SA port terminals: capacity and utilisation review 2014/15

Transcription

1 SA port terminals: and utilisation review 2014/15

2 1. INTRODUCTION TOWARDS MEASURING PORT CAPACITY AND UTILISATION PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW CAPACITY OF SOUTH AFRICAN PORT TERMINALS THE NPA S LONG TERM PORT DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK Land use TERMINALS AND BERTHS Container terminals Automotives Dry bulk, Break Bulk and Liquid Bulk TERMINAL UTILISATION PER PORT Port of Durban Port of Richards Bay Port of East London Port of Ngqurha Port of Port Elizabeth Port of Cape Town Port of Saldahna SUMMARY WAY FORWARD CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY... 50

3 FIGURE 1: DEPICTION OF A PROCESS FLOW AT PORTS REPRESENTING KEY POINTS FOR PERFOMANCE MEASUREMENT... 4 FIGURE 2: TERMINAL OPERATOR PERFORMANCE STANDARD (TOPS): SYSTEMATIC PORT PERFORMANCE MODEL... 5 FIGURE 3: PROGRESSION FOR PORT CAPACITY UTILISATION: PRODUCTIVITY, EFFICIENCY TO CAPACITY EXPANSION... 7 FIGURE 4: LAND USE (HA) FOR CARGO AND NON-CARGO FUNCTIONS ACROSS THE 8 COMMERCIAL PORTS (2012) FIGURE 5: PROJECTED GROWTH IN LAND AREA ACROSS THE VARIOUS CARGO WORKING CATEGORIES FIGURE 6: BERTH PRODUCTIVITY - CONTAINER TERMINALS FIGURE 7: TEUS PER BERTH METRE BASED ON DESIGN, INSTALLED CAPACITY AND 2013/14 THROUGHPUT FIGURE 8: TEUS PER TERMINAL AREA (HA) FIGURE 9: TOPS PERFORMANCE FOR CONTAINER TERMINALS FIGURE 10: ANNUAL RO-RO UNITS PER METRE OF BERTH FIGURE 11: ANNUAL RO-RO UNITS PER HA OF TERMINAL AREA FIGURE 12: RO-RO TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY IN RELATION TO DESIGN AND INSTALLED CAPACITY AND 2013/14 PERFORMANCE FIGURE 13: TOPS AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR PERFORMANCE 2013/ FIGURE 14: DRY BULK TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY FIGURE 15: BREAK BULK THROUGHPUT PER METRE BERTH AND PER TERMINAL AREA (2013) FIGURE 16: LIQUID BULK THROUGHPUT PER M/BERTH AND PER HA 34 FIGURE 17: TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE PORT OF DURBAN FIGURE 18: TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE PORT OF RICHARDS BAY FIGURE 19: TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE PORT OF EAST LONDON FIGURE 20: TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY AT THE PORT OF NGQURHA FIGURE 21: TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY AT THE PORT OF PORT ELIZABETH FIGURE 22: TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE PORT OF CAPE TOWN FIGURE 23: TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY AT THE PORT OF SALDAHNA TABLES TABLE 1: LAND USE ACROSS THE DIFFERENT PORT FUNCTIONS 2012 TO TABLE 2: WATERSIDE CAPACITY OF SOUTH AFRICAN TERMINALS TABLE 3: LATENT CAPACITY ACROSS THE MAIN COMMODITY TYPES HANDLED IN SOUTH AFRICAN PORTS TABLE 4: CONTAINER TERMINAL CAPACITY ACROSS THE SYSTEM AS PER LTPDF (2013) TABLE 5: CONTAINER TERMINALS THROUGHPUT (2013/14) VS. DESIGN AND INSTALLED CAPACITY TABLE 6: TOPS ACROSS THE SHIP RATE FOR CONTAINERS TABLE 7: RO-RO TERMINAL CAPACITY ACROSS THE SYSTEM TABLE 8: RO-RO TERMINAL CAPACITY BASED ON THROUGHPUT AGAINST DESIGN AND INSTALLED CAPACITY TABLE 9: TOPS REPORTED PERFORMANCE FOR RO-RO TABLE 10: BULK TERMINALS ACROSS THE SYSTEM (CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE) TABLE 11: THROUGHPUT AGAINST DESIGN CAPACITY FOR DRY BULK (2013) TABLE 12: THROUGHPUT AGAINST DESIGN CAPACITY FOR BREAK BULK (2013) TABLE 13: THROUGHPUT AGAINST DESIGN AND INSTALLED CAPACITY FOR LIQUID BULK (2013) TABLE 14: SUMMARY OF TERMINAL USE BY CARGO TYPE AND PORT TABLE 15: BERTH UTILISATION FACTOR TABLE 16: EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE OPTIMAL BERTH UTILISATION AND ATS FOR SA TERMINALS iii

