Port administration&ownership&management

PORT
ADMINISTRATION
&
OWNERSHIP
&
MANAGEMENT
GLOBAL TERMINAL
OPERATORS
DIY 5034 PORT BUSINESS

 Port management objectives
 Ways of minimizing costs
1. Minimize payments by users in the port including
ship’s time at a port.
2. Minimize users’ total through-transport costs.
3. Minimize port cost
 Maximization of benefits.
1. They maximize benefits to the owners of the
port
2. They maximize benefits to the town, region or
country.

 Category of Port ownership
Ports can be classified as to their type of
ownership or administration. Port ownership can be
classified;
1. State ownership
2. Autonomous
3. Municipal ownership
4. Private ownership

Port Management Structures and Ownership
Models Governing Functions (Port authority)
 Maintenance and development of port infrastructures
(breakwater, jetty, quays, berths, etc.) and maritime
accesses (bathymetry and dredging of access chanel)
 Manage maritime traffic (Police of the water of the port «
Harbour’s Master Office ») (sometimes directly managed by a
separate Government department)
 Security & safety (ISPS)
 Management of the port domain; Deliver authorization to
occupants and control their activity, Police of the port
domain
 Ensure port operation services are adequately provided
 Coordination and regulation of port activities / operators;
Coordination of public services (custom, immigration, etc.),
Tariff regulation, Etc.

Port Regulator
Regulatory activities within a port will generally be
related to duties and responsibilities such as enforcing
regulations and providing pilotage services and vessel traffic
management, most of which will have been established by
statute.
Port operator
Operations may include a range of valueadded activities and
free trade zones related activities within the port estate.

Port Landowner
Their key tasks a port landowner will need to undertake
include:
 Managing and developing the port estate,
 Conceiving and implementing policies and development
strategies,
 Supervising major civil engineering works,
 Providing and maintaining channels, breakwater, locks,
truing, basins, berths, piers and wharves,
 Providing or arranging road access to the port complex

Five Types of Port Management Models
1. The Public Service Port,
2. The Tool Port,
3. The Landlord Port,
4. The Corporatized Port,
5. The Private Service Port,

Ownersh
ip
Port
admin.
Nautical
mgmt.
Port
infrastr.
Super-
structure
Cargo
handling
Pilotage Towage
Mooring
services
Dredging
Public
Service
Port
Tool Port
Landlord
Port
Corporat
ized Port
Public
responsib
ility
Private
Service
Port
Private
responsib
ility
Public and Private Roles
in Port Management

Types of port management model
There are five main port management models based upon the respective
responsibility of the public and private sectors. Each of these
models concerns ports that have different characteristics concerning
the ownership of infrastructure, equipment, terminal operation and
who provides port services such as pilotage and towage.
While service and tool ports mostly exist to promote public
interests, landlord ports attempt to balance public and private
interests. At the other end of the spectrum, private service ports
are maximizing the interests of their shareholders

Public service ports
The port authority of public service ports performs
the whole range of port related services, in addition of
owning all the infrastructure. They are commonly a branch
of a government ministry and most of their employees are
civil servants. Some ancillary services can be left to
private companies. Because of the inefficiencies they are
related with, the number of public service ports has
declined

Tool ports
Similar in every aspect to a public service port, the tool
port differs only by the private handling of its cargo
operations, albeit the terminal equipment is still owned
by the port authority. In several cases, a tool port is a
transitional form between a public service port and a
landlord port.

Landlord ports
Represents the most common management model where
infrastructure, particularly terminals, are leased to
private operating companies with the port authority
retaining ownership of the land.
The most common form of lease is a concession
agreement where a private company is granted a long term
lease in exchange of a rent that is commonly a function
of the size of the facility as well as the investment
required to build, renovate or expand the terminal.
The private operator is also responsible to
provide terminal equipment so that operating standards
are maintained.

Landlord ports
The landlord port model is common across Europe where
the port authority manages the port and builds the
infrastructure. All cargo handling operations are given
to the private sector.
The “Land Lord” model reduces the financial burden on
the Federal Government as the Terminal Operators are
responsible for both infrastructure development and
annual concession fees in the form of lease fees and
throughput fees.

