Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 12578 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT INDONESIA NATIONAL PORTS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 2577-IND) DECEMBER 2, 1993 MI CROGRA;PIFA ICS Report No: 1257YE Type, PCR Infrastructure Operations Division Country Department III East Asia & Pacific Region I This document has a resticted distibution and may be used by recipients only In the perfonnance of their offlcial duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disdosed wihout World Bank authrzaon. CURRENCY EOUIVALENCE Currency Unit - Rupiah (Rp) At Appraisal US$1 - Rp 1,100 Rp 1 million - US$909 Annual Average Values 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 RpOUM$ 909 1026 1111 1283 1644 1686 17?0 1843 1950 2030 GOVERNMENT OF INDONESIA FISCAL YEAR April 1 - March 31 WEIGHTS AND MDEASURES 1 meter (m) - 39.37 inches (in) 1 kilometer (km) m 0.62 miles (mi) 1 square meter (m2) - 10.8 square feet (sq ft) 1 cubic meter (m2) - 35.3 cubic feet (cu ft) I hectare (ha) - 10,000 square meters (m:2 or 2.47 acres) 1 square kilometer (km2) - 0.386 square miles (sq mi) 1 liter - 0.26 US gallons ABBREVIATIONS CFS - Container Freight Station DGLC - Directorate General Land Communications DGSC - Directorate General Sea Communications GOI - Government of Indonesia INPRES - Presidential Decree MSDP - Maritime Sector Development Programs MOC - Ministry of Communications PERUMPEL - Public Port Corporation SAR - Staff Appraisal Report FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY THE WORLD BANK Wshington. D.C. 20433 U.S.A. Office of Director-Oeneral Operations Evaluation December 2, 1993 MMORANM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Project Completion Report on Indonesia National Ports Develogment Proiect (Loan 2577-IND) Attached is the "Project Completion Report on Indonesia -- National Ports Development Project (Loan 2577-IND)" prepared by the East Asia and Pacific Regional Office. Part II contains the Borrower's comments. The Loan (US$110 million of June 1985) was to contribute to infrastructural rehabilitation and managerial improvements in selected major port.; to strengthen a recently established public port corporation; and to assist the Ministry of Communications both in regulatory and policy reforms in the maritime sector and in monitoring performance. A drastically changed sectoral environment led to a reduction cf the project scope (but to no modification of objectives) in May 1986. This brought total project cost down (from US$186.5 million to US$145.1 million) which, in turn,, brought loan disbursements down to US$76.9 million. The balance (US$34.1 million) wes canceled. The project was completed in early 1993, with a delay of about six months. All objectives were largely achieved and four of the five ports included in the project have shown satisfactory progress in terms of ship calls, cargo throughput and operational performance. The financial status of the public port corporation has markedly improved since the baginning of the project. Changes in project scope and unreliability of data did not allow re-estimation of the project's economic rate of return (32% at appraisal). This is the only shortcoming of the comprehensive PCR which describes in detail project preparation, implementation and results. Pointing at the difficulties inherent in institution-building, the PCR emphasizes the need for adequate supervision, notes the important contributions made by Bank missions, and suggests that more needs to be done in the areas of data gathering and regular reporting. Other areas deserving attention include speedier appraisal, review of procurement procedures, coordination of port activities with local government agencies, improvement of equipment availability, and clarification of private-public sector relationships in future efforts to improve port infrastructure and equipment. Overall the project is rated as satisfactory, its sustainability as likely and its institutional impact as substantial. The project may be audited. 8doos4 ntas a restricted distributioa and may be used by rocipieats only In td perfo-S"^^ of tnhsir official duties. Its contents may not otbrwise be disclosed without world Isak authorization. FOR OMCIAL USE ONLY PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT INDONESIA NATIONAL PORTS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Loan No. 2577-IND) Table of Contents Page No. Preface ...........*Z.... Evaluation SuaTmry..... ........ ........................... ii I. PROJECT REVIEW FROM BANK'S PERSPECTIVE......... 1 Section 1. Project Identity.e.t .... 1 Section 2. Project Background... ............................. I, Section 3. Project Objectives and Description........... 2 Section 4. Project Design and Organization.**#*.***.*.**., 3 Section 5. Project Implementation ........................... 4 .ection 6. Project Resulte.... 5 Section 7. Project Sustainability.......... 8 Section 8. Bank Performance....*..,* ... 9 Section 9. Borrower Pe rco r m a n c e 10 Section 10. Reaot i o n s h i p 12 Section 11. Project Documentation and Da t a 12 Section 12. Consulting S e r v i c e s 13 II. 'ROJECT REVIEW FROM TPE BORROWER'S PERPSPEC" EV .........*c III. STATISTICAL INFORMATION ............. 44444*...... - -*-***- - ... 56 Table 1. Related Bank Loans ............................ e. 56 Table 2. Loan Disbursement.44...4........ .. .. . . .... . 57 Table 3. Project Timetablem.. ................................ 5. Table 4.(i) Project Costs Summary .................*- ***........ 59 (ii) Summary of Project Fianing ancing......... 60 (iii) Project Soope 61 Table 5. Use of Staff Resources ............65 Table 6.(i) Port Traffic Data 66 (ii) Port Efficiency ldicators.ndicat.... o rs........... 70 (iii) PP-II: Consolidated income Statement-Summary9......9 72 (iv) PP-II: Consolidated Balance Sheet - Summary9......4 75 (v) PP-II: Sources and Uses of Funds- Summary..ma.ry*.. 76 Table 7 Project Financed TA ....... 7? ANNEXE Annex 1. Compliance with Loan Covenants.*..*.... 78 This document has a rstricted distibution and may be used by reipients only in the perfornance of their official duties. ts contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authotization. INDONESIA NATIONAL pQRTS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Loan No. 2577-INDI PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT £Ela This is the Project Completion Report (PCR) for the National Ports Development Project in Indonesia, for which Loan 2577-IND in the amount of US$111.0 mlllion was approved on June 18, 1985. The loan was closed on December 31, 1992, 6 months behind schedule. It was 69.3% disbursed and the balance of US$34.1 million was canceled in two stages: first an amount of USS 28.3 million was canceled in October 1989 following the reduction in the project scope and finally, following the last disbursement on May 30, 1993 the balance US$5.8 million was canceled. The PCR was prepared by the Infrastructure Operations Division in Department 3 of East Asia and Pacific Regional Office (Preface, Evaluation Summary, Parts I and III). The revised guidelines for PCR preparation dated June 1989 have been followed insofar as possible. Preparation of this PCR was discussed with the staff of GOl during the Bank's final supervision mission of the project in February 1993 at which time the Borrower's evaluation was initiated. A copy of Part I and III was sent to GOl in May 1993 for review and the Borrower's comments and part II of the PCR was prepared by the Borrower. This report is based, inter alia, on the Staff Appraisal Report, the Loan and the Project Agreements, Supervision Reports, correspondence between the Bank and the Borrower, and internal Bank memoranda. - ii - INDONESI NATIONAL PORTS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Loan No. 2577-IND) Evaluation Summary Obiectives The project was designed to contribute to urgently needed port facility optimization and rehabilitation in order to raise port productivity and improve management capability in selected major porls (paras 3.1-3.2). The project's investments were focussed on the 5 major ports in Perumpel-I1 zone of influence covering parts of West Java, West Kalimantan and South East Sumatra where a large share of the country's international sea trade is handled. The institutional objectives included strengthening the recently established (public port corporation) Perumpel-II in line with sound managettal, financial and operational practices and to enable the Ministry of Communications So carry out required regulatory and policy reforms in the maritime sector and to effectively monitor the performance of the industry. Implementation Experience The project experienced moderate delays in the launching phase immediately following the loan effectiveness in October 1985 (para 5.1). The delays were primarily attributable to lengthy procurement procedures typical to most public works projects in Indonesia (para. 9.1), and inadequately staffed project coordination function. A changed sector environment was behind the decision to reduce the scope of the project in May 1986. Important factors which influenced the decision to revise the scope of the project were (a) the reduction in the costs of civil works and other local costs which resulted from the devaluation of the Rupiah which took place in 1986; (b) a keener price competition for contracts from among a larger than expected number of contracting firms; and (c) the predicted improvements in sea trade management, shipping services, and port operations induced by the implementation of presidential decree (Inpres) 4/1985 (para 9.1). During the on-going implementation, Perumpel- II displayed a remarkable performance in managing a modified implementation schedule relatively smoothly till the completion of the project in late 1992. Results The project rehabilitated general cargo facilities and provided urgently needed basic container handling facilities in the four ports and expanded container terminal facilities at the port of Tanjung Priok (paras 6.1- 6.2). The project's institutional goals were achieved substantially in that, through the technical assistance, it provided improvement in the corporation's management and operations practices and contributed to the planning, policy analysis, and regulatory reforms in the Ministry of Communications. The improvement in the management of PP-II is underscored by the evidence that it has become a much stronger institution after successfully managing a large investment program through difficult construction phases. Although key port operating indicators such as ship-waiting and ship-service times did not register significant reductions during the project period (Table 6(ii), the higher than - iii - expected cargo growth in traffic at tho ports in general and especially in containerized traffic at Tanjung Priok would mean that without this project the increased traffic would have caused longer ship waiting times which could have triggered a costly imposition of surcharges by vessel owners. In addition, there were remark8ble improvements in the finances of the corporation enabling it to make a reasonable contribution to project financing using its internally generated funds (para 6.4). Sustainabilitv The pro4ect has put new and improved port facilities at the disposal of the management of Perumpel-Il thereby permitting larger port throughput. The challenge for th4 port corporation is its ability in effectively operating such facilities at their full potential. Perumpel-II now has adequate financial resources to maintain and operate port facilities efficiently, and with the extensive training provided under this project the management of Perumpel-II is in a good position to take on the challenges of providing adequate port services at reasonable costs to the users. Findings and Lessons Learned 1. The Bank used large amount of resources in time and personnel in the preparation of this project; some of which is attributable to the eventually successful policy dialogue. The combination of good tim'ig for the project and accompanying policy reform were responsible for the project achievements (para. 8.5). 2. Inadequate Bank supervision during the initial implementation period was partly responsible for the delays that occurred (para. 8.3). Intensive Bank supervision is critical during the first year of project Lmplementation especially in order to minimize potential delays (para 8.6). 3. The Borrower's procurement procedures which differed in some respects from Bank guidelines were partly responsible for the delays incurred in obtaining approvals for bid documents (para 5.1). Standardization of bid documents and procurement procedures as recently agreed between the Bank and the Borrower could obviate such delays. 4. The Borrower's promulgation of regulatory reforms under Inpres 4/1985 accelerated port efficiency improvements, which might otherwise have been harder to achieve with the project alone (para 9.1). The Borrower's regulatory decision was timely and demonstrated that effective regulatory reforms can enhance operational efficiency even without making large investments (para 9.5). 5. The combination of the regulatory changes and the physical impact of the project have augured well for the finances of Perumpel-II; it is now in a stronger financial position than five years ago and likely to achieve its objective of attaining self-financing of port operations. With sustained efforts in improving operational efficiency central government transfers for capital investments may no longer be necessary for financing future investments in Perumpel-II ports (para 6.4). - iv - 6. Because of the Borrowe:'s traditionally weak institutions, the supervision of technical assistance requires more Bank resources than are often anticipated especially if the TA is to be adequately responsive to evolving needs of the Borrower. _- INDONESIA NATIONAL PORTS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Loan No. 2577-IND) Project Comgletion Renort 1. PROJECT REVIEW FROM BANK'S PERSPECTI'VE 1. Project Identity Project Name: National Ports Development Project Loan No.: 2577-IND RVP Unit: East Asia and Pacific Country: Indonesia Sector: Ports & Shipping Subsector: Ports Project Cities: Jakarta, Teluk Bayur, Panjang, Palembang, Pontianak Loan Amount: US$ 111.0 million Disbursed: US$ 76.9 million Canceled: US$ 34.1 million 2. Proiect Background 2.1 The archipelagic characteristics of the country ensure that maritime transport was and remains a key link in Indonesia's foreign and domestic trade. In 1983, domestic seaborne trade had reached .0 million tons, after registering an average annual growth rate of 8.4Z over the previous 5 years. During the same period the volume of imported cargo channeled through Indonesian ports grew at 14.6 Z per annum, reaching 26.4 million tons of various commodities. Export volumes which were dominated by crude oil remained relatively stable at slightly above 100 million tons per annum. The Government's export drive almed at expansion of non-oil exports, called for increased productivity of the country's port operations through modernization and investment of modern cargo handling technology. There were more than 300 individual ports in Ittdonesia in 1983, some 45 of which had annual cargo throughput in excess of 200,000 tons. The most important ports Tanjung Priok and Surabaya (Java), Belawan (Sumatra), and Ujung Pandang (Sulawesi) had a combined throughput of 17 million tons and 8.7 million tons respectively of international and domestic cargo. International cargo flow grew at an annual average rate of 7.5S in the mid-70's, vhereas domestic cargo increased at annual rates of 132 during the same period. 2.2 Almost all ports in Indonesia were established during the first decade of this century. The lay-outs of these ports and their facility configurations were designed to suit the cargo handling arrangements of the times, and except for Tanjung Priok, Surabaya, and Belawan, very few physical adjustments had been made in the country's port system. The main problems which impeded the performance of the maritime transport were compounded by but not limited to physical in-efficienciess a complex maze of regulatory and Licensing requirements in the shipping and port services constrained nrospects for improved productivity. About 65Z of transport costs of inter-island trade were being generated in ports. Because of slow loading/unloading, ships spent an inordinate amount of time at ports causing poor fleet utilization and high sea transport costs. 2.3 The majority of Indoneuia's ports was therefore not equipped for introducing modern technology, low-cost cargo handling arrangements. Yet, the need to facilitate urgently required cargo unitization implied necessary adjustment in port lay-outs and facility configuration. In many ports vital installations like quays, road infrastructure, utilities and go-downs were badly deteriorated. As a result cargo movement was slow, and a significant per:entage was damaged in the process. Cargo handling equipment was often in poor state of repair, port basins and access channels were only infrequently dredged leading to limited throughput capacities. Water supply and bunker facilities in ports were in many cases inadequate, contributing to ship waiting time. 2.4 Most land-side management of cargo in ports was dissipated among various agencies, antd the existence of labor unions precluded incentives for improving productivity of labor. Availability of several services was uncoc.-dinated and time consuming customs inspection practices added to ship waiting and cargo handling times. 2.4 In its basic approach to sector reforms, formulated under a Bank assisted Maritime Sector Development Program (MSDP), GOI decided to commercialize many functions in the maritime system, and to increase private sector participation. It reorganized the management of the country's port system in May 1983 into four public corporations called Perumpels, head-quartered at four gateway ports (Belawan, Tanjung Priok, Surabaya, and Ujung Pandang), each with a defined zone of influence and responsibility for efficient operation and management of all major ports in such zones. The decree establishing them, mandated the Perumpels to be managed according to commercial principles, and to strive for financial self-sufficiency. 2.5 In the early 1980's MOC commissioned the preparation of plans for improving the five (5) major ports in Perumpel-II (PP-II) zone of influence,I(Tanjung Priok, Teluk Bayur, Palembang, Panjang, and Pontianak) to enable them to handle projected cargo traffic increases. PP-II ports accounted for about 10Z of the total cargo handled in 1983. The early findings of the port optimization studies determined that there was considerable unutilized capacity under existing installations which if upgraded along with appropriate modifications in port operations and management could improve port efficiency. 