Port Benchmarking Report - Marine · PDF filePort Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s...

Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s�

Maritime Services and Associated Costs with other�

Major International Ports�

Marine Department�Planning, Development and Port Security Branch�

December 2006�

All Rights Reserved

No part of the materials protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or

utilized in any other form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including

photocopies, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without

written permission from the copyright owner.

Page Contents Executive Summary

1.� Introduction 1

2.� Objectives of the Study 2

3.� Scope of the Study 3

4.� Methodology 4�

5.� Assumptions 5-6�

6.� Benchmarking for Port Charges 7-16�

7.� Benchmarking for the Container Port

7.1 Container Throughput� 17-25�

7.2 Container Terminals� 25-34�

8.� Analysis on Services Provided, Port Formality and Application of Information

Technology in Hong Kong

8.1 Port Services� 35-36�

8.2 Port Formality Procedures� 36-38�

8.3 Application of Information Technology� 38-39�

9.� Findings 40-41�

10.� Recommendations 42

References 43

Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs Executive Summary

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

1.1 In order to assess the relative position of the port of Hong Kong in relation

to other leading container ports, a comparative study of port costs and port facilities

was conducted in 2001. The current study is an update of the 2001 study.

1.2 Hong Kong is a mature port with different types of cargo handling facilities.

These facilities handle containers, general cargoes, petroleum, other liquid bulk, dry

bulk, and vehicles. Although these facilities are integral parts of the port, with the

exception of the container terminals, the majority of the cargo handled are for

domestic consumption. From the 2005 shipping and cargo statistical data,

containerized cargoes handled in Hong Kong represented about 74% by weight of the

total cargo throughput of Hong Kong. Thus, for the purpose of this study, the focus is

to benchmark the related port charges incurred by container ships at container

handling facilities in Hong Kong, and against other leading container ports of the

world.

1.3 Since the 2001 study, Hong Kong has faced growing competition from other

container ports in the region, in particular, the south China ports where container

terminal capacity has increased by approximately 150 %. In the past five years, the

growth of our container throughput has been marginal. The growth in 2005 was 2%,

compared year-on-year, bringing the total container throughput to 22.43 million

Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEU). The latest growth rate is well below our

competitor port Shenzhen (+18.6% to 16.19 million TEU) where direct cargo access

by road from the manufacturing areas in the Pearl River Delta is easier and by sea

from the western delta areas is comparatively similar.

1.4 Hong Kong is a free market economy with the container terminals owned

and operated by private enterprises. The various charges and tariffs related to terminal


and shipping operations are set by terminal operators and shipping lines. Given these

charges are confidential commercial decisions outside the realms of the Government,

this study would not compare these charges with other ports, however empirical

evidence indicates these charges have been reducing over the past decade but remain

higher than those in Shenzhen.

2. Objectives of the Study

2.1 The objectives of this study are :

• To conduct a benchmarking exercise focusing on comparative port costs

and characteristics of container terminals at leading container ports

around the world;

• To evaluate the productivity of our container terminals and compare it

with other major container ports;

• To conduct an analysis on services provided to visiting ships, port

formality procedures and application of information technology in Hong

Kong;

• To position the port of Hong Kong amongst major ports worldwide

taking into account the cost and performance of the port; and

• to formulate recommendations, as far as possible, on matters related to

port charges and services provided by the Government.

3. Scope and Methodology

3.1 For quantitative comparison purpose, the top 20 container ports in 2005 are

chosen for benchmarking on the following indicators:-

• Individual port cost items including harbour and light dues, pilotage,

towage, mooring/unmorring and other ancillary charges;

• Total port charges;


• Container throughput growth; and

• Terminal characteristics including number of berths, total quay length,

maximum alongside depth, total terminal area, total storage capacity,

productivity per metre quay length and ratio of storage capacity over

terminal area.

3.2 While quantitative comparisons are not practicable on services provided to

ships, port formality procedures, and application of information technology, these

areas are covered by empirical analysis.

3.3 This study involves an extensive survey of literatures with a view to

collating the latest data, available at the time of the data collection phase of this study,

on port charges, container throughput (TEUs), characteristics of container terminals,

and port formalities. In parallel, interviews with international shipping lines and

shipping agencies have been conducted so as to obtain their views on the performance

of the Hong Kong port.

4. Findings

4.1 The key findings are summarised below :-

i.� The position on total port charges is similar to the findings in 2001.