4 1. Introduction 1. Ports have an essential role to play in facilitation of trade, which is a key driver of economic growth. As a result there is generally keen interest in how ports and port terminals perform in facilitating effective movement of goods and people. Although container traffic accounts for less than half world trade by volume, containerized cargo globally accounts for more than two thirds of the value of goods traded. Accordingly, there has been a bias toward measuring and improving the performance of container terminals. 2. In 1987, a process of defining common indicators against which the performance of a port can be measured gained momentum with the publication of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD:1987) monogram. Notwithstanding literature that abounds prior and after the UNCTAD process, the monogram represented the first attempt to document, for port managers and practitioners in developing countries, common performance indicators for calculating port productivity, identifying data requirements including who should collect and how such data should systematically be collected which informs system designs to date. 3. Practitioners have continued to influence the determination of port performance measures (see various papers delivered at the UN Ad Hoc Expert Meeting on Assessing Port Performance, Geneva 2012); or Research groups tasked with recommending the best strategies for improving port performance at country or regional levels (See Tioga Research Report on North American container terminals 2010; the Infrastructure Development Bank funded study on Latin American and Caribbean Ports (LAP) and the annual publication of port statistics for Australian ports in the Waterline Reports). 4. Various academics have also weighed- in on the matter with research on various aspects of port performance which ranges from establishing common methodologies in defining technical efficiencies of ports against which ports can be measured, to applying variations of either the Stochastic Frontier Assessments (SFA) or the Data Envelopment Analysis or a combination (see for example Cullinane: 2010; Gonzales & Trujillo (2004), Tally (2007), Merk and Dang (2012)) in measuring technical efficiency of ports. Annual publications which provide global comparisons and analyse trends and improvements in the performance of global ports, such as the JOC White Paper on Port Productivity amongst others, contribute to the wealth of knowledge and approaches on port productivity. 5. Most literature shows that port performance measurement is affected by complex interplays between various players and factors in the port system where no two ports are alike, save for

5 the functions they perform i.e. facilitating the transfer of goods from the sea-side to the landside and vice versa. Each of the distinct groups of port users try to weigh in and influence measures. Shipping lines, road transport companies, and cargo owners each focus on and require different levels of service and would thus be keen on different measures in the performance of container terminals. As an example, cargo owners, concerned about the time that cargo stays in a terminal making it important therefore that appropriate standards be set for cargo dwell times. 6. Shipping lines are driven by the need to transport cargo on time at the lowest cost and hence, are concerned about, transit time, and reliability of service, costs and productivity levels at a port which often is translated through a demand for the right equipment at terminal. In turn this informs the measures they would be interested in and support in ports. 7. Merk and Dang (2012) research on Efficiency of world ports in container and bulk cargo (oil, coal, ores and grains), even though limited to the case-study methodology which makes it difficult to replicate in other contexts, nonetheless lays a good base for calculating port efficiency in the non-container sector and takes previous studies on Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA) and Data Envelopment Assessments (DEA) forward in both container and noncontainer sector. 8. The most recent study by Salminen (2013) measures port in containers, dry bulks, break bulk, liquid bulk terminals making a link between assessments and investment strategies in uncertain investment contexts. Similar assessment will be useful in the Regulator s next iteration of the and utilisation reviews. 9. Whilst noting these global developments in port and utilisation as well as measurement of port productivity and efficiency, this review report will provide a basic snap shot and base-line from which future reviews can conduct further analysis including efficiencies in the South African system. 2. Towards measuring port and utilisation 10. The ability of a port to handle cargo and/or vessels timeously and/or economically as well as the ability of a port to manage the expectations and requirement of various grouping of port users, in the various stages depicted above, determines in part whether vessels and cargo are attracted to a port, the other part being market factors. Where alternative to a port exists, 2

6 then effective utilisation of facility expressed in the overall vessel turnaround time becomes important. 11. The existence or provision of port and utilisation thereof in the various stages in the movement of vessels and goods i.e. anchorage, terminals (berths and yard) and intermodal links (road and rail) are thus an important part of measuring port performance. In this regard, this review presents a status quo of existing capacities in the various South African terminals that handle containers, automotives, dry bulk, break bulk and liquid bulk commodities. 12. Measuring port productivity and defining the right measures is important in that, even with varying and different levels of endowments in ports, ports are essentially there to provide services to/for vessels (bringing or carrying cargo), cargo (including some storage thereof for defined periods of time) and the interface with cargo transportation inland (road or rail haulage). 13. Figure 1 tracks the movement of a vessel from the time it arrives at anchorage, to berthing and operations and sailing out of the port. Using vessel turnaround time as a proxy for how well the port or terminal or berth is operating, the figure also highlights key points in the journey where performance is measured through time indicators. 14. The item marked (A) shows that generally the time a vessel spends in anchorage is measured as it indicates how vessels queue before berthing. However, given time spent in anchorage may be caused by a myriad of reasons, including: weather, waiting for orders, early arrival, or terminal/berth readiness or availability of marine services, only those reasons related to terminal readiness and/or availability of marine services are considered, as these are within the control of port management. 15. From anchorage, a vessel will be readied for actual berthing, including the carrying out of marines services to bring vessel to berth, this is considered as transit time (B) the treatment of which also affects berth productivity. If this transit time is included in the calculation of berth utilisation it may reflect unproductive use since this time is not accounted for the in the movement of cargo across the ship. The practice is thus for transit time to be measured but excluded from the measurements of berth utilisation. Stevedoring and related functions must be carried out before the vessel can be worked or operation can commence. This is also considered as vessel non-working time depicted as (C1). 3