Conventionally, a port authority acts as a
landlord, a regulator and an operator
As a landlord, a port authority manages the port assets under
its jurisdiction. This commonly concerns the provision of
infrastructures such as piers and the dredging of waterways.
This was commonly done with public funds.
As a regulator, a port authority sets the planning framework,
namely fees, subcontracting services and safety, as well as the
enforcement of national and port related rules and regulations.
As an operator, a port authority provides the day to day
services to ships (e.g. pilotage and towage) and to
merchandises (e.g. loading / unloading and warehousing).

Landlord Ports
The purpose of this port models, the Port Authorities
will owns and manages the sites in the port area, and makes
them available to port companies for their activities on the
basis of concession agreement.
The infrastructure will be lease to third-party
companies or known as private sector to manage the terminal
operation. The government or public sector only acts as the
owner of the port.
The advantage of the port model is to maximize the efficiency
in the port operations that will be managed by private sector
because of their accountability.
Investment in superstructure will not be required when
using landlord ports models by the public sector.
Subsequenty, this will create competitive market
dynamics and advance management of labor towards the port
operation.

Landlord Ports
The Port of Antwerp is a landlord port and all cargo
handling operations in the port are carried out by private
companies.

Corporatized Ports
Concerns ports that have almost entirely been
privatized, with the exception that ownership remains public
and often assumed as a majority shareholder. The port
authority essentially behaves as a private enterprise.
This management model is unique since it is the only
one where ownership and control are separated, which lessens
“public good” pressures landlord port authority are facing
and “shareholder value” pressures private ports are facing.
Today, the most commonly pursued route for port
governance reform embraces the concept of an autonomous,
government-owned port authority with terminal operations
under private companies.

Corporatized Ports
Many countries fall short of fully effective
corporatization of their port authorities, however, because
they retain some administrative and decision-making mechanisms
under government control.
This note outlines the challenges countries face when
seeking to corporatize their ports, summarizes the benefits of
such reforms, and suggests key steps in establishing an
effectively corporatized port authority.

Corporatization Benefits
Core benefits of the corporatized port, as compared to
ports run by public authorities, derive from its stronger
market orientation. These benefits;
Demand-driven infrastructure investments;
Corporatized ports operate as effective and viable
businesses. As such, they can efficiently assess and implement
sustainable infrastructure upgrades and expansion projects. In
addition, the corporation’s improved levels of financial
credibility increase the port’s attractiveness to private
investors,
Revenue maximization from available assets;
Given adequate skills, a corporatized port authority can
effectively and innovatively exploit the port’s land and
maritime assets to create value for its clients and for port
users while capturing that value through efficient pricing.
Ports under public administration rarely achieve this balance.

Market-driven pricing;
Corporatized port authorities can adjust pricing to market
conditions, such as by using price discounts to attract new
customers. Although pricing is subject to competition regulation
based on the (inter)national corporate legal and regulatory
framework, scope remains for application of commercial pricing
principles by corporatized port authorities.
Rationalization and improved control of operating costs;
In contrast to practices under traditional public sector
port authorities, which may face only “soft budget constraints”
and hence lack real incentives to reduce operating costs,
corporatized entities feel pressure from their independent and
professional supervisory boards to tightly control operating
costs.

Corporatized Ports
Following corporatization at the Port of Rotterdam,
net profit tripled between 2003 and 2011,

POST-CORPORATIZATION PERFORMANCE AT
THE PORT OF ROTTERDAM

Rotterdam Port Authority’s financial
results in 2019
The Port of Rotterdam Authority recorded a turnover of
€706.6 million in 2019 (2018: €707.2 million). On the income
side, port dues showed a slight increase and lease returns
fell slightly. The net result excluding taxes amounted to
€241 million (2018: €254.1 million).
Gross investments including participations amounted to
€338.3 million (2018: €408.1 million).
Site lease charges, the largest revenue item,
decreased by 2.2% to €365.5 million.
Income from port dues paid by vessels when they call
at the port increased by 0.6% to €304.3 million, due to a
positive price effect. Other income came to €36.7 million
(2018: €31.1 million).

