IFPR Term Paper Major Ports in India

Submitted to Professor XYZ

Contents
Topics Covered in Term Paper ........................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 Major Ports ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Minor Ports ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Growth Drivers for Minor Ports..................................................................................................................... 7 Tariff at Minor Port........................................................................................................................................ 8 Indias Maritime Trade ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Indian Port Efficiency Major Ports .................................................................................................................. 9 Pre-Berthing Detention Time (PBD) ............................................................................................................ 10 Turn Round Time (TRT) ................................................................................................................................ 10 Output per Ship Berth Day (OSBD) .............................................................................................................. 10 Port Investment Elasticity An Estimate ........................................................................................................ 11 Analysis of the Trend ................................................................................................................................... 12 China ........................................................................................................................................................ 12 India ......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Comparison of Elasticity .............................................................................................................................. 14 Measuring Efficiency of Indian Ports using Data Envelopment Analysis ........................................................ 14 Efficiency Measurement .............................................................................................................................. 15 DEA model for Ports .................................................................................................................................... 16 DEA-CCR Model ....................................................................................................................................... 17 DEA-BCC Model ....................................................................................................................................... 18 Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 2006 results ............................................................................................................................................. 19 2010 Results ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 20 Observations................................................................................................................................................ 20 Ranking of Major Ports using the Port Ranking Model ................................................................................... 21 Comparison of Performance of Indian ports with International Ports ........................................................... 23 Cargo handling ............................................................................................................................................. 23 Turnaround Time ......................................................................................................................................... 23 Pre Berthing Time ........................................................................................................................................ 24 Dwell Time ................................................................................................................................................... 24 Major Ports - Issues ......................................................................................................................................... 24 Logistics of Road and Railway...................................................................................................................... 25 Loss Due to Pre Berthing Delays .................................................................................................................. 25

Indian Port Reforms and Privatization ............................................................................................................ 25 Privatization Models in Ports....................................................................................................................... 26 Privatization The Singapore Port Experience ........................................................................................... 27 Opening up of the Indian Port Sector.......................................................................................................... 28 Key Issues in Indian Port Reforms ................................................................................................................... 30 Policy Issues ................................................................................................................................................. 30 Private Sector participation ..................................................................................................................... 30 Corporatization ........................................................................................................................................ 31 Competition ............................................................................................................................................. 31 Connectivity ............................................................................................................................................. 32 Organizational Issues ................................................................................................................................... 32 Labour ...................................................................................................................................................... 32 Equipment Utilization and Management ................................................................................................ 32 MIS and Improved Coordination among port agencies .......................................................................... 32 Capacity Issues............................................................................................................................................. 32 Container Capacity Enhancement ........................................................................................................... 33 New facilities in existing ports ................................................................................................................. 34 New Port Development ........................................................................................................................... 34 Feasibility of Hub Port ............................................................................................................................. 34 Regulatory Issues ......................................................................................................................................... 34 Conservancy and Safety........................................................................................................................... 34 Environmental Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 34 Tariff and Entry Regulation ...................................................................................................................... 34 Addressing Issues Regulatory Initiatives .................................................................................................. 34 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 35 Policy Reforms ............................................................................................................................................. 36 Upgrading infrastructure at Indian ports .................................................................................................... 36 Emphasis on Containerization ..................................................................................................................... 36 References ....................................................................................................................................................... 38 Appendix I ........................................................................................................................................................ 39

Topics Covered in Term Paper

Through this term paper our group has attempted to understand the major ports of India trends in their operational and physical parameters and statistics, regulatory framework, challenges and the way ahead. We have tried to correlate the port investment vis--vis GDP and compared this to investments in roads and railways for both India and China. To better understand the present status of the major ports and as original research we have updated 2 mathematical models for port ranking using statistics available for 2010. In the later part of report we have tried to understand the privatization initiatives in the port sector in India and have tried to place it in the Indian context.

Introduction
Infrastructure plays a vital role in the economic growth of any country. The import and exports of the goods between countries is a very important component contributing to countrys GDP. This international trade is mainly carried out by air or sea. Out of the total international trade, most of the trade takes place through sea. So the port infrastructure has a significant role to play in boosting the international trade and increasing GDP of the country. Indian ports are classified into Major Ports and Minor Ports on the basis of their ownership. As of 2010-11 data, there are 13 major ports and 187 minor ports along the 7,517 km long coast line of India. The Major ports are owned by the government of India. Out of the 13 major ports, twelve ports are governed by Major Port Trusts Act of 1963. The 13th major port, Ennore port, is the only corporate port which is governed by the provisions of the Companies Act. The ownership of Minor Ports is essentially under the jurisdiction of the respective Maritime Boards of the State Governments. Over 90% of the foreign trade is handled by these ports. The total traffic handled at all Indian ports is 911.69 million tonnes as per the figures of 2011-12. In the last five years, the traffic handled by all Indian ports shows a CAGR of 7%. The present paper examines the operations of major ports only though we have explored the operations of minor ports briefly.

Major Ports
According to Article 364(2) (a) of Indian constitution, major port means a port declared to be major port or under any law made by Parliament or any existing law and included within the limit of such port. A port is declared as major port under Section 3(8) of the Indian Ports Act, 1908. According to the Port (Technical) Committee of India (1948), however, the facilities at a major port should include an all weather sheltered harbour, modern berths which can take along side steamers with at least 9.14 m draft as also direct road and rail to the hinterland. Other ports fall under the category of intermediate ports and are administratively under the control of the state government. Major ports are at Kandla, Mumbai, Jawaharlal Nehru, Mormugao, New Mangalore, Visakhapatnam, Cochin, Tuticorin, Paradip, Chennai, Ennore, Kolkata and Haldia. The traffic handled at these major ports is around 560 million tonnes. This contributes to around 61.4% of the total traffic at the Indian Ports. The traffic at these major ports has declined by 1.7% compared to year 2010-11. Over the past three years, major ports have shown stagnant performance. Table 1.0 (Appendix I) indicates that the total traffic handled at minor ports is 351.556 million tonnes which 38.6% of the total traffic. The traffic at these minor ports has increased by 11.5% compared to the year 2010-11. Also on year on year basis, the traffic handled figures show increasing trend as well as increasing percentage of the total trade. Table 2.0 (Appendix I) shows that only two major ports were able to clock more than 10% growth namely Ennore (35.8%) and Cochin (12.4%). Amongst the Major Ports, Kandla Port handled the maximum Cargo of 82.5 million tonnes with a share of 14.7% in total cargo handled at major ports followed by Vishakhapatnam (12.0%), JNPT(11.7%), Mumbai (10.0%), Chennai (9.9%), Paradip (9.7%), Mormugao (7.0%), NMPT (5.9%), Haldia Dock Complex (5.5%), Tuticorin (5.0%), Cochin (3.6%), Ennore (2.7%) and Kolkata Dock System (KDS) (2.2%) during 2011-12.

During Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-12), major ports achieved average annual growth of 4.2% only. Kandla Port is the only port which achieved double digit growth of 11.1% during the plan. Other ports which posted growth of more than the annual average growth during Eleventh Five Year Plan were Tuticorin (9.9%), JNPT (9.3%), Paradip (8.2%), Ennore (7.9%) and Cochin (6.3%).

Minor Ports
Minor ports are regulated by State Maritime board (SMB) of respective State Governments. Currently, there are 187 minor ports across 13 states/Union territories (Exhibit 1) and still growing in numbers. Traffic handled by minor ports has increased to 38.6% from 25% over the last decade. Non-major ports under the Gujarat Maritime Board collectively boasted the maximum minor port traffic (~71 per cent).

Minor ports distribution across India

The capacity utilization of minor port is 68% however its estimated to increase gradually in next five year to 82% for private port. The capacity utilization of ports affiliated to Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) has increased to 84% in recent years.

Gujarat Ports Capacity and Utilization

Minor Port Capacity Utilization

The performance characteristics vary widely across all minor ports, though most of the minor ports are still lagging in terms of efficiency as compared to major port except few private ports. Two of the leading private ports Pipavav and Mundra (Adani) have turnaround time of 48 and 22 hours per thousand TEU calls as compared to 18 hours for JNPT.

Comparison of Turnaround time in hours (normalized)

Growth Drivers for Minor Ports

The minor ports increased their throughput from 118.86 million tonnes in 2003-04 to 370 million tonnes in 2011-12. This is a growth of 211.29 per cent as against 62.47 per cent growth by major ports during the same period.

