Fig. 1.1 |
Historical and projected populations of Indonesia, 1960–2050. |
3 |
|
Source: World Bank 2015a. |
|
Fig. 1.2 |
Indonesian GDP per capita in USD, 1980–2013. Source: World |
5 |
|
Economic Forum 2015b. |
|
Fig. 1.3 |
Investment realisation of FDI 2012–June 2017 in USD per |
7 |
|
quarter. Source: BKPM 2017b. |
|
Fig. 2.1 |
Indonesian Six Economic Corridors identified for the MP3EI. |
18 |
|
Source: Ministry of National Development Planning/National |
|
|
Development Planning Agency, 2011 (Bappenas 2011a), |
|
|
Masterplan Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia Economic |
|
|
Development 2011–25. Coordinating Ministry for Economic |
|
|
Affairs. |
|
Fig. 2.2 |
Relationships between various Indonesian project planning |
22 |
|
agencies and authorities (figure by the authors) |
|
Fig. 2.3 |
KPPIP process for coordinating project outcomes. Source: |
23 |
|
KPPIP, 2016. |
|
Fig. 2.4 |
Global Competitiveness Index* scores for East Asia and |
29 |
|
Pacific countries. Source: World Economic Forum 2017 The |
|
|
Global Competitiveness Report 2017–2018. The GCI measures |
|
|
all indicators on a 1–7 scale and aggregates the scores to find |
|
|
a final overall GCI score. The higher the score the better the |
|
|
measure being assessed. |
|
Fig. 2.5 |
The most problematic factors for doing business in |
30 |
|
Indonesia 2016. Source: World Economic Forum 2016, Global |
|
|
Competitiveness Report 2016–2017.* |
|
Fig. 2.6 |
The most problematic factors for doing business in Indonesia |
31 |
|
2017. Source: World Economic Forum 2017, The Global |
|
|
Competitiveness Report 2017–2018. |
|
Fig. 2.7 |
World Bank Rankings on Doing Business topics — Indonesia. |
32 |
|
Source: World Bank 2018. Doing Business 2018 — Indonesia. |
|
|
World Bank Group. |
|
Fig. 2.8 |
Distance to Frontier (DFT) on Doing Business |
33 |
|
topics — Indonesia. Source: World Bank 2018. Doing Business |
|
|
2018 — Indonesia. |
|
Fig. 2.9. |
Barriers to doing business in Indonesia and Australia (sorted |
46 |
|
by mean score — most problematic to least for Indonesia) |
|
|
(Figure by the authors) |
|
Fig. 2.10 |
Barriers to doing business — a comparison of Indonesia and |
47 |
|
Australia* (Figure by the authors) |
|
Fig. 3.1 |
Increased opportunity for private sector finance (Figure by |
56 |
|
the authors) |
|
Fig. 3.2 |
Private versus public engineering construction in Australia |
57 |
|
(Figure by the authors) |
|
Fig. 3.3 |
Landlord Port Model (Figure by the authors based on the |
66 |
|
World Bank resource, https://ppp.worldbank.org/public |
|
|
private-partnership/library/landlord-port-structure-graph- |
|
|
pdf) |
|
Fig. 3.4 |
Proposed new Indonesian Special Economic Zones. Source: |
66 |
|
Indonesia Investments 2017, https://www.indonesia |
|
|
investments.com/business/business-columns/indonesia- |
|
|
seeks-to-develop-more-special-economic-zones/item |
|
|
7962? |
|
Table 3.1 |
Major Australian Asset recycling transactions (Table compiled |
68 |
|
by authors from various publicly available websties and data |
|
|
sources relating to the facilities) |
|
Fig. 3.5 |
Availability of finance (Figure by the authors) |
71 |
Fig. 3.6 |
Port is attracting enough finance (Figure by the authors) |
72 |
Fig. 3.7 |
The importance of making investment decisions in transport |
73 |
|
to improve ports (Figure by the authors) |
|
Fig. 3.8 |
The importance of making investment decisions in water |
73 |
|
infrastructure to improve ports (Figure by the authors) |
|
Fig. 3.9 |
The importance of making investment decisions in energy to |
73 |
|
improve ports (Figure by the authors) |
|
Fig. 3.10 |
The importance of making investment decisions in materials |
