The East Container Terminal (ECT) has come into the limelight again.
Last week, a strike was ongoing by trade unions demanding to install gantry cranes, which were ordered a few years ago and which are now in the Colombo Port, at the ECT.
This was followed up with the Cabinet Spokesperson stating that it was “allowing the respective line Minister to conduct discussions at a diplomatic level on changing (the) Colombo Port Terminal deal with India and Japan”, according to Hellenic Shipping News Worldwide.
Subsequently, the Gantry Cranes were permitted to be unloaded and installed on the instructions of Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and the port workers decided to call off their strike on Thursday (2).
The fact of the matter is that the ECT is one absolute failure in terms of “getting things done”. Sri Lanka has been running it continuously and like many other economic issues, we have failed at getting our act together. This is despite being located at the heart of a strategic maritime route. Rather than taking advantage and converting the ECT to an operational level, we have lost a reasonable amount of credibility in the business world by opening the ECT for bidding and cancelling the bidding process on multiple occasions, thereby creating years of operational delays based on political favours. We hope, at least this time, Sri Lanka will be able to convert shop talk into actionable outcomes.
Understanding the shipping business
The shipping business is a technical subject and is very complicated. Ports are strategic geographical locations which are situated at the edge of oceans, seas, rivers, or lakes. These locations are then developed to provide facilities for the loading and unloading of cargo ships. The facilities provided for a port depends on the purpose for which the port is being used. A terminal refers to the set of facilities at a port where the loading and unloading of the cargo/container takes place. Terminals are named on the basis of the type of cargo that can be handled by it. Some of the most common types of terminals are container terminals, bulk cargo terminals, and LNG (liquefied natural gas) terminals.
Simply put, in one port, there are multiple terminals and the Port of Colombo has a few container terminals (CICT – Colombo International Container Terminal, JCT – Jaya Container Terminal, SAGT – South Asia Gateway Terminal, and UCT – Unity Container Terminal).
Global trade and most merchandise exports and imports account for a greater share of container terminals. The main factor that drives this business is efficiency and the networking ability to bring as many vessels as possible to the respective terminal. Simply put, when a ship enters the port/terminal how fast we can handle the containers and cargo (efficiency) and how networked we are to bring more vessels into the terminal are the two main determinants of making the business profitable.
Like most businesses, the price or the cost is a key determinant. To be profitable and bring the price down, over the years, shipping vessels have advanced to a point where there is capacity of more than 10,000 TEUs (20-foot equivalent units) in one vessel and those models (New Panamax – 12,500 TEUs | Triple E – 18,000 TEUs) have become popular with the development of global trade. These gigantic vessels can only be managed by deepwater ports which have a depth of more than 18 metres.
What’s all the fuss about the ECT?
There are two deepwater ports in the Colombo Port. One is CICT (85% owned by the China Merchant Port Holdings [for a period of 35 years, starting in 2013] and 15% by the Sri Lanka Ports Authority [SLPA] [owned by the Government]), which contributes to a higher share of the capacity and efficiency of the Colombo Port. The other deepwater terminal is the ECT. This is why the level of interest in this port is very high.
Geopolitical rivalries China, Japan, and India continue to seek operational ownership of the ECT through companies of their respective countries. The JCT (owned by the SLPA), SAGT (owned by John Keells Holdings – 42% , Mearsk – 26%, SLPA – 15%, A.P. Moller – 7%, Evergreen – 5%, and other investors – 5%), and UCT (owned by SLPA) are all shallow water port terminals which can only handle smaller vessels (not economical compared to larger vessels) with about 10,000 TEUs capacity.
The ECT’s value is very high as it’s the only other deepwater terminal in the Port of Colombo except for CICT. As an additional benefit, it is located in the middle of the old port and the modern port, providing an added advantage for the movement of inter-terminal cargo, given its proximity to other terminals.