Most of the minor ports were built for the specific local needs such as transport of coal for captive costal coal-fired power plant, gas power plant etc. However, these captive ports are developing captive ecosystems to drive traffic growth. As a result, they are attracting more industrial and manufacturing units leading into incremental traffic growth. Over the next five year (2012-17), around 30 Giga Watts of coal-fired power generation capacity is likely to be added for which coal import of 230m ton per annum is estimated. A large part of this requirement will be served by minor ports as most of these plants will be set up near ports. Apart from this, 35m tonnes of ferrous capacity and 54m tonnes of cement capacity are to be added over FY12-17E. Thus transportation of iron ore and additional import of 111m TPA of thermal/coking coal for cement plants will also drive the traffic at minor ports. Apart from regional traffic and traffic from captive ecosystems, ports with strong parentage also generate significant cargo from the promoter group, eg. MPSEZ (Mundra port), Dhamra, Essar and Pipavav have benefited from strong parentage. Manufacturing growth in hinterland is resulting into increase in cargo traffic at minor ports as major ports failed to increase their capacity in time. Due to bottlenecks at major ports, private port developers and shipping companies are eyeing minor port as strategic investment points and they are being developed by domestic and international private investors. E.g. Pipavav Port being developed by Maersk and Mundra Port is being developed by the Adani Group (with a terminal operated by the firm P&O). The effect can be seen more prominently in Gujarat, where minor ports have been benefited from the close proximity to northern hinterland on west coast as well as to Delhi - Mumbai freight corridor. There is good connectivity in South India hinterland, especially with the ports on east coast which will drive container, bulk and project cargo volume with the increase in industrialization in this area.

Tariff at Minor Port

Minor or private port are free to formulate tariff charges; though this provides them greater flexibility, it also increases the competition as there are more number of players and leads to market based pricing. Some of the minor ports are complementing the major ports. This can be attributed to its proximity to the northern hinterland, pro-business government and a dynamic business community (e.g. Gujarat). Due to relatively free market structure in minor ports, there has been increase in competition among different ports. However, this sector is attracting more private players as there is huge market potential and in order to cater the growing demand, there is need to setup more minor ports to handle hinterland connectivity, along with deepening of sea channels at minor port.

Indias Maritime Trade

The import export trade or traffic handled at the ports can be classified into three categories as shown in the following table: Crude Crude Oil Products Dry Bulk Coal Iron Ore Containers and others Containers Container Transshipment

Food Grains Others Fertilizers and Fertilizers raw materials Table 3.0 in the Appendix I shows the contribution of the every commodity to the total traffic handled. Following are some statistics on commodities handled: Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants (POL): As per 2011-12 data, the largest share (37%) of the total traffic is due to the goods under POL commodity. Over the last 5 years, this share has remained more or less constant. Iron Ore: As per 2011-12 this commodity contributes to 11% of the total traffic handled at all the ports. Till 2009-10, iron ores share has remained almost constant to 17%. But then onwards, because of recession, and slow down in world economy, it is showing decreasing trend with 14% in 2010-11 and 11% in 2011-12. Fertilizers: For the last 5 years, the fertilizers contribution has remained constant to 3-4% of the total traffic. Coal: This coal has two types, thermal coal and coking coal. Thermal coal is used in power plants, whereas the coking coal is used in steel industry. So the coking coal trades closely follow the trends in steel industry. The overall coal traffic percentage has increased from 11% in 200607 to 17% in 2010-12. Building Materials: This category is only 1-2% of the total traffic handled at Indian Ports. Containers: The contribution from this category has remained almost constant to 12-13% over the last 5 years. All the commodity wise traffic trends are summarized in the table in the following page.
40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% POL Irone Ore Fertilizers Coal Containers Others Building material 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

LPG -

Commodity Traffic at Indian Ports

Indian Port Efficiency Major Ports

The parameters used for expressing the port efficiency are mentioned in this section.

Pre-Berthing Detention Time (PBD)

This is the time taken by a ship from its arrival at the anchorage (reporting station) till it starts its movement to the working berth, i.e. operational berth. Ideally, this figure has to be as low as possible.

The trend of average pre-berthing detention time from 1990-91 to 2011-12 is as shown in the above chart. As we can see, from year 1995-96, it is drastically reduced to 2005-06. But after 2005-06 it is continuously increasing, and has reached to 2.32 days in 2011-12.

Turn Round Time (TRT)

Turn Round Time of a vessel refers to the time the vessel reports at the anchorage to the time it sails out from the berth.

As shown in the above chart, this parameter has improved significantly during the past one and half decades for all the major ports. Average TRT for all major ports improved from 8.10 days in 199091 to 3.63 days in 2005-06. Thereafter the TRT has increased steadily to 5.29 days in 2010-11. In 2011-12, the average TRT declined to 4.6 days and the TRT varied in a range between 1.82 days at Cochin Port to 6.42 at Kandla. Port wise TRT figures are given in table 4.0 of Appendix I.

Output per Ship Berth Day (OSBD)

The average Output per Ship Berth Day is defined as the ratio of the aggregate cargo to the total number of berth days. The low values for OSB indicate lower productivity and there is enough scope for improving the same by way of minimizing the Non-Working Time. Hence one should have OSB as maximum as possible. During the last 20 years this indicator has seen a tremendous improvement. Average OSBD has more than tripled from 3,372 tonnes in 1990-91 to 10917 tonnes in 2011-12 for major ports. However, average output per ship berth day is marked by substantial

variation across major ports ranging from a high 27466 tonnes in case of Ennore to a low of 2778 tonnes at Kolkata Dock System during 2011-12. This variation reflects the type of cargo being handled, level of mechanization and labour practices. Port wise OSB figures are given in table 5.0 of Appendix I.

Port Investment Elasticity An Estimate

Here, in order to maintain the consistency in comparison, the forecasted investments in Roads and bridges, ports and railways vs forecasted GDP was plotted for India and China for the year 20122016.The trend is as follows:

Infra Investment Vs GDP (USD bn)- China

60 50 Infra Investment 40 30 20 10 0 5000 y = 0.0003x + 12.118 R = 0.8093 y = 0.0007x - 0.5977 R = 0.9806 6000 7000 8000 GDP 9000 10000 11000 y = 0.0043x + 6.5922 R = 0.9924 Roads and Bridges (USD bn) Ports (USD bn) Railway (UD bn) Linear (Roads and Bridges (USD bn)) Linear (Ports (USD bn)) Linear (Railway (UD bn))

Infra Investment Vs GDP (Rs. Crore)- India

80,000 Infrastructure Investment 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 4,500,000 5,000,000 y = 0.008x - 3227 R = 0.7651 y = 0.0034x - 10481 R = 0.9444 y = 0.0174x - 38629 R = 0.9941

Ports Roads Rail Linear (Ports) Linear (Roads) Linear (Rail) 5,500,000 GDP 6,000,000 6,500,000

The projection of the investment by the government has been done by their growth targets of GDP in combination with the detailed study of the past trends of infrastructure and GDP growth. Also, various sector growth targets are taken into the account while projecting the investment plans for various sectors. For example, India targeted a GDP growth of 9% during 11th five year plans. This resulted in a GCF (Gross Capital Target) level of 11% if they want to achieve the targeted GDP growth rate.

Analysis of the Trend

China

For China, investments in Roads and bridges, ports and railways follow a linear relationship with the forecasted GDP. The beta and R^2 values are tabulated as follows: Beta Value R^2 Roads and Bridges 0.0003 0.8093 Ports 0.0007 0.9806 Railways 0.0043 0.9924 The investment in Railways is highest due to several high speed rail projects The investments in roads and bridges is lowest because of Chinas already developed roads infrastructure China is also concentrating upon developing various ports because their economy is export driven and most of the exports are taken through waterways. The expansion of the Qingdao port and the Wuhan port on the Yangtze River are going to kick-start mega-projects in the port sector.