Rotterdam Port Authority’s financial
results in 2019
This increase is the consequence of increases in
returns from silt storage for third parties and from sand
sales. Operating expenses rose by 2.0% to €273.2 million,
mainly due to an increase in labour costs resulting from
collective wage rises and the new senior staff scheme. By
contrast, operating expenses fell. Depreciation costs
increased as a result of the relatively high investment
levels in previous years.
In line with existing agreements, the Port Authority
proposes that for 2019 an amount of €98.5 million (40%) be
paid in dividend to the shareholders: the City of Rotterdam
(70.83% / €69.8 million) and the State of the Netherlands
(29.17% / €28.7 million).

Corporatized Ports
ASYA PORT
CONTAINER HANDLING BY PORTS
(INC. TRANSIT & CABOTAGE)
YEAR/2010 EXPORT IMPORT TOTAL
TEKİRDAĞ 7 TEU 10 TEU 17 TEU
CONTAINER HANDLING BY PORTS
(INC. TRANSIT & CABOTAGE)
YEAR/2019 EXPORT IMPORT TOTAL
TEKİRDAĞ 713,235 TEU 700,727 TEU 1,413,962 TEU
9
YEARS
%
83174

Private Service Ports
The first port privatization activities occurred in
the UK in 1980s (Bassett, 1993), and the privatization of
ports has become widespread in other corners of the World
such as South America, Far East, and Middle East.
The outcome of a complete privatization of the port
facility with a mandate that the facilities retain their
maritime role.
The port authority is entirely privatized with almost
all the port functions under private control with the public
sector retaining a standard regulatory oversight.
Still, public entities can be shareholders and thus
gear the port towards strategies that are deemed to be of
public interest.

In the port sector, all operating services can be transferred
to private companies. The degree of private–sector
involvement is determined by the organisational form of the
port.
For example, private companies are naturally involved in
public service ports to an extremely limited extent,
primarily focusing on the performance of construction works
and other services to order.
Under the tool port model, too, the private involvement is
limited and invesment risk remains with the port authority.
By contrast, the landlord port model involves significant
private investmens as well as the transfer of material
operating risks to the private operator.

The benefits that port authorities
expect from port privatization are
several.
Baird (2002) found out that the purposes of port
privatization are lowering costs, increasing efficiency,
expanding trade, gaining knowhow, reducing public cost and
others including increasing port revenue and developing a
public& private partnership.
Van Niekerk (2005) stated that generating funds for
investment, increasing efficiency, and achieving cost-
effective services are the three core expectations of
governments in developing countries from port privatization.

Psaraftis and Pallis (2012) stated that the
motivations behind the privatization of Port of Piraeus are
the necessity of investing around 400 million Euros in the
infrastructure of the port, making the port a hub and
increasing the productivity.
Wang et al. (2013) states the three primary aims of
port privatization are improving capital utilization,
sharpening managerial incentives and reducing bureaucratic
waste. Besides these benefits, Ece and Alkan (2016) states
that one of the objectives of port privatization is
responding market demand and increasing competition.

Sırada limanların yeniden ihalesi var
45 yıllığına işletme hakkının verilmesi için açılan ve
ihalesi daha önce iptal edilen Güllük Yat Limanı Projesi'ne
ilişkin özelleştirme sürecinin 2020 içinde tamamlanması
bekleniyor.
Taşucu Limanı'nın 36 yıllığına işletme hakkının verilmesi
için çıkılan ihale, yeterli teklif alınamadığı için iptal
edilmişti. Taşucu Limanı ve liman geri sahası özelleştirme
sürecinin de bu yıl sonuçlandırılması öngörülüyor.
Fenerbahçe-Kalamış Yat Limanı'nın 36 yıl süreyle ve işletme
hakkının verilmesi yöntemiyle özelleştirilmesine yönelik
çıkılan ihale de teklif alınamadığından iptal edilmişti.
Limanın bu yıl içinde yeniden ihale edilmesine yönelik
çalışmalara devam ediliyor.
Çanakkale Gökçeada Kuzu Limanı'nın 36 yıllığına işletme
hakkının verilmesi yöntemiyle çıkılan ihale, yeterli teklif
alınamadığı için iptal edildi. Yeniden başlayacak ihale
süreci işlemlerinin bu yıl tamamlanması bekleniyor.

