See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273694581

ASEAN-wide Connectivity by realizing RO/RO Shipping Network -Challenges

and Opportunities-

Conference Paper · March 2015

CITATION READS

1 749

3 authors, including:

Masahiko Furuichi
International Association of Ports and Harbors
42 PUBLICATIONS   182 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

landside terminal congestion View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Masahiko Furuichi on 18 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THE 2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ASEAN COMMUNITY 2015
Theme: Issues, Opportunities and Challenges in the Context of Infrastructure and Linkages
Kulliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design, International Islamic University Malaysia
2nd & 3rd March 2015

ASEAN-wide Connectivity by realizing RO/RO Shipping

Network - Challenges and Opportunities -
Masahiko Furuichi 1 , Ken Kumazawa 2 and Tatsuyuki Shishido3

ABSTRACT
The vision of ASEAN Leaders to build an ASEAN Community by 2015 calls for a well-
connected ASEAN that will contribute towards a more competitive and resilient ASEAN.
An enhanced ASEAN Connectivity is essential to achieve the ASEAN Community. As a
key step towards realizing the ASEAN Community of continued economic growth,
reduced development gap and improved connectivity among the ASEAN Member States
and between the Member States and the rest of the world by enhancing regional and
national physical, institutional and people-to-people linkages, ASEAN had prepared the
Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity (MPAC) in October 2010 (ASEAN, 2010). Roll-
on/Roll-off (RO/RO) shipping is unique in providing seamless services of carrying
passengers, vehicles, general cargoes on trucks, and containers on chassis. ASEAN had
decided to take up a challenge to strengthen ASEAN-wide connectivity by RO/RO
shipping network. Accordingly, the ASEAN RO/RO study was funded and conducted by
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) to realize the ASEAN RO/RO shipping
network development project which was listed one of the priority projects in the MPAC
(JICA, 2013). This paper, referring to the JICA study (2013), aims at providing 1) a
comparative analysis of cross-border RO/RO shipping practices, 2) a preliminary F/S on
ASEAN RO/RO priority routes, and 3) necessary policy initiatives of legal and
institutional framework on sea and land cross-border transport to ensure RO/RO shipping
services among the Member States.

Keywords: ASEAN, RO/RO, shipping network, institutional framework

ASEAN SUB-REGIONS
Major three sub-regional initiatives complement ASEAN cooperation according to
MPAC, which consists of 1) the Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS), comprising of
Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand, Viet Nam, and China, 2) the Burnei

1
Kyoto University
2
ALMEC Corporation
3
The Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan (OCDI)
Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Philippines-East ASEAN Growth Area (BIMP-
EAGA), and 3) the Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand-Growth Triangle (IMT-GT).
GMS has made considerable progress in the implementation of high priority
projects primarily in transport, power and telecommunications, with completed or on-
going infrastructure projects. The phased corridor development strategy was adopted for
three GMS corridors (i.e. North-South, East-West and the Southern economic corridors),
with initial emphasis on physical connectivity, followed by transport and trade facilitation,
and eventual economic corridor development. Accordingly, GMS shifted more emphasis
on “software” aspects after the initial focus on the “hardware” aspects. A consolidated
and comprehensive Transport and Trade Facilitation (TTF) program of actions is in the
process of formulation, which includes the GMS Cross Border Transport Agreement
(CBTA) and other TTF measures.
BIMP-EAGA is a sub-regional growth area which is significantly less physically
connected as it consists mainly of island economies and trades much more with the rest
of the world, usually via national capital ports, than within the sub-region. BIMP-EAGA
is designated as the test bed for the implementation of ASEAN agreements particularly
with regard to transport and trade facilitation. In support of the ASEAN RO/RO concept,
BIMP-EAGA Transport Ministers Meeting (TMM) welcomed a study on BIMP-EAGA
RO/RO network which may form part of an ASEAN RO/RO network.
IMT-GT is a sub-regional growth area of significant potential complementarities
in a wide range of sectors, from agriculture to tourism, manufacturing, human resources
and medical services. IMT-GT sub-region is likely to be as equally physically integrated
as GMS through the road and rail networks between Thailand and Malaysia, and shipping
services between Indonesia and most parts of Malaysia and Thailand. Maritime
connectivity in IMT-GT needs to be improved through i) development of RO/RO
shipping services among Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand across the Strait of Malacca,
ii) improvement of container operations on the north and east coasts of Sumatra, and iii)
development of Thailand’s Andaman Sea ports in Phuket for passenger and cruise
facilities.

