Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 41

ASEAN PORTS ASSOCIATION

BEST PRACTICES MANUAL ON


PORT OPERATIONS

The information contained in this document is solely for the use of the ASEAN
Ports Association (APA) for the purpose for which it was prepared. The APA
Permanent Secretariat takes no responsibility for inaccurate or incomplete
information that may have been submitted to it. The facts published indicate the
result of inquiries conducted and no warranty as to their accuracy is given by the
APA Permanent Secretariat.

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page i


Published by the Permanent Secretariat of the ASEAN Ports Association,
Philippine Ports Authority, Marsman Building, South Harbor, Port Area,
Manila, Philippines

© 2003 APA Permanent Secretariat

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page ii


FOREWORD

This reference material, one in a series of APA port practices manuals, is the
fruition of the collaborative efforts of the 25th APA Main Meeting held in 1999 in
Bali, Indonesia. It is APA’s intent to draft a manual that would provide
yardsticks on efficiency and productivity, particularly in cargo handling,
pilotage and tug operations, as they are adopted and applied at specific areas of
responsibility in APA member-ports.

Responses indicated on the customized survey questionnaire, which underwent


several amendments to address identified survey lapses, served as groundworks
in the preparation of the manual. A total of 42 respondent ports/terminals from
the seven APA member-countries, namely: Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Philippine, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, took pains in providing the
needed data inputs. The survey also focused on aspects of resource/logistics
management such as port documentation, equipment, personnel, security,
facilities and amenities besides port operational activities.

At hindsight, the survey returns did not yield any definitive standards nor “hard
and fast” rules on the “how-to” of quality port management and/or service
delivery, taking into mind a singular ASEAN perspective. It has to be reckoned
with that the touchstones of efficiency and productivity are the consequences
between the interplay of resources and capabilities, which may be peculiar in an
area and are largely defined by the like-mindedness of the stakeholders
concerned.

In view of the foregoing, it was, thus, decided and agreed upon during the 28 th
APA Main Meeting, held in 2002 in Singapore, for the APA Permanent
Secretariat to just proceed for the time being with the compilation, analysis and
presentation of the canvassed results as captured through the latest survey
instrument. The Permanent Secretariat, however, committed to come up with a
more refined and comprehensive manual, which may afford general reference
for a wider range of users/readers, especially those affiliated with the maritime
industry.

The benefit this manual can offer could only be something relative, depending on
the objectives of the user. Still, further improvements can be incorporated into
this text to gradually and eventually fully satisfy the port information needs of
APA member-ports. So, let us leave it as what it is for the moment and have this
undertaking be a continuing process that would document the best and the
exemplary in ASEAN port operations practices.

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page iii


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was prepared by the Permanent Secretariat of the ASEAN Ports
Association which would like to acknowledge the following agencies, groups and
individuals:

BRUNEI DARUSSALAM

1. Ports Department
2. PSA Muara Container Terminal SDN. BHD

INDONESIA

1. Tanjung Priok/Pt JICT


2. PT Terminal Petikemas, Surabaya
3. Palembang Port
4. Panjang/General Cargo
5. Port of Tanjung Perak
6. Pontianak Port
7. Tanjung Priok/General Cargo
8. Panjang/UTPK
9. Tanjung Priok/Multi-Purpose

MALAYSIA

1. Miri Port Authority


2. Rajang Port Authority
3. Kuantan Port Consortium SDN. BHD
4. Kuching Port
5. Sabah Port
6. Johor Port

PHILIPPINES

1. North Star Port Development Corp.


2. Manila International Container Terminal
3. Regal Arrastre and Stevedoring, Inc. – Legaspi
4. Port Management Office of Cotabato
5. Asian Terminals, Inc.
6. Gold City Integ. Port Services Inc./Continental Arrastre and
Stevedoring Co., Inc. – Cagayan de Oro
7. Port Management Office of Nasipit
8. Port Management Office of Iligan
Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page iv
9. South Cotabato Integ. Port Services, Inc.
10. Port Management Office of Davao
11. BREDCO II, Pulupandan
12. Port Management Office of Tacloban
13. Port Management Office of Tagbilaran
14. Cebu International Port
15. Port Management Office of Iloilo
16. Port Management Office of Ozamis

SINGAPORE

1. Port of Singapore Authority


2. Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore

THAILAND

1. Bangkok Port
2. LCB Container Terminal
3. Laem Chabang Port/TIPS
4. Eastern Sea Laem Chabang Terminal Co., Inc.

VIETNAM

1. Baria Serece
2. Saigon Port
3. Danang Port

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page v


TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND …………………………………….. 1

II. DEFINITION OF BEST PRACTICE ……………………………………. 2

III.BEST PRACTICES ……………………………………………………….. 3

A.Institutional Best Practices …………………………………………….


3

1.Entity Responsible For Cargo Handling ………………………….


3
2. Types Of Skilled Labor And Unskilled Labor Employed In
Cargo Handling Operations …………………………………… 3
3. Skills Acquisition …………………………………………………..
4
4.Portworkers’ Compensation And Benefits ……………………….
4

B. Operational Best Practices ……………………………………………. 6

1. Types Of Quay And Yard Equipment Deployed ………………… 6


2. Processing Of Requests For Workers And Equipment …………. 6
3. Deployment Of Portworkers ………………………………………. 7
4. Cargo Tracking System ……………………………………………. 7
5. Cargo Documentation System ……………………………………. 8
6. Security Measures ………………………………………………… 15
7. Processing Of Claims Due To Loss/Injury And Damage To
Life/Property…………………………………………………… 15
8. Type Of Billing/Collection System ………………………………. 16
9. Documentation Processes And Procedures……………………… 16
a. Timely Receipt Of Source Documents
For Billing Purposes ………………………………………16
b. Accuracy Of Information In Source Documents …………… 16
c. Uniform Application Of Cargo Handling Tariff …………….16
d. Proper Billing/Collection Of Cargo Handling Tariff ………. 17
10.Interfacing Of Various Operational Systems In The Port………
17
11. Productivity Standards And Measurement Of Port
Performance …………………………………………………… 18
12.Provision Of Amenities ……………………………………………
18

C. Best Practices On Pilotage …………………………………………… 19


Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page vi
1. Policy On The Use Of Pilotage…………………………………… 19
2. Institutional Set-Up For The Provision Of Pilotage ……………. 19
3. Accreditation/Licensing Of Pilots ……………………………….. 20

D. Best Practices On Tug Services ………………………………………21

1. Policy On The Use Of Tug Services …………………………….. 21


2. Institutional Set-Up For The Provision Of Tug Services………. 22
3. Operating Parameters And Tariff For Tug Services…………… 22
4. Obligations And Liabilities Of Tug Operators …………………. 26
5. Types Of Services Provided ……………………………………… 26
6. Manning Of Tugs And Qualifications…………………………… 26
7. Accreditation/Licensing Of Tug Operators …………………….. 27
8. Tug Requirements For Berthing/Unberthing Of Vessels ……… 28
9. Manner Rates For Tug Services Are Determined ……………… 29
10. Mechanisms For Determining Liability Of Tugboat
Operators And Compensating Aggrieved Parties…………… 29

E. Best Practices Survey – Cargo Handling Statistics………………… 40

IV. APPENDICES

A. Questionnaire On Port Operations Standards


B.List Of Respondents, Their Categories And Entity Responsible For
Undertaking Cargo Handling
C. List Of Documents/Forms Submitted By APA Ports
D. Results Of Questionnaires On Port Operations Standards
1. Best Practices Survey – Cargo Handling Statistics
2. Best Practices Survey – Quay and Yard Equipment Inventory

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page vii


ABBREVIATIONS / ACRONYMS

1. APA - ASEAN Ports Association


2. ASEAN - Association of Southeast Asian Nations
3. ATI - Asian Terminals, Incorporated
4. BOC - Bureau of Customs
5. CBA - Collective Bargaining Agreement
6. CITOS - Computer Integrated Terminal Operating System
7. EDI - Electronic Data Interchange
8. GRT - Gross Registered Tonnage
9. GT - Gross Tonnage
10. HP - Horse Power
11. ID - Identification
12. KPH - Kilometer per Hour
13. LOA - Length Over-all
14. MARINA - Maritime Industry Authority
15. MICT - Manila International Container Terminal
16. MT - Metric Ton
17. NGH - Net Gang Hour
18. PCG - Philippine Coast Guard
19. PPA - Philippine Ports Authority
20. PSA - Port of Singapore Authority
21. PUNNS - Port Users’ Needs and Satisfaction Survey
22. PVOER - Port Vessel Operations Evaluation Report
23. VOC - Vessel Operations Commitment

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page viii


DEFINITION OF TERMS

1. Pilotage - the act of conducting a vessel from/to the Pilot’s


Boarding Station, to/from berth or anchorage, at
any government or private wharf or pier.

