Benchmarking South African Ports: container and · PDF fileBenchmarking South African Ports:...

Benchmarking South African Ports: container and automotive terminals

2014/15

Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page ii

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Approach ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Determining the sample ......................................................................................................... 2

1.3. Limitations............................................................................................................................... 5

1.4. Sample ports ........................................................................................................................... 6

2. Container benchmarking: global trends with container traffic ...... 8

2.1. Container terminals .............................................................................................................. 11

2.2. Container throughput ........................................................................................................... 13

2.3. TEUs per hectare ................................................................................................................... 16

2.4. Throughput per metre of berth ............................................................................................ 19

2.5. Throughput per crane ........................................................................................................... 21

2.6. Summary ............................................................................................................................... 25

3. Automotive/ Ro-ro terminals ..................................................................... 27

3.1. Ro-ro throughput and berth productivity ............................................................................. 27

3.2. Summary ............................................................................................................................... 31

4. Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 31

5. Bibliography ..................................................................................................... 32

Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Determining benchmark sample ports .................................................................................... 4

Figure 2: World container throughput growth 2008 - 2013 ................................................................... 8

Figure 3: Annual container throughput – TEUs of selected countries (2008 – 2013) ............................ 9

Figure 4: TEU throughput per annum (2010) ........................................................................................ 13

Figure 5: Global TEU throughput by terminal vs Cumulative Average Growth Rate (CAGR) ............... 14

Figure 6: Total container terminal area (ha)(2010) ............................................................................. 16

Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page iii

Figure 7: TEUs per hectare per annum ................................................................................................. 17

Figure 8: Correlation between throughput and terminal area ............................................................. 18

Figure 9: Throughput per terminal area (similar sized ports) ............................................................... 19

Figure 10: TEUs per running metre of berth ......................................................................................... 20

Figure 11: Crane per metre of berth ..................................................................................................... 22

Figure 12: TEUs per crane per annum .................................................................................................. 23

Figure 13: TEUs per crane per working year ......................................................................................... 24

Figure 14: Anticipated vessel cascading and depiction of vessel size increases .................................. 25

Figure 15: Summary of SA terminal's performance against sample and global average ..................... 26

Figure 16: Ro-ro terminal annual throughput....................................................................................... 28

Figure 17: Ro-ro terminals berth length (m) ......................................................................................... 29

Figure 18: Units per running metre of berth ........................................................................................ 30

Table 1: Most frequent next and last port of call for container vessels at South African ports (2013). 6

Table 2: Most frequent next and last port of call for Ro-Ro vessels calling at SA terminals, 2013/14 ... 7

Table 3: Benchmark sample ports containers and automotive/Ro-Ro ................................................... 7

Table 4: Country TEUs as proportion of world total (2008 – 2013) ........................................................ 9

Table 5: Sample container terminals and input variables (2010) ......................................................... 12

Table 6: Overall statistics on input variables (2010) ............................................................................. 15

Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 1

1. Introduction

Benchmarking is a tool that assists in measuring comparative operating performance and identifies

best practices that can be adopted in improving terminal service levels. In addition to the annual

Global Port Pricing Comparator study in which the Ports Regulator benchmarks prices, the Regulator

has embarked on studies to benchmark South African port terminal performance relative to other

global ports. This report on container and ro-ro terminals reflects the start of what is planned to be a

systematic process of benchmarking South African marine terminals and marine services. It focuses

on key performance metrics of annual throughput, throughput per hectare (yard productivity),

throughput per metre of berth, throughput per crane for container terminals as well as throughput

per berth length at automotive terminals.

The report is intended to stimulate discussion and to generate inputs and comments from the port

community on the reported comparative performance as the Regulator defines a research and

benchmarking programme that will ultimately contribute to improved terminal operations. With the

knowledge gained through the study, the Regulator strives to set a shared agenda for the

enhancement of South African port performance, especially that relate to infrastructure, industry,

port users in their various categories, and government.

The Regulator, whilst aware and cognisant of the performance monitoring initiatives of the Port

Consultative Committees (PCC) and the National Ports Authority’s terminal, marine, road and road

haulier’s operator performance standards processes, has excluded these in this first benchmarking

report.

1.1. Approach

Globally terminals vary in their layout, physical endowments (human, system, and equipment),

markets and commercial activities, linkages with hinterlands and global trading routes, etc. which in

turn affect their performance. The approach in this benchmarking exercise entailed the

identification of terminals against which South African port terminal performance could be

compared, focusing in particular on:

SA terminal performance in the context of global trade, trends and throughput handled at

container and automotive terminals;


Comparisons of terminal performance based on terminal productivity measures i.e.

throughput; throughput per terminal area; throughput per metre of quay and/or per

terminal equipment.

Performance measures for marine and other services in the port is expected to be included

in the next iteration of the report.

The benchmark is based on analysis of secondary and publicly available data on all of the terminals

with the main data sources for global ports being the following:

Containerisation International: Top 100 Container ports: 2012 – 2014 annual publications.

United Nation’s Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Review of Maritime

Transport. 2012 – 2014 Annual Publications.

Journal of Commerce (JOC) White Paper on Port Productivity: 2012 – 2013.

Port publications with port facts and figures as well as websites for specific ports.

This report represents the start of a longer term benchmarking process by the Regulator on the

performance of South African terminals to be up scaled and enhanced with inputs form the wider

port industry and community.

1.2. Determining the sample

Various approaches can be followed in identifying comparable ports for South African terminals

ranging from identifying terminals in South Africa’s trading partner countries and blocks (Brazil,

Russia, India, China and South Africa -BRICS); in developing countries similar to South Africa in terms

of economic growth rates or in the same trade routes of vessels calling in South African ports; or by

typology of the port based on its role i.e. Gateway, Hub or Transshipment ports; or all. A

combination of these will frame PRSA benchmarking. The sample for this report was determined by

availability of comparable secondary data for containers and automotive terminals.

Standardisation that has happened through the containerisation of cargo and container handling

allows for easier comparisons across container port terminals that are not homogeneous (they each

differ in terms of physical attributes, sizes, level of resourcing with regard to superstructure and

operating systems etc.). In the automotive sector, the development of auto carriers that allows for

vehicles to roll-on and roll-off (Ro-ro) terminals and establishment of dedicated terminals with the

requisite parking and handling facilities also allows for comparisons to be made.


