Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SA port terminals: capacity and utilisation review
2014/15
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1
2. TOWARDS MEASURING PORT CAPACITY AND UTILISATION .................................................................... 2
3. PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 8
4. CAPACITY OF SOUTH AFRICAN PORT TERMINALS .................................................................................... 9
4.1. THE NPA’S LONG TERM PORT DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK .............................................................................. 12
4.1.1. Land use ............................................................................................................................................. 13
4.2. TERMINALS AND BERTHS ........................................................................................................................... 16
4.2.1. Container terminals .................................................................................................................... 18
4.2.2. Automotives ............................................................................................................................... 23
4.2.3. Dry bulk, Break Bulk and Liquid Bulk .......................................................................................... 28
4.3. TERMINAL UTILISATION PER PORT ................................................................................................................ 35
4.3.1. Port of Durban ............................................................................................................................ 35
4.3.2. Port of Richards Bay ................................................................................................................... 36
4.3.3. Port of East London .................................................................................................................... 37
4.3.4. Port of Ngqurha .......................................................................................................................... 38
4.3.5. Port of Port Elizabeth .................................................................................................................. 39
4.3.6. Port of Cape Town ...................................................................................................................... 40
4.3.7. Port of Saldahna ......................................................................................................................... 41
5. SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 42
6. WAY FORWARD ..................................................................................................................................... 46
7. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 49
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................... 50
iii
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) ........................ 13
FIGURE 5: PROJECTED GROWTH IN LAND AREA ACROSS THE VARIOUS CARGO WORKING CATEGORIES .......................................... 15
FIGURE 6: BERTH PRODUCTIVITY - CONTAINER TERMINALS................................................................................................. 20
FIGURE 7: TEUS PER BERTH METRE BASED ON DESIGN, INSTALLED CAPACITY AND 2013/14 THROUGHPUT ................................. 21
FIGURE 8: TEUS PER TERMINAL AREA (HA) ..................................................................................................................... 22
FIGURE 9: TOPS PERFORMANCE FOR CONTAINER TERMINALS............................................................................................. 22
FIGURE 10: ANNUAL RO-RO UNITS PER METRE OF BERTH .................................................................................................. 25
FIGURE 11: ANNUAL RO-RO UNITS PER HA OF TERMINAL AREA .......................................................................................... 25
FIGURE 12: RO-RO TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY IN RELATION TO DESIGN AND INSTALLED CAPACITY AND 2013/14 PERFORMANCE ...... 26
FIGURE 13: TOPS AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR PERFORMANCE 2013/14 .................................................................................... 27
FIGURE 14: DRY BULK TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY .............................................................................................................. 32
FIGURE 15: BREAK BULK THROUGHPUT PER METRE BERTH AND PER TERMINAL AREA (2013) .................................................... 33
FIGURE 16: LIQUID BULK THROUGHPUT PER M/BERTH AND PER HA 34
FIGURE 17: TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE PORT OF DURBAN ......................................................................................... 36
FIGURE 18: TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE PORT OF RICHARDS BAY ................................................................................. 37
FIGURE 19: TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE PORT OF EAST LONDON .................................................................................. 38
FIGURE 20: TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY AT THE PORT OF NGQURHA ...................................................................................... 39
FIGURE 21: TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY AT THE PORT OF PORT ELIZABETH .............................................................................. 40
FIGURE 22: TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE PORT OF CAPE TOWN .................................................................................... 40
FIGURE 23: TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY AT THE PORT OF SALDAHNA ...................................................................................... 41
TABLES
TABLE 1: LAND USE ACROSS THE DIFFERENT PORT FUNCTIONS 2012 TO 2040+ ..................................................................... 14
TABLE 2: WATERSIDE CAPACITY OF SOUTH AFRICAN TERMINALS ......................................................................................... 16
TABLE 3: LATENT CAPACITY ACROSS THE MAIN COMMODITY TYPES HANDLED IN SOUTH AFRICAN PORTS ..................................... 17
TABLE 4: CONTAINER TERMINAL CAPACITY ACROSS THE SYSTEM AS PER LTPDF (2013) .......................................................... 18
TABLE 5: CONTAINER TERMINALS THROUGHPUT (2013/14) VS. DESIGN AND INSTALLED CAPACITY ............................................ 19
TABLE 6: TOPS ACROSS THE SHIP RATE FOR CONTAINERS ................................................................................................. 23
TABLE 7: RO-RO TERMINAL CAPACITY ACROSS THE SYSTEM ................................................................................................ 23
TABLE 8: RO-RO TERMINAL CAPACITY BASED ON THROUGHPUT AGAINST DESIGN AND INSTALLED CAPACITY ................................. 24
TABLE 9: TOPS REPORTED PERFORMANCE FOR RO-RO ..................................................................................................... 27
TABLE 10: BULK TERMINALS ACROSS THE SYSTEM (CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE) ...................................................................... 28
TABLE 11: THROUGHPUT AGAINST DESIGN CAPACITY FOR DRY BULK (2013) ......................................................................... 30
TABLE 12: THROUGHPUT AGAINST DESIGN CAPACITY FOR BREAK BULK (2013) ...................................................................... 30
TABLE 13: THROUGHPUT AGAINST DESIGN AND INSTALLED CAPACITY FOR LIQUID BULK (2013) ................................................ 31
TABLE 14: SUMMARY OF TERMINAL USE BY CARGO TYPE AND PORT ..................................................................................... 43
TABLE 15: BERTH UTILISATION FACTOR ......................................................................................................................... 48
TABLE 16: EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE OPTIMAL BERTH UTILISATION AND ATS FOR SA TERMINALS .................................................. 49
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
2
the functions they perform i.e. facilitating the transfer of goods from the sea-side to the land-
side 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 capacity, 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 non-
container sector.
8. The most recent study by Salminen (2013) measures port capacity in containers, dry bulks,
break bulk, liquid bulk terminals making a link between capacity assessments and investment
strategies in uncertain investment contexts. Similar assessment will be useful in the
Regulator’s next iteration of the capacity and utilisation reviews.
9. Whilst noting these global developments in port capacity 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 capacity 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,
3
then effective utilisation of facility expressed in the overall vessel turnaround time becomes
important.
11. The existence or provision of port capacity 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).
4
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).
5
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
capacity and reduce congestion in ports, they equally should be responsive to shared
increases in port charges to achieve the objective.
6
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 capacity often displaces existing
capacity 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 capacity, 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, capacity 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 capacity 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 capacity 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 capacity 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)
capacity and installed (operational) capacity of terminals. Design capacity is the maximum
throughput that can be achieved in a terminal as designed whilst installed capacity, also
called operational capacity, refers to optimal amount of throughput achievable given
resources deployed in terminal at a given time.
7
Figure 3: Progression for port capacity utilisation: productivity, efficiency to capacity expansion
26. Figure 3 graphically illustrates the progression of port development from start up, to the
stage of system optimization and capacity 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
capacity. Financial and labor measures can be added if cost effectiveness dimensions of port
capacity 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/capacity 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
Stage 1:
Port or Terminal Start up
Low utilisation
Low cost operation
Capacity against throughput
Stage 2: System Optimisation
System and technology
improvements
Full deployment of land, capital and
labour
Terminal throughput per crane, yard, hectare, labour,
Dwell times, berth occupancy, Road/Rail Turnaround time etc
Stage 3: Capacity Investments
Expand existing capacity
Create new capacity
Installed capacity vs. throughput
Financial measures
Labour
Ch
arac
teri
stic
s M
easu
res
8
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 capacity 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 capacity 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 capacity, 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’ capacity and utilisation is to begin to identify
and analyse existing terminal capacity including terminal area, berth capacity, design and
installed capacity, and based on 2013 throughput, to assess the extent to which capacity is
utilised across cargo types and port terminals.
34. The review of the NPAs port capacity 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 capacity 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 capacity
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
9
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 2014. 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 capacity. 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 1652. 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
1899-1902 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
10
far back as 1497. 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 capacity with second container terminal at Pier One become operational in 2007.