7 Figure 1: Depiction of a process flow at ports representing key points for perfomance measurement Source: Report on Study of Indian Ports 16. Vessel working time is the time between the commencement of operation and completion of operation i.e. working time. Idle time (C2) includes latching and rope untying time in preparation for departure. Lastly, vessel sailing from berth from the last rope being dropped is considered non- working time. 17. Figure 1 assist in visually summarizing the steps and key points in the handling of a vessel where key performance indicators and measures of port performance are defined. The more commonly measured benchmarks on productivity, each with their own indicators and data inputs, can be categorized into those that cover: Berth productivity (TEU/metre of berth length), Quay crane productivity, (TEU/crane/hour), Yard productivity (TEU/hectare of yard), and Workforce productivity (TEU/employee/year). 4

8 18. The Terminal Operator Performance Standards (TOPS) of the NPA, introduced in December 2013, follows the same logic and identifies key performance measures in a systematic port performance model as outlined in Figure 2. Figure 2: Terminal Operator Performance Standard (TOPS): systematic port performance model 19. The NPA has started a process of measuring port performance in four key points depicted in Figure 2, namely; a. At anchorage measuring berthing delays b. At berth - measuring berth occupancy, berth utilisation, gross crane moves per hour and ship working hour; c. At terminal the measure is throughput and dwell times; d. Point of intermodal exchange of cargo measures truck turnaround time, truck waiting time, rail turnaround time and trains departing on time. 20. Ports are contested spaces where players want to maximize the benefits that can be derived from the system whilst minimizing their direct cost as much as they can. Benefits from the system are not always mutually inclusive e.g. port pricing of South African ports is done at system level through the Required Revenue method which is a zero sum system i.e. all port users must contribute in varying degrees to the total CAPEX and maintenance of port infrastructure. When segments of port users require investment to be made to expand and reduce congestion in ports, they equally should be responsive to shared increases in port charges to achieve the objective. 5

9 21. In addition, Cullinane (2010) also posits that increasing port efficiencies may temporally result in higher rather than lower port costs in the short term(e.g. where it is achieved through deployment of more resources). Creation of often displaces existing for a period of time which, notwithstanding proper planning, and it is often unavoidable, resulting in less throughput which is a key indicator in most measures of port productivity and efficiency. Deployment of additional, e.g. equipment, tends to affect the throughput during the period of adjustment making the investment not cost effective during such periods. As an example, in the expansion of container terminal at Pier1 in the Port of Durban in 2013, the total TEU throughput reduced resulting in the Durban Container terminal losing two places in the Top 100 Container Terminals of the world. 22. The nature and character of port infrastructure i.e. long lead times and expansive capital outlays, makes it imperative that optimal use of current infrastructure is encouraged to make the most of existing infrastructure. In the short term, of a port can only be increased by adding cranes, improving efficiency or optimising container yards, often focusing on increasing stacking density and operating hours. 23. Medium to longer term strategies to address may include adding more infrastructure in the form of expanding or building new quay walls, dredging and deepening of berths, building new terminals. Overall, terminal establishes a terminal s limit and may point to areas where terminal productivity and efficiencies can be increased in the port development. It is not static, as it can be changed over time either through optimization of the system or through expansion. 24. The of a port is usually defined as the maximum traffic it can handle within given parameters and is informed by fixed and variable factors. Fixed port factors include maritime channels, berths, terminals, storage facilities and other transport linkages. Variable factors included cranes, carriers, IT systems, labor as well as marine equipment and services. 25. In assessing port performance, a distinction is also made between design (theoretical) and installed (operational) of terminals. Design is the maximum throughput that can be achieved in a terminal as designed whilst installed, also called operational, refers to optimal amount of throughput achievable given resources deployed in terminal at a given time. 6

10 Measures Characteristics Stage 1: Port or Terminal Start up Stage 2: System Optimisation Stage 3: Capacity Investments Low utilisation System and technology improvements Expand existing Low cost operation Full deployment of land, capital and labour Create new Capacity against throughput Terminal throughput per crane, yard, hectare, labour, Dwell times, berth occupancy, Road/Rail Turnaround time etc Installed vs. throughput Financial measures Labour Figure 3: Progression for port utilisation: productivity, efficiency to expansion 26. Figure 3 graphically illustrates the progression of port development from start up, to the stage of system optimization and expansion. Generally, low-utilisation and low cost operations characterise ports or terminals at the start. Port or terminal performance and productivity at this stage is measured simply by assessing throughput against installed. Financial and labor measures can be added if cost effectiveness dimensions of port are to be addressed. 27. As port operations become more complex and involve more players, ports tend to make system and technology improvements that allow them to take full advantage of land, capital and labor. The objective is to reach the limit of the system with full deployment of land, capital and labor. 28. When limits of expansion are reached, investment in capital equipment to minimize labor costs is often then the route taken, exhausting throughput capability of the system, technology, land, and capital equipment. Measures of congestion such as dwell times, berth occupancy become important at this stage as they indicate the extent to which port or terminal infrastructure can handle more throughput or whether these should be expanded. 29. Utilisation indicators measure how intensely port facilities/ is used i.e. percentage of actual use of resources and maximum possible use of those resources over time. The most collected utilisation measures are berth occupancy (the ratio of time a berth is occupied by a vessel to the total time available in that period) and storage utilisation. High berth occupancy rates i.e. above 65 70% have been accepted to be a sign of congestion. Berth and terminal 7