Figure 1 Major three sub-regions with multiple corridors

2
CLASSIFICATION OF RO/RO SHIPPING SERVICES
RO/RO shipping is unique in providing seamless services of carrying passengers,
vehicles, general cargoes on trucks, and containers on chassis without time-consuming
lift-on/lift-off (LO/LO) operations. As most of RO/RO ships are much smaller than the
usual container ships, however, they are suitable for frequent point-to-point services.
RO/RO shipping services are widely used across the world for various routes between
islands and/or by-pass routes avoiding detour transport, taking its functional advantage
into account. Accordingly, RO/RO shipping services between islands may provide
seamless connectivity especially for BIMP-EAGA and IMT-GT sub-regions.
Since there is no specific definition to stipulate RO/RO ships and services under
the ASEAN connectivity initiative, the following three types of RO/RO shipping services
were classified.
1) Short-distance ROPAX (cargo and passenger) service by small and simple structured
ROPAX ship,
2) Medium/long-distance ROPAX service by multi-deck ROPAX ship where various
types of vehicles, bagged, boxed and container cargoes, as well as passengers are
transported, and
3) Medium/long-distance RO/RO service by multi-deck RO/RO ship where containers
on chassis are mainly transported.

Table 1 Comparison of RO/RO shipping services by distance

3
CROSS-BOEDER RO/RO SHIPPING PRACTICES
The RO/RO shipping network in Europe is already extensively established, and RO/RO
shipping network in Northeast Asia, particularly among Japan, China and Korea, has
been successfully established this decade as well. The experiences on the RO/RO
shipping in Northeast Asia and Europe, mostly those of Japan and UK are summarized to
identify the business conditions to establish cross-border RO/RO shipping services,
particularly physical conditions and traffic demand.
The busiest RO/RO routes in terms of the carrying capacity are the Near
Continental routes or the routes between UK and Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany,
which stretches more or less 100 to 200 nautical mile (nm) (SKEMA, 2009).
Freight RO/RO is dominant than ROPAX. On the other hand, the distances of
cross-border RO/RO shipping
services in Northeast Asia are
relatively longer than those in
Europe but mostly less than
600 nm. Carrying capacity of
RO/RO vessels operated in
those routes ranges from 120
to 300 TEUs regardless of the
route distances. Container
traffic by RO/RO and
ROPAX vessels in Northeast
Asia accounts for
approximately 12% of the all
maritime container traffic by
both RO/RO and LO/LO
ships, which implies that
severe competition exists
between RO/RO and LO/LO
ships.
In summary, RO/RO
shipping is no more
competitive than container
shipping (LO/LO) on long-
distance routes. RO/RO
shipping is suitable for
diversified cargo movement
rather than consolidated cargo
flow (J. Woxenius, 2012).
RO/RO shipping in ASEAN
may take a complementary
role to container shipping by
providing fast and seamless
unitized cargo services on
selected feeder routes.
Figure 2 Major cross-border RO/RO and ROPAX routes in East Asia and Europe

4
 RO/RO shipping services of longer routes than 1,200 nm is less competitive and
profitable than LO/LO services (usually container shipping). Observed share of RO/RO
shipping services between UK and other European countries tends to decrease along with
the route distance (Table 2).

Table 2 Comparison of cross-border RO/RO shipping services by distance

Shipping companies which operates ASEAN RO/RO shipping services should

offer an attractive level of services to cargo owners, taking the market segment of each
route into account. From lessons learned in other regions (e.g., A.J. Baird, 1997), the
following six factors are highlighted.

