Tag / Port

by Mike Poverello

The African transhipment race

Have you noticed the debate in the on-line Global Ports Forum about who will become the main container terminals in East and West Africa? Portstrategy.com has taken it upon themselves to score some of the suggestions.

Nigeria is strongly identified as a hub for the west coast of Africa – we score that 7 out of 10. It has the potential but will new port development be delivered in time? Will the off-take infrastructure development be implemented in concert with port development at places like Lekki? Will Lekki’s hub function be undermined by other deepwater facilities being delivered first on the African coast?

Generally, they agree with the view expressed by one wise head in the Forum that the race for hub status on the West African coast is now a fierce one. However, we don’t agree with the contention that Angola will have a serious say in becoming a major hub for West Africa. It will struggle for some time yet to meet its own port capacity needs let alone fulfil a regional function. We score this suggestion 2 out of 10; go to the bottom of the class!

South Africa as a hub for East and West Africa? Well to a limited extent it does already fulfil this role but when South Africa booms its priority has to be gateway cargo and it is limited in terms of its economic and geographical reach. It is also not ideal because of position; we won’t score the suggestion down but conversely we also won’t score it up because it is a fair point. We do, however, see as a negative the continuing emphasis on the public operation of this country’s ports – it spells very high cost comparatively speaking and coupled with this, ironically, not the best service.

Doraleh Container Terminal, Djibouti? Yes we would agree that this has a role to play in container transhipment for East Africa and particularly with its phase two expansion now underway. The price is right for transhipment here but the cost of cargo movement to the main transit destination of Ethiopia is coming in for increasing criticism. It also has a limited reach along the East Coast. Another score of 7.

Mombasa? Yes huge potential for the East Coast of Africa but as history shows no political will to deliver new port capacity in line with demand. Nine in theory but five in practice.

The new port of Lamu? Designed to act as an export gateway for South Sudan, construction has begun on the $23bn (£14.5bn) port project and oil refinery in south-east Kenya’s coastal Lamu region near war-torn Somalia’s border. With a planned multi-purpose port function, because it is a ‘clean slate’ it could take on the hub function. Another 7.

So what is Port Strategy’s view?

In West Africa, we note that new purpose-built, deep draft container port capacity has either recently been installed or is about to be installed in West Africa in six or seven locations. In Lome in Togo and Pointe Noire in the Congo, for example, new facilities are set to come on-stream by end 2014 at the latest which will be able to handle vessels of up to 7,000 teu. We therefore suggest that there will be a split of hubbing activity between all these locations but with the first two or three terminals on-line grabbing the main part of transhipment activity. We also see a continuing role in the short-term at least for hubs such as Algeciras that ‘face’ Africa.

In East Africa we cannot escape the logic of Mombasa and Dar es Salaam but will they pick up the pace quick enough to seize the opportunity? Sadly, not so far. Lamu, therefore, may have a big role to play. Source: Portstrategy.com

by Mike Poverello

Revisiting the national transit procedure – Part 2

You will recall a recent challenge by trade to SARS’ proposed implementation of mandatory clearance of national transit goods inland from port of initial discharge – refer to Revisiting the national transit procedure – Part 1.

First, some background

Now lets take a step back to look at the situation since the inception of containerisation in South Africa – some 30 years ago. Customs stance has always been that containerised goods manifested for onward delivery to a designated inland container terminal by rail would not require clearance upon discharge at initial port of entry. Containers were allowed to move ‘against the manifest’ (a ‘Through Bill’) to its named place of destination. This arrangement was designed to expedite the movement of containers from the port of discharge onto block trains operated by Transnet Freight Rail, formerly the South African Railways and Harbours (SAR&H) to the inland container terminal at City Deep. Since SAR&H operated both the national railway and the coastal and inland ports, the possibility of diversion was considered of little import to warrant any form of security over the movement of containers by rail. Moreover, container terminals were designed to allow the staging of trains with custom gantry cranes to load inland manifested containers within a ‘secure’ port precinct.