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.
11
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 8th 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 2009. 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
12
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 1976. 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.
4.1. 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 (2012 – 2018), medium term (2018 – 2040) and long term (2041 and
beyond) with provision/expansion of port capacity 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
capacity 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 capacity, assumptions and projected demand. The plan
is therefore flexible and should accommodate changes where assumptions and projections
13
change. The LTPDF’s periodisation has short term being the period 2012 – 2017, medium
terms is 2018 – 2040 and long term is 2040 and beyond.
4.1.1. Land use
56. Figure 4 summarises land side capacity 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)
57. The status quo as summarised in Figure 5 has total port land of 5 226 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.
3562ha, (68%)
535
419
367
145
97
66 18 17
1664 ha, (32%)
Open space/NPA other Dry Bulk Liquid Bulk Container Commercial Logistics Ship Repair Vehicles Fishing
14
58. The remaining 1 664 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
(145 +17) in 2012 to 309ha by 2019 and 522ha beyond 2040. 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 2040+
Land Use Current (2012)
(hectares)
2018 – 2040 Medium Term (hectares)
2040+ Long Term (hectares)
Hectares % growth (on current ha)
hectares % growth (on current ha)
Containers 367 812 121% 1 100 200%
Vehicles 66 94 42% 107 62%
Dry Bulk 535 916 71% 819 53%
Liquid Bulk 419 833 99% 884 111%
Ship Repair 97 140 44% 117 21%
Commercial Logistics
145 249 72% 522 260%
Fishing 18 29 61% 28 55%
Maritime commercial
17 60 253% 60 253%
TNPA other 1 937 2 380 23% 3 750 94%
Open Space 1 625 1163 -28% 1 506 -7%
Total 5 445 6 991 9 218
Compiled from Long Term Port Development Framework (NPA) 2013
61. 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
15
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.
16
4.2. Terminals and Berths
66. The terminal capacity 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
capacity 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 capacity of South African terminals
Terminal Total Berths
Usable berths Berth Length(m) Installed capacity
Design capacity
Containers 18 17 5 590 4 790 043 8 013 000
Vehicles 7 5 2 050 681 041 850 000
Dry Bulk 30 25 8 081 187 666 802 229 084 000
Break Bulk 40 37 6 476 17 344 903 32 513 153
Liquid Bulk 18 17 3 715 26 141 684 66 451 207
Total 113 101 25 912
Compiled from Long Term Port Development Framework (NPA) 2013
67. As depicted in Table 2, South African terminals total a berth length of about 26kms, with 113
berths and 1 618 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 14 557m 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 3 715 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 capacity, the container terminals in the South African system are
designed to handle up to 8 013 000 TEUs per annum. Just over half of this is available as
installed capacity. This suggests that there is significant capacity for container handling in the
system before additional capacity can be laid down.
17
70. The system has to date handled 681 041 units of vehicles in a year against the design capacity
of 850 000 units a year again suggesting that there is excess capacity in the system. The same
trend applies to dry, break and liquid bulk where installed capacity is lower than design
capacity.
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 57 000m (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 capacity in the South African port system which is
arrived at by taking the difference between design and installed capacities. It points to
additional capacity that can be made available to handle cargo. As highlighted before, design
capacity 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 capacity 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 capacity across the main commodity types handled in South African ports
All Installed capacity Design Capacity Latent
Containers (TEUs pa) 4 790 043 8 013 000 3 222 957
Vehicles (units pa) 681 041 850 000 168 959
Dry Bulk (mtpa) 173 666 802 155 884 000 (17 782 802)
Break Bulk (mtpa) 17 344 903 32 513 153 15 168 250
Liquid Bulk(klpa) 26 141 684 66 451 207 40 309 523
Compiled from Long Term Port Development Framework (NPA) 2013
73. In Table 3 latent capacity 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 capacity from design capacity. 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 capacity levels or
have latent capacity.
18
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.
4.2.1. 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 capacity of about 3,2million TEUs in the system, we
review how capacity is spread across the terminals handling container cargo.
Table 4: Container terminal capacity across the system as per LTPDF (2013)
Container terminals
Installed Capacity (TEUs pa)
Design Capacity (TEUs pa)
Installed capacity as a percent of design capacity
Durban 3 020 000 3 020 000 0%
Port Elizabeth 325 211 600 000 54%
Ngqurha 491 442 2 800 000 18%
East London 53 390 93 000 57%
Cape Town 900 000 1 500 000 60%
Total 4 790 043 8 013 000 60%
Compiled from Long Term Port Development Framework (NPA) 2013
77. Table 4 shows that, overall, installed capacity at South Africa’s container terminal stands at
60% of design capacity. Reportedly, only in the Port of Durban’s container terminals does the
installed capacity match the design capacity, which shows full utilisation of design capacity.
The Port of Ngqurha, on the other hand, has design capacity of 2,8m TEUs per annum with
installed capacity for only 491 442 TEUs meaning that only 18% of its design capacity is being
used. The Ports of East London and Port Elizabeth are operating at just above half their
design capacity at 57% and 54% respectively. The container terminal at the Port of Cape
Town is operating at 60% of the terminal’s design capacity.
19
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 capacity which suggests
sufficient capacity in the terminal. This contrasts with the same throughput measured against
installed capacity where the terminals are operating at 96% of installed capacity. Rather than
an indicator of terminals running out of capacity, this high figure reflects the existence of
latent capacity and the extent to which improvements can be made in installed capacity to
handle more throughput in the system.
Table 5: Container terminals throughput (2013/14) vs. design and installed capacity
Container terminals
13/14 Total TEUs Throughput against
design (%) Throughput against installed
capacity (%)
Durban 2 660 144 88% 88%
Cape Town 907 796 61% 101%
Ngqurha 713 306 25% 145%
Port Elizabeth 291 233 49% 90%
East London 41 080 44% 77%
Total 4 613 559 58% 96%
Compiled from Long Term Port Development Framework (NPA) 2013
79. The averages also hide the situation in the individual ports. The Durban container terminal,
based on 2013 throughput against design capacity is operating at 88% of its design capacity.
The least used container terminal when considering throughput against design capacity is the
Port of Ngqurha with only a quarter (25%) of its design capacity reportedly being used.
Because the terminal is designed as a four berth operation, but in 2013 was operating with
installed capacity of a two berth terminal, this registers the Port of Ngqurha’s container
terminal as using 145% of its installed capacity. The same trend applies with the Port of Port
Elizabeth which is only utilizing 49% of its design capacity but throughput against installed
capacity 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 capacity can be optimized before terminals are said to have run out of capacity 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.
20
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 capacity – an indicator of what is possible based on infrastructure already provided –
as well as the installed capacity – 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
capacity, installed capacity and 2013/14 through for each of the terminals. The difference
between current throughput and maximum throughput based on design and installed
capacity highlights where additional throughput is possible by addressing installed capacity
issues. It is assumed that design and installed capacity 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
capacity. The challenge is with the Port of Ngqurha, which based on design capacity, has the
potential to handle 3 889 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 capacity is 683 TEUs per
1032 991
789
459
818
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Durban Ngqurha Cape Town Port Elizabeth Average
Annual TEU/berth(m)
Annual TEU/berth m
21
metre of berth which is 570% of installed capacity. In simple terms this points to significant
latent capacity in the Port of Ngqurha and raises questions about installed capacity as well as
total volumes and projected growth of containers handled by the Port.
Figure 7: TEUs per berth metre based on design, installed capacity 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 capacity. However, this is only half of
the design capacity, pointing to possibility of more throughput if installed capacity is
increased to be closer to the design capacity.
85. Figure 8 averages terminal productivity in terms of annual TEUs per hectare of terminal area
to an annual count of 11 222 TEUs per hectare. The terminals in the Ports of Durban (14 379
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.