1) Frequency of services: The minimum frequency of services should be a round trip a

week but the more frequent operation would be better especially for perishable cargo
which requires frequent and small-lot services. The most frequent operations were
observed as 41 round trips a day with a route distance of 22 nm for Dover–Calais-
cross-border route (UK and France) and 13 round trips a day with a route distance of
61 nm for Aomori–Hakodate-domestic route (Japan).
2) Carrying capacity of vessels: Smaller vessels would be more suitable for short-
distance routes, taking a market segment into account. The carrying capacity of
RO/RO vessels on long-distance routes (e.g. longer than 300 nm) in Northeast Asia is
observed, however, approximately 300 TEUs.
3) Sailing speed: Sailing speed of RO/RO vessels is 20 knots at minimum. Higher sailing
speed is essential in RO/RO shipping services when competing with LO/LO shipping
services (usually container shipping).
4) Punctual service: RO/RO shipping services with strict punctuality and advanced
booking operations shall allow cargo owners to achieve detailed planned operations of
production and shipment.
5) Late cut-off time: Setting a later cut-off time would be another competitive advantage
of the faster shipment by RO/RO shipping services.
6) Revenue structure: Freight tariff should dominate the revenue structure and passenger
tariff should be a secondary gain. If passenger tariff is a prime source of the revenue
for RO/RO shipping services, Low Cost Carriers (LCCs) may easily capture most
passenger demands by introducing their services on the alternative routes, which was
already observed in many regions.

5
 Referring to the experiences in Europe and Northeast Asia, RO/RO vessels, port
facilities, shipping services and operational conditions, to enter into a service for a
specific route, shall satisfy the following requirements.

1) Appropriate carrying capacity, loading space and equipment of the vessels for
expected freight shipment style (e.g., sea containers, trucks or passenger cars, heavy
cargo, long-sized cargo, dangerous goods or chemicals, refrigerated goods, etc.)
2) Appropriate passenger capacity and accommodation facilities of the vessels (e.g.,
business or tourism, individual or group, etc.)
3) Appropriate port facilities (approach channel and basin, anchorage, fuelling and water
supply facilities, etc.)
4) Appropriate terminal specifications (e.g., water depth, connection to ramp way and/or
boarding facilities, parking lot, container yard, etc.)
5) Appropriate navigational conditions (sea roughness-swell, waves and winds, distance,
availability in port of refuges on the route, international safety code of vessel design
and shipping, security level of seas, etc.)
6) Appropriate operational frequency and sailing time (departure and arrival timing,
sailing speed, loading and unloading productivity, fleet size, etc.)
7) Sufficient profitability (initial and operational cost vs. expected revenue)

Those details must be examined per a candidate route to select a preferable vessel
design. In principle, RO/RO vessel size is classified by the qualitative feasibility matrix
of RO/RO vessel types by route location and distance as illustrated in Figure 3.

Source: JICA Study Team

Figure 3 Qualitative feasibility matrix of RO/RO vessel types by route location and distance

6
A PRELIMINARY F/S ON ASEAN RO/RO PRIORITY ROUTES

ASEAN RO/RO Candidate Routes

Eight RO/RO candidate routes were prepared in the study, which connect five countries
including Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand (Figure 4
and Table 3). The following characteristics are found, when classifying the eight routes,
according to the matrix of RO/RO vessel types by route location and distance.
1) Seven routes are short/medium-distance and one for long-distance over 500 nm.
2) Their oceanic conditions vary encompassing bay area, strait and outer sea conditions.

Figure 4 Eight RO/RO shipping candidate routes

Table 3 Profile of eight RO/RO shipping candidate routes

7
ASEAN RO/RO Priority Routes
The eight RO/RO shipping candidate routes show a wide range of potential demand,
available infrastructure and institutional preparedness. In order to prepare a preliminary
feasibility study (F/S), a couple of routes out of eight candidate routes should be selected
as priority routes.

