AN APPRAISAL OF PORT CONCESSIONS IN NIGERIA AND ITS ROLE IN ACHIEVING THE MARITIME POTENTIAL OF NIGERIA
- 1. 1 AN APPRAISAL OF PORT CONCESSIONS IN NIGERIA AND ITS ROLE IN ACHIEVING THE MARITIME POTENTIAL OF NIGERIA* Abstract This paper assesses port concessions in Nigeria and aims to highlight the role of concessions as a tool in promoting the optimisation of Nigerian shipping ports. The first section of this paper illustrates that Nigeria is a country endowed with a large coastline but this feature, unfortunately, has not served its purpose of making Nigeria a ‘sea power’. The second and third section of this paper discusses various port concessions in Nigeria’s maritime industry and that of other countries in detail. The final sections of the paper establishes the problems connected with port concessions, recommends plausible solutions and concludes that port concession indeed has a role in maximising the maritime potential of Nigeria as its economic benefits cannot be overemphasised. Keywords: Port concession, Economy, Maritime industry. 1. Introduction and Background The idea of shipping as the catalyst of economic development is not new as Adam Smith saw shipping as one of the stepping stones to economic growth1. He wrote: A business working in a country town without links to the outside world can never, he argued, achieve high levels of efficiency because its very small market will limit the degree of specialisation2. Maritime trade has played a major role in Nigeria’s economic development. It accounts for instance, for about 95% of the vehicular means of Nigeria’s International Trade3. The maritime industry is a key sector of the Nigerian economy considering the country’s status as an oil producing and exporting country. As a consumer nation, the country is a large market for foreign goods owing to its population. Maritime business has been instrumental in the process of the diversification of Nigeria’s economy, a necessary initiative in view of the crashing crude prices in recent times. The first seaports in Nigeria were found in Warri and Benin between 1471 and 1472 during the Portuguese exploration of the shores of the Bights of Benin and Biafra. Subsequently, the British gained control of seaports in Lagos and Akassa (the base of the Royal Niger Company) followed by the promulgation of the Niger Coast Protectorate in 1890. In April 1955, the Nigeria Ports Authority was established to harness the success of the ports industry for the development of the Nigerian society4. Within the period of 1955-1966, * Tanimojo Francisca I., student of the University of Lagos, Nigeria. 1 Martin Stopford, Maritime Economics, 2nd ed. (Taylor & Francis e-library), 2003, Ch.1, p.3 2 Adam Smith: “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Ch.3 3 Professor. Victor F. Peretomode, “The Role of the Maritime Industry and Vocational and Technical Education and Training in the Economic Development of Nigeria” (2014) 19 Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) p. 48 4 Ogundana, B, “Oscillating Seaport Location in Nigeria” (1972) 62(1) Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 110-121
- 2. 2 the NPA continued to sustain the efforts already made towards expansion of ports facilities in Lagos and Port Harcourt5. The civil war era of 1967 –1970 had a tremendous impact on the ports industry in Nigeria. Port Harcourt (Rivers Ports) was closed to foreign traffic; Lagos thus became the only available port serving the country’s maritime transportation needs. Lagos Port with its comparatively limited capacity was made to bear the weight and burden of the tremendous flow of war time cargoes and other goods coming into the country6. The post-war era of port congestion was experienced in two dimensions: Cargo Congestion (1970/71) and Ship Congestion (1971-1975)7. Port congestion resulted in the imposition of surcharges. Ships had to wait for an average of 180 days before they could berth. This attracted a freight surcharge of 30 to 100%. Secondly, when low unit value of commodities is imported, the impact on prices is substantial. According to the first report of the Anti- inflation Task Force, Ministry of Information, it was estimated that between 1970 and 1974, the average impact prices increased by 67.4%. Thereon, the issue of ports development ceased to be just an NPA affair. It became a national issue8. The Nigerian government then commenced port reforms. The reform objectives were: To increase efficiency in port operation; To decrease cost of port services to stakeholders; To decrease cost to the government for the support of viable port sector; and to attract private sector participation so as to free public resources for public services9. One of the hallmarks of such port reforms was the concept of port concession agreements. 