Hong Kong remains as one of the ports with the lowest cost in the

world with total port charges only slightly higher than Singapore and

Port Klang in the region.

ii.� The growth of container throughputs in Hong Kong from 2001 to

2005 was generally lower than other top container ports. The less

encouraging achievement in throughput growth indicates that Hong

Kong is unable to get an even share of the strong growth in


Mainland's container volume. Though Hong Kong is expected to

benefit from Mainland's economic growth, appropriate measures need

to be taken, if better throughput increase is to be achieved.

iii.� In terms of number of berths and total quay length, Hong Kong is

average in the global context and second to Singapore in terms of

regional context. The available alongside water depth of Hong Kong's

container terminals is 15 metres which is average for leading ports.

The Kwai Tsing container port handled 1,745 TEU per metre quay

length in 2004 which was average amongst leading container ports.

The physical size of Hong Kong's container terminals is considered

average yet our terminals have the highest container storage capacity

in the world. The ratio of container storage to total terminal area in

2004 at 74 TEU per thousand square metres ranks the fifth behind

Kaohsiung.

iv.� Worldwide crane productivity ranges from 23 to 40 moves per hour

(MPH) with many advanced ports able to achieve a rate of at least 30

MPH. For Hong Kong's container terminals, the average crane rate is

36 MPH with peak rate at 40 MPH. This makes Hong Kong one of the

most efficient container port in the world.

v.� The analysis on services reveals that Hong Kong is providing world

class port services to visiting ships and port formality procedures are

considered very satisfactory. Hong Kong may be considered a little

lagging in terms of IT application amongst leading container ports

worldwide, but it is more advanced than other ports in this region.

5.1


5. Recommendations

From the analysis and findings of this study, it is recommended that :-

• Low and simple port charge strategy should be continued.

• Efficient and simple port formalities should be maintained.

• The two suggestions made by the shipping industry on providing port

formality service at Kwai Chung and reducing physical inspection of the

trading certificates of Hong Kong registered ship will be addressed by

the MD eBS Phase 2, the effectiveness of this system on alleviating these

issues should be taken into account in system development.

• Continuous effort should be given to further promote and develop IT

applications with a view to providing more user friendly automated port

and shipping services to our customers.

• Action should be taken to improve cargo access to/from the port from the

hinterland areas.

• Given competitive demands, terminal tariff and shipping charges should

continue to ease towards the prevailing levels at competitive facilities in

Shenzhen.

Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs Main Report

1. Introduction

1.1 In order to assess the relative position of the port of Hong Kong in relation

to other leading container ports, a comparative study of port costs and port facilities

was conducted in 2001. The current study is an update of the 2001 study.

1.2 Hong Kong is a mature port with different types of cargo handling facilities.

These facilities handle containers, general cargoes, petroleum, other liquid bulk, dry

bulk, and vehicles. Although these facilities are integral parts of the port, with the

exception of the container terminals, the majority of the cargo handled are for

domestic consumption. From the 2005 shipping and cargo statistical data,

containerized cargoes handled in Hong Kong represented about 74% by weight of the

total cargo throughput of Hong Kong. Thus, for the purpose of this study, the focus is

to benchmark the related port charges incurred by container ships at container

handling facilities in Hong Kong, and against other leading container ports of the

world.

1.3 Since the 2001 study, Hong Kong has faced growing competition from other

container ports in the region, in particular, the south China ports where container

terminal capacity has increased by approximately 150 %. In the past five years, the

growth of our container throughput has been marginal. The growth in 2005 was 2%,

compared year-on-year, bringing the total container throughput to 22.43 million

Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEU). The latest growth rate is well below our

competitor port Shenzhen (+18.6% to 16.19 million TEU) where direct cargo access

by road from the manufacturing areas in the eastern Pearl River Delta is easier and by

sea from the western delta areas is comparatively similar.

1.4 Hong Kong is a free market economy with the container terminals owned

and operated by private enterprises. The various charges and tariffs related to terminal

and shipping operations are set by terminal operators and shipping lines. Given these

charges are confidential commercial decisions outside the realms of the Government,

this study would not compare these charges with other ports, however empirical

evidence indicates these charges have been reducing over the past decade but remain

higher than those in Shenzhen.

1

2.1


2. Objectives of the Study

The objectives of this study are :

• To conduct a benchmarking exercise focusing on comparative port costs

and characteristics of container terminals at leading container ports

around the world;

• To evaluate the productivity of our container terminals and compare it

with other major container ports;

• To conduct an analysis on services provided to visiting ships, port

formality procedures and application of information technology in Hong

Kong;

• To position the port of Hong Kong amongst major ports worldwide

taking into account the cost and performance of the port; and

• to formulate recommendations, as far as possible, on matters related to

port charges and services provided by the Government.

2


3. Scope of the Study

3.1 For quantitative comparison purpose, the top 20 container ports in 2005

(Figure 3.1) are chosen for benchmarking on the following indicators:-

• Individual port cost items including harbour and light dues, pilotage,

towage, mooring/unmorring and other ancillary charges;

• Total port charges;

• Container throughput growth; and

• Terminal characteristics including number of berths, total quay length,

maximum alongside depth, total terminal area, total storage capacity,

productivity per metre quay length and ratio of storage capacity over

terminal area.