The elasticity of various infrastructure investments each year is as follows: Elasticity 2011f Roads Ports Rail
India

2012f 0.000 0.963 1.031

2013f 0.000 1.166 0.900

2014f 0.176 1.335 1.021

2015f 0.087 1.451 0.918

2016f 0.172 1.304 0.649

0.353 0.743 0.555

For India also, forecasted investments in Roads, ports and railways follow a linear relationship with the forecasted GDP. The beta and R^2 values are tabulated as follows: Beta Value R^2 Roads 0.0174 0.9941 Ports 0.0034 0.9444 Railways 0.008 0.7651 Indian governments priority is to invest heavily in roads infrastructure which connects various trade centres to enable glitch free transportation of goods. Road infrastructure is the second highest receiver of total infrastructure spending after power sector. This is evident from the above tabulated beta values which is higher as compared to that of ports and railways. Currently investment in Railway infrastructure is lesser as compared to roads but government has planned to spend for dedicated freight corridors and Metro railway projects, investment in the sector is going to increase in future. The governments strategy for the ports sector is expected to lead to a quantum jump in capital formation in this sector which will result in port sectors increased role in international trade and its contribution to the economic growth of the country. For each year, the elasticity data for Roads, Ports and Rail investments is as follows: Elasticity 2011f Roads Ports Rail 1.197 1.557 1.616 2012f 2.004 1.734 1.259 2013f 2.253 1.612 1.045 2014f 1.966 1.500 1.230 2015f 1.684 5.525 1.432 2016f 1.636 4.921 2.677

Comparison of Elasticity
2.5

Elasticity(Roads)

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.52010 2012 2014 2016 2018

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2010

Elasticity(Ports)

2012

2014

2016

2018

Year
11.00 GDP Growth Rate 10.50 10.00 9.50 9.00 8.50 8.00 7.50 2010 2012

Year

Elasticity(Rail)

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

2014 Year

2016

2018

Year

Physical infrastructure has a direct impact on the growth and overall development of an economy. But the fast growth of the Indian economy in recent years has placed increasing stress on physical infrastructure such as electricity, railways, roads, ports, airports, irrigation, and urban and rural water supply and sanitation. Indias goals of inclusive growth and 9% GDP growth can be achieved only when a huge investment is done in these areas. As evident from above table that the GDP elasticity of roads, ports and rail is higher in case of India as compared to China. The reason of which can be seen from the above GDP growth rate table which shows that Chinas economy is having a consistent growth rate of around 10% whereas India is looking forward to catch up with the fastest growing economies by 2020 by investing heavily in infrastructure sector.

Measuring Efficiency of Indian Ports using Data Envelopment Analysis

As a majority of the Indian foreign trade in volume is carried by sea transport, the port efficiency becomes a crucial factor for global competitiveness. We have measuring the efficiency of twelve major Indian ports, using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) approach.

Efficiency Measurement
According to DEA1 model, the efficiency of a firm can be in two forms: 1. Technical Efficiency: Reflects the ability of the firm to obtain maximum output from the given set of combination of inputs. 2. Allocative Efficiency: Reflects the ability of the firm to use the given set of combination of inputs in optimal proportion at their respective prices. The above two efficiencies combined provide a measure of economic efficiency.

These two types of efficiency can be represented graphically by means of an isoquant curve in above figure. The set of minimum inputs required for a unit of output lies on the isoquant curve YY. If an input-output combination point P shows the production of one unit of output Y, using input quantities X1 and X2, the technical inefficiency can be represented by the distance QP, since the same level of output can be achieved by consuming less of both inputs X1 and X2 at point Q. The segment QP indicates the inefficiency in resource utilization. The input-oriented Technical Efficiency (TE) is usually expressed in percentage terms by the ratio OQ/OP. Therefore TE = OQ/OP or [1- (QP/OP)] Furthermore, consider the iso-cost line AA, whose slope represents the ratio of input prices. This iso-cost line is a tangent to this iso-quant curve (where the ratio of input price is equal to the marginal rate of technical substitution) at point Q. Though points Q and Q both represent full technical efficiency, the cost can be minimized at point Q. The cost reduction could be achieved by choosing an input combination at point Q, which gives the same level of output Y on the isoquant curve YY. Considering that the cost is same at point R and Q, the input use has to be contracted to point R. Since the distance RQ represents the reduction in cost if the output is produced at allocatively efficient point Q, the input Allocative Efficiency (AE) of the firm operating at point P can be defined as the ratio of OR/OQ. Therefore AE = OR/OQ The product of Technical Efficiency and Allocative Efficiency provide the overall Economic Efficiency (EE). TE AE = (OQ/OP) (OR/OQ)
1

This section draws from Measuring Efficiency of Indian Ports: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis by K M Chudasama and Kiran Pandya, ICFAI Univ Journal of Infrastructure, Vol VI, No 2, 2008. We have updated the model for 2010 statistics.

Therefore EE = OR/OP All these efficiencies are measured along the ray from origin to the observed point of production and therefore it holds the relative proportion of input or output constant. As these measures of efficiency are units invariant, the value of efficiency measures will not change even if the units of measurements are changed. The input oriented Technical Efficiency in the case of Constant Returns to Scale (CRS) and Variable Returns to Scale (VRS) can be represented by the ratio of AP/AB as shown in below figure.

DEA model for Ports

The efficiency of a port is considered as the ratio of weighted sum of outputs to the weighted sum of inputs: E= (Weighted Sum of Outputs)/ (Weighted Sum of Outputs) Output Y= Cargo Volume Handled at port (thousand tonnes) Inputs X1=No. of Cranes. It includes Mobile, Wharf, Container Yard and Quay Cranes of BOT Operators also. X2=No. of Other Equipment. It includes Fork/Top lift Truck, Reach Stacker, Tractors, Trailers, Locomotives, Dozer, Excavator, etc. X3=No. of Vessels handled. It includes Bulk/General/Container Cargo Carriers, Crude/Gas Tankers etc X4=No. of Berths. It includes Single Buoy Mooring and Barge Jetty berths handling POL and Other Liquid, Iron Ore, Coal, Fertilizer, Container, General Break Bulk Cargo. X5=Storage Area in Sq. mtrs. It includes Transit Shed, Warehouse, CFS, Open Area, Tanks, etc. 2006
Output Ports Chennai Cochin Haldia JNPT Kandla Kolkata Y 47,248 13,887 42,337 37,836 45,907 10,806 X1 36 21 2 2 16 26 X2 176 109 36 558 15 126 X3 1,857 1,225 2,348 2,395 2,124 777 Input X4 22 15 17 12 19 33 X5 15,96,842 50,789 9,17,880 28,41,614 15,21,033 3,28,981

Mormugao Mumbai New Mangalore Tuticorin Paradip Visakhapatnam

31,688 44,190 34,451 33,109 17,139 55,801

1 49 6 8 18 27

12 60 10 23 9 32

642 2,153 1,087 1,330 1,576 2,109

6 49 12 14 13 23

2,63,446 6,29,183 1,07,301 14,08,200 10,23,350 11,79,937

2010
Output Ports Chennai Cochin Haldia JNPT Kandla Kolkata Mormugao Mumbai New Mangalore Tuticorin Paradip Visakhapatnam Y
61057 17429 33378 60763 79500 13045 48847 54541 35528 23787 57011 65501

Input X1 48 27 3 113 16 29 1 354 6 16 9 25 X2 45 108 36 365 15 128 12 60 10 4 12 18 X3 2131 872 2163 3096 2776 1299 465 1639 1186 1414 1531 2406 X4 21 16 19 12 24 33 6 63 13 14 16 22 X5 1632028 291545 917880 3728841 1221313 328981 356201 906227 104481 1190160 1831000 1314297

Empirical Analysis: Two types of DEA Models, namely the DEA-CCR Model (for Constant Returns to Scales) and DEA-BCC Model (for Variable Returns to Scales) were applied to analyze the efficiency of the sample ports. The technical efficiencies derived from the DEA-CCR and DEABCC models are used to obtain a measure of scale efficiency for any DMU. It can be measured as: SE = Efficiency Score of CCR/Efficiency Score of BCC A value of SE = 1 indicates scale efficiency and SE < 1 indicates scale inefficiency. Scale inefficiency is due to either increasing or decreasing returns to scale, which can be determined by inspecting the sum of weights. If this sum = 1, the constant returns to scale prevails, whereas if this sum is < 1, the increasing returns to scale and if this sum is > 1 decreasing returns to scale prevails. The Excel Solver function was used to find out the technical efficiencies in case of DEA CCR and DEA-BCC models. Both of the models are output oriented which means that we have maximized the output for a port given the inputs. The equations for both the models are mentioned below. The notations used for input and output have already been explained above.
DEA-CCR Model

Let the weights for ith port is Wi. The output oriented DEA CCR model can be stated as follows: For ith port Maximize Objective Function: Wj*Yj Output Constraint

Wj*Yj >= Yi .. (1) Input Constraints: Wj*X1j >= X1i .. (2) Wj*X2j >= X2i .. (3) Wj*X3j >= X3i .. (4) Wj*X4j >= X4i .. (5) Wj*X5j >= X5i .. (6) Where Wi >=0 Scale efficiency of port i= Yi/Wj*Yj
DEA-BCC Model

For BCC model, in addition to above equations which were used in case of CRR model, we add one more constraint: Wi = 1 Using the solver function, we get the technical and scale efficiencies for both DEA and BCC model.