2. Definition and Regulatory Framework of Port Concession A port is a location on a coast or shore containing one or more harbours where ships can dock and transfer people or cargo to or from land. Port locations are selected to optimise access to land and navigable water, for commercial demand, and for shelter from wind and waves10. The interpretation section of the Nigerian Ports Authority Act of 1991, s.12711, does not provide a definition of neither ‘ports’ nor ‘concession’. Meanwhile, s.124 of the Ports and Harbour Authorities Bill, 2015, a port means any place in Nigeria, navigable river or channel leading into such place having facilities for vessels to moor and load or discharge including offshore cargo handling facilities (artificial islands), inland (dry), ports, harbour, berths, jetties, pontoons or buoys and wharves within the limits of the port and includes any place declared to be a port under this Act. By virtue of s.7 (b) of the Nigerian Ports Authority Act, the NPA has the duty to maintain, improve and regulate the use of the ports amongst other functions. In its ordinary meaning, a concession is a grant12. The Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (Establishment, etc.) Act of 2005 (ICRCA) defines concession as a 5 “History of the NPA” available on-line at: http://nairametrics.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/01/History-NPA.pdf 6 ibid 7 ibid 8 Ibid 9 ibid 10 “Ports” available on-line at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port 11 No. 38 of 1999 now Cap N126 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 12 P.O Idornigie, “Designing, Negotiating and Drafting of Concession Contracts”, p.3 available on-line at:
- 3. 3 contractual arrangement whereby the project proponent or contractor undertakes the construction, including financing of any infrastructure, facility and the operation and maintenance thereof and shall include the supply of any equipment and machinery for any infrastructure and the provisions of any services. S.124 of the Ports and Harbour Authorities Bill, 2015 defines concession as: …an arrangement between the authority and a third party pursuant to which such third party shall be authorised to provide a port service or operate a port facility in accordance with this Act and the term includes the meaning assigned to it in the ICRC Act. According to the world bank, a port concession is a contract in which a government transfers operating rights to private enterprise, which then engages in an activity contingent on government approval and subject to the terms of the contract (World Bank, 2001, p. 52)13. By virtue of s.1 of the ICRCA, from the 10th of November, 2005 (its commencement date), any Federal Government Ministry, Agency, Corporation or body, involved in the financing, construction, operation or maintenance of infrastructure, by whatever may called may enter into a contract with or grant concession to any duly pre-qualified project proponent in the private sector for the financing, construction, operation or maintenance of any infrastructure that is financially viable or any development facility of the Federal Government in accordance with the provisions of the ICRCA. 2.1 Port Concession in Nigeria In September 2000, the Federal Government of Nigeria established the Transport Sector Reform Implementation Committee (TSRC). The TSRC then formed a sub-committee in the NPA for the same purpose of coordinating the reform agenda. In 2001, the Federal Ministry of Transport through the World Bank Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Fund raised funds and commissioned Dutch consultants, Royal Haskoning to do a Ports Modernization Project Study. Following the submission of consultants’ reports and extensive consultations of maritime stakeholders, consensus was reached upon the strategy for reforming and modernizing Nigeria’s seaport system. The National Council on Privatisation endorsed the “landlord port model” for Nigeria and directed its secretariat to implement the concession process14. The National Council on Privatisation (NCP) soon endorsed the “landlord” model and under a new transport policy, the NPA was given the role of technical regulator to manage the ports for which there were no bids. The National Transport Commission (NTC) was to become commercial regulator while National Ports Commission would become overall coordinating agency for the ports sector. Five landlord port authorities were slated for Lagos; the Niger Delta; Port Harcourt; Calabar; and the inland ports. A total of 25 concessions were identified in 11 ports and there were bids from 110 companies to manage http://www.nigerianlawguru.com/articles/company%20law/DESIGNING,NEGOTIATING% 20&%20DRAFTING%20OF%20CONCESSION%20CONTRACTS.pdf 13 World Bank. (2001). World Bank Port Reform Toolkit; Module 2: The Evolution of Ports in a Competitive World. Washington, D.C: Author. 14 “Seaport Concession: Re-Development Of Nigerian Seaports In The New Millennium”, available on-line at: http://www.fivestarlogisticsltd.com/concession.html