3.2 While quantitative comparisons are not practicable on services provided to

ships, port formality procedures, and application of information technology, these

areas are covered by empirical analysis.

Sing

apor

e H

ong

Kon

g

Shan

ghai

Shen

zhen

Bus

an

Kao

hsiu

ng

Rot

terd

am

Ham

burg

Dub

ai

Los

Ange

les

Long

Bea

ch

Antw

erp

Qin

gdao

Port

Kla

ng

Nin

gbo

Tian

jin

New

Yor

k Ta

njun

g Pe

lepa

s La

em C

haba

ng

Toky

o

0

2

4

6

8 1 0

1 2 1 4

1 6

1 8

2 0

2 2

2 4 23.19 22.43

18.08

16.2

11.84

9.47 9.29 8.09 7.62 7.48

6.71 6.49 6.31 5.54 5.21 4.8 4.8 4.17 3.77 3.7

Container Throughput of Top 20 Container Ports in 2005

Mill

ion

TEU

(Figure 3.1)�

3


4. Methodology

4.1 This study involves an extensive survey of literatures with a view to

collating the latest data, available at the time of the data collection phase of this study,

on port charges, container throughput (TEUs), characteristics of container terminals,

and port formalities. In parallel, interviews with international shipping lines and

shipping agencies have been conducted so as to obtain their views on the performance

of the Hong Kong port.

4.2 To facilitate comparisons with different ports, all port costs are denominated

in US currency.

4


5. Assumptions

5.1 In the calculation of port charges, two popular cost elements have been

excluded, namely berthage/wharfage and agency fees. The main reasons being:

(i)� In a modern container terminal, berthage/wharfage fees are normally

incorporated in the box-handling rate. As such, the berthage/wharfage

fees are considered as a cargo handling charge; and

(ii)� According to the liner shipping industry, there has been a growing

trend towards bringing the agency functions in-house by liner

operators and many shipping lines no longer require the employment

of local shipping agencies to service their container ships during each

port call. This means that agency fees can be taken out of the port

charges equation as agency functions are taken up by carrier-owned

agency offices.

5.2 Other assumptions are:

(i)� Despite the trend that container ships are getting larger in size in

recent years, the size of the model ship only relates to absolute port

disbursement but it would not cause significant difference in

benchmarking type comparisons. To facilitate comparison with the

results obtained in the 2001 study, the same panamax size model ship

is used for the calculation of port disbursement data. The particulars

of this model container ship are as follows:

• GRT: 50,350 tonnes

• NRT: 28,369 tonnes

• Capacity: 4,200 TEUs

• Length: 270 m

• Draft: in/out 12.0 m

• Towage: 2 mooring / unmooring tugs 5


(ii)� no overtime and holiday expenses are involved. All port cost

calculations are based on standard rates to facilitate like-for-like

comparisons.

6


6. Benchmarking for Port Charges

6.1 When a ship calls at a port, the following costs are normally incurred: port

charges, cargo expenses and operating costs. In addition, bunker costs may also be

incurred. In this study, the focus will be centred around port charges which are the

costs levied on the carriers for using the port and its associated facilities based on

2005 prices.

6.2 Broadly speaking, port charges are made up of the sum of various tariffs

which are based on the ship’s dimensions (e.g. Gross Registered Tonnage (GRT), Net

Registered Tonnage (NRT), length, draft and etc.). It should be noted that this practice

may vary from port to port, and in certain cases other non-conventional bases may be

used for calculation of tariffs. For the purpose of making comparisons in this study,

port charges include harbour and light dues; pilotage; towage; mooring/unmooring;

and ancillary charges. Total port charges is the sum of the above charges a ship

incurred at a port. It should be noted that in the case of Tanjung Pelepas all port

charges are consolidated into a single charge which will be shown in the total port

charges comparison.

Harbour and Light Dues (Figures 6.1 - 6.2)

6.3 Harbour and light dues are charges that do not affixed with a specific port

service. They are in general charged by port authorities for using a port according to

the tonnages of vessels. Some ports may name this type of charges simply as port

dues, harbour dues, light dues or tonnage dues.

6.4 From the global comparison in Figure 6.1, we can see that European ports

are the most costly followed by US ports and Asian ports.