1171
3889
1303
945 1171
683 782
512
1032 991 789
459
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Durban Ngqurha Cape Town Port Elizabeth
TEU
s p
er
be
rth
me
tre
TEUs per berth meter: design vs installed vs 2013/14 throughput
Teus per berth metre on design capacity TEUs per berth metre on installed capacity
2013/14 TEUs per berth metre
22
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.
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
14 379 13 156
9 264 8 090
11 222
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Durban Cape Town Ngqurha Port Elizabeth Average
Annual TEUs/hectare
Annual TEUs/hectare
3.9
3 6
8
4
28
49
11
3.3
5 5
17
4
31
48
8
4.0
4 6
13
4
35
49
13
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
CONTAINER SECTOR
Baseline 2012/13 Actual Y1 TOPS Y1
23
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 2 660 144 49
Cape Town 907 796 55
Ngqurha 713 306 54
Port Elizabeth 291 233 40
88. 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 capacity 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.
4.2.2. 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 capacity of 850 000 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 capacity to date has
been 681 000 units.
Table 7: Ro-Ro terminal capacity 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 capacity/oper
ational capacity
Durban RoRo 39 3 3 1149 480 000 520 000 92%
Port Elizabeth 21 2 1 342 133 552 200 000 67%
East London 9 2 1 559 67 489 130 000 52%
Sub-total 69 7 5 2050 681041 850 000 80%
Compiled from Long Term Port Development Framework (NPA) 2013
24
90. Table 7 shows the operational capacity as a proportion of design capacity to give an
indication of the extent to which the terminals are used as designed. The Ro-Ro Terminal in
the Port of Durban shows operational capacity to be at 92% of design capacity, the Port of
Port Elizabeth at 67% and Port of East London at 52%. This suggests that the Port of Durban’s
Ro-Ro terminal is closer to running out of capacity than the other two terminals. However,
capacity at Ro-Ro terminal is not only determined by the throughput that is handled per
metre of berth, but also by the storage capacity (parking space, cargo dwell times etc),
factors that are not included in this review at this stage.
Table 8: Ro-Ro terminal capacity based on throughput against design and installed capacity
Ro-Ro Terminal
Design Capacity (units per annum)
Operational capacity
(units per annum)
2013/14 Throughput
(TEUs)
Throughput against design capacity (%)
Throughput against operational capacity
(%)
Durban 520 000 480 000 501 456 96% 104%
Port Elizabeth
200 000 133 552 133 194 67% 100%
East London
130 000 67 489 56 193 43% 83%
Total 850 000 681 041 81% 101%
Compiled from Long Term Port Development Framework (NPA) 2013
91. Table 8 shows that with 2013 throughput figures, the Ro-Ro terminals in the three ports used
81% percent of the installed capacity. The Port of Durban (96%) recording the highest,
followed by Port of Port Elizabeth (67%) and Port of East London. The extent to which the
terminal are utilised against installed/operational capacity shows the Durban (104% and Port
Elizabeth (100%) terminals operating at full installed capacities. The Port of East London is
utilizing 83% of its installed capacity. When measuring throughput against operational
capacity, the Ro-Ro terminals come through as operating beyond their capacity. As indicated
above, further analysis looking at factors such as cargo dwell times, parking space, as an
example are necessary before concluding that additional capacity should be deployed in this
sector.
92. Calculating the productivity of the Ro-Ro Terminal in terms of the number of units handled
per metre of berth annually and the number of units handled per hectare annually provides
the following picture.
25
Figure 10: Annual Ro-Ro units per metre of berth
93. The total throughput of 681 041 units per annum over 2 050m of berth gives an average
throughput of 309 units per metre of berth. The Port of Durban and Port Elizabeth had the
higher throughput per berth metre at 436 and 389 units per metre of berth respectively.
With the second largest berth metres for handling vehicles at 559m, the Port of East London’s
101 units per metre of berth is below the average and reflects on the lower annual
throughput handled at this Port.
94. Terminal utilisation in terms of throughput per total terminal area (in hectares) is presented
in Figure 11. On average the system handles 8 481 Units per terminal area per annum.
Figure 11: Annual Ro-Ro Units per ha of terminal area
436
389
101
309
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Durban Port Elizabeth East London Average
Ro-Ro Units per annum /metre of berth
12858
6343 6244
8481
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Durban Port Elizabeth East London Average
Ro-Ro Units pa/ha terminal area
Units pa/ha terminal area
26
95. The Durban Ro-Ro terminal handles 12 858 units per hectare. Both the Ports of Port Elizabeth
(6 343) and East London (6 244) handled similar number of units per hectare. The Port of East
London’s terminal utilisation rate is higher than its berth utilisation rates. This shows higher
utilisation of its 9 hectares of terminal area for Ro-Ros. The Port of East London’s berth and
terminal utilisation rates indicate the productive use of terminal area and availability of
capacity to handle more throughput at berth.
96. An assessment of berth utilisation in relation to design and installed capacity provides as
sense of the level to which available capacity is utilised, other things constant.
Figure 12: Ro-ro terminal productivity in relation to design and installed capacity and 2013/14 performance
97. Figure 12 illustrates what the annual throughput per Ro-ro terminal should be based on
design capacity, installed capacity and in relation to the reported number of units handled in
2013/14.
98. The Durban Ro-ro terminal throughput per meter of berth, overall, is in line with the number
of units that the terminal should handled as per design and installed capacity. With 389 units
per metre of berth, the berth productivity for the port of Port of Port Elizabeth for 2013/14 is
in line with that calculated from its installed capacity (391 units per metre of berth).
However, with design capacity at 585 units per metre of berth, there is extra handling
capacity that can be availed through adjustments in installed capacity.
453 418 436
585
391 389
233
121 101
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Units per berth metre/ design capacity
Units per berth metre/installed capacity
Units per berth meter 2013/14
Un
its
pe
r m
etr
e o
f b
ert
h
Ro-ro terminal productivity in relation to design & installed capacity vs. 2013/14 performance
Durban Port Elizabeth East London
27
99. With 101 units per metre of berth, the berth productivity of the Port of East London is close
to its installed capacity of 121 units. This however, is only half of its design capacity, again
pointing to additional capacity that can be gained in the system through adjustments in
installed capacity.
Table 9: TOPS reported performance for Ro-Ro
Container terminals 13/14 Total TEUs
TOPS performance (ship working rate per hour)
Durban 501 456 136
Port Elizabeth 133 194 172
East London 56 193 172
100. Actual operational hours for Ro-Ro terminal as reflected in the number of vessels calling
within these terminals not just port hours, may yield different outcomes and will be further
investigated.
Figure 13: TOPS Automotive sector performance 2013/14
101. Figure 13 reflects the TOPS outcomes for 2013/14 according to which ship working hour for
automotive sector is on average 150 hours. Cargo dwell times of 5 days for import vehicles,
11 days for Export vehicles and similarly 10 days for transshipped vehicles.
102. The next phase of the review can assess capacity utilisation by applying these TOPS
outcomes at berth and terminal levels to further refine our understanding of the factors and
determine the extent to which what has been reported as latent capacity in these berths and
terminals can be further utilised.
596
5 13
10
40
162
565
7 14
12
45
146
553
5 11
10
45
150
Annual Throughput (Thousand)
Cargo Dwell Time Import (days)
Cargo Dwell Time Exp (days)
Cargo Dwell Time Trans (days)
Truck Turn Around Time
Ship Working Hour
RO-RO SECTOR
Baseline 2012/13 Actual Y1 TOPS Y1
28
4.2.3. Dry bulk, Break Bulk and Liquid Bulk
103. Bulk products are handled at all of the South African ports with terminal capacities as
summarised in Table 10. The bulk products are handled either at the dry bulk terminals
(dominated by coal, iron ore and manganese), or break-bulk terminals (dominated by
agricultural products, grains, project cargo etc) or liquid bulk terminals (edible and non-edible
oils including petroleum) terminals.