- 4. 4 eight ports: Bonny, Calabar, Koko, Port Harcourt, Sapele, Apapa, Tin Can and RORO. With bids submitted by March 2005, concession commenced in 2006 with 20 concessions concluded. In March 2006 the concessionaires commenced operations15. The flagship concession, Apapa Container Terminal was signed in March 2006 with APM Terminals, which had taken over P&O Nedlloyd earlier in the year. The Danish shipping firm, A.P. Moller (APM Terminals’ parent company beat 25 other bidders to the 25-year concession16. In Apapa, APM Terminals has invested USD 200 million since assuming operational responsibility in 2006, resulting in the creation of over 31.000 new jobs However, port concessions were met with mixed reaction and are still discussed with alternate reviews. On the 3rd of August 2015, the Chairman of Seaport Terminal Operators Association of Nigeria (STOAN), Princess (Dr.) Vicky Haastrup in a report, listed several positive developments both infrastructure and security, that have taken place in the country’s ports in the last nine years due to the policy of port concession17. Recent statistics from the NPA shows that there is a modest improvement in the fortunes of Nigerian ports (Onne, Calabar, Warri, Lagos, Koko, and Sapele) in the last few years. For instance, goods under storage are now safer after eliminating “wharf rats” and consolidating security operations. Foreign shipping lines such as MOL and “K” Line which left the country for other ports along the West Coast have since returned. New container shipping lines such as CSAV, Nile Dutch and UASC have concluded arrangements to commence operations in Nigeria. This is somewhat comforting as international perception of Nigerian ports seems to be improving. The NPA attributed its improved revenue profile over the last five years to concessioning of the ports. Its annual revenue rose from 80-100 billion to 400 billion between 2005 (pre-concessioning) and 2011 (five years after the reform)18. Since the concession of the terminals, statistics have shown that while cargo throughput has soared, ship traffic has also increased tremendously. The improvement in cargo throughput saw turnaround time of vessels coming down to 72 hours on the average in most of the terminals19. The majority of dissention over the port concession policy stems from the allegation that the port concessions were made without regulation. In a recent interview Lucky Amiwero, the National President of the National Council of Managing Directors of Licensed Customs Agents explained that the port concession policy needs to be backed by a legal and regulatory framework. He further enunciated thus: A lot of people were dropped and concessions were actually carried out without port regulation. When you don’t act on the regulation, you cannot have a better monitoring organisation that can be able to tell you what is happening today in the port because you will be having port increase of charges. We have one of the highest charges 15 “Port concession: Tonic for Accelerated Economic Growth”, available on-line at: http://shipsandports.com.ng/port-concession-tonic-for-accelerated-economic-growth/ 16 ibid 17 ibid 18 “Has Concessioned Ports Helped In Nigeria?” available on-line at: http://www.myfinancialintelligence.com/transport/has-concessioned-ports-helped- nigeria/2013-01-21 19 ibid
- 5. 5 within the sub-region, and those are the things the port regulator is supposed to have intervened.20 Also, the concession of Nigerian ports reflects the fact of re-colonialisation as claimed by the labour union in the maritime industry. Workers, led by the President of the NPA Senior Staff Association, stormed the venue of a meeting at the NPA Western Operations Zone and disrupted the proceedings at the meeting. All efforts to get the placard-carrying workers to allow the meeting to procced as planned were rebuffed.21 2.2 Port Concessions in Other Jurisdictions In addition to the Nigerian concession, container terminal concessions in Sub-Saharan Africa have been adopted for Abidjan, Dakar, Dar es Salaam, Douala, Owendo, Gentil, Luanda, Takoradi, Tema and Toamasina among others. Such concessions are also planned at Banjul, Freetown and Lome.22 2.2.1 Tanzania After following an international competitive tender process, the Presidential Parastatal Sector Reform Commission (PSRC) selected the winning bidder as the consortium of International Container Terminal Services Inc., ICTSI International Holdings Corporation, both of Manila, Philippines and Vertex Financial Services Ltd of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The consortium formed and registered a local company at the end of April 2000 called Tanzania International Container Terminal Services Ltd (TICTS) with International Container Terminal Services Inc. taking 51% of the shareholding, ICTSI International Holdings Corporation, 24% and Vertex Financial Services, 25%. The ten year