2. Port Authority - the port management body that is vested by the


State with the authority to oversee the ports
within a specified area of jurisdiction.

3. Port Contractor - any government or private entity, individual or


company that is granted by the State or Port
Authority, as the case may be, with the permit or
license to provide services in a port, usually
related to infrastructure development.

4. Port Operator - any government or private entity, individual or


company that is granted by the State or Port
Authority, as the case may be, with the permit or
license to operate the port and provide other
related services.

5. Port Owner - any government or private entity, individual or


company that has the legal entitlement or
proprietorship of the port.

6. Terminal Operator - any government or private entity, individual or


company that is granted by the State or Port
Authority, as the case may be, with the permit or
license to operate the terminal in a port and
provide other related services.

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page ix


BEST PRACTICES MANUAL ON
PORT OPERATIONS
I. INTRODUCTION

Background

In its 25th Main Meeting held on December 1-3, 1999 in Bali, Indonesia, the
ASEAN Ports Association (APA) identified a number of projects designed to
establish standards of efficiency and productivity in member-ports. One such
project was intended to come up with a manual on best practices in Port
Operations designed to provide benchmarks for productivity in cargo handling,
pilotage and tug operations.

A draft survey questionnaire was prepared in early 2000 to generate the


information necessary for the preparation of the manual. After undergoing
several revisions/amendments, the finalized form of the questionnaire was
disseminated to ports of APA member-countries in February 2001. The
accomplished forms were processed by the APA Permanent in May of the same
year.

The survey did not yield sufficient data needed for the manual. Among the
major problems encountered in the analysis of the responses were dissimilarities
in the units of measurement being used by member ports, incomplete or
unrelated responses, and unanswered questions.

The results of the February 2001 Survey were presented and discussed in the
22nd APA Technical Committee Meeting held in Cebu City, Philippines on
January 22-24, 2002. Further amendments were made on the questionnaire to
address the identified deficiencies. The revised questionnaire (Annex A) was
subsequently re-distributed to concerned member-ports in February 2002. The
questionnaire focused on port operational activities such as cargo handling,
pilotage and tug operation as well as aspects of resource/logistics management
such as port documentation, equipment, personnel, security, facilities and
amenities.

Forty-two ports/terminals from the following seven APA member-countries


responded to the February 2002 survey questionnaire:

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 1


1. Brunei Darussalam – 2
2. Indonesia – 9
3. Malaysia – 6
4. Philippines – 16
5. Singapore – 2
6. Thailand – 4
7. Vietnam - 3
---
Total 42

The respondents were categorized and distributed as follows:

1. Port authority 31 percent


2. Terminal operator 24
3. Port operator 19
4. Port contractor 7
5. Port owner/operator 7
6. Port owner 5
7. Others 7
==
Total 100 percent

As with the results of the first survey in 2001, the following problems were
encountered:

1. Deviation from the uniform units of measurement for productivity


standards, cargo volume, capacity and rates specified in the
questionnaire;
2. Unclear or incomplete responses;
3. Unanswered questions;
4. Use of acronyms;
5. Names of the same port documents differed from port to port;
6. Poor response in submission of relevant reference materials on policies,
guidelines and flowcharts as requested in the questionnaire to
substantiate the information/data entered in the survey forms.
7. Submitted reference materials were prepared in the language of the
country of the respondent.

II. DEFINITION OF BEST PRACTICE

The term “Best Practice” derives from various phrases now being used to refer
generally to processes, procedures and measures designed to improve
performance, in this case, in port operations. There are no generally accepted
criteria by which to judge which is and which is not best practice.

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 2


In addition, best practices could be applied only to cases where similar sets of
operating conditions and characteristics prevail. Hence, the same operating
standard would have meaning only in one kind of operating environment and
would be totally meaningless in another.

Best practice also depends on one’s viewpoint. A port user such as a shipping
line, a shipper or a consignee would have more stringent measures of
performance compared to, say, a cargo handling operator who must deal with
various constraints such as physical limitations in the port, equipment
limitations, labor laws and policies, port authority regulations, institutional and
other concerns as well as meeting his own profit targets. The major respondent
categories pre-identified in the Survey are as follows: port authority, terminal
operator, port operator, port contractor, port owner/operator and port owner.
Hence, these shall constitute the main perspective for assessing best practices in
the ASEAN ports.

One perspective that would be an important subject for a separate study that
may be integrated in this manual on best practices is that of the port users
(shipping lines, shippers, consignees). A move in this direction was the Port
Users’ Needs and Satisfaction Survey (PUNSS) conducted by the Philippine
Ports Authority (PPA) in 2001. An APA-wide diagnostic survey should yield
results that would be informative and provide some blueprint for documenting
best practices in the ASEAN region.

III.BEST PRACTICES

A. Institutional Best Practices

1. Entity responsible for cargo handling

The survey responses largely indicate that private contractors/


terminal operators and port authorities/owners/ operators are the
providers of cargo handling services in ASEAN ports/terminals.

2. Types of skilled labor and unskilled employed in cargo handling


operations

The categories comprising the highest number in terms of the type of


equipment operators employed in cargo handling operations include
the following:

a. Forklift operator
b. Mobile crane operator
c. Reach stacker operator
d. Prime mover operator
e. Trailer operator
Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 3
The foregoing types of labor are common specifically in port/terminals
handling containerized and general cargo, which utilize these types of
equipment on a large-scale.

However, there are ports handling containerized and general cargo


which continue to retain the use of unskilled laborers comprised
mostly of stevedores particularly in the Philippines, Indonesia,
Thailand and Vietnam. This labor-intensive system of cargo handling
require the employment of foremen, tallymen, signalmen and
timekeepers.

Operators of forklifts, mobile cranes, reach stackers, prime movers


and trailers comprise the bulk and most commonly available
equipment operators in the ports, specifically in ports/terminals
handling containerized and general cargo, particularly in the
Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. Tallymen, foremen,
signalmen and timekeepers account for a significant share of the labor
force in the ports covered in the survey. (Certain respondents
indicated the employment of equipment operators and portworkers
but did not specify the actual number and positions/skills available.)

3. Skills acquisition

Cargo handling and related skills are acquired largely through the
following ways:

a. Experience
b. Formal training
c. On-the-job training

While there are concrete efforts towards the implementation of


regular manpower development and skills enhancement programs, it
appears that no guidelines have been prepared, formalized and
maintained in any of the ports surveyed.

For the majority of the respondents, opportunities for skills


acquisition are made available through continuing skills enhancement
programs for both equipment operators and other portworkers. No
specific information was obtained in this respect.