6.5 As can be seen in Figures 6.1 and 6.2, Hong Kong's harbour and light dues

is found to be very low in both global and regional context. Although Hong Kong is

no longer the least expensive port as in the last study, Hong Kong is now slightly

higher than Dubai and Port Klang. The global average and regional average of harbour

and light dues are US$ 6,354 and US$ 3,694 and Hong Kong's dues is US$ 2,073

which is 33% and 56% of the global and regional average respectively. 7

Antw

erp

Rotte

rdam

H

ambu

rg

Los

Ange

les

Long

Bea

ch

New

Yor

k La

em C

haba

ng

Bus

an

Shen

zhen

Sh

angh

ai

Nin

gbo

Toky

o Si

ngap

ore

Kao

hsiu

ng

Tian

jin

Qin

gdao

H

ong

Kong

Du

bai

Port

Kla

ng

Tanj

ung

Pele

pas

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000 23800

21687

8600

6797 6797 6797 6550 5805

4676 4585 4369 4111 3333 2942 2511 2233 2073 1919 1238

0

Global Comparison of Harbour & Light Dues U

S $

(Figure 6.1)�

Laem

Cha

bang

Bus

an

Shen

zhen

Shan

ghai

Ning

bo

Toky

o

Sing

apor

e

Kaoh

siun

g

Tian

jin

Qin

gdao

Hon

g K

ong

Port

Kla

ng

Tanj

ung

Pele

pas


US

$

Regional Comparison of Harbour and Light Dues

7000�6550�

6000� 5805�

5000� 4676� 4585�4369�

4111�4000�

3333�

2942�3000�2511�

2233�1976�2000�

1238�

1000�

00

(Figure 6.2)

Pilotage Charge (Figures 6.3 - 6.4)

6.6 Pilotage service is provided either by the port authorites or private

companies. pilotage charge is usually calculated on the size of a vessel and/or the

distance under pilotage. The cost for providing pilotage services to river and inland

ports are therefore usually higher. This is reflected in the global comparison of

pilotage charge (Figure 6.3) that Antwerp, Hamburg, Tokyo (require a bay pilot),

Rotterdam and Shanghai appear as the top five ports. 8

Antw

erp

Ham

burg

To

kyo

Rotte

rdam

Sh

angh

ai

New

Yor

k Ni

ngbo

Lo

ng B

each

Q

ingd

ao

Los

Ange

les

Shen

zhen

* P

ort K

lang

Ti

anjin

Bus

an

Hong

Kon

g K

aohs

iung

La

em C

haba

ng

Dub

ai

Sing

apor

e Ta

njun

g Pe

lepa

s

Toky

o

Shan

ghai

Ning

bo

Qin

gdao

Shen

zhen

* Por

t Kla

ng

Tian

jin

Bus

an

Hong

Kon

g

Kaoh

siun

g

Laem

Cha

bang

Sing

apor

e

Tanj

ung

Pele

pas


6.7 Given our geographical benefit, Hong Kong's pilotage cost, named as

pilotage dues, is comparatively lower. Our pilotage dues ranks the fifth lowest

globally and the fourth regionally (Figure 6.4). Hong Kong's pilotage dues has been

revised twice since the last study. In 2003 part of the additional dues were reduced.

While in 2005, the basic due has been increased together with increases in majority of

the additional dues. Despite the price revision in 2005, the position of Hong Kong's

pilotage cost is still lower than that in Shenzhen.

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

15000

18000 1 6 60 0

1 60 00

1 0 32 8

8 9 42

5 63 5 4 7 70

3 8 44 36 4 1 35 28 3 45 7 3 29 3 32 17

1 92 5 17 76 17 5 2 1 64 5 14 1 0 1 01 8 6 21 0

US

$

Global Comparison of Pilotage Charge

* Also includes towage and mooring/unmooring charges

(Figure 6.3)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1 0 32 6

5 63 5

3 8 44 35 28 3 29 3 3 2 17

1 92 5 1 7 76 17 5 2 1 64 5 14 1 0 6 21

0

Regional Comparison of Pilotage Charge

US

$

9

Rotte

rdam

Ne

w Y

ark

Antw

erp

Shan

ghai

H

ambu

rg

Toky

o La

em C

haba

ng

Nin

gbo

Los

Ange

les

Long

Bea

ch

Bus

an

Qin

gdao

Sh

enzh

en

Kao

hsiu

ng

Tian

jin

Hong

Kon

g Du

bai

Sing

apor

e Ta

njun

g Pe

lepa

s * P

ort K

lang

Global Comparison of Towage Charges

US

$

8181 7868 8000

7061 6733

6400 6315 6000

4121 4100 4000

3300 3300 2883 2710 2659

2345 2100 1933 2000 1367 1173

0 00

6.8


* Also includes towage and mooring/unmooring charges

(Figure 6.4)

Towage Charge (Figures 6.5 - 6.6)

Comparisons of towage cost indicate that there are wide variations between

ports. The highest towage cost is found at Rotterdam which is over US$ 8,000, about

7 times of the lowest port - Singapore at US$ 1,173. Similar to pilotage, towage costs

are in general higher in river and inland ports. New York seems to be the exception as

it is located at the river mouth yet it has a rather expensive towage cost.