lease contract was signed on 5 May 2000 and responsibility for running and operating the Container Terminal was handed over to TICTS on 10 September 2000. Subsequently ICTSI sold its shareholding to Hutchison International Port Holdings Limited (HPH). In 2005, the Government extended the period of the lease by a further fifteen years. The privatisation process of the Dar es Salaam container terminal has borne fruit and has been envied by many ports in the region. This is quickly becoming a paradigm port in the region.23 20 Eromosele Abiodun, “Amiwero: Nigerian Ports Were Concessioned Without Regulation”, ThisDay Newspaper, 19 August 2016, available on-line at: http://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2016/08/19/amiwero-nigerian-ports-were- concessioned-without-regulation/ 21 Abolarin,P, “NPA Workers Protest Concessioning”, Daily Champion, 15 July 2005, p.13 22 Ocean Shipping Consultants Ltd. “Beyond the Bottlenecks: Ports in Africa”, available on- line at: http://www.infrastructureafrica.org/system/files/BP08_Ports_maintxt_new.pdf 23 Mwasinago, Sudi Amani, "An Analysis of the Trend in Concessions and Privatisation in Ports: The Case of Kenya and Tanzania" (2006). World Maritime University Dissertations. Paper 408, p. 65
- 6. 6 Since the Concession of container terminal services in Dar-es-Salaam to HPH in 2000, Mr. Samson Luhigo, the Tanzania Ports Authority Director-General, contended that, delays have been reduced and goods are reaching inland markets on schedule.24 2.2.2 The United States of America Most port authorities in the US are either landlords, which means they rent their land for specific periods of time, with or without improvements, or operating ports where the authority actually operates certain elements of their facilities.25 The Manatee County Port Authority (“the Authority”) has historically followed the landlord model, developing land and or facilities that are leased to private tenants at Port Manatee for a specified period of time. This model has proven successful for the Authority and appears to be well accepted by the current tenants. Traditionally, Florida’s leading container ports follow this model, including Jacksonville, Port Everglades, Miami and Tampa26. Recent examples in Florida’s port community provide a recap of the options. In 2004, Mediterranean Shipping Company signed a traditional lease agreement with Port Everglades to operate an existing container terminal for 10 years. The lease included a mutually agreed upon option to extend the term. In 2008, the partnership of Maersk and CMA CGM signed a similar deal with the Port of Miami with an initial lease period of 15 years. Jaxport has chosen the less traditional concession agreement for development of new container facilities. Mitsui OSK Line signed a 30-year lease in 2005 for a “Greenfield” terminal and Hanjin Shipping is planning a new terminal under a 30-year agreement. In both cases, the carrier has committed its own container business to insure the facility has throughput and generates revenue from its start27. The following is Ports America’s rationale for investing in the Port of Oakland. Capital is needed to be competitive and plan for the future. U.S. ports have limited funds to build or expand, so financing choices are: bonds, bank financing, and government funding or private investment. Considering the current financial situation, the best option is a value-creation opportunity that attracts private investors like Ports America, which looks for long-term sustainable growth in commercially viable projects. The 2009 Port of Oakland's 50-year concession agreement with Ports America for the 165-acre site of Outer Harbour Berths 20-24 is an example of a new model of shared risk and reward that will provide immediate benefits to the port in terms of upfront financing and transferred responsibility. By taking the facility "as is," facility maintenance and expansion expense is shifted to the leaseholder. Ports America also bears the commercial risk, but it controls the development design and timeframe. With a 50-year concession period, there is time to make improvements and introduce state-of-the-art technology as demand requires. Also, it allows the concession-holder enough time to ride out the cycles of business. In this case, 24 Ibid at 61 25 R.K. Johns & Associates, “In Depth Analysis: US Port Terminal Concessions in June 2010”, available on-line at: http://seshippingnews.typepad.com/south_east_shipping_news/2010/06/in-depth-analysis-us- port-terminal-concessions-in-june-2010.html 26 ibid 27 ibid