4. Portworkers’ Compensation and Benefits

Portworkers’ remuneration and compensation are based largely on


the following:

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 4


a. Existing Laws
b. Collective Bargaining Agreements
c. Market Rates

Existing laws are predominantly the basis for determining


remuneration and compensation packages. In some ports/terminals in
the Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia, Collective
Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) govern the payment of portworkers’
compensation.

Brunei Darussalam grants compensation using prevailing market


rates.

Compensation and benefits generally come in the form of the


following:

1. Salary
2. Overtime pay
3. Night differential
4. Social security
5. Uniform allowance
6. Transportation allowance
7. Pension plan
8. Medical benefits
9. Death benefits/burial assistance
10. Rice allowance
11. Profit-sharing
12. Productivity benefits
13. Shift allowance

Almost all ports granted the first five benefits: salary, overtime pay,
night differential, social security and uniform allowance. Ports in
Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia gave additional
benefits such as transportation allowance, pension plan and medical
benefits.

Philippine ports granted further benefits in the form of death


benefits/burial assistance and rice allowance.

Malaysian ports, on the other hand, provided profit-sharing,


productivity incentives and shift allowance.

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 5


B. Operational Best Practices

1. Types of Quay and Yard Equipment Deployed

For quay operations:

Based on the survey, the following types of quay equipment were


found to be in use in various combinations:

1. Prime movers
2. Trailers
3. Forklifts
4. Quay cranes
5. Panamax and post-panamax quay cranes
6. Floating cranes

The majority of ports use prime movers, trailers and forklifts.


Quay cranes are provided in Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia and
the Philippines.

Panamax and post-panamax quay cranes are made available in


Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand.

Only Saigon Port in Vietnam offers the use of a floating crane.

For yard operations:

1. Reach stackers
2. Forklift
3. Top loaders
4. Mobile cranes

The most commonly supplied yard equipment includes reach


stackers, forklifts, top loaders and mobile cranes. However,
information on number of units and capacities was not supplied.
In addition, no information was submitted on written guidelines
and procedures pertaining to the deployment, allocation and
utilization of this equipment.

2. Processing of requests for workers and equipment

The survey yielded the following with regard to processing time for
requests for workers and equipment:

a. Philippines – 1 to 24 hours
b. Malaysia – 17 to 36 hours
c. Thailand – 5 minutes to 6 days
Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 6
d. Indonesia – 9 hours to 7 days
e. Vietnam – 8 hours

Nearly all the ports indicated that portworkers and equipment were
available at the time of receipt of requests.

3. Deployment of portworkers

Current practices in the deployment/assignment of workers include


the following:

a. Rotation
b. Per Work Schedule
c. First-come/First-serve scheme

The majority of the ports make use of the first two schemes either
exclusively or in combination. The third is practiced in certain ports
in the Philippines and Indonesia.

4. Cargo tracking system

A tracking system to monitor the status and particular location of


cargo in port is implemented at about 99 percent of the ports that
responded to the survey. Fifty (50) percent of the ports utilize a
computer-based system. In the ports dedicated to the handling of
containers and those handling substantial volumes of specialized cargo
such as dry and liquid bulk, the extent of computerization of the
tracking system was in the range between 70 to 100 percent. Several
of the respondents only indicated the software/programs being utilized
which included ETMS, NAVIS, Computer Integrated Terminal
Operating System (CITOS), NAVIS-SPARCS Yard Planning
Program and Block Land Bay Ron Tier. They did not elaborate on
these programs.

About 48 percent of surveyed ports were ports identified as handling


largely break-bulk cargo. These generally utilize manual systems.

The remaining ports, which handle a mix of cargo types, indicated


that they employed a combination of computerized and manual
systems. One port reported utilizing a computer-based system for its
container operations and a manual system for its general and break-
bulk cargo operations. Another reported using computer-based
systems for all its cargo operations.

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 7


5. Cargo documentation system

Cargo Discharging

The survey results showed that about 85 percent of the respondents


indicated that only one document was used for cargo unloading
operations while the remaining 15 percent reported using two
documents.

Containerized Cargo Documentation

The 24 ports that responded to the survey admitted to the


following documentation practices:

1. Containerized cargo handling operations generally


require shipping documents (at an incidence of 78
percent).
2. Around 65 percent of these documents consisted of the
cargo manifest/container list.
3. Documents issued by cargo handlers constituted 22
percent of which 50 percent were tally sheets.
4. Containerized cargo documents are normally submitted
to the following: Terminal/Terminal Operators at a
submission incidence of 57 percent; the Cargo Handlers
at 25 percent or both at 18 percent incidence.
5. Submission of documents is done in one of the following
modes:
a. Before vessel arrival as prescribed (as practiced by
around 56 percent)
b. At the end of the loading shift as demanded (by
about 22 percent)
c. Before cargo/container loading operations as
required (by 15 percent)
d. 36 hours after vessel arrival (by 4 percent)

(The remaining 3 percent did not indicate any


response.)

General Cargo Documentation

For general cargo handling operations, the 14 ports surveyed


admitted to the following documentation practices:

1. Required shipping documents (75 percent incidence)


2. Required Cargo Handler documents (25 percent)

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 8


The utilization rates of the following shipping documents were as
follows:
1. The Bill of Lading has a usage rate of about 43 percent
among the shipping documents.
2. Tally Sheet, Cargo List and Report on Receipt of Cargo
Manifest, all prepared by the Cargo handlers, have
similar usage weights.

Submission of documents is done conversely, i.e., shipping


documents are received by the cargo handlers and vice
versa. The prescribed period for submission differs from
port to port and was recorded as follows:

1. Before vessel arrival (33 percent)


2. Upon vessel arrival (25 percent)
3. After cargo discharging operations (17 percent), and
4. During cargo unloading activities (14 percent)

Dry Bulk Cargo Documentation

The two respondent ports that reported dry bulk cargo handling
operations use only the shipping document, either the cargo
manifest or the stowage plan, which is submitted to the Operations
Department, (the entity to which this Office is attached, whether
cargo handling firm or the port operator, was not indicated), upon
vessel arrival.

Liquid Bulk Cargo Documentation

The three ports surveyed for liquid bulk cargo handling operations
utilize documents either prepared by the cargo handlers, at 67
percent usage rate, or by the shipping lines at 33 percent
frequency. The Operation Planning Report and Out Turn Report,
both emanating from the Cargo Handlers, are submitted to the
Port Operator and Shipping Lines, respectively, within 24 hours
from vessel arrival or upon completion of discharging operations.
On the other hand, the Manifest, which is a Shipping record, is
submitted to Planning, (no indication given regarding affiliation
to any entity), one day before vessel arrival.

Cargo Delivery/Withdrawal Documentation

Around 70 percent of the respondents accounted for the single-


document-user group. Fifteen percent comprised the two-document-
user category while the remaining 15 percent withheld their answers
Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 9
to all the survey variables under this phase of cargo handling
operations.

Containerized Cargo

For containerized cargo delivery operations, the 24 respondents


indicated varying documentary requirements and submission
schedules. The shipping documents required, with their
respective usage rates, are:

1. Delivery Order (38 percent)


2. Bill of Lading (26 percent)
3. In/Out Form (12 percent)
4. Discharging List (12 percent) and
5. ISD (12 percent)

Those issued by the Cargo Handlers comprise the Gate Pass (26
percent), Delivery Receipt (26 percent), Gate Pre-Advice (12
percent), Tally Sheet (12 percent), Container Delivery Note (12
percent) and VLUTS (12 percent). The Forwarders/Consignees
provide the Delivery Document (50 percent) and Import Entry
and Transshipment Permit (50 percent). The Terminal
Operators prepare the Convoy Note (50 percent), Wharf Receipt
(25 percent) and EIR (no further description given, at 25 percent).
The Shipping documents are either submitted to the Terminal
Operator, (at an incidence rate of 60 percent), or the Cargo
Handler (40 percent) before cargo delivery or before vessel
arrival. The documents from the Cargo handlers are usually
received by the Terminal Operators (75 percent incidence) before
or upon cargo delivery. Those prepared by the Forwarder/
Consignee are either submitted to the Terminal Operator or the
Cargo Handler, at equal frequency, after cargo delivery or cargo
unloading operations. The documents from the Terminal
Operators are transmitted only to Forwarders/ Consignees upon
delivery or upon presentation of Customs clearance.