In contrast the range of commodities that makes up the broad categorisation of dry bulk, break bulk

and liquid bulk categories and their different cargo handling methods means that it is not possible to

have homogeneity at the level of cargo type as a unit of measure. Port and terminal publications

generally specify the main type of commodities handled at their dry, break and liquid bulk facilities

and the mix will differ from port to port for the same cargo type. As an example, the 2014 Facts and

Figures for Port of Antwerp breaks down dry bulk for the Ports of Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Hamburg,

Antwerp etc. into fertilisers, ore, sand, gravel and minerals, coal, grain and seeds as well as others.

The Review of Maritime Transport, UNCTAD publication classifies major dry bulks into steel

production and consumption, iron ore shipment, coal shipment, bauxite/alumina and phosphate

rock. Minor dry bulk includes metals and minerals (cement, nickel ore, anthracite, forest and steel

products, agribulks such as sugar and oilseed) as well as containerised dry cargo.

The wide range of commodities and cargo handling methods in this category therefore requires that

comparisons be done at a commodity handling level e.g. iron ore, coal, grains or crude oil terminals.

A scan of the UNCTAD Maritime Transport Review reveals some trends that will help inform, though

not exclusively, future samples. The majority of dry bulk is exported from South Africa, following

Australia and Brazil as the main exporters of ores, with countries such as Liberia and Sierra Leone

also emerging as exporters of ores. Mozambique and Ghana are set to significantly increase their

exports of dry bulk. China, India, Europe and Japan are the main importers of ores. The players in

coal involve similar countries as other ores and include Germany, Korea, the United Kingdom, the

United States, Russia Mongolia and Indonesia, which would need to be considered in benchmarking

dry-bulk terminals. Similar analysis towards identifying countries and specific terminals will inform

the samples for the other sub-categories and bulks.

Often published terminal and throughput information for these terminals is generally aggregated at

cargo type and it is almost never available at the granular level that is required to ascribe

performance to specific commodity handling terminals unless primary data collection is done on

those terminals. Future PRSA benchmarking exercises will seek to confirm the commodity types, as

well as comparator ports, for South African dry, liquid and break bulk terminals.

The ports included in the PRSA sample for container and automotive terminals were determined by

balancing availability of terminal and performance information, with the need to include ports that

are comparable to South African ports and those that reflect best practices or performance amongst

peer terminals. The sample was arrived at through a combination of these approaches, tempered by


availability of data. Figure 1 reflects the process undertaken to identify comparable ports for South

African terminals, which was to identify ports visited by vessels that call at South African ports for

the same cargo handling type.

Figure 1: Determining benchmark sample ports

The first step was to identify the most frequent next and last ports of call per cargo type from the

vessel tracking system (VTS) data for the most recent year (2013/14). In this way local ports are

compared with ports that are most relevent as they fall on the same shipping route as South African

ports.

In line with the categorisation of terminal by cargo type, the reasons for vessel call should be

captured as ‘container’, ‘dry bulk’, ‘breakbulk’, ‘ro-ro’ and ‘liquid bulk’ depending on what is being

loaded or unloaded at the port. This is however not always the case. The VTS information had to be

‘cleaned’ to address the challenges relating to uniformity in the data within and across the ports and

terminals. For example, where one port captures the reason for the vessel call as ‘container’ or

‘working’ (Port of Cape Town); another would simply capture ‘loading’ or ‘unloading’ under their

reason for call (Port of Saldanha). The ‘general cargo’ category includes both bulk and breakbulk,

making them indistinguishable from each other.

The second step was to conduct a desktop search for comparative port performance data for the

ports identified. As highlighted previously, container terminal information is generally better

recorded in various studies and on websites and therefore could be captured. Data availability was

limited for automotive terminals. Port authority’s annual reports, brochures and other data sources

capture annual throughput and some capacity statistics for automotive but very few published port

performance statistics. Even fewer ports publish both throughput data and capacity data together


(both are required for productivity calculations). In very limited cases, this information was sourced

directly from the ports or terminals. The bulk of information sourced was then through desktop

research. In future, within resource limitiations, primary data gathering with shipping lines, agents

and terminals to collect and/or verify the data will be considered to improve the sample.

1.3. Limitations

It is important, therefore, to reiterate the context for reading this report. Firstly, the study solely

relies on publicly available and comparable information. For container terminals, comparable

physical characteristics data was obtainable for the year 2010; therefore, the base year used is 2010,

unless indicated otherwise.

Accordingly, there would be developments in some of the ports which have not been reflected or

captured in the report for the simple reason that this could not be determined for all terminals after

2010 e.g. purchase of additional cranes or widening of berths, etc. We are aware of some trends in

the procurement of Ship To Shore (STS) quay cranes in the intervening years which may have been

additional to already existing cranes or replacement of old equipment.

The Port Equipment Manufacturers Association (PEMA) annual ship-to-shore crane survey reports

and annual yard equipment survey reports – both in their 3rd year - provides a preview into some

trends on terminal operator’s purchases of ship to shore cranes and other yard equipment. In 2012,

the Durban Container Terminal acquired 7 new cranes to replace old equipment whilst terminals in

China procured the most number of cranes (49) in the same year. Secondly, since the study relied on

publicly available information, some of the port infrastructure information is not made publicly

available which limited comparable ports in our study. A third limitation relates to the financial

constraints that impacted on our ability to purchase data-sets from commonly used international

publications, in particular the JOC Group’s port productivity data. However, the published White

Paper was used in drawing comparisons on port productivity, even though methodological nuances

and approaches may have differed.

Sample ports


Table 1 summarises the last port of call for the most frequent vessels that called at South African

container terminals, based on vessel tracking data for each of the designated container terminals in

the South African system i.e. Ports of Durban, Ngqurha, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town.

Table 1: Most frequent next and last port of call for container vessels at South African ports (2013).