Results
The technical and scale efficiencies of all the twelve major ports were found using DEA analysis and tabulated as below. Note that the 2006 results were taken from the research paper. The 2010 analysis has been done using data inputs from CMIE database.

Ports New Mangalore Mormugao Kandla Cochin Haldia Visakhapat nam JNPT Paradip Tuticorin Chennai Mumbai

CRR Efficiency 1.000 1.000 0.888 0.852 0.668 0.618 0.597 0.553 0.532 0.515 0.481

BCC Efficiency 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.830 0.915 0.986

Technical Inefficiency 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.170 0.085 0.014

Scale Inefficiency 0.000 0.000 0.112 0.148 0.332 0.382 0.403 0.447 0.297 0.399 0.504

Total Inefficiency 0.000 0.000 0.112 0.148 0.332 0.382 0.403 0.447 0.468 0.485 0.519

Kolkata
2006 results

0.282

0.321

0.679

0.039

0.718

Ports

CRR Efficiency

New Mangalore Mormugao Kandla Cochin Haldia Visakhapatnam JNPT Paradip Tuticorin Chennai Mumbai Kolkata
2010 Results

Possible Increase in Output 1.000 1.000 0.888 0.852 0.668 0.618 0.597 0.553 0.532 0.515 0.481 0.282 1.126 1.174 1.497 1.618 1.675 1.809 1.878 1.940 2.079 3.549

Scale sum of Efficiency Weights 1 1 0.888 0.852 0.668 0.618 0.597 0.553 0.642 0.564 0.488 0.879 1 1 1.50000242 0.47333203 2 2.7892 2 0.9 0.59700833 2.89252336 2.83 1.21028041

Returns of Scale CRS CRS DRS IRS DRS DRS DRS IRS IRS DRS DRS DRS

Ports

Kandla Mormugao New Mangalore 1.000 1.000 Tuticorin 0.986 0.999 Paradip 0.748 0.878 Visakhapatn am 0.622 1.000 JNPT 0.409 0.847 Mumbai 0.357 0.861 Chennai 0.349 1.000 Cochin 0.262 1.000 Haldia 0.208 0.275 Kolkata CRR Possible Increase in Ports Efficiency Output 1.000 Kandla 1.000 Mormugao 1.000 New Mangalore

CRR BCC Technical Scale Total Efficiency Efficiency Inefficiency Inefficiency Inefficiency 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.122 0.000 0.012 0.131 0.000 0.014 0.252

0.000 0.378 0.378 0.153 0.438 0.591 0.139 0.503 0.643 0.000 0.651 0.651 0.000 0.738 0.738 0.725 0.067 0.792 Scale Sum of Returns of Efficiency Weights Scale 1.000 1 CRS 1.000 1 CRS 1.000 1 CRS

Tuticorin Paradip Visakhapat nam JNPT Mumbai Chennai Cochin Haldia Kolkata

1.000 0.986 0.748 0.622 0.409 0.357 0.349 0.262 0.208

1.014 1.338 1.608 2.447 2.800 2.863 3.818 4.805

1.000 0.988 0.851 0.622 0.483 0.415 0.349 0.262 0.756

1 0.8785 1.3 2 2.851 3.5 1.149 2.629 1.51

CRS IRS DRS DRS DRS DRS DRS DRS DRS

Conclusion
As per the above table, for 2006, New Mangalore and Mormugao ports are the most efficient ports in terms of total efficiency while Kolkata is the least efficient one with the total efficiency score of 0.282. For 2010, Kandla and Mormugao are the most efficient port while Kolkata is the least efficient one again. For each port, possible increase in output for that port is also given for both 2006 and 2010. In 2006, possible increase in output is null in case of New Mangalore and Mormugao because they are the most efficient ports while in case of Kandla, JNPT and Kolkata ports, the possible increase in output using the same amount of inputs are 1.126, 1.675 and 3.549 respectively. This indicates that the pace of reforms is slowest at Kolkata and it requires serious consideration from the authorities. In 2010, the possible increase in outputs in case of Cochin, Haldia and Kolkata are 2.86, 3.81 and 4.80 (using the same resources) respectively which signify that these ports are very inefficient in terms of operations. As per the DEA analysis, in 2006, Cochin, Tuticorin and Paradip are the IRS (increasing Returns of Scale) while New Mangalore and Mormugao are the CRS (constant returns of scale) ports. Rest all ports; Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata etc. are the ports with decreasing returns of scale. For 2010, Kandla, Mormugao, New Mangalore and Tuticorin are the ports with constant returns of scale while Paradip is having IRS. Rest all ports are with DRS.

Observations
As evident from the tables above, Kandla, Tuticorin, Paradip, Vishakhapatnam and JNPT ports have improved their efficiency from 2006 to 2010. Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata have deteriorated in terms of their efficiency. Cochin has deteriorated drastically from CRR efficiency of 0.852 in 2006 to 0.349 in 2010.

The average efficiency of all the major Indian ports has decreased slightly from 0.666 in 2006 to 0.662 in 2010.With increasingly open competition from the ports from other developed countries of the world and the private sector, Indian major ports should look forward to improve their overall efficiency of operations.

Ranking of Major Ports using the Port Ranking Model2

The statistics for 2009-2010 for various operational and physical parameters are recorded below:

Average Turn Around Time (ATAT), Average Pre Berthing Time (APBT), Average Output Per Ship Berth Day (AOSD), Total Volume of Cargo Handled (CH), Capacity Utilization (CU) and Number of Vessels Handled (VH) are the six sub indicators that measure the operational performance of a port, while the total number of berths, the channel depth, total storage area, total number of cranes, total number of other equipments and the cargo handling capacity are the six sub indicators that measure the extent of the physical facility available at the port. The conventional method of assigning subjective or ad hoc weights could lead to unrealistic results. To overcome this limitation, the variable weights are derived from the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) technique. The rationale behind deriving weights from PCA is to normalize the redundancy in the variables when the absolute values of variables are correlated, as they measure the same construct (overall performance). The factor loadings indicate the contribution of each variable and therefore, the weights (On the basis of factor loadings) derived using PCA are more realistic and reflect the relative importance of variables under the analysis, which leads to meaningful results. Using SPSS weighting factors are extracted using factor reduction. These factors are shown below:

Cardinal scores (in units) are allocated to the (absolute values of) parameters on the basis of performance. The scores are calculated in such a way that the port with worst performance gets one unit score and the port with better performance gets the higher score according to the level of performance for each variable.

This section draws from Performance Appraisal of Indian Ports Using Port Ranking Model, KM Chudasama, IUP Journal of Infrastructure, Vol VII, No. 1, 2009. In our paper we have updated the model for 2010 figures.

The weighting of scores involves multiplying each cardinal score of each variable for each port by the weights (derived from PCA) for each variable. Thus weighted scores are the performance scores of each port pertaining to each variable. The weighted scores not only indicate the better or poor performance, but also highlight the extent of difference in the performance of particular variable for the ports under analysis.

Port Ranking: On the basis of the sum of weighted scores pertaining to the operational performance variables and the sum of weighted scores pertaining to the physical facilities variables, the ranks are allocated to all the 12 major ports of India as shown below:

The rankings indicate an interesting trend. Ports like Kolkata score extremely poorly on operational parameters but possess excellent infrastructure. The JNPT port is uniformly excellent. Also while Mumbai is operationally poor, due to an overall low operational score, it does not really affect the final score significantly. In fact for all ports the overall operational score is much lower than physical score, thus the physical infrastructure score is more important. The result of ranking depicts that ports having better physical facilities compared to operational performance have been proved better in terms of overall performance. Cochin, Kolkata and Mumbai hold higher positions

in terms of overall performance due to their higher ranks in physical facilities as compared to the ranks in operational performance. The research paper on Port Ranking model ranked ports by this methodology using the 2007 data. The changes in port ranks over this period are shown in the table below:
Port Chennai Cochin Haldia JNPT Kandla Kolkata Mormugao Mumbai New Mangalore Paradip Tuticorin Vishakhapatnam 2007 Ranking 2 7 9 1 6 5 12 3 11 8 10 4 2010 Ranking 3 7 9 1 6 8 11 2 12 4 10 5

It can be observed that there is no significant change in the mutual position of the ports over the course of 3 years.