Comparatively Hong Kong's towage cost is at the low side of both the global and

regional comparisons, as found in the previous study.

* The towage charge of Port Klang is included in the pilotage charge

(Figure 6.5)

* The towage charge of Port Klang is included in the pilotage charge

10

Shan

ghai

Toky

o

Laem

Cha

bang

Nin

gbo

Bus

an

Qin

gdao

Shen

zhen

Kaoh

siun

g

Tian

jin

Hong

Kon

g

Sing

apor

e

Tanj

ung

Pele

pas

* Por

t Kla

ng

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000 6 73 3 6 3 15

4 12 1 41 00

28 8 3 2 7 10 2 65 9 2 34 5

2 1 00 1 93 3

1 1 73

0 0

Regional Comparison of Towage Charges

US

$

Antw

erp

Rot

terd

am

Ham

burg

Toky

o

Shen

zhen

Dub

ai

Bus

an

Sing

apor

e

Tian

jin

Kaoh

siun

g H

ong

Kon

g Sh

angh

ai

Qin

gdao

Ning

bo

Laem

Cha

bang

Ta

njun

g Pe

lepa

s Lo

s An

gele

s Lo

ng B

each

Po

rt K

lang

N

ew Y

ork


(Figure 6.6)

Mooring/Unmooring Charge (Figures 6.7 - 6.8)

6.9 The differentiation of this labour intensive charge between ports is quite

significant. The highest charge is at Antwerp where US$ 2,500 will be levied on the

model vessel which is 47 times higher than the lowest port Ningbo at US$ 53. Similar

to that found in the 2001 study, Hong Kong's mooring / unmooring charge is

comparatively low in both global and regional context.

US

$

Global Comparison of Mooring / Unmooring Charges

3000

2500 2500

2110 2000 1900

1655

1500�

1000�

604 572 500

285 185 180 166 147

66 60 53 0 0 0 0 0 00

(Figure 6.7)

11

Regional Comparison of Mooring / Unmooring C harges

1800 1 6 55

1500

1200

$ U

S 900

6 0 4 600

300 28 5 18 5 1 80 1 66 1 4 7

6 6 6 0 53 0 0 0 0

o n n n o e re g i o s g y ah ha

ok po

ij ng

b a ng

ns n iu on da

ng ing pz uT ga iaB sT h ng le ban a

he N e Kla

in o g K

n ha Qi

P

S SS Ch

ort

Ka

Ho ng m P

nju ea

a L

T

Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs�Main Report

(Figure 6.8)

Ancillary Charges (Figures 6.9 - 6.10)�

6.10 Other than the above four items, other charges imposed to ships by port

authorities are grouped as ancillary charges. These charges come under many different

hats, examples are port clearance charge; port entry fee; maritime welfare charge;

harbour cleaning and maintenance fee; VTS user fee and etc. It should be noted that

different ports levy different charges and a few ports do not have any charge of this

category. For this reason only the total of the ancillary charges are compared. From

Figures 6.9 and 6.10, it can be seen that Hong Kong's total ancillary charges is the

lowest amongst the ports that charge some form of ancillary charges. The conclusion

made in the last report that Hong Kong's ancillary charges was minimal remains valid.

12

Bus

an

Qin

gdao

Tian

jin

Laem

Cha

bang

Toky

o

Port

Kla

ng

Shan

ghai

Shen

zhen

Ning

bo

Sing

apor

e

Kao

hsiu

ng

Hong

Kon

g

Tanj

ung

Pele

pas

Bus

an

Qin

gdao

Tian

jin

Rotte

rdam

La

em C

haba

ng

Antw

erp

Toky

o

Port

Kla

ng

Shan

ghai

Lo

s An

gele

s Sh

enzh

en

Nin

gbo

Sing

apor

e K

aohs

iung

Ho

ng K

ong

Tanj

ung

Pele

pas

Duba

i Lo

ng B

each

H

ambu

rg

New

Yor

k

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

6 25 5

4 7 55 4 4 51

2 1 32

1 57 8 1 50 0

1 02 2 8 2 0

4 0 5 3 6 1 1 78 1 58 1 08 1 7 12 .5 0 0 0 0 0

Global Comparison of Ancillary Charges

US

$


(Figure 6.9)�

Regional Comparison of Ancillary Charges

US

$

7000�

6255�

6000�

5000� 4755�4451�

4000�

3000�

2000�1578�

1022�1000� 820�

405�178 158 108� 17 12.5 00

(Figure 6.10)�

13

Antw

erp

Rotte

rdam

Ha

mbu

rg

Toky

o

New

Yor

k Sh

angh

ai

Bus

an

Los

Ange

les

Long

Bea

ch

Laem

Cha

bang

Q

ingd

ao

Nin

gbo

Tanj

ung

Pele

pas

Shen

zhen

Ti

anjin

K

aohs

iung

Ho

ng K

ong

Sing

apor

e Po

rt K

lang

Dub

ai

Global Comparison of Total Port Charges

US

$

51461 50000

43052

40000

32900

30000

23431

19435 20000 17424 17004 13915 13738 13659 13108 12524 11732 11410 11167

10000 7115 5918 5420 5275 4876

0


Total Port Charges (Figures 6.11 - 6.12)