General Cargo

The 14 surveyed ports with general cargo delivery operations


routinely require the submission of the Delivery/Cargo Receipt,
which recorded a usage rate of 55 percent and normally submitted
to the Forwarder/Consignee upon processing of cargo withdrawal
from the port. The documents prepared by the Cargo handlers
are needed at an incidence of 45 percent.

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 10


Dry Bulk Cargo

Two respondent ports reported using the dry bulk cargo delivery
document, Delivery Order, which is either prepared by the
Customer/Consignee or the Shipping Company and submitted to
the Sales/Business Department, (no data given as to entity
affiliation), upon issuance of delivery clearance or receipt of
cargoes.

Liquid Bulk Cargo

The three surveyed ports that process liquid bulk cargo delivery
utilize any one of the following documents: Delivery Order
prepared by the Shipping Lines, Delivery Order prepared by the
Forwarder or the BPRP, (no description given), issued by the
Cargo Handler. The Shipping Company submits the document to
the Planning Operator, (no entity affiliation indicated), six hours
before delivery; the Forwarder transmits his document to the
Stevedoring Company 24 hours before delivery; and the Cargo
Handler hands over its document to the Cargo Owner/Consignee
upon cargo delivery.

Cargo Entry Documentation

A total of 30 respondents, comprising 87 percent of the total surveyed


ports, utilize only one document in processing cargo entry. The other
13 percent of the respondents require two documents at a time.

Containerized Cargo

Containerized Cargo entry processing differs among the


respondents in terms of documents used as issued by the Shipping
Lines at an incidence of 45 percent, the Forwarder/Shipper (25
percent), the Cargo Handler (20 percent) and the Terminal
Operator (10 percent). Among the Shipping documents, largely
utilized is the Bill of Lading with a weight of 43 percent. The
Cargo Entry Permit, with a usage rate of 50 percent, tops the
documents issued by the Cargo Handlers in terms of usage rate.
The Forwarder/Shipper prepares any of these documents at equal
rate of incidence: Receiving Document, Bangkok No. 308.2, Export
Declaration, and EIR (no further description given). In the case of
Miri Port, only the Import/Export Activity Record Book is
prepared. Majority of these documents (60 percent) are
submitted to the Terminal/Terminal Operator while the remaining
40 percent are handed over to the Cargo Handler, usually before
vessel arrival or cargo loading.
Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 11
General Cargo

General Cargo entry operations require shipping documents at an


incidence of about 70 percent. The Cargo Handler provides the
documentary requirements at 20 percent incidence while the
Private Contractor/Terminal Operator at 10 percent usage rate.
Shipping documents vary from the Delivery Receipt with a
reference rate of 43 percent while the rest, such as Bill of Lading,
Shipping Order and Delivery Order share equal usage rates. These
are regularly submitted to the cargo handler before cargo entry or
after vessel arrival. The Private Contractor/Terminal Operator
prepares the CEWP, (without further description given), which is
retained by the same office for reference purposes on cargo entry
particulars. The Cargo Handler readies only the Cargo Receipt,
which is submitted to the Shipper or his duly authorized
representative upon entry of cargo in port.

Dry Bulk Cargo

Dry bulk cargo entry procedure, according to one respondent,


requires the submission of the Export Clearance, which is
prepared by the Customer and submitted to the Sales Department,
(no entity affiliation indicated), upon vessel berthing. Another
respondent utilizes the Tally Sheet that is submitted by the
Warehouse Staff and transmitted to the Business Department, (no
data given on entity), with no indication on submission schedule.

Liquid Bulk Cargo

Liquid bulk cargo entry processing also varies depending on the


respondent port. The Shipping Document, Delivery Order, is
required with a usage rate of 33 percent and submitted to the
Planning Operator, (no entity affiliation indicated), usually six
hours before vessel arrival. The Cargo Handler prepares the
BPRP, (also 33 percent, with no further description given), and
submits same to the Cargo Owner upon cargo entry in port. The
Forwarder prepares the Surat Jalan (no translation given) and
submits this to the Stevedoring Company 24 hours before vessel
arrival.

Cargo Loading Documentation

For this cargo-handling phase, 90 percent of the total respondents


constituted the single document-users, 8 percent made up the two

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 12


document-users and a minor 2 percent comprised the three document-
users.

Containerized Cargo

The Shipping document, with a reference rate of about 46 percent,


emerged as the most frequently required record for containerized
cargo loading operations. Among the Shipping documents, the
Loading / Export List has the highest usage rate of 33 percent,
followed by the Bill of Lading at 22 percent. Other documents
referred to, each with an 11 percent usage rate, are the Outward
Coasting Manifest, Booking Forecast, Shipping Order and
Stowage Instructions. The documents prepared by the Cargo
Handlers, with a total reference rate of 37 percent, are the Loading
Tally Sheet, VOC, PVOER and Cargo Handling Permit. Those
submitted by the Forwarder/Shipper (Shipping Order Advice) and
the Terminal Operator (Window System and Load Sequence List)
have minor usage rates. All these documents are usually
submitted to the Terminal Operator or the Cargo Handler before
or after vessel departure, depending on the submission policy of
the ports concerned.

General Cargo

For the general cargo loading operations, the documents used are
either prepared by the Shipping or the Cargo Handler at a
reference ratio of 7:4. The shipping documents, each with equal
usage rates, are the Bill of Lading, Delivery Receipt, Ship Tally
Load, Loading List, CEWP, Operation Planning and Shipping
Note. These are normally submitted to the Shipper, Terminal
Operator and/or Cargo Handler before or upon loading
operations. The documents from the Cargo Handler, also with
similar usage rates, are the Delivery Receipt, Tally Sheet, Stowage
Plan and General Report of Loading. These are usually forwarded
to the Shipping Lines a day after vessel arrival in some ports or
after vessel departure in the case of the other ports.

Dry Bulk Cargo

Dry bulk cargo loading operations utilize documents either


prepared by the Shipping Agent or the Shipper, which are the
Stowage Plan and the Cargo List, respectively. The former is
submitted to the Operations Department, (no given entity
affiliation), upon issuance of clearance, while the latter is handed
over to the Business Department, (also no indication as to
particular entity), with no given period of submission.

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 13


Liquid Bulk Cargo

Liquid bulk cargo loading procedure needs either the Cargo


Handler or Shipper documents at a reference ratio of 2:1. The
Cargo handler’s document, entitled Operation Planning, is
submitted to the Terminal Operator a day before loading
operations. The other document, named Loading Report, is given
to the Shipping Lines upon completion of loading operations. The
Delivery Order, prepared by the Shipper, is transmitted to the
Planning Operator six hours before loading time.

Shifting Operations Documentation

All of the respondents referred to only one document during shifting


operations.

Containerized Cargo

The shifting activity of containerized cargoes requires either the


Shipping documents at an incidence of 64 percent or the Cargo
Handler’s at a reference rate of 36 percent. The Shipping
documents, each with equal usage rate, are the Shifting List, Re-
stow List Container Movement Order, Shifting Form, Container
Movement and the Shipping Agent Instruction. These are
regularly submitted to the Terminal Operator several hours to a
day before shifting operations. The Van Transfer Slip, Shifting
Slip, Foreman’s Report, All Plan and Shifting Permit are the
documents emanating from the Cargo Handlers. Each shares
similar usage rates and is either submitted to the Terminal
Operator usually before start of shifting activity or maintained by
the issuing firm itself for cargo control purposes.