Table 4 Evaluation result of ASEAN RO/RO candidate routes

Priority routes should satisfy the following criteria in the selection process.
1) There must be the existing traffic demand and part of it would be diverted to a
RO/RO candidate route.
2) RO/RO shipping service can be introduced as a sustainable transport system,
consisting of vessels, terminals, access road and others.
3) The Member State consisting of RO/RO candidate routes should commit to provide
efficient Customs, Immigration, Quarantine and Security (CIQS) services and an

8
 attractive regulatory framework for RO/RO shipping operators in their investment
plan and marketing strategy.
The evaluation results show that there is no triple-A rated candidate route in all
three criteria, i.e., 1) existing traffic demand, 2) available infrastructure and 3)
institutional preparedness.
Both the Dumai–Malacca and Belawan–Penang routes were rated the 1st and 2nd
best among eight candidate routes, being ranked A in existing traffic demand, which
shows high business viability. The General Santos–Bitung route was rated the 3rd best
following the above-mentioned two routes, because this route was ranked B in all three
criteria.
These three candidate routes were selected as priority routes for ASEAN RO/RO
shipping. However, Malaysia and Philippines need to further resolve infrastructure
availability issues, similarly Indonesia and Philippines an institutional preparedness
issues.

The Dumai-Malacca Route

[Route profile and advantages]
1) Various demand segments (passenger, vehicle and cargo) can be anticipated.
2) Small ROPAX vessels may satisfy the calm and short-distance route conditions.
3) High local aspiration at both Riau and Malacca as well as high central government
priority were observed.
[Anticipated risks]
1) An appropriate cross-border RO/RO terminal does not exist in Malacca.
2) The Indonesian customs does not accept foreign transit vehicles without security
deposit.
3) Passenger demand may not easily divert due to competition with the existing
passenger shipping service, etc.
The total profit in 20 years amounts to USD23.9million and the financial internal
rate of return (FIRR) reaches 13.3%. The profitability of this route is relatively good.

Source: JICA Study Team

Figure 6 RO/RO shipping priority route (Dumai-Malacca)

9
The Belawan-Penang-Phuket Route
[Route profile and advantages]
1) The Belawan–Penang route can expect a large potential traffic demand despite its
current small direct traffic.
2) Due to the route condition, medium/large ROPAX vessel is desirable for the
Belawan–Penang route.
3) Land cross-border traffic between Malaysia and Thailand has increased, heading for
Phuket as a regional tourism hub. This cross-border traffic is expected to divert to
new RO/RO services between Penang and Phuket, which is an additional section to
the original candidate route (Belawan-Penang).
4) Taking the proposed vessel size (medium/large ROPAX) and a year-round operation
into account, a triangle route (Belawan-Penang-Phuket) service may be more
sustainable than a shuttle services, aiming at high vessel utilization.
[Anticipated risks]
1) An appropriate cross-border RO/RO terminal does not exist in Penang.
2) The Indonesian customs does not accept foreign transit vehicles without security
deposit.
3) An appropriate medium/large ROPAX may not be procured or newly constructed due
to financial and/or technical limitations.
4) Traffic demand may not easily divert due to competition with the existing container
shipping and future air service, etc.
The total profit in 20 years amounts to USD37.5million and the FIRR reaches
18.4%. The profitability of this route is the best among the three priority routes.

Source: JICA Study Team

Figure 7 RO/RO shipping priority route (Belawan-Penang-Phuket)

The Davao/General Santos-Bitung Route

[Route profile and advantages]
1) Although no liner operation was observed on the route, some attempts were made in
the past. The local economies at both sides are keen on introducing modern shipping
services together with trade expansion.