104. There are 25 usable dry bulk berths (out of 30) in the system with 8 081m of berth length
and terminal area of 525ha, the largest cargo working space in the system. Breakbulk has 37
usable berths (out of 40), 6 476m of berth length and 230.6 ha terminal area. Liquid bulk
terminal comprise 17 usable berths (out of 18), 3 715m berth length and 276,5 ha terminal
area.
Table 10: Bulk terminals across the system (continues on next page)
Dry bulk Terminal area(ha)
Total Berths
Usable berths
Berth Length(m)
Installed Capacity
(mtpa)
Design Capacity
Installed capacity/
Design Capacity
Saldahna 73 2 2 1260 50 736 955 58 000 000 87%
Cape Town 7 3 2 569 1 400 000 2 100 000 67%
Port Elizabeth 18 1 1 360 4 459 369 5 000 000 89%
Durban 59 9 7 1581 11 000 000 11 000 000 100%
Richards Bay (coal)
280 6 6 2060 91 000 000 110 000 000 83%
Richards Bay 85 8 6 1863 14 600 000 21 000 000 70%
East London 3 1 1 388 470 478 984 000 48%
Sub-total 525 30 25 8081 173 666 802 155 884 000 111%
Break-bulk Terminal area(ha)
Total Berths
Usable berths
Berth Length
Installed Capacity
(mtpa)
Design Capacity
Installed capacity/
Design Capacity
Durban 81 14 14 871 4 000 000 4 000 000 100%
Mossel Bay 3,6 1 1 274 30 084 53 000 57%
Cape Town 22 7 6 1368 4 000 000 10 877 071 37%
Saldahna 20 6 3 874 1 708 047 3 300 000 52%
Richards Bay 81 6 6 1244 7 200 000 9 935 915 72%
East London 10 2 2 492 3 096 166 667 2%
Ngqura 5 1 1 316 0 3 000 000 0%
Port Elizabeth 8 3 4 1037 403 676 1 180 500 34%
Sub-total 230,6 40 37 6476 17 344 903 32 513 153 53%
29
Liquid Bulk Terminal area(ha)
Total Berths
Usable berths
Berth Length
Installed Capacity
(mtpa)
Design Capacity
Installed capacity/
Design Capacity
Saldahna 0,5 1 1 360 6 946 229 25 000 000 28%
Cape Town 11 2 2 489 3 400 000 3 400 000 100%
Port Elizabeth 16 1 1 242 972 208 2 926 829 33%
Durban 157 9 8 1765 11 000 000 21 000 000 52%
Richards Bay 73 2 2 600 1 011 432 3 152 778 32%
East London 19 1 1 259 918 688 3 000 000 31%
Mossel Bay 0 2 2 0 1 893 127 7 971 600 24%
Sub-total 276,5 18 17 3715 26 141 684 66 451 207 39%
Compiled from Long Term Port Development Framework (NPA) 2013
105. Table 10 shows the operational capacity at 100% of design capacity at the Liquid Bulk
terminal in Cape Town Port, and Break and Dry-Bulk terminals in the Port of Durban.
Indicating that operations at these terminals have reached operational capacity.
106. Overall, Dry Bulk terminals are operating at 111% of their design capacity. However, this
belies the range where at the low end is the Port of East London with operational capacity at
only 48% of design capacity against terminals in the Port of Durban that on average have
operational capacity at 100% of installed capacity.
107. Operational capacity at Break Bulk terminal overall, is 53% of installed capacity. Next to the
Port of Durban at 100%, is the Port of Richards Bay whose operational capacity is at 72% of
design capacity. Port of East London stands at only 2% of operational capacity against its
design capacity, indicating significant underutilization of bulk terminals capacity in this port.
108. In liquid bulk terminals across the system, operational capacity is only 39% of design
capacity suggesting significant latent capacity overall. Only in Durban is operational or
installed capacity at half (52%) of design capacity.
109. The throughput for break, dry and liquid bulks are captured in Table 11 together with an
indication of what that throughput represents in terms of utilisation of the terminal in 2013.
110. It shows overall utilisation of Dry Bulk terminal in 2013 at 70% of design capacity overall. At
the level of terminals, the Port of Port Elizabeth’s Dry Bulk terminals are handling more than
their design and operational capacity at 122% and 137% respectively. This is followed by
terminals in the Port of Durban and Saldahna both with utilisation rates of 95% of the design
capacity (which for the terminal in Durban is the same as operational capacity). The data
suggests that the Port of Durban’s terminals have reached capacity and would experience
more congestion levels which would be characterized by vessels waiting for long periods of
time for berths.
30
Table 11: Throughput against design capacity for dry bulk (2013)
Dry bulk
Design
Capacity
(units per
annum)
Operational
Capacity (Units
per annum)
2013/14
Throughput(mtpa)
Throughput against
design (%)
Throughput
against installed
(%)
Durban 11 000 000 11 000 000 10 443 977 95% 95%
Cape Town
2 100 000 1 400 000 646 659 31% 46%
Saldanha 58 000 000 50 736 955 55 051 928 95% 109%
Richards Bay
131 000 000 105 000 000 87 116 278 67% 83%
East London
984 000 470 478 105 637 11% 22%
Port Elizabeth
5 000 000 4 459 369 6 099 605 122% 137%
Total 173 666 802 159 464 084 70% 85%
111. The next dry bulk terminals with high utilisation rates are the Port of Richards Bay dry bulk
terminals (including RBCT) with throughput representing a utilisation of 67% of the terminal’s
design capacity. The Port of East London has the least utilisation of its design capacity at 11%,
followed by the Port of Cape Town at 31%. This trend continues when throughput is
considered against operational/installed capacity.
Table 12: Throughput against design capacity for break bulk (2013)
Break-bulk Design Capacity
(units per annum)
Operational capacity (units
per annum)
2013/14 Throughput
(mtpa)
Throughput against design
capacity (%)
Throughput against
installed capacity (%)
Durban 4 000 000 4 000 000 3 460 865 87% 87%
Mossel Bay 53 000 30 084 57 664 109% 192%
Cape Town 10 877 071 4 000 000 449 244 4% 11%
Saldanha 3 300 000 1 708 047 873 803 26% 51%
Richards Bay 9 935 915 7 200 000 3 383 847 34% 47%
East London 166 667 3 096 93 748 56% 3028%
Ngqurha 3 000 000 0 80 031 3% N/A
Port Elizabeth 1 180 500 403 676 316 714 27% 78%
Total 8 715 916 27% 50%
112. Due to non-homogeneity of cargo handled at breakbulk terminals within those terminals
annually and across the ports, breakbulk terminals demonstrate large variations in capacity
utilisation. Performance of breakbulk terminals is depicted in Table 12 in terms of throughput
against design and installed capacity. Overall, only 27% of Break-Bulk terminals are utilizing
their design capacities in South African ports. In 2013 the Port of East London and Mossel
Bay’s throughput puts their performance at way above installed capacity. It is possible that
installed capacity in this case is understated resulting in such significant performance.
31
113. Table 13 provides the summaries for liquid bulk terminals throughput against design and
installed capacity of the terminals in the respective ports. The 39,2million kiloliter of
throughput in the system in 2013 represents utilisation of 59% of the design capacity of the
liquid bulk terminals across the country. However, assessing the same throughput against
installed capacity shows some strains in the system with an average of 150% utilisation.