74 |
|
handling to improve ports (Figure by the authors) |
|
Fig. 3.11 |
Level of importance of developing areas listed where |
74 |
|
investment should be directed to improve operations of |
|
|
PORTS in general in Indonesia. (Figure by the authors) |
|
Fig. 3.12 |
Level of importance of developing areas listed where |
75 |
|
investment should be directed to improve operations of |
|
|
PORTS in general in Australia. (Figure by the authors) |
|
Table |
Relative effectiveness of various funding mechanisms — |
76 |
3.2 |
Indonesia (Table by the authors) |
|
Table |
Relative effectiveness of various funding mechanisms — |
78 |
3.3 |
Australia (Table by the authors) |
|
Fig. 4.1 |
Project support system (Figure by the authors based on data. |
88 |
|
Source: Haryanto 2015). |
|
Fig. 4.2 |
Legend used for project schedule charts (Figure by the |
90 |
|
authors) |
|
Fig. 4.3 |
Case study locations (map source: Amin (2015)) |
91 |
Table 4.1 |
Jakarta Sewerage System |
91 |
Table 4.2 |
West Semarang Drinking Water Supply |
93 |
Fig. 4.4 |
Jakarta Sewerage System project implementation schedule |
92 |
|
(Figure by the authors) |
|
Fig. 4.5 |
West Semarang SPAM (left), supply map (right) (image |
93 |
|
source: Amin (2015)). |
|
Fig. 4.6 |
West Semarang Drinking Water Supply project implementation |
94 |
|
schedule (Figure by the authors) |
|
Table 4.3 |
National Capital Integrated Coastal Development |
95 |
Fig. 4.7 |
National Capital Integrated Coastal Development project |
96 |
|
implementation schedule (Figure by the authors) |
|
Table 4.4 |
Bontang Oil Refinery |
97 |
Fig. 4.8 |
Bontang Oil Refinery project implementation schedule |
97 |
|
(Figure by the authors) |
|
Table 4.5 |
Umbulan Springs Drinking Water Supply Project |
98 |
Fig. 4.9 |
Umbulan Springs project implementation schedule (Figure by |
99 |
|
the authors) |
|
Table 4.6 |
Channel Deepening Project, Victoria |
100 |
Table 4.7 |
M7 Motorway, New South Wales |
102 |
Fig. 4.10 |
Channel Deepening Project implementation schedule (Figure |
101 |
|
by the authors) |
|
Fig. 4.11 |
M7 Motorway project implementation schedule (Figure by |
103 |
|
the authors) |
|
Fig. 4.12 |
Gateway Review Process (left) in comparison to Indonesian |
105 |
|
case studies (right) |
|
Table 5.1 |
Port Botany — Key Events 1969–2018 (Table by the authors) |
122 |
Fig. 5.1 |
Port Botany Container Terminals. Source: https://www. |
124 |
|
nswports.com.au/assets/Uploads/PDFs-General/MAP-PB |
|
|
New-for-website.pdf |
|
Fig. 5.2 |
Heavy Commercial Vehicles Trips from Port Botany, Average |
125 |
|
Weekday, 2006. Source: Bureau of Transport Statistics 2010. |
|
Fig. 5.3 |
Southern Sydney Freight Network and Port Botany Rail Line. |
130 |
|
Source: ARTC 2015, Fig. 1.2, p. 6. |
|
Fig. 5.4 |
Motorway Connections Proposed Between Sydney Airport |
132 |
|
and Port Botany (Figure by the authors) |
|
Table 5.2 |
Metropolitan Sydney intermodal terminals, 2008 |
134 |
Table 5.3 |
Sydney suburban intermodal terminals — TEU capacity |
134 |
Fig. 5.5 |
Location of existing and proposed freight terminals for Port |
135 |
|
Botany Source: Sydney Ports Corporation 2008. |
|
Table 5.4 |
Approximate construction costs of Port Botany and enabling |
146 |
|
infrastructure (Australian Dollars in 2016 prices) |
|
Fig. 6.1 |
Overall efficiency of ports in Asian region (incl. Australia) on |
157 |
|
country basis (Figure by the authors, based on World Bank |
|
|
2016 data) |
|
Fig. 6.2 |
Relationship between infrastructure and overall efficiency on |
157 |
|
country basis (Figure by the authors based on World Bank |
|
|
2016 data) |
|
Table 6.1 |
Input and output variables used in the port DEA analysis. |