[caption id="attachment_91054" align="alignleft" width="300"]
The ECT is located in the middle of the old port and the modern port providing an added advantage for the movement of inter-terminal cargo, given its proximity to other terminals[/caption]
Despite the ECT having significant strategic value, consecutive governments have been just sitting on this, calling for bids and cancelling them, while competition is increasing every day – notably, the new Sagarala port development initiative by India, the construction of the Enayam Port in nearby Tamil Nadu, and also the Kerala Port, which is soon to be the world’s deepest multipurpose port.
With the agreement with SAGT due to expire in 2030 and with India developing their ports, the ECT has become a vital business asset as never before. Another deepwater port terminal operator adjacent to CICT will create more competition. However, the networking and other variables will matter to whoever gets the bid for the ECT.
At the same time, with the growth of global trade (not considering the effects of Covid-19) the Colombo Port is nearing full capacity of handling containers. The Port of Colombo moved to the top position of the Fastest Growing Port Index in the first half of 2018 by industry analyst Alphaliner and is one of the most connected ports in the entire world, handling about seven million TEUs in total. It is vital that the ECT is developed to maintain this growth.
Despite being situated in the centre of the Indian Ocean, and even though we are one of the most connected ports in the world, we are far from becoming a maritime hub. The root cause lies in our inability to be competitive and inadequacy to provide ancillary services such as logistics, bunkering, marine lubricants, freshwater supply, offshore supplies and ship chandelling, warehousing, and many more.
Our rules, regulations, and legal structures on the ownership of some shipping-related services and excessive government intervention, with the government acting as a player in the market and a regulator at the same time, has closed the space for private investment which could propel the Colombo Port to becoming a key global player.
Most experts have become weary of speaking about the same issues, while the opportunity of becoming a maritime hub in the Indian Ocean is slipping out of our hands.
Since the shipping business is based on efficiency and networking, the ECT has to be operated by a private operator and the Government should play a regulatory role and facilitate businesses by being the landlord of the port. This must be done while keeping the ownership of the port rather than trying to engage in the business and be a container terminal operator. Container terminal operation requires sizable capital investments. Private investments, which take the risk for the capital they invest, is the only possible way to create the right incentive structure and create the drive for efficiency and a very competitive business model.
Selecting a good terminal operator
After going back and forth, the previous Government signed a Memorandum of Co-operation (MoC) between Sri Lanka, India, and Japan. According to media reports, the current Government expects to discuss changes to the initial agreement, claiming that the previous deal was unfavourable for the country, and move to a new agreement.
At the same time, the SLPA unions claim that gantry cranes worth $ 25.7 million have been purchased for the development of the ECT, but concerns have been raised over the specifications of the cranes.
We really don’t know the truth
However, His Excellency the President, who received 6.9 million votes for a system change, should explore a method to select a proper operator. Undoubtedly, rather than handpicking operators based on introductions given by individuals, it has to be on a competitive bidding process, based on cost and pricing to ensure the competitiveness of the port with proper specifications. That’s the best system we can employ to find the most suited operator in a price-competitive industry.
Generally, Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) agreements are provided with long tax holidays and the taxpayer has to be protected and prioritised as it is the people who gave the mandate for a system change.
At the same time, when the existing terminal operators bid for the project, their existing capacities and advantages need to be reflected in their pricing, investment, and proposal structure. The system change expected by the taxpayer in this case is to set up a system to ensure accountability and that things get done, while getting the maximum benefit to the port and by establishing a level playing field for businesses and investors.
In countries like Sri Lanka where discussions revolve around high-value government transactions, there is a higher risk of such projects being influenced by many powerful businessmen and bureaucrats, leading to irregularities and corruption.
The President and the Government now have an opportunity to prove such assumptions wrong and set a prime example of how such a high-level transaction can be transparently managed. A single transaction with a conflict of interest can make a regime unpopular faster than anyone can expect. The Central Bank Bond irregularity is the most recent example.
