar dalam Penyusunan Anggaran berikutnya. Hal ini memberikan peran penting dalam Inisiatif Baru dalam proses Penganggaran

5

STRUKTUR DARI SOPSecara Struktural SOP dibagi dalam dua tahap

1. Tahap Pertama meliputi periode Januari s/d Maret berupa Kegiatan Penyusunan Perencanaan Anggaran dimana DJBM mempersiapkan Rencana Kerja (Renja)

2. Tahap Kedua meliputi periode April s/d Juli berupa kegiatan Penetapan Biaya dimana DJBM mempersiapkan RKA-K/L

Setiap Tahap dilengkapi Langkah dan Sub-Langkap yang harus dijalani dalam proses Penyusunan Anggaran. Setiap Langkah dan Sub Langkah dideskripsikan. Lihat gambar dalam slide berikut ini

6

Presentasi Langkah dan Sub Langkah dalam bentuk Gambar

JANUARI-MARET TAHAPAN PERENCANAAN

RENCANA AKSI: MENPERSIAPKAN RENJA TAHUN 2012

LANGKAH 1.1 MEMPERSIAPKAN STARTEGI UNTUK ANGGARAN 2012 DALAM MTEF

SUBLANGKAH

1.1.1

KONFIRMASI TINGKAT PENCAPAIAN SAAT INI UNTUK SETIAP SASARAN DJBM

BACA LEMBAR PENJELASAN BERIKUT INI:

LEMBAR PENJELASAN 1.A: STRATEGI JANGKA MENENGAH DJBM

LEMBAR PENJELASAN 1.Q: Apa itu Indikator Kinerja - Renja

7

METODA PENYAMPAIAN DESKRIPSI YANG DIPERGUNAKAN DALAM SOP • Batang tubuh berisi Prinsip serta

langkah yang diperlukan dalam Penyusunan Program dan Anggaran

• Lembar Penjelasan Merupakan bagian yang tidak terpisahkan dari dokumen SOP ini, berisi penjelasan yang diperlukan untuk lebih memahami argumen dan batasan yang dipergunakan dalam Batang tubuh

8

Renstra

Performance

Finance

Budget

MTEF

9

What is this MTEF?• Different countries have different versions

• Bappenas MoF version is– Multi-year baseline budget estimates

(forward estimates)– New Initiative process for altering the

baseline estimates for changes in priorities and circumstances

10

How does DGH MTEF differ from its existing Renstra?

• Renstra is not a five year budget– There is a flexible link between each annual

budget and the Renstra• First, the Renstra is based on conservative fiscal

assumptions whereas each annual budget is based on updated and realistic fiscal assumptions MoF issues an Indicative Ceiling in March

which reflects the latest view of the fiscal environment and ‘fiscal space’

11

How does DGH MTEF differ from its existing Renstra?

• Second, although priorities of RPJM stay constant over five years, priorities for individual budgets are fine tuned for each budget The President sets a policy direction and priorities

for national development in January for the year planned based on the results of ongoing policy evaluation (PP 90 Article 7)

Bappenas reflects this into the RKP for the coming year

DGH identifies New Initiatives which are used to finalise the RKP

12

The MTEF formalises the flexible link between Renstra and successive annual budgets

•Renstra numbers are the ‘baseline’ for the next budget

•DGH proposes New Initiatives to change the baseline for the coming budget–Bappenas considers proposed new

initiatives against overall fiscal resources available (“fiscal space” at the start of budget preparation) and priorities of the President for the next year

13

•New Initiative is defined in PP90 as•“Inisiatif Baru adalah usulan tambahan rencana kinerja selain yang telah dicantumkan dalam prakiraan maju, yang berupa program, kegiatan, keluaran, dan/atau komponen”

•“A New Initiative is a proposal to improve performance over and above those already included in the forward estimates, in the form of changes to programs, activities, outputs, and / or components.” (PP 90, BAB 1 KETENTUAN UMUM, Pasal 1: 16)

14

• Extra funding for New Initiatives can be sourced from :a. Activity / component activity / output, which endsb. Savings on the DGH baseline; and / or c. New funding based on the direction of government policy.

15

• Those New Initiatives which Bappenas approves in February are added to the Indicative ceiling issued to DGH in March

• They become part of the DGH baseline for the next budget, and its Forward Estimates

• Over time the Forward Estimates may increasingly depart from the Renstra numbers (due to inclusion of successive rounds of New Initiatives)

• They also roll out beyond the last year of the Renstra–The 2012 budget preparation will include a

Forward Estimate for 2015

16

PREPARING YEAR t BUDGET

17

18

19

20

However adaption is required in budget agencies to implement

MTEF

•New SOP outlines the new DGH processes

•Based on PP 90 / 2010 tentang Penyusunan Rencana Kerja dan Anggaran Kementerian Negara/Lembaga

•Bappenas Ministerial Regulation No. 1/2011 tentang Tata Cara Penyusunan Inisiatif Baru

21

•Selection of proposed New Initiatives by Bappenas is a competitive process

• Bappenas provides a list of criteria it will use to prioritise New Initiatives proposed by different KL in Kepmen 1/2011

• These implement Performance Based Budgeting principles

• MoF focuses on costing of proposed New Initiatives

22

•To implement MTEF and win additional budget funds DGH requires strengthened capacity to mainstream highway policies into the budget process• Stronger coordination between Planning

and Budgeting Sub-Directorates • Better internal process for identifying and

prioritising New Initiatives

•DGH is competing for a share of a limited amount of “Fiscal Space” being allocated by Bappenas to New Initiatives

23

Line agencies have much to gain from introducing MTEF

•Gives DGH greater certainty of future budget funding for multi-year highway programs

•Rewards DGH if it proposes New Initiatives which effectively support Government priorities

24

CONCLUSIONIndonesia is better placed than most to link budgeting to achieving planning targets

•By international standards Indonesia has very strong planning process

•The new MTEF process is a good one!