Comparison of Performance of Indian Ports with International Ports

The main port efficiency parameters are Turnaround Time, Pre-Berthing Time, Output per Ship Berth Day, Dwell Time. These parameters are inter-dependent and factors affecting one parameter have cascading effects on the others. The main parameter of turnaround time can be taken to indicate port efficiency since it reflects all the other components effectively. In terms of time distribution, turnaround time is the sum of pre-berthing time, time spent at the working berth that includes the vessel working time and non-working time at berth and operational transit time (time taken for berthing).

Cargo Handling
JN Port, the largest port in India, handled 65.75 million tonnes of total cargo and handled 4.32 million TEUs (Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit) of container traffic during the financial year 2011-12. Compared to this the Singapore port alone handled 531.176 million tonnes of cargo and 29.94 million TEUs. The figures are simply not comparable with Indian ports.

Turnaround Time
The major reason for a comparatively worse throughput of Indian ports is their high turnaround time. This has resulted in a low competitiveness of Indian Ports. Singapore port- the world's busiest in terms of shipping tonnage receives more than 70,000 commercial vessels/ year in a single port, not including barges, tugs, ferries and passenger vessels. That amounts to an average of more than 190 vessels per day. The average turnaround time for ships in Singapore is between 68 hours. The same for Indian ports is about 4.66 days as of 2012.

Pre Berthing Time

The average pre berthing time in Indian ports have been increasing over the years and it is currently 12.12 hours. The international standard for pre berthing time is around 0.3 hours. In some international ports like Rotterdam Port there is no concept of pre-berthing detention as the berths are waiting for ships and they have longer quay lengths.

Dwell Time
Currently the average dwell time at Indian Major Ports is 1.88 days for import and 3.78 days for export of containers. As per the detailed time study of the actual time taken by the port authority for handling import and export containers in the container terminal, it is revealed that the total time taken by the port authority, cumulatively, is 3.5 to 5.5 hrs for import and 3.3 to 5.3 hrs for export. Thus it can be observed that the rest of the time the container dwells in the port is on the account of other stakeholders like shipping agents, customs, clearing agents / transporters etc who have to play their respective roles in preparing & furnishing the requisite information to the port authority, arrange for funds for making payment of port charges, arranging for transport etc. In comparison, the dwell time at Singapore Port is 0.5 days for import or export of containers. Any reduction in dwell time would reduce the transaction cost and also increase the capacity of the existing Port infrastructure Indian ports lag behind the major ports of the world e.g., Shanghai and Singapore both in terms of the volume handled and the infrastructure. The lack of investment in improving port logistics have led to Indian ports having high turnaround, pre berthing time, etc as compared to China and Singapore or the global best standards. It currently ranks 47th on the 2010 Global Logistics Performance Index calculated by the World Bank.

Major Ports - Issues

Capacity Constraints are being faced by major ports in India which are highly congested leading to delays and poor turnaround times. As per studies, capacity utilization at major ports during 2005-2010 was in the range of 91-97%. At present, most of the Indian ports have reached capacity utilization of about 90% and in some cases even 100%, indicating very high port congestion and berth utilization and eventually contributing towards port inefficiency. Moreover, the Maritime agenda 2020 spells that the average dwell time at major ports in India was 3.78 days compared to 0.5 days at international ports. Low levels of Mechanization has led to poor movement of cargo resulting in overall delay in the logistics chain ultimately increasing the total logistics cost. Average container moves in India are around 20-25/hr and crane rate is 60-70/hr compared to 25-30 and 100/hr respectively for international ports. Moreover, equipments available at many ports are outdated and need replacement. Unavailability of Specialized berths has raised yet another barrier for Indian ports. Even today ports in India continue to be dominated by multi-purpose berths, with their share being almost 60% in 2009-10 for major ports. The lack of specialized berths leads to low efficiency on account of higher pre-berthing detention times for vessels again pointing towards their contribution in increasing logistics cost. Lack of containerization of cargo leads to increase in time for transfer of cargo in various modes of transport. Container cargo represents only about 30% (by value) of India's external

trade; which is something much lower when compared with the global containerized cargo average of 70-75%. Container cargo not only leads to cost savings, but due to ease of transfer between different modes of transportation also leads to time savings. Shallow Draft at most Indian ports lead to difficulty of ships being berthed directly at ports leading to slower unloading rate. World over, the trend of using increasingly larger ships in view of economies of scale while shallow draft at Indian ports hinders these large ships from coming to India. Last mile connectivity is yet not available to most of the ports of the country because of overall poor rail/road connections

Logistics of Road and Railway

Apart from ports, logistics costs and connectivity are heavily dependent on road and rail infrastructure. Hinterland connectivity from ports is still not up to international standards. If we look at four lane highways, India just has 7000km, while China has 34,000 km of 4-lane highways. Average truck speed in India is 30-40 kms/hr while it is between 60-80 km/hr in China. Overdependence on roads for freight carriage is yet another issue hampering the smooth logistics operations. Currently 65% of freight in India is carried by roads. This leads to congestion eventually leading to higher costs. Comparing the freight moved by roads in China, this figure is around 30% and in the US, it is around 37%.When we talk about rail connectivity; India doesnt have a dedicated freight corridor for movement of freight. The same railway tracks are used for both passenger and freight.

Loss Due to Pre Berthing Delays

For users of major ports of India, the long pre berthing time results in higher ocean freight rates and demurrage costs. Demurrage cost is the cost paid by charterers (importer/exporter) for the time a ship stays at a port beyond the time specified in the voyage contract. Hence any extra delay at the port directly translates into extra demurrage cost. It is estimated that demurrage cost may account for as much as 12-15 percent of the total door-to-door logistics costs of exports/imports during peak season. According to a report by CRISIL, the costs incurred in Rs/ tonne for pre berthing delays are given as follows for a charter hire rate of USD 12000 per day: Parcel size (in tones) 25,000 40,000 55,000 4 days delay 240 150 109 7 days delay 168 105 76 10 days delay 96 60 44

Indian Port Reforms and Privatization

As is evident from the previous section, one of the main reasons for turning towards privatization is the belief that operational efficiency of the port will improve due to such action. Port financing may also be limited by the public sector budget or income. This reliance on the Public Sector for creating the port infrastructure has led to uncertainty in future investments and thus a general opening up of ports to private sector has been seen in India. Involving private sector in port management renders the benefits of increased access to capital, better technology and modern management. The direct

participation of private sector can introduce efficient business practices into the system which is different from the public sector which often develops dependence on protection and subsidies. This section basically examines the privatization models and experiences at various other ports.

Privatization Models in Ports

Ports authorities essentially cover 3 functions: 1. Regulatory: This function, in general, may be regarded as the primary role of a port authority and includes such activities as maintaining the conservancy function, providing vessel traffic management, enforcing applicable laws and regulations, licensing port works and safeguarding port users interests against the risk of monopoly formation. 2. Landowner Function: Irrespective of whether the land area of a port is large or small, however, the essential tasks of a port landowner are to manage and develop the port estate, to implement port policies and development strategies, to coordinate port marketing and promotion activities, and to provide and maintain port infrastructure such as channels, breakwaters, and road and rail access to the port facilities. 3. Operator function: This is concerned with the physical transfer of goods and passengers between sea and land. In a comprehensive port, the cargo-handling activity will be controlled by state-owned organizations while in a landlord port, either private companies alone or a mix of private and public companies will undertake this activity. Baird (1995, 1997) proposed a port function matrix as a model for port administration.