On the verge of a crucial election and with the prospect of forming a fresh government, we hope Sri Lanka would move forward instead of dragging its feet on the ECT by ensuring and implementing a competitive bidding process (which will help avoid most of the geopolitical pressures) without getting sandwiched in between two global economic powers vying for regional dominance.
(Dhananath Fernando is the Chief Operating Officer of the Advocata Institute and can be contacted at dhananath@advocata.org [learn more about Advocata’s work at www.advocata.org. The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute] and Shanaka Paththinigama has served as an Assistant Government Ship Surveyor [Navigation] for the Ministry of Port and Shipping [Colombo], a Navigation Officer for Mitsui OSK Lines [Tokyo/Hong Kong], an Assistant Designated Person Ashore [Coastal Fleet – Colombo/Hambantota], a maritime business development advisor, and a Maritime Strategic Research Fellow, and he holds a COC Navigation [SL], MBA [UK], and MSc [CN])
Simply put, in one port, there are multiple terminals and the Port of Colombo has a few container terminals (CICT – Colombo International Container Terminal, JCT – Jaya Container Terminal, SAGT – South Asia Gateway Terminal, and UCT – Unity Container Terminal).
Global trade and most merchandise exports and imports account for a greater share of container terminals. The main factor that drives this business is efficiency and the networking ability to bring as many vessels as possible to the respective terminal. Simply put, when a ship enters the port/terminal how fast we can handle the containers and cargo (efficiency) and how networked we are to bring more vessels into the terminal are the two main determinants of making the business profitable.
Like most businesses, the price or the cost is a key determinant. To be profitable and bring the price down, over the years, shipping vessels have advanced to a point where there is capacity of more than 10,000 TEUs (20-foot equivalent units) in one vessel and those models (New Panamax – 12,500 TEUs | Triple E – 18,000 TEUs) have become popular with the development of global trade. These gigantic vessels can only be managed by deepwater ports which have a depth of more than 18 metres.
What’s all the fuss about the ECT?
There are two deepwater ports in the Colombo Port. One is CICT (85% owned by the China Merchant Port Holdings [for a period of 35 years, starting in 2013] and 15% by the Sri Lanka Ports Authority [SLPA] [owned by the Government]), which contributes to a higher share of the capacity and efficiency of the Colombo Port. The other deepwater terminal is the ECT. This is why the level of interest in this port is very high.
Geopolitical rivalries China, Japan, and India continue to seek operational ownership of the ECT through companies of their respective countries. The JCT (owned by the SLPA), SAGT (owned by John Keells Holdings – 42% , Mearsk – 26%, SLPA – 15%, A.P. Moller – 7%, Evergreen – 5%, and other investors – 5%), and UCT (owned by SLPA) are all shallow water port terminals which can only handle smaller vessels (not economical compared to larger vessels) with about 10,000 TEUs capacity.
The ECT’s value is very high as it’s the only other deepwater terminal in the Port of Colombo except for CICT. As an additional benefit, it is located in the middle of the old port and the modern port, providing an added advantage for the movement of inter-terminal cargo, given its proximity to other terminals.
[caption id="attachment_91054" align="alignleft" width="300"] The ECT is located in the middle of the old port and the modern port providing an added advantage for the movement of inter-terminal cargo, given its proximity to other terminals[/caption]
Despite the ECT having significant strategic value, consecutive governments have been just sitting on this, calling for bids and cancelling them, while competition is increasing every day – notably, the new Sagarala port development initiative by India, the construction of the Enayam Port in nearby Tamil Nadu, and also the Kerala Port, which is soon to be the world’s deepest multipurpose port.
With the agreement with SAGT due to expire in 2030 and with India developing their ports, the ECT has become a vital business asset as never before. Another deepwater port terminal operator adjacent to CICT will create more competition. However, the networking and other variables will matter to whoever gets the bid for the ECT.