EXAMPLES FOR THE ORGANISATIONAL MODELS OF PRIVATE-SECTOR
INVOLVEMENT IN THE PORT SECTOR
TYPES OF PORTS
PUBLIC SERVICE
PORT
TOOL PORT LANDLORD PORT
PRIVATE
SERVICE PORT
Type of
privatisation
Commercialisation
or
corporatisation
Functional
privatisation
Full material
privatisation
Ownership of
infrastructure
Public Public Public Private
Ownership of
superstructure
Public Public Private Private
Terminal
operation
Public Private Private Private
Examples
Colombo/Sri Lanka
Dar es Salaam
Chittagong
Rotterdam
New York
Singapore
Some ports in
UK and New
Zeland

Arguments for increased private sector
participation in the port industry
 Reduce size of public sector financial commitments,
 Improve the productivity through competition
 Raise funds for other public activities,
 Escape the problems of bureaucracy,
 Reduced the sixe the port labor force, hence the
reason for the general lack of enthusiasm of unions
for privatization,

Various methods of increasing private
sector participation
 Lease land and facilities
 Lease land and infrastructure-sell super structure.
 Lease land, sell facilities.
 Convert public authority to public enterprise.
 Sell land and all infrastructure and superstructure

With deregulation, the trend is a changing role of port
authorities within their region, which has mainly taken two
dimensions
Concessionning has reduced the role of the port
authority as an operator since this role is increasingly
assumed by specialized terminal operators that are renting
terminal facilities over long periods of time (up to 30
years). The dominant rationale behind this process was that
port authorities tended have poor levels of performance in
their terminal operations. Many are global terminal
operators having terminal assets in a wide variety of
markets.

Cluster Governance is an emerging and extensive
trend where the port authority assumes leadership in
activities that conventionally were outside its
jurisdiction. These include the setting of inland
terminals and logistics zones (directly or in partnership),
various strategies to monitor and improve performance,
setting port community systems, promoting environmental and
social initiatives, being involved in training and education
for port related employment as well as facilitating
relations with its surrounding urban areas

Role of a Port Authority
Ports usually have a governing body referred to as the
port authority, port management, or port administration. Port
authority is used widely to indicate any of these three
terms.
The term port authority has been defined in various
ways. In 1977, a commission of the European Union (EU)
defined a port authority as a �State, Municipal, public, or
private body, which is largely responsible for the tasks of
construction, administration and sometimes the operation of
port facilities and, in certain circumstances, for
security.� This definition is sufficiently broad to
accommodate the various port management models existing
within the EU and elsewhere.

Ports authorities may be established at all levels of
government: national, regional, provincial, or local. The
most common form is a local port authority, an authority
administering only one port area. However, national port
authorities still exist in various countries such as
Tanzania, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, and Aruba.

The United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD) Handbook for Port Planners in
Developing Countries lists the statutory powers of a
national port authority as follows (on the assumption that
operational decisions will be taken locally):
Investment: Power to approve proposals for port investments
in amounts above a certain figure. The criterion for
approval would be that the proposal was broadly in
accordance with a national plan, which the authority would
maintain.
Financial policy: Power to set common financial objectives
for ports (for example, required return on investment
defined on a common basis), with a common policy on what
infrastructure will be funded centrally versus locally, and
advising the government on loan applications.

Tariff policy: Power to regulate rates and charges as
required to protect the public interest.
Labor policy: Power to set common recruitment standards, a
common wage structure, and common qualifications for
promotion; and the power to approve common labor union
procedures.
Licensing: When appropriate, power to establish principles
for licensing of port employees or agents.
Information and research: Power to collect, collate, analyze,
and disseminate statistical information on port activity for
general use, and to sponsor research into port matters as
required.
Legal: Power to act as legal advisor to local port
authorities.

 Enforce regulations to promote safety and protection of
maritime environment,
 Assign anchorages, traffic separation scheme, channels,
nav. Aids, and port limits,
 Impose pilotage, traffic control & support services,
 Deploy compenent resources,
 Be a link between the vessel and the port state,

 The port authority will concretely play a crucial role as
the main governance actor of port by;
 promoting innovation through policy actions aimed at
improving the efficiency of port infrastructures and their
connections within existing transport systems, according to
environmental, social and economic sustainability criteria,
 fovouring and stimulating free competition among port
operators, through a proper concession of both terminal and
land management to private business actors for the supply of
value added services,

 enhancing the collaboration and coordination of port
acitivities through the so called services-enhancing
activities, such as EDI systems, marketing and performance
benchmarking,
 and, contributing to the development of its own
hinterland by creating economical, relational and social
connections between the port and the market place.