3. Project Obiectives and Descriptions 3.1 The project was the first lending operation that emerged from the GQI-Bank dialogue addressing the sectorwide maritime policy reform. The project aimed at system improvement by concentrating on raising the level of port productivity and management competence and to arran8e for facility rehabilitation and modernization in ports. The project's focus was primarily on ports in P-Il and all essential arrangements for overall effective port management and efficient operations. The specific project objectives were: (a) to help establish PP-I1 in line with sound managerial, technical and financial standards; (b) to improve operations and management in all ports within the P-II zone; (c) to provide for the expansion and upgrading needs in the key ports in the Perumpel-II zone; (d) to help DGSC arrange for required organization and procedural changes in the sea trade administration; and (e) to meet the training needs of Perumpel-I1 and sea communications staff. 3.2 The project was aimed at providing urgently needed facility rehabilitation and basic container handling facilities in the ports of Toluk Bayur, Panjang, Palembang and Pontianak, and expanding the container terminal facility in Tanjung Priok. The underlying goal of these measures was to ensure that projected port traffic can be efficiently handled until the mid-1990s. Proiect Cogonents 3.3 The project included rehabilitation of facilities, expansion of container terminal, establishment of container handling facilities, and provision of technical assistance services and training. The program for each of the P-II individual ports is outlined in Table 4(iii). The scope of the technical assistance is shown in Table 7. 3.4 Training under the direction of DGSC and P-II was to be provided for port personnel and staff of port service organizations primarily in support of the project ports improvement schemes, but also for personnel from other regional port authorities in coordination with the Netherlands' government assisted port workers training program. 4. Proiect Design and Organization 4.1a As part of its sector support strategy, the Bank helped GOI in assessing maritime transport problems and issues. During the initial phases of the project GOI and the Bank reached a consensus that the performance of the maritime sector was primarily impeded by cumbersome regulations and inefficient operations and management practices. Also the Bank held t'ne view that future Bank operations should encompass all aspects of maritime transport. The approach that was used in this project of addressing sector-wide problems was innovative because earlier projects had narrower scopes of sector issues and succeeded in improving the sector only in limited ways. Early findings of the studies carried out under the Maritime Sector Development Program (MSDP) financed under three previous Bank loans proved that low productivity was a key bottleneck in maritime system performance. This realization of low productivity formed the conceptual basis for the design of the project. A decision was taken to address port efficiency problems on a priority basis. Bank-financed consultants were hired to define optimization measures for key ports and draw up plans and designs for achieving specific improvements. From an institutional perspective, an essential step in GOI's strategy for improving the performance of the sector was the establishment in 1983 of the four Perums (para 2.4). GOI's intention was that the Perums would develop, operate, and maintain the nation's ports in line with sound technical, economic, and financial practices with management structures distinct from the DGSC. The Bank had maintained that given the predicted start- up problems and difficulties P-II management might face, their organizations and rules of business needed to be clearly defined and supported by the project. The institutional concept and design were considered appropriate and timely since the ports in P-II zone incorporate the most important elements of the country's maritime subsector and any improvement in them would have greater national impact. - 4 - 4.2 Under the Project Agreement, the management of P-II vas responsible for all the physical comoonents in respect of all the five ports, port training program and a technical assistance component related with the strengthening of the managements of P-11 and other regional ports. MOC, DGLC and DGSC were responsible for the technical assistance studies for the maritime sector monitoring and data management, strengthening of state transport corporations, and river and land transport improvement, regulatory reforms and development of MIS (Table 7). 5. Proiect Implementation 5.1 The six month period immediately following the loan effectiveness in October 1985 recorded no physical progress in project implementation. The delay was largely attributable to a range of problems which are prevalent in the construction industry in Indonesia including lengthy procurement procedures e.g. prequalification, specifications and tender documents, and inadequately staffed project coordination function. These vere likely predictable and should have been reflected in the original implementation schedule. Ia 1986, GOI and the Bank agreed to reduce the scope of the project, reducing or dropping some civil works in the ports of Palembang, Panjang, and Teluk Bayur, and eliminating equipment for these ports and the port of Pontimnak alltogether from the project (table 4(iii)). Subsequent decisions, largely influenced by a rapid growth in containerized traffic at the port of Tanjung Priok, expanded its list of container handling equipment procured both under and outside the project. Among the principal reasons given for the decision to reduce the project costs and scope were: a) Bank's then on-going cost reduction efforts motivated by the Indonesia's budgetary requirements at the time; b) expected improvements in port operations due to the impact of Inpres 4f1985; and c) an early perception that port traffic forecasts used in the SAR were overstated. The costs of the civil works were further reduced by fortuitous circumstances in the country that occurred at the time: Firsts a major devaluation of the Rupiah which took place in early 1986 had the effect of lowering the Rupiah costs of the project. Secondly, the bust following the pre-1986 boom in the construction industry caused a large number of contractors competing fiercely for jobs and tendering low bids for civil works substantially below SAR estimates. The combined effect of the reduction in the scope of the civil works and equipment in the project and the competition for works was responsible for the cancellation of nearly thirty one percent of the Loan funds (US$ 28.31 million) in October 1989. 5.2 The technical assistance and training programs (table 7) were left intact with the exception of the river transport study which was implemented only partially. In fact later the technical assistance was expanded to include preparation of the Highway Sector Loan I Project, feasibility studies for ports of Pontianak and Panjang, O-D surveys for road and non-road traffic, additional advisory services to MOC, an umbrella for evaluating proposals for private sector involvement in ports, and a seminar for sector staff on environmental policies. The technical assistance and training components implemented by PP-11 were completed reasonably well on schedule. However, the technical assistance implemented by the Ministry required inordinate amount of supervision inputs at all stages of procurement and actual implementation. -5- 5.3 Under the modified schedule implementation was subsequently put on a fast track as Bank supervision intensified and by April 1991, except for Teluk Bayur, most civil works, equipment procurement, training, and technical assistance components were substantially completed. Significant modifications that had to be made to the original civil works program in the port of Teluk Bayur due to poor soil conditions at berth sites caused a delay which necessitated a loan closing date extension of six months from the original date of June 30, 1992. The loan closing date was extended to December 31, 1992 to allow the completion of works in Teluk Bayur which was achieved in November 1992. 6. Proiect Results Proiect Obiectives 6.1 Overall the project was successful in meeting its primary objectives. Urgently needed facility rehabilitation and installation of basic container handling facilities in the four ports was carried out and container terminal facilities and equipment were expanded at Tanjung Priok. The project was timely due to evident growth in traffic in the ports especially in the port of Tanjung Priok which was handling an expanding volume of containerized exports with limited facilities and equipment. In addition, the project helped in strengthening PP-II management and operations, established sector planning and information system and contributed to the policy analysis and regulatory reform effort of the Ministry of Communications. Extensive training in several aspects of port operations and management including post graduate programs was provided to Perumpel personnel in-house and in selected overseas institutions. The training was satisfactory and completed on schedule. Physical Results 6.2 The project was completed at a substantially reduced scope and cost of US$145 million equivalent compared with the SAR estimate of US$186 millionttable 4(i)). A total of US$ 76.9 million out of the loan account was utilized, and out of the undisbursed balance of US$ 34.1 million, sum of US$ 28.31 million was canceled in October 1989, and the cancellation of the remaining amount in the account is being processed. The key changes in the scope of the project are shown in table 4(iii). Among the important changes were the elimination of equipment items for all the ports except Tanjung Priok where more equipaent items for containerized cargo were added, and substantial reductions in the scopes of civil works for individual ports. The principal reasons for the reduction of the project costs are explained in para. 5. The physical targets of the project were substantially achieved save for the modifications to the original scope. The scope of works in terms of port facility improvements completed and equipment supplied under the project is also summarized in Table 4(iii). Financial Performance 6.3 The financial position of the corporation has steadily improved during the project implementation phase and its performance surpassed appraisal targets. At the individual ports level, ports of Tanjung Priok and Panjang, which hawdle container traffic, have surpassed their respective covenanted target - 6 - working ratios. However, the three other ports failed to meet their targets (Table 6(iii). Overall PP-II provided funds for about 13.2 percent of the total investment in the ports from its operations (table 6(iv)). The financial performance of the corporation during the project period was influenced by a number of operating parameters among which the most important were; (a) level of port tariffs and frequency of their revisions; (b) the effect of cost control through better management of operations implemented under the project; (c) the level and composition of port cargo as well as ship traffic; (d) the variety and level of services offered by the port corporation; and (e) the impact of project financing in terms of acquired debt burden. 6.4 Since 1986 there was one tariff increase for major port services which was implemented in August 1990 in the Port of Tanjung Priok. The tariff increase was not immediately implemented in the other four ports during this period which subscribed to the failure of such ports in meeting their respective targets for operating results. However, the tariff increase at Tanjung Priok (which accounts for 75-80 percent of PP-II's total revenue), the growth in the container traffic there, and the positive impact of Inpres 4/1985 decisions, were largely responsible for strengthening the finances of PP-Il. 6.5 Key financial indicators for PP-II and individual ports for the period FY 87 through FY 92 are given in Table 6(iii). Corporation's revenues grew but remained slightly lower than SAR estimates until 1989. From 1990 onwards revenues substantially surpassed the SAR estimates and operating results also did better than covenanted target ratios. The workint ratios declined from a level of about 80Z in 1987 to about 462 in 1992 against a covenanted target of 802. The operating ratios declined from a high of 1032 in 1987 to 61.5S in 1992 compared with the SAR target of a high level of 982 in 1989 to 95.6X in 1992. 6.6 The effectiveness of the cost control measures and efficiency improvements instituted are illustrated by a growth in revenue of about 20? in 1988 over the previous years' record, and a corresponding decline in operating expenses by 5? in the same period. Overall in the period 1987-92 the growth in revenues has out-performed that in expenses by a factor of 1.8. Consequently, the corporation was able to maintain a healthy flow of cash from its operations. However, PP-II was only able to attain a still low self-financing ratio of 13.2 percent of the overall investments of about US$254.8 million made during the period. Excluding debt service and profit distributions, a self-financing ratio of about 26 percent was nonetheless achievable if needed. The debt burden incurred under the subsidiary loan agreement was only about US$62 million compared with the US$100.2 million approved originally, which leaves the PP-II with a comfortable debt-equity ratio of 20180 (table 6(v)). The cashflow from operations at about US$ 55 million in 1992, is more than adequate to cover the debt service resulting from the new and old loans. 6.7 Although the financial performance of the corporation as a whole was satisfactory, the performance of individual ports was markedly different. The port of Tanjung Priok, the largest and through which almost all the container traffic is handled, contributes the largest share of PP-II revenues and profits. Except for Panjang, which handled a small number of container traffic, the other three project ports failed to achieve the covenanted as well as the SAR financial targets. It should be noted that the three ports do not yet handle containerized -7- traffic which can be handled more efficiently than conventional cargo with the use of appropriate facilities. This may partly explain the poor financial performance of these ports. Economic Re-evaluation 6.8 At appraisal, measurable economic benefits of the project were expected to result from reductions in ship-waiting and ship-service times at berth. It was assumed that with investment in additional facilities and through increased containerization and improved productivity, ships would spend less time both at berth and in queuing. Specific productivity targets were used as shown in Table 6(ii) for the rate of return calculations. The results of the performance are also shown in table 6(ii). As it can be seen from the table, the data for ship-service and ship-waiting times for Tanjung Priok are shown in the four categories of vessels which made calls, and those for the other ports are in aggregate. The ship-waiting times for Tanjung Priok continued to increase significantly from their levels in 1987 for all categories of ships except for container ships where it peaked in 1990 and then tapered off. Notably during this period, the number of ships making calls there also increased and was arguably responsible for the worsening of the waiting times. As the data indicate, the performance at the container terminal has been relatively better than at other berths showing noticeable reductions from 1991. 6.9 Based on the data provided the ship-waiting and ship-service times over the period have fared worse than their outcome estimated at appraisal. Capacity utilization as measured by berth occupancy rates suggests no indication of serious congestion as occupancies generally remained at lower than 702. Ship- service times which are directly related to improvements in cargo handling rates and equipment availability have by the same token turned out worse than had been expected. To partly explain the worsened performance, there was a reported high incidence of mechanical problems with several quayside cranes which prolonged ship-service times at the container terminal and multipurpose berths. The analysis of such data does not offer conclusive indication of the possible time savings which could be used as basis for economic benefits and basing rate of return calculations strictly on the expected reductions of ship waiting and service times as applied in the appraisal methodology would not capture the real benefits of the project. 6.10 There is, however, sufficient evidence to suggest that the project's return on investment would at least match the appraisal ERR of 322. First, the cost of investments in civil works came out much lower than the appraisal estimate due to more competitive environment in the construction industry. Secondly, the port traffic in all ports except the port of Teluk Bayur far exceeded appraisal targets (Table 6(i)). Thirdly, the improved port operating environment due to the impact of Inpres 4, and the institutional strengthening activities of the project yielded better operating efficiencies of port assets. Without doubt, the ports would have faced serious traffic congestion causing long ship waiting and service ti-es if they were left to operate without the project investments. Under the scenario without the project where traffic congestion would have been inevitable due to higher than expected traffic growth, the imposition of port surcharges by vessel cwners would have been very likely. - 8 - In this context the project can be said to have saved substantially in avoided cost of congestion. 6.11 The project is also believed to have achieved substantial indirect benefits as followss (a) it helped promote the GOI export drive through the provision of expanded container tandling facilities which in turn allowed a growth in containerized exports at the port of Tanjung Priok; (b) it provided a basis for future containerization of interisland trade as a result of the installations of basic container handling facilities at the four project ports; and (c) it strengthened the management of PP-It which will result in improved port operating efficiency and financial soundness thereby reducing the demand for inv3stment in additional capacity. Lessons 6.12 The combination of the regulatory changes and the impact of the project have augured well for the finances of the port corporation as indicated by its stronger position now than was before these changes. Thus PP-II has achieved an important phase towards the objective of self-financing whereby central government transfers will be replaced increasingly by internally generated funds for financing future investments in PP-II ports. 