General Cargo

General cargo shifting operations recorded a need for Shipping


and Cargo Handler documents at a ratio of 3:2. The Shipping’s
Bill of Lading and Shifting order, both with equal usage rates, are
submitted to the Cargo Handler and Terminal Operator, in that
order, usually before shifting starts.

Dry Bulk Cargo

The dry bulk shifting process refers to the Shifting Order


prepared by the Shipping agent and submitted, as needed, to the
Operations Department, (no entity indicated). Only Vietnam’s
Baria Serece provided data for this particular survey item.

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 14


Liquid Bulk Cargo

The shifting of liquid bulk cargoes either requires the shipping or


the Cargo Handler documents. The shipping report, named Agent
Instruction/ Ship Master, is submitted to the Terminal Operator
six hours before shifting starts. The Cargo handler’s Work Order
is submitted to the Cargo Owner upon completion of the shifting
activity.

6. Security Measures

Security measures that are commonly implemented in various APA


ports consisting of Brunei Darussalam (PSA Muara), Indonesia Ports
(Palembang, Panjang, Tanjung Perak, Tanjung Priok, Pontianak and
Petikemas Surabaya), Malaysia Ports (Sabah-Johor, Kuantan, Rajang
and Miri), Philippine Ports (Pulupandan-BREDCO II, Tacloban,
Tagbilaran, Iloilo and Ozamiz), Thailand (LCT, Laem Chabang and
Eastern Sea Laem-Chabang), Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) and
Vietnam Ports (Danang, Saigon and Baria Serece) are the following:

a) Only authorized labor is allowed access to operational areas;


b) Authorized laborers wear prescribed uniform, IDs and protective
gears/hats;
c) Safety signs and slogans are posted in conspicuous places;
d) Security personnel are posted in strategic locations;
e) Pedestrian lanes are properly marked;
f) Special areas are designated for dangerous cargoes.

Incidences Of Breaches To Security Of Cargoes And People Within The


Port Premises - There are very rare reported breaches in security
according to the survey results. Reasons cited for security lapses
include lack of awareness among personnel and human error. In
cases of damaged or lost cargo, there is a set of well-defined
procedures for processing claims. Another very effective measure to
eliminate such incidences was the installation of “close circuit
television,” which is also largely adopted by many commercial
establishments such as banks and merchandising outlets.

7. Processing Of Claims Due To Loss/Injury And Damage To


Life/Property

There is a well-defined process for filing and settlement of claims in


generally all member-ports of APA. In Indonesia, for example, the
party which suffered loss files the claim or “minute” describing the
nature of loss which is concurred with by the party which inflicted the
loss. These are almost the same procedures being observed in
Vietnam Ports. This is then submitted to the Port Corporation for
Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 15
resolution. In Kuantan Port of Malaysia, the insurance agent
undertakes the assessment of loss and compensates the claimant after
proper filing of claims. In the Philippines, a Damage Report is filed
and this is investigated and compensation is paid if the claim is found
meritorious. The details of procedures followed, however, are not
indicated in the accomplished survey forms or in any attachment to
these.

8. Type Of Billing/Collection System

Among the 10 container-dedicated ports that responded to the survey,


only three have fully automated Billing and Collection Systems. No
further systems description was given, except for one respondent
which only gave the name of its system as TOPS SYSTEM. For the
ports catering exclusively to general cargo operations, (two in
number), the Billing and Collection System is still done manually. On
the other hand, about 40 percent of the 30 ports with mixed cargo
operations have fully automated systems while the rest still implement
the manual system. Three respondents did not provide any response
to this survey item.

9. Documentation Processes And Procedures

a. Timely Receipt Of Source Documents For Billing Purposes

Around 80 percent of the container-dedicated ports reported


promptly receiving their source documents while the remaining 20
percent experience an average delay of one day. Two ports, with
solely general cargo operations, registered no delays in the receipt
of the required documents. Around 90 percent of ports that
accommodate mixed cargoes indicated hassle-free incidence in the
receipt of source documents. The remaining 10 percent had to
deal with delays of one to two days.

b. Accuracy Of Information In Source Documents

With regard to completeness and accuracy of data in source


documents for purposes of billing port charges, only one of the
surveyed ports, under the category with mixed cargo operations,
reported encountering problems. All the rest indicated that they
did not experience any related problems.

c. Uniform Application Of Cargo Handling Tariff

All ports in the Philippines and selected ports/terminals in other


members of the ASEAN like Indonesia’s Tanjung Priok PT JICT

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 16


impose uniform cargo handling tariff regardless of the type of
cargo handled.

d. Proper Billing/Collection Of Cargo Handling Tariff

Prescribed cargo handling tariff is reported to be regularly and


properly billed and collected in all ports. In Malaysia’s Johor
Port, the tariff rate depends on the category of cargo. The
accomplished survey forms did not offer much other than these
items of information. There was no information on the rates of
tariff as no respondent provided a copy of their tariff schedules.

10. Interfacing Of Various Operational Systems In The Port

Of the two container-dedicated ports that reported implementing


systems interfaces, only one furnished information on its name and
nature: E-Terminal and EDI interface for information purposes.
Five other ports disclosed that no systems interface exists, while one
reported that systems interface is routinely done with the Harbor
Master for coordination purposes only. Two abstained from
providing answers. Two ports handling exclusively general cargo
either have no systems interface or refrained from giving any
information. Twelve or 41 percent of the ports with mixed cargo
operations have their Port Operations Systems linked with other
systems through one of the following methods:

a. Interfaces with the Delivery/Loading System for inspection and


customs clearance purposes, usually done before cargo
delivery/entry

b. Links with the Documentation Systems of the Customs


Department, Haulers, Ship Operators, Container Operators,
Forwarding Agents, major shippers/consignees and other related
government departments for purposes of permit processing,
normally undertaken as the need arises

c. Connection with the PCG (acronym was not spelled out) system
for information purposes on arrival/departure schedule of vessels,
regularly accomplished before vessel arrival/departure

d. Interfaces with the SRA (acronym was not spelled out) system for
cargo information purposes, which is regularly done before cargo
loading period

e. Attachment to the BOC (acronym was not spelled out) system for
foreign cargo information purposes

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 17


f. Looping with the computer networks and EDI linkages of
Customs, Shipping Lines and Ship agents, on a regular basis, for
transfer and exchange of cargo information, and for information
purposes of operations planning and service center

g. Connection with the Shipper system for PKK (acronym not spelled
out) purposes and with the Port system 24 hours before vessel
entry.

h. Regular interfacing with the Harbor Master for coordination


purposes only

i. Links with the Shipping Lines, Port Authority, stevedore


company, shipper/consignee, and/or Port corporation for
operation planning and service center needs around 25 hours
before vessel entry

j. Loops with the Port Authority using its PORTNET system for ITH
purposes.

Ten of the mixed cargo ports have no systems interface with other
computer networks. One of these ports did not respond.

11. Productivity Standards And Measurement Of Port Performance

With regard to identification of productivity standards used in the


major areas of port operations, all survey forms submitted were either
partially accomplished or bore incomplete data/answers for the
particular survey item. Some of the respondents who provided partial
answers did not adhere to the unit of measurement specified for each
indicator of productivity. For instance, MT/NGH was used by one
port in measuring actual performance for Liquid Bulk Handling
instead of metric tons per ship-hour specified in the questionnaire. No
guidelines/policies or relevant records/documents on productivity
were submitted to corroborate data indicated in the survey forms.

With regard to reasons for inability to meet the target productivity


level of operation, equipment breakdown was commonly cited as the
reason for failure to meet the productivity standards. Some ports did
not offer reasons.