Over the years, rail freight lost market share to the emergence of cross-country road hauliers due to inefficiencies. The opening up of more inland terminals and supporting container unpack facilities, required Customs to review the matter. It was decided that road-hauled containers moved ‘in bond’ by road would lodge a customs clearance (backed with suitable surety) for purposes of national transit. Upon arrival of the bonded freight at destination, a formal home use declaration would be lodged with Customs. Notwithstanding the surety lodged to safeguard revenue, this has the effect of deferring payment of duties and taxes.

Diversification of container brokering, stuffing and multi-modal transport added to the complexity, with many customs administrations failing to maintain both control and understanding of the changing business model. Equally mystifying was the emergence of a new breed of ‘players’ in the shipping game. Initially there were so-called ‘approved container operators’ these being ocean carriers who at the same time leased containers. Then there were so-called non-approved container operators who brokered containers on behalf of the ocean carrier. These are more commonly known as non-vessel operating common carriers or NVOCCs. In the early days of containerisation there were basically two types of container stuffing – full container load (FCL) and less container load (LCL). The NVOCCs began ‘chartering’ space of their containers to other NVOCCs and shippers – this also helped in knocking down freight costs. This practice became known as ‘groupage’ and because such containers were filled to capacity the term FCL Groupage became a phenomenon. It is not uncommon nowadays for a single FCL Groupage container to have multiple co-loaders.

All of the above radically maximised the efficiency and distribution of cost of the cellular container, but at the same time complicated Customs ‘control’ in that it was not able to readily assess the ‘content’ and ownership of the goods conveyed in a multi-level groupage box. It also became a phenomenon for ‘customs brokers/clearing agents’ to enter this niche of the market. Customs traditionally licensed brokers for the tendering of goods declarations only. Nowadays, most brokers are also NVOCCs.  The law on the other hand provided for the hand-off of liability for container movements between the ocean carrier, container terminal operator and container depot operator. Nowhere was an NVOCC/Freight Forwarder held liable in any of this. A further phenomenon known as ‘carrier’ or ‘merchant’ haulage likewise added to the complexity and cause for concern over the uncontrolled inland movements of bonded cargoes. No doubt a disconnect in terms of Customs’ liability and the terms and conditions of international conveyance for the goods also helped create much of the confusion. Lets not even go down the INCOTERM route.

Internationally, customs administrations – under the global voice of the WCO – have conceded that the worlds administrations need to keep pace and work ‘smarter’ to address new innovations and dynamics in the international supply chain. One would need to look no further than the text of the Revised Kyoto Convention (RKC) to observe the governing body’s view on harmonisation and simplification. However, lets now consider SARS’ response in this matter.

SARS response to the Chamber of Business

Right of reply was subsequently afforded by FTW Online to SARS.

Concerns over Customs’ determination to have all goods cleared at the coast – expressed by Pat Corbin, past president of the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce and Industry in last week’s FTW – have been addressed by SA Revenue Service.  “One of the main objectives of the Control Bill is the control of the movement of goods across South Africa’s borders to protect our citizens against health and safety risks and to protect the fiscus. “In order to effectively determine risk, SARS has to know the tariff classification, the value and the origin of imported goods. This information is not reflected on a manifest, which is why there is a requirement that all goods must be cleared at the first port of entry into the Republic.“It appears that Mr Corbin is under the impression that the requirement of clearance at the first port of entry has the effect that all goods have to be consigned to that first port of entry or as he puts it “to terminate vessel manifests at the coastal ports in all cases”. This is incorrect. “The statutory requirement to clear goods at the first port of entry and the contract of carriage have nothing to do with one another. Goods may still be consigned to, for example, City Deep or Zambia (being a landlocked country), but they will not be released to move in transit to City Deep or Zambia unless a declaration to clear the goods, containing the relevant information, is submitted and release is granted by Customs for the goods to move. The release of the goods to move will be based on the risk the consignment poses to the country.“It is definitely not the intention to clog up the ports but rather to facilitate the seamless movement of legitimate trade. If the required information is provided and the goods do not pose any risk, they will be released.”