- 7. 7 Oakland provides sustainable volumes from both the local market as well as intermodal expansion28. 2.2.3 The United Kingdom The trend in the United Kingdom concerning optimising port operation is to; unlike in many countries including Nigeria, comprehensively privatise the system. Comprehensive port privatisation often requires the enactment of new laws, both to regulate the transfer of ownership and functions from the public to the private sector and to define the boundary between public and private responsibilities and tasks29. Privatisation legislation may include additional elements, depending on the local situation, the structure of the former port authority and the specific legal, institutional and socio-economic situation in the country concerned. A number of maritime nations consider comprehensive privatisation to be incompatible with national and regional interests, and it has been argued that the UK experience has yielded very mixed results and provides few arguments in support of comprehensive privatisation (the sale of port land and transfer of all public functions to the private sector) when other, less radical reforms can achieve the same objectives30. From the above, Tanzania’s port reform system has the closest semblance to Nigeria’s model. While the US operates a landlord model, the duration granted by the landlord are noticeable longer than the maximum of 25 years granted in Nigeria. The United Kingdom has the most diversified system as it is a radical departure from partial privatisation which most countries operate. According to the National Port Authority, the benefit of ports concessioning includes: a) Better and more efficient port management especially operations as handled by terminal operators; b) The application of private capital to socially and economically desirable projects, freeing up government funds for other priority projects; c) Creation of new revenue streams for government; d) The attraction and use of foreign investment and technology; and e) Increase in private sector participation in the regional or national31 3. Recommendations/ Way Forward It is pertinent to state at this junction that despite the relative success of concession of ports in Nigeria, the policy is light years from achieving its goal of unlocking Nigeria’s maritime potential. This is due to a myriad of reasons which have been stated earlier. In order to move forward, the Nigerian government must enact the proposed Bills. The National Assembly should put aside their internal wrangling and settle down to law-making 28 AAPA Seaports magazine, June 11, 2010. 29 Joseph Botham, “Concession Choices”, available on-line at: http://www.portstrategy.com/news101/port-operations/planning-and-design/hfw-concessions 30 ibid 31 Available online at: http://www.nigerianports.org/dynamicdata/ConcessionPrograms.aspx?id=281
- 8. 8 business that would lead to the quick passing of these Bills in order to facilitate the development of the maritime sector and its role in the Nigeria’s economy. Some of these Bills are the National Transport Commission Bill, Ports and Harbours Bill, Cabotage Act (Amendment) Bill and the Sea Carriage Bill. Also, as the regulatory regime in the maritime sector is insufficient and out of date in some areas and requires urgent updating and enactment of the pending Bills and full implementation of the current Acts without political interference. It is noteworthy that by the Nigerian Shippers’ Council (Port Economic Regulator) Order 2015, Nigerian Shippers’ Council was appointed the interim economic regulator for Nigerian ports and mandated to inter alia regulate Nigerian Ports’ Concession agreements, regulate tariffs, rates, charges and other related economic services at Nigerian ports and monitor all matters relating to the cost, standard and quality of services rendered by the regulated services providers including Nigerian Ports Authority and seaport terminal operators. This is one of the proper ways forward in the administration of the ports in that it separates ports ownership from ports management and from ports economic regulation and takes away the conflict of interest of the Nigerian Ports Authority.32 Apart from this, there must be adequate manpower training such that after the expiration of the terminal operators’ contracts, Nigerians would have gained adequate technological and managerial acumen that will make them become effective terminal operators33. Government should take legislative and policy measures to develop the port system. Nigeria waterways need to be properly dredged so as to encourage vessels of more TEUs to navigate our waterways. More river ports should be built along the River Niger and River Benue which will enhance inland water transportation and ease pressure on the existing ports. More so, additional dry ports should be established. It can aid partial relocation of activities from ports to the hinterland of the country thereby bringing to an end the issue of port congestion. Government should support more public ownership and private sector operations of the port system and ensure that port tariffs are moderate to make our ports more competitive. This would probably bring to an end the issue of diversion of Nigerian bound cargo to our neighbouring ports. For