12. Provision Of Amenities

Amenities that are generally made available in all APA ports are
toilets and drinking stations. In some, there are medical/health clinics,
canteens/restaurants/cafeterias, immigration posts, ticket booths,
Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 18
reefer facilities, tennis courts, transport services booths, meeting
rooms, prayer rooms, fresh water supply facilities, bunkers, duty-free
shops, lockers, recreational facilities, etc. The types of amenities that
are provided at the ports are generally consistent with the state of the
economic affairs of the country where the ports are located. For
example, Singapore which is recognized as the most economically
advanced member nation of the ASEAN happens to also play host to
one of the most efficient ports in the world with amenities that exceed
the commonly provided ones like recreational facilities.

C. Best Practices On Pilotage

1. Policy On The Use Of Pilotage

The summary of the survey questionnaires reveals that almost all


ports require compulsory pilotage. This may be attributed to the fact
that the respondents are either operating under state regulations or
classified under a port authority vested with the responsibility of
enforcing mandatory measures to ensure utmost safety within the
harbor or port.

2. Institutional Set-up For The Provision Of Pilotage

Institutional concerns regarding pilotage include:

a. Who Provides Pilotage Services


b. Qualification Of Pilots
c. Number Of Vessels That Avail Of Pilotage Services Per Year
d. Number Of Harbor Pilots Available
e. Who Prescribes Pilotage Rates

In most ports, the state provides pilotage either through a service


branch of the port authority or a government-run pilotage
organization. Although in some ports where the government delegates
undertaking of such services to private organizations, it is safe to
assume that the regulatory function is still maintained by the State.

Since most respondent ports require compulsory pilotage, the


maximum number of vessels that should have availed of pilotage
services per year should obviously be the number of ship-calls per
year. Hence, it would, therefore, be more worthwhile instead to
identify policy criteria for exempting vessels from pilotage services.
The following are possible cases for exemption to be considered:

1. Relatively small vessels (100 GRT and less)


2. Government vessels, e.g. military/naval ships
Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 19
3. Home-ported or local flag-carrying vessels
4. Vessels engaged in daily ferry service
5. Vessels calling at private ports whose owner has formally waived
compulsory pilotage

With regard to the number of harbor pilots available, the responses


ranged from two to as high as 22. These responses may be misleading
as some of the respondents may have provided the total number of
pilots in the association as well as available pilots, while others
counted only those pilots assigned to a particular terminal or port.

The port authority usually promulgates a schedule of fees within a


pilotage district. However, in some ports, the terms of any contract
for pilotage, including rates or pilot fees, are negotiated and agreed
upon by the parties involved.

3. Accreditation/Licensing Of Pilots

As the basis for approving applications for the accreditation/licensing


of pilots, aside from the minimum requirements like age, nationality
and fitness, the applicant may be required to:

 Submit recommendations from one or more trade or


professional organizations;

 Submit certifications from previous employer;

 Submit a license or certification issued by a specific


licensing agency;

 Complete and pass both oral and written examinations;

 Provide other satisfactory evidence of competence.

Procedures For The Accreditation Of Pilots – No information on these


procedures was obtained to address this item. However, based on
common practice, the port authority usually has the power and duty
to issue pilot licenses pursuant to rules and regulations applicable to
those who seek to engage in the profession of harbor pilot within the
territory. The application for appointment is most likely addressed
and filed with the port authority, which has jurisdiction over the
pilotage district being applied for. In some cases, an evaluation
committee composed of maritime officials is created to determine the
qualifications necessary to obtain an appointment.

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 20


D. Best Practices on Tug Services

For the following set of questions covering tug services, there were 39
respondents, as follows:

Singapore (1 respondent) Port of Singapore Authority


Indonesia (7 respondents) Tanjung Priok/PT JICT; PT Terminal Petikemas
Surabaya; Pontianak Port; Tanjung
Priok/General Cargo; Palembang;
Panjang/General Cargo; Port of Tanjung Perak
Thailand (4 respondents) LCE Container Terminal; Laem Chabang
Port/TIPS; Eastern Sea Laem Chabang Terminal
Co., Inc.; Bangkok Port
Brunei (2 respondents) PSA Muara Container Terminal Sdn. Bhd.; Ports
Department
Malaysia (6 respondents) Miri Port Authority; Kuching; Sabah Port
Authority - Kota Kinabalu; Johor Port Container
Terminal; Kuantan Port Consortium Sdn. Bhd;
Rajang Port Authority
Vietnam (3 respondents) Saigon Port; Baria Serece; Danang Port
Philippines (16 respondents) MICT; ATI (South Harbor); North Harbor (Pier
4); Pulupandan BREDCO II; Tacloban;
Tagbilaran; Iloilo; Ozamiz; Cagayan de Oro;
Nasipit; Iligan; General Santos; Davao; Cebu
International Port; Legazpi; Cotabato
Of these 39 ports , five (5) did not respond to any of the questions. These
were LCE Container Terminal of Thailand, PSA Muara Container
Terminal Sdn Bhd of Brunei, Miri Port Authority of Malaysia, and MICT
and ATI (South Harbor) of the Philippines.

1. Policy On The Use Of Tug Services

In about 57 percent of the respondent ports, that is, 22 out of 39, the
use of tug services is compulsory. Fifteen (15) of these are ports from
the various ASEAN member-countries, except the Philippines which
accounts for the remaining seven (7) that are all inter-island ports.
The other 44 percent is distributed among the following categories:
Not compulsory – 23 percent for a total of 9 respondents; Not
applicable – 5 percent for 2 respondents; and No answer – 15 percent
for 6 respondents.

The non-compulsory option for tug assistance is not absolute. In


some ports, even if such service is not obligatory, tug assistance
becomes compulsory under certain conditions. In the Philippines, for
example, state regulations require compulsory tug assistance to a
vessel when the vessel’s capability to safely maneuver in a port may
be adversely affected by strong currents with a velocity of 4 knots or
more, wind factor with a velocity and direction of air currents

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 21


traveling at 30-50 kph, the conditions at the port that include the
manner of the approach to the berth, port structures and its facilities,
location of the berth and limited maneuvering space for vessel,
inclement weather and mechanical defects in the vessel.
Furthermore, one port makes tug assistance mandatory for vessels
over 1,000 GRT while another for docking vessels only.

2. Institutional Set-up For The Provision Of Tug Services

From the responses taken, the following show what kind of entities
provide tug assistance: Port authority/owner/ operator – 12; Private
tug operator – 12; The Marine Department – 1; and the pilot
association – 1. Four of the respondents said they did not provide
any tug services.

The reasons for preferring the employment of a particular tug


assistance provider to another were not offered since this was not
included in the questionnaire. In the absence of such information, it
would be difficult to suggest which type of tug service provider is
better than the others.

Additional explanations would have provided further clarification to


the responses. But these were not offered. In the case of Indonesia,
for example, why in all the seven (7) respondent ports, the Port
Authority/Operator is the provider of tug assistance. The same is
true with Thailand whose 3 ports indicated the Port Authority as the
provider of tug services. On the other hand, in Malaysia’s Johor Port
and Rajang Port Authority, tug assistance is provided by private tug
operator/s while in Kuantan Port, it is again the port authority that
provides tug assistance.

In the case of Singapore, tug orders are automatically generated and


serviced by PSA Marine Pte Ltd. for vessels that are booked by the
agents at any of the PSA Terminals. However, the customer may use
an alternative tug service provider whose name it must provide so
that PSA Marine will not deploy tugs for such vessel.

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 22


3. Operating Parameters And Tariff For Tug Services

Only six (6) respondents, excluding those from the Philippines,


provided answers to the question. From the responses gathered, it is
difficult to establish a typical pattern or even a common practice.
One factor that contributed to this difficulty is the use of different
brackets or ranges of measurement. Another is the use of different
units of measurement. For example, one respondent employs 2
brackets only, another uses 3 ranges and still others use 4 groups, all
in GRT. At least two (2) use length overall (LOA) as the basis. Even
the use of interpolation or similar mathematical technique cannot
provide any clear results. Without any additional and reliable data,
it is deemed not advisable to attempt to explain the differences and
variances at this time.