Table 13: Throughput against design and installed capacity for liquid bulk (2013)
Liquid Bulk
Port
Design
Capacity (units
per annum)
Installed capacity
(units per annum)
2013/14
Throughput
(klpa)
Throughput
against design
capacity (%)
Throughput
against installed
capacity (%)
Durban 21 000 000 11 000 000 26 790 888 128% 244%
Mossel Bay 7 971 600 1 893 127 2 118 992 27% 112%
Cape Town 3 400 000 3 400 000 2 605 900 77% 77%
Saldanha 25 000 000 6 946 229 4 260 761 17% 61%
Richards Bay 3 152 778 1 011 432 1 777 610 56% 176%
East London 3 000 000 918 688 836 843 28% 91%
Port Elizabeth
2 926 829 972 208 887 466
30% 91%
Total 66451207 26 141 684 39 278 460 59% 150%
114. Terminal productivity for dry bulk, break bulk and liquid bulk terminals was assessed in
terms of throughput per berth and terminal area. It should be noted that with liquid bulks,
some of the product not handled at the berths, but through SBM, may be included in the
total throughput. This makes attribution of throughput to berths and to terminal area to be
imprecise requiring further work in data capturing and reporting in the next review phase.
What is presented is based on assessment of existing data.
32
754136
338867
311130
177017
92380
35212
284790
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
mtpa/hectare
Dry Bulk. Mtpa/ha terminal area
Saldanha Port Elizabeth Richards Bay Durban
Cape Town East London Average
4369242289
16943
6606
1136
18490
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
mtpa/berth length
Dry Bulk. mtpa/m berth
Saldanha Richards Bay Port Elizabeth Durban
Cape Town East London Average
272
Figure 14: Dry Bulk terminal productivity
115. Figure 14 highlights productivity figures in the dry bulk terminals in terms of annual
throughput per metre of berth and annual throughput per hectare of terminal area available
at each port handling dry bulk cargo. On average the system handles 18 490 million tons of
throughput per annum (mtpa) on a metre of berth. The Ports of Saldahna and Richards Bay
performs above this average handling 43 692mtpa and 42 289 per metre of berth. They are
followed by the Port of Port Elizabeth which handled 16 943mtpa, the next highest tonnage
per metre of berth, though below average. These three ports which handle coal, manganese
and iron ore, collectively account for the highest dry bulk throughput in the South African
port system.
116. Handling 338 867mtpa per hectare the Port of Port Elizabeth performs slightly higher than
the Port of Richards Bay on this measure with the latter handling 311 130mtpa per hectare.
The Port of Saldahna handled 754 136mtpa per hectare which set the average at a very high
284 790mtpa per hectare.
33
3973
2720
1000
328 305 253 210 191
1 073
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
mtpa/m berth
Break bulk mtpa/m berth
Durban Richards Bay Saldanha
Cape Town Port Elizabeth Ngqura
Mossel Bay East London Average
4369042727
41776
39589
20420
16018 16006
9375
22067
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
mtpa/hectare
Break bulk mtpa/hectare
Saldanha Durban Richards Bay
Port Elizabeth Cape Town Mossel Bay
Ngqura East London Average
Figure 15: Break bulk throughput per metre berth and per terminal area (2013)
117. Terminal and berth productivity for break bulk terminals, also measured in terms of through
put per metre of berth and per terminal area in hectares is presented in Figure 15. The
system handled break bulk cargo at an average of 1 073mtpa per metre of berth in 2013. The
Port of Durban recorded the highest number of break bulk tons per metre of berth at
3 973mtpa per metre, followed by the Port of Richards Bay which handled 2 720mtpa per
metre of berth. The rest of the Ports were below the average line.
118. Average performance on terminal area productivity, which is calculated in terms of annual
throughput per hectare, is 22 067mtpa per hectare. The four ports of Saldahna (43 690mtpa),
Durban (42 727mtpa), Richards Bay (41 776mtpa) and Port Elizabeth (39 589mtpa) performed
above the average with the remainder below the average.
34
236900
170643
5546744044
24351
84509
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
Cape Town
Durban Port Elizabeth
East London
Richards Bay
Average
Liquid Bulk, klpa/ha
kilolitres pa/hectare
15179
11835
5329
36673231 2963
2038
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Durban Saldanha Cape Town
Port Elizabeth
East London
Richards Bay
Average
Liquid Bulk (klpa)/ m berth
kilolitres pa/m berth
Figure 16: Liquid bulk throughput per m/berth and per ha
119. Figure 16 summarises the productivity of the liquid bulk terminals measured by annual
throughput against berth length and hectares of land available. As mentioned previously, the
total throughput figures includes the liquid bulk cargo that would have been handled through
the Single Buoy Mooring (SBM) which is not accounted for by the given berth length. A result
of this is the absence of numbers for the Port of Mossel Bay and the Ngqurha. Figure 16 is thus
presented only as indicative. In the next review data issues with liquid bulk terminals will be
resolved with the NPA.
120. Overall, the Port of Durban accounts for high utilisation of berth i.e. above average
throughput per berth metre in Container, automotive, Break Bulk and Liquid Bulk sectors,
whilst the Port of Saldahna accounts for high throughput per metre of berth in the Dry Bulk
sector. The Port of Port Elizabeth accounts for the lowest throughput per berth metre in
containers, whilst the Port of East London accounts for the lowest throughput per berth in
the Automotive, Dry Bulk and Break Bulk sector and the Port of Richards Bay’s Liquid Bulk
Terminal accounts for the lowest throughput per berth metre for liquid bulk.
121. With regard to throughput per hectare, Durban’s container and Automotive terminals
registered the highest throughput per hectare, whilst the Port of Saldahna accounts for the
highest throughput in the Dry and Breakbulk sectors with the Port of Cape Towns’ Liquid bulk
terminal’s throughput being the highest. The Port of East London’s Automotive, Dry Bulk and
Breakbulk sectors account for the least throughput per hectare in the system, followed by
35
Port Elizabeth in the container sector and Richards Bay in Liquid Bulk. A summary across the
system is provided at the end, in section 5.
4.3. Terminal utilisation per port
122. In this section terminal performance is consolidated and reported per port with some port
level comparisons given for productivity measures per commodity type handled. In order to
compare like with like, the throughput per cargo type was converted into metric tons using
the following conversion rates:
Containers: 1 TEU = 21tons (as per Global Port Pricing Comparator Study assumption)
subject to confirmation of ration between full and empty
Auto: 1 metre = 2 tons (as per tariff book) and average length of 2.5m per unit (as per
GPPCS assumptions).
Liquid bulk: due to different density per cargo, individual calculations must be done
based on TOPS data to establish a conversion factor for liquid bulk. For the purpose
of the review, the given kiloliters per annum were used without conversion.
4.3.1. Port of Durban
123. Comparing productivity across the terminals in the Port of Durban as captured in Figure 17
shows more throughput per metre of berth in the liquid bulk terminals relative to the other
terminals. This is followed by productivity in the container terminals which handles 12 384
tons per metre of berth.
36
15179
12384
6606
3973
2180
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Liquid Bulk Containers Dry bulk Breakbulk Automotive
Port of Durban
tonspa/m berth
42727
64290
170643
172548
177017
0 50000 100000 150000 200000
Breakbulk
Automotive
Liquid Bulk
Containers
Dry bulk
Port of Durban
(tons)pa/ha
Figure 17: Terminal productivity in the Port of Durban
124. Containers (185ha) and liquid bulk (157ha) accounts for the most hectares of terminal area
in the Port of Durban. However, the productivity levels in Figure 17 show that the Dry Bulk
terminals have handled slightly more tons per annum per hectare, relative to containers and
liquid bulk.
4.3.2. Port of Richards Bay
125. The Dry Bulk terminal handled the most throughput per metre of berth as well as per
hectare in the Port of Richards Bay.
37
24351
41776
311130
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000
Liquid Bulk(klpa)
Breakbulk(mtpa)
Dry bulk(mtpa)
Port of Richards Bay
annual unit/ ha
42289kl
2963kl 2720mt
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
Dry bulk Liquid Bulk Breakbulk
Port of Richards Bay
annual unit pa/m berth
Figure 18: Terminal productivity in the Port of Richards Bay
126. The terminal accounts for both the most land area (385ha compared to Break Bulk (81ha)
and Liquid Bulk (73ha). Breakbulk terminal is more productive in terms of throughput per
metre of berth. The productivity of the liquid and breakbulk terminals are similar where
throughput per hectare is concerned.