Nigerian ports to be user friendly, Government should encourage terminal operators to provide modern cargo handling plants and equipment that would enhance smooth operations at the ports. Furthermore, government should improve security measures to enhance safety of goods in ports and transit. The issue of insecurity of cargo in transit is one of the reasons landlocked countries like Niger and Chad do not patronize our ports for transhipment purposes. In response to the insecurity of employment felt by workers and their reluctance to embrace privatisation and as means of protecting public employees, Argentina, Germany, Greece, Sri Lanka and Turkey provide generous redundancy or severance pays to surplus employees, while Argentina and Venezuela allow voluntary early retirement. In Colombia, Ghana and Portugal, the Government has established retraining and vocational educational programmes for its displaced workers. In Columbia, Jamaica, Senegal and Tunisia, the Government 32 May Agbamuche-Mbu and Tobi Soniyi, “Revenue from the Maritime Sector Can Surpass Earnings from Crude Oil”, ThisDay Newspaper, 23 August, 2016, available online at: http://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2016/08/23/revenue-from-the-maritime-sector-can- surpass-earnings-from-crude-oil/ 33 ibid
- 9. 9 promotes entrepreneurship and the expansion of small enterprises that can absorb surplus workers. There are ample opportunities for the success of the concession of Nigerian ports. It is generally hoped that with proper implementation of the concessions of Nigerian ports, the Nigerian economy will be galvanized both at the micro and macro levels34. Despite the introduction of the Destination Inspection Scheme, many importers have expressed dismay that all cargo is still subjected to 100% inspection by the Nigerian Customs, who still apply sections of the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA) to carry out the import inspection. The government should press on the Nigerian Customs on the need to stick with the faster and equally effective Destination Inspection Scheme, and possibly modify the sections of CEMA to accommodate the faster cargo processing guidelines. The Nigerian Customs’ different inspection units should also be streamlined to ensure that there is no duplicity of effort and speed up the process of cargo inspection35. It is also suggested that a Nigerian Ports Development Fund, which will be managed by professionals from both the private and public sector, should be established to assist the government in the expansion and maintenance of already existing ports and the construction of new ports. The Fund will be registered as a company limited by guarantee and operate independently of the Nigerian Ports Authority. The Fund will be administered and managed by a Board of Trustees representing various interests in the public and private sector and will be completely isolated from the management of the Nigerian Ports Authority. The Fund will be required to release quarterly reports on the how much of its funds are being spent and how is being spent on any of the operations is it financing36. 4. Conclusion As seen in the above sections, the Nigerian experience with the landlord port model of concession is not subject to a watertight conclusion as to its effectiveness or lack of. As the NPA was responsible for both regulatory and operational functions of the ports, this was clearly a major “bottleneck” to developing efficiency in the port sector37. The port authority that has pecuniary interest in the concessioned ports was unable or reluctant to fully regulate the port concessionaires or their tariffs so as not to adversely affect its economic or pecuniary interests and income. This is one of the flaws of the port concession regime that the current regime of Port Economic Regulator has changed to the satisfaction of many Nigerian shippers. Port concession has indeed contributed in the efficiency of Nigerian ports in several ways. However, if port concession is to remain the possible panacea to the unlocking of 34 Akeem Ayofe Akinwale and Mike Olanipekun Aremu, “Concession as a Catalyst for Crisis Management in Nigerian Ports”, (2010) 126 Vol. 10 (2), The African Symposium: An Online Journal of the African Educational Research Network. 35 Dr. Obi Igbokwe, “Nigeria: A 12 Steps Recovery Programme From Oil Addiction Turning Africa’s Sleeping Giant into a Roaring African Economy”, (2009), Vol. 2, Transportation Reforms, available on-line at: http://www.sterlingandgreenback.com/downloads/12steps/12Steps-Transportation.pdf 36 ibid 37“Nigerian Port Reform and Concession” available on-line at: http://www.cpcs.ca/media_room/_publications/2008/Nigerian_Port_Reform_and_Concession _2008_04-rev-Mohiuddin_and_Jones.doc.
- 10. 10 Nigeria’s maritime potential, concession agreements have to be duly regulated and negotiated to the thorough advantage of the nation’s economy.