•The “winners” from the MTEF will be those KL which have very good policy based budget preparation processes

Policy Issue 1: Weak National Connectivity

•Slow travel in economic corridors

•High land transport costs between centres

Current Status

•Inadequate investment in network capacity: •Lacks budget focus for

expressway development

•Road development program inefficient - lacks renewal to modern alignment & structure

•Mission statement lacks KPI on connectivity and network capacity

DGH RENSTRA

and budget policy

The Recommended Six (6) Economic Corridors :

Six Economic Corridors in Indonesia to Support National Logistic System and achieve Domestic

Connectivity

1

2

3

4

5

6

Economic CorridorMega HubHubPotential Area for Development

26

Logistics is part of the supply chain (supply chain):1. procurement activities 2. storage 3. delivery / transportation

and service

1

2

3 6

4

5

Eastern Sumatera-North West Java

Northern Java

Kalimantan

Western Sulawesi

East Java-Bali-NT

Papua

Source: Coord. Ministry of Economic

New Initiatives – 1 Improving Connectivity: Accelerated Expressway Development

• Expressways – • Accelerate land acquisition using additional budget• (Expand BPJT capacity - to accelerate processing of projects)• Extend GOI funding share in PPP - to attract more investors

• Development of much of the Sumatra Expressway corridor will require significant GOI funding to develop

• Develop national expressway network plan – accelerated implementation schedule and funding requirements

• New Initiative Increase Budget Allocation for Toll Road / Expressway Development

• prioritize large increments of budget to expressway development say for the Sumatra Expressway Road Corridor

New Initiatives – 1 Improving Connectivity: Accelerated Expressway Development (Contd.)• Current economic evaluations indicate majority of expressway

north of Palembang does not achieve sufficient rate of return to be funded by private sector

• This is one of the high priority corridors• If full expressway corridor is to be completed in a 20 year period

this will result in implementation of 130 km / year • Assume typical implementation costs of IDR 70 billion / km• Assume that planning and land acquisition will be carried out in

2012-2013 at a total cost of say IDR3 billion / km - total budget required will be IDR 3.8 trillion / year (2012-13)

• Say DGH budget will build approximately 50% of the total corridor and this will start in 2014.

• Annual budget increase required IDR 7 trillion / year • Note: arterial road improvements will still be required due to the

time lag in construction of expressway

Criteria Potential Score (%) Score

Goal 8% 8%

Problem 8% 8%

Scope 8% 8%

Beneficiaries 12% 12%

Strategy 16% 16%

Performance Indicators 8% 8%

Target 8% 4% Land Acquisition

Suitable budget 12% 8%

Propriety budget 12% 12%

Source of Funding 8% 0%

10 criteria 100% 84%

Bappenas Evaluation System – Expressway Development

Policy Issue 2: Premature Asset Failure

•Arterial network condition deteriorating faster than expected

•Low survival rate for pavement treatments – Actual Life = 30-60% of Expected Life

•Average life – <8 yr (to poor condition)

Current Status

•Requires frequent intervention – 4-8 years

•Wasted budget

•Disruption and delays to road users; complaints

Impact

•Quality control and engineering supervision weak

•Legacy design policy of short life, building on weak foundation

•Inadequate design – for vehicle overloading and drainage

Causes

Options 2:Improving Asset Performance

0 5 10 15 20 25 301

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

EXPECTED LIFE

TARGET EXPECTED LIFE

ASSET AGE (yr)

LOW QUALITY,OVERLOAD-

INGACTUAL

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

BAD

IMPROVED DESIGN, QUALITY

Reform Actions -

• Improve Quality and Supervision

• Improve design for loading & drainage

• Extend design life, stronger designs

Observations –

• Low Survival =( Actual Life /Expected Life ) %

• Short Expected Life

ROAD ASSET DETERIORATION

New Initiatives – 2 Extended Road Design Life

• DGH 2011 budget includes a total of 3,300 km of reconstruction and widening at a total cost of approximately IDR 12 trillion

• Design life is 10 years but does not take into account extent of overloading – actual life will be less

• Accommodation of 40 year design life for base and minimal overlay after 10 years and accommodation of actual overloading will increase initial costs by approximately 25%

• Annual budget increase required IDR 3 trillion / year • After approximately 10 years the key parts of the network will

be upgraded to this design life and annual costs will reduce.• Concentrating on improved implementation and supervision

will protect the investment.

Initiative 2: Improving Asset Life – Budget Implications

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 350

2

4

6

8

PAVEMENT AGE (yr)

LOWER LIFE-CYCLE COST

& LESS DISRUP-TION

POTENTIAL SAVING

30 PERCENT

CUM

ULA

TIVE

SPE

ND

ING

HIGHER INITIAL COST

SHORT LIFE POLICY

LONG LIFE POLICY

Action:

• Extend design life

Result:

• Better road condition

• Less disruption

• Lower life-cycle cost

• Budget savings

But note:

• Higher treatment cost, shorter length

• Political patience!!

Criteria Potential Score (%) Score

Goal 8% 8%

Problem 8% 8%

Scope 8% 8%

Beneficiaries 12% 12%

Strategy 16% 16%

Performance Indicators 8% 8%

Target 8% 8%

Suitable budget 12% 8%

Propriety budget 12% 12%

Source of Funding 8% 6%

10 criteria 100% 98%

Bappenas Evaluation System – Design Life

35

36

Terima kasih