11 utilisation are better indicators than just berth occupancy as they measure the time that a berth or terminal is productively utilized rather than just the time a vessel is alongside the berth. 30. For the purpose of this review, the terminal expressed in terms of number and length of berths dedicated to handling particular cargo type, the size of the terminal in hectares as well as design and installed capacities as extrapolated from the NPAs LTPDF are used to paint a picture of the extent to which existing is being used. 31. In line with the National Ports Act, Act 12 of 2005, the Ports Regulator (the Regulator) must, through economic regulation of the South African port system ensure that the National Ports Authority (the NPA) effectively manages South Africa s port system in a manner that enables the objects of the Act to be met, one being the development of an efficient port system supporting the country s economic development. 32. The optimal and efficient use of existing, i.e. sweating of assets, by the NPA is an important indicator for the Regulator and is reflected in the current tariff setting methodology which highlights an intention to include efficiency measures in future tariff determinations. 3. Purpose of the review 33. The purpose of this PRSA review of the NPAs and utilisation is to begin to identify and analyse existing terminal including terminal area, berth, design and installed, and based on 2013 throughput, to assess the extent to which is utilised across cargo types and port terminals. 34. The review of the NPAs port and utilization will be an ongoing process and it is important that a baseline be set as a start. This is especially so where the Regulator has had to collate for the first time information on South African port terminals and their capacities. 35. This first review of the NPAs and utilisation thus simply intends to lay a baseline on existing port infrastructure and the extent of its utilisation. The review does look at some productivity measured in terms of terminal throughput against design and installed based on the NPAs data/information collated from the Long Term Port Development Framework and the 2013 throughput data for terminals. 36. It is intended that the review process will, in the short term serve to create dialogue on how the Regulator should encourage improvements in the use of port infrastructure. It is envisaged that ultimately there will be common definitions and monitoring of the 8

12 performance of South Africa s port terminals, alongside the Operator Performance Standards of the NPA and indications of where further analysis is required in subsequent reviews are given. 37. Efficiency and comparisons against international benchmarks will be done in a separate Benchmarking report which takes the utilisation and productivity statistics reported herein and compares them against reported performance of other terminals internationally. 4. Capacity of South African port terminals 38. Empowered by the National Ports Act, the NPA develops both operational and long term port development plans that guides and directs how South African ports will grow. It has developed the Long Term Port Development Framework (LTPDF) which provides a long-term vision for the development of South Africa s 8 of 9 the commercial ports namely Ports of Richards Bay, Durban, East London, Ngqurha, Port Elizabeth, Mossel Bay, Cape Town and Saldahna Bay. 39. The LTPDF is consulted with and supported by port users as required by the Act and Regulations, with the current LTPDF consulted with stakeholders in May The LTPDF provides a long term vision and direction of the NPAs CAPEX programme, as well as engenders support for the CAPEX programme especially from port users from whom tariffs are raised to provide, sustain and expand. Before delving into the provisions of the LTPDF, a brief overview of the various ports and their development over time is provided in the items that follow. 40. As noted in the report of the Development Bank of Southern Africa and Presidency (DPME: 2012), each port in South Africa has its own history and origins. In the case of Cape Town, its trading history goes back to the formal Dutch settlement at the Cape in But before this, ports such as Saldanha Bay, Mossel Bay, Durban and several other locations were visited by Portuguese and then Dutch traders stopping for shelter, water or even small-scale trading. The modern commercial era of South Africa s ports commenced with the unification of the country geographically and politically at the beginning of the twentieth century, following the Anglo-Boer War. Port of Durban 41. History traces the development of the Port of Durban to the appointment of the first harbor master for Durban around 1840, although the use of the Bluff to shelter ships is recorded as 9

13 far back as In the 1930s to the 1950s the Bayhead area in the Port of Durban was used as a base for flying boats. Over the years Durban became the busiest general cargo port and the largest and busiest container terminal in the Southern Hemisphere. It services its own industrial and commercial region in addition to the rest of South Africa s hinterland through Gauteng as well as regional traffic. To accommodate growth, the port has grown its container handling with second container terminal at Pier One become operational in Plans exist to extend Pier 1 Container terminal through the infilling of Salisbury Island (which belongs to the South African Navy). The Port channel has been widened (222m at its narrowest point) and deepened (16,5m in the inner channel) to allow bigger vessels to be accommodated. 42. The main commodity categories handled at Durban are: containers, vehicles, grains (rice, maize), forestry products (including woodchip), liquid bulks (crude oil, petroleum products and chemicals), coal, fertilizer, steel, fruit, sugar, and passengers (including cruise vessels). Although the whole port is owned by Transnet through the NPA, a number of terminals are operated by private companies. Port of Richards Bay 43. The Port of Richards Bay was developed between 1972 and 1976 in response to the demand for additional rail-linked port infrastructure to service export potential from the (now) KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga coalfields. A deepwater facility was needed because of the development internationally of very large bulk carriers. Richards Bay was chosen because of the large lagoon; the ease of dredging; direct links with the national rail network, an adjacent town, Empangeni, to stimulate initial development; and an ample supply of fresh water. 44. The port is now South Africa s premier dry bulk port, handling an increasing variety of bulk and neo-bulk commodities in addition to break-bulk. The coal terminal, single bulk liquids berth and bulk liquid storage and phosphoric acid loading facility are operated by private companies. Port of East London 45. The Port of East London is South Africa s only river port situated at the mouth of the Buffalo River. As a common user port, it boasts the largest grain elevator in South Africa, a car terminal on the west bank which includes a four story parking facility connect by dedicated road to Mercedes Benz factory. The Port also has a multipurpose terminal on the East Bank which handles containers, a dry dock, a repair quay, pilot and fishing jetty, the Latimer s Landing Water frontage as well as bunkering with fuel oil and marine gas oil. 10