Last port of call Country No. of calls to SA ports

Next port of call Country No. of calls

Singapore Singapore 202 Singapore Singapore 143

Kelang Malaysia 158 Port Louis Mauritius 80

Port Louis Mauritius 144 Pointe noire Canada 70

Santos- sp Brazil 116 Port Kelang Malaysia 60

Las Palmas Spain 72 Lome Togo 51

Luanda Angola 63 Santos Brazil 45

Jebel Ali UAE 55 Las Palmas Spain 44

Walvis bay Namibia 53 Walvis Bay Namibia 36

Cotonou Benin 47 Abbot Point Australia 34

Abidjan Ivory Coast 41 Lagos Nigeria 31

Freeport Bahamas 38 Algeciras Spain 28

Beira Maputo 38 Luanda Angola 27

Toamasina Madagascar 38 New York USA 24

Colombo Sri Lanka 32 Rotterdam Netherlands 23

Maputo Mozambique 29 Newark USA 21

Source: VTS/CMR data for 7 largest SA ports, 2013/14

The combination of last and next port of calls above reflects a mix of ports including those ranked in

the Top 100 Container Terminals globally (Singapore, Rotterdam, Kelang, Jebel Ali, New York,

Colombo, Algeciras, Santos, Las Palamas, and Freeport); and those in the west and east African

coast thus in the same market as SA terminals (Luanda, Abidjan, Cotonou, Walvis Bay, Beira,

Maputo, Lome and Nigeria). Out of these ports, comparable throughput, terminal area, berth

length, and number of cranes was obtainable for 16 ports for 2010 and they comprise the sample

together with the Ports of Durban, Ngqurha, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town (see Table 3). The last

and next ports of call for Roll On-Roll Off (Ro-Ro) vessels are captured in Table 2.

Table 2: Most frequent next and last port of call for Ro-Ro vessels calling at SA terminals, 2013/14

Ro-ro last port Country No. of calls Ro-ro next port Country No. of calls

Maputo Mozambique 56 Maputo Mozambique 63

Singapore Singapore 53 Luanda Angola 61


Ro-ro last port Country No. of calls Ro-ro next port Country No. of calls

Southampton UK 40 Fremantle Australia 56

Walvis bay Namibia 32 East London SA 52

India India 30 Singapore Singapore 39

Dar-es-salaam Tanzania 18 Vigo Spain 17

Mombasa Kenya 17 Dar-es-Salaam Tanzania 15

Tagier Morocco 17 Reunion France 10

Tamatave Madagascar 11 India India 7

Zarate Argentina 10 Melbourne Australia 6

Santander Spain 10 Santos Brazil 6

Spain Spain 10 Spain Spain 6

Lagos Nigeria 8 Australia Australia 6 Source: VTS/CMR data for 7 largest SA ports 2013/14

Comparable data for Ro-Ro terminals was obtainable for 2013 for 7 of the abovementioned ports

(these are captured in table 3 below). The ports of Mombasa in Kenya and Walvis Bay in Namibia are

still to develop dedicated Ro-Ro terminals. Their throughput is handled at either a container or

multipurpose terminal. Whilst the Port of Tin Can in Nigeria has a 2 berth, 450m berth facility with a

depth of 11.5m at the Tin Can complex, throughput data for this facility is not readily available. The

Port of Dar Es Salaam in Tanzania has 7 general cargo berths which also handle Ro-Ro’s. Tanzania

has plans for a new Port of Bagamoyo, which will have a dedicated ro-ro terminal. Given these

considerations, the sample ports are summarised in Table 3.

Table 3: Benchmark sample ports containers and automotive/Ro-Ro

Container ports/ terminals Automotive terminals/ ports

Barcelona Rotterdam Singapore

Genoa Valencia Le Havre

Kelang Hamburg Southampton

Gioia Tauro Santos London Gateway

Bahia De Algeciras Bremerhaven/Bremen Barcelona

Le Havre St. Petersburg Bremhaven

New York Jawaharlal Nehru Valencia

Antwerp Shanghai


2. Container benchmarking: global trends with container traffic

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) puts world TEU throughput at

651 099 413 Twenty Foot Equivalent Units (TEU) in 2013, up from 516 255 115 in 2008, which gives a

Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 6%, as reflected in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: World container throughput growth 2008 - 2013

Source: UNCTAD (2014)

China and the United States account for the most significant portion of global throughput as well as

growth rate even though the USA’s growth rate over time has reduced and is below that of China.

Overall, about 24 countries accounted for between 77 and 79 per cent of global container

throughput during this period. Figure 3 reflects each country’s TEU total and also groups them by

size, from those countries handling more than 20million TEUs per annum, to those handling

between 10 and 19 million TEUs and below.


Figure 3: Annual container throughput – TEUs of selected countries (2008 – 2013)

Source: UNCTAD Trade Statistics http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx

China, the USA, and Singapore have led growth, with a throughput of around 30million TEUs and

above each since 2008. They are followed by Korea, Hong Kong and Malaysia which each have an

annual throughput of between 19million and 30million TEUs. The next 10 countries’ annual TEUs for

the same period were in excess of 5 million TEUs but less than 10million. Together with Sri Lanka and

Russia, South African terminal’s TEU throughput is below 5 million TEUs per annum, putting it at the

bottom of the scale. Table 4 provides the proportion of country throughput in relation to the global

figure.

Table 4: Country TEUs as proportion of world total (2008 – 2013) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

World (TEUs) 516 255 115 472 273 661 540 816 751 587 484 148 616 675 181 651 099 413

China 22% 23% 24% 25% 26% 27%

USA 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 7%

Singapore 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Korea 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 3%

HK 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3%

Malaysia 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

Japan 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

Germany 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

Taiwan 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx


2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Spain 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Italy 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Netherlands 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Indonesia 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Belgium 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

India 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Brazil 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2%

UK 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1%

Australia 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Egypt 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Saudi Arabia 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

France 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

South Africa 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Sri Lanka 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Russia 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Compiled from UNCTAD Trade Statistics http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx

Notably, whilst the throughput for China has been rising since 2008 at a cumulative average growth

rate of 8%, both Singapore and the USA’s share of TEUs marginally reduced from the 2008 TEU

figures, with both shedding a per cent in 2011 and 2010 respectively. Korea, Hong Kong, Japan,

together with Malaysia and Germany, account individually for 3 per cent of world TEU throughput in

2013. These country’s throughputs and terminal performance define the context and environment

that other terminals must compete, including South African container terminals. South African

container terminal’s share of global TEUs has not risen above 1 per cent since 2008 and the same

holds for Australia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, France, Sri Lanka and Russia; whilst the United Kingdom only

joined the rank of countries whose TEUs are only 1 per cent of global throughput when its share

changed from 2 per cent in 2012.