7. Project-Sustainabilitv 7.1 Sustainability of project benefits is dependent on the ability of PP-I to utilize properly the new facilities and assets created under the project. PP-II has demonstrated itself to be competent to implement major construction works relatively quickly as it did under this project. Furthermore during the implementation of the project, PP-IT management was tested by a real problem of how to deal with a rapidly growing congestion particularly at its container terminal I. Even though it was managing project construction on its own, it was able to build a second container terminal which it designed, developed and commissioned on its own in a very short schedule at a very competitive cost. In the long run, however, the sustainability of delivering adequate port services to the users will depend on the ability of PP-II management to achieve high and sustained levels of productivity of the work force, make efficient use of port equipment and facilities, and administer adequate level of tariffs for port services necessary for full cost recovery. The major risks lie with the question of PP-II's ability (or lack thereof) to manage the port work force effectively, manage all port functions without undue interference from the port administrator function, and face an undesirable prospect of failing to achieve tariff increases which in some respects fall outside the mandate of the corporation's management. 8. Bank Performance 8.1 The Bank entered the discussions of this project with some accumulated experience in the maritime sector which by then had benefitted from three previous Bank-funded operations, namely first and second Shipping projects and Tanjung Priok Port project. The lessons learned from the past operations had convinced the Bank that problem complexities and institutional weaknesses burdening the sector were the principal limiting factors in achieving objectives -9 - of an individual lending operation. Although objectives of past Bank projects were substantially achieved they were not designed to deal with sector-wide issues and problems. Recognizing lessons from past operations and the magnitude of port inefficiencies, the Bank made a timely move of supporting GOI effort in designing a comprehensive study covering all aspects of the maritime transport problems and issues in early 1982. Technical assistance required for the Maritime Sector Development Program (MSDP) of actions was provided from the proceeds of the previous Bank loans. Even then the objectives of this project (modernization and optimization of port equipment and facilities) and the urgency of the actions required for improving port productivity were well defined and provided a sufficient basis for preparing a project. And indeed, the Bank took an unusual step of appraising a suitable project even though the results of the ongoing studies were still not yet final. However the Bank delayed the loan processing for reasons that were not explicitly stated, but suggested uncertainties regarding the implementation arrangements and lingering doubts about the direction of the sector as a whole as being among such reasons. Vital time was, therefore, lost during this crucial period when containerization of port cargo was on the rise. The apparent move by the Bank to appraise a project may have been in response to the 001's export drive whose fate relied on rapid actions to improve port productivity. At no time were the principal objectives of the project in question in which case delays in loan processing should have been minimized in order to capture early on the predicted benefits of the project. The delay which followed the appraisal in November 1983 resulted in a need to post-appraise the project before it was taken to the board for approval in June of 1985. 8.2 The Bank's performance in identifying sectoral issues and conducting dialogue with the Government has been good. However, the preparatory phases of the project took long time. For example records show that the run up period to loan effectiveness, starting with preparation to appraisals, negotiations and board approval, consumed staff resources of nearly 260 staff weeks (Table 5) the bulk of which was absorbed in appraisal and follow-up. However, it is noteworthy that considerable number of staff resources prior to the appraisal phase were expended on more general sector work and a third Maritime Project which was later abandoned. Once the loan was signed however, there was only a small delay of about a month before the loan became effective. 8.3 Bank supervision of the project was minimal during the critical initial phase of implementation launch and mobilization (para. 5). The mission's review, six months after the loan became effective concluded that a number of factors influencing the project changed, and with the delay already incurred a revision was made, resulting in a substantial cost reduction and elimination of some schemes from the project. The decision to change the scope of the project, only a few months after appraisal diminished the benefits that could have been attributable to the high costs incurred in preparing this project. The original objectives of the project were generally maintained, in spite of the changes in the scope. 8.4 Subsequent Bank missions reported satisfactory progress in implementation despite the institutional weaknesses of the implementing agencies. Physical progress proceeded generally satisfactorily as the Bank put 20-22 staff weeks a year on average for the supervision of the project and the fledgling - 10 - Perumpel-I1 performed far better than was expected. This level of Bank supervision is perceived to be at least partly responsible for putting the project on a manageable implementation schedule even though it did not always permit adequate supervision to cover the four ports outside Java which were rarely visited by Bank missions. Lessons: 8.5 Although the Bank used a large amount of resources in time and personnel in the preparation of the project, these costs were justified by a successful policy dialogue which brought about important reforms. The timing of the project was good as GOI had embarked on an export drive for non-oil products. The combination of good timing for the project and the Bank's commitment to policy analysis and reform made it possible for this project to be implemented in a less regulated sector environment. Technical assistance activities played a vital role in defining the scope of the project and in meeting specific objectives. 8.6 The start-up problems which were responsible for the lion's share of the project delays may have been minimized if intensified Bank supervision followed immediately after the loan became effective. The records show that there was no Bank supervision during the critical period of project mobilization until about six months later at which time no noticeable progress was made. 9. Borrower Performance 9.1 GOI performance in the project was good, guided by its early recognition of the need to analyze sector-wide shortcomings and to devise remedial measures for bringing about badly needed rapid improvements in port operational and management efficiency. The principal instrument of the Borrower for providing the analytical framework for actions was the Maritime Sector Development Program (MSDP) whose findings and recommendations provided the basis for the objectives of the port project. MSDP, inter alia, concluded port optimization studies for the Perumpol-II ports were necessary to determine specific investments needed to bring down the high costs associated with cumbersome customs procedures, port operating inefficiencies, and shipping route patterns. The Borrower responded well to the recommendations and took specific plans of actions. As a location for the immediate sation on investments the Borrower chose the administrative zone of Perumpel-11 which encompasses a region where most international and domestic trade is generated (para.2.5). The MSDP also established that despite the recent investments in container handling facilities, the gateway port of Tanjung Priok would need more facilities to cope with the expected growth in cargo containerization. Also the operating conditions of the other four ports in the zone were severely hampered by deteriorated installations and systems obsolescence many of which were due for decommissioning. The Borrower's grasp of the sector's problems and readiness to take action was instrumental in defining the objectives of the project. GOI's performance was immensely enhanced also by its promulgation and subsequent implementation of Inpres 4/1985 which brought far reaching impacts particularly on port operations and management. The particular elements of Inpres 411985 more relevant to port improvements included relaxed restrictions on port access for foreign-owned vessels, and domestic cargo tariffs, and the reform of the customs - 11 - procedures which allowed freer movement of cargo in ports. In many ways the implementation of Inpres 4 created a conducive environment at the ports for achieving the stated goals of the project. 9.2 An important function related to the implementation of the project was that of properly documenting project transactions for later use in evaluating the impact of the project. It is now evident that this function was overlooked as illustrated by the fragmentation of project related accounts among implementing agencies and inconsistencies in port data, the use of which may raise doubt about the integrity of such information for analytical purposes. There was also no reporting requirement for over all project implementation summarizing physical and financial pzogress on a regular basis. If periodic progress reports were made and carefully reviewed, it would have been possible to make early and timely detections of where the problems were occurring. No doubt the information system of the port corporation has improved significantly as a result of various actions taken during this project. For example, on the financial accounting side the service oriented, cost based accounting system was designed and introduced, and improved port operating procedures replaced the old ones. These improvements vould hopefully begin to change the quality of port information systems in the near future. 9.3 Implementation phase of the project was modified within the first year of start up because Borrower's implementation capacity was deemed weak (para. 5); considerable time lapsed without discernible progress during the early part of project execution causing a concern about the implementation schedule. However, it is noteworthy that during this period of delays there were also many changes taking place at the ports and in the MOC, precipitated by implementation of Inpres 4 with its considerable impact on the project as originally conceived. The Bank and the Borrower agreed to reassess and modify the project scope setting more realistic targets both in physical investments and port operating performance in the aftermath of Inpres 4. The Borrower's readiness to adapt to the new scope of the project without causing major delays was commendable. Since the modification of the project the Borrower succeeded in maintaining project implementation generally on schedule. Lessons 9.4 Borrower's procurement procedures were time- consuming and differed in some respects from Bank guidelines. Such differences added to the implementation delays especially in obtaining approvals for the bid documentation from the Bank and 001. Standardization of bid documents and procurement procedures as recently agreed between the Bank and the Borrower helped obviate such delays. 9.5 The GOIs' promulgation of Inpres 4/1985 was a landmark decision which accelerated port efficiency improvements which might have otherwise not been possible with the project alone. The decision also demonstrated how effective regulatory reforms can bring about noticeable operational efficiencies in the sector without necessarily making large investments. - 12 - 10. Relationships 10.1 The relationships of the Bank and the Borrower were satisfactory, had positive impacts on the project and helped bring about the sweeping reforms in the maritime sector (pars. 8.1). Both the Bank and the Borrower came to realize the urgent reforms needed in the sector in general, and in improving operations and management of Indonesian ports. This good relationship provided a climate for the government to accelerate the pace of reform in the maritime sector which benefitted the project. The fledgling Perumpel-IT, vhich was only a few years old as a semi-autonomous body displayed a commendable responsibility as it took on most of the implementation tasks with less direct control by DGSC, bringing the project to a successful completion. However, after the promulgation of the reforms under Inpres 4/1985 the role of the port edministrator viz-a-viz the port management regarding day to day administration of the ports was not always clearly defined. The port administrator who initially reported to the Minister has a coordination function that is much needed among the several agencies with port related functions, including Perumpel-II, Harbor Master's office, Navigational office, sea transport, customs, immigration, etc. The fact that the port administrator reported to the Minister even on day-to-day management was perceived to undercut the autonomy of the Perumpel management. As both the port management and the functions of the Adpel are vital for improving port productivity and smooth operations, clearer division of responsibilities would have to be made to facilitate their respective roles. Lesson 10.2 Inpres 4 recognized the two distinct functions of government and port services at the ports which are respectively headed by an administrator (Adpel) and a president director. While the perumpel and the adpel have been in existence for only a short while there is need for a more clearly defined division of responsibility as well as accountability for the undertakings at the ports. Such a definition of responsibility would help towards increasing port productivity as a whole. 11. Prolect Documentation and Data 11.1 Overall project documentation provided substantial materials on the background of the project. The SAR has wealth of information on the project objectives and its justifications and the legal documents (the Loan and Project Agreements) were satisfactory. However, the detailed analyses of economic benefits and rate of return were not available in the project file. Also, during the implementation, there was no specific requirement for regular reporting(e.g.quarterly, semi- annually, or annually) of the over all progress of the project. 11.2 The port data--financial, traffic, and performance indicators prepared by PP-II were not always consistent. Such inconsistencies in the data renders them unreliable for use in quantitative analysis of port operations as they could lead to erroneous conclusions. One of the problems arises from the appearance that data management is less important in the hierarchy of port management activities and remains decentralized, giving way to inconsistencies. - 13 - 12. Consultinx Services 12.1 Consultants were used extensively for (a) design and supervision; (b) project preparation (financed under previous loans); (c) institution building; and (d) policy qnalysis and sector related planning. A- list of consulting services provided to the corporation and agencies of the Ministry of Communications (MOC's planning,legal and state enterprise bureaus, DGSC, and DGLC) is provided in Table 7. The technical assistance components were implemented flexibly within the over all objectives of the project to allow for the changes taking place in the sector regulatory environment. The major contributions made by consultarts included: project implementation support to PP- II, carrying out action plans for improving port accounting systems, management information and operating procedures, an umbrella for commenting on proposals for private sector involvement, and designing a planning model for financial and economic analyses of port investments. These components completed on schedule have made valuable contribution to the objective of strengthening the institutional capability of PP-II. However, the components implemented by the ministry were found to be time- consuming in both their procurement and implementation phases and required more supervision by the Bank. But outcomes of several of the technical assistance services made valuable contributions to the ministry's specific efforts: The MOC planning bureau received valuable advice on sector policy initiatives and reforms,and an improved basis for determining expenditure priorities; the Legal bureau received limited legal advice on deregulation strategies; the state enterprise bureau received assistance in designing an integrated planning and monitoring system for state enterprises in the sector; and DG Bina Marga (NPW) and DGLC received advisory services on road traffic and transport on regulations governing vehicle weight and dimension limits. The outcome of some of the major studies such as the O&D surveys, the Land Transport Development Study, and the DGSC sector monitoring have provided important inputs for future sector planning and policy analysis. The consultant work on the DGSC MIS study was deemed unsatisfactory because inter alia, it did not give sufficient attention to the important problem of data capture. Lesson 12.2 The technical assistance played an important role in the design, preparation, and implementation of the project, and in providing valuable advisory services to MOC and its agencies in sector planning, policy analysis, and regulatory reforms. Given the Borrower's traditionally weak institutions, good quality outcome of technical assistance requires intensive supervision by the Bank from the beginning with the design of the TORs, to the end with the review of reports. AL a corollary, inadequate Bank supervision of technical assistance components often results in unsatisfactory outcomes. 14 PART II: PROJECT REVIEW FROM BORROWER'S PERSPECTIVE NATIONAL PORTS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IMAD Loan No. 2577-IND PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 2. ACTUAL PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING 3. VARIATIONS IN SCOPE FROM ORIGINAL LOAN AGREEMENT 4. KEY PORT OPERATING PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 5. COMPLIANCE WITH MA40R LOAN CONDMONS 6. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE 7. EVALUATION OF IBRD PERFORMANCE 8. EVALUATION OF PELABUHAN If AND GOI PERFORMANCE 9. CONCLUSIONS PT (Persero) Pelabuhan Indonesia II July 1993 16 NATIONAL PORTS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IBRD Loan No. 2577-IND PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION In accordance with its determination to increase non-oil exports, the Government of Indonesia sought to increase the efficiency of the port sector. Low port productivity was effecting the Indonesian economy and raising sea transport costs which were reflected in higher world market prices of Indonesian commodities and also raising the price of both local and imported goods in the local market. The Government recognised that low port productivity also hinders the pace of regional development, especially in the port hinterlands where growth of the local economy is very dependant on efficient trade between the area and the region. In connection with the above, the Government entered into a cooperation with the World Bank, later followed by a formal agreement, to overcome the restraints causing low port productivity by improving port management and procedures as well as port facilities. This was expected to reduce ship turnaround time, thereby increasing ship operational efficiency and hence lowering sea transportation costs. Major administrative reform in 1983 brought all public ports under the control of four regional semi-autonomous public portcorporations. The largest of these was Perum Pelabuhan II which, on 19 October 1991, changed its legal status to PT (Persero) Pelabuhan Indonesia II. Initial studies of the Pelabuhan 11 ports led to concentration on improving the efficiency and facilities in the five major ports in the region - Tanjung Priok, Teluk Bayur, Panjang, Palembang and Pontianak. Negotiations with the World Bank led to the signing of IBROD Loan No. 2577-IND for US$ 111 million, effective October 1985. Of this amount, US$ 100.2 million was on-lent to Pelabuhan II through a Subsidiary Loan Agreement (SLA), the balance to be disbursed by the Ministry of Communications (MOC) and the Directorate General of Sea Communications (DGSC). The purpose of the loan was: Streamlining of the administrative procedures and organisations of Perumpel 11 and all the branch ports, especially the five major ports. Rehabilitation and expansion of port facilities in the five major ports and improavement of terminal operations. Advancement of the skill and knowledge of Pelabuhan II personnel via human resource development. Provide technical assistance and training to DGSC and MOC and the other public port corporations, Pelabuhan I,ll,and IV. 17 2. ACTUAL PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING General The total project cost is summarised in Table 1, together with the cost estimates of the Bank's Staff Appraisal Report (SAR) of 1985. The loan allocation, sector disbursements and final loan balance are presented in Table 2. Details of the actual project costs by sector and contract given in Table 3 (civil), Table 4 (equipment) and Table 5 (consultants). The overall project cost was US$ 142.0 million compared to the 1985 SAR estimate of US$ 186.5, and the Bank disbursed only US$ 76.9 million from the original allocation of US$ 111.0 million. The principal differences lie in much lower costs for civil work, partially offset by substantial increases in spending on equipment, technical assistance and training. CMhi Work Several factors contributed to the large reduction in the cost of the civil works. Firstly, with the approval of the Bank, the scope was somewhat reduced (refer Section 4). Then, following the world economy, a downturn in the construction industry leading up to the tender period increased competition among the bidders and this was further emphasised by staggering the civil work tenders at two week intervals, resulting in extremely competitive bids for the latter packages. The devaluation of the Rupiah in 1986 further reduced the local costs in dollar terms. Equipment Initially only two container cranes and some supporting equipment were ordered for the Tanjung Priok container terminal, while awaiting completion of the wharf strengthening and extension of the container yard. It soon became evident that the container projections for Tanjung Priok had been underestimated (the 1989 container throughput exceeded the 1990 forecast) and a substantial investment from the Loan was made in container handling equipment. Furthermore, as the container growth continued to escallate, Perumpel II developed Container Terminal 11 with its own funds, by modifying an existing general cargo terminal. Besides the IBRD-funded equipment, therefore, Perumpel II purchased additional new and used container handling equipment to service both container terminals. A full list of equipment is given in Table 7, all of which was assigned to Tanjung Priok. The total project investment in equipment, including the Perumpel II procurement, became US$ 65 million compared to the original allocation of US$ 27 million. The justification for this is clear from the explosive growth in container traffic in Tanjung Priok; the throughput in 1990, for example, virtually equalled the SAR forecast for the year 2000. Technical Assistance. Consultancy and Training The technical assistance and training programs were both expanded during the course of the project. The technical assistance allocation was increased to include feasibility studies and masterplan reviews for the next expansion of the Ports of Tanjung Priok, Paniang and Pontianak. The local and overseas training programs in various aspects of port and equipment management were extended to include staff from Perumpel I, IlIl and IV, and an overseas post graduate program was included. Training for DGSC senior staff in the environmental provisions of the IMO Convention was provided, in connection with Indonesia's ratification of the Convention. Loan Amendments Referring to Table 2. the first amendment in mid 1989 reduced the value of the Loan from USS 111,000,000 to US$ 82,690,000 reflecting the low contract prices for the civil works and the initial reduction in equipment. Construction management services were transferred from the DGSC to the Subsidiary Loan Agreement (SLA) budget, the technical assistance budget was expanded and the unallocated budget reduced. Following this loan reduction, the container trade continued to escallate rapidly and Perumpel 11 was compelled to use its own funds to purchase urgently needed equipment, as explained above. The second amendment in 1991 was a reallocation of the loan, primarily to restore the original budget for equipment and assign it all to the Tanjung Priok container terminal. I 3. VARIATIONS IN SCOPE FROM ORIGINAL LOAN AGREEMENT A comparison of the project as executed versus the Loan Agreement is presented in Table 6 (civil work) and Table 7 (equipment). The Project rimetable, spanning more than 11 years, is presented in Figure 1. Figure 2 gives full details of the equipment procurement schedule, both IBRD-financed and Pelabuhan If financed. Civil Work Apart from the Port of Teluk Bayur, the civil work was executed without major problems. At Teluk Bayur, problems arose from failure to gain the Provincial Govemment's approval for quarrying operations at the Ioca..`ns implied in the tender documents. This caused substantial delays and associated cost while alternative sources of sand and rock were ascertained. A minor problem arose later at Teluk Sayur with differential settlement of transit shed foundations which was monitored, checked and rectified. 19 The civil works for four of the ports were completed within 1 to 2 years; Teluk Bayur took 4.5 years mainly because of the problems mentioned above (Table 1). Mechanical It Is clear from Table 7 that the principal variation from the original intent has been to assign nearly all the equipment to Tanjung Priok where all of the container growth has been, except for some promising trade in Panjang. The second major change has been the large additional investment in equipment from Pelabuhan II's own funds to cope with the burgeoning container growth which was much greater than forseen in the SAR. From the detailed equipment schedule of Figure 2, with the exception of Item 6. the procurement of IBRD-financed equipment spanned 4 years. The repeat order of 3 wide-span RTG cranes were ordered in 1990 as a replacement for the third container crane which was included in the SAR but was ultimately financed by Pelabuhan 11. It is interesting to record that the latter, one of 3 ordered from Noell, have outperformed the cheaper IBRD-financed cranes from Hyundai. 4. KEY PORT OPERATING PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Actual port throughput data for the five ports is given in Table 8, with a comparison with the SAR predictions. More detailed traffic data for Tanjung Priok is given in Table 9. Container tproughput in Tanjung Priok in 1990 was nearly 40% above the prediction. It is evident from Table 10 that, in many cases, the operational performance in all five ports has fallen short of the SAR targets for 1990. The following comments refer to items in Table 10. (a) The target throughput per ship per shift for general cargo has been achieved in all five project ports, although somewhat inconsistently, but only Tanjung Priok and Panjang have met the SAR target for containers. (b) In Tanjung Priok there are usually 2 to 3 gangs working every ship. The Tanjung Priok Container Terminal works 24 hours per day but most general cargo vessels have been serviced by only two shifts per day. Exceptions have been usually when there was direct truck lossing to godowns outside the port which can receive goods 24 hours per day. However, under new regulations in 1993, the Private Terminal Operator System (STO) has been introduced in Tanjung Priok which is to provide 24 hour service, and the Government grain distribution company has been instructed to receive produce from ships 24 hours/day. 2n (c) Equipment productivity is not calculated separately from labour productivity, but equipment availability is discussed in (e). (d) The average dwell times are much longer than the targets and have been very difficult to reduce in Tanjung Priok and elsewhere. The reason is that the storage tarifs inside the port are so low, especially for containers, that cargo owners prefer to leave it there. (e) Except for the main equipment at the Tanjung Priok Container Terminal, equipment availability is still poor, although better than before. The low average availability at the Container Terminal in 1990 was caused by a lengthy major overhaul of one of the original 10 year old cranes. Figures for Tanjung Priok general cargo are only available for Pelabuhan II equipment, but over 90% of the handling equipment is operated by the terminal operators. (f) Ship waiting times presented in the table are gross times except for Tanjung Priok which are net. Gross waiting time is the total tumaround time less berthing time. Net waiting time excludes waiting for cargo, documentation or repairs, and waiting either before or after servicing for scheduled connections in Singapore (mooring at Tanjung Priok is cheaper). Although overall berth occupancy ratios are close to or even lower than the SAR target levels, ship waiting times are still greater than the targets. This is due in part to ships being forced to wait for space at the deeper berths while being prevented by draft or length restrictions from using one of the shallower berths where berth occupancy is relatively low. The large proportion of tramper ships, about 55%, also make scheduling difficult. Pelabuhan II does not agree with the high SAR target berth occupancies and is aiming for 65% for general cargo berths and below 50% for container berths. (g) Although the service time for container vessels has almost met the target, the average general cargo service time in Tanjung Priok is still much higher than the target. A partial explanation is that general cargo ships are often waiting alongside the berth for outbound cargo or for trucks to receive inbound cargo. Other time consuming factors are bagging of incoming bulk cargo in the hold and the poor condition of ships' gear, especially on inter- island vessels. Moreover, the port performance figures in the table are total berth times which include effective service time, plus idle time (about 12% of service time), plus non-working time (shifts not worked). For example, the average effective service time for oceangoing ships in 1992 was 44 hours out of 65 hours total berthing time. Further improvement is expected but the SAR target of 30 hours for general cargo vessels appears somewhat unrealistic with the present facilities. 21 The 1992 Tanjung Priok Feasibility Study and Masterplan Review recommended construction of a special grain terminal and a multi-user bulk terminal, which would considerably reduce the average service time and consequently berth occupancy throughout the Port. (h) The low average berth occupancy for the Tanjung Priok Container Terminal in 1991 reflects the opening of the 2-berth Container Terminal II in mid year. The sharp rise In 1992 was due to a 35% rise in traffic through the container terminal, including container traffic transferred from the conventional berths. (i) The above comments for Tanjung Priok berth occupancy ratio also explain the apparent drop in berth productivity in 1991 and the sharp rise in 1992. The apparently very high productivity for Teluk Bayur is due to the predominance of bulk coal and bag cement exports over the public wharf using appropriate mechanical equipment. General cargo in Teluk Bayur represents only about 25% of the total. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH MAJOR LOAN CONDITIONS A review of the Loan Covenants and compliance is shown in Table 12. In general, Pelabuhan II has more than met the financial loan covenants, but some of the individual ports have not achieved the targets. Full details are presented in Section 6 below. With respect to port efficiency covenants, the actual versus target indicators are presented ip Table 10. Several of the important covenants have been met, such as throughput/ship/shift, berth occupancy and berth productivity, but other targets have not been reached. Detailed explanations are given in Section 4. 6. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE The Comparative Income Statements, Balance Sheets, Changes in Financial Position and Financial Ratios are presented in Tables 13 to 16. The financial performance was influenced by a number of operating parameters, e.g., tarifs, cost control, cargo distribution and composition and debt burden, as mentioned in Section 6.3 of the Project Review from Bank's Perspective, which are reflected in the above tables. The income statement figures include allocation of head office expenses. For 1992, the figures only show the financial position up to November 30 because from December 1, 1992 Perum Pelabuhan II became PT (Persero) Pelabuhan Indonesia II, a limited company. 22 As the records show, the operating results of Pelabuhan II have increased significantly during the period 1987/1992 and surpassed the SAR and covenant targets. The working ratio declined from about 80% In 1987 to 42.8% in 1992 and the operating ratio declined from 103% In 1987 to 61.4% in 1992, compared to the covenant targets of working ratio 80% and operating ratio 95.6%. Compared with the 1987 positions, total operating revenues in 1992 Increased 384% and operating expenses in 1992 only increased 229%, showing that the growth of annual revenues was 1.6 times that of expenses. Within Pelabuhan II, Tanjung Priok Branch Port, especially the Container Terminal, gives the largest contribution to the Corporation. Tanjung Priok accounted for 78.5% of total revenues and more than 90% of net income in 1992. Besides Tanjung Priok, Panjang Port which now handles significant containerized cargo shows a good growth and has very good prospects for the future. The Ports of Palembang and Pontianak failed to achieve some financial covenant targets but these two ports also improved their financial efficiency as illustrated in the declining of working ratios from 115% in 1987 to about 90% in 1992 (Palembang) and from 225% to about -71 % (Pontianak). Teluk Bayur Port achieved the working ratio target, but the operating ratio increased significantly in 1992 because of the debt service burden which was allocated to this port. The financial viability of Pelabuhan II in 1992 continues to be robust with a debt equity ratio of 22/78 and an increase in the rate of return on net fixed assets (before tax) from 0.6% in 1987 to 20.9% in 1992. The major debt burden actue,11y incurred under the SubsiIiary Loan Agreement is US$ 60.5 million and the net income before tax is 7.6 times the estimated debt service requirement, which is a much higher ratio than the covenant requirement. 7. EVALUATION OF IBRD PERFORMANCE 1. The time taken for initial project appraisal was very long (refer Figure 1). Project preparation began in mid 1981 but the Staff Appraisal Report was not issued until May 1985. Although loan negotiations proceeded in parallel with completion of the SAR, more than 4 years elapsed from the start of project preparation until loan effectiveness. This delay was further compounded by delays in the Government procurement process, as described in Section 8. 23 2. Disbursements by the Bank were not slow, provided the applications were complete. However, the payment advice, which accompanied each payment application and documented the actual date of payment and the applicable exchange rate, was often delayed in its return to Pelabuhan II. This caused consequent delays in the submission of Pelabuhan II financial reports to DGSC, MOC and Bappenas. 3. The World Bank Guidelines require all contract variation orders above a value of USS 50,000 to be approved by the Bank, causing additional administration and potential for delay. Provided that the loan category limit in the Project Agreement is not exceeded, the US$ 50,000 limit seems an unnecessarily severe restriction on the project management and should be raised. As a guide, the President Director of Pelabuhan If has a Rp. 3 billion (US$ 1.5 million) authority in local contracts. 8. EVALUATION OF PELABUHAN 11 AND GOI PERFORMANCE 1. There have been substantial delays in the procurement process. An indication of the complexity of the GOI procurement process under Keppres 29/1984 is illustrated in Figure 3. There have been few changes in this procurement organisation except that the State Secretariat has now been replaced by the Coordinating Ministry for Economics, Finance and Development Control (E5UWASBANG). In addition to following this procedure, the project management also endeavoured to follow the Bank Guidelines as well, and obtain Bank approval at each relevant stage. 