14 Port of Port Elizabeth 46. Although services started in 1836 (a surfboat for handling cargo and passengers) and the first jetty was constructed in 1837, the Port of Port Elizabeth was established as a proper harbour in 1933 with the construction of the Charl Malan Quay (now used as the container and car terminals) which for the first time offered protection from open seas. 47. Agriculture and farming deciduous and citrus fruits and wool crop played an important role in the development of the Port of Port Elizabeth, prior to the growth of containers and motor industry in prominence in this port. The fishing industry and passenger ships (accommodated at the fruit terminal berths when calling at the Port) are important players in the Port. Other products handled in this port include Manganese ore (which by 2017/18 will be relocated to the Port of Ngqurha) and petroleum form other South African ports. The Port of Port Elizabeth will be losing some of its commercial activities to the new and deeper Port of Ngqurha. Port of Ngqurha 48. The Port of Ngqurha is South Africa s 8 th and latest commercial port development. It is a deepwater port capable of handling post-panamax dry and liquid bulkers as well as 6,500 TEU cellular container vessels. The port s main breakwater is the longest in South Africa. At a construction cost of R10b, the port of Ngqurha was to have an aluminium smelter as its anchor tenant with a required expenditure of about R1, 8b by Eskom. With the energy crisis in 2008, the aluminium smelter became unlikely against the pressures for Eskom to provide adequate and inexpensive energy on a national basis. This brought about a change in focus for the Port of Ngqurha from a deep-water bulk port to container handling with operations on the container terminal commencing in The Coega Industrial Development Zone (IDZ) as well as the Nelson Mandela Bay Strategy all aim to optimize the existence of the two ports in this undeveloped region. Port of Cape Town 49. The Port of Cape Town, established in 1652 as a station for ships of the Dutch East India Company, has evolved to the two docks Ben Schoeman Dock and Duncan Dock respectively housing container and the multipurpose, fruit terminal, dry dock, repair quay and tanker basin. The port has ship repair facilities the Sturrock Dock, Robinson Dry Dock, a synchrolift, a repair quay in the Duncan Dock and Berth A where ship repair is done by a private company. Port of Mossel Bay 50. The Port of Mossel Bay is the smallest commercial harbor in the South African system. It caters for the developing oil industry which began with Mossgas in the late 1980 s as well as 11

15 small but significant fishing industry in the region. The Port has not grown other significant commercial activity over the years. Port of Saldahna Bay 51. The Port of Saldahna Bay was developed from a need to facilitate export of iron ore from the Northern Cape. Until the late 1970s the Port of Saldanha was a small fishing village. The opportunity to export iron ore from Sishen in the Northern Cape led to the construction of a 800km railway line, together with storage and loading facilities for the largest dry bulk carriers in the world. The first vessel loaded with ore left Saldanha in September The construction of the Saldanha Steel Mill near the port led to export of steel manufactured from more iron ore which is railed from Sishen directly to the mill. 52. It is supported by more than 800kms of rail line connecting the port to mines at Sishen in the Northern Cape. The rail line was originally built by Iscor (now Acelor Mittal) before being taken over by Transnet Freight Rail. As one of the deeper harbours in the South African port system, the Port of Saldahna accepts vessels up to 20.5m draught with the harbor master conditionally accepting vessels up to 21.5m The NPA s long term port development framework 53. The Long Term Port Development Framework (2013) provides a picture of NPAs CAPEX plans for the short term ( ), medium term ( ) and long term (2041 and beyond) with provision/expansion of port for the five main commodity classes i.e: containers; dry bulk (coal, iron ore, manganese, sugar, chrome ore, copper, lead, woodchips); Liquid bulk (petroleum products, chemicals, vegetable oils); Break-bulk (fruit, steel, scrap metals, Ferro alloys, pig iron, fish & fish products); and Automotive at the various ports. 54. The NPA uses a Freight Demand Model to project the possible extent of future traffic growth in cargo handled at each of the ports. The model is developed at a broader transport level by Transnet with a dedicated section for ports. Combined with the LTPDF is the port component of the Transnet Market Demand Strategy (MDS) which provides traffic and demand forecasts for which the NPA develops strategies to maintain/sustain or expand infrastructure and in the short, medium and long term. 55. It should be noted that the long term port development framework is not a set or prescriptive plan, but rather an indication of the direction that the NPA believes port development will go based on current, assumptions and projected demand. The plan is therefore flexible and should accommodate changes where assumptions and projections 12