According to which of these three functions are the responsibilities of public or private organizations, the matrix presented makes it possible to ascertain the influence exercised within any given port by the public and private sector. 1. Public Ports: The ports principal activities can be divided into separate operating units, i.e. regulatory, land ownership and finally the port operational activities. The operator in all three cases would be the public sector unit. This is a port in which all three functions are controlled by the government or public authority and is synonymous with a comprehensive port. 2. Leasing out container berths (Public/Private Port): This is equivalent to handing over the operational activities to the private sector. Container berths are leased out to shipping lines/ operators that are responsible for processing of containers and achieving efficiency in productivity. This is one of the most commonly adopted methods to improve efficiency. It gives

the ability to allow the benefits of private sector management (particularly the efficient handling of cargo) to be combined with public and common user interests. 3. Private/ Public Port: Here, both landowner and operator functions are in private hands, while the regulatory function remains in the public sector. 4. Private Ports: In these ports all three functions are in the private sector control. Another way of looking at the same matrix is the four different Port Organisation and Administration structures: 1. Services Port: The public port authority owns, maintains and operates all port assets (both fixed and mobile) and cargo handling is done by labour employed directly under the port authority. The port authority undertakes to offer complete range of services required for functioning of the seaport system. 2. Tool Port: Under tools port model the port authority owns develops and maintains the port infrastructure as well as the superstructure, including cargo handling equipment such as quay cranes, forklift trucks etc. The port authority rents out its equipment and facilities to private parties, who are also allowed to set up specific facilities and services, which the port authority does not wish to operate on its own. 3. Landlord Port: In this model, several of infrastructure facilities is leased to private operating companies like oil refineries, chemical plants or private port operators. While each of the operators of services is free to further develop and add to the facilities operated by them, the basic ownership of the leased assets including land, waterfront and other fixed assets rest with the port authority, which acts as the landlord. This model is highly compatible with the BOT route of financing port projects and is strongly recommended for moving out of the services port model that is less amenable to cooption of private sector in port development. 4. Fully Privatised Ports: It is considered an extreme form of port reform and suggests that State no longer any meaningful role of pursuing public interest in the ports sector. In fully privatized ports, port land is fully privately owned and involves risk of being sold and re-sold for non-port use, making it unavailable for maritime use. The chart below summarises the role of public and private sector in port management:

Privatization The Singapore Port Experience

The Port of Singapore relies for around 80 % of its business on transhipment and due to its strategic location has great business potential. Its high level of efficiency along with the strategic location has

been mainly responsible for achieving and maintaining Singapore's global hub status. In 1997 corporatization was introduced as a part of the nationwide trend towards the privatization of Singapores state owned enterprises. It should be mentioned that Singapore was performing very well before corporatization too. No financial burden on the budget side was experienced and it contributed to budget surpluses towards national output. However, with the increasing inter-Port competition and as a part of Singapores policy of helping the private sector to exercise greater influence, the government embarked on privatization. Accordingly, Corporatization was adopted to provide flexibility and further efficiency. Before 1997, the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) as a statutory board acted as both regulator and terminal operator. In 1997 the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) was setup which took over PSAs regulatory functions. Today, MPA is responsible for overseeing Singapores ports maritime affairs, while PSA Corporation (PSA Corp) functions as the provider of Port services. MPA as a Port regulator issues 4 types of licenses: Port services and facilities; Pilotage services; Towage services; and Licenses for sale of desalinated water.

PSA Corp is the sole container terminal operator, which means that all liner vessels trading to and from Singapore must purchase terminal services from PSA Corp. Since 1996 PSA Corp has chosen to expand internationally through partnerships or operating agreements entered into by PSA International Pvt. Ltd (the Holding Company for the PSA Group Worldwide). This is done primarily to diversify risks and stabilize revenues. It should be mentioned that it has significant interests in Port of Tuticorin in India.

Opening up of the Indian Port Sector

The reforms in the Indian port sector were initiated during 1990s. The Indian economys gradual integration with the global economy and sharp growth in industrial output induced by the liberalization policies made it imperative to improve quality and expand capacity of the countrys physical infrastructure for sustaining industrial growth. In 1994, the Ministry of Surface Transport (MoST) of Government of India (GoI), which was the nodal agency overseeing the Indian port sector; published a policy document specifying the intention of the government to create a more conducive atmosphere for privatizing key port facilities and amending the governing rules, regulations and procedures accordingly. Private sector participation was being essentially sought in areas where it could offer attractive rates of return on the port assets leased out and also assure no retrenchment of labour over a given period of time. The first policy guidelines for Private Sector Participation (PSP) (domestic and foreign) in major Indian ports were announced by the Ministry of Surface Transport in 1996. The guidelines pertained to clauses regarding collaborations between major ports and foreign ports, minor ports, and other private operators, respectively. The announcement of the guidelines implied that future development of ports would no longer be in the exclusive domain of the public sector. The GoI adopted the concept of landlord ports, and aimed to secure private participation in the provision of port services. The Board of Trustees who are appointed by the GoI to administer the port represent

government departments involved with port operations, labour and service providers such as stevedores, shipping agents etc. The financial and other powers were also substantially increased. The Government also took a decision that all new ports would be set up as companies under the Indian Companies Act and the existing port trusts will also be gradually corporatized. This decision was based on the belief that corporatization would make ports operate on commercial principles and make it possible to evaluate their performance on the basis of their profitability. The 12th Major Port at Ennore has been set up as a company under the Companies Act, with the conservancy functions being exercised by the Madras Port Trust. Although, the port trusts were expected to work on a full landlord port model after the 1996 reforms; it has not been implemented completely. Many port trusts still operate one or more terminals at the ports and compete with private terminal operators. Thus Indian ports can presently be seen as only partially privatized; i.e. individual berths have been leased out to private operators on BOT basis (Eg. The Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal (NSICT) is leased to a consortium led by DP World commissioned in July 2000). Thus, there has been a fragmentation of the berthing space and management and operations systems, while the regulatory system has been maintained by the ports themselves. In contrast Singapore ports see its stakeholders as participants and perform on the basis of profit sharing amongst all concerned participators: PSA Corp management team, the MPA management team, the subcontractors, the labour force, as well as all shipping lines calling at the Port of Singapore. PSA groups intensified efforts at optimizing its assets and containing overall costs and expenses have resulted in better overall financial performance. The Port of Singapore has formed certain cooperative/joint ventures with other Ports in the world, offering its capital and expertise in developing and managing ports. Through these overseas ventures it has built up stronger Port linkages with other countries than Indian ports. After the landlord port model, the next gradation on the path to full privatization is corporatization. The port authority is converted into a corporation, which is legally and financially, an independent entity with its own board of directors. The transformation to a corporation is expected to give better performance levels to the port as this structure of governance is expected to function efficiently by applying market principles. The main objective is to decrease direct government control over the company and to make it more responsive to market forces. Similar to privatization, corporatization can include financial restructuring and be a catalyst for the introduction of commercial principles. However, corporatization of existing ports has not been undertaken so far (mostly due to labour opposition). Most major ports still operate under a service port model wherein most operations, services and facilities are provided by the port authority. The Draft Ports Bill 2011 looks at corporatization to begin in a phased manner with the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT), Maharashtra. It is likely to be followed by Kolkata, Paradip, Chennai, Visakhapatnam, Tuticorin, Kochi, Mumbai, Mormugao, Kandla and New Mangalore. The next section examines some of the key issues being considered for the Indian port reforms.

Key Issues in Indian Port Reforms

Due to problems mentioned above, reforms are a must in this sector. The key issues in the reforms related to the Indian Ports are classified as Policy Issues, Organizational Issues, Capacity Issues and Regulatory Issues (represented in figure below)3.

Policy Issues
Private Sector participation

For the commercialization of the port sector through the private sector, the Government of India has spelt out three main objectives: Revenue generation and augmentation of financial viability, Improvement of efficiency and customer satisfaction and New Enterprise culture. Private sector participation will involve leasing out existing port assets and/or setting up operating additional assets such as container terminals, specialized cargo berths, warehousing, storage facilities, carnage/handling equipment, captive power plants and ship repair facilities. The possible contractual arrangements are: 1. Acquisition to Moveable assets: A joint venture company, with or without equity holding by the port authority, is formed to purchase the moveable assets of the port authority such as cranes, bulk loaders and cargo handling equipment. As the lease ends, if it is not renewed, the assets of the company are reverted back to the port authority. 2. Build Operate Transfer (B-O-T): The joint venture company acquires the total facilities, including equipment, buildings and wharves is responsible for the repair and maintenance of existing facilities. The port authority performs the role of a regulatory body and landlord with responsibilities for navigational channels and port control. At the end of the BOT period,
3