At the same time, with the growth of global trade (not considering the effects of Covid-19) the Colombo Port is nearing full capacity of handling containers. The Port of Colombo moved to the top position of the Fastest Growing Port Index in the first half of 2018 by industry analyst Alphaliner and is one of the most connected ports in the entire world, handling about seven million TEUs in total. It is vital that the ECT is developed to maintain this growth.
Despite being situated in the centre of the Indian Ocean, and even though we are one of the most connected ports in the world, we are far from becoming a maritime hub. The root cause lies in our inability to be competitive and inadequacy to provide ancillary services such as logistics, bunkering, marine lubricants, freshwater supply, offshore supplies and ship chandelling, warehousing, and many more.
Our rules, regulations, and legal structures on the ownership of some shipping-related services and excessive government intervention, with the government acting as a player in the market and a regulator at the same time, has closed the space for private investment which could propel the Colombo Port to becoming a key global player.
Most experts have become weary of speaking about the same issues, while the opportunity of becoming a maritime hub in the Indian Ocean is slipping out of our hands.
Since the shipping business is based on efficiency and networking, the ECT has to be operated by a private operator and the Government should play a regulatory role and facilitate businesses by being the landlord of the port. This must be done while keeping the ownership of the port rather than trying to engage in the business and be a container terminal operator. Container terminal operation requires sizable capital investments. Private investments, which take the risk for the capital they invest, is the only possible way to create the right incentive structure and create the drive for efficiency and a very competitive business model.
Selecting a good terminal operator
After going back and forth, the previous Government signed a Memorandum of Co-operation (MoC) between Sri Lanka, India, and Japan. According to media reports, the current Government expects to discuss changes to the initial agreement, claiming that the previous deal was unfavourable for the country, and move to a new agreement.
At the same time, the SLPA unions claim that gantry cranes worth $ 25.7 million have been purchased for the development of the ECT, but concerns have been raised over the specifications of the cranes.
We really don’t know the truth
However, His Excellency the President, who received 6.9 million votes for a system change, should explore a method to select a proper operator. Undoubtedly, rather than handpicking operators based on introductions given by individuals, it has to be on a competitive bidding process, based on cost and pricing to ensure the competitiveness of the port with proper specifications. That’s the best system we can employ to find the most suited operator in a price-competitive industry.
Generally, Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) agreements are provided with long tax holidays and the taxpayer has to be protected and prioritised as it is the people who gave the mandate for a system change.
At the same time, when the existing terminal operators bid for the project, their existing capacities and advantages need to be reflected in their pricing, investment, and proposal structure. The system change expected by the taxpayer in this case is to set up a system to ensure accountability and that things get done, while getting the maximum benefit to the port and by establishing a level playing field for businesses and investors.
In countries like Sri Lanka where discussions revolve around high-value government transactions, there is a higher risk of such projects being influenced by many powerful businessmen and bureaucrats, leading to irregularities and corruption.
The President and the Government now have an opportunity to prove such assumptions wrong and set a prime example of how such a high-level transaction can be transparently managed. A single transaction with a conflict of interest can make a regime unpopular faster than anyone can expect. The Central Bank Bond irregularity is the most recent example.
On the verge of a crucial election and with the prospect of forming a fresh government, we hope Sri Lanka would move forward instead of dragging its feet on the ECT by ensuring and implementing a competitive bidding process (which will help avoid most of the geopolitical pressures) without getting sandwiched in between two global economic powers vying for regional dominance.
(Dhananath Fernando is the Chief Operating Officer of the Advocata Institute and can be contacted at dhananath@advocata.org [learn more about Advocata’s work at www.advocata.org. The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute] and Shanaka Paththinigama has served as an Assistant Government Ship Surveyor [Navigation] for the Ministry of Port and Shipping [Colombo], a Navigation Officer for Mitsui OSK Lines [Tokyo/Hong Kong], an Assistant Designated Person Ashore [Coastal Fleet – Colombo/Hambantota], a maritime business development advisor, and a Maritime Strategic Research Fellow, and he holds a COC Navigation [SL], MBA [UK], and MSc [CN])