Sri Lanka's Maritime Hub Vision: An Analysis of Potentially Supportive Factors

1. Sri Lanka's Maritime Hub Vision: An Analysis
of Potentially Supportive Factors
Lalith Edirisinghe
T. Lalithasiri Gunaruwan

2. Preface
• Sri Lanka(SL)’s geo-positioning is very strategic
• The industry looks promising but SL’s position
in World Port Ranking (Containers) shows
2008-27 >>>> 2011-29 (Source: American Association of Ports
Authorities)

3. The need to examine the
“Potentially Supportive Factors”
• Port ranking is based on No. of Containers
handled thus No. of Ships and their
frequencies allocated by Shipping Lines
• Attractiveness by Shipping lines for Sri Lanka
has not grown in par with other ports in the
region
• Thus the key factor is the “Attractiveness’ of a
port of for ships

4. Primary Objevtive
• To identify the most influential factors and
how Colombo Port’s position would be viewed
by the shipping lines in relation to those
determinants

5. Other Objectives
• Studying the current situation of the Colombo Port and its
evolution,
• Understanding the factors that may support Sri Lanka
developing as a regional naval hub,
• Appraising those factors in their order of importance in view
of understanding as to what extent such factors would
influence success in a competitive environment and help
sustain the competitive edge for SL,
• Recommend as to how those vital and critical factors could be
stimulated by way of implementing an appropriate policy
framework.

6. Methodology
1. "Stated Preference” methodology to identify
the important criteria which could make a
seaport a maritime hub.
2. 21 factors that influence shipping lines to call
at a Port were identified based on
exploratory study
3. 40 respondents associated with 20 out of the
top 25 Top shipping companies of the world
(Source: www.alphaliner.com- World Container shipping ranking)

7. Methodology cont.
4. The information were gathered, categorised,
grouped and presented in tabular and
graphical form
5. Average rank assigned to each factor, and the
percentage of respondents assigning such
rank, were used as indices in the
comparative analysis
6.Figured out what among those high priority
attributes that Sri Lanka could develop

8. Ten most important elements out of 21 factors
Factor Nature Percentage Responded
as 1st
Priority
among first 5
priorities
Transhipment volume potential of the Port Transhipment network 82% 100%
Availability of on-arrival berthing (window) Port
efficiency/capacity
9% 91%
Domestic volume potential of the Port Domestic Demand 9% 82%
Operational productivity (Gantry moves per hour) Port
efficiency/capacity
0% 82%
Deviation time from main sea route Geographic location 0% 36%
Time taken to berth/unberth ships Port
efficiency/capacity
0% 36%
Feeder network availability to cover all
destinations/origins
Transhipment network 0% 27%
Frequency of feeders Transhipment network 0% 18%
Port handling/stevedoring costs Port Charges / costs 0% 18%
Port navigational costs Port Charges / costs 0% 0%

9. Relative Importance of Factor Categories as assigned by at least
50% of the respondents
Factor Category Number
of
Factors
Ranked as
1st
Priority
Ranked
among top
5
Ranked
among top
10
Transhipment Network 3 33% 33% 100%
Domestic Demand 1 100% 100%
Port Capacity /Efficiency 6 33% 50%
Geographic Location Advantage 1 100%
Port Charges/costs 7 43%
Availability of Competitive
Supplies
3
21

10. Conclusion and Policy Recommendations
1. Geo-positioning advantage alone could not pull Sri
Lanka to develop herself as a maritime hub
2. Emphasis should be given to other revealed
determinants, particularly the port efficiency and
capacity related factors
– Sri Lanka, already developing infrastructure capacity
– Should focus on improving efficiency of port operations
• On-arrival berthing window,
• Improved Gantry moves per hour,
• Faster berthing/unberthing of ships

11. 3. “Cost related factors“ viewed much lower by the
shipping lines. Thus mere "cheap service" would not
matter anymore, but "quality and efficacy" also are
important.
4. Policies should be geared up so that
– Existing shipping lines would further improve capacity
served at Sri Lankan Ports
– The services of lost customers would be reinstated
– New markets which are ‘potential, yet untouched’ would
be penetrated through provision of attractive/efficient
services
Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

12. 4. Promote the “snow ball” effect of attracting
more shipping lines, and encouraging more
feeders through better linked mainline
operations, and thereby further expanding the
“hub-and-spoke” Network
Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

13. References
alphaliner.com, 2013. Alphaliner - TOP 100. [Online] Available at:
http://www.alphaliner.com/top100/
[Accessed 07 06 2013].
Boxall, P. C. et al., 1996. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental
valuation.
Ecological Economics 18 (1996) , 18(921), pp. 243-253.
CASA Performance Review, 2012. Circular to Members No. 19/2013 24th January 2013, s.l.:
CASA.
JOC, 2012. THE JOURNAL OF COMMERCE. [Online]
Available at: http://www.joc.com/sites/default/files/u48783/pdf/Top50-container-
2012.pdf
[Accessed 15 August 2013].
Ratnayake, J. and Wijeratne, A. W., 2012. Second Container port in Sri lanka: Hambantota or
Trincomalee: an analysis using the game theory'. Int. J.Logistics Systems and
Management,
13(3), pp. 358-378.
UNCTAD , 2012. Review of Maritime Transport 2012, New York & Geneva: Unted Nations
Conference on Trade and Development.