10
2) Some traffic is expected to divert to RO/RO services from the historical Non-
Conventional Vessel (NCV) trade at the Sangihe Islands.
3) Judging from the route distance and oceanography, medium RO/RO vessel is suitable.
Because of very small air traffic demand and no passenger shipping service on the
route, the vessel may be dedicated for freight services.
4) Since the Port of Davao (Sasa Wharf) is extremely congested and deteriorated, the
Port of General Santos (Makar Wharf) is expected to be used as a RO/RO shipping
gateway for South Mindanao for the time being.
[Anticipated risks]
1) The Indonesian customs and/or the Philippine customs may not accept foreign transit
vehicles without security deposit and/or import duty.
2) Competent RO/RO shipping operator(s) are not expected to come forward to serve
the route.
3) An appropriate medium RO/RO vessel may not be procured or newly constructed due
to financial and/or technical reason(s).
4) Potential traffic demand may not be easily boosted.
The total profit in 20 years amounts to only USD6.5million and the FIRR shows
only 5.6%. The profitability of this route is not attractive to business investment.

Source: JICA Study Team

Figure 8 RO/RO shipping priority route (Davao/General Santos-Bitung)

ASEAN TRANSPORT FACILITATION FOR RO/RO SHIPPING

Cross-border RO/RO shipping services require an additional set of documentation and
procedure of passengers, cargoes and vehicles, compared to the domestic similar services.
For passengers, the primary requirements would be a valid passport and visa, and the
usual customs clearance of commercial volume of cargoes accompanied by the
passengers.
For cargoes, the manifest would be required from which the taxes and duties are
to be levied. If plants and/or animals are included in the cargo, the necessary clearance

11
would be required by plant and/or animal quarantine authorities. The issues of passenger
and cargo processing are not as problematic as those of the vehicle processing.
For vehicles, some formidable issues are observed especially in customs
procedure. Although an agreement on mutual recognition of vehicle registration, which
was signed by several ASEAN Member States, the agreement has not yet been ratified by
the legislative bodies of the signatory Member States. At present, the usual customs
procedure would regard both incoming vehicles and the container chassis as imported
goods, which would require a huge amount payment of import duties. Accordingly, this
remains a significant barrier to cross-border movement of vehicles. Potential solution
could be arranged, if the vehicle owner requested for an import duty waiver, based on a
declaration that the vehicle would be “re-exported”.
The vehicle insurance coverage is another crucial issue for vehicle border-
crossing. Vehicle insurance is compulsory at least a third-party-liability insurance to use
public roads in most Member States. Potential solution could be arranged, if the vehicle
owner procured an insurance at the destination country for a limited period only.

The Agreement of the Recognition of Domestic Driving Licenses Issued

by ASEAN Countries (signed in July 1985)
Under this agreement, the ASEAN Member States agreed to recognize all domestic
driving licenses except for temporary/provisional/learner's driving licenses issued by the
designated authorities or national automobile associations of the Member States. Holders
of the licenses issued in any one of the Member States who intends to take only a
temporary stay in the territory of any of the other Member States may drive the classes or
types of vehicles the licenses permit them to drive.
However, its full implementation has been delayed by a few administrative
requirements of the agreement. To date, not all of the Member States have fully
completed the administrative requirements. These Member States are requested to submit
the list of types and classes of their driving licenses as well as samples of actual licenses
to the ASEAN Secretariat. Moreover, there appears to be different interpretation about
the scope of the agreement. Some of the Member States including Malaysia recognize
only private driver licenses but not commercial driver licenses of the other Member
States. On the other hand, Laos PDR and Cambodia recognize both types of driving
licenses.

The Agreement on the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Certificates for

Goods and Public Service Vehicles Issued by ASEAN Member
Countries (signed in September 1998)
The agreement aims to facilitate cross-border movement of commercial vehicles with
regard to goods vehicles and public service vehicles within ASEAN via mutual
recognition of commercial vehicle inspection certificates. The certificates contains
particulars such as the vehicle registration number, chassis number, engine number,
certificate serial number, the period of validity of the certificate and inspection date. The
agreement applies to inspection certificates of commercial vehicles used for carriage of
goods and passengers. However, it does not apply to certificates of private motor cars
drawing a trailer and vehicle carrying dangerous goods.