A. First
Generation
Prior to
1950
Sea approach , transfer of goods, temporary
storage, delivery
B. Second
Generation
Includes A plus industrial and commercial
activities which give added value to the goods.
The port is a handling and services centre.
C. Third
Generation
Since
1980
Includes A plus B structuring of the port
community, plus strengthening links between
town and port and between port-users, plus
extension of the range of services offered
beyond the boundary, plus an integrated system
of data collection and processing. The port has
become a logistic platform for trade.
D. Fourth
Generation
Since
2000
Network of physically separated ports
(terminals) linked through common operators or
through a common administration
Focused on offering basic port
services to vessels
- Specialization of operations
- seek for improvements in their
management capacities
- Extended
their service
scope to become
effective
logistics
platforms for
trade
- introduce
integrated
systems for
data collection
and processing
-Introduce new aspects in logistics management and
connectivity between transport modes,
- ınformatıon management is a differentiating element in
their services
MODERNIZATION, CAPACITY AND
SPECIALIZATION LEVEL OF PORTS

It is a widely accepted opinion among port
specialists that a port authority should have as a principal
objective the full recovery of all port-related costs,
including capital costs, plus an adequate return on capital.
The full recovery of costs will help a port authority to:
 Maintain internal cost discipline,
 Attract outside investment and establish secure long-term
cash flows,
 Stimulate innovation in the various functional areas to
guarantee a long-term balance between costs and revenues,
especially when faced with innovations by terminal
operators, port users, rival ports, and hinterland
operators,

 Generate internal cash flows needed to replace and expand
port infrastructure and superstructure,
 Compete according to the rules of the market system,
without excessive distortions of competition,
 Put limits on cross-subsidization, which may be rational
from a marketing point of view (market penetration, traffic
attraction), but which can undermine financial performance,
 Avoid dissipation of the port authority�s asset base to
satisfy objectives of third parties (for example, port
users demanding the use of land in the port area without
regard to the land�s most economic use or port and city
administrations using port authority assets to pursue
general city goals).

Role of Port Operators
Just as central governments and port authorities play
key roles in the port communities, so too do private port
operators (such as stevedoring firms, cargo handling companies,
and terminal operators). Port operators typically pursue
conventional microeconomic objectives, such as profit
maximization, growth, and additional market share. Only if port
operators are free to pursue such objectives can the benefits
of a market-oriented system be achieved.

Role of Port Operators
At its core, port operation involves managing the
movement of cargoes between ships, trucks, trains, and
warehouses. Ultimately, the goal is to maximize port
efficiency while minimizing the amount of time a ship spends
in port. To do so, a port operator takes on several roles. A
port operator, for example, might:
 Handle paperwork to get incoming shipments through customs
Connect shipments to potential recipients
 Handle and store merchandise that passes through the port
 Finance, install, operate, and maintain necessary
infrastructure and equipment to run the port
 Port operations can be public and/or private. Most ports
in the world are governed by some form of public port
authority, but some are being privatized to improve
efficiency and cut costs. Typically, a private port operator
will purchase a contract with the local port authority and
run their business on site, promising a certain level of
productivity.

Role of Port Management
National Government
Port authority; Local
Goverment
 Policy formulation for
the development and
administration of
nationwide ports and
harbours,
 Establishment of
necessary laws and
regulations,
 Providing advice and
guidance on port
administration and
operation to PA
 Formulation of port
development/management
plan,
 Construction and
maintenance of port
facilities,
 Permission for and
restrictions on facility
use in port management
districts,
 Leasing & management of
port facilities,

National Government
Goverment
 Authorizing development
plans for major ports,
 Financial assistance for
PA in relation to port
contruction projects,
 Implementation of port
construction projects,
(projects under the direct
control of the NG),
 Improvement and
maintenance of shipping
channels outside the port
area,
 Setting and collection
fees for use of port
facilities,
 Establishing conditions
for providing port
services,
 Land reclamation in
harbour district,
 Environmental protection
in ports and harbours,
 Statistics collection for
ports and harbours,