16 change. The LTPDF s periodisation has short term being the period , medium terms is and long term is 2040 and beyond Land use 56. Figure 4 summarises land side in terms of available land for uses in cargo working and non-cargo working areas in the South African port system. Figure 4: Land use (ha) for cargo and non-cargo functions across the 8 commercial ports (2012) ha, (68%) 1664 ha, (32%) Open space/npa other Liquid Bulk Commercial Logistics Vehicles Dry Bulk Container Ship Repair Fishing The status quo as summarised in Figure 5 has total port land of hectares. More than half (3 562ha) of land available to the NPA is categorized as open space or NPA other i.e. land which is currently not productively used. Open land alone is 1 625ha, which suggests availability of land to support the NPA Capex expansion programme into the future. What is not obtainable from the LTPDF are the port specifics that informs how much of this land is usable, must remain open land, and how much is available for further developments in the future. 13

17 58. The remaining ha covers both cargo and non-cargo working land uses. A significant portion of this is currently used for Dry Bulk (535 ha), Liquid Bulk (419ha) and container terminals (367ha). Automotives account for the least size of land at 66 ha. 59. On non-cargo working land uses, Commercial logistics at 145 ha accounts for the next most significant land use parcel in the system. Remaining land uses are shared amongst Ship-repair (whose prominence in the system is anticipated to increase owing to Operation Phakisa), fishing, vehicles and maritime commercial. 60. Plans for land use in the medium to long term are depicted in Table 1. According to the NPAs port planning principles, South African ports must increasingly play a supportive role for economic growth and trade by facilitating back of port developments. This is evidenced in the projected growth in maritime commercial and commercial logistics land uses from 162ha ( ) in 2012 to 309ha by 2019 and 522ha beyond This reflects a 260% growth in commercial logistics land and similarly a 253% growth in maritime commercial land in the next 27 years. Table 1: Land use across the different port functions 2012 to Land Use Current (2012) (hectares) Medium Term (hectares) Long Term (hectares) Hectares % growth hectares % growth (on current ha) (on current ha) Containers % % Vehicles % % Dry Bulk % % Liquid Bulk % % Ship Repair % % Commercial % % Logistics Fishing % 28 55% Maritime % % commercial TNPA other % % Open Space % % Total Compiled from Long Term Port Development Framework (NPA) For cargo working land, container terminals with 367ha of land area in 2012 grows to 1 100ha by 2040 and beyond, a planned 200% growth. Dry bulk land area which currently is the biggest at 535ha is anticipated to grow to 819ha, a 53% growth by 2040+, whilst land area for liquid bulk which currently is the second largest land area is anticipated to have grown by 111% to 884ha in the long term. Bucking the global containerization trends where most 14

18 commodities are being containerized, the LTPDF anticipates growing the dry bulk land use by 71% in the medium term and by an overall 53% over the long term which will take the current 535ha to 819ha by 2040 and beyond. 62. In the context of Operation Phakisa, current LTPDF only anticipated to grow land use for ship repair by a modest 44% in the medium term and overall 21% in the long term i.e. from 97 ha currently to 140 ha in the medium term and reducing to 117ha in the long term. 63. Figure 5 graphically shows the trend in the planned growth for the various land uses in the system. Figure 5: Projected growth in land area across the various cargo working categories 64. Dry bulk, Liquid Bulk and Containers account for the most land area currently and in the future. Vehicles and ship repair facility accounts for the least land area currently and in the future growing to just above 100hectares. 65. The land use part of the LTPDF estimates the requirement for land for port development based on long term volume projections which are more difficult to project than short term. The Regulator will thus, in subsequent reviews, interrogate more rigorously the modeling, data and modeling that informs the reported land use in Table 1. 15

19 4.2. Terminals and Berths 66. The terminal details in this review are from the NPA s Long Term Ports Development Framework LTPDF (2013) which provides the extent of port terminal area in hectares, numbers of berths including a distinction between usable berths and unusable berths, berth length as well as the design and installed capacities of the various terminals. This terminal indicates how much a port is able to handle in terms of cargo-throughput. The physical attributes of a port or terminal also determines the size of vessels that can call. Table 2: Waterside of South African terminals Terminal Total Berths Usable berths Berth Length(m) Installed Design Containers Vehicles Dry Bulk Break Bulk Liquid Bulk Total Compiled from Long Term Port Development Framework (NPA) As depicted in Table 2, South African terminals total a berth length of about 26kms, with 113 berths and hectares of terminal areas for cargo handling. Out of the total berths available in the system 101 are reported as usable. Reasons for berths not being used include, berths used for lay-bye, or temporary decommissioning due to dredging or where cargo is not handled due to superstructure not installed i.e. terminal not operating for example, 2 berths out of 4 in the Port of Ngqurha. 68. Dry and break bulk terminals account for a combined total of m of berth length and a total of 62 usable berths out of 70. Liquid bulks are handled at 17 out of 18 usable berths, with m of berth length. Container cargo is handled in 17 of 18 berths with 5 590m of berth length and a total of 367 hectares. Vehicles are handled in the three ports of Durban, Port Elizabeth and East London which have a combined total of 5 berths (from a total of 7). The automotive sector is served by 2 050m of berth length and 66 hectares of available land area. 69. With regards to terminal, the container terminals in the South African system are designed to handle up to TEUs per annum. Just over half of this is available as installed. This suggests that there is significant for container handling in the system before additional can be laid down. 16