2. In general the execution of civil works went well, except for a few early problems requiring more coordination, especially in areas connected with other Government Agencies such as water, electricity and quarries. 3. Construction work in Teluk Bayur port was delayed because of difficulties with quarry permits for rock and sand under the control of the Provincial Government of West Sumatera. 4. A major problem emerged during the Goverment internal post audit of all the IBRD port projects, centering on differences between the World Bank Guidelines and Keppres 29/1984, especially in the treatment of price escallation, contingencies and general items in the bill of quantities. Final payments to the contractor for the Teluk Bayur civil works were delayed pending resolution of this internal audit problem. These payments will be made by Pelabuhan 11 and did not affect the closure of the Loan. 21! 5. While berth occupancy levels are close to or below the SAR targets, the net ship waiting times remain above the targets in several cases, especially the Tanjung Priok Container Terminal, but there has been further improvement in 1993. Gross waiting times at Tanjung Priok are much greater than shown in Table 10, because ships are often waiting for documentation or outbound cargo or, in the case of container vessels, waiting for scheduled transhipment times in Singapore. 6. Pelabuhan II has continued to give particular attention to the environmental aspects of port development. Following the conclusion of the IBRD- financed FNPDP in 1992, environmental studies, management and monitoring have continued with Perumpel II's own budget in the Ports of Tanjung Priok, Panjang, Teluk Bayur and Palembang. The studies are being carried out in accordance with the 1987 Standard of the Ministry of Population and Environment. 7. Although not included in the Staff Appraisal Report, proceeds of the loan were applied to Feasibility Studies and Masterplan Reviews of the Ports of Tanjung Priok, Panjang and Pontianak which were successfully concluded in 1991 and 1992. The studies included comprehensive environmental investigations carried out in accordance with the World Bank guidelines. 9. CONCLUSIONS 1. Four of the five FNOP ports have shown satisfactory progress in terms of ship calls, cargo throughput and port performance, as evidenced by the enclosures. The Port of Teluk Bayur, however, has not produced the expected results; traffic has not reached the forecasts. Pelabuhan II intends to hold discussions with the Provincial Government to encourage industrial development in West Sumatera which may lead to a flow-on benefit to the Port. 2. The financial status of Pelabuhan II has improved greatly since the beginning of the Project. The growth of annual revenues since 1987 has been 1.6 times the growth of expenditures and the working and operating ratios have exceeded the covenant targets by a wide margin. All of the profit, however, comes from Tanjung Priok and Panjang. Palembang and Pontianak are much improved but still make a small overall operating loss. Teluk Bayur has fallen behind, as explained above. 25 3. The time spent on project appraisal should be reduced. Data collection and evaluation at each stage should be limited to the level necessary to permit a decision whether or not to proceed to the next stage. Marginal projects or sectors should be eliminated early. 4. The procurement process must be simplified as far as practicable. For future World Bank projects, consultations should be held between the Goverment and the Bank to develop a standard form of contract agreeable to both the Bank and all the relevant Government Agencies which can be applied to all World Bank projects in Indonesia. 5. Data collection and processing in Pelabuhan II should be improved. The information system for port statistics should be further simplified, streamlined and standardised. New data collection and presentation systems have been introduced in 1993 with this intention, in the Tanjung Priok STO and container terminals. 6. Coordination with the Local Government Agencies should be improved, especially during the preparation of tender documents so that local conditions will be taken into account, particularly with regard to sourcing local materials such as sand and rock. 7. Levels of financial authority should be reviewed so that, once the Project Agreement and budget are established and contracts are approved, contract variations can be expedited without another lengthy approval process. 8. To overcome disbursement delays within Pelabuhan II, each site project team should be strenghened and, in addition, a separate project coordination unit should be set up in the head office with sufficiently strong authority to control and expedite all payments and problems from the individual projects. 9. The paor equipment availability needs urgent attention. Procurement procedures, spare part inventories, workshop facilities and skill levels must be reviewed and rectified where necessary to repair equipment quickly. 10. The 1991 Tanjung Priok Feasibility Study concluded that the Container Terminal Ill needs to be operational by 1996 to avoid congestion. Pelabuhan II is endeavouring to carry out this project as soon as possible. but implementation has been delayed 2 years while waiting on development proposals from a private consortium. 11. The 1993 Feasibility Studies of the Ports of Panjang and Pontianak also recommended new construction as well as operational improvements. A new 300 metre container berth and a private bulk terminal are now planned for the fast-growing trade in Panjang, and a new passenger terminal and general cargo wharf have been recommended for Pontianak. 26 NATIONAL PORTS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IBRD Loan No. 2577-ND PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT PART It TABLES Table: 1 PROJECT COST SUMMARY aSPID LOAN NR 25r77 IND -( S Toads I _______ _ ,lTOTAL ACTUAt PROJECT COST A FINANCE TOTAL APPRAS ESTIMATE NO CATEGORY I SRO R4P PELAOUHAN 11 TAXVAT BY 001 TOTALS EX VAT (EX VAT) 015Ut8lSEMENT ESTIMATE I L CML WORK 24,662.90 25,287.84 3.S76.24 53 8.5 49.95.74 15000.00 2 IL EOUIPENT 2t.479.13 37.,65." 316.9 64,961.69 64.90.69 34.7.000 3 It TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 0.392.94 4,353.42 12,746.36 12.746.36 6.0D.C0 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SLA SUB TOTAL 60.5J4 9Z 25.267.64 41,519.08 316.0 3,976.24 131,635.03 127,658.79 175,700.00 4 I0. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CONSULTANTS AND TPAINING *MO C 4.86530t 4,6.01 4,,S5.01 -D oSC 9.446.85 9,44.85 9,446.35 NON SUI SUB TOTAL 14.311.86 O0o0 0.00 0.00 0.00 14,3t1.6 t4.31t 1t 10,800.00 _GRAND TOTAL 74.846831 1 . _ . . . 145,946.09 141,970.65 188.500.00 Table: 2 LOAN ALLOCATION AND FINAL BALANCE D LOAN NO. 2577-IND ( US.$) LOAN ALLOCATED _ IRD TOTAL PROJECT COST -__ CATEGORY CONTRACT GOIIPI .U LOAN ORIGINAL AMEND.I AMEND.II AMOUNT I B RD TOTAL (EX.VAT) BALANCE DISBURSEMEN ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9=6+7+8 10=4-6 'OPAL WORK . Tanjung Ptiok 11,800.000 6.560,000 5.980,000 6.560,000 5,963,581.74 5,982,080.00 0.00 11.945.661.74 16,41 8.26 Teluk Bayur 19,950.000 14,265,000 15.321,000 14,265,000 12,531,000.06 13,146,480.00 0.00 25,677,480.06 2789.999.94 . Panjang 5,950.000 4,100,000 3,189,000 4,100,000 3,188,452.02 3,184,200.00 0.00 6,372,652.02 547.98 I. Palembang 4,900.000 1.075,000 977,000 1,075,000 976,902.87 975.000.00 0.00 1.951,902.87 97.13 Pontianak 5,400.000 2,840,000 2,003,000 2,840,000 2,002,965.24 2,000,080.00 0.00 4,003,04524 34.76 Sub Total 1 48,000.000 28.840,000 27,470.000 28,840,000 24.662,901.93 25,287,840.00 0.00 49,950,741.93 2,807,098.07 EQUIPMENT !, Tanjung Priok 21.200.000 14,680,000 28,000.000 28,618,650 27,479,128.80 37,165,660.00 316,900.00 64,961,688.80 520,871.20 ao :. Teluk Bayur 1,650,000 900,000 0 0 0.00 0.00 : Pan]ang 1,250,000 700,000 0 0 0.00 0.00 1. Palembang 1.850,000 200,000 0 0 0.00 0.00 . Pontianak 1,100,000 400,000 0 0 0.00 0.00 Sub Total 2 27,050.000 16,880,000 28,000,000 28,618,650 27,479,128.80 37,165,660.00 316,900.00 64,961,888.80 520,871.20 TECHNICAL ASS./ ,ONSULTANCY -LA(PERUMPELII) 1,550,000 6,600,000 9,380,000 8,593,944 8,392,944.19 4,353,420.00 0.00 12,746,364.19 967,055.81 UNALLOCATED 23,600,000 5,800,000 0 0 0.00 SUB TOTAL SLA 100,200,000 58,120,000 64,830,000 66,052,594 60,534,974.92 66,806,920.00 3t6,900.00 127,658,794.92 4,295,025.08 TECHNICAL ASS.I ,ONSULTANCY 4ON SLAIMOC&DG 10,800,000 24,570,000 17,860,000 13,908,661 14,311,861.17 0.00 0.00 14,311,861.17 3,548,138.83 PROJECT TOTAL 111.000,000 82.690,000 82.690,000 79 961.255 74.846,836.09 66,806,920. 0 0.00 141.970,656.09 7,843,163.91 VER PAYMENT FUN HELD BY PERIUMPEL 1 2,036, 35.92 __ __ - 2,036,635.92 FINAL 76,883,472.01 5,806,527.99 Nxcluding $ 2,036,635.92 Over Payment Table: 3 PROJECT COST - CIVIL WORK ________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _I _ _ _ and CONTRACT VALUE ACTUAL PROJECT COST 3 NAME OF PORT PROJECT SCHEDULE ORIGINAL ORIGtNAL I R p - GOUDiP TAXVAT BY GOt GRAND TOTAL START COMPLETION CONTRACT CONTRACT INCL.VAT MNCL VAT 1. TANUNG PRIOK 07t2-87 09t15-89 USS 12.418.00 USS 13,660.00 USS 5,963.58 US$ 5.98Z08 USS 1,357.83 USS 13303.49 Equivalent: Equivalent: Equivalent: Equivalent: Equiveent: Equivalent: Rp. 14,219,110.54 Fp. 15.641.021.59 Rp. 6,941,536.35 Rp. 6,941.536.35 Flp. 1,162.841.06 Pp. 15,045.913.78 USS 1,565.02 USS 1.721.53 USS 782.51 USS 782.51 USS 13021 USS 1t69523 Yen 319,790.16 Yen 351,769.18 Yen 159,895.08 Yen 159,695.08 Yen 27.036A5 Yen 346,626.61 2. TELUK 8AYUR 10-01-87 03.31-92 USS 25,936.00 USS 28.530.00 USS 12,531.00 USS 13,146.48 USS 1,688.14 US$ 27.363.62 Equivalent: Equivalent: Equivaent: Equivalent: Equerivt: Equvalent: Rp. 15,472,176.00 Rp. 17.019.393.66 Rp. 6,851,873.06 Rp. 7,720.455.58 Pp. 603,230.12 Ftp. 15,375.558.76 1US$ 18,2t.74 US$ 19,811.25 USS 8,704.36 USS 9,071.61 1U$ 99.74 US$ 18.775,71 3. PANJANG 08.1847 0-31-89 USS 7,678.00 US$ 8,444.00 USS 3,188.45 USS 3,184.20 USS 418.06 USS 6,790.71 Equivalent: Equivalent: Equivldnt: Eqwuiaent: Equivalent: Equivalent: Rp. 5.949.079.28 Rp. 6,543,987.21 Rp. 2,603,032.49 Rp. , 2,603.032.49 Ap. 263,416.50 Rp. 5,469,481.48 USS 4,232.06 USS 4,655.27 USS 1,669.77 USS 1,669.77 USS 180.66 US$ 3,520.20 4. PALEMBANG 1142-87 11-3088 USS 2,062.00 USS 2,268.00 US$ 978.90 US$ 975.00 USS 194.48 USS 2.146.36 Equivalent: Equivalent: Equivalent: Equivalent: Equivalent: Equivaent: Rp. 3,010.229.32 Rp. 3,312,022.26 Fp. 1,515,751.43 Rp. 1,515,751.53 Rp. 119,208.10 Rp. 3.150,711.06 USS 189.34 US$ 208.28 US$ 79.07 US$ 79.07 US$ 6.01 US$ 164.15 5. PONTIANAK 09-1547 09-3089 US$ 5,345.00 USS 5,879.00 US$ 2,002.96 USS 2,000.08 US. - 319.73 US$ 4.322.77 Equivalent: Equivalent: Equivalent: Equivalent: EquivWalnt: Equivalent: Rp. 4,012,411.74 Rp. 4,413,652.92 Rp. 1,092,167.85 Pp. t.094,206.98 Rp. 65,284.17 Rp. 2,251,659.00 US$ 2172.20 US$ 2,390.52 USs 948.85 US$ 953.18 U1$ 73.58 $US$ 1,975.61 Yen 113,434.52 Yen 124,717.98 yen 546468.17 Yen 54.884.19 Yen 4.354.07 Yen 113,884.43 __________fuss 53,437.00 jUS$ 58,781.00 (15$ 24,662.89 I US$ 25,27.84 JUSS 3.97624 (1$ 3.997 Table :4 PROJECT COST - EOUIPMENT __ _ _ __ _ _ ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .. n Thousnd) I RAD C O N I R A C I ACTUAL. PO_ _ECt COST NO SCOPE OF WORK PROECT SCHEOULE ORIGINAL CONTRACT REJISEO CONTRACT I_ BAD_ PELAOU?IA 11 GRAND TOTAL ____.___.___.___.___._ StART COMPLETION I UNITS AMOUNT UNITS AMOUNT UNITS AMOUNT I ouaysidContaineCm 12-IS01987 2109-1989 uss 5,627.41 USs 5.627.41 2 tS$ 5s257.34 3 US$ 13.448.35 5 USS 18,73.S Equivet: Equivlet: (Schedule t) 30t11*199 Equivalet: Equvalont: Eqtthcont: OUD 21353-39 OlD 21,353.39 WON 3.219.738. 70 WON 3.219.738.70 WON 3.009.735.33 won WON 3.009.3.33 USS 1.051.t0 USt 1.05I.t0 US$ 979.74 us5 . uSs 978.74 2 Rubbet Tylod Ganty CtAe 12-10-987 28-09-1989 usS 5.8688 uSs 5.66888 7 uS$ 5.361,58 9 uss 12.S4342 16 uSs 17,90501 22.71 M Spa (Schedule 2) 26-11-1990 Equivalent: Equivalent: Equalent: Equhiaent: Equf_vae: WON 3.694.522.52 WON 3,694,522.52 WON 3.497.981.64 WOlN WON 3497,961*64 uss 434.50 uSs 434.50 US$ 410.ss USS 2.507*4 uss 1Z916.40 RP. 74A16.50 AP. 74,416.50 3 Rubbe, Tyted Gantzy Cin Q2-10.1987 2809-1989 us$ 3.061,70 USs 3,061.70 4 USS 2.906,30 U8S Z9030 14.00 It san (Schedule 3) 2s 1-1990 Equivabt: Equivalet: Equivalnt: Equivtalet: WON 2.0o.406.25 WON 2.0)1,406.25 WON 1.916.25.33 WON t.916,22533 o uSs 195.85 Uss 195.85 usS 18,58 uss O."56 4 Trtminta Ttacto (Schedule 4) 24s091987 2307-1988 UsS 89925 USS 899.25 ts 1.15 897.41 USs 697.41 5 Skelal Tailew (Schedule 52 12.10.987 2704-tS88 US$ t63,37 US$ 163.37 15 USS 183.19 SO USt 659.60 65 USS 82Z79 Equivalet: Eq*iokd t UeSS S1.33 UlSS 51033 AP. 309,575.00 FP. 309,15.90 6 foWd Top toader (Package A) t646-990 1512-1990 USS 2.384.55 U$ 2.3U4.55 5 2 USS 2,13660 1 USS 2861.36 I US$ 2,374.96 Forld Sxde Loade 21t03-1991 Equvalent: Equivant: Equivalent: Equiaen: Equvant: 2t45N1991 YEN 309.260.43 YEN 309.260.43 YEN 2868.93.50 YEN 26290.75 YEN 3113.16425 FP. 8.692.63 tlP. ,61.53 7 TerminalM Teo (Packag ) 1tS6.1990 2310-1991 USS 293.36 USS 293.36 4 USS 261.02 30 Ut$ 1.810.20 34 USt 2.409722 Equivaent: Equvaent: Equivalent: Equvaset: Eqialnt: ulSS 1.576.96 YEN 3.861.22 YEN 39.B61.39 YEN 35.B75.25 YEN YE 35.67525 lP. 493008.00 RP. 49200001.9 Table :4 (continued) I O CON HRACT _ ACTUAL PROJECT COST IN THOUSAND NO SCOPE OF WORK PROJECT SCHEDULE ORIGINAL CONTRACT REVISEO CONTfRACT t_ B PELASUHAN 8 GRAND TOTAL START COMPLETION . UNITS I AMOUNT UNITS AMOUT UNTS AMOUNT 8 FIt Deock iaile (Package Cl t66-t990 *6-12-t 99t USS 180.90 USS 180.90 14 US$ 180.990 Equivaent: EquivaIet Euaet: Equifalet: USS 95.30 US5 95.30 U$ 95.30 US 93S0 flf. 166,931.88 RP. 166,931.88 fP. 16S.931.88 ?. 1168,931.88 9 Folfl Fullf't.tift 21Ton US$ 342.07 USS 342.07 20 USS 342.07 us$ WAY (Packl DI Equivaent: Equvalwnt: Equivalt: EquIvlet: YEN 47,484.17 YEN 47.484.17 YEN 47,484.17 YEN 47.44.17 10 Rubber TlyedGanoy Ctane 1800- 1990 09091991 USS 4,936.34 USS 9,92.73 6 USS 9,952.73 UsU 9.95273 22,71 M oen (Piket t8 807-t99 13-061992 Equivalet: Equivaet: Equialt: Equvaet: YEN 545.387.50 YEN 1.090.735.00 YEN 1,09.735.00 YEN 1.0.735.00 USS 684.41 USS 1.3688t USS tS1t.81 US$ 1.36i.61 fR. 24,8l05.50 fP. 49.611.00 RP. 49,611.00 IIP. 49,011.00 tI Used Rail Mounted Ouaysida Con. 2 US$ 3,332.40 2 USS 3.33240 I wnet ClAno 12 Used Ru8bbe Tytod Gly Cian 4 US$ 2t621.63 4 OM 2.621.63 Equlvaent: Du. 4,163.25 13 Used RubP lyed Ganuy Coane 3 USS 2.507.70 3 USS 2,507.70 TOTAL u _ USS 23.665 82 USS 26.672 2t - US 27.479.13 _US 37.t6S.666 USS 64.644.78t Notes: Rloo daed 6 Ai 1993 US$1 =I p 2.074 YenI ts= p. 18 4606 OM I t SP. 1,306.01 LSTO I = rp. 3,17137 TaWle :S TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, CONSUlTANTS ANI) TRAINING _ _ _ _ _ _ _______________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(In Thuaaaai4 ..tBO CONtRAC1 ACTUAL PfOJECT COST . NO NAME Of POfll SCOPE OF WORX PROJECT SCHEDUCE | ORIGINA flEvisED I BA RD Pi - *1 GRANO TOTAL --____ _ -_ _-__-_ _ F STAfT COMPLETION ,_. 1. TANtUNG PflIOl A. CONSULTANIS 1ICtS. ciw woi 0809-1986 3006-1990 USS 900.79 USS 938.r3 USS 689.86 Us$ S8 EqWIva4nt Euvat Equvaent Equvalnt * PIe-Con,con Servics lP. 702,51.00 ftp. 781266.50 fp. 755,054.48 llp. 756,054.40 - C osuton Supervion Soi*e (STO 201.28 LSTG 21.28 tSTO 257.58 tSIG 257.58 P Po ftstruction sevice" 2) C$ASfob oqusnpnt 12.10-1987 30-11t19S USS 589.74 USS 1.371.00 USS 1.184.74 US$ 3.78535 USS 4530.09 Equivalent Equiant EqIvant Equint Equval Rp. 599,458.25 ftp. 1.053.057.28 flp. 95.807.11 flp. 432,132.80 ip. 1.41t7.939.91 tsro 164.89 LSTO 268.22 t.STa 225.58 LST 109.51 LSTG 509 US$ 48.56 USS 264.08 USS 225.10 US$ USS g10 3 f*eaUbdCjftS. GAdMaWPIAW t16-07-999 16t04-1991 UST 1,314.36 USS 1,314.36 USS 1,210.65 US$ 682.77 Us$ 1.793.32 AoVbew W Tanjung PuoI Pon Equivant Equivaloet Equbdont Equilnt Equvd_e Rp. t.159,641.50 Rp. t.159.841.50 flp. 1.137,789.00 Flp. 74.83250 Fip t.922.A21.50 LSTG 427.29 LSTO 427.29 LSTO 387.95 LSTG 133.64 STia 521.5 S TECHNICAt ASSISlANCE t Genetal Asstance of Ptoecl 014S61991 31-10-1991 USS t33.19 USS 133.19 USS 124.43 USS 124.43 Poepaaabon Equivalent Eqvalent EquIlnb EquIvalht nP. 16.30t 00 np. 15.301.00 lp. 10.782.00 lip. 10,782.00 USS 121.74 US$ 121.74 USS 119.37 USS 119.37 2) Vfnanca&I Modxe1tng 07-10-1991 020599t2 U.SS 2914 USS 29'.4 USS 29.14 USS 5.30 USS 34.44 Equivatlnt Equivalnt Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent lip. 1.85000 lip. 1,860.00 "P. 1,850.9o Ftp. 11.00.00 lp. 12,s0.00 USS 28.26 US$ 28.26 US.$ 28.25 tJSS tlWs 28.25 3) Techncal Assstance 12079 92 M-iZiM USS 55.00 U.SS 55.00 US5 51.95 tlSS 51.95 Equivalenl Equivalent Equvalent EquIvaent np. 4,750.00 nip. 4.75000 lp. 4.541.00 lp. 4.541.9* US$ 52.34 USS 52.34 USS 49.91 usS5 49.91 2. lELUK BAYUR A CONSULTANTS t) CUS - CIvilwts 04409t986 Apil 93 1.15 2.257.00 USS 2,588.00 US$ 2t443.18 USS 2.443.18 Equlvalanl EquIvalnt EquIvaleet Equivalent P*I.-COOnstruOn SoNic. Rip. 1,642.972.47 Rp. 2.t63.787.48 Rp. 2.091.736.58 lip. 2.09t,736.58 Constructn S9evsion Servce USS 220.32 USS 232.21 US$ 205.63 USS 206.83 Pos Conswucon Sorices ConS 1,349.04 CanS 1,423.31 Cane 1.345.95 CaS 1.345.95 Table: S (conlinue) _8RD CONTRACT _ACTUAL PROJECT COST t - NO IAME OF PORT SCOPE OF WORK PROJECT SCiHEDULE ORIGINAL REVISED j 8RD P* -_ GRD TOTAL START COMPLETION_ S PAoJANG A CONSUTANTS cms - Cdtwoa 0901-.1Wf Oct i6 uJES 6410, US$ 041.61 US 57.3 USS U 5097l3 Equi*14m Equalont Equwvlnt Eqvent . Pie SfCe. Ap 052.302 25 Ap. t#2,302 25 Ap oft4to 02 FPp. 54tt416 et *c Cnown Swien Senlce USS s099 US. 5090 uSS 20 47 Us; 30 47 Pm PoC utCoon Sefence ConS 2415s Can4 24U75 COaS 24645 CW4 2464S 2pFeesnaV %We oUaw PLeA 274it932 21-121992 USS 45500 UtSS 45500 tUSS 43317 UST 43317 tA ttee PFaIt Pe EqPMval-nt Equelene Elu'vlent EquIvaet Pp 455.17000 Pp. 455, tt00 Ap. 450.62297 PF 450.i220t Cans 270 40 Ca-n 27040 ClnS 27040 CM4 27040 4 PALEMBANG A CONSLATAJ4?S IpCmS.CAIIWeeau 09441-N? Oct"be 19 UN 15052 US$ t10764 LSS 16202 LISS 16302 Oct t9 Eq-ete Equivalet Equhalet Eqvolent * iPSCMOVbucoe Seans" Pp 200.C7000 AP 210.95000 Fp. 201.17500 oP 201.17500 -CMOiai9A S.pCIWMWeMSannce 00 i002 0G 0002 00 6002 00 4002 2iteW4.ofanof4;A 20041-to 2103DtgD USS 096l3 USS 9903 uSS 0203 ust 9 026.4 EquiVaent Equivalnt Equialn Equialn Fp. 54.019000 AP 5401900 AP. 50.2500 Ap. 50,25004 OCt U914101 0D 14181 00 131.1`3 131.73 S PONffANAKC A CONSUJTAtS 1 CiMS * Ctov Waks 000t19'0' Feb 91 U5S 7s 806 USIS 740 32 USS 742 3t SS 7423? EqAvaten Equivabet Eqciles Equklnl * Pv4CnV5An,4 SI5tt4 Fp 553.475f00 Pp SS.47500 Pp. 500.7239 "p. 508.72i30 * C tqoucin S*pftwoos SMC$ O 006 00 G 07t.44 OG 07.5" OG 805 N . Fou Cnvico Seva 2)Fe #S4 4S1tWPISA 200Pt-19t2 P-12-1ft92 US$ 550"o USS 55000 USS 45947 M.s3 459.47 Pa-ne aw 40E'tA ot Equtv"e Eq4valot4 equ*veant EquWalent FpI 390.68000 Pp 300,87000 Pp. 300.f0200 Pp 300.00200 _ __________ . __________________________ --______ ,___ _ tXi 50l2 6 00oa 502 0 00 l 50440 a _____ _ . . Do00 50446 TOTAL US$ 7.t65 20 UN 9.112 42 uS 60.t9204 Us$ 4,353.42 Uo 12,7406 .