So, where to from here?

The issue at hand concerns the issue of the ‘means’ of customs treatment of goods under national transit. In Part 3 we’ll consider a rational outcome. Complex logistics have and always will challenge ‘customs control’ and procedures. Despite the best of intentions for law not to ‘clog up the port’, one needs to consider precisely what controls the movement of physical cargo – a goods declaration or a cargo report? How influential are the guidelines, standards and recommendations of the WCO, or are they mere studies in intellectual theories?

Related articles
by Mike Poverello

Revisiting the national transit procedure – Part 1

FTW Online last week ran an interesting article in response to a proposed change in Customs’ policy concerning the national transit movement of containers from coastal ports to inland container terminals and depots. In February 2011, I ran an article Customs Bill – Poser for Cargo Carriers, Handlers and Reporters alluding to some of the challenges posed by this approach. The following article goes a step further, providing a trade reaction which prompts a valid question concerning the practicality and viability of the proposed change given logistical concerns. I believe that there is sufficient merit in the issues being raised which must prompt closer collaboration between the South African Revenue Service and trade entities. For now it is sufficient to present the context of the argument – for which purpose the full text of the FTW article is presented below. In Part 2, I will follow-up with SARS’ response (published in this week’s edition of the FTW) and elaborate on both view points; as well as consider the matter  on ‘raw’ analysis of the ‘cargo’ and ‘goods declaration’ elements which influence this matter. Furthermore, one needs to consider in more detail what the Revised Kyoto Convention has to say on the matter, as well as how other global agencies are dealing and treating the matter of ‘security versus facilitation’.

Customs’ determination to have all goods cleared at the coast does not bode well for the South African trade environment, Pat Corbin, past president of the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce and Industry (JCCI), said. Speaking at the Transport forum in Johannesburg Corbin said the Customs Bills have been on the cards for several years now and while consensus had been reached on most issues in the Nedlac process, the determination of Customs to not allow for any clearing to take place at inland ports will only add more pressure to the already overburdened ports in the country. “Customs maintains that despite the changes they propose it will be business as usual. We disagree. We have severe reservations about their intention to terminate vessel manifests at the coastal ports in all cases and have called for further research to be undertaken in this regard,” said Corbin. “By terminating the manifest at the coast it has severe ramifications for moving goods from road to rail. International experience has shown when you have an inland port and you have an adequate rail service where the vessel manifest only terminates at the inland port, up to 80% of the boxes for inland regions are put on rail while only 12% land on rail if the manifest terminates at the coastal port.” Corbin said the congestion at both the port and on the road would continue and have an adverse impact on quick trade flows. “It also raises issues around the levels of custom security and control at inland ports and then the general implications on the modernisation project.” According to Corbin, government’s continued response has been that no provision exists for inland ports and that goods must be cleared at the first port of entry. “They maintain that it is about controlling goods moving across our borders and thus the requirement that all goods must be cleared at the first port of entry. The security of the supply chain plays an important role to avoid diversion or smuggling of goods,” said Corbin. “Government says that the policy change will not clog up the ports or prohibit the seamless movement of trade. Labour organizations and unions seem to agree with them.” But, Corbin said, the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce differs and is worried about the ramifications of this dramatic change to the 35-year-old option of clearing goods at an inland port or terminal. “With this policy change all containers will have to be reconsigned after not only Customs clearance on copy documents but also critically, completion of shipping lines’ requirements ie, payment of freight, original bill of lading presentation and receiving delivery instructions prior to their issuing a delivery order.” Corbin said the issue had been addressed directly with Transnet CEO Brian Molefe on two occasions, but that he had said he accepted Customs’ assurance that nothing would change and the boxes would still be able to move seamlessly once cleared. “It is not understood that the manifest will terminate at the coast where all boxes will dwell until they can be reconsigned,” said Corbin. Source: FTW Online – “New Customs Bill ruling will put pressure on port efficiency.”
Related articles
by Mike Poverello

Vetch’s Pier – a relic of floored planning

With recent developments regarding the proposed Durban dug-out port, a colleague of mine shared this gem of an article.