The operating environment for container terminals across regions and countries has been marked by

uneven performance in global economic growth reflected in overall declining growth in TEU

throughput. Containerisation 100 (Lloyds List 2014: 03) reports that since the ‘90’s world trade has

tended to grow at twice the rate of GDP and world seaborne trade volumes expanded at 3.8 per

cent to 9.6 billion tons in 2013 led by developing countries. Between 2012 and 2013 economic

growth shifted away from developing countries to the advanced economies. The aftermath of the

2008 financial crisis has been characterised by China’s positive growth and expansion, albeit at a

slower rate; Indian and Russian Federation’s economies contraction between 2012 and 2013, and a

USA slow down.

http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx


There are challenges with infrastructure and logistics performance even with the positive ranking in

the Logistics Performance Index (LPI). South Africa ranks 34th out of 160, this is after Malaysia, China,

Turkey and Hungary in the top 10 upper middle income country performers on the 2014 index.

South Africa’s ranking slips to number 38 when considering reliability of logistics infrastructure,

rebounding to 24th on quality of logistics and competence. In the upper middle income performing

country category South Africa is with Malaysia, China and other countries whose main concern are

with quality of logistics services, pointing to a need for improvements. The group of countries in the

container benchmark sample includes both upper middle income countries with partial performers

on infrastructure and logistics as well as logistics friendly countries. Port performance is significant in

the ability of countries’ ports and terminals to attract traffic which is the primary objective of

terminals, including South African terminals.

Against this background we look at the South African container terminals performance in relation to

the sample identified above and highlight areas where they have/ are performing well, where

improvements can be made, or best practices identified against which operations and performance

can benefit.

2.1. Container terminals

Benchmarking container terminals was done by assessing berth, yard, and crane productivity for

South African terminals against that of a group of similar and larger capacity terminals based on

reported/published annual throughput as well as available and common input data obtainable for

the ports in a particular year. Analysis covers the following areas:

Throughput (TEU) per hectare/terminal area: which is a measure of how productively a

yard or terminal is used;

Throughput (TEU) per running metre of berth/quay (berth and quay are used

interchangeably in this report): which shows how productively the berth/quay wall is being

used (the whole length of quay used regardless of cargo handling area);

Throughput (TEU) per crane: the productivity of each crane. (The types of crane and

operational capability considerations were excluded from methodology); and

Berth length/crane: shows the density in relation to placement of cranes along the

berth/quay wall – the higher the distance in metres, the lower the crane density.


Terminal area, berth length and number of cranes per port were obtainable for sample ports for the

year 2010, hence the use of 2010 throughput data from Lloyd’s list. Recent studies (see Merk: 2014)

that relied on similar information also have 2010 as a baseline year due to sensitivities around

publication of some of the metric information, where terminals prefer rather to provide such

information once off for specific purposes. Table 5 details the features of container terminals in the

sample.

Table 5: Sample container terminals and input variables (2010) 2013 Rank

2010 Rank

Port name Country Throughput (2010)

Total area (ha)

Total berth length (m)

No. of cranes

1 1 Shanghai China 29 069 000 308 11 307 397

11 10 Rotterdam Netherlands 11 145 804 685 16 125 118

13 13 Kelang Malaysia 8 870 000 207 6079 26

16 14 Antwerp Belgium 8 468 475 765 13 120 93

15 15 Hamburg Germany 7 900 000 593 9148 76

26 20 New York USA 5 292 020 523 8182 49

23 23 Bremerhaven /Bremen

Germany 4 871 297 264 5260 51

33 30 Jawaharlal Nehru India 4 279 744 142 1992 34

31 26 Valencia Spain 4 206 937 148 4453 36

44 40 Gioia Tauro Italy 2 851 261 130 3155 16

30 42 Bahia De Algeciras

Spain 2 810 242 111 5594 30

54 43 Durban South Africa 2 762 023 185 2578 22

38 45 Santos Brazil 2 715 600 65 1870 16

59 52 Le Havre France 2 400 000 224 6405 37

77 63 Barcelona Spain 1 945 735 105 4498 17

57 64 St-Petersburg Russia 1 928 238 126 2393 24

72 69 Genoa Italy 1 758 858 469 9520 36

Unranked Cape Town South Africa 686 672 69 1 151 8

Ngqura South Africa 413 996 77 720 10

Port of Elizabeth South Africa 333 596 36 635 5

Average 5 235 475 262 5 079 55

Source: Amended from Lloyd’s List, 2010 and 2013.

The table highlights how, over time, some ports have retained their place in the ranking (Shanghai,

Kelang, Hamburg and Bremerhaven). Notably, the Port of Durban slid 11 places from position 43 in

2010 to position 54 in 2013 purely on the basis of a decline in the volumes handled relative to the

performance of other ports in retaining and attracting volumes. In contrast, the Port of St.

Petersburg (Russia) moved 7 places from 64 to 57 and the Port of Santos (Brazil) moved 7 places up

from 45 to 38 during the same period.


In the next sections we consider the performance of container terminals in the sample ports and we

assess South African terminal performance in relation to the three measures generally used as proxy

for port productivity i.e. TEUs per hectare (indicator of yard productivity), TEUs per metre of berth

(yard productivity) and TEUs per crane, starting with container throughput.

2.2. Container throughput

Including the Port of Shanghai which holds the pole position in Containerisation 100 for handling the

most number of TEUs per annum, the average throughput per year (in 2010) is 5,2m TEUs. The

annual TEU throughput for South African terminals (Durban, Cape Town, Ngqurha and Port

Elizabeth) are all below the average, including those of Container 100 peer ports of Jawaharlal Nehru

(India), Santos (Brazil) and St. Petersburg (Russia), South Africa’s BRIC partner ports.

Figure 4: TEU throughput per annum (2010)

Source: Amended from Container 100, 2010

Based on annual throughput the sample ports are categorised as follows:

Ports comparable to the Port of Durban: Handling under 3million TEUs per annum - Ports of

Gioia Tauro, Bahia De Algeciras, Santos, Le Havre, Barcelona, St. Petersburg and Genoa.


Large ports: Ports that handled double the TEUs for Durban - Ports of Bremerhaven/Bremen

and New York

Super large ports: The biggest terminals that handled more than four times Durban’s

throughput.

Container traffic growth per terminal has not been even. Some terminals have gained significant

traffic whilst others have seen significant declines in their container volumes during the period.

Notably, the Port of Ngqurha has had the highest growth rate at 78%. This growth reflects consistent

growth in container traffic that has happened at the port since the terminal was commissioned and

is off a low base of about 71 000 TEUs in 2009. By 2013 the terminal was handling 712 000 TEUs.