~~~~~S .- ,0 ,0 US I * Fp tO074 00 Yea I Rp to 460 UAt tRp 1 30 01 tSTC I * Pp 317137 Table 5 (continued) DGSC *COMPONENT NO PROGRAM SCOPE OF WORK PROJECT SCHEDULE ORtOINAL CONTRACT REVISED CONTRACT ACTUAL PROJECT COST ._________ 7START COMPLETE 1. Technal Assistance A. PELABUHAN 11 Pot Operation (Add I + I) Apr'86 May'88 US$ 562.659.17 707,360,18 702,556.92 Equivalent EquIsalent Equvalnt DM 768.160.00 953.370.00 949.020.00 Rp. 253,902,900.00 331,439.60.00 327.202,610,00 Financial Oata Management Apr '86 Nov'87 US$ 466.165.10 46e 165.10 465,167.43 Equivalent Equivabnt Equvalent DM 614,930.00 614,930.00 614,030.00 Rp. 219,691,950.00 219,691,950.00 218,807,424.00 * Equlpment Management Apr '86 Mar '88 USS 429,635.46 631,366.09 629,602.79 Equivalent Equivaent Equvaent DM 532.710.00 806,170.00 804,670.00 Rp. 243.538,700.00 348.696,390.00 347,015,328.00 * Job & Workdoad Analysis Feb '86 Ma '88 USS 209,457.26 209,457.26 209,457.26 Equivalont Equivalent Equivaent Rp. 315,310,000.00 315,3t0,000.00 315,310,000.00 IDVT of Personnel Policies 4 Apr '90 Apr '91 USS 290.1 37.63 290,137.63 290,137.63 Regulaaons as kmprneation Equivalent Equivalent Equialent of job analysis study Pt-11 Rp. 549,975,000.00 549,975,000.00 549,975,000.00 B. DOSC Cafgo Unizaton Aug '87 Aug '8V US$ 390,967.36 390,967.36 390,377.46 Equivalent Equivalen Equivatent NG 595,470.00 595,470.00 595,100.00 RP. 197,410,290.00 197.410,290.00 196,623,800.00 - Sector Monitoring & Data Feb '86 Mar'87 USS 626,531,00 626,531.00 624,835.44 Managenent Table 5 (continued) DGSC. COMPONENT NO7 PROGRAM SCOPE OF WORK PROJECT SCHEDULE ORIGINAL CoNTRACT RftVSeDCONTRACT ACTuAL'PRojECTCOST START COMPLETION __ 2. Tmnkln Poet M_ a____ US$ 139,439.00 155,851.00 Ttainng at WglnIa Uhhnveuy Jn'86 Feb 16 Training Program fe Penonu t II Feb86 Sep '87 u1ss 243t.923.00 38936840.78 3.755,914.67 Equidaent EqVsmt US$ 2.702.506.00 2,584,617.11 rM 656,342.00 625,038.00 . SS 118,400.00 11,400.00 No 80,183.0 78,365.00 Rp. 1.303,44t,600.00 t.303,347,000.00 Pott Ma"nagnent Course Sop '86 Sep '91 USS 185,459.80 323,901.17 323,901.17 Oath t a l Equiiqen Equian iEquvaent Rp. 3,730.000.00 7,460.000.00 7,460.000.00 USS 183,546.00 296,306.00 296,308.00 No 0.00 44,000.00 44,000.00 Post Graduate Oversoas Trainirg Sep '90 Aug '92 IJS$ 1,433,364.45 1,433,364.45 1,433,364.45 Equivalent Equvlent Equivaent Rp. 61,000,000.00 61,000,000.00 61.00,000.00 US$ 246,552.00 246,652.00 246,652.00 NG 2,063.669.80 2,063,669.80 2.063,669.80 Equipment Management Training Jun'90 Jul '9t USS 288.188.68 288,188.68 284,928.46 for Perumpel 1,111 nwd IV Equivalent Equialent Equivent Sp. 494,589,543.00 494,589,543.00 407,880.001.00 DM 58,370.00 58,370.00 58,370.00 Wolkshop Envronmental Policy Nov'92 Dec'92 U$$ 189,868.80 16988%8.80 180,786.14 Equtvalent Equivalnt Equivolent Rp. 393,787,910.00 393,787,910.00 372,916,615.00 T 0 T A L uss 7,643.796.71 9.607,047.50 9,446,852.37 Table: 6 PROJECt WORK EXECUIED - CtM1 WORK NOT IMPLEMENTATED NO NAME OF PORt ORIMNAL SCOPE OF WORK PROJECT WORK EXECUTED COMPARE To THE ORIGtIAt SCOPE REASONIN I _ FROM OAN AGREEMENT OFWORK 1. TANJUNG PRItOK a Improvement and eopanion d the a. Buldkn work. Capit drtdging At 0tg b iol necesay eoo_talna lmaintil 1) Admillstraton Buin: S.t85 m2 to de captat dredgt. lhe 2) Workshop etnalon: 480 m2 OdtnV depth of dwnnet (.12 m). b Oevlonint of addtiona container 3) Ofie centre 97850 m2 basin (110 m) anjt c.jnw 1wt handlg ad sdtSng rea kt zones 4) Othet buldIn: 188.05 m2 .10 mo) i sufficint aacet to the olstn teminat b. Cw wodra c Construction d a limutetd acces toad t) Ouay Strengtehlang linlc. toengh :438,60 m Width : 26.20m d. Capit dedging Container caerse - rai track: 436 m e. Establshento a tucwkpPark 2) Contakr Yuad: 41.400 m2 3)Tntckcp.rk :29.000m2 t Consbucton of a nat administration 4) Paved aea ndwW comple. roadworks : 88 50Qm2 a% 2. TELUK aAYUR a. Recontrruction of uhree quys. a. PAconaion of esog bernh None None or. 2.3 Jad 4: b. Construction of a mtn.putpose ltength :415.75m tentinal tot conte ad other Width : 20.4 m undzed catgo handng ncudiung a 200 m "to new betlh we 30 000 m2 b. Construction of New erth bdckup zoe, an alteratkon and ) Brth or. 5: mnoderizon of working aeas and * Length: 114.5 m trait stds *Width : 26 m 2Bth nr. : C. ConsbUCton O a aXftlputpose t*. tength 107.5 m *Widt : 286t d. Capta dredging c. Renovation of aheds n. 102.103. a lioptovenent d road bns and 104. d Construction d ConInt ftelreght Station (Shednr. 205) tO5x60m e Harbour basin & dchnnel dredgn and disposl = 700.000 m3. labio 6 (tcontinued WORK NOT IMPLEMENTATED NO NAME OF PORT ORIGINAL SCOPIE OF WORK PROJECT WORK EXECUTED COMPARE TO THE ORtGINAL SCOPE REASONINC FROM tOAN AGREEMENT OF WORK ._._ .,_-_ ._ ., t. Reclamatbn wotk: -Atea A: 20.462m2 Vol and tiit: 145s,80 n3 -Area ft:15,546 tn2 Vol sand ill: 292.600 mt . PavIng and toad wo8l 64.1 16.70 m2 h. Fencing 847 m 1. Ortanae 3.tS3,66 m i. Watwr dIstibution System k. Electkical plant end Instalbaton 3. PA NJA NG a. Dev_topme o oabout 45000 m2 o aw a. Malne Wois None None atea behind nw quays awn alteration 1) DIbdoing wk. vol 78.972 tn3 and todenason f osn workong 2) Construction of ew whaf: areasa transit as. length 106.5 n6, aea 4.060 m2 3) Coveing 4 gap's : 4355 m2 b Construction at a mult purpose freight stUaon b. Non Marine Works 1) Constructon o conaidnet elgMt c Caital dredging station : 7.200 m2 2) New pavement work : 64245 m2 3) Overlay hoimli of exh.ting pavement: 29.024 m2 43 Drainage and storm sewer syteM: 2.656mn 5) Walem supply work: 2.015 m' 6) fencing: 674 m2 7) Electica wotks 4 PAtEMBANG a. Construction of nuli-purpose terminal a. 8uimlng 3t.33 m2 a. Conshclion d now elght a. The average shed ocean ratio f a ne* freight station with 60.000 m2 b. Road work 5.850 m2 station is still low wound 27% ed the dl and tot rbadwp area for cargo c. Open Storage: 36.000 m2 cargo distribuion tess to go handling and temodeling of an existing d. Water distrbution and electrical b. Basin tot service boat directly trom trucks to ship an go down. wor,k vime Vers Table: ff (contiIIoed) WORK NOT IMPLEMENTATED NO NAME OF PORT ORIGINAL SCOPE OF WORK PROJECT WORK EXECUTED COMPARE TO THF ORIGINAL SCOPE REASONING .___________ FROM tOAN AGREEMENT ._.___. OF WORK _ b Developnent of a basin for serwice b.h In tah ta tb ocaon of bzoaft. senrice,boat basin is tM su. ficnt In tb eaSt dd of to,pott S. PONTIANAK . Rehabstlaltdon of two bentlh and a Otedging, volue: 38.000 m3 None Non" coAslucton of a new berth abotit 100 m b. Erwork : I6 000 m3 WoVg c. Construction of quay nt.04 length :OO m b Cornstuct,on dt t&o newv ranstut sheds, vdth : 36 m d. Construction of serwice boat jetty containet and unitized cargo handling : 56 m e. Costncton o shed nr.02: 1.750 m2 c Ajiseauon and mtodnenizaton of and shed nr.05 2 600 m2 exssting work areas and bansit sheds t. Rosd wotks and open slotage area : t7.000m2 d Constution of a service boat jetty. g. New ancilary building h. UtWiies and services00 Table 7 PROJECT EQUIPMENT WORLD BANK STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT PROJECT ACTUAL PROCUREMENT NO. NAME OF PORT TYPE OF EQUIPMENT OUANTITY TYPE OF EQUIPMENT QUANTIT (UNITS) ____________ -____________ _ .(UNITS) ISRO Pl-Il TOTAL I TANJUNG PFIOK Contne Crane 3 Container Crane 2 3 5 Wwd-spar Trenstainers a Wide-span Transair 13 9 22 Smal-span Transtaln 10 Small-span Tratainems 4 4 Tradors 21 Trators 15 30 45 Chassis 30 Chassis 15 50 65 Workshop Equpment Forkldt Top Loader 3 . 1 4 Fokl Side Loader 2 2 Forklt Fu Free Lit 2t 20 20 Used Conbiner Crane 2 2 Used rTG Crane 7 7 2 TELUK SAYUR Motie Crane 1 FLTs. 36 t 2 Tractors 4 Tractors 2 2 Chassis 12 Chassis 8 8 Spares Workshop Equipment 3 PANJANG Mobile Crane 1 FLTs. 36 t 1 Tracors 2 Tractors 2 2 Chasss S Chassis 6 6 Spares Workshop Equipment Forklift Top Loader 1 1 4 PALEMBANG Mobile Crane 1 FLTs. 36 t ' 2 FLTs. 3 t 6 FLTs. t.5 t 8 Tractors 4 Chassis 12 Spares Workshop Equipment Forklift Top Loader 1 1 S PONTIANAK Mobile Crano 1 FLTs. 3 t 2 FLTs, 5 e 2 Tractors 2 Chassis 4 Sparos Workshop Equipment 40 Table :8 PORT TRAFFIC DATA - PROJECT PORTS ____________________ ________ ________ __ . (000 Tons) CARGO HANDUNG TARGET ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL 1 990 1990 1991 1992 Tanjung Priok Total Cargo 17,489 17,947 18,182 21,911 Container 4,103 5,690 6,590 8,287 Teluk Bayur Total Cargo 878 1,461 1,437 1,670 Container 251 6 2 6 Panjang Total Cargo 1,138 2,045 1,747 2,083 Container 192 134 153 197 Palembang Total Cargo 702 693 776 799 Container 190 58 132 171 Pontianak Total Cargo 415 1,073 835 825 Container 30 5 5 22 1. Tanjung Priok: a. Total cargo not including oil, but includes special wharves such as Bogasari b. Container cargo is total including boxes unloaded at general cargo berths 2. Pontianak cargo is through public pon whiarves only. and excludes loading point, mid stream and special wharf. 41 Table: g PORT TRAFFIC DATA * TANJUNG PRIOK _ 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Ship Calls (Units) Oceangoing 1,777 1,632 2,471 2,719 2,925 2,215 Container 753 786 848 961 1,355 1,838 Inter Island 3,642 3,578 3,687 4,474 4,942 5,705 Tanker 400 414 469 466 487 507 Offshore Ships 1,509 2,166 2,649 2.510 2,396 2,094 Total 8,081 8,576 10,124 11,130 12,105 12,359 Caroo Handlino (000 tons) Export 3,133 4,030 5,540 4,717 3,891 5.933 Import 5,877 6,471 7,111 8,268 9,295 10,570 9,010 10,501 12651 12,985 13,186 16,503 Inter Island - Loading 1,218 1,448 1,441 1,777 1,959 2,366 Unloading 1,892 2,034 2,457 3,185 3,037 3,042 3,110 3,482 3,898 4,962 4,996 5,408 Total 12,120 13,983 16,549 17,947 18.182 21,911 Oil Discharged (000 tons) 4.565 4,769 4,962 5,909 6,549 7,089 Containers ( 000 TEU ) 274 336 443 643 736 866 (000 Tons) 2,750 3,401 4,283 5,690 6.590 8,287 1. Container Ship Calls Is number of ships calling at container terminal only. Z Cargo handling' includes containers Table: 10 OPERATIONAL DATA NO INDI!:ATOR EXPLANATION PORT 1990 ( TARET) 1990 (ACTUAL 199t (ACTUAL i992 IACT GEN.CARGO CONTAINER GEN.CARGO CONTAINER GEN.CARGO CONTAINER GEN.CARGO CONTAINER 1 2 3 4 5 _ 7 8 9 10 it 12 a) Throughput pet Total Tonnage/TEU handled Tanjung Priok 350 300 336 288 336 320 384 304 Ship per sh dnved by numbet of shits Telutk Bayur 300 120 288 272 84 336 84 (Tons/TEUL wotded Paniang 300 120 368 272 192 288 192 Pbsembang 300 120 336 288 112 288 112 Pontianak 300 120 336 320 240 b) Labor poductivy Tdal tonslTEU handled Tanjung Priok 18 25 21 21 24 (Tons/TEU per Net dhiMd by total gang time Teluk 8ayur 13.5 10 18 7 17 7 21 7 Gang Hour) (tnctudng oveeie) I"$ Panjang 13.5 10 23 12 17 12 17 14 stoppage not atbib4ed to Palembang 13.5 10 18 12 18 8 18 8 dte gsng (e.g. weathe. Pontianak 13.5 10 21 20 . 20 Cargoe4quipment not aval- lable. te) cl Equipnwt produc. Total tons/TEU handled Tanjung Priok 30 25 22 . 23 25 " tonsjTEU divided by shift + overtime Teuk Bayur 25 10 . . . per hour) hours less stoppages not Panjang 25 10 . . anrbbuted to the equipmnt Palembang 25 10 or its operations (a.g. Pontianak 25 10 . . . wesater cargo not aveilable etc) d) Average De" time TonlTEUIdays in storage Tanjung Priok 5 6.5 3 12 9 11 10 (days) dided by total tonsEUs TdIuk avur 6 6 4 4 4 stored Panpng 6 8 8 9 10 9 B 7 Palembang 6 8 15 17 14 14 16 1 7 Pontianak 6 8 5.43 16.36 5 15.34 3.75 15.61 Table: 10 (contIUed) NO INDICATOR EXPLANATION PORT 1990 TARGET) 1990 ACTUAL) 1991 (ACT { 1992(CTUAL| ___________ GEN.CARGO CONTAINER GEN.CARKGO CONTANER GEN.CARGO CONTAINER GEN.CARGO CONTANER 1 2 3 4 5 a 7 a 9 tO 11 12 e) Equipment avelai Equipment houms Suppried Tanjung PrkI 85S 95' 85% 87f 63 9- 74 94 billy r%age) dhvdod by equipmt hou Teluk iaytur 85 951 699 requested Panjmag P 95% ..0 Palembang 85 95 . 63 Ponianak 85 95 . 0 Average ship wait Totalcme betwein arrtval Tarnung Prlok 5 2 9 8 7 6 7 6 ng time (ours) and bon" aot I shkps ToeAk Bayur 5 5 13 8 7 dMded by rnmber 01 ships Poang 20 12 25 21 . 13 berthed Palembang 5 5 12 12 . 11 Pontianak 20 12 28 23 .1 ig Average serince Totat aime ours) at benh Tarung Prhok 30 18 64 31 72 21 6S 19 im (hou) fsncluding berthing end un. Teluk Bayur 45 24 80 70 70 bert"ienl of at ships Pjang 45 24 65 . 56 56 divided by number o ships Palembang 45 24 29 25 . 26 Pontianak 45 24 65 22 . 21 h) Berth oocupancy Avetago service time (days) Tanjung Prbk 80S 50S 67? 64 54 47K 628 66 (%a"e) muleplied by tunber of Toluk Payur 80 50S 58S . 54 . 57 ships. divided by number of Paniang W 50S 72S . 64 . 64 betths tines the operabing Palembang 80S 50 401 . 53 . 48 days Pontianak 80 507 84 .8111 76S i) Berth productivity Totat tonstEU handled at Tan jung Priok 1200 2500 2240 582 2178 526 1851 691 ItonsfTEU per berth per year divided by Teluk Bayur 1000 1100 2484 2578 2510 meler per year) berh length inmeten Panjang 1000 1100 2030 . 1751 1801 - Palembang 1000 1100 978 1273 . 1305 Pontianak 1000 750 1193 1128 1095 4It Table: 11 PONT EFFICIENCY INDICATORS . TANJUNG PRIOK 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1. ShIg Wagina time (hours) Oceangoing 10 9 10 9 7 7 Container 4 S 6 8 6 6 InterIsland 5 5 6 8 6 8 Tanker 33 21 26 26 37 51 * Berth Service Time (hours) Ocenoing 59 54 74 64 72 65 Containr 1 1 1 18 31 21 19 Interlstand 70 70 71 74 77 60 Tanker 44 45 43 43 44 44 3. Tum Round rime Oceangoing 69 63 84 73 79 72 Containr 15 23 24 39 27 25 Inter Island 75 75 77 82 83 68 Tanker 77 66 69 69 81 95 4. Tonnace Per Ship Oceangoing 1,874 1,942 Z323 1,989 2.006 2,056 Irnter Islnd 1,093 1,179 1,370 1,607 1.395 1,518 5. Gana Per ShiP Oceangoing 2 2 2 3 3 3 Inter Island 2 2 2 2 2 2 6. Berth Occupancy (%) .C. Whad 46 , 47 66 67 54 62 Container Berth 35 41 44 64 59 55 OilJQtty 76 78 66 59 65 78 Buoys 70 56 59 67 70 44 7. Shed Occupancm (%) Trarsit Storage 37 42 40 47 42 43 Open Storage 32 39 38 45 46 39 45 Table: 12 REVIEW OF LOAN COVENANTS AQREEMENT DESCRIPTION OF COVENANT CURRENT COVENANT SECTION STATUS DESCRIPnON CAN ART. 301 (B) SUBSIDIARY LOAN AGREEMENT W/ PERUMPEL II IN COMPLIANCE ART. 4.02 CONTINUE TO CARRY OUT ITS ACTION PROGRAM IN COMPUANCE FOR IMPROVING PROVISION OF PORT AND SHIPPING SEFRMCES. ART. 6.01 SUBSIDIARY LOAN AGREEMENt WITH PERUMPEL IN COMPLIANCE EXECUTED. PA ART. 2.0 (B) PERUMPELTO TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS TO REQUIRED ACTION TAKEN. HOWEVER ACHEVE TARGETS SET OUT IN SCHEDULE 2. COM- TARGETS PARTIALLY ACHEIVED PUTE PORT EFFICIENCY INDICATORS SEMI ANNU- ALLY. ART. 2.06. PERUMPEL SHALL CARRY OUr TRAINING PROGRAMS IN COMPLIANCE IN PART C. ART. 4.02 SHALL OEVELOPE ADJUSTED ACCOUNTING SYSTEM; DONE INTRODUCE SYSTEM BY 07101/86; USE SYSTEM FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING 12V31/86 AND THERE AFTER. ART. 4.03. BY 1i231t86. REVALUE ASSETS AND AMOUNT OF COMPLED ACCUMULATEO DEPRECIATION; THEREAFTER RE- VALUE SUCH ASSETS PERIODICALLY ART. 4.04 (A) FOR EACH FISCAL YEAR AFTER THE FISCAL YEAR IN COMPLIANCE ENDING 12131186. MAINTAIN RATIO OF TOTAL WOR. KtNG EXPENSES TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES NOT HIGHER THAN 80%. ART. 4.04 () RATIO TOTAL WORKING EXPENSES!TO TOTAL OPERA- (1). (2) AND (3) IN COMPLIANCE, TING REVENUES OF EACH PROJECT PORT SHALL EE (4) ALMOST IN COMPLIANCE (90%) 1) TANJUNG PRIOK: NO GREATHER THAN 70% (5) IN 1992 IN COMPLIANCE (71.`19%) 2) TELUK BAYUR: NO GREATHE'q THAN 75% BY 12J31/90 AND THEREAFTER 3) PANJANG: NO GREATHER THAN 80% BY 12/31/90 AND THEREAFTER. 4) PALEMBANG: NO GREATHER THAN 80% BY 12131190 AND THEREAFTER 5) PONTtANAK: NO GREATHER THAN 75% BY 12131/90 AND THEREAFRER ART. 4.05 (A) PERUMPEL NOT TO INCUR DEST UNLESS NET REVE- IN COMPLIANCE NUE FOR BY IMMEOIATELLY PRECEDING OR 12hMO0 PERIOD ENDED PRIOR SHALL BE AT LEAST 1.5 TIME MAXIMUM OEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENT. ART. 4.06 (A) BY 03131 IN EACH BY PERUMPEL (ON BASIS OF TANJUNG PRIOK. PANJANG ANO FORECASTS) REVIEW WHETHER FT WOULD MEET PELEMBANG EXPECTED TO BE COM- THE REQUIREMENT IN 4.04 ANO 4.05 IN RESPECT OF PLIANCE. TELUK BAYUR ANO PONTIANAK SUCH YEAR AND NEXT YEAR WILL NOT BE ABLE TO COMPLY. ART. 4.06 (B) IF REVIEW SHOWS PERUMPEL WOULD NOT MEET IN COMPLIANCE. PERUMPEL II TAKING REQUIREMENT (PER 4.06 (A) THEN IT WILL PROMETLY ALL MEASURES NECESSARY TO MEET TAKE ALL MEASURES TO MEET REOUIREMENTS. REQUIREMENT. 46 Tabl 13 COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT . SUMMARY (Rp. tMLUON) PERUMPEL II _ _ (CONSOlIDATED)__ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ NO. DESQCRIPTION 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 NOV.1992 I Revenue 60,832.20 73,681t.60 96,246.10 141,642.20 198,78.90 233,725.30 2 Working Expenses 48.386.60 49,509.70 55,888.60 75,455.10 89,896.70 99,957.70 3 Depreocon Epenses 14,354.50 13,370.60 14,265.30 17,470.40 22.78240 36.144.50 4 intt Expense . . 3,888.3 4,655.9 6,670.9 7,729.3 S Total Operting Expenses 62.741.10 62,880.30 74,042.20 97,581.40 119,350.00 143,831.50 (2+3+4) Working Ratio % * Achbeved (2:1) 79.54 67.19 58.07 5327 4522 42.77 - LAIPA Target 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 Operatng Ratio % -Achieved (5:1) 103.14 85.34 76.93 68.89 60.04 61.54 - SAR Target 96.00 97.00 , 98.00 98.00 97.00 95.60 COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT (Rp. MIWON) TANJUNG PRIOK (INCLUDED CONTAINER TERMINAL) NO. OESCRIPTION 1987 1968 1989 1990 1991 NOV.1992 I Revenue 46.507.50 56.706.30 76.602.80 82,005.0 154,849.10 183,538.50 2 Working Expenses 30,953.20 30,794.60 33,430.60 37,899.30 48.692.60 51,233.40 3 Deprcton Expenses 7.802.40 6,861.10 7.550.10 9.470.70 11,411.70 19.490.10 4 Inteest Expense . 2,399.7 2.873.5 4,117.0 4,770.3 5 Total Operating Expenses 38,755.60 37,655.70 43,380.40 50,243.50 64.221.30 75,493.80 (2+3+4) Working Ratio % - Achieved (2:1) 66.56 54.31 43.64 46.22 31.45 27.91 - LAPA Target 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 Operating Ratio % - Achieved (5: 1) 83.33 66.40 56.63 61.27 41.47 41.13 _ SAR Target 86.20 86.00 86.30 85.00 83.00 82.00 COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT (Rp. MILUON) TELUK BAYUR NO. DESCRIPTION 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 NOV.1992 1 Rovenuo 2,117.10 2,249.90 2,746.10 2.684.50 3.978.80 4,287.40 2 Working Expenses 2.463.00 2.049.90 1.166820 1.129.50 1.408.90 1.702.20 3 Doprocatiaon Expenses 658.20 489.70 666.20 $71.90 1,251.60 3,558.50 4 Intorost Exponse . 1.045.7 1.252.2 1,794.1 2,078.8 5 Total Operabng Expenses 3.121.20 2.5W9.60 2,878.10 2.953.60 4,454.60 7.339.50 (2+3+4) Working Ratio % * Achieved (2: 1) t6.34 91.11 42.47 42.07 35.41 39.70 - LAIPA Target 102.00 93.00 84.