Vetch’s pier (Durban, South Africa) has redeemed itself by becoming a marine sanctuary. Historically, however, it is an expensive relic, a monument to flawed planning, poor workmanship and economic frustration.

Although potentially a major seaport, Durban’s bay was little more than an inaccessible lagoon before dredging and the construction of the north and south piers over a century ago unlocked its real worth. Nature guarded its entrance in the form of shifting sandbanks which made access to the safety of the inner harbor unpredictable and hazardous. As a result entry was restricted to small vessels drawing less than three metres of water. All other shipping had to anchor offshore and endure the extremes of wind and sea. Not surprisingly 66 ships were blown ashore on Durban’s beachfront between 1845 and 1885.

It was obvious from the outset to the British settlers that Natal’s economic prospects depended on the development of Durban harbour. For almost 50 years from 1850 the ‘harbour issue’ was the hardy annual of Natal politics and the correspondence columns of newspapers. Various plans were put forward, that of Captain James Vetch gaining the approval of Governor John Scott in 1857. Vetch, an engineer attached to the Admiralty in London, never actually visited Durban, yet he produced a report and plan to improve the harbour. Despite misgivings, it was rushed through the Natal legislature in October 1859 along with its hefty price tag -£165,000.

Vetch’s solution was to enclose the natural entrance to the harbour by means of two breakwaters, one curving northwards from the base of the Bluff headland and the other curving southwards from present day Ushaka beach. Besides the engineering challenge which that posed, Vetch’s plan ignored the prevailing wind an ocean current directions. But in August 1861 when construction of the northern breakwater commenced, such concerns were lost amidst the optimism of a growing economy and the belief that Vetch’s plan would resolve the frustrations of navigating the entrance to the harbour. A comment in the Natal Mercury on 13 July 1861 summed up the buoyant mood of colonists when it stated that Vetch’s plan would herald ‘new circumstances and be the scene of a busy, all pervading and prosperous industry.

The site engineer, George Abernethy, encountered difficulties with Vetch’s plan from the outset. The method of construction was impractical: sections of wooden framework filled with rubble simply collapsed in the surf, moreover, the contractor, Thomas Jackson, lacked the capacity to carry out the construction. Early in 1863 it was apparent that the six year project was stalled. Yet £90,000 of the budgeted £165,000 had been spent while less than ten percent of the work had been completed. Financial reasons and poor construction methods saw  Vetch’s pier abandoned in 1864. In time the ocean reduced it to what it is today. Both in design and placement, the small craft harbour now being proposed ignores the same natural forces that made Vetch’s plan impractical. Besides, it specifically ignores the pounding effects of the cyclone swells which emanate occasionally from the Mozambique channel.

In May 1864 a furious Natal Legislative Council demanded a detailed report on the Vetch project. In June the contractor walked off the job and left Natal. The Report tabled in August proved an embarrassing indictment. It found that no oversight had been exercised by Treasury officials on certificates for amounts payable and that the contractor had received payments in excess to that which he was entitled. It was also noted that freight for some materials had been paid for twice; that material had been ordered which was in excess of actual needs. To top it all, £113,500 or 70 percent of the allocated budget, had been spent on a project that was scarcely 20 percent complete and the problem of accessing Durban harbour was no closer to resolution.

Far from invigorating Natal’s economy, the submerged finger of an incomplete pier named after its designer, Captain Vetch, proved a drain on the colonial treasury for years to come, interest on the loan for the project amounting to about 17 percent of total revenue. A project born out of economic frustration left a legacy of even greater economic frustration. Until the 1880s Durban harbour languished having gained a reputation as a port of high charges and long delays. But from 1886 when dredging operations began, followed by extension of the breakwaters, the depth of the entrance channel improved. By 1892 it averaged over four metres allowing larger ships to cross the bar.