Figure 5: Global TEU throughput by terminal vs Cumulative Average Growth Rate (CAGR)

8%5%

9%4% 7%

5%

6%

1%

4%2%

10%

1%

11%

3%

-9%

17%

7% 4%

78%

-2%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

0

5000000

10000000

15000000

20000000

25000000

30000000

35000000

40000000

CA

GR

TEU

s p

er

ann

um

TEUs and cumulative average growth rates 2009 - 2013

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 CAGR

The top 15 container terminals collectively recorded growth rates of between 4 per cent and 9 per

cent. Double digit growth rates were recorded by the Ports of Algeciras (Spain), Santos (Brazil) and

St. Petersburg (Russia). With the exclusion of the Port of Ngqura, all the South African terminals have

not attracted significantly more traffic in 2013 than was the case in 2009. Whilst the port of Cape

Town grew at 4 per cent, the port of Durban only increased its throughput by 2 per cent over the

period. The Port of Port Elizabeth registered negative growth rate at -2 per cent. Whether this trend

will keep on the current trajectory is central to the country’s port terminal expansion programme


which aims to provide capacity ahead of demand. Container capacity expansion seemed more

pronounced pre-2008 with growth at double-digit rates, and is somewhat subdued in the depressed

economic climate.

From their survey of over 100 terminals in 2013, Drewry reports the following average global

performance which, together with our calculated averages, provides a reference point for global

benchmarks, notwithstanding the limitation of our sample size in relation to the global population.

In addition to size of terminal, port performance is also influenced by average vessels sizes calling at

terminals, the number and types of cranes deployed and operating systems in the ports. The

assessment does not include the type of cranes due to lack of complete information for each

terminal on these and other yard equipment which would allow for a comprehensive assessment. It

is also taken as a given that terminal operators or authorities, driven by the need to optimise their

resources, would make the optimum decision on the right type of cranes and yard equipment.

Table 6 provides overall statistics in the sample for terminal area, berth length and number of

cranes.

Table 6: Overall statistics on input variables (2010)

Throughput Terminal area (ha) Total berth length(m) No of cranes

Average 5 235 475 262 5 079 55

Minimum 333 565 36 635 05

Maximum 29 069 000 765 16 125 397

As reflected in the table, there are vast differences between the minimum and maximum

throughput, terminal area, berth length and cranes across the terminals. The Port of Rotterdam had

the longest berth length in the sample, whilst the Port of Shanghai had both the maximum

throughput and the maximum number of cranes in the system. The Port of Antwerp with 765

Global container terminals, key asset performance metrics (2013)

Performance measure Global average

Teu per metre of quay p.a. 1,072

Teu per hectare p.a. 24,791

Teu per gantry crane p.a. 123,489

Source: Drewry’s Container Terminal Capacity and Performance Benchmarks


hectares has the largest terminal area, whilst the Port of Port Elizabeth accounts for the minimum

yard space or terminal area, berth length as well as number of cranes.

2.3. TEUs per hectare

The number of TEUs per terminal area is a measure of yard productivity, indicating how intensely the

yard infrastructure is used in processing the throughput. It also indicates the capacity that a terminal

has to store boxes upon loading or unloading as well as for transhipment. A busy port with a large

terminal area can arguably, with the right systems and equipment, not only handle more containers

but will have sufficient storage space. This is significant where terminals all over the globe are

positioning themselves to handle relatively bigger vessels in their trade routes, requiring efficient

handling by road and rail within the terminal areas.

Figure 6: Total container terminal area (ha)(2010)

The average terminal size is 262 hectares. South African terminals are in a cluster of terminals whose

terminal area is below the average. This includes Le Havre, Santos, Algeciras, Valencia, Jawaharlal


Nehru, St. Petersburg, Algeciras, and Barcelona. The bigger ports by size include the ports with the

most throughput with the exception of the Port of Genoa.

Next the amount of TEUs per terminal area in each of the terminals was examined as reflected in

Figure 7 below. As reported above, the 2013 global (population) average throughput per terminal

area is 24 791 TEUs per hectare per annum (Drewry: 2014). In relation to that average, at 22 344

TEUs per hectare, the sample average is slightly below. The busiest terminal was the Port of

Shanghai where 94 380 TEUs were handled per hectare in a year. The least number of TEUs per

hectare was recorded for the Port of Genoa (Italy).

Figure 7: TEUs per hectare per annum

All four South African container terminal annual throughput per annum was below the sample

average.


Figure 8: Correlation between throughput and terminal area

It is clear from Figure 8 above that there is a relatively strong positive relationship between

terminal area on the one hand and throughput on the other. Whilst this is a generally accepted

fact it does little to provide insight in the optimum combination or ratio of these two variables. It

is however interesting to note in the figure above that all the South African ports are

significantly below the trend line (with the exception of Durban that is on the trend line),

indicating a much lower throughput/area ratio. As a matter of fact, the South African ports

occupy the three lowest ratios of the sample, with Durban the 11th smallest. The weak

throughput/area ratios exhibited by the South African ports (graphically represented by being

significantly below the trend line indicated a sub optimal use of available terminal area. This

could however not only be ascribed to operational inefficiencies, but market share (this may be

seen as available volumes) must also be taken into consideration in explaining the low

productivity indicator.

When the South African ports are compared to ports of a similar size the effect becomes more

prominent with even the port of Durban significantly below the trend line. As can be seen in

figure 2 below the ports of Goioia Tauro, Santos and Algeciras for example has similar levels of

throughput compared to Durban, but their terminal are is significantly smaller. Conversely, the

ports of Nehru and Valencia recorded much higher levels of throughput, with a similar terminal


area available. Durban does however compare favourably with the port of Le Havre and

St. Petersburg.

Figure 9: Throughput per terminal area (similar sized ports)

2.4. Throughput per metre of berth

Berth productivity is one indicator of terminal efficiency alongside cargo handling equipment, yard

productivity, rail and/or road operations, operational systems and labour. Global maritime trends of

increasing vessel sizes requires better performance on berth productivity, as well as land and rail

connections, for mega vessels to have shorter stays at berth and cargo to be moved as quickly as

possible from the terminals.