20 70. The system has to date handled units of vehicles in a year against the design of units a year again suggesting that there is excess in the system. The same trend applies to dry, break and liquid bulk where installed is lower than design. 71. In terms of the LTPDF, deep water berths at the Ports of Richards Bay (14m to 19m), Saldahna (up to 23m) and Ngqurha (16.5m to 18m) account for 6kms of berth length. The remainder of the terminals have berth depth which is medium to shallow i.e. 12m and below. 72. The NPA in the LTPDF plans to expand the system to m (57km) where 50% of the berths will be 16m and deeper to accommodate global trends in bigger vessels requiring deeper berths. In the long term (by 2042), the berth length across all ports is anticipated to grow to 92kms with about 66% of this made up of deep water berths. The next section reports on the latent in the South African port system which is arrived at by taking the difference between design and installed capacities. It points to additional that can be made available to handle cargo. As highlighted before, design is the maximum throughput that a terminal can handle per annum based on infrastructure that has been put down and all things being equal. Installed refers to the maximum throughput that a terminal can handle per annum, taking other performance factors into account i.e. installed superstructure, the appropriate and capable labour and systems as prevailing market conditions. Table 3: Latent across the main commodity types handled in South African ports All Installed Design Capacity Latent Containers (TEUs pa) Vehicles (units pa) Dry Bulk (mtpa) ( ) Break Bulk (mtpa) Liquid Bulk(klpa) Compiled from Long Term Port Development Framework (NPA) In Table 3 latent in the terminals handling the various commodity or cargo types is calculated. This was arrived at simply by calculating the difference between installed or operational from design. A more through assessment would take into account the factors outlined above i.e. superstructure and labour. Accordingly, the outcomes here are cautiously interpreted as indicative of what may be happening in the terminals. The results shows that most of the terminals are either reaching their design levels or have latent. 17

21 74. The review also looks at productive use of the terminal in terms of throughput per metre of berth and throughput per hectare of terminal area based on the 2013/14 throughput figures. This is only a snap shot of berth and terminal area productivity. A better picture on productivity will be attained when the comparisons are with historical and projected throughput, which will be a focus of the next iteration of the review. The next iteration will also analyse productivity of the berths and terminal area in relation to vessels callings in each of the berths and terminals based on the recently acquired Vessel Tracking System data. The next section reports on the breakdown and analysis per cargo handling terminal Container terminals 75. Container traffic is handled through dedicated terminals in the Ports of Durban, Ngqurha, and Cape Town. However, the Port of East London does not have a dedicated terminal, containers are handled at the break-bulk terminal and berths instead. Container traffic that is also handled at the Port of Richards Bay and the Port of Saldahna break-bulk terminals is not included herein. 76. Having established that there is latent of about 3,2million TEUs in the system, we review how is spread across the terminals handling container cargo. Table 4: Container terminal across the system as per LTPDF (2013) Container terminals Installed Capacity (TEUs pa) Design Capacity (TEUs pa) Installed as a percent of design Durban % Port Elizabeth % Ngqurha % East London % Cape Town % Total % Compiled from Long Term Port Development Framework (NPA) Table 4 shows that, overall, installed at South Africa s container terminal stands at 60% of design. Reportedly, only in the Port of Durban s container terminals does the installed match the design, which shows full utilisation of design. The Port of Ngqurha, on the other hand, has design of 2,8m TEUs per annum with installed for only TEUs meaning that only 18% of its design is being used. The Ports of East London and Port Elizabeth are operating at just above half their design at 57% and 54% respectively. The container terminal at the Port of Cape Town is operating at 60% of the terminal s design. 18

22 78. Container throughput in the system in 2013 is summarized in the second column of Table 5. Based on 2013 throughput levels, with throughput of 4,6million TEUs through the system, overall container terminals are operating at 58% of their design which suggests sufficient in the terminal. This contrasts with the same throughput measured against installed where the terminals are operating at 96% of installed. Rather than an indicator of terminals running out of, this high figure reflects the existence of latent and the extent to which improvements can be made in installed to handle more throughput in the system. Table 5: Container terminals throughput (2013/14) vs. design and installed Container terminals 13/14 Total TEUs Throughput against design (%) Throughput against installed (%) Durban % 88% Cape Town % 101% Ngqurha % 145% Port Elizabeth % 90% East London % 77% Total % 96% Compiled from Long Term Port Development Framework (NPA) The averages also hide the situation in the individual ports. The Durban container terminal, based on 2013 throughput against design is operating at 88% of its design. The least used container terminal when considering throughput against design is the Port of Ngqurha with only a quarter (25%) of its design reportedly being used. Because the terminal is designed as a four berth operation, but in 2013 was operating with installed of a two berth terminal, this registers the Port of Ngqurha s container terminal as using 145% of its installed. The same trend applies with the Port of Port Elizabeth which is only utilizing 49% of its design but throughput against installed reflects a higher rate of 90%. This points to the need for further analysis of all the factors around installed capacities in the terminals to determine the extent to which the design can be optimized before terminals are said to have run out of as suggested by this reported figures. 80. Berth productivity indicates how productively a berth is used by dividing the number of units over the metre of berth length per annum only for vessels that are able to call a port. It is calculated as throughput per berth length. 19