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 Operating Ratio % -Achieved(5:1) 147.43 112.88 104.81 110.02 111.96 171.19 - SAR Target 121.18 126.60t 128.70 117.30 119.20 115.10 47 Table: 13 (eontnue COMPARATNE INCOME STATEMENT (Rp. MILUON} PANJANG NO. DESCRIPTION 1987 1986 1990 1991 NOV.1992 I Revenue 2,51820 3,505.70 4.422.60 6.022.60 6,914.30 7.884.30 2 Wag Eens 1,81.3 2.1820 2,572.70 3.268,70 3.557.30 3,958.80 3 Oepreem Expenses 1,111.80 1,160.50 1,450.30 1,486.90 2.187.50 2,312.20 4 Int Expense 288.9 274.1 392.7 455.0 5 TOal Optng Expenses 2.999.10 3.678.70 4,311.90 5.029.70 6,137.50 6,726.00 (2+3+4) Woring RAto % Achieed (2- 1) 74.95 71.83 58.17 54.27 51.45 50.21 * LA/PA Target 89.00 8(.C= 83.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 OpeatIng Rao % -Acheved (5: 1) 119.10 104.93 97.50 83.51 88.77 85.31 _ SAR Targt 116.00 115.60 116.10 115.90 114.00 110.90 COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT (Rp. MILLION) PALEMBANG NO. OESCRIPTION 1987 1986 1989 1990 1991 NOV.1992 1 Revenue 3.470.60 3.401.80 3.384.90 3,445.80 5.489.70 6.664.40 2 WorlIng Expenses 4.015.90 3.370.40 3.454.60 3.002.50 5,342.39 5.997t20 3 Deprecinton Expenses S72.10 572.20 804.30 704.60 757.10 1.598.70 4 Intarest Expense . . 70.1 84.0 120.3 139.4 S Total Opeating Expenses 4.588.00 3,942.60 4.329.00 3.791.10 6,219.79 7.735.30 (2+3+4) Working Rato % *Achieved (2: 1) 115.71 99.08 102.06 87.14 97.32 89.99 LAIPA Target 119.00 106.00 93.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 Operating Ratio % - Achieved (5: 1) 132,20 115.90 127.89 110.02 113.30 116.07 - SAR Target 143.10 127.40 110.90 97.20 96.30 95.00 COMPARATIVE INCOME STATE4ENT (Rp. MILLION) PONT'ANAK NO. DESCRIPTION 1987 1986 1989 1990 1991 NOV.1992 1 Revenue 834.80 942.90 974.10 1,105.30 Z021.90 2,556.10 2 Working Expenses 1.885.40 1,101.60 947.70 920.00 1,689.10 1,819.70 3 Dopreciation Exponses 275.10 355.40 487.00 436.40 781.60 790.30 4 Interet Expense . . 143.8 172.2 246.7 285.8 S Total Oporating Exponsos 2.160.50 1,457.00 1,434.70 t,356.40 2,470.70 2.610.00 (2+3+4) Working Ratio % -Achioved (2: 1) 225.85 116.83 97.29 83.24 83.54 71.19 - LAIPA Target 120.00 99.40 85.60 75.00 75.00 75.00 Operattng Ratio % Achieved IS: 1) 258.80 154.52 147.28 122.72 122.20 102.11 TSA igeTar 141.10 143.80 119.20 98.90 98.10 95.80 48 Ta4bl: 14 COMPARATIE SALANCE OSEt- SUMWAFW PGUUEI a NO UDECPPTION 1947 1066 1069 100 tOOl NOV. 1002 (1) .Cosh&d4pOSJW ~~~~51,06.6 61106.3 86351,1 516l46 02.&&6? 107.4317 It5 *OlZwt 02t .0 25.. ZJS Z ae uo 2 7 tO 2 *oW 22.7J4 322g12Z3 36 _ 117to 4IM.3 4&=& Mf ThaCtrtft+i21 74.700 at.52 116.604 116.760 t.. IS&O"t2 (4) SdUlA./P44 240w 701.4 240.2m1 3X040 336.559.6 37480.7 u . t I 5tquomsflIAss 33.Xt6 41.647.2 S 4,07.0 70163.o 02.o0s1 l67.46 (a) o0w 15,67.8 1.6570 23.6 2.911. 29.7ft6.2 34.263.3 (7) o Flxed 14+Sn 2W0.097.6 29.437.0 40&1016 433.554 12.&2.7 666,7S0 (6) an Ac.. .ano fam? 74,550.2 88203.0 12.547.3 12196.1 145.67.6 N) ot PbAd u t 2270061 066. 320311.6 33t.007.0 40620s 6 52052.0 0)mtamaa It Pteguf. 1460.? 40.171.0 21.0t. 20 1 1.68 60.504 17,4741 1 ) Oto Cw, 1 3336.2 t07?. 2.01.0 2a00.-9 6.02 7,5 TaWIWAsatg3.e0*lll 31647.0 3S563010 462,512.1 514.61.2 I 1S1831.9 71.240.J (1UABIUTI4EQ&EUITY (12 TowComUIt 15.6042 .3310 ts.72s.s 34155.3 59.2533 3e154J (13) Tow LW4.Ti at 21267.0 52.749.7 75.2076 81.,566 9S.7t3 7 141.S22e (14) TOWalUa4*a(12.131 390161.2 62.142.7 003.s4 IS.5721.4 1.967.0 225077.9 (I51 To ta Edu & 2606658t 297.1614 371 5767 38&S.t08 465.66 9 476.162,6 Totlt Uabi4i * a 6QgtY~ 14+151 3tt1.6410 35# 30 t 4625121 514691.2 616.831.9 70i.240. (to) Oe8qwtE Ral (13:15) 7193 t15 lt68 166 S1M5 22r17 (17) Pwr4 oia bo. tans 1.391.0 20,030.6 29.321.2 55.025.0 1"4,746* 104 t794 (15) Rum on NM Flxd Ata (% L I,t?u)1 T&v It? 0.6 69 92 1e6 216 20 I0 COMPAAATrvE aALANCE SNEEr - su5.WtARf (Re. MIWt4 TANJUNG P1OIK iNUOEO COWNTAINE TERM_INAU No OEscpIP7OMN 1967 ,s104 1969 1990 *w. NOV tw02 Cww*-at (1) .caal,6d*,os. 23.31S.1 36.051? 4300919 3t967 W0.AS3 t6.6t1 I (2 *-odw 15.5245 17.?596 21.550 31 594 t0t915s 5.266.s totr C flt tt 2) 3662.6 53.0124 646.426 695=3 o 00788 52.096 (4v . _wl4m_e)cI Itt 11575.0 1og.74 134.2377 1416667 10o1.54 177.3616 (s) EqulA'._Vno% 21.650.7 2 6.61ts 30.6636 56.5646 1U4t 34 1s6.7n20 m Sa 7.t 211 ? 2617 10.6474 12.3707 8291.5 15.65o0 (7) TatmlFIzs%d4*36) 140.5530 e 4537,12 164 66s a 210622 126309 362,0 6 (6) t"AMA6C0U5tMLO 33.0666 366636 46s3643 54t0200 43.1240 7o 14 P) Nat FIe hAct 41 lod.s4 2 1o5 406 4 1364465 156.622 2 3.165 7 263-975 2 It Cots I Ptas as5 170 35264 31.4460 26.2771 142020 (It) ft afNoflueW"sC.lasata 1437 2.66t 1 1.0101 o4o 1.10 a 3.04l I to,WINItAss39.10.ttO* 143t.24 0 1616004 206=000 2531734 * 6 13175t 3335043 aU 9AS & EouITV (12) TOW Cunwtmy UO.t44" t 0.3204 12*203 25.211* 23J01?2 Id894 5 (131 Towwt t-Ttm Oe. 5166| 47 36 21 16 5I 356466 1620 3066874 14) 1 toWUt 2.5o2#I3l 11,20 a 06030 300372 do06O04 -23300 t 47,781 t (I5) TowEowIu, 1344632 152 007 3 1466026 19- 6l37 130o274 30,1S444 Tout U--* A Eq.ui 14.15) 1 7240 ttt 0004 2060500 257 741 t 16 3275 3550463 3 it6) P101 1106 ttfomu we.4517 24 65 5 33279 7 37.66? 1002.2 I 1 12.000.3 (p7l P) Aaan NetF dtmed Assa _ n.b.1'alo(17s 70 23S 240 240 1205 34 49 Taw 14 ( CUPARATVW UALAQdcO M s~urSmmARY fi MWAO 9 TaLUKOAVUR NO. oescFipIION 19ar 1se9 -a (1) .Co d &OP@UW 402 5as 1.o4 1,477.6 790 249 * 0*cff 369M0 461 6041 1`45.3 961.4 9_9.2 (3) To0C0 1(1 _2) 777.1 1,070.0 1.67s 2223,2 5754 1t.24&1 (4) IW4.dJ 5 9,424* 6,6 2.203 26243.6 2M6S 74,490.3 ) Sqw0m.uhom4 1.58 1a=5 1,t143 1.26. 1.7t04 1710.4 0) 0_242 6616 6.161 0562 56.0 '0075 112397 M7) rZ P d (4S.1 16361 108S54 81310.0 20.463 29.0065 79.3213 0) Lou Aec 0esoo.i .1146.4 3.*61 16664 4.960 0 63"6 e .Sez7 (/4 NM f Mo4 (74) 6491.7 ? eJ 124 235.53 28Z6a7 -70.75t Ila C) Oogls1ssU11inPnoh 0 0.0 a0o 2"6 63.6 (III h 0 NoR Csff maf o.0 32 13 73.J t1S5 1.7 TOWN"AM133-+3.10i.11) 9266. 8 6?115 20.1522 25.0 247 72,0661.0 1 UAunMs& aOU(Y t11) to0In5UM2 1709 2540 010.0 1,274.0 201. 294? tI3 r TOW? sre 5,bf Ila$ OK s.ees 5o o Q (131 Taw Lo,o.T.tm0.W 121 510 56660 9.6095, 00 0.0 {54 r _z12+g 1- , 305.6 647.57f 10.60 201 0 2947t (.141 Tow.uWablib(12.13 172.1 _________6us 2a-6 2" 151 Tr wEa a &*169.096. 8.40 13675.86 14.9t1.5 24 50s 71,S71.3 TOW Usftw I6 lousyW (14s151 1926e 6715.5 201522 2579.0o 24 7051 7z106. (16) Pist (l4 befo o.) 9) (t76) 11.043.9 (t.50) (.333a1) ( 17) Rturm on Not tmd Aut (befoe ea ft7. _- 3 -_ (6.6 171T (7291 ( 7 COMPoAT BNE CE swr . summARy PAN JANG NO. O°CS TO 1_ 7 1 1966 *se9 90 1991 NOV is92 (11 .Cshad.os 1,S.160. ss t.4 .7723 2.057 2.0695 7652 (2) *.00 _4 _427.4 404 - M3 757 5 14509 645.6 3) oCsren7I.21 1.6061 1,71.0 2.54 ? 6 3645 3so03 1_6110 ( LandAkuu eadiM 20.,725 20.9s2z 3s.034 34.6873 3*.39s3 3t.49 (5) Equonvw,see 2.729 a.26 40164 4.021 t 5.3664 5.9100 (a) P 1.2755 .363 Z.192 5 2.37 1 2.639 29 (7) Tow Plead (4._23.3 26.0553 40.)122 41.01 2 43.22?7 45004' )fm AC. O6fffI.noa 3906. 9.0073 e a60 6346 7 1*164 120te t7 0 - N ttese ;s 47 207.965 2.2 6 34.04t * 32.7Tt60 32.19 5 32.067t (19) Canucso" inPloqts 00 4t 1 926 233 636 05 fl 1 Chet NotC CmW u _ 00 2t4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 T4WudtIAS*4%3oss. ll 22.4076 23264 r 30667 9 3tt 6h 3- 36t26 5 34.0e 2 I UA8UI1IS & EOUITY (12) TOl.CuaUUhmm 2177 2t13 t.0326 L tI1 73t 404 (13) ?oLaOn@ tm _ 520 00 6,t32S 7.5705 00 _ 0O (t ottnu2.l3_ 2705 2153 a51tsI 6326 e3 6a 464 {Taw tLow a _4 22.13J. t 22 §00tt 4 M=ttt a -2tt04 a :35w 3't 13_Yt. tt * t51 22.40 tO d # te 7 30 879 7 3ttU 3TJ 3e 2Us 5 34 t02 Prom ofet" bhttt t4 " (435t ) t 7t-5 (M 21 WSt 5 .0 t Onge (IS) 706(matm FbtA-*- _ TeNtl.6) (al.l (04) call 25 33 17 50 Tab*: Is 14(096546 COMPARATIV 9ALAN SHEET - SUMMARY tpp it PALEMSANG No. OESCRJPT1ON i9s7 tt6 sS 1990 19I NOV1992 1 ASSEI Cufisell (1) Cash & d.Qb 1.6926 z106.4 2W1.t 2.5613 776.6 468,2 Z) oIl7w O 486.2 535-s M s5 1.075.' 699.9 (3) Toal Cuftud :1 *.520.4 2,6o03s 2.770.0 3.*496 I *r .368.1 FPkd: (4) Ld9uuin9I-4tb" 6.295. 6.2714 t06.2 tl.070.5 1 .6e T1.329.2 (5) iquivmueas-al _937. 2.454.3 1371.5 2S371.5 &480.3 1377.1 (6) a,r 651.5 674s5 16.96. 1s00 16.523 1.764,2 (7) TeW fitg 44.6? .0_.t9os 1K613 14,61.8 15.1110 t6.4Q4 15,490.5 (6) Len A os. Ortue8ol 1313W7 3.726-4 4 38ss0 0.69. 5.960to 5.517.0 (9) Net Food Aita (7.4 - 766.2 7,67sa 10.474. 10.021.9 10447.4 9.973. (10) C*nA&l in Plog'a 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0o. 0.0 (I1) OwNOR C~ 0.0 0.4 1133.1 04.9 65.7 4197 TotW Not 4ss0W 3.9+10. 11) I1.303.6 10,479.7 143779 1429t.4 12.50.1 1 761.4 LL UAEIES & EOUItY (121 ToW Cuwait LUbday 51ao 3665 445.7 32.2 377.5 390.S n3 TotwwkTOemo 02 0 1 2.472.3 2.434 ao0 00 (t4 Total 16 (12 * t3l 5162 366.6 2918.1 2.7857 3775 390.S (15) TOQt t107854 101t31 1t.t a8 1 506.e 12.572.6 1.390.9 Toa L t Eqwy - (14.151 113036 10.47g.? 143n79 142914 129501 1761.4 (161 Pufit Qo aa efo w a929.) (36 1) )571.1) 1412 (727 0) (1.014.2) (17) Pen oa Net FM" Ak-s0 (%) _b*res 4(I? 91 (1051 (A 6) fOs) . 1 4 (70 1 (10D2) COVPAnT4 9&MCE SME9F T SUMMA5Y (Ro. MilWOt4 PONTIA 4AK hO oEscap?oN 1967 /198 19699. t1981 NOV t992 1 ASSEYS Cunelt: (1) * C.h4 s1 69S 74. 34 5 3269 5279 56.2 ) .O Ue t12.2 1401 1622 276' 392.2 2es5 (3) TOtWCuflg (I *a1 232.1 215 5 1966 603 3 20 6746 Fined. (4) La* BlBduiWecl.rn 3.4 06 3.4066 123=6 a ¶Z.790 1300ZO 13.1440 (5) Equvn*nVv%et 1.793 7 t.76*6 1.561 0 * 562 1 659 7 1.757 9 (6) otie 325*4 3e12 1079 12946 12965 1.3270 M TotFlix. a14*5.6) _ 55 259 5 542 s 14s9693 1 21 t.6036 2 o 229 7 (6) Len Ag gqe o 1.V70 1o6216 2.070 4 2.1639 : 7 0 41l24 (9) Not elu. Asel) *61 43409 3.q213 128 9 9 t2l62 r2632 12.067 3 (10) coui,uc6n t unProgeas* 00 00 00 502 504 61a (III ONonC.ui.s,a 16 I 40 32 42t0 3470a toWNetAssefta3*4.0+*1 * 44037 4 136 4 o309 3 .63 t1 3we8 13.29o 0 9 UASIUTIS & SCUllY (t2) TOW Cwdm U"S 1t659 1560 me9o 4579 a 093 too S (13 rotg .7larem0t0W 00 00 5 0409 5530 0 a a 0 00 (14 TOW LJ.tuXz e*112.13( 159 Iw0O 56005 5 g85 16l"3 15113 (I5 itta) _ --- 43177 39O0s r 2990 7 27rs * 0513 13 0to* Tota Uaoiuay A E4wud (14.15) 44137 4.1364 13095 132636 13d66 t3 21329 (IS) PaI(oa4)" e ra 1.305 (4? 70) (840 244 60 (660 (745 8t (2566) (1?) Fx0Natfu atam ( _ Iba sTalt s9 307) (1241 , 625051 5Z. (IS it 21n 51 Table: 15 COMPARATNE STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSMON - SUMMARY (Rp. MILLON) PERUMPEL II (CONSOUDATED) NO. DESCRIPTION 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 NOV.1992 I SOURCES OF FUNDS * ROUTINE OPERATION S: (t1) - Net Iome _afterTax 733.9 14779.5 2;!.54.2 38,907.1 78,768.2 77,365.7 (20 -DgpfcIeIaon &Amortzation 14,639.5 11,457.5 14.221.7 17,300.5 21.145.1 25.325.9 (3) Sub Totl 15,373.4 26237.0 37,075.9 56.207.6 99,913.3 102,691.6 - NON ROUTINE: (4) - Totl Non4rotn 62,592.7 40.670.9 103,584.3 29,988.5 57,438.7 182,718.4 (5) To Sowcs of Fwuds (3 + 4) 77,966.1 66.907.9 140.6602 86,196.1 157.352.0 285,410.0 It USES OF FUNDS: (6) * rta_ Fced Ast 64,886A 38,465.6 110,236.2 69.163.8 110,264.1 141.0021 (7) - Debt Intahmet 0.0 42.4 76.7 9,872.2 23.449.5 14,311.5 (6) -In.om OleftIuon 3,085.8 6,496.1 7,117.1 17.133.3 21.311.6 115,899.7 (9) - Decrease in Sindrg Fund 1,275.1 1,540.1 1,273.1 4,537.7 3,050.6 595.8 (10) -O@ws 1.703.1 34.2 1,018.7 3.961.5 6,394.0 20,194.9 Total Funds Used (6 to 9) 70,950.4 43,578.4 119,721.8 _104668.5 164.469.8 292.004.0 Di CHANGE IN WORKING CAPITAL (5 *10) 7,015.7 23.329.5 20,98.4 (18.472.4) (7,117.8) (6.594.0) ! _ - - _ . . .. _ ..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 52 Table: 16 STATUS OF FINANCI RATIO NO. DESCliPTION 1967 1988 1989 1990 1991 NOV.1992 _ PERUMPELII I WORKING RATIO () Aduul 79.54 67.19 58.07 5327 4522 42.77 . Target 80.00 80.00 80 80.00 80.00 80.00 2 OPERATING RATIO () -AualW 103.14 85.34 76.93 68.89 60.04 61.54 * Tagt (SA 96.00 97.00 98.00 98.00 97.00 95.60 3 OEBT SEFIICE REQUIREMENT (ine) Adtual. 472.00 382.00 5.60 4.50 7.60 -Tatet (SARA 150 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 4 RETURN ON NET FA (%) 0.6 8.9 92 16.6 25.8 209 BEFORETAX n TANJUNG PRIOK: t WORKINO RATIO (1) * Actu 66.56 54.31 43.64 4622 31.45 27.91 - Targt (SA 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 2 OPERAT RATIO () - Acta 83.33 66.40 56.63 6127 41.47 41.13 - Target (SAR) 8620 86.00 86.30 65.00 83.00 82.00 fit TELUK SAW q: I WORKING RA RO T ) - Actual 116.34 91.11 42.47 42.07 35.41 39.70 - Target (SAR) 102.00 93.00 84.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 2 OPEPATING RATIO (Ye) . Aca 147.43 112.88 104.81 110.02 1 1 1.96 171.19 -Target (A 121.18 126.60 128.70 117.30 119.20 115.10 IV PANJANG: I WORKING RATIO ( * AcWal 74.95 71.83 58.17 54.27 51.45 50.21 - Taw (SARI 89.00 86.00 83.00 60.00 60.00 80.00 2 OPERATING RATIO (%) . Acua 119.10 104.93 97.50 63.51 68.77 85.31 Targw (SAMI 116.00 115.60 116.10 115.90 114.00 110.90 V PALEMBANG: 1 WORKING RATIO (%) - Actual 115.7t 99.08 102.06 87.14 97.32 89.99 * Targt (SAR) 119.00 106.00 93.00 60.00 80.00 80.00 2 OPERATING RATIO fl) .Acta 132.20 115.90 lc.89 110.02 113.30 116.07 - Targoet (A 143.10 127.40 110.90 97.20 96.30 95.00 VI PONTIANAK: 1 WORKING RATIO (%) -Actual 225.85 116.83 97.29 83.24 83.54 71.19 * Targ (SAR 120.00 99.40 85.60 75.00 75.00 75.00 2 OPERATING RATIO (%) • AC*aW 258.80 154.52 14728 122.72 12220 102.11 . Taret (SA 141.10 143.80 119.20 98.90 96.10 95.80 Figure: 1 PROJECT TIME TABLE NR. I T E M YEAR - 81 8283 84 85 Be 87 88 89 90 9 92 93 I LOAN PREPARATION JUL 2 LOAN SIGNATURE JUN 3 LOAN EFFECTIVENESS OCT 4 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION a. TANJUNG PRIOK 1) CvilW oe1cs 21 Equipmntr (BRD) L 3| Equipment (Pl- IQ . . | 4) Stud & TA b. TELUK 8AYUR . c. P A N J A N G .W d. PALEMBANG # Q.g. V a PONTIANAK £P 5 LOAN CLOSING DEC 6 LOAN COMPLETION APR TIME REOUIREO FOR LOAN PREPARATION TO 4 YEARS LOAN EFFECTN\ESS TIME REQUIRED FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 7 YEARS __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _.__ __ _ _ _. .__ __ _ _ __ _ _ _..___ _ _ 54 EOUPMEWT PROJECT TIME TABLE NR I T E M -UNIT CONTRACTOR PAID By YEAR- _ ___________________ ___________ 1987 1985 18 1990 1991 1992 t Contane Crane 2 HYUnu IORD 10 I 2 4 2 Co4tainer Crane 3 Noel P14Il . 8 I 3 RTG CameWidesp 7 "VyW IBRD 10 I 2 U 4 4 RTG Cm"*Smad4a 4 fUR"_ IBRD 10 I 2 If 4 5 RTG Crane w n 3 WMit IBRD a 9 6 RtG CM Wideepan 3 Mts ISRO 7 1 7 RTG Crane Widek 9 M Pi-il 8 8 Termbl Trac 15 AUbik ISRD 9 7 9 0 7, 9 Termnal Ttor 4 U. Tractor ISRD8_ 6t tO Terminl Tractor W0 Allbmk Pl-l 12 1 5 n 7 1 7 It Skele Tnuler 15 HaMpan LiU. ISRD 10 4 10OW4 12 Skeeta Trai 14 Gemala IBRD 6 t 13 Sketl Trader 50 Genal Pi-II 1 7 14 Forklt Top Loader S U. Tractor !PRO 6 1 Fklndt Sde Loader 2 6 6 15 FoIiftE Side Loade I U. Trctor Pt-tl 12 5 16 Foa ton 20 Gaya Wahana 18R0 6 4 6 4 17 Used Contner Crane 2 Kasho P1-Il 7 3 7 03 18 Used RTG Crane wide-span 7 Rwmp ln. Pi-if 1 13 6 I 3 Schedule _ Actua 55 figute 3 SL4 PRGOJIDID4 PROCIIRFS (XEPPRES 21984 1. PEWl1FICA1TION PM S ( Year 1985 .-4' STATE ?I 6i j4 - Rl4T1 7 IBRD A 2. APPO OF TWO DOa I Year 1987 ) Tender Consul tation DocuMent --- . s~~~pproval Tender ijl STATE A1r4oa 3acuznt1;i Preparation AUDITOR i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ t S It .D G SC i1 -: *- STAt! I l- PI - 11 I 1.O.C (NSDP):1 '4- SECT ARIAt 6 5 7 ;________ , t RD 3. PR0CU n,T PRO (Year 1987 ) ,TEDER I R 2. -.c STATE COMITTE£, ' l- li t . .(INTERDEFT): ' - - SECRETARIAt. .4 '*1s 8;- ;, 1~~~~~~~ 8 R Di V 7 NOTE: P1-l PT (PERSERO) PEABUHAN INDNSIA II DGSC DIRECTORATE ERL Of SEA CoMWNICAUONs N.O.C NINISTRY Of COmNUCATIOlS GOI STATE AUDITOR: 8PP 56 III. STATISTICAL INFORNATION Table 1. Related Bank Loans Year of Loan Title Purpose Approvl Status 1. Loan 1250-IND Assistance for 5/76 Completed Second Shipping Project National Fleet in 1984 Development 2. Loan 1337-IND Establish Container 11/76 Completed Tanjung Priok Port Handling Capacity in 1984 Project Commel.ts: The funding for the technical assistance studies which were carried out under the Maritime Sector Development Program (MSDP) was provided from loans 1250-IND and 1337-IND. GOI directed the studies to develop a project concept that would draw up plans for improving the ports of Tanjung Priok, Panjang, Teluk Bayur, Palembang, and Pontianak. The Second Shipping Project (Loan 1250-IND) was designed to address the main problems of the shipping sector which were defined as equipment obsolescence, fleet over capacity, poor productivity and poor management. The Tanjung Priok Project (Loan 1337-IND) had the objective of increasing the capacity of port traffic throughput in the area and establishing a container handling facility. 57 Table 2. Loan Disbursement - ---(US$ million --------- Actual as % Bank FY Ending SAR Estimate Actual of Estimate 1986 4.5 0.0 0.0 1987 20.0 3.5 17.5 1988 46.0 20.5 44.6 1989 72.0 32.0 44.4 1990 92.0 42.7 46.7 1991 102.0 56.6 55.5 1992 111.0 57.7 52.0 4/1993 111.0 76.9 69.3 Canceled 34.1 30.7 Comments: 120- 100- 80- 60- ESAR UACTUAL 40- 201 0* 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 59 Table 3. Project Timetab_e Date Date Date Ite Planned Revised Actual Identification N/A Preparation 07/81 N/A N/A Preappraisal 11/81 N/A N/A Appraisal 1 02/82 N/A 11/83 Appraisal 2 N/A N/A 05/84 Negotiations 06/82 10/84 05/85 Board Approval 03/83 12/84 06/85 Loan Signature N/A N/A 06/85 Loan Effectiveness 09/85 N/A 10/85 Loan Closing 6/30/92 12/31/92 12/31/92 Loan Completion N/A N/A 04/93 59 SAR Actual In US$ million A. Civil Woks Tanjung Priok 25.40 11.93 Teluk 8ayur 41.36 29.14 Panjang 12.42 6.38 Palembang 13.79 1.95 Pontianak 11.09 4.01 104.06 53.41 Design 8 Supervlsion 0 7.58 Sub-Total 104.06 60.99 B. Euipent Tanjung Priok 22.85 64.65 Other Potts 6.47 0 Sub-Total 29.32 64.65 42.43 0 C. Traininj 10.78 19.48 TOTAL 186.59 145.12 SAR ACTUAL GOI/PP-II IBRD TOTAL GOI/PP-II IBRD TOTAL USS million US$ million CIVIL WORKS 63.5 63.5 127 26.7 34.3 61 EQUIPMENT 4 30.7 34.7 37 27.5 64.5 TA & TRAINING 0 10.8 10.8 4.4 15.1 19.5 CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION 0 6 6 OTHER 8 0 8 TOTAL 75.5 111 186.5 68.1 76.9 145 61 CIVIL WORKS SAR ACTUAL TANJUNG PRIOK __- _ . __- 1 Site Preparation, Modification and _Fumishing Development & Extension of _ __________________________ Container Termninal 2 Dredging 3 Quay Strengthening Quay Strengthening 4 Service Buildings Administration Building and Ancillary Building .