Figure 10: TEUs per running metre of berth

The above graph shows the number of TEUs moved per running metre of quay in a year (2010). This

is informed by the length of quay wall servicing container vessels in each of the ports and the

throughput handled in a year. The average throughput per running metre of quay was 916 TEUs per

annum. The Port of Shanghai is doing exceptionally well, relative to the others, in their quay

productivity, moving 2 973 TEU per running metre of quay, whilst the least number of TEUs per

metre of quay (185) was recorded at the Port of Genoa.

At 1 072 TEUs per metre in a year, the Port of Durban performed above the sample average with the

Ports of Ngqurha, Cape Town and Port Elizabeth annual TEUs per metre below the average.

Notwithstanding, the three SA terminal’s berth productivity was above that of Algeciras (Spain),

Barcelona (Spain), Le Havre (France) and Genoa (Italy).

Early in 2000, in a study that benchmarked container terminals in Northern America, Beckett

Rankine Partnership (2003) suggested industry standard of 850 TEUs per metre per year for

European Ports, and 550TEUs per metre per year for American ports, whilst noting that 1500 TEUs

per metre per annum was already attained at the Port of Hong Kong. Most recently “Drewry

Container Terminal Capacity and Performance Benchmarks” (2014) puts the global average at 1 071


TEUs per metre of berth. This means that the Port of Durban at 1 072 TEUs per metre in 2010, is on

par with the current global population average.

As reported by the Journal of Commerce (2014), before the advent of 8000 to 18 000 TEU vessels,

many berths could accommodate 3 ships of 274m each, today the 9500TEU vessels take up about

730 metres of space, effectively reducing the number of ships, leading to congestion and ultimately

requiring faster turnaround. Instead of being able to handle three smaller vessels, a port will only be

able to take two which does not necessarily translate into higher volumes of cargo thus reducing

productivity. At the same time, in order for vessels not to stay too long at a port, additional

resources (cranes and labour) are required. North American terminals are reported to work two

eight hour shifts each day to turn a 5000 TEU vessel in 2,5 days.

2.5. Throughput per crane

With cranes representing very high capital investment and outlays after quay walls, terminal areas,

turning basins and breakwaters, there is an even more pronounced focus on their productive and

effective use in a terminal. The type and numbers of cranes per berths are important in determining

how fast a vessel can be worked. Generally crane efficiency can reduce vessel turnaround time,

increase overall terminal productivity and throughput.

Port planning and operations focuses, amongst others, on optimal scheduling of cranes in a berth

taking into account the operational realities of quay cranes i.e. crane movement and range is

restricted by the fact they operate on rail lines alongside the quay. They cannot cross over each

other making the location of a vessel, its container stowage plan and the location of other cranes an

important consideration. The following three graphs show the number of cranes per metre of berth,

and the throughput per crane per year and working year.


Figure 11: Crane per metre of berth

Figure 11 above illustrates the number of metres of berth length per crane and provides a sense of

location of the cranes on the berths. On average there is one crane per 144 metres of berth in the

sample with the higher the number reflecting a longer piece of berth worked by each crane in a year.

The Port of Shanghai was the most densely populated with a crane less than every 30 metres against

the sample average of 144m. Accordingly, its cranes work over smaller portions of the berth length.

In contrast, the Port of Barcelona reportedly had 4 498 metres of berth and 17 cranes which is

reflected by the longest berth metres covered per crane. The Port of Cape Town with 8 cranes over

1 151 metres of berth operates at the average of the sample, with the Port of Port Elizabeth, Durban

and then Ngqura at shorter distances and improved densities.

Further analysis that factor in vessel number and sizes will provide a greater sense of the

productivity levels of the cranes. The Journal of Commerce (2013) White Paper on port productivity,

notes trends and changes in optimal number of cranes per vessel with the changing vessel sizes. In

Northern American ports, vessels smaller than 8000 TEU could be serviced with four cranes, and 6

cranes would be allocated to 8000TEU vessels whilst 7 – 8 cranes are deployed on 14 000 TEU

vessels, with the bigger vessels requiring not only additional cranes but additional shifts as well.


Figure 12: TEUs per crane per annum

Figure 12 above illustrates the TEUs per crane per annum, showing the average TEUs moved in a

year for each crane by port. Although the type of cranes were not determined, it should be noted

that the Drewry results for the global population was 123 000 TEUs per crane per year. The above

figure depicts an average of 110 678 TEUs moved in a year per crane for the sample. The maximum

number of cranes in the sample ports was 397 with the minimum number of 5 cranes in a terminal.

With a handling of 341 153 TEUs per crane in a year, the Port of Kelang had the most productive use

of its cranes. Of the South African ports, the Port of Durban was the most productive, not only

operating above the average, but also more productive than 8 other ports which ranked higher than

Durban on throughput including Valencia, Barcelona, Rotterdam, Algeciras and Antwerp.

The Port of Cape Town’s TEU throughput was lower than the average. However, its throughput per

crane per annum is higher than that of larger ports such as St. Petersburg, Shanghai, Le Havre and

Genoa. In comparison, the Port of Santos had even fewer cranes but their utilisation is high and

above the average which could talk to the type of cranes used by the port. The Port of Port

Elizabeth’s 5 cranes were handling 66 719 TEUs in a year, just slightly lower that Shanghai’s. This is

indicative of low productivity of the cranes when compared to the sample. In the long run, the type


of cranes will need to be looked at to relate productivity levels to the types of cranes. For example,

the largest container ships operating now require cranes that have a 21 -22 box outreach and

deployment of, at the least, 3 – 5 cranes per vessel. These are typically tandem lift cranes capable of

loading/unloading up to four boxes at a time.

To the number of TEUs per crane, the reported total operational hours of a terminal was factored to

calculate TEUs per crane per working year which is reflected in Figure 13. This measure controls for

annual throughput variations which accounts for the higher number of TEUs per crane per annum

above.

Figure 13: TEUs per crane per working year

Again the Port of Durban results are above the average and ahead of the same terminals as before.

The Port of Cape Town’s performance is close to the average. It could be investigated whether the

number of cranes per metre of berth had any effect.

Assuming the same ship working time, the more cranes deployed per metre must reflect more

throughput handled by a terminal, where if the same throughput is achieved with fewer cranes per

metre, this may indicate a longer working time. This would be addressed by looking at ship

turnaround time or TEU per ship working time, for which comparable information was not available.

Overall, across the three productivity measures and reported performance, it should be noted that

the global trends towards larger vessels will have an effect on South African terminal performance


requiring them to improve and perform better, even where they are reported to at least be

performing as well as the average. Although the South African terminals are outside the major trade

routes where the Ultra Large Container Vessels are deployed, as reported by Drewry, there is a

cascading effect which means that there is significant up-scaling on vessels sizes to South African

ports.