12
 The agreement entered into force in January 2007, some nine years after being
signed. However, to date, not all the ASEAN Member States have deposited the original
and English language copies of their domestic commercial vehicle inspection certificates
to the ASEAN Secretariat.
On the other hand, there is limited ASEAN-wide implementation owing to the
protracted delay in the implementation of two key ASEAN transport facilitation
agreements, namely the ASEAN Framework Agreement on the Facilitation of Goods in
Transit (AFAFGIT) and ASEAN Framework Agreement on the Facilitation of Inter-State
Transport (AFAFIST). The “Mutual Recognition of Inspection Certificates” provisions
(Article 12) of the AFAFGIT and AFAFIST are based on this agreement.
Accordingly, the Agreement on the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Certificates
for Goods Vehicles and Public Service Vehicles Issued by ASEAN Member Countries
cannot be a standalone document. Its full impacts depend very much on the
implementation of the following two agreements, i.e., AFAFGIT and AFAFIST.

ASEAN Framework Agreement on the Facilitation of Goods in Transit

(AFAFGIT) (signed on 16 December 1998)
The AFAFGIT aims to facilitate transportation of goods in transit to support the
implementation of the ASEAN Free Trade Area, and to further integrate the region’s
economies. The agreement applies to transit transport, in which each ASEAM Member
State shall grant to the other Member States the right of transit transport and the right to
load and discharge third countries’ goods destined for or coming from Contracting Parties.
The agreement calls for designation of an ASEAN-wide transit transport routes
and effort to simplify and harmonize transport, trade and customs regulations, and
requirements for the purpose of facilitation of goods in transit.
The AFAFGIT consists of the following nine implementing protocols. Full
implementation of the AFAFGIT would require ratification and implementation of all the
nine protocols by all the Member States.
Protocol 1: Designation of Transit Transport Routes and Facilities
Protocol 2: Designation of Frontier Posts
Protocol 3: Types and Quantity of Road Vehicles
Protocol 4: Technical Requirements of Vehicles
Protocol 5: ASEAN Scheme of Compulsory Motor Vehicle Third-Party Liability
Insurance
Protocol 6: Railways Border and Interchange Stations
Protocol 7: Customs Transit System
Protocol 8: Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
Protocol 9: Dangerous Goods
This framework agreement entered into force in October 2000. However, the
agreement is still not implemented, because a number of its implementing protocols
remain unsettled. To date, Protocols 3, 4, 5 and 8 have been ratified by all ten Member
States. Protocols 1, 6 and 9 have been signed but not ratified by all.

ASEAN Framework Agreement on the Facilitation of Inter-State

Transport (AFAFIST) (signed in December 2009)
The agreement on the Facilitation of Inter-State Transport (AFAFIST) aims

13
 a) To facilitate inter-state transport of goods between and among the ASEAN
Member States, to support the implementation of the ASEAN Free Trade Area,
and to further integrate the region’s economies,
b) To simplify and harmonize transport, trade and customs regulations, and
requirements for the purpose of facilitation of inter-state transport of goods,
and
c) To work in concert towards establishing an effective, efficient, integrated and
harmonized regional transport system that addresses all aspects of inter-state
transport.
Under the agreement, each Member State shall grant to the other Member States
the right to inter-state transport by allowing transport operators in one Member State to
undertake transport of goods into and/or from the territories of the other Member States,
and the right to load and discharge goods destined for or coming from the Member States.
Cabotage is not covered by this agreement.
The number of vehicle which are allowed for inter-state transport shall be no
more than 500 vehicles per a Member State. Thereafter, the number of inter-state
transport vehicles shall be discussed from time to time between the Member States.
The AFAFIS has not yet entered into force. As of December 2011, only two
Member States, namely Loa PDR and Thailand had ratified the agreement.