6.11 The collected data, listed in Figure 6.11, indicate that the price range of total

port charges per call by the model ship varies between US$ 51,461 at Antwerp to US$

4,876 at Dubai. Amongst the 20 leading container ports, Hong Kong lies at the lower

end at US$ 5,918 per call which only slightly higher than Singapore (US$ 5,420) and

Port Klang (US$ 5,275) in the region, and Dubai (US$ 4,876) in the global context.

The ranking on total port charge is the same as in the last study.

6.12 As shown in Figure 6.12, Hong Kong maintains its position as one of the

lowest cost ports in Asia.

(Figure 6.11)�

14

Regional Comparison of Total Port Charges

24000 23431

20000

17424 17004

16000 13659 13108

S$ 12524

12000 11732 11410 11167

U

8000 7115 5918 5420 5175

4000�

0�

o y hai n g o n g g g a n a bo s a jin

n

ok ng

s a d

ing p n or

e

u b lee hsha

B ng T Kla

ha N nzhe iun on

T ia

o g K pa

Qi

P he C nS ing

Sm Ka

Ho S or

t

ng P

eaL nju

Ta


(Figure 6.12)

Hong Kong Port Charges

6.13 Figure 6.13 below shows the composition of Hong Kong's port charges. It is

mainly composed of three almost equal parts of about one third of the total cost. The

harbour and light dues are set and collected by the Government. The pilotage dues are

set by the Government on the advice of the pilotage Advisory Committee. The towage

charges are set by the tug companies based on commercial decisions.

6.14 In February 2006 the Government has reduced harbour and light dues from

HK$57 to HK$54 per 100 NRT to make the port more attractive to shipping lines.

Although not benchmarked in this study, the Government has also reduced the

anchorages dues at the same time.

15


35.03%

29.61%

2.48% 32.67%

0.21%

Composition of Hong Kong's Port Charges

Harbour & Light Dues Pilotage Mooring/Unmooring Towage Ancillary

(Figure 6.13)�

16


7. Benchmarking the Container Ports

7.1 Container Throughput

7.1.1 Figure 7.1 is a graphical representation of Hong Kong's container

throughputs from 1991 to 2005.

7.1.2 It should be noted that started from 1998 the Marine Department has used a

new series of container throughput statistics. For comparison purpose, Hong Kong's

container throughput in 1997 under the old and new series were 14.567 million TEU

and 14.386 million TEU respectively. In other words, the new series has offset the

throughput figure of 1997 by -0.181 million TEU.

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 0

2.5

5

7.5

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

22.5

25

6.162

7.972 9.204

11.05 12.55

13.46 14.56714.582

16.211

18.09817.826 19.144

20.449 21.984

22.602

Hong Kong's Container Throughputs from 1991 to 2005

Mill

ion

TEU

(Figure 7.1)

7.1.3 In terms of annual container throughput, Hong Kong was still at the top of

the world list in 2004 but has been replaced by Singapore in 2005.

17


Growth of Container Throughput

7.1.4 The growth rate of container throughput is considered over a designated

period by comparing the throughput of the end year to that of the base year. In this

study, a ten year period of 1996 to 2005 and the latest five year period of 2001 to 2005

are used. From Tables 7.2, it can be seen that over the 10 year period, the growth rate

of Hong Kong's container throughput are the lowest amongst the top 20 container

ports. While in the last study, Hong Kong's 10 year growth rate (1991 to 2000) were

ranked fourth and second in global and regional comparisons respectively. In the

period 2001 to 2005, Hong Kong's throughput growth rate rises slightly to the second

lowest as shown in Table 7.3. However, Shenzhen, Shanghai, Qingdao and Tianjin

occupy the top four places in growth rate, indicating China's blooming economy.

7.1.5 Using Hong Kong's growth rate as the reference point, the other ports

growth rate is indexed against Hong Kong. It shows Shenzhen has a growth rate of

nearly 23 times that of Hong Kong in 1996 to 2005 and 8.5 times in 2001 to 2005.

The relative growth rate indexes are shown in Figures 7.5 to 7.8.