Managing Port Reforms in India, Prof Amit S Ray , JNU Delhi 2004

normally more than 25 years, facilitys fixed assets are handed back to the port authority at written down value. 3. Lease Arrangements: The port either leases out its assets to a private operator for maintenance and operation or leases in equipment to operate on its own. 4. Management and/or Technical Contracts: Management contract offers the authority a package of expertise to build a profitable business more rapidly than is possible through licensing, consultancy and other routes. In order to stipulate and monitor port tariffs with private sector participation in ports, the Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP) was established. The tariff authority for Major Ports (TAMP) was constituted in April 1997 to provide for an independent Authority to regulate all tariffs, both vessel and cargo related, and rates for lease of properties in respect of Major Port Trusts and the private operators located therein. This Authority has jurisdiction only over major port trusts and private terminals therein. It is responsible for prescribing the rates for services provided and facilities extended by them and also rates for lease of port trust properties. This Authority is empowered not only to notify the rates but also the conditionality governing application of the rates. The endeavour of the Authority is to emphasize user-orientation in its approach to work and thereby motivate all concerned to give it the benefit of their thinking. In conformity with its commitment to let the participative process preponderate in its working, special care is taken to give adequate opportunities for users to represent their interests. Accordingly, interactive sessions are organized at the port level with users directly. Besides, joint-hearings are held at the port level in the interest of natural justice before the Authority decides individual tariff cases.
Corporatization

Corporatization means the change in the legal structure of a port authority from being arm of the government (as a trust) into an independent company under the Indian Companies Act (1956), thus becoming either a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) or a private company, depending upon shareholding. The incentive of corporatization is that it will make ports operate on commercial principles and enable an evaluation of their performance based on profitability criterion. Another implication of corporatization is that the port management is given total control over all levels of decision-making regarding port operations and administration, and freedom from administrative, legal and policy constraints, imposed by the government through rules and regulations. Port trusts should be given necessary powers to sanction capital investment to facilitate speedy creation of assets and their optimum utilization.
Competition

With privatization or corporatization, it is important to introduce competition (both inter-port and intra port) to bring about any major transformation of port operations. The essence of inter-port competition is that it allows an efficient port to out-compete its less efficient counterparts by offering lower costs of usage. The pre-requisite for this is proper integration of ports with transport system. Intra-port competition can be promoted by allowing multiple service providers to operate port facilities without imposing restrictions on developing competing facilities in the same port.

Connectivity

Sufficient rail and road connectivity of ports to their hinterland as well as to the inland container depots to facilitate faster cargo movement and boost efficiency is essential. National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) has been in the process of evolving options to connect major ports. The Indian railways should also come up with schemes to upgrade connectivity of major ports.

Organizational Issues
Labour

Overstaffing and inefficiencies in labour operations become deterrents in the path of private investment in port facilities. An appropriate voluntary retirement scheme is useful strategy in such cases. It is also suggested that some labour reforms should allow private operators to take charge of the entire labour force for their management, wages and other benefits, with regulatory control to ensure security of employment and wages.
Equipment Utilization and Management

In order to facilitate faster handling and turn-around, better techniques should be devised to ensure more efficient cargo handling.
MIS and Improved Coordination among port agencies

Advanced MIS in the form of telecommunication and software technology allow parts to stay informed regarding oncoming ships and their cargo arrangements so they can prepare their equipment accordingly and facilitate faster vessel turnaround as well as reduced stay of cargo in the port area. Through compatible Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) systems, ports can also arrange to link up with customs databases to process and clear cargo even before the ships touch shore since predictability and minimization of transportation time is critical in a just-in-time world.

Capacity Issues
As per latest statistics, around 8 of the 12 major ports are operating at more than the optimum range of 70-75 per cent utilization. Four such ports namely Vizag, Tuticorin, Mormugao & Mumbai ports are experiencing more than 100 per cent utilization. This sets the imperative for faster development. A study by Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) highlighted that the cargo handling services at ports were inefficient. Around 55 percent of the equipments available at all ports, except JNPT, were running beyond their rated economic lives, resulting in low utilization.

Capacity Utilization at Major Ports, 2009-10

Container Capacity Enhancement

Globally the container traffic has grown at around 10% in the past 20 years. The following figure depicts the container traffic handled at the major ports in India in the past. The Container traffic at major ports has almost doubled in the past 5-6 years with an average CAGR of 13.27% p.a. and estimates suggest that the world container throughput will reach 1 billion TEUs by 2020 which is double the current traffic.

Container Traffic at Major Ports

The enhancement of container capacity, either through new investment or by conversion of general cargo berths into container handling ones, is of vital importance for strengthening the port sector. It can also be improved by improved equipment and better work practices.

New facilities in existing ports

New capacity creation through additional private investment is an attractive option and it can lead to emergence of a new class of domestic port operators which would encourage competition by increasing the number of potential bidders.
New Port Development

Exploring sites for development of new ports is another option. Proper valuation of price of land is important since it will ensure that all the related costs (including externalities) are taken into account. Explicit or implicit collusion between major ports and the proposed new ports should be avoided to save resources and increase port productivity.
Feasibility of Hub Port

The development of a mail line hub port in India can be an attractive option because India satisfies the requirements of large cargo and proximity to the main trade routes.

Regulatory Issues
Conservancy and Safety

The individual port managements should be delegated the authority to lay down regulations concerning conservancy, dredging, pilotage, towing and other commonly provided port functions.
Environmental Regulations

Since waterfronts form an important part of the ecosystems, special regulations should ensure safe handling of potently dangerous cargo such as POL products. Urban congestion is another reason for why unrestricted expansion of ports should be regulated.
Tariff and Entry Regulation

Economic regulation aims at fostering greater competition. a) Tariff Regulation: Allowing private participation in the port sector raises the need for an independent regulator to set port tariffs in order to ensure fair competition. b) Entry Regulation: There is limited potential for additional operators in the major ports and that is why a regulator control is needed over the entry of players.

Addressing Issues Regulatory Initiatives

The Ministry of Shipping addresses the issues arising in the port sector also revises various rules and regulations meant for the promotion of the industry on a regular basis. The prominent acts that guide the industry are Merchant Shipping Act 1958, Major Ports Trust Act 1963, The Draft Ports Bill 2011, Cabotage Law, and The Land Policy for Major Ports 2010 etc, Merchant Shipping Act 1958 It ensures safe maintenance of India mercantile marine and covers registration of Indian ships and control from pollution from ships and off-shore platforms. It also provides for the establishment and development of National Shipping Board and Shipping Development Fund.

The Draft Ports Bill 2011 It proposes to update and merge laws relating to existing Indian Ports Act 1908 and Major Ports Trust Act 1963 into a single Act. It also proposes to make a provision for the constitution of port authorities for major ports in India to vest the control, administration and management of such port in authorities and for matter connected thereto. Draft Ports Regulatory Authority Bill 2011 The purpose of this act is to provide for the establishment of Regulatory Authorities to regulate rates for the facilities and services provided at the ports and to monitor the performance of standards of port facilities and services. Functions of Regularity Authority would be: Jurisdiction over all major ports and state ports Formulation and notification of tariff guidelines from time to time Laying down the performance norms and standards of quality, continuity and reliability of services to be provided by Port Authorities & Private Operators and monitor the actual performances Advising appropriate government on matters like Promotion of efficiency, investment and competition in the Port Sector.

Draft Captive Port Policy 2011 This policy has been formulated to give more power to the major ports and enable them to be more competitive to attract cargo. It speaks about the method for handling over the water front or land or other port facilities to be private/ public enterprise on nomination basis for a maximum period of 30 years for development of port related facilities. Land Policy for Major Ports 2010 This new Land Policy supersedes the one issued in 2004 and it requires the land in custom bound areas to be leased out either on scale of rates approved by competent authority or land rate in adjacent areas of the concerned port. A transparent auction process is favoured to be followed to know the market rate of land in every case. The purpose is optimizing the throughput and increasing the revenue of ports. Coastal Policy & Cabotage Law Given that India has a long coastline of 7517 kms, coastal shipping can act as a complementary mode of transport to facilitate reduction of logistics cost. The proposed coastal shipping policy is aimed at boosting the coastal cargo, coastal trade, various support services as well as carriers. It will give recommendations on various Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to measure the growth of coastal shipping as well. Four components of coastal shipping receiving special attention would be: Coastal Ships, River Sea Vessels (RSVs), Inland Vessels (IVs) and Cross Trade compatible vessels. Cabotage Law bars foreign vessels from carrying cargo between Indian ports (coastal trade) but exceptions are made if no suitable Indian vessel is available.

Conclusion
We conclude our paper by examining certain areas which the policy authorities must focus on to improve the status of this critical driver of the economy.