4.3.3. Port of East London
127. Figure 19 shows the most productive terminal by metre of berth in the Port of East London is
the Liquid bulk terminal which handled 3 231mtpa per metre of berth. The terminal is also
the most productive in the port in relation to throughput per terminal area(ha) with
44 044klpa processed per hectare.
38
3231
505
272191
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Liquid Bulk Automotive Dry bulk Breakbulk
Port of East London
mtpa/m berth
9375
31220
35212
44044
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Breakbulk
Automotive
Dry bulk
Liquid Bulk
Port of East London
mtpa/ha
Figure 19: Terminal productivity in the Port of East London
128. The next productive terminal is the automotive terminal handling 505mtpa per metre of
berth. However, the Dry Bulk terminal is the second most productive terminal in terms of
throughput per hectare having handled 35 212mtpa per hectare; which is followed closely
the automotive terminals 31 2200mtpa per hectare. The break bulk terminal performance
per metres of berth is only 191mtpa per metre and slightly higher per hectare, attesting to
the low installed capacity and volumes in this terminal.
4.3.4. Port of Ngqurha
129. Figure 20 shows productivity at the Port of Ngqurha defaulting to the container terminal
since the Port currently only handles significant volumes of containers.
39
11892
253
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Container Breakbulk
Port of Ngqurha
mtpa/m berth
16006
111168
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
Breakbulk
Container
Port of Ngqurha
mtpa/ha
Figure 20: Terminal productivity at the Port of Ngqurha
130. As reported earlier, comparing the berth and terminal productivity for the Port of Ngqurha
container terminal to that of Durban, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town places the Port of
Ngqurha ahead second to Durban on berth productivity and second to the Port of Cape Town
on terminal productivity.
4.3.5. Port of Port Elizabeth
131. Terminal productivity as reported in Figure 18 shows the Dry Bulk Terminal in the Port of
Port Elizabeth accounting for the highest tons per metre of berth and per terminal area. This
is due to Manganese which is moved in the terminal and whose throughput is same as the
installed capacity.
40
31715
39589
55467
97080
338867
0 100000 200000 300000 400000
Automotive
Breakbulk
Liquid Bulk
Containers
Dry Bulk
Port of Port Elizabeth
mtpa/ha
16943
5508
3667
1945
305
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Dry bulk Containers Liquid Bulk Automotive Breakbulk
Port of Port Elizabeth
mtpa/m berth
Figure 21: Terminal productivity at the Port of Port Elizabeth
132. The container (5 508mtpa/berth metre) and liquid bulk (3 667mtpa/berth metre) terminals
are the next two terminals with high throughput per berth metre and terminal area. Break
bulk only handled 305mtpa per berth metre whilst automotive terminals handled 31 715
mtpa per hectare at the bottom end of the productivity rates in this Port.
4.3.6. Port of Cape Town
133. The productivity levels in the Port of Cape Town shows the container terminal performing
higher than the other terminal with a throughput of 9 468mtpa per metre of berth. In terms
of terminal area, liquid bulk had the highest throughput per hectare, handling 236 900mtpa
per hectare.
9468
5329
1136
328
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Containers Liquid Bulk Dry bulk Breakbulk
Port of Cape Town
unitpa/m berth
20420
92380
157872
236900
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Breakbulk
Drybulk
Container
Liquid bulk
Port of Cape Town
mtpa/ha
Figure 22: Terminal productivity in the Port of Cape Town
41
134. Breakbulk terminal recorded the lowest throughput per berth metre and per hectare in the
Port of Cape Town.
4.3.7. Port of Saldahna
135. The Port of Saldahna handles liquid, dry and break bulk. The reported terminal area for
Liquid Bulk is 3.6hectares which translates into a significantly high productivity rate of
8 521 511kilolitres per annum per hectare.
43690
754136
8521522
0 2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 10000000
Breakbulk(mtpa)
Dry bulk(mtpa)
Liquid Bulk(klpa)
Port of Saldahna
unitpa/ha
1000mt
11835kl
43692mt
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
Breakbulk Liquid Bulk Dry bulk
Port of Saldahna
unitpa/m berth
Figure 23: Terminal productivity at the Port of Saldahna
136. However, productivity measured at throughput per berth metre, shows the dry bulk
terminal to be more productive. 43 672mt per annum per berth metres are handled. The
berth area for liquid bulk in the Port of Saldahna is given as only 500 metres which accounts
for the significantly high throughput per berth metre. Dry bulk (which handles mainly iron ore
and manganese ore) accounts for the highest throughput per hectare in the Port of Saldahna.
Very limited break bulk cargo is handled at the Port of Saldahna with the terminal accounting
for low productivity per metre of berth and terminal area.
42
5. Summary
137. Table 14 below provides a snap shot on the status quo of the levels of utilisation of South
African terminals per commodity type and per port. It summarises current port terminal use
using reported NPAs 2013/14 throughput per terminal in relation to design and then installed
capacity in the terminal. Full capacity is defined as a terminal operating at 100% of design or
installed capacity.
138. The table also summarises terminal performance in terms of throughput per metre of berth
and per terminal area for each of the commodity types as reported. Averages were
determined for each of the commodity types and that average is used to indicate if the
reported performance of a terminal is within the average of all terminals handling the same
cargo types. For container and Ro-ros, the table also reflects performance against design and
installed capacity.
Table 14: Summary of terminal use by cargo type and port
Richards Bay
Durban East London
Port Elizabeth
Ngqurha Mossel Bay
Cape Town
Saldahna
Throughput in relation to design capacity: compared against capacity of 100%
Containers N/A Close to capacity
(88%)
Below capacity
(44%)
Below capacity
(49%)
Below capacity
(25%)
N/A Below capacity
(61%)
N/A
Ro-Ro N/A Close to capacity
(96%)
Below capacity
(43%)
Below capacity
(67%)
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dry Bulk Below capacity
(67%)
Close to capacity
(95%)
Below capacity
(11%)
Above capacity
(122%)
N/A N/A Below capacity
(31%)
Close to capacity
(95%)
Break Bulk Below capacity
(34%)
Close to capacity
(87%)
Below capacity
(56%)
Below capacity
(27%)
Below capacity
(3%)
Above capacity
(109%)
Below capacity
(4%)
Below capacity
(26%)
Liquid Bulk Below capacity
(56%)
Above capacity
(128%)
Below capacity
(28%)
Below capacity
(30%)
N/A Below capacity
(27%)
Close to capacity
(77%)
Below capacity
(17%)
Port level summary analysis
Below capacity
Close to and
above capacity
Below capacity
Mainly below
capacity
Significantly below Capacity
Breakbulk
above, Liquid Bulk
below capacity
Mainly Below
capacity
Mainly below
capacity
Throughput in relation to installed capacity: compared to capacity of 100%
Containers N/A Close to capacity
(88%)
Close to capacity
(77%)
Close to capacity
(90%)
Above capacity
(145%) ***
N/A At capacity (101%)
N/A
Ro-Ro N/A Above capacity
(104%)
Close to capacity
(83%)
At capacity (100%)
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dry Bulk Close to capacity
(83%)
Close to capacity
(95%)
Below capacity
(22%)
Above capacity
(137%)
N/A N/A Below capacity
(46%)
Above capacity
(109%)
Break Bulk Below capacity
(47%)
Close to capacity
(87%)
Above (3 028%)
Close to capacity
(78%)
N/A Above capacity
(192%)
Below capacity
(11%)
Below capacity
(51%)
Liquid Bulk Above capacity
(176%)
Above capacity
(244%)
Close to capacity
(91%)
Close to capacity
(91%)
N/A Above capacity
(112%)
Close to capacity
(77%)
Below capacity
(61%)
Port level summary
analysis
Mainly close to
and above
capacity
Mainly close to
and above
capacity
Mainly close to
and above
capacity
Mainly close to and
above capacity
Above capacity
Above capacity for two of four berths
Mainly below
capacity
Mainly Below
capacity and above
on Dry bulk
Throughput per berth metre: compared against average
Containers (Ave: 818)
N/A Above ave
(1 032)
N/A Below ave (459)
Above Ave
(991)
N/A Below Ave (789)
N/A
Ro-Ro (Ave:309)
N/A Above ave (436)
Below ave (101)
Above ave (389)
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dry Bulk (Ave:18 490)
Above ave (42289)
Below ave (6 606)
Below ave (272)
Below ave (16 943)
N/A N/A Below Ave ( 1 136)
Above ave (43 692)
Break Bulk (Ave:1 073)
Above ave ( 2 720)
Above ave (3 973)
Below ave (191)
Below ave (305)
Below Ave (253)
Below Ave
(16 018)
Below Ave (328)
Below Average
(1000)