But the way forward was dogged by controversy. Two camps developed: one which saw the solution in dredging, the other in the extension of the north pier. So great was the agitation that it led to the fall of the government of Harry Escombe in October 1897. Ultimately, a combination of the scour facilitated by the north and south piers and the effects of dredging resolved access to Durban harbour. In 1904, the Armadale Castle, drawing 6,7 metres of water, became the first mail-steamer to enter the port.

Although incomplete and a non-starter, the remains of Vetch’s pier should serve as a reminder of the power of the ocean and the need for fearless scrutiny of public projects. Source: Duncan Du Bois (Ward Councillor) and Facts About Durban

Related articles
by Mike Poverello

Dry Ports – their growing role in international trade

Transnet Freight Rail

With rapid regional development of African port infrastructure and regional road corridors, the importance of inland multi-modal hubs is gaining traction. Increasing inter-African port competitiveness, with some countries happy to liberalize their economic trade engagements for increased foreign direct investment will put pressure on traditional emerging economies. In recent weeks there have been several public utterances concerning South Africa’s perceived demise as the ‘gateway to Africa’.

“If a gateway is supposed to be a transmission belt between global and regional markets and production facilities, the question should be whether South Africa can use its physical and material infrastructure to fulfil a connecting function between Africa and the rest of the world”, says Peter Draper senior fellow at the South African Institute for International Affairs. 

Global player General Electric recently chose Nairobi as its sub-Saharan hub – following companies like Coca Cola, Nestle and Heineken – and it based its decision partly, say trade academics, on South Africa’s unpredictable policy environment. With the rehabilitation of the East and West Coasts of Africa, some of it by resource companies needing to find more convenient export routes, trade patterns are starting to change in the region. In time, it is likely that Durban will be just one more port handling regional trade, rather than the main one.

A dry port is generally a rail terminal situated in an inland location with rail connections to one or more container seaports. Container freight trains run excursions between the seaports and the dry port, on a service timetable that is integrated with the schedules of the container ships arriving at the seaport.

Seaports have grown larger as world trade has increased, and they now lack space to expand and are restricted by congestion on the various routes into the port. While the access to the port from the sea may be highly efficient, with radar-guided systems for tracking the ships and sophisticated ship-to-shore facilities for speedy loading and unloading, land routes out of the seaport can be slow and congested.

The road and rail links are often too congested and inadequate to deal with the traffic from the port. This problem can be eased by a dry port consisting of rail and multi-modal terminals situated inland from the seaport.

In many instances, particularly in South Africa, port facilities are in close proximity to the center of the city, because historically the city grew up around the port. This means that road traffic both to and from the port has to make a circuit through the city along congested motorways or smaller roads. This problem can partially be overcome by the more efficient use of existing rail links to move the freight from the quayside to an inland dry port. The last two decades saw a decline in the ability of the rail service to meet increasing dry port to seaport needs. Over utilization of road transport not only deteriorates the roads but causes significant bottlenecks at sea port terminals.

The infrastructure available at the dry port is similar to that of a seaport in terms of the logistics and the facilities for importers and exporters. The dry port is equipped to handle cargo and transfer freight to warehouses or open storage.

Development of dry ports has become possible owing to the increase in multi-modal transit of goods utilising road, rail and sea. This in turn has become increasingly common due to the spread of containerisation which has facilitated the quick transfer of freight from sea to rail or from rail to road. Dry ports can therefore play an important part in ensuring the efficient transit of goods from a factory in their country of origin to a retail distribution point in the country of destination. Source: AllAfrica.com

Related articles
by Mike Poverello

China leads shake-up in distribution methods

Out of respect for copyright, I would encourage all logistics followers to visit this link to learn more about a significant shift occurring in the distribution of containerized goods. Some food for thought considering local conditions in South Africa which currently appear to marginalize (if not discourage) inland localisation and multi-modal distribution of goods between the hinterland and major air and sea ports in Southern Africa. Source: FT.com

Related Article