Policy Reforms
There is an urgent need for policy reforms to expedite the development of the port sector in India. The major aspects to be looked into are: An integrated transport policy for seamless connectivity with the hinterland The efficiency of a port depends heavily on seamless connectivity with the road network, railways and inland waterways. There is a need for an integrated transport policy promoting inter-sector co-ordination (roads, railways and shipping) which should seek to develop rapid aggregation or evacuation of cargo. Construction of dedicated freight corridor projects (railways and roads) particularly the Delhi-Mumbai corridor is important because it accounts for the largest share of Indias port traffic. Also, development of coastal shipping and inland waterways may help to reduce the pressure on roads and railways and increase hinterland coverage. Eliminate complex procedures, policies and improve environmental clearance mechanism: Overregulation at Indian ports leads to delays in port-development activities. The Singapore and Rotterdam ports have rationalized their customs procedures, which emphasize the speed of clearance of goods to reduce delays in delivery to overseas and local customers. Moreover to speed up environmental clearances clear guidelines and a broad policy for ports needs to be prepared by the Government.

Upgrading infrastructure at Indian ports

Improving draft level at Indian ports: The draft available at world-class international ports ensures that neither the size of vessels nor the nature of the cargo is a constraining factor. Indian ports need to develop their capacity to receive bigger ships, for which capital dredging is required to achieve the desired level of draft, and dredging is required to maintain that level. Upgrading material-handling equipment: The level of mechanization at Indian ports is limited and much of the cargo is handled by conventional means. Mechanization varies from port to port and many of them are dependent on ships gears to handle cargo. Equipment at Indian ports is also outdated, have poor productivity and a high downtime. Every multipurpose cargo berth should have at least two back-up shore cranes (quay shore cranes) or harbour mobile cranes with a minimum capacity of 30 tonnes and above (35 tonnes for containers). Upgrading IT infrastructure: Indian ports are in urgent need of optimizing their business process by facilitating exchange of electronic information among stakeholders by using the latest IT processes, including the Port Community System (PCS). The ports at Rotterdam and Singapore are able to plan for vessels and cargo 72 hours in advance through electronic exchange of information between shipping lines, haulers, freight forwarders, shippers and government agencies. Their berth, ship planning, yard-planning and resource allocation systems are conducted electronically. Indian ports should move towards that direction.

Emphasis on Containerization
Containerization enhances the speed of loading and unloading of cargo and so lowers shipping expense and decreases shipping time. The container segment has been witnessing significant growth

and it is expected that growth in container volumes will outstrip other cargo in the near future. Therefore, in line with this projection, the bulk of infrastructure development across the world, including in India, is focused on handling containers. Currently Indias total container throughput is substantially low as compared to transhipment hubs in Singapore and Dubai. Hence, Indian ports urgently need to ramp up their container-handling infrastructure and equipment to attract large container vessels to the ports.

References
National Conclave on Shipping 2012 Background paper by Deloitte Report on Indian Ports by Standard Chartered http://www.scribd.com/doc/59183913/IndiaPorts-Gateways-to-India http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/News.aspx?ElementId=b68246bb-107b-4450-b9ad07b4d3a3144c http://www.dnb.co.in/Leading_Infrastructure_companies2011/Ports.asp http://www.marinebuzz.com/2009/01/26/major-and-minor-ports-in-india/ New Innings for the Indian port sector report by E&Y Managing Port Reforms in India, Prof Amit S Ray, JNU Delhi 2004 CMIE Infrastructure Database for all statistics Indian Port Association and DG Shipping Website Gujarat Maritime Board- Industry News: http://www.gmbports.org/emusing_fifth_edition/industry_news.php Gujarat Maritime Board- Seamless Logistics and Related Infrastructure: Challenges and The Way Forward (January-March 2012) Position paper on ports sector in India- December 2009, Department of Economic Affairs; Ministry of Finance -Government of India http://www.pppinindia.com/pdf/ppp_position_paper_ports_122k9.pdf http://intranet.imet.gr/portals/0/usefuldocuments/documents/03320.pdf Transport and Communication: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/yos12/statsTtransport.pdf Port privatization policy and practice, Kevin Cullinane and Dong Soong, Department of Shipping and Transport Logistics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Published in Transport Reviews 2002 Major Port Trusts of India: Growth and Performance, T Rajasekar and Malabika Deo, Published in IUP Journal of Infrastructure, Volume IX, No. 3, 2011 Privatization of Ports Singapore and JNPT, Ankush Guha, Published in Supply Chain Pulse, Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011 CRISIL Information - Ports and Infrastructure India Port Report by i-maritime Research & Consulting Mumbai, 2003 Competition issues in regulated industries: Case of Indian transport sector, Prepared for the Competition Commission of India, March 2009 Planning Commission Reports for 11th and 12th Plan

Appendix I
Traffic Handled at Indian Ports (Thousand Tonnes) Major / NonMajor Ports 200607 463782 (71.5) 184922 (28.5) 648704 (100.0) (P): Provisional; 200708 519313 (71.6) 206379 (28.4) 725692 (100.0) Traffic Handled 200809 530804 (71.3) 213222 (28.7) 744026 (100.0) 200910 561090 (66.0) 288937 (34.0) 850027 (100.0) 201011 570086 (64.4) 315358 (35.6) 885444 (100.0) 201112 (P) 560134 11 Ports NonMajor Ports All Ports (61.4) 351556 (38.6) 911690 (100.0) 3.0 8.1 -1.7 11.5 2007-12 4.2 18.0 % change 201112/2010Major Annual Average Growth 11 th

Plan

Figures within parenthesis indicate percent share in total cargo traffic for Major and Non-Major ports respectively.

Table 1.0

Table 2.0

Commodity wise Traffic Handled at all Ports (Thousand Tonnes) Year POL 2006-07 223357 34% Iron Ore 114557 18% Fertilizers 20954 3% Total Coal Thermal Coal Coking coal Coal at Minor Ports 74366 37309 23042 14015 11% Containers(Tonnes) 73469 11% Others 127610 20% Building Material 14391 2% Total Traffic at all the ports 648704 2007-08 258470 36% 126521 17% 25391 3% 84108 36833 31832 15443 12% 92247 13% 122691 17% 16264 2% 725692 2008-09 272019 37% 128532 17% 27132 4% 98382 44045 32880 21457 13% 93440 13% 111262 15% 13259 2% 744026 2009-10 312581 37% 149705 18% 27232 3% 112962 43340 28346 41276 13% 101287 12% 133118 16% 13142 2% 850027 2010-11 325260 37% 125952 14% 31882 4% 133608 46145 29001 58462 15% 114158 13% 142257 16% 12327 1% 885444 2011-12 340237 37% 96969 11% 34581 4% 157257 50834 27997 78426 17% 120202 13% 152720 17% 8210 1% 911679

Table 3.0
Average Turn Round Time (days) Port Kolkata D.S Haldia D.C Paradip Vishakhapatnam Ennore Chennai Tuticorin Cochin New Mangalore Mormugoa * J.L.Nehru Mumbai 10.80 7.20 4.70 4.00 4.96 6.40 5.83 4.10 3.11 2.89 4.25 2.21 5.20 1990-91 11.90 6.47 8.40 7.07 2000-01 5.50 3.97 4.16 3.71 2008-09 5.10 4.21 4.78 3.93 2.35 4.15 3.64 2.14 3.00 5.95 1.90 4.95 2009-10 6.80 5.01 9.04 4.78 2.11 4.04 3.90 2.08 3.06 8.91 2.01 4.61 2010-11 6.21 4.45 7.73 5.84 2.78 4.36 4.00 2.20 2.70 10.43 2.64 4.96 2011-12 4.96 3.65 6.33 5.68 2.17 3.91 4.89 1.82 2.94 4.80 2.46 4.93

Kandla All Ports

10.00 8.10

4.72 4.24

7.26 4.20

5.03 4.63

5.90 5.29

6.42 4.6

Table 4.0
Average Output per Ship-Berth-Day (Tonnes)

Port 1 Kolkata D.S Haldia D.C Paradip Visakhapatnam Ennore Chennai Tuticorin Cochin New Mangalore Mormugoa J.L.Nehru Mumbai Kandla All Ports

1990-91 2 560 5659 4082 5325 3912 2130 3714 4412 10429 2310 4417 3372

2000-01 3 2305 6384 8503 9799 6977 3983 6138 12192 12438 6383 4213 8230 6961

2008-09 4 3027 7732 12635 11171 28424 10778 5817 10599 13645 6290 20344 5717 13107 9669

2009-10 5 1917 6243 13853 10484 21665 11428 6934 11089 13896 5002 21563 6122 13549 9215

2010-11 6 2253 6563 14243 10334 17669 10984 7035 11752 14211 4409 20393 6042 14137 9140

2011-12 7 2778 6701 15995 10701 27466 10888 6562 15783 13960 16537* 25762 7709 13886 10917

Table 5.0