165 |
Fig. 6.3. |
Computing efficiency frontier in VRS and CRS model (Figure |
167 |
|
by the authors) |
|
Table 6.2 |
Sample ports for efficiency comparison (Table by the authors) |
168 |
Table 6.3 |
Descriptive port statistics for input and output variables for |
168 |
|
DEA |
|
Table 6.4 |
Sample of container terminals for efficiency comparison |
169 |
|
(Table by the authors) |
|
Table 6.5 |
Descriptive container terminal statistics for inputs and |
170 |
|
outputs variables for DEA |
|
Table 6.6 |
Port Efficiency score for functional inputs based on DEA |
171 |
|
models (Table by authors) |
|
Table 6.7 |
Port Efficiency score for operational inputs based on DEA |
171 |
|
models (Table by authors) |
|
Table 6.8 |
Container terminal Efficiency in terms of Crane Rate (Table |
172 |
|
by authors) |
|
Table 6.9 |
Container terminal Efficiency in terms of Ship Rate (Table by |
173 |
|
authors) |
|
Table |
Container terminal Efficiency in terms of Container |
173 |
6.10 |
Throughput (Table by authors) |
|
Table |
Sources of efficiency gains (after Cheon, Dowall and Song |
174 |
6.11 |
(2010)) |
|
Fig. 6.4 |
Improvement percentage* of inefficient units based on |
175 |
|
constant crane rate, ship rate and throughput (Figure by |
|
|
authors) |
|
Table |
Summary of Container Terminal Efficiency scores (Table by |
176 |
6.12 |
authors) |
|
Fig. 6.5 |
Port of Tanjung Priok (Jakarta) logistics flow chart (Figure by |
179 |
|
authors) |
|
Fig. 6.6 |
Port of Surabaya logistics flow chart (Figure by authors) |
179 |
Fig. 6.7 |
Port of Melbourne logistics flow chart (Figure by authors) |
180 |
Table 7.1 |
The determining factors of Port competitiveness. |
190 |
Fig. 7.1 |
Maritime Cluster composition of services in major port cities. |
191 |
|
Source: Lam and Zhang, (2011). |
|
Fig. 7.2 |
Enhancement of market power through joint venture. Source: |
192 |
|
Song (2001). |
|
Fig. 7.3 |
TAMA’s aims and networks. Source: adapted from TAMA- |
193 |
|
Greater Tokyo Initiative (2017). |
|
Fig. 7.4. |
Main Functions of TAMA. Source: adapted from Wahyuni |
194 |
|
and Wahyuningsih (2018). |
|
Fig. 7.5 |
TAMA-Greater Tokyo Initiative’s Five-year Action Plans. |
196 |
|
Source: adapted from TAMA-Greater Tokyo Initiative (2017). |
|
Fig. 7.6. |
TAMA strategy 1. Source: adapted from TAMA-Greater |
198 |
|
Tokyo Initiative (2017). |
|
Fig. 7.7 |
Strategy 2: TAMA support measures. Source: adapted from |
199 |
|
Wahyuni and Wahyuningsih (2018). |
|
Table 8.1 |
Rank of ASEAN Logistics Performance Index |
207 |
Fig. 8.1 |
Coverage of Pelindo I, II, III, and IV. Source: adapted from |
209 |
|
Sheng (2015). |
|
Fig. 8.2 |
Most Problematic Factors of Doing Business in Indonesia. |
211 |
|
Source: Schwab (2017). |
|
Fig. 8.3 |
Respondent Data: (Top) Respondent’s Specialisation and |
214 |
|
number of respondents, (Bottom) Respondents’ association/ |
|
|
working for or with, in the ports and number of respondents |
|
|
(Figure by the authors) |
|
Fig. 8.4 |
Summary of Indonesian port problem (Figure by authors) |
215 |
Fig. 8.5 |
The Most Problematic Factors for Doing Port Business in |
216 |
|
Indonesia. (Figure by authors). Red (Government Related |
|
|
Variables), Blue (Business Related Variables) 1 (Most |
|
|
Problematic-Major Effect), 3 (Neutral), 5 (Least Problematic- |
|
|
Minimal/No Effect) |
|
Fig. 8.6 |
Government Reform Package Usefulness Score (mean) (Figure |
217 |
|
by the authors). 1 (Very Unhelpful), 3 (Neither Unhelpful or |
|
|
Useful), 5 (Very Helpful) |
|
Table 9.1 |
Four Models of port administration |
229 |
Table 9.2 |
The transaction details and investors in major city ports in |
231 |
|