____________ Construction of UTC 5 Access Road and Truck Park TELUK BAYUR _________ 6___ ___ ___ __ _ ___ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___Constu ion of New W harf 2 __Dredging______Dreding & Excavation Channel and Harbour Dreding 3 Land Relamation Reclamation of Works 4 Quay Strengthening and Reconstruction of Existing ___________________Construction of New Sheds _ Service BuildingsInsl_ations______ ___ PANJANG __ _ I Site Preparation, Modification and _Fumishing I__Warf Construction 2 Dredging Grading, Paving Drainage, Water Supply Sewerage & 3_LandRec-iamationRElectdcal Works 43 Quay Construction Construction of Container I ConFreight Station 4 Service Buildings 62 CMVL WORKS |SAR ACTUJAL PALEMBANG _ _ _ _ _ _ I site Preparation, Modification and Road Pavement _ Fumishing ____=_________ Construction of Access Road _2 Service Buildings Gate House, Power Build & Ancillary Works 3 Service Boat Jetties PONTlANAK F Site Preparation, Modificaton and Fumishing 2 Quay Strengthening and Construction of Wharf Construction Construction of Two Sheds 3 Service Buildings Gate House, Wokshop, Canteen, Pilot House & Andally .. ______________ _ _____________________________ W orks 4 Service Boat JettY Construction of Service Boat __ _ ~~~~~~~~Jetty 63 e ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N, TANJNG PIOK =. I Container Cranes (2) Qusyside Container Crane 2 WIde-Span Transtainers (7) Rubber Tyred Gantry Crane 3 Small-Span Transtainers (4) Rubber Tyred Gantry Crane 4 Tractors (21) Terninal Tractor (Schedule 4) 5 Chassis (30) Skeletal Trailer (Schedule 5) 6 Spares l______________ lForklift Top Loader (Packae A) ________________ 7 Workshop Equipment __ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ _Tenrinal Tractor (Package B) -_______________ _ ______________________ . .Flat Deck Trailer (Package C) Rubber Tyred Gantry Crane I_____________ I _______________________ Forklift Full Free Uft 2 Ton TEWK BAYUR = I Mobile Crane (1) __2 FLTs, 36 t (2) _3 Tractors (4) 4 Chassis (12) 5 Spares 6 Workshop Equipment PANJANG _ I Mobile Crane (1) 2 FLT, 36 t (I) 3 Tracotrs (2) 4 Chassis (5) 5 Spares _ Workshop Equipment __ 63b EQUIPMENSA ACTA PALEMBANG I Mobile Crane (1) __ 2 FLTs, 36 t (2) _ 3 FLTs, 3 t (_) 4 FLTs, 1.5 t (8) S Tractors (4) 6_ Chassis (12) 7 jSpares _____________ 8 Workshop Equipment PONTIAAM_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 11 IMobile Crane (1) 2 FLTs, 3 t (2) 3 FLTs, 5 t (2) 4 Tractors (2) __ _____X_______ S Chassis (4) X__-____L 86 Spares 7 Workshop Equipment _ 64 Table 5. Use of Bank Resources Stage of Prolect Cycle Actual No. of Staffweeks Through Appraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249.9 Appraisal through Board Approval . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 Board Approval through Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155.1 Missions No. of Days Specialization Performance Types of Month/Yea- Persons in Field Represented !/ R a t i n g Status2/ Problems'/ Through Appraisal: May 1984 5 21 ECN,EGR,FNA 1 Appraisal Through: March 1986 2 14 EGR,ECN 1 Supervision: July 1986 2 20 EGR,EGN 2 March 1987 2 21 EGR,FNA 2 November 1987 3 13 EGR,FNA,OPO 2 June 1988 2 11 EGR,ECN 2 November 1988 3 13 EGR,OPO,FNA 2 February 1989 4 16 EGR,ECN,OPO 2 November 1989 2 17 EGR,ECN 2 May 1991 4 11 EGR,ECN,FNA 2 February 1992 3 8 EGR,OPO,ECN 2 June 1992 3 4 EGR,ECN,OPO 2 ECO - Economist; FNA - Financial Analyst; EGR - Engineer; OPO - Operations Officer 2/ 1 - Problem-Free or minor problems; 2 - Moderate problems; 3 - Major problems 3/ N - Management; T - Technical 65 Table 5. Staff Weeks FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 Total Preparation 2.2 21.8 29.9 26.5 - - 80.4 Appraisal - - - - 85.9 83.9 169.5 Negotiation - - - - - 8.6 8.6 Supervision - - - - - 2.3 2.3 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 Total Supervision 21.3 22.9 24.2 25.2 19.6 23.8 15.8 152.8 PCR (estimate) 8.0 421.6 3 Preparation * Appraisal * Negotiation Supervision 66 Performance Indicators Table 6(i). Port Traffic Data - Taniung Priok 1. Shig.Calls ('Units) 19i1 12 1990 1991 1992 Oceangoing 1,777 1,638 2,482 2,778 2,953 2,512 Container 753 786 837 902 1,328 1,541 InterIsland 3,642 3,578 3,687 4,474 4,942 5,705 Tanker 400 414 469 466 486 507 Offshore Ships J5qQ 2.160 2.649 J.510 2.396 2.094 Total 8,081 8,582 10,124 11,130 12,106 12,359 2. Cargo Handling (000 tons) Export 3,134 4,031 5,541 4,718 3,892 5,933 Import 5,87Z 6.472 7.112 8.268 9.295 10.570 9,011 10,503 12,653 12,986 13,187 16,503 Inter-Island-loading 1,213 1,448 1,441 1,777 1,960 2,366 -unloading 1.892 2.034 2.457 3.185 3,037 3.043 3,105 3,482 3,898 4,962 4,997 5,409 Total 12,116 13.185 16.551 17.948 18.184 21.912 3. Oil Discharged (000 tons) 4,565 4,769 4,962 5,909 6,549 7,085 4. Cgneainers (1000 TEU) 274 336 444 644 736 866 (1000 tons) 2,750 3,402 4,284 5,690 6,591 8,288 International 2,750 3,402 4,284 5,690 6,477 8,171 Source: Perumpel II SAR 1990 Targets Total Cargo (000 tons) 17,489 Container (000 tons) 4,104 67 Tanju_g Priok Traffic (000 tons) 25000 20000 15000. Exports ........................ ---- -- Imports 10000 - ___. ---------- - Total tramffc 5000 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 68 Tanjung Priok Traffic (000 tons) 25000 200 /0 15000 ,, _- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | _ ~~~~~~~Containers| t -- ~Total traffc I-. 5000 o~~~~~ O- 1Ita t989 19 I 1 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 69 INDONESIA NATIONAL PORTS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Table 6(i). Port Traffic Data - Other Porgts 1.990 Actual Target (SAR) Actual 1221 Cargo Handling (1000 tons) Pani ang Inward 445 1,219 456 499 Outward 718 745 983 592 Total 1,162 1,964 1,439 1,092 Palombang Inward 488 315 273 219 Outward 214 1,632 1,637 1,221 Total 702 1,947 1,910 1,440 Pontianak Inward 339 1,220 1,041 983 Outward 76 5 85 79 Total 415 1,225 1,126 1,062 Teluk Bavur Inward 481 2,487 360 272 Outward 397 1,435 219 397 Total 878 3,922 579 669 70 Table 6(ii). Port Efficiency Indicators TanignS Priok i9 1988 1989 1990 1221 1992 1. Ship Waiting Time (hours) Oceangoing 10.44 8.89 10.69 22.91 20.55 23.41 Container 3.94 4.95 5.62 18.98 17.66 14.56 Inter Island 4.83 5.11 6.17 10.06 12.43 17.57 Tanker 33.11 20.63 26.02 25.87 36.74 50.96 2. Berth Service Time (hours) Oceangoing 59.58 54.88 73.78 64.15 58.39 70.77 Container 10.69 17.54 18.27 30.71 26.47 19.73 Inter Island 71.56 70.40 71.30 74.20 57.06 60.27 Tanker 44.12 44.65 43.42 43.48 43.77 44.23 3. Turn Round Time Oceangoing 70.02 63.86 84.47 87.06 78.94 94.18 Container 14.63 22.49 23.89 49.69 44.13 34.29 Inter Island 76.39 75.51 77.47 84.26 69.49 77.84 Tanker 77.12 65.28 69.44 69.35 80.51 95.19 4. Tonnage Per Shig Oceangoing 3,561.5 4,362.7 3,812.1 3,528.8 3,080.29 4,071.91 Inter Island 854.0 973.6 1,057.5 1,109.2 1,011.26 948.09 5. Ganz Per Ship Oceangoing 2 2 2.2 2.64 2.80 2.72 Inter Island 2 2 2.1 2.53 2.30 2.20 6. Berth Occupancy (%) G.C. Wharf 46.30 46.56 65.82 67.41 54.33 62.14 Container Berth 35.00 41.35 44.00 64.17 47.14 56.69 Oil Jetty 76.20 77.68 65.81 59.33 65.43 78.88 Buoys 70.08 55.68 59.07 67.46 68.98 43.79 7. Shed Occupancy (%) Transit Storage 36.86 42.34 40.30 47.30 41.77 43.15 Open Storage 31.66 38.90 37.78 44.87 45.56 39.28 General Yard - - - 61.74 MEMO: SAR 1983 1990 (Target) GC Cont. GC Cont. 1. Shin Waiting Time (hours) 7 2 5 2 2. Berth Service_Time (hours) 70 32 30 18 3. Berth Occupancy (%) 53 35 80 50 GC - General Cargo Cont. - Containerized Cargo 71 Other Ports _ ;90 1991 -1992 GC Cont. GC Cont. GC C,nt. 1. Shjp Waiting Time (hours) Teluk Bayur 15 NA 11 NA 7 NA Panjang 26 NA 23 NA 12 NA Palembang 13 NA 14 NA 14 NA Pontianak 34 NA 22 NA 29 NA 2. Berth Service Time (hours) Teluk Bayur 80 NA 70 NA 74 NA Panjang 64 NA 56 NA 48 NA Palembang 29 NA 25 NA 24 NA Pontianak 65 NA 69 NA 37 NA 3. Average Dwell Time (days) Teluk Bayur 3 NA 3 NA 2 NA Panjang 9 NA 9 NA 8 10 Palembang NA NA NA NA NA NA Pontianak NA NA NA NA NA NA 4. Berth Occugancy (%) Teluk Bayur 58 NA 54 NA 56 NA Panjang 72 NA 64 NA 73 10 Palembang 40 NA 53 NA 40 NA Pontianak 84 NA 81 NA 80 NA SAR 1983 _ _l990 argpt Cont. GC Cignt. 1. Shi2 Waiting Time (hours) Teluk Bayur 55 NA 5 5 Panjang 22 NA 20 20 Palembang 58 NA 5 5 Pontianak 141 NA 20 12 2. Berth Service Time (hours) Teluk Bayur 81 72 45 24 Panjang 80 48 45 24 Palembang 85 60 45 24 Pontianak 51 NA 45 24 3. Berth OccuRancy (%) Teluk Bayur 90 NA 80 50 Panjang 57 NA 80 50 Palembang 75 NA 80 SO Pontianak 72 NA 80 50 GC - General Cargo Cout. - Containerized Cargo 72 Table 6(iii). Consolidated Income Statement -- Rp million--- PERVEL- II1987 12Z8 1222 1220 121 1 1. Revenues 63,908.1 76,472.3 96,246.1 141,642.2 198,786.9 233,725.3 2. Working Expenses 50,934.7 49,735.1 59,776.9 80,110.9 96,567.6 107,687.0 3. Depreciation Expenses 15,434.6 13,363.9 14,265.3 17,470.4 22,782.4 36,144.5 4. Total Operating 66,369.3 63,099.0 74,042.2 97,581.4 119,349.9 143,831.6 Expenses Working latio t - Achieved 79.7 65.0 62.1 56.6 48.6 46.1 - LA/PA Target 80 80 80 80 80 80 Operating Ratio % A Achieved 103.9 82.5 76.9 68.9 60.0 61.5 - SAR Target 96 97 98 98 97 95.6 TANJUNG PRIO 1987 1 1989 12929 191 1. Revenues 46,507.5 56,706.3 76,602.8 82,005.5 102,280.8 183,048.9 2. Working Expenses 30,953.2 30,794.6 35,830.4 40,772.7 38,815.3 46,539.9 3. Depreciation Expenses 7,802.4 6,861.1 7,550.1 9,470.7 11,411.7 19,490.1 4. Total Operating 38,755.6 37,655.6 43,380.4 50,243.4 50,226.9 66,030.0 Expenses Working Ratio % - Achieved 66.5 54.3 49.3 49.7 37.9 25.4 - LA/PA Target 70 70 70 70 70 70 ODerating Ratio % - Achieved 83.3 66.4 59.7 61.3 49.1 36.1 - SAR Target 86.2 86 86.3 85 83 82 ~~ZIJJJhYY~~~ 19-87 ~ 881- 12990 1991 1. Revenues 2,117.1 2,249.9 2,746.1 3,467.5 2,532.2 2. Working Expenses 2,463.0 2,049.9 2,214.0 3,834.4 4,402.7 3. Depreciation Expenses 658.2 489.7 666.2 967.0 1,173.7 4. Total Operating 3,121.3 2,539.6 2,880.2 4,801.4 5,576.4 Expenses WLorking Ratio % - Achieved 116.3 91.1 80.6 110.5 173.8 * PA Target 89 86 83 75 75 Ooerating Ratio - Achieved 147.4 112.8 104.8 138.4 220.2 - SAR Target 116.0 115.6 116.1 115.9 114.0 LANIANMG 198 1988 1989 1990 1991 1. Revenues 2,518.2 3,505.7 4,422.6 6,244.5 7,764.0 2. Working Expenses 1,887.3 2,518.2 2,801.6 4,362.7 4,771.9 3. Depreciation Expenses 1,111.8 1,160.4 1,450.3 1,763.7 1,876.0 4. Total Operating 2,991.1 3,678.7 4,251.9 6,126.4 6,647.9 Expenses 'Workingt Ratio% -Achieved 74.9 71.8 63.3 69.8 61.4 -SAR/PA Target 86 83 80 80 80 Qoerating Ratio % -Achieved 119.1 104.9 96.1 98.1 85.6 -SMR Target 116.0 115.6 116.1 115.9 114.0 74 PALEBMANG 1987 1988 1989 1990 .1 1. Revenues 3,470.6 3,401.8 3,384.9 4,608.9 5,356.0 2. Working Expenses 4,015.9 3,370.4 3,524.7 4,078.1 4,901.7 3. Depreciation Expenses 572.1 572.2 804.3 991.0 1,095.4 4. Total Operating 4,588.1 3,942.6 4,329.0 5,069.2 5,997.2 Expenses Worki_ng Ratio S - Achieved 115.7 99.0 104.1 88.4 91.5 - SAR/PA Target 119 106 93 80 80 0Deratin- Ratio % - Achieved 132.2 115.9 127.8 109.9 111.9 - SAR Target 143.1 127.4 110.9 97.2 96.3 PONTIANAT K 1987 128 198i 1990 1221 1. Revenues 834.8 942.9 974.1 1,568.9 2,147.1 2. Working Expenses 1,885.4 1,101.6 1,091.5 1,611.6 2,046.5 3. Depreciation Expenses 275.1 355.4 487.0 716.5 685.6 4. Total Operating 2,160.5 1,457.0 1,578.5 2,328.0 2,732.1 Expenses Wogking Ratio 2 - Achieved 225.8 116.8 112.0 102.7 95.3 - SAR/PA Target 120 99.4 85.6 75 75 Operating Ratio % - Achieved 258.8 154.5 162.0 148.3 127.2 - SAR Target 141.1 143.8 119.2 98.9 98.1 PERUNPEL II, Comparative Income Statement and Balance Sheet 1987-1991 Jakarta, Nay 1991 75 PERUMPEL II 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Total Rp. million Sources Net income 733.9 14, ;7. 5 22,854.3 38,907.1 78,768.2 77,385.7 Depreciation 14,639.5 11,457.4 14,221.8 17,300.5 21,145.1 25,325.9 From Operations 15,373.4 26,236.9 37,075.9 56,207.6 99,913.3 102,691.6 337,498.7 GOI Grants 0,000.0 7,158.3 58,271.0 2,174.1 6,251.3 22,353.9 98,208.6 Loans 14,454.2 30,815.3 23,556.0 18,368.9 35,356.9 48,998.9 171,550.2 From Other 48,138.5 2,697.3 21,757.3 9,445.5 14,830.5 111,365.6 62,592.7 40,670.9 103,584.3 29,988.5 56,438.7 182,718.4 Total Sources 77,966.1 66,907.8 140,660.2 86,196.1 156,352.0 285,410.0 Uses Investments 64,877.8 34,509.4 110,158.5 28,271.2 94,013.0 141,002.0 472,829.9 Debt Service 0 0 0 9,781.2 22,888.5 14,311.5 46,981.2 Income Distributon 0 4,329.1 7,117.1 17,133.3 20,625.7 115,899.7 Other 6,072.6 4,739.9 2,448.2 49,482.8 26,942.6 20,830.8 70,950.4 43,578.4 119,721.8 104,668.5 164,469.8 292,044.0 Debt Service Ratio 5.75 4.37 7.18 76 Table 6(v): Consolidated Comparative Balance Sheet - Summary --Rp billion- PERUMPEL II 1987 1988 1989 1 11 12 ASSETS 1. Current: Cash & Deposits 51.9 66.5 86.3 83.9 92.8 107.4 Other 22.8 25.0 32.5 34.9 42.1 45.6 Total Current 74.7 91.5 118.8 118.8 134.9 153.1 2. Fixed: Land/building/facilities 240 239 271 277 312.7 376 Equipment/vessels 33 41 54 70 122 187 Other 17.1 18.4 83.6 86.6 93.6 105.8 Total Fixed 290.1 298.4 408.6 433.6 528.3 668.8 Less Acc. Depreciation 63.1 74.6 88.3 102.5 122 145.7 Net Fixed Assets 227 223.9 320.3 331.0 406.3 523.s. 3. Construction in Progress 14.8 41 21.1 62 69.6 17.5 4. Other Non Current Assets 3.3 2.9 2.3 2.9 6.1 7.6 Total Net Assets 319.8 359.3 462.5 514.7 616.9 701.3 LIABILITIES & EOUITY Total Current 15.9 9.4 15.7 34.1 59.3 83.1 Total Long-Term Debt 23.3 52.7 75.2 81.6 91.7 141.9 Total Liabilities 39.2 62.1 90.9 115.7 151.0 225.0 Equity Total Equity 280.6 297.2 371.2 399 465.9 476.3 Debt/Equity Ratio 7/93 15/85 16/84 16/84 15/85 20/80 Return on Net Fixed Assets (%) 0.6 9.9 9.1 16.6 25.8 20.9 (before tax) INDONESIA ATIONAL POLlS DEVELOPEMEt PROJECT (Loan No. 2577-IND) TABLE 7, PRJECT-FINAlNED TECHHlGAL ASSISTANCE SuR- - -.-*- -.-ACTA L .............- Cost Cost US$,O0O 2185000 ............................. ............................................................ ..................................................................... ............................................................................... .................. 1. PERMPEL It ........... Corporate Nanagement 516 Port Operations 700 Port Operations 588 Financlt Dat anagemet 465 Equipment Nanagement 368 Equipment Nanagement 629 ........ Job Analysis 210 1 472 Persornel Policy & Regutations 290 2. DOSC Sector Nonitoring 740 sector Nonitoring 625 Trade Coordination 350 Cargo Unitization 390 Cargo Unitization 442 Transport Sector Pollcy 125 Planing Advisory 263 1,532 0-0 Survey-Non-Road 100 3. mC River Transport Schemes 812 Regulatory Reform 520 State Transport Corporatlon 424 State Enterprise Advice 270 National Transport 536 MIS Devlopment 250 Development Gulde ----- 1,7 4. DGLC O-D Survey-Roeds 1100 ----~ Tromqmrt Domtopw 1,256 Land Transport Rev. 1931 Land Transport Dev.elopm.ent 1,256 EA3 CWOVENNT DATABASE PAGE I OF REPORT 5040A RUN DATE 05/18/93 INDONESIA REVIEI OF LU4 CENANTS LOAN/CREDIT: L-2577 PROJECT NATIONL PORTS DEVELOENT EFF: 10/22/85 APP: 06/11/85 SECTOR: TRANSPORT (AS OF 05/10/93 1 AGRE4 TYPE OF UPDATE CUR ST SECTION CaEENT OATE CODE DESCRIPTION OF COVEKAsT CURRENT CENANT STATUS DESCRIPTION ART. 3.01(D) Ft 10/30/85 2 SUBSIDIARY LOAN AGEMED )/PER*MPEL II. IN AWLIANCE. ARt. 4.02 M1 09/30/87 2 CONTINUW TO CARRY OUT ITS ACTION PROGRAM FOR IN C0MPLIANCr. IMPRNING PR(/ISICN OF PORT AND SHIPPING SERVICES. ART. 6.01 F1 10/30/85 2 SUBSIDIARY L4AN AGlE104T WITH PERMPEL IN COGPLIANEE. EXECUTED. PA ART. 2.01(BI. Ml 06/27/91 3 PERIJHPEL TO TAME ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS TO REQUIRED ACTION TAiE NH0WEVER TARGETS ACHIEVE TARGETS S8T OUT IN SCHEDULE 2. CQN- PARTIALLY ACHIEVED. PUtE PORT EFFICIENCY INDICATORS SEMI- AWNUALLY. ART. 2.06. H2 06/27/91 2 PERIHPEL SHA CARRY OUT TRAINING PROGRAMS IN CCWIAACE. IN PART C. ART. 4,02. Ml 09/30/07 2 SNAL EVLOP ADJUSTED ACCOtNG SY5t0 DOE. INTRODUCE SYSTEM BY 07/01/06t USE SYSTEM FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING 12/31/86 AND THERE- C° AFTER. 1 ART. 4.03. Flo 09/21/00 2 BY 12/31/86, REVALUE ASSETS AND ANUN OcF CGPLI.D. ACC(HLATED DEPRECIATION; THEREAFTER RE- VALUE SUCH ASSETS PERIODICALLY. ART. 4.04(A). F5 06/2W/91 1 FOR EACH FISCAL YEAR AFTER THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING 12/31/06, MANTAIN RATIO OF TOTAL IN COMPLIANCE. WORKING EXPENSES TO TAL OPERATING REVENUES NOT HIGHER THAN 80%. ART. 4.041B). FS 06/27/91 1 RATIO TTL ORKING EXPENSES TO TTL OPERATING REVENUES OF EACH PROJECT PORT SHALL BE: (1) AND (3) IN COMPLIANCE: (4) AIAE)ST IN 1) TANJUNG PRIOK: NO GREATER THAN 70%. IN COPLIANCE (88%1; (21 (1111) AND (5) 2) TEWUK BAYARs NO GREATER THAN 75% BY (103%) NOT IN CCIPLIANE. 12/31/90 AND THEREAFTER. 3) PANJANG: NO GREATER THAN 80t BY 12/31/90 AND THEREAFTER. 4) PALEMBANG: NO GREATgR THAN 80% BY 12/31/90 *****STATUS CODES**'*** * .***^**COVENANT TYPE CODES****************C TYPE I-IAVAILABLE INSTITUTIOt- I-CREATE/REVISE/UPDATE ORGANS- F4-SELF-FINANCING RATIO 2-IN COMIPLIANCE NAL: ZATIONS;IMPROVe 1Q41 s MHIS: F5-eBT/eQUTY RATIO; DEsT SERVICE RATIO 3-PARTLY CCPLIED AGREEMENTS BETWrEEN OR WITH F6-PRICING OF PRODUCTS 4-NOT IN CIPLIANCE AGENCIES F7-PROVISICN OF LOCAL FUNDS 5-TO BE WAlVED/DELETED MANAGER- MI-SUPERVISION OF IMPLEMENTA- F8-PREPARE SECTOR INVESTMENT PROGRW4 6-1O LONGER REEVANST lAL: TION (PLAN/ACTION/REPORTING F9-LEVEL OF OUTSTANDING ARREARS 7-TO BE AHMENDED INcL. PROCUREMENT ACTION, FIO-ASSET REVALuATIONt DEPRECIATION 8-NO YET DUE DEVELOP ACCOUNTING SYSTEM TECHNIC- TI-CONSTRUCtION STANDARDS 142-ADEQUATE TRAINING POGRM CAL: T2-LAND ACQUISITION & HAPPING M3-WORK PROGAM/BUDGET PREP D T3-SITE SELECTION FINANC- PI-SIGNING OF SUBSIDIARY T4-DETAILED ENGINEERING IAL: AGREEMENT T5-ENSURe 0 & M PLAN & FUNDING P2-RATES OF RETURN T6-eWVIRONENT F3.COST RECOVERY 6 INT. RATES OTHERS: OTHOTHERS QA3 COfEfINt DAtSE PAGE 2 OF REPORT 5040A RM DAfE 05/19193 tNDONESIA nEVIE OF U CNTS LOAMCREVIT: 1t-257? PROWCT: NATIOAl. PCTS BVELOMENT FFP 10221f5 APPs 06/11115 SECTOR: TOASPORT (AS or 05tlZ/93 I TYM OF UPDATE CUR ST sECtION COVENANT DATE CODE VSSIPtICt OF COVENANT CURIt CWENANT STATUS *SCRIPON PA ARt. 4.0413). FS 06/27/91 1 AND THEREAFTER. 51 PONTIAMAK: NO GREATER THAN 75% BY 12131190 AND THEREAFTER. ART. 4.05(A). F`5 06/27/91 2 PERWPL NOT TO INCUR DEBT UNLSS NET RV- IN C0PWANCE NUES FOR FY IMMIEDIATELY PRECEDING OR 12-MD. PERIOD DED PRIOR SPALL BE AT lEASt 1.5 TIMES I#XIW*1 DEBT StRVICE REQUIREafEN. MAT. 4.061A). FS 06/27/91 2 BY 03/31 IN EACH FY PERUMPEL (ON BASIS OF TANJUNG PRIOK, PANJANG AND PALEA9ANG EXPECTED FORECASTS) REVIEW WHEIHER IT WOUtD MEET THE TO BE IN CCMPLIANCE. TEUUK BAYU AND REQUIREMENT IN 4.04 AND 4.05 IN RESPECT OF PONTIANAK WMLL NOT BE ABLE TO CCMPLY. SUCH YEAR AND NEXT YEAR. MAT. 4.06158. FS 06/27/91 1 IF REVIEW SHOMS PERLMpEL NOULD NOT MEET RE- QUIREMENT (PER 4.06(A)) THgN IT WItL PRO- IN C04PLIANCE. PERUMPEL It TAKING ALL MTLY TAKE ALL MEASURES TO MEET REQUIRE- MEASURES NECESSARY TO MMEt REQUIREMENTS. MENTS. *****stATUS CODES**** *********C.NA4NT TYPE CO DS*#****^* * ******* **-****COVENANT TYPE CODES*************"* 1-UNAVAILABLE INSTITUTION- I-CREATEIREVISE/UPDATE ORGANI- F4-SELF-FINANCING RATIO 2-IN COMPLIANCE NALt ZATtONS:IMPROVE MGMT I MIS; FS-DEBT/EQUITY RATIO DEBT SERVICE RATIO 3-PMTLY COMPIlED AGREEMENTS BETWEEN OR WITH F6-PRICING OF PRODUCTS 4-NOT IN CCMPLIANCE AGENCIES P7-PROVISION OF LOCAL FUNDS 5-TO BE WItVED/DELETED MANAGER- Mt-SUPERVISICN OF IMPLOMENTA- F8-PREPARE SECTOR INVESTMENT PROGRAM 6-NO LOG(ER RELEVANT IAL: TICN (PLAN/ACTION/REPORTING F9-LEVEL OF OUTSTANDING ARREARS 7-TO BE AMENDED INCL. PROCUREMENT ACTION, P10-ASSET REVAWATIONs DEPRECIATION 8-NOT YET DME DFVELOP ACCOUNTING SYSTEM) TECHNIC- T1-CONSTRUCTIC* STANDARDS M2-ADEQUATE TRAINING POGRAM CAL: T2-LAND ACQUISITION & MAPPING M3-WORK PROGPAM/BUDGET PREP'D T3-SITE SELECTION PINANC- Fl-SIGNING OF SUBSIDIARY T4-DETAILED ENGINEERING IAL: AGREEMENT T5-ENSURE O * M PLAN I FUNDING P2-RATES OF RETURN T6-ENVIRoNMENT F3-COST RECOVERY & INt. RATES OtHERS: OH-OTHERS