ASEAN Framework Agreement on the Multimodal Transport

(AFAMT) (signed in November 2005)
The ASEAN Framework Agreement on Multimodal Transport (AFAMT) aims to enable
the door-to-door delivery of goods in the ASEAN Member States, using as many modes
of transport and terminals, under a single transport document. This agreement lays down
the rules relating to the carriage of goods by ASEAN Multimodal Transport Operators
(MTO), including the minimum qualifications to be fulfilled before registering as an
ASEAN MTO.
It incorporates the basis of liability in the UNCTAD/International Chamber of
Commerce (ICC) Rules for Multimodal Transport Documents (MTO) and the UN
Convention on Multimodal Transport 1980. The agreement serves as the model legal
instrument for national implementation.
As of December 2011, Cambodia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam had ratified
the agreement.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This paper, referring to the JICA study (2013), presented 1) a comparative analysis of
cross-border RO/RO shipping practices, 2) a preliminary F/S on ASEAN RO/RO priority
routes, and 3) necessary policy initiatives of legal and institutional framework on sea and
land cross-border transport to ensure RO/RO shipping services among the ASEAN
Member States. The JICA study provided the following set of recommendations through
the comparative analysis and the preliminary feasibility study.
Firstly, referring to the cross-border RO/RO shipping experiences in Europe and
Northeast Asia, qualitative feasibility matrix of RO/RO vessel type and size (carrying
capacity) and geographical conditions of the route location were clearly classified and

14
 analyzed. This provides both RO/RO service and port infrastructure planners with
valuable implications when preliminarily evaluating the candidate RO/RO routes.
Secondly, a preliminary feasibility study was conducted for three ASEAN RO/RO
priority routes, namely 1) Dumai-Malacca route (Indonesia-Malaysia), 2) Belawan-
Penang-Phuket route (Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand), and 3) Davao/General Santos-
Bitung route (Philippines-Indonesia). Belawan-Penang-Phuket route was evaluated most
feasible among three route, by adding Penang-Phuket section to the original candidate
route (Belawan-Penang) aiming at high utilization of vessel capacity by attracting tourist
demand to/from Phuket. However, the existing RO/RO terminals are not available in
Penang port (Malaysia) and foreign transit vehicles without tax and guarantee deposit are
not accepted in Indonesia. Those issues, i.e. infrastructure availability and institutional
preparedness, should be resolved for smooth implementation of the cross-border RO/RO
shipping project.
Thirdly, cross-border RO/RO shipping services require an additional set of
documentation and procedure of passengers, cargoes and vehicles, compared to the
domestic similar services. By carefully analyzing international agreements among
ASEAN Member States concerning RO/RO shipping services, the current situations on
documentation and procedure of passengers, cargoes and vehicles were clearly classified.
There still remain a considerable set of discussions toward building consensus among the
Member States.
By fully utilizing the consequences of the research findings, a compulsory set of
documentation and procedure of ASEAN cross-border vehicles needs to be deregulated
for the specific RO/RO project as a first step, through intensive discussions among
concerned Member States.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors do express our sincere gratitude to Japan International Cooperation Agency
(JICA) to allow us to use valuable information and outcome of the project “The Master
Plan and Feasibility Study on the Establishment of an ASEAN Roll-on/Roll-off (RO-RO)
Shipping Network and Short Sea Shipping” (2013) funded by JICA.

REFERENCE
Alfred J. Baird (1997). “Coastal Ro-Ro freight Ferry services: An alternative to trunk
road haulage in UK?”, Transport Logistic, Vol.1, No.2: 103-113.
ASEAN (2010), “Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity”, Jakarta, ASEAN Secretariat.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (2013). “The Master Plan and Feasibility Study
on the Establishment of an ASEAN Roll-on/Roll-off (RO-RO) Shipping Network and
Short Sea Shipping”, March 2013, JICA.
Johan Woxenius (2012). “Flexibility vs. Specialisation in RO-RO Shipping in the South
Baltic Sea”, Transport, Vol.27, No.3: 250-262.
SKEMA (2009). “Feasibility of New RoRo/RoPax Services between Ireland and
Continental Europe”, November 2009, Directorate-General for Energy and Transport,
European Commission.

15

View publication stats