7.1.6 Due to the smaller bases, newly developed ports tend to achieve a higher

relative growth. In order to determine the position of Hong Kong's actual growth in

volume, Table 7.4 is developed based on the actual increase in throughput in 2001 to

2005. Hong Kong climbs up to the upper part of the list with 4.6 million TEU growth

over the five-year period, however Hong Kong's growth still falls behind Shanghai

(11.75 million TEU), Shenzhen (11.12 million TEU) and Singapore (7.62 million

TEU). The global and regional comparisons are shown in Figures 7.9 and 7.10.

7.1.7 Although, Hong Kong's throughput still benefits from China's strong

economy, the low achievement in growth indicates that Hong Kong is unable to get an

even share of the strong growth in trade volume in south China.

7.1.8 According to the "Regional Shipping and Port Development Strategies

(Container Traffic Forecast)" published by UN ESCAPE in 2005, Asian port's share

of the world container volumes will continue to grow from 55% in 2002 to 61% in

2015. China is expected to be the main driving force to push up the throughput. In

18


order to handle the anticipated port container traffic in 2015, around 570 new

container berths will be required in the region. The study forecasts that the largest

number, a total of 270 new berths will be needed in China including Hong Kong and

Taiwan. It is important that Hong Kong is prepared to meet the opportunity and

challenge of the future container market.

19

(Table 7.2)

Growth Rate of Container Throughputs at Top 20 Container Ports from 1996 to 2005 ( Million TEU)

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Growth Rate (%) # Index*

Shenzhen 0.11 0.35 0.64 1.58 2.14 5.08 7.61 10.65 13.66 16.2 15226.4 22842.14 Shanghai 1.97 2.52 3.05 4.22 5.61 6.33 8.62 11.37 14.55 18.08 817.77 1226.79 Port Klang 1.41 1.69 1.75 2.55 3.21 3.76 4.53 4.84 5.2 5.54 293.02 439.58 Dubai 2.25 2.6 2.8 2.84 3.06 3.5 4.19 5.15 6.43 7.62 239.12 358.72 Los Angeles 2.68 2.96 3.38 3.28 4.88 5.18 6.11 7.15 7.4 7.48 178.79 268.22 Hamburg 3.05 3.34 3.56 3.74 4.25 4.69 5.37 6.14 7 8.09 164.9 247.38 Busan 4.73 5.23 5.51 6.44 7.54 8.07 9.44 11.43 11.84 150.58 225.9 Antwerp 2.65 2.97 3.28 3.61 4.08 4.22 4.78 5.45 6.06 6.49 144.63 216.97 Long Beach 3.07 3.51 4.1 4.41 4.6 4.46 4.52 4.66 5.78 6.71 118.78 178.19 New York 2.27 2.46 2.78 2.83 3.05 3.32 3.75 4.07 4.48 4.8 111.45 167.2 Rotterdam 4.81 5.45 6.01 6.34 6.27 6.1 6.52 7.12 8.22 9.29 93.1 139.66 Kaohsiung 5.06 5.69 6.27 6.99 7.43 7.54 8.49 8.84 9.71 9.47

10.37

87.04 130.58 Tokyo 2.01 2.09 2.2 2.7 2.9 2.54 2.71 3.31 3.58 3.7 84.45 126.68 Singapore 12.95 14.14 15.1 15.94 17.09 15.57 16.94 18.1 21.33 23.19 79.14 118.73 Hong Kong 13.46 14.54 14.69 16.21 18.1 17.83 19.14 20.45 21.93 22.43 66.66 100 Ningbo 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.86 2.77 4 5.21 - -Tianjin 0 0 0 1.3 1.71 2.01 2.41 3.02 3.81 4.8 - -Tanjung Pelepas 0 0 0 0 0 2.05 2.66 3.49 3.48 4.17 - -Qingdao 0 0 0 1.54 2.12 2.64 3.41 4.23 5.14 6.31 - -Laem Chabang 0 0 0 1.76 2.11 2.31 2.66 3.18 3.62 3.77 - -

# Growth Rate from 1996 to 2005 (%)

* This index shows the relative growth rate from 1996 to 2005 on a percentage scale, using Hong Kong as a reference (100%)

(Table 7.3)

Growth Rate of Container Throughputs at Top 20 Container Ports from 2001 to 2005 ( Million TEU)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Growth Rate (%)* Index#