National Government
Goverment
 Establishment of
technological standarts
for planning, design, and
construction of ports and
harbours,
 Surveys and research
concerning port
technology,
 Marketing and promotion
of ports and harbours,

Port Administration Models
A number of factors influence the way ports are
organized, structured, and managed, including:
 The socioeconomic structure of a country (market economy,
open borders),
 Historical developments (for example, former colonial
structure),
 Location of the port (urban area or in isolated regions),
 Types of cargoes handled (liquid and dry bulk, general
cargo, or containers),

Port Administration Models
Four main categories of ports have emerged over time,
and they can be classified into four main models: the public
service port, the tool port, the landlord port, and the fully
privatized port or private service port.
These models are distinguished by how they differ with
respect for such characteristics as:
 Public, private, or mixed provision of service,
 Local, regional, or global orientation,
 Ownership of infrastructure (including port land),
 Ownership of superstructure and equipment (particularly
ship-to-shore handling equipment, sheds, and warehouses),
 Status of dock labor and management
Service and tool ports mainly focus on the realization
of public interests. Landlord ports have a mixed character
and aim to strike a balance between public (port authority)
and private (port industry) interests. Fully privatized ports
focus on private (shareholder) interests,

Globalization of Terminal Operations
Port authorities are increasingly confronted with the
globalization of terminal operations. During the 1990s, a
number of terminal operators and major shipping lines merged
to invest in and take control of a large number of terminals
all over the world.
This trend has far reaching consequences for the
strategic position of port management in relation to some of
their major clients. This trend toward globalization has
affected mainly containerized operations.
Today, a handful of major carrier alliances and
independent terminal operators increasingly dominate the
major global container trades. The global carriers have
sought to secure their competitive positions by concluding
long-term contracts for dedicated container terminals in
major, strategically located ports.

Their reasoning is that they believe they need to
control all stages of the transport chain to remain
competitive. These efforts to establish integrated transport
chains pose a challenge for port authorities in their
relations with the larger carriers.
For example, how should a port respond if a large
container operator demands to operate a dedicated terminal
and threatens to leave the port when it does not get its way?
It should be emphasized that full control of the
transport and logistics chain by one consortium (a global
monopolist) is not a desirable development.
Because of regulatory measures by the United States and
the EU, the complexity of the transport and logistics chain,
and the number of players, a carrier stability to control of
the full chain seems like an illusion. However, some
alliances may attain a significant degree of market
dominance.

The container shipping market is still much
commoditized compared to other industries (energy, rail, and
the like) with global market shares of the largest carrier
not exceeding 35 percent (2019). However, the carrier
industry, as well as the terminal operator industry, is
moving toward greater consolidation and larger global players
and operators are emerging.
Competition between major carriers is intense. The
scale of investment in a new generation of container vessels
represents a massive commitment.
To fill these vessels, the carriers try to secure local
control and coordination over inland cargo haulage and feeder
operations. In this way, they try to secure their market
share and meet perceived service needs. Port handling charges
are considered as being of secondary importance in achieving
these goals.

Relationships between ports and carriers fall into four
broad categories;
 First are ports that face strong interport competition in
the container handling sector. Container lines may easily
shift operations to other ports if their financial and
operational demands are not met. To attract major container
lines, the port authority may offer them dedicated facilities
while other, smaller lines are accommodated at common user
terminals. Without such dedicated facilities, major lines
could move to other competing ports. Examples of this
category are the Ports of Yokohama and Long Beach.
 Second are ports that derive the bulk of their business
from a major container line, and therefore, are dominated by
this client. If the dominant line were to abandon the port,
80&90 percent of the traffic could be lost. Examples of such
ports are Algeciras and Salalah,

 Third are ports where, although no single shipping line
may dominate the port�s traffic volume, there is a
possibility for that line to pressure the port authority
into accepting a dedicated terminal because of competition
for transit traffic in the larger region. An example of this
type of port is Miami, which is a hub for the Caribbean and
Central and South America. Competitors include Kingston
(Jamaica) and Freeport (The Bahamas). As the competitive
positions of these ports improve, carriers may increase
pressure on Miami to grant dedicated terminals.