23 Annual TEU/berth(m) Durban Ngqurha Cape Town Port Elizabeth Average Annual TEU/berth m Figure 6: Berth Productivity - container terminals 81. Figure 6 shows the number of containers moved per metre of berth in each of the terminals. The average performance across the system was 818 TEUs per metre of berth. With 1032 TEU/m the Port of Durban moves the highest number of TEUs per metre of berth. This is followed by the Port of Ngqurha at 991 TEUs per metre of berth. Both the Ports of Cape Town and Port Elizabeth performed below South African container terminal average. Although the averages allow for comparisons to be done per terminal, as done in international studies (see Drewry: 2014), regard should be paid to how the terminals are performing in relation to their design an indicator of what is possible based on infrastructure already provided as well as the installed an indicator of what is feasible based on investment in superstructure and operational standards for the terminals. 82. Figure 7 provides a more comprehensive picture of berth productivity based on design, installed and 2013/14 through for each of the terminals. The difference between current throughput and maximum throughput based on design and installed highlights where additional throughput is possible by addressing installed issues. It is assumed that design and installed account for the effects of terminal layout, the alongside depth and vessels sizes accommodated at each port, as well as superstructure and port operating systems in each of the terminals. 83. The Port of Durban s Container terminals, which handled 1032 TEUs per metre of berth, were 39 TEUs short of the number of TEUs that they can handle in terms of design and installed. The challenge is with the Port of Ngqurha, which based on design, has the potential to handle TEUs per metre of berth against the 991 TEUs per metre of berth that the port achieved in 2013/14.The productivity of its installed is 683 TEUs per 20

24 TEUs per berth metre metre of berth which is 570% of installed. In simple terms this points to significant latent in the Port of Ngqurha and raises questions about installed as well as total volumes and projected growth of containers handled by the Port TEUs per berth meter: design vs installed vs 2013/14 throughput Durban Ngqurha Cape Town Port Elizabeth Teus per berth metre on design TEUs per berth metre on installed 2013/14 TEUs per berth metre Figure 7: TEUs per berth metre based on design, installed and 2013/14 throughput 84. The Port of Cape Town whose throughput in 2013/14 was 789 TEUs, and is operating at its optimal berth productivity levels in terms of installed. However, this is only half of the design, pointing to possibility of more throughput if installed is increased to be closer to the design. 85. Figure 8 averages terminal productivity in terms of annual TEUs per hectare of terminal area to an annual count of TEUs per hectare. The terminals in the Ports of Durban ( TEUs/ha) and Cape Town (13 156TEU/ha) handle more TEUs per/ha in the system. Respectively the two terminals have 185ha and 69 ha, making the Port of Cape Town the more productive of the two. 21

25 Annual TEUs/hectare Durban Cape Town Ngqurha Port Elizabeth Average Annual TEUs/hectare Figure 8: TEUs per terminal area (ha) 86. With 77ha and 36ha respectively and accounting for an annual 9 264TEUs/ha and 8090TEUs/ha, the Ports of Ngqurha and Port Elizabeth are performing below the average of the country s four container terminals. Other factors measures that affect terminal and berth productivity must be assessed. This includes cargo dwell times, ship turnaround times, container handled per ship working time, etc. CONTAINER SECTOR Baseline 2012/13 Actual Y1 TOPS Y1 Annual Throughput (Million TEU's) Cargo Dwell Time Import (days) Cargo Dwell Time Exp (days) Cargo Dwell Time Trans (days) Rail Turn Around Time Truck Turn Around Time Ship Working Hour Terminal Berthing Delays Figure 9: TOPS performance for container terminals 87. Some of these are measured in TOPS and are reported in Figure 9 which shows Cargo dwell times (import, export and transshipment) as well as rail/truck turnaround time in terminals and ship working hours. Across the system, import cargo dwell time is reported to be 4 days, for export containers it was 6 days whilst transshipment boxes could stay for up to 13 days from the previous year s 17 days. Further analysis of this reported performance against throughput in the terminals will be a focus of the next iteration of the review taking into 22

26 account installed superstructure etc., size of storage, and terminal stacking policy all of which affects the time it takes for boxes to be handled across at the berth/quay and in the terminal area. Table 6: TOPS Across the Ship Rate for containers Container terminals 13/14 Total TEUs TOPS performance (ship working rate per hour) Durban Cape Town Ngqurha Port Elizabeth According to the Terminal Operator Performance Standards (TOPS) phase 1 performance report, the Ports of Cape Town and Ngqurha handled 55 and 54 containers per ship working hour which indicates high productivity of installed in the terminals. An observed general trend in terms of setting of terminal performance standards was/is based on previous performance rather any optimal measure. Whilst it is practical starting point, it does not allow for definition of efficient measure, rather perpetuating or slightly improving on previous performance Automotives 89. Imports and exports of vehicles in South Africa is through the Roll-On, Roll-Off (Ro-Ro) terminals in the Ports of Durban, Port Elizabeth and East London which collectively have a design of units per annum. In Table 7 a summary of the endowments of the terminals is provided. There is a total of 7 berth with 5 being used, 2 050m of berth length and 69ha of terminal area across the system for handling automotive traffic. The maximum throughput that has been handled in the three ports, based on installed to date has been units. Table 7: Ro-Ro terminal across the system Automotives Terminal area(ha) Total Berths Usable berths Berth Length (m) Operational Capacity (Units per annum) Design Capacity (units per annum) Design /oper ational Durban RoRo % Port Elizabeth % East London % Sub-total % Compiled from Long Term Port Development Framework (NPA)