Liquid Bulk Above ave Above Above Above ave N/A N/A** Above ave Above ave
44
(Ave:2 038) (2 963) ave* (15 179)
Ave (3 231)
(3 667) (5 329) (2 038)
Port level summary analysis
Above average
Mainly Above average
Below average
Mainly Below average
Average Below average
Mainly Below Average
Mainly above Average
Throughput per berth metre compared against design and installed capacity: Containers (Reported figures based on 2013/14 throughput)
Design capacity
N/A (1032) 1 171
N/A (459) 945 (991) 3 889
N/A (789) 1 303
N/A
Installed capacity
N/A (1032) 1 171
N/A (459) 512 (991) 683 N/A (789) 782 N/A
Port level summary analysis (reported throughput vs design and installed capacity)
N/A Terminal operating at full capacity
N/A Terminal operating close to installed capacity and at half of design capacity
Terminal operating above installed capacity but significantly below design capacity
N/A Terminal operating above installed capacity with some design capacity still available
N/A
Throughput per berth metre compared against design and installed capacity: Ro-ro( reported figures based on 2013/14 throughput )
Design capacity
N/A (436)453 (101)233 (389) 585 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Installed capacity
N/A 418 121 391 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Port level
summary
analysis
N/A Terminal operating at design
and installed capacity
Terminal
operating
close to
installed
capacity
but below
design
capacity
Terminal
operating
close to
installed
capacity but
significantly
below
design
capacity
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Throughput per terminal area compared against average
Containers (Ave: 11 222)
N/A Above ave ( 14 379)
N/A Below ave (8 090)
Below ave (9 264)
N/A Above ave (13 156)
N/A
Ro-Ro (Ave: 8 481)
N/A Above ave (12 858)
Below ave (6 244)
Below ave ( 6 343)
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dry Bulk (Ave:
284 790)
Above ave (311 130)
Below ave (177 017)
Below ave (35 212)
Above ave (338 867)
N/A N/A Below Ave (92 380)
Above Ave (754 136)
Break Bulk ( Ave: 22 067)
Above ave (41 776)
Above Ave
(42 727)
Below ave (9 375)
Above ave (39 589)
Below ave (16 006)
Below ave
(16 018)
Below ave (20 420)
Above ave (43 690)
Liquid Bulk (Ave:
84 509)
Below ave (24 351
Above Ave*
(170 643)
Below ave (44 044)
Above ave (55 467)
N/A
N/A** Above ave (236 900)
Above ave (8 521
522)
Port level summary
analysis
Mainly Above
Average
Mainly Above
average
Below average
Mainly Above
Average
Below average
Below average
Average Above average
* Some of the Liquid Bulk is handled at the off-shore mooring at Isipingo and is thus not included in the throughput per berth or per
hectare.
**Liquid bulk at the Port of Mossel Bay is handled at the Single Buoy Mooring (SBM) off shore thus no figures are given for berth and
hectare.
*** this is against installed capacity of two berths out of four.
45
139. This is only a snap shot and as previously indicated; the next iteration will look at trends
based on historical throughput and demand projections to enable some conclusions to be
drawn on the need for expansion capacity, both in terms of infrastructure and installed
capacity. The snap shot is only indicative based on information assessed.
140. The Port of Richards Bay is operating below installed capacity in general, and its operations
are close to and above capacity with regards installed capacity. This indicates that overall
there is capacity that can be made available in the system by addressing matters relating to
installed capacity. It’s overall performance in terms of throughput per metre of berth and per
hectare for all the cargo types suggests above average performance in the system.
141. The Port of Durban numbers suggests that the port is operating close to and above design
capacity in all its terminals in relation to both design and installed capacity pointing to limited
scope for more capacity to be handled with current capacity. The recorded performance of
the terminals in terms of throughput per metre of berth and terminal area points to terminal
performance above average in the system.
142. The Port of East London figures show that it is operating below capacity in terms of design
capacity. The numbers for installed capacity has the port operating mainly close to and above
capacity highlighting that additional capacity can be accessed by addressing installed
capacity. This is supported by below average performance in the port’s throughput per metre
berth and per terminal area. Besides installed capacity, market factors may also account for
the performance of the Port of East London which services a hinterland with lower economic
performance.
143. In the same region, the Port of Port Elizabeth comes through as operating mainly below
design capacity of its terminals but close to and above installed capacity (dry bulk terminal)
with below average performance in both throughput per metre of berth and terminal area.
Overall, this suggests scope for improvement in installed capacity and operational
performance. The dynamic created by the proximity of the Port of Port Elizabeth to the Port
of Nqgurha must also be taken into account.
144. The Port of Ngqurha itself is shown to be operating significantly below installed capacity
whereas the levels of installed capacity suggests above capacity operations. This point to the
fact that installed capacity is not maximizing design capacity in this port, highlighting that
more can be achieved by addressing installed capacity. The Port of Ngqurha performed on
average in terms of throughput per metre of berth and below average on throughput per
terminal area. The above capacity performance against installed capacity must be seen in the
context of installed capacity of two berths.
46
145. The Port of Mossel Bay’s terminal operations in relation to design capacity is below capacity
for liquid bulk the main cargo type handled at this port and above capacity for breakbulk. Its
operations are above average in relation to installed capacity again suggesting more
throughput can be handled by increasing installed capacity. On both throughput per metre of
berth and terminal area, the port has performed below the averages.
146. The Port of Cape Town operations are mainly below design capacity and close to capacity for
liquid bulk whilst, in relation to installed capacity the terminals are operating mainly below
capacity. With mainly below average and average performance on throughput per metre of
berth and terminal area respectively, the Port of Cape Town improving operations and
installed capacity can provide more capacity.
147. Lastly, the Port of Saldahna’s terminal operations in relation to design and installed capacity
is mainly below capacity, except for dry bulk terminal where operation are above installed
capacity. The terminals are also performing above the system averages.
6. Way forward
148. In the introduction of the review, it has been established that various approaches can be
followed to determine optimal performance standards against which the terminal
performance can be assessed. This includes the Stochastic Frontier Analysis approach, Data
Envelopment Analysis approach, Benchmarking against international ports etc. This requires
much expertise as well as data and has not been used in this initial study. In addition,
efficiencies and utilisation can also be weighed against investment and availability of capital
in analysis such as financial and economic NPV, internal rates of return, payback analysis,
economic value add and many others. At most, the analysis presented in this document
serves to paint a picture of some of the PRSAs observations within the limitation of the data
and expertise available.
149. Another approach, which is presented below, is to use the UNCTAD berth utilisation factor
to determine whether South African terminals are operating optimally. It is proposed that the
NPA be engaged further on this approach, as outlined below.
150. In determining optimal performance standards; berth and terminal utilisation rates as well
as across the ship rates must be calculated using the UNCTAD international norms. Berths
and terminals are the point of interface amongst various players in the port systems,
primarily exchange between vessels and cargo. Terminal and berth utilisation rates i.e. the
time available to vessels to exchange cargo across the quay wall and the rate at which that
47
exchange happens are key indicators of how well a port or terminal is doing. The following
are the formulae and input parametres used in calculating optimal berth utilisation and ATS
for South African terminals:
151. Operational hours, number of berths per terminal as well as throughput per terminal are
required to calculate both berth utilisation and across the ship rates.