 Fourth are major world ports such as Shanghai, Singapore,
Ningbo-Zhoushan, and Shenzhen. Such ports have a very well-
developed container sector. Initially, these ports resisted
pressures from shipping lines to accept dedicated terminals.
However in Rotterdam, the large Europe Container Terminal
(ECT) has been acquired by Unlisted public limited company,
Shareholders of the Port of Rotterdam Authority: Municipality
of Rotterdam (approx 70%) and the Dutch government (approx
30%). Also The Port of Rotterdam Authority’s turnover is
approximately €710 million. In Antwerp, developments are
similar and The port is owned and managed by the Antwerp Port
Authority. The management committee of the authority operates
the port facilities under the control of the regional port
commissioner. The terminals are operated by various private
companies, including DP World and PSA Antwerp.

Major Marine Terminal Operators
Worldwide in 2019

PSA’s portfolio of terminals worldwide handled a
throughput of 81.0 million Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEUs)
in 2018, an increase of 9.1% from the previous year. Our
flagship PSA Singapore contributed 36.3 million TEUs (+8.9%) and
our terminals outside Singapore achieved 44.7 million TEUs
(+9.3%). The Group’s revenue and net profit reached S$4.09
billion and S$1.20 billion respectively

The Group operates a variety of
businesses in over 50 countries
across the world with over
300,000 employees. CK Hutchison
is among the largest companies
listed on the main board of The
Hong Kong Stock Exchange, with a
portfolio which consists of five
core businesses – ports and
related services, retail,
infrastructure, energy and
telecommunications. The Group
reports turnover of approximately
HK$439 billion for the year ended
31 December 2019.
In 2019, Hutchison Ports handled
a combined throughput of 86.0
million twenty-foot equivalent
units (TEU).

As at 31 December 2019, CSP operated and managed 290 berths
at 36 ports worldwide, of which 197 were for containers,
with a combined annual handling capacity of 113 million
TEU.
2019 Full-year Results Highlight
Revenue rose by 2.7% to US$1,027.7 million
Gross profit reduced by 7.1% to US$272.7 million
Share of profits from joint ventures and associates
reduced by 8.5% to US$267.5 million
Excluding one-off gain from QPI transactions last year
and impact from the New Lease Standard :
Adjusted net profit rose by 8.1% to US$350.9 million
Declared a total dividend of US$3.928 cents per share

GPH operates 21 ports in 13 countries and continues
to grow steadily. GPH provides services for 14
million passengers reaching a market share of 24% in
the Mediterranean annually. The group also offers
commercial port operations which specialize in
container, bulk and general cargo handling.

PORT USER
As outlined in the Canada Marine Act, a "user" of a
port is defined as a person (including a partnership, an
association, a body corporate or an individual) who makes
commercial use of, or provides services at the Port.

HARBOUR
MASTER
PORT
MANAGEMEN
T
CARGO
HANDLING
OPR.
TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY
SHIPPER &
SHIPOWNER &
CHARTERER
INDUSTRIAL COMPANY
(OWNER of the PORT
SHIPPING LINES
(CONTAINER, BULK,
OIL)
PORT USERS
PILOTAGE & TOWAGE
TUG ASS.&MOORING &
UNMOORING, SHIFTING
FREIGHT FORWARDER &
AGENCIES & BROKERS
SERVICE PROVIDERS
STEVEDOREs, SHIP
SUPPLY COMPANIES,
BUNKER COMPANIES,
SHIP MAIN. AND
REPAIRING,
RECEPTION FACILITIES
DREDGING, ICE-
BREAKING, WARE HOUSE
OPERATOR, RAILWAY
COMPANIES, LOGISTIC
SER. PROVIDERS,
TRUCKING COMPANIES

Port Community System (PCS) or an electronic platform
that connects the multiple systems operated by a variety of
stakeholders that comprise a port, or Gateway, community. As
defined by Capgemini a Port Community System is “an entity
delivering information to supply chains operating in the port.