Likewise, establishing a standard rate of charge or a semblance of it


is extremely difficult. While some use a single factor in the
computation of charges, e.g., per hour, others use a combination of
variables such as per-GT and per-hour. Still others charge a base or
flat rate in addition to charges based on variables. It is possible that
charging rates are dictated by the State or the government as was
indicated by respondent Baria Serece of Vietnam. (See matrix)

Similar situations exist as in the case of the Philippine Ports as no


standard schedules and rates are followed. (See table on Philippine
ports.)

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 23


MATRIX OF INFORMATION ON TUG SERVICES IN APA PORTS (except Philippine Ports)

Laem Chabang Johor Port Pontianak Port Palembang Panjang Tanjung Perak Danang Port
2 units <5000GRT (LOA up <3500GRT 2001-7000GRT LOA 70m-100m 3500GT LOA 70-100m
required to 125m) 800 1x 600 HP 1x1160HP 1xmin 800HP 1 tug x 500HP
1x4000 150 U$ U$3/hr 145+.004/GT/hr U$178/hr U$34/hp/hr
4MR/hr
>5000GT 3501– 8000GRT 7001-13100GRT LOA 100m-150m 3501-8000 LOA 120-140m
(LOA>125m) 2 x 1600HP 2x600-3400HP 2x1700+1740HP 2xmin.2400 2 w/1100HP
3600 or 4000 400 U$ U$6.22/hr U$375 + .004/GT/hr 464/hr U$170/hr
RM4/m/hr
8001-14000GRT 13100-30000GT LOA 150-200m 8001-14000 LOA 170-250m
3400HP 2x3400-5000HP 3x1700+1740 2xmin 3000 3 w/1700HP
600U$ U$1340/hr +1160HP 712/hr U$300/hr
U$1280+.004/GT/hr
>30000GT 14001-18000
2x5000-10000HP 2xmin 5000
U$1600/hr 894/hr
26001-40000
3x6500HP
1400/hr
40001-75000
3x7000 HP
1700/hr

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 24


MATRIX ON INFORMATION ON TUG SERVICES IN PHILIPPINE PORTS

Iloilo Ozamiz Cagayan de Oro Nasipit Iligan General Santos Davao


148.35 500-1500 GRT 1500-3000GRT 1000-5000GRT 2000 GRT and 1500-3000GRT 500-27,000GRT
1500HP 300HP or equiv. 500 HP/equiv. 2 tugs @ below 500 HP 1 x 1,000 HP
Php6,000 600HP each 750 HP per agreed rates Php9,214 (foreign
per agreed rate P3,000.00 docking)
1501-3000GRT 3001-10000GRT 5000 GRT & 2001-3000GRT 3001-10000GRT 500-27,000GRT
700HP 700HP/equiv. over 750 HP 700 HP 2 x 1,200 HP
Php10,000 3-4 tugs at Php 6,000 per agreed rate Php9,214
600HP each (undocking)
per agreed rate
10001-15000GRT 10001-15000GRT 3001-10000GRT 15000 GRT-up 500-27,000GRT
1000HP 1000HP/equiv. 850 HP 1,500 HP per 1 x 1,300 HP
Php16000 Php 10,000 agreed rate Php8,907 x 2 for
docking & undocking
15,001 GRT & 15001-20000GRT 10001-15000GRT 500-27,000GRT
above 1500HP/equiv. 850HP 1 x 444 HP Domestic
1500 HP Php24,000 Php 16,000 P2,000 x 2 (docking &
undocking)
15001-20000GRT
1,000 HP
Php24,000
20001-25000GRT
1,000HP per
negotiation
25001-35000GRT
1,200HP per
negotiation
35001 GRT-above
1500 HP per
negotiation
4. Obligations And Liabilities Of Tug Operators

Only ten (10) ports responded to this item. With regard to the
responsibility to the client, good service and client satisfaction appear
to be the common denominator. One way of achieving these is having
tugboats that are readily available and sufficient in number and
capacity. Johor Port, however, indicated no liabilities and obligations
to the clients, possibly for the reason that since tug assistance is
provided by its terminal operator, the obligation belongs to that
terminal operator and not to the port itself.

With respect to responsibility to the port authority, the general view


is that tug operators are under obligation to conduct their services in
strict compliance with government or port rules and regulations, and
with the safety of life and property as a primary concern. They are
likewise expected to meet their financial obligations to the
government or port.

Only four (4) provided answers with regard to the third item which
pertains to responsibilities to others. These range from
responsibilities arising from accidents involving other vessels that are
not connected with port operations to responsibilities of ensuring
profit for the owner.

5. Types Of Tug Services Provided

Results of the survey show that towing vessels entering or departing


from the port is the fundamental service being provided by tug
operators. This type of service appears to be very crucial and vital
especially for foreign vessels and vessels on their maiden voyages
because of the ship captain’s unfamiliarity with the situation and/or
conditions at the ports in the particular country/area.

In certain ports, Johor Port, for example, other tug services such as
escorting, as well as for stand-by and emergency operations are also
provided by tug operators. In Saigon Port, likewise, services for
emergency operations are available.

6. Manning Of Tugs And Qualifications

Manpower requirements vary from port to port. This can be gleaned


from the answers where up to 5 types of manpower are indicated by
each of the ports that responded to the question. Different position
titles or descriptions are used and it is possible that some of these
may mean the same type of manpower or function. It is, thus, not
easy, in most cases, to provide a position title or description that
would appropriately encompass the others. The same is true with the
qualifications indicated in the responses. Given this, the most that
could be done was to list the types of manpower and qualifications as
provided by the respondents, as follows:

Type Of Manpower Qualification


Tugboat Captain/ Master/Pilot Master Mariner/Certificate Holder
Checker Diploma
Controller University
Wharf Traffic Officer Diploma
Crew/Crew Complement Helmsman/First Mate
Certificate/Licensed Tugboat
Patron
Chief Engineer Third Engineer Certificate/Class 4
Helmsman Class 6
Greaser Class 5
Mooring/Unmooring In-house/BST/work
personnel experience/PMR
Engine Department Worker Engine Seaman
Deck Department Worker
Sailor
Lineman
Portworkers

7. Accreditation/Licensing Of Tug Operators

There were only twelve (12) respondents to this item, four of which
were ports in the Philippines. From the very limited answers given,
there appear to be common documents that are required by some of
the respondent ports (with different document titles). These include
the following:

 Tug Registration Certificate – This document is submitted to the


government agency concerned. At Kuching Port, this is submitted
to the Port Administrator. At Saigon Port, the registration
certificate form is submitted to the Vietnam Inland Waterway or
Vietnam National Maritime Bureau for tugboats with HP below
1000 and with HP above 1000, respectively. In the Philippines, the
form is submitted to the Philippine Coast Guard/MARINA.

 Safety Equipment Certificate/Seaworthy Certificate – At Panjang


and Saigon Ports, this is submitted to the Harbor Master.

 Radio/Radio Safety Certificate – This is submitted likewise to the


Harbor Master or Port Administrator.

 Crew List – This is submitted to the Port Administrator/PCG.


 Permit-To-Operate/Business Permit –In the Philippines, this is
submitted to the PPA.

Other documents seem to be exclusive only to a particular port, such


as the Health Body or Bill of Health and the International Load Line
Certificate which are required at Kuching Port. Johor Port indicated
“mandatory certificates” only and these are submitted to the Marine
Department of Malaysia for endorsement and approval.