Australia. (Table compiled by the authors) |
|
Fig. 9.1 |
Port management — the balance between public and private |
234 |
|
(World Bank 2007) |
|
Fig. 9.2 |
Landlord port management structure (AIC 2018) |
234 |
Fig. 9.3 |
Themes observed from the thematic analysis of the FGD |
236 |
|
discussions (Figure by the authors) |
|
Table 9.3 |
Factors Helping to Improve Governance/Policy in Ports (Table |
238 |
|
by the authors) |
|
Table 9.4 |
Factors Acting as Obstacles to Governance/Policy of Ports |
241 |
|
(Table by the authors) |
|
Table 9.5 |
Factors Which Help Improve Management Structures in Ports |
242 |
|
(Table by the authors) |
|
Table |
Impact of project finance structure to the sponsor’s return |
253 |
10.1 |
(Yescombe 2007) private-sector financing through public- |
|
|
private partnerships (PPPs). |
|
Fig. 10.1 |
Infrastructure financing options. (Figure by the authors from |
254 |
|
Hui, Duffield, Wilson, 2018) |
|
Fig. 10.2 |
Research flowchart (Figure by the authors from Hui, Duffield |
256 |
|
and Wilson 2018) |
|
Fig. 10.3 |
Respondents’ characteristics (n=34) (Figure by the authors) |
258 |
Table |
Financing vehicle/method effectiveness (Top-10 choices). |
259 |
10.2 |
|
|
Fig. 10.4 |
Responses on the major barriers to gaining approval for |
260 |
|
infrastructure projects in Indonesia. (Figure by the authors) |
|
Fig. 10.5 |
The respondents’ suggestions on ways to improve the |
261 |
|
decision-making process for infrastructure projects in |
|
|
Indonesia. (Figure by the authors) |
|
Fig. 10.6 |
Responses to the question “Has your port either attempted |
261 |
|
to undertake major development (or achieved major |
|
|
development) using international providers — including |
|
|
finance?” (Figure by the authors) |
|
Fig. 10.7 |
Responses to the question on the different kinds of facilitations |
262 |
|
by international providers. (Figure by the authors) |
|
Fig. 10.8 |
The contractual relationship and project cash flows around |
265 |
|
the NPCT-1 project. (Figure by authors based on data from |
|
|
IPC) |
|
Table |
Loan facilities received by IPC from 2013 to 2015 |
267 |
10.3 |
|
|
Fig. 10.9 |
The effect of the different NPCT-1 financial leverage levels on |
267 |
|
the project value with a certain target of IRRequity/Permitted |
|
|
Equity Return (PER). (Figure by authors) |
|
Fig. 10.10 |
The project value under different IRRequity thresholds. (Figure |
268 |
|
by authors) |
|
Fig. 10.11 |
The NPCT-1 project under a PPP-based structure with |
270 |
|
availability payment. (Figure by authors) |
|
Fig. 10.12 |
The NPCT-1 project value to IPC under different project |
271 |
|
company financial leverage level. (Figure by the authors) |
|
Fig. 10.13 |
The NPCT-1 project value to IPC under different level of |
272 |
|
IRRequity to be covered by the availability payment. (Figure |
|
|
by the authors) |
|
Fig. 10.14 |
The availability payment requirements that the government |
272 |
|
must pay at a certain level of target IRRequity under different |
|
|
project company capital structure. (Figure by the authors) |
|
Fig. 10.15 |
Banking financing allocated to logistic infrastructure (road, |
273 |
|
railway, port, airport, information and communication |
|
|
technology, warehouse) in trillion Rupiah. Source: Nirwan |
|
|
(2017). |
|
Fig. 11.1 |
Global Port Network of IZP and China Merchant Group. |
284 |
|
Source: adapted from http://www.izptec.com 11 September |
|
|
2019. |
|
Fig. 11.2 |
Dubai Ports global network. Source: adapted from http://web. |
285 |
|
dpworld.com/ 11 September 2019. |
|
Table |
Comparisons of Advantages and Disadvantages of Road and |
286 |
11.1 |
Rail Modes |
|
Fig. 11.3. |