Port Community System (PCS)
The PCS is responsible for: data supply, data control,
data distribution and data conversion”. A variety of Port
Community Systems has been developed throughout the world, and
may be separated into first and second-generation community
systems.
 A first generation PCS transfers messages related to
transportation through a network. It exchanges messages
(information-exchange systems) and therefore has the mailbox-
principle,
 A second generation PCS, or Centralized Information System,
structures messages through management systems. Upon gaining
access to the database through a password, users may send,
receive and extract information as they require, and as they
are given access through logical rules,
 Future generations of PCS may extend to linking port
community platforms on a more global basis,

The purpose of a PCS is to “coordinate the activity of
firms in the port's landside transport network (which
encompasses the transport of containers between the port and
a place in the hinterland and vice versa) and to integrate
the information being exchanged between various port agents.”
Each stakeholder within each sector sends information
to a central system, and other stakeholders may retrieve the
information they are, through logical rules, permitted to
see. Alternately, the system may send salient information to
stakeholders in their preferred format.

These specific applications can be part of the system:
Vessel call management: A carrier is able to issue a berth
and anchorage request and to receive an authorization from
the terminal operator. The firms involved in port services,
such as pilotage, towage and mooring can also receive a
service request at the same time. Simultaneously, related
public authorities are notified, such as the port authority,
customs and the port police.
Container handling management: Carriers (such as shipping
companies or trucking firms) can interact with respective
terminal operators through a standard interface, removing the
issue of dealing with different terminal information systems.
The cargo manifest is simultaneously provided to the carrier
and the terminal operator as well as to regulatory agencies
such as customs and the port authority. This enables an
automatic cross-referencing with customs, clearing the cargo
for import or export much faster.

Gate management: Electronic management of inbound and
outbound movements at the terminal gate, which dominantly
concern freight forwarders, shipping lines, trucking firms
and terminal operators. It is possible to cover all the
inland logistical operations, such as transport contracts,
release orders and admittance orders, with a single
electronic document. If the e-document is provided in
advance, often by 24 hours, then all the processes can be
pre-cleared, leaving only the physical movement of pick up or
delivery to take place. This improves the throughput of
existing gates, often more than doubling their capacity,
without new infrastructures except automatic gate processing
equipment.

Security and control: Strategies to automate the authorized
and secure usage of the facilities, including access to
cargo. A particular approach leans on the optical character
recognition of license plates and container identification
numbers. Real time observation can be cross-checked with
bills of lading with discrepancies, which are subject to
manual verification. This can also include other scanning
devices such as radiation detection or RFID. Again, this
results in a better usage of existing assets and at the same
time it improves security procedures.
Tracking: All of the above enables through IT integration the
tracking of container loads throughout the port community,
from the moment they have been unloaded from a containership,
while they are clearing the terminal gate or when they have
been delivered. This permits a better level of supply chain
management and asset utilization within the port community.

In summary, a PCS would:
 Develop and Implement standards and protocols for processes
and messages with the community,
 Systematically capture the salient information from
stakeholders. Avoiding the requirement to re-enter data limits
errors and processing costs,
 Centralize community information,
 Provide transparency and real-time, or near real time,
information to facilitate tracking and tracing of goods, and
reveal inefficiencies,

Source:
 EFFECTS OF PROLONGED PORT PRIVATIZATION PROCESS: A CASE
STUDY OF PORT OF IZMIR ALSANCAK, ISMAIL BILGE CETIN, GOKOÇAY
BALCI, SONER ESMER
 https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3348,
 Ownership and Management of Port Administration, Yi-Chih
Yang, Associate Professor, Department of Shipping and
Transportation Management, National Kaoshiung Marine
University
 PORT ADMINISTRATION: PUBLIC VS PRIVATE SECTOR, John
Lethbridge and Zvi Ra'anan
 TÜRKİYE’DE LİMAN ÖZELLEŞTİRMELERİ İSKENDERUN LİMAN ÖRNEĞİ
Alpaslan ATEŞ, Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi, Barbaros
Hayrettin Denizcilik Fakültesi,
 https://www.yilport.com/en/
 www.globalpsa.com
 COSCO SHIPPING Ports Limited

Port administration&ownership&management

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Port administration&ownership&management

Similar to Port administration&ownership&management (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)