Figure 14: Anticipated vessel cascading and depiction of vessel size increases

Source: Davidson, N. Presentation on the Global effects of ship sizes development and liner alliance on port planning and productivity, Drewry Maritime Research. April 2014.

2.6. Summary

The Ports of Santos, Giaigo Tauro, and J. Nehru may be the best case studies from which to learn.

They consistently were above the average and the Port of Durban’s performance in the sample. They

were also the only ports that had fewer cranes than SA ports but they are amongst the top two

productive ports in the sample. The Port of Santos had the lowest terminal area but is amongst the

top four productive ports in the sample.

South African container terminals demonstrated variable performance in relation to the sample and

global averages. Though further analysis taking into account factors not considered in this report is


important and has been highlighted, the emerging picture is one the overall trends suggests a basis

from which South African ports can achieve even better performance and efficiencies.

On terminal area for container terminals:

Durban Container Terminals, Cape Town Container Terminals, Ngqura Container Terminal

and Port of Port Elizabeth are in the cluster of small terminals with an average area of less

than 300 hectares.

The throughput per hectare is also below average and suggests that there is capacity for

further growth through more productive and efficient use of available terminal area.

On throughput per metre of berth:

The Durban Container Terminals performed above the sample average and in line with the

global average as published by Drewry.

The Cape Town Container Terminal, Ngqura and Port of Port Elizabeth, although below the

averages, demonstrated more productive use of berth handling more TEUs per metre of

berth than the terminals in ports of Algeciras, Barcelona and Genoa.

The overall summary is provided in Figure 15 below.

Figure 15: Summary of SA terminal's performance against sample and global average

SA Container terminal/port sample

TEUs per hectare per annum

TEUs per metre berth per annum

TEUs per crane per working year

Drewry Global Port averages 24 791 1 072 123 489

Port sample averages 22 344 916 110 678

Durban Below sample and population average (14 930)

Above sample and population average (1 071)

Above sample and population (125 547)

Cape Town Below sample and population (9 952)

Below sample and population average (597)

Below sample and population average (85 834)

Port Elizabeth Below sample and population (9 2670)



Ngqurha Below sample and population (5 377)




3. Automotive/ Ro-ro terminals

Available and comparable data for Automotive/Ro-Ro terminals obtained includes number of berths

and berth length in metres as well as throughput units per annum per terminal for eight ports, in

addition to the three South African Ro-ro terminals (Durban, Port Elizabeth and East London). This

section therefore is limited to total throughput and throughput per metre of berth. Future

benchmarking will assess, amongst others, the following productivity measures based on throughput

and terminal capacity:

Vehicle units per terminal area (m2/ha);

Vehicle units per quay length (m);

Vehicle units per storage space (square metres or ha);

Vehicle units per parking space (number of parking bays).

These measures taken individually are not a reflection of the productivity of the whole port. For

example, a port with large capacity may under-utilise its parking or storage space, that does not

mean it is an inefficient or under productive port but rather that the utilisation of its parking area is

under-productive. Below is an assessment of throughput, and throughput in relation to berth length

for the sample ports.

3.1. Ro-ro throughput and berth productivity

Automotive volumes are subjected to global economic growth trends and production decisions of

Automakers. Literature suggests that the proximity of vehicle processing centers to terminals or

ports seem to benefit ports, as will effective road and rail linkages where processing centers are

located further than the terminals.

In

Figure 16 the largest volumes of vehicles were handled in the Ports of Bremhaven and Singapore

respectively with the lowest number of units handled at the South African Port of East London.

Notably, Germany is a leader in motor and motor components manufacturing globally and Singapore

is a big transhipment centre in Asia for Europe and most other trade routes. The Port of Bremhaven

handled almost forty times the units handled at the Port of East London and four times that handled

by the Durban ro-ro terminal in 2013, signifying the relative market positions of the ports.


Figure 16: Ro-ro terminal annual throughput

The Port of Durban’s Ro-ro terminals annual throughput on the other hand is higher than that of

Valencia, Le Havre and St. Peterburg which is a significant indicator of the relative share of the

market given the position that the three ports hold in the global seaborn trade and their proximity to

markets. For example, as reported in the Fact and Figures Handbook Port of Bremen and Le Havre

are both part of the Hamburg – Le Havre range where facilities such as the Freight Village are

available to ensure significant value addition to happen at the port within a reasonable range of the

port aimed at, ultimately attracting automotive makers to export, import and tranship through this

ports.

The port of Bremen/ Bremerhaven complex has logistics centers for automobile industry where

parts are packed and shipped to destinations all over the world, with the primary destinations being

South Africa, North and South America and some Asian countries. Bremerhaven Autoterminal

(comprising Haiserhafen II and III, Hodrhafen, Osthafen) became an import hub for Europe when

their production plants relocated to the USA. Vehicles are also transshipped at Bremerhaven. The

Port of Portland which is not part of the sample due to missing data, also demonstrates how linkages


with upstream and down stream services contributes to increased volumes, although are not the

only factor in volume growth.

In comparison, the South African terminals either serve particular Automakers (Mercedes Benz in

the Port of East London and Volkswagen in the Port of Port Elizabeth) or as with Durban they are

supported through the Department of Trade and Industry’s Automotive sector’s development

programme (APDP) which incentivises manufacturing even in the economic centre of Gauteng, thus

the transportation of vehicles from as far away as Roslyn, over 600kms away from Durban.

Figure 17: Ro-ro terminals berth length (m)

Figure 14 illustrates that the average berth length in the sample is 1 498metres and all three South

African terminal sizes are below this average, although for Durban Ro-ro terminal this is by a small

margin at 1 149 metres. The Port of East London’s berth length is not only larger than that of the

Port of Port Elizabeth but also Port of Southampton and double that of St. Petersburg, each of which

respectively handled 1 224% and 328% more units per annum than the Port of East London.

The graph below compares South African terminal’s berth productivity with the rest of the sampled

terminals.