8. Tug Requirements For Berthing And Unberthing Of Vessels

The responses show a common basis on which mandatory tug


requirements depend. Generally, the length overall (LOA) of the
vessel determines the number and capacity (or horsepower) of the
tugs that are required to service the vessel. However, the actual LOA
varies for the different ports concerned. Setting standard
specifications may be hard to achieve from the practical point of view
in as much as specific requirements or regulations may also differ
from one port to another. Shown below is a matrix of responses to
the item. Other responses are not included since they are just general
statements and do not provide any basis for quantitative
interpretation.

Tug Requirements For Berthing/Unberthing Of Vessels


Berthing Unberthing
Kuching Port LOA >110m – requires 2 LOA > 110m – requires 2
tugboats tugboats
Johor Port Inner jetties – 2 tugs LOA 240m above – 1 escort
Container Outer jetties – less than tug
Terminal 125m – 1 tug LOA 280m above – 2 escort
tugs
Brunei Ports LOA<180m & draft <8.5m LOA <180m & draft
Dept. – no restrictions, else 2 <8.5m no restrictions, else 2
tugs tugs
Kuantan Port, LOA>70m – 2 tugs LOA>70m – 2 tugs
Malaysia
Tanjung Perak 70 –100m LOA – -500-3000GRT - 1 tug 1000hp
minimum of 1 tug w/ 600 -3001-7000 GRT - 2 w/ 2 x
HP 1000 HP
-7001-12,000 GRT - 2 w/ 1 x
1000 HP
-12,001-20,000 GRT - 2 w/ 1 x
2400 hp, 2x2400hp
Davao 100-150m LOA – by 2 tugs Same as above
w/ 1600-3400 Hp
150-200m LOA – by min.
2 tug w/ 3400-5000 HP
200-300m Loa-by min. 3
tugs w/ 5000-10000HP

9. Manner Rates For Tug Services Are Determined


The manner of determining the rates for tug services vary, as
indicated by the responses, is listed below:

Country/Port/Entity Method
Brunei Ports Department No guidelines
Kuching, Malaysia Hourly basis
Saigon Port Promulgated by State Pricing
Committee
Pontianak Port, Indonesia Approximately 1 to 1.5
hours/service
Palembang, Indonesia Based on tugging time and
dimensions of vessel
Panjang/General Cargo Port GT of vessel, tug boat horse
power and variable tariff
Port of Tanjung Perak, By Port Corporation based on
Indonesia size of the vessel
Danang Port Based on operating hours and
capacity of tug

10. Mechanism For Determining Liability Of Tugboat Operators And


Compensating Aggrieved Parties

No information from the responses given outlines or clearly defines


and describes the mechanism or procedures in determining the
liabilities of the tugboat operator and the compensation for the
aggrieved party. All of them indicate, however, that the liabilities are
determined based on existing laws, rules and regulations by either the
port authority or competent court concerned.
E. Best Practices Survey – Cargo Handling Statistics

In the collection and maintenance of cargo statistics, there appears to be an


adoption or acceptance of some standard or convention in the unit of
quantity used, either in tons for all types of handling or TEUs in the case of
containers. The survey questionnaire was designed to gather the following
information:

1. Containers
2. Bulk (Liquid)
3. Bulk (Dry)
4. General Cargo
5. Loose
6. Palletized
7. Other (Logs, Sawn Lumber, Steel, Bags, Frozen, Lumber,
Sufferance Facilities, Bagged Cargo, RO-RO, Others)

Since the data submitted by the 42 target respondents were for a particular
year, what could be deduced or inferred at this time are the major types of
cargo handling methods currently in practice. The survey results are
tabulated as follows, all of which are shown in Appendix A:

1. Respondents listed by country


2. Respondents ranked by total volume
3. Respondents ranked by container volume
4. Respondents ranked by bulk volume
5. Respondents ranked by general cargo volume:

According to total volume, covering all cargo types, the data yielded the
following top ten respondents:

1. Indonesia Multi Purpose - 29,967,482


2. Indonesia Tanjung Priok - 23,365,884
3. Malaysia Johor Port Container Terminal (January version)
- 21,372,520
4. Singapore - Maritime & Port Authority of Singapore -
17,040,000
5. Indonesia Port of Tanjung Perak - 16,091,789
6. Indonesia Priok/PT JICT - 15,277,130
7. Thailand Bangkok Port - 13,248,177
8. Indonesia Panjang/General Cargo - 11,850,396
9. Singapore - Port of Singapore Authority - Jurong Port PTE
LTD (JPPL) - 11,200,000
10. Indonesia Palembang - 10,923,492

Cargo volumes range from 10.9 million tons to 30.0 million tons. Six of the
respondents which are from Indonesia dominate this ranking. In the absence
of historical data, it is difficult to arrive at any conclusions in terms of traffic
performance.

In terms of container traffic, the following ranking shown below was arrived
at. Once again, Indonesian respondents lead in the trend towards greater
containerization. This ranking must be taken considering that some
respondents submitted only the total cargo data without specifying how much
is in containerized form. In the ranking for total volumes, the Maritime and
Port Authority registered 17.0 million tons and it is likely that all of this is
containerized cargo. If so, it would be ranked first in the list below.

1. Indonesia Priok/PT JICT - 15,277,130


2. Malaysia Johor Port Container Terminal (January version)
- 11,643,500
3. Philippines - MICT - 10,180,330
4. Indonesia PT Terminal Petikems Surabaya - 9,290,290
5. Singapore - Port of Singapore Authority - Jurong Port PTE
LTD (JPPL) - 6,500,000
6. Indonesia Multi Purpose - 4,620,373
7. Indonesia Panjang/UTPK - 4,200,680
8. Indonesia Tanjung Priok - 3,866,511
9. Philippines - South Harbor, ATI - 2,933,321
10. Malaysia Kuching - 2,810,209

Despite increasing trends towards containerization, Asian ports continue to


handle bulk commodities, liquid and dry. As with total cargo volumes and
container volumes, Indonesian respondents reported significant bulk cargo
levels indicating the presence of bulk handling facilities in these ports. It was
observed that liquid bulk accounted for the greater share in the bulk cargo
market.

1. Indonesia Multi Purpose - 16,654,809


2. Indonesia Tanjung Priok - 13,278,218
3. Indonesia Port of Tanjung Perak - 12,503,386
4. Malaysia Johor Port Container Terminal (January version)
- 9,729,020
5. Indonesia Panjang/General Cargo - 9,340,388
6. Indonesia Palembang - 9,224,710
7. Malaysia Kuantan Port Consortium SDN., BHD. -
3,995,403
8. Vietnam - Saigon Port - 3,173,941
9. Indonesia Pontianak Port - 994,105
10. Malaysia Kuching - 973,500
Aside from container handling and bulk handling facilities, respondents also
reported notable levels of general cargo indicating that demand in these ports
for non-specialized cargo handling facilities in these ports still exists.

1. Thailand Bangkok Port - 13,248,177


2. Indonesia Multi Purpose - 8,692,300
3. Indonesia Tanjung Priok - 6,221,155
4. Singapore - Port of Singapore Authority - Jurong Port PTE
LTD (JPPL) - 4,700,000
5. Indonesia Port of Tanjung Perak - 2,839,632
6. Malaysia Kuantan Port Consortium SDN., BHD. -
2,074,134
7. Indonesia Pontianak Port - 1,902,262
8. Malaysia Kuching - 1,323,676
9. Philippines - South Harbor, ATI - 1,277,326
10. Brunei Ports Department - 1,014,992

Thailand’s Bangkok Port leads in this list. Without commodity


breakdowns and other additional information, it cannot be determined
which percentage of the general cargo have the potential to be absorbed
in the containerization sector. It would appear that these general cargoes
could reduce to minimal levels in the future.

Вам также может понравиться