Functional integration and exploitation of scale economies of |
291 |
|
logistics operation. Source: adapted from Robinson (2002) and |
|
|
Rodrigue (2006). |
|
Fig. 11.4 |
Hinterland Areas and Movement Corridors of Containers |
297 |
|
carrying Goods towards Tanjung Priok Port. Source: adapted |
|
|
from Tanjung Priok Port, 11 September 2019. |
|
Fig. 11.5 |
Number of Vehicles through Toll Road by Toll Gate Branch, |
298 |
|
2014–2016. Source: adapted from PT Jasa Marga/Indonesia |
|
|
Highway Corp 2018. |
|
Fig. 11.6 |
Traffic Conditions around the Tanjung Priok Port (morning |
299 |
|
peak hour). Source: adapted from Google Maps 11 September |
|
|
2019. |
|
Fig. 11.7 |
Mix of through traffic and the movement of local traffic. |
299 |
|
Source: adapted from Google Maps, 11 September 2019. |
|
Fig. 11.8 |
Toll Roads Network (include Access Toll Road to Tanjung |
301 |
|
Priok Port). Source: adapted from Toll Road Management |
|
|
Agency, 2018. |
|
Fig. 11.9 |
Proposed Cikarang Bekasi Laut (CBL) Inland Waterway for |
302 |
|
container access to Tanjung Priok Port. Source: adapted from |
|
|
PT Pelindo II, 11 September 2019. |
|
Fig. 11.10 |
Gates available at Tanjung Priok Port. Source: adapted from |
303 |
|
Masterplan of Tanjung Priok Port (2017). |
|
Fig. 11.11 |
The Movement Pattern of Incoming and Outgoing Trucks at |
304 |
|
the Port of Tanjung Priok. Source: adapted from Herdian et |
|
|
al. 2017. |
|
Fig. 11.12 |
Belawan Port and Its Hinterland. Source: adapted from |
306 |
|
Masterplan of Belawan Port, 11 September 2019. |
|
Fig. 11.13 |
Export and Import Volumes from Belawan Port. Source: |
306 |
|
adapted from Central Bureau Statistics of Sumatera Utara |
|
|
Province, 2017. |
|
Table |
Projections of cargo loads and unloads at Belawan Port |
307 |
11.2 |
|
|
Table |
Forecast data of cargo flows at Belawan International |
307 |
11.3 |
Container Terminal (BICT) |
|
Fig. 11.14 |
Main Road Networks Going from and To Belawan Port. |
308 |
|
Source: adapted from Google Map, 11 September 2019. |
|
Fig. 11.15 |
Loading and Unloading Activities at the Industrial Area of Sei |
309 |
|
Mangkei. Photo courtesy: Danang Parikesit, 2017 |
|
Fig. 11.16 |
Existing and Planned Railway Lines in North Sumatra. |
310 |
|
Source: adapted from Masterplan of Kuala Tanjung Port, 11 |
|
|
September 2019. |
|
Fig. 11.17 |
The Transportation Networks of Roads and Railways as well |
311 |
|
as Corridors of Belawan and Kuala Ports. Source: adapted |
|
|
from Google Maps, 11 September 2019. |
|
Fig. 11.18 |
Teluk Lamong Port Terminal (no. 2) as one of the terminals in |
312 |
|
the Operational Area of Tanjung Perak Port. Source: adapted |
|
|
from Pelindo III, 11 September 2019. |
|
Fig. 11.19 |
Container Flows at Tanjung Perak Port and Teluk Lamong |
313 |
|
Port Terminal, in TEU (2011–2015). Source: adapted from |
|
|
Pelindo III, 29 March 2018. |
|
Table |
Projection of Ship Visit Flows to Teluk Lamong Port Terminal |
313 |
11.4. |
|
|
Fig. |
Current Movement of Container System in Tanjung Perak |
314 |
11.20 |
Port. Source: PT Pelindo III, 11 September 2019. |
|
Fig. |
The Application of Rail-based Container Trains as a form |
315 |
11.21 |
of transportation of goods at Teluk Lamong Port Terminal. |
|
|
Source: adapted from PT Terminal Teluk Lamong, 11 |
|
|
September 2019. |
|
Fig. 11.22 |
Automatic Container Transporter Development Plan. Source: |
316 |
|
adapted from PT Teluk Lamong, 11 September 2019. |
|
Fig. |
The proposed Integrated Toll Roads to Teluk Lamong |
317 |
11.23 |
Port Terminal. Source: adapted from PT. Teluk Lamong, 11 |
|
|
September 2019. |
|
Table A1 |
Focus Group Discussion Questions |
348 |