Figure 18: Units per running metre of berth

This data represents the productivity of the berth on the assumption that the entire berth length is

used for vehicle loading/offloading operations. From Figure 17 the Port of Singapore has 100m less

berth length than the Port of Durban and yet moves more than double the volume of vehicles and

therefore shows more than double the productivity of Durban in the graph. The Port of East

London’s throughput is relatively less than that in other ports even though the berth length is more

than that of the Port of Port Elizabeth. This shows low berth productivity levels at this terminal and

can be attributed to the lower units handled per annum.

In turn the Port of Port Elizabeth’s Ro-ro berth with a throughput of 389 units per metre of berth per

annum is more productive than that of Le Harve, Valencia and London Gateway whose throughputs

are less per metre of berth. Taking the total number of berths into account still puts the Port of Port

Elizabeth in the lead. This seems to confirm that ambitions of the port to develop as a Premium

Automotive port in the Southern Hemisphere. Further assessments relating to efficient use of

facilities were not possible due to lack of comparable information on terminal area, parking space

and storage available to all the terminals.


From the limited information it can be said that the Port of East London has the capacity to handle

significantly more automotives than is the case currently. With similar berth space, the Port of

Southampton is handling 1 344 units per metre of berth or 672 units per berth compared to the Port

of East London’s 101 and 50 in the two graphs respectively. There is arguably more capacity on the

South African Ro-Ro terminal that can be optimised to handle more throughput in the foreseeable

future. Thus strategies to retain current traffic and attract more traffic to the South African Ro-Ro

terminals are critical.

3.2. Summary

On automotive/ro-ro terminals

The sample size and information available only provides very generalised trends based on

throughput and berth productivity.

Relative to performance of the terminals, South African Ro-ro terminals have opportunities

for more throughput to be achieved within existing facilities.

Models and strategies to attract more activity upstream and downstream of the automotive

supply chain may increase the throughput and optimise the use of the ro-ro terminals.

4. Conclusions

South African terminal performance looked at through the lens of productivity measures registers

variable results against the global sample as determined. This first benchmarking report provides a

sense of the performance of South African terminals in relation to global terminals and has allowed

for the process of collating performance data for local as well as international terminals, a process

which will be enhanced in the Regulator’s ongoing research and monitoring of port data and

performance going forward.

The Regulator will engage with the authority and port industry players to take the benchmarking

process forward, including expanding this brief report to include terminal performance on measures

related to marine services, berth productivity in relation to vessels, as well as optimal and efficient

use of infrastructure. With the value of benchmarking lying in comparisons of like with like as well as

identification of best practices which, with adjustments and contextualisation, can be emulated to

improve performance, common ground will be established on amongst others the sampling frame


and sample ports as well as definitions, norms for ship working hour, crane throughput per annum

etc. and measures for gate and rail operations.


5. Bibliography

1. Aykagan A.K. (2008). Berth and quay crane scheduling: problems, models and solution methods.

Thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirement for Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Industrial

and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of technology.

https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/26652/ak_aykagan_200812_phd.pdf

2. Davidson, N (2014). Presentation on the Global effects of ship sizes development and liner

alliance on port planning and productivity. Presentation to the IAPH Mid- Term Conference: Port

Planning and Investment, Drewry Maritime Research.

http://iaphsydney2014.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/30581/IAPH_Port_Planning_and_Inve

stment_-_Neil_Davidson_Drewry.pdf

3. Spendolini, (1982) in Beckett Rankine (2003) The benchmarking book. American Management

Association, NY. 1982 quoted in Beckett Rankine Partnership: 2003. Benchmarking container

terminal. Rotterdam. Speaker’s notes.

4. Merk, O & T. Notteboom (2013). The Competitiveness of Global Port Cities: the Case of

Rotterdam, Amsterdam the Netherlands. OECD Regional Development Working Papers. OECD

Publishing.

5. Containerisation International: TOP 100 Container Ports 2009, Informa plc. 2009




9. Review of Maritime Transport: UNCTAD/RMT/2012



12. African Development Bank: African Development Report 2010. Oxford University Press, New

York.

13. Annual Report and Port Handbooks:

a. Port of Rotterdam, Port Statistics, 2010 – 2012.

b. Port of London Handbook 2013

c. Port of Valencia Annual Report 2013

d. Port of Portland, Marine Facilities

https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/26652/ak_aykagan_200812_phd.pdf

http://iaphsydney2014.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/30581/IAPH_Port_Planning_and_Investment_-_Neil_Davidson_Drewry.pdf

http://iaphsydney2014.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/30581/IAPH_Port_Planning_and_Investment_-_Neil_Davidson_Drewry.pdf


e. Port of Antwerp. 2014 Fact and figures.

f. Ports Handbook, Bremen/Bremerhaven 2013/14.

Websites:

14. www.drewry.co.uk/publications/view_publications.php?id=425

15. www.globaltragemag.com/port_manatee_pasha_partner-to-expand-auto-terminal Accessed 5/5/2014

16. www.automotivelogisticsmagazine.com/finished-vehicle-logistics/european-vehicle-ports:sail-into-the-light Accessed

17 March 2014

17. www.nigerianports.org/Aboutustincanport.asxp

18. www.worldportsource.com/ports/commerce/NLD_port_of_Rotterdam_106

19. www.worldportsource.com/ports/commerce/CAN_Port_Metro_Vancouver_220.php

20. www.africanreview.com/transport-a-logistics/shipping/us-11-billion-tanzanian-port-gets-chinese-backing

21. http://www.pema.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/05/PEMA-DS10-2nd-annual-global-survey-of-ship-to-shore-container-crane-deliveries.pdf

http://www.drewry.co.uk/publications/view_publications.php?id=425

http://www.globaltragemag.com/port_manatee_pasha_partner-to-expand-auto-terminal%20Accessed%205/5/2014

http://www.nigerianports.org/Aboutustincanport.asxp

http://www.worldportsource.com/ports/commerce/NLD%1f_port_of_Rotterdam_106

http://www.worldportsource.com/ports/commerce/CAN%1f_Port_Metro_Vancouver_220.php

http://www.africanreview.com/transport-a-logistics/shipping/us-11-billion-tanzanian-port-gets-chinese-backing

http://www.pema.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/05/PEMA-DS10-2nd-annual-global-survey-of-ship-to-shore-container-crane-deliveries.pdf

http://www.pema.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/05/PEMA-DS10-2nd-annual-global-survey-of-ship-to-shore-container-crane-deliveries.pdf

Date post:	16-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lythien
View:	225 times
Download:	2 times

Benchmarking South African Ports: container and · PDF fileBenchmarking South African Ports:...

Documents