Operating hours:
Ports: No of. Operating hours As per tariff book
Durban, Richards Bay, Ngqurha, Port Elizabeth, Cape Town, Saldahna
365 days * 24hrs = 8760
East London 16hrs * 5 days a week: 60 * 52 = 4160 plus 6hrs on Saturdays: 8*52 = 416 Total hrs: 4576
Mossel Bay 12hrs * 5days a week: 60*52= 3120 Total hrs: 3120
Usable berths:
152. Usable Berths instead of total berths would be used. The intention is to determine the
utilisation of operational rather than design capacity. However as has been done in the
report, the same calculations can be done to determine productivity level of the full
infrastructure that port users are paying for.
153. The terminal utilisation rate describes the ideal number of hours that all the berths,
collectively; in a terminal should be operating cargo. This can be used as a standard by which
South African terminal’s actual utilisation should be compared to.
154. Berth Utilisation calculates an optimum utilization rate of a terminal (in hours) based on the
number of berths (as per utilisation factor) and number of terminal operational hours i.e. the
number of hours that the terminal should be operational per annum.
Berth/terminal utilisation factor
155. The Berth Utilisation Factor attempts to standardize across various factors that influence
operations in a berth to arrive at a commonly agreed figure that a berth must operate in a
year. The Berth Utilisation factors are based on those set by the United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development (UNCTAD:1986) in the port performance measurement manual.
Although determined in the 1980s, these factors have not required material adjustments
over the years, except for upward revisions on container terminal factors. Berth utilisation
factors used in the calculations are provided in Table 15.
48
Table 15: Berth Utilisation Factor
Number of berths
Vehicles (%) Liquid Bulk(%)
Containers (%)
Dry Bulk(%) Break Bulk(%)
1 45 45 45 70 45
2 50 50 50 70 50
3 55 55 55 70 55
4 60 60 60 70 60
5 65 65 65 70 65
6 70 70 70 70 70
7 70 70 70 70 70
UNCTAD: where there are more than 7 berths, the factor remains 70%.
156. These represents the percentage of time that a berth or number of berths when available
will allow optimal use thereof without congestion or low service. The highest utilisation
factor is 70%. This is however not the maximum but rather the optimal utilization for a
terminal with x number of berths. Where actual utilisation is above the utilisation factor, the
likelihood of congestion is high, pointing to a need for either operational improvements or
additional capacity.
Formulae for calculations:
a. Terminal Utilisation rate (%) = Operational hrs x no. of berths x utilisation factor
(UNCTAD utilisation factors in table above)
b. Berth Utilisation rate (%) Terminal Utilisation rate Number of berths
c. Across the ship rate (ATS) = Throughput Terminal Utilisation
157. As an example, using the 2013/14 cargo throughputs gives the following indicative utilisation
rates:
49
Table 16: Example of possible optimal berth utilisation and ATS for SA terminals
158. According to these calculations for Durban container terminals as an example, the optimal
berth utilisation rate for this 7 berth, 8760 hrs terminal must be 42 924hrs in a year. Across
the ship working rate, is 62 TEU per hr, which can be verified by simply multiplying the
calculated optimal ATS and Berth Utilisation to find the Annual throughput 42 924 x 62 =
2 660 144. However, actual performance must be assessed when actual terminal availability
in hours and actual ship working rates are computed.
159. Table 15 therefore provides an indication of the optimal levels or standard for ATS and Berth
Utilisation rates as per the UNCTAD model which should be compared to the actual ATS and
Berth Utilisation for South African terminals as reported by the NPA.
7. Conclusion
160. This review reports on the infrastructure the NPA provides to service the various cargo types
handled in South African ports. The report provides a birds “eye-view” on the utilisation of
infrastructure in the various terminals, identifies using various capacity measures,
infrastructure that may be close to full capacity, and points towards prioritisation of
infrastructure needs in the NPA CAPEX programme. The study forms a baseline which will lay
a foundation for the next phase of the Regulator’s Review which will gradually improve
CAPEX analysis capability on behalf of port users.
Containers Automotive Dry Bulk Break bulk Liquid Bulk
Ship rate
(ATS)
Berth Utilisation
(hrs)
Ship rate
(ATS)
Berth Utilisation
(hrs)
Ship rate
(ATS)
Berth Utilisation
(hrs)
Ship rate
(ATS)
Berth Utilisation
(hrs)
Ship rate
(ATS)
Berth Utilisation
(hrs)
Richards Bay Coal n/a n/a n/a n/a 2368 36 792 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Richards Bay n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 36 792 92 36 792 203 8 760
Durban 62 42 924 35 14 454 243 42 924 40 85 848 546 49 056
East London 9 4 576 27 2 059 n/a n/a 20 4 576 406 2 059
Port Elizabeth 33 8 760 30 4 380 995 6132 16 19 272 184 4 818
Ngqurha 81 8 760 n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 3 942 n/a n/a
Mossel Bay n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 41 1 404 679 3 120
Cape Town 37 24 528 n/a n/a 53 12 264 12 36 792 297 8 760
Saldahna n/a n/a n/a n/a 4489 12 264 47 18 396 1081 3 942
50
8. Bibliography
1. Bichou K & Gray R. 2004. A logistics and supply chain management approach to port performance
measurement. Maritime Policy Management Journal. Vol. 31, No.1. 47-67. Taylor & Francis.
2. Chung , C.K. (1993) Port Performance Indicators, Transportation, water, and urban development
department, The World Bank.
3. Container Ports Fact Book: Antwerp, Zeebruggee, Rotterdam, Bremen and Hamburg. Development
and realisation of growth. Adstrat Consulting, 2012.
4. Kevin Cullinane 2010? Revisiting the productivity and efficiency of ports and terminals:
methods and applications. Transport Research Institute, Edinburgh Napier University.
5. Kevin Cullinane, Rickard Bergqvist and Gordon Wilmsmeier (2012). The dry port concept – theory and
practice. Maritime Economics & Logistics (2012) 14, 1–13 (http://www.palgrave-
journals.com/mel/journal/v14/n1/full/mel201114a.html)
6. Merk, O., Li, J. (2013), “The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: the case of Hong Kong – China”,
OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2013/16, OECD Publishing,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k3wdkjtzp0w-en
7. Pjevcevic, D; I. Vladisavljevic & K. Vukodinovic (2013) Analysing the efficiency of dry bulk cargo
handling at the inland port terminal using simulation and DEA. A paper presented at the 1st
Logistics
International Conference, Belgrade. November 2013.
8. Port benchmarking for assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime services and associated costs with other
major international ports. Marine Department Planning, Development and Port Security Branch,
December 2006.
9. Salminen, J.B., 2013. Measuring the Capacity of a port system: a case study on a Southeast Asian Port.
Dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering
Logistics, Massechusetts Institute of Technology.
10. Sarriera J.M., T. Serebrisky, G. Araya, C. Briceno- Garmendia and J. Schwartz. Benchmarking container
terminal efficiency in Latin American and the Carribean. Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)
Working Paper Series no. IDB-WP-474.
11. Talley, W.K. (2008) Container Port Efficiency and output measures.
12. The DBSA & DPME, 2012. The State of South Africa’s Economic Infrastructure: Opportunities and
Challenges 2012. A publication of the Department of Performance, Monitoring and Evaluation at the
Presidency and the Development Bank of Southern Africa.
13. The National Ports Act, Act 12 of 2005.
14. The National Ports Authority (NPA), 2013. Long Term Port Development Framework.
15. The Tioga Group (2010). Improving Marine container terminal productivity: development of
productivity measures, proposed sources of data and initial collection of data from proposed sources.
A report prepared for the Cargo Handling Co-operative Program.
51
16. UNCTAD 1986 “Manual on a uniform system of port statistics and performance indicators”
www.portsregulator.org