Shenzhen 5.08 7.61 10.65 13.66 16.2 219.12 848.41 Shanghai 6.33 8.62 11.37 14.55 18.08 185.43 717.94 Qingdao 2.64 3.41 4.23 5.14 6.31 139.15 538.77 Tianjin 2.01 2.41 3.02 3.81 4.8 138.81 537.44 Dubai 3.5 4.19 5.15 6.43 7.62 117.6 455.33 Tanjung Pelepas 2.05 2.66 3.49 3.48 4.17 103.51 400.79 Hamburg 4.69 5.37 6.14 7 8.09 72.54 280.88 Laem Chabang 2.31 2.66 3.18 3.62 3.77 63.03 244.05 Antwerp 4.22 4.78 5.45 6.06 6.49 53.86 208.53 Rotterdam 6.1 6.52 7.12 8.22 9.29 52.39 202.85 Long Beach 4.46 4.52 4.66 5.78 6.71 50.35 194.94 Singapore 15.57 16.94 18.1 21.33 23.19 48.93 189.45 Port Klang 3.76 4.53 4.84 5.2 5.54 47.36 183.37 Busan 8.07 9.44 10.37 11.43 11.84 46.67 180.68 Tokyo 2.54 2.71 3.31 3.58 3.7 45.91 177.75 New York 3.32 3.75 4.07 4.48 4.8 44.74 173.23 Los Angeles 5.18 6.11 7.15 7.4 7.48 44.3 171.54 Hong Kong 17.83 19.14 20.45 21.93 22.43 25.83 100 Kaohsiung 7.54 8.49 8.84 9.71 9.47 25.59 99.07 Ningbo 0 1.86 2.77 4 5.21 - -

# Growth Rate from 2001 to 2005 (%)

* This index shows the relative growth rate from 2001 to 2005 on a percentage scale, using Hong Kong as a reference (100%)

(Table 7.4)

Actual Growth of Container Throughputs at Top 20 Container Ports from 2001 to 2005 ( Million TEU)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Actual TEU Growth Shanghai 6.33 8.62 11.37 14.55 18.08 11.75 Shenzhen 5.08 7.61 10.65 13.66 16.2 11.12 Singapore 15.57 16.94 18.1 21.33 23.19 7.62 Hong Kong 17.83 19.14 20.45 21.93 22.43 4.6 Dubai 3.5 4.19 5.15 6.43 7.62 4.12 Busan 8.07 9.44 10.37 11.43 11.84 3.77 Qingdao 2.64 3.41 4.23 5.14 6.31 3.67 Hamburg 4.69 5.37 6.14 7 8.09 3.4 Rotterdam 6.1 6.52 7.12 8.22 9.29 3.19 Tianjin 2.01 2.41 3.02 3.81 4.8 2.79 Los Angeles 5.18 6.11 7.15 7.4 7.48 2.3 Antwerp 4.22 4.78 5.45 6.06 6.49 2.27 Long Beach 4.46 4.52 4.66 5.78 6.71 2.25 Tanjung Pelepas 2.05 2.66 3.49 3.48 4.17 2.12 Kaohsiung 7.54 8.49 8.84 9.71 9.47 1.93 Port Klang 3.76 4.53 4.84 5.2 5.54 1.78 New York 3.32 3.75 4.07 4.48 4.8 1.48 Laem Chabang 2.31 2.66 3.18 3.62 3.77 1.46 Tokyo 2.54 2.71 3.31 3.58 3.7 1.16 Ningbo 0 1.86 2.77 4 5.21 0


Shen

zhen

Shan

ghai

Port

Klan

g

Duba

i

Los

Ange

les

Ham

burg

Busa

n

Antw

erp

Long

Bea

ch

New

Yor

k

Rotte

rdam

Kaoh

siun

g

Toky

o

Sing

apor

e

Hong

Kon

g

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000 22842

1227

440 359 268 247 226 217 178 167 140 131 127 119 100

G l obal C o m par i son of R e la t i v e Growt h Rate I nde x i n C o nt a i ner T hro ughp ut i n 19 96 - 2 00 5 %

(Figure 7.5)�

Shen

zhen

Shan

ghai

Port

Klan

g

Busa

n

Kaoh

siun

g

Toky

o

Sing

apor

e

Hong

Kon

g

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000 22842

1227

440 226 131 127 119 100

R e gi ona l Com pa ri son o f R e l at i v e G rowt h R a t e In dex i n Contai ner T h rough put in 1 996 - 200 5

%

(Figure 7.6)�

23


Shen

zhen

Sh

angh

ai

Qin

gdao

Ti

anjin

Duba

i Ta

njun

g Pe

lepa

s Ha

mbu

rg

Laem

Cha

bang

An

twer

p Ro

tterd

am

Long

Bea

ch

Sing

apor

e Po

rt Kl

ang

Busa

n

Toky

o Ne

w Y

ork

Los

Ange

les

Hong

Kon

g Ka

ohsi

ung

0

200

400

600

800

1000

848

718

539 537

455 401

281 244

209 203 195 189 184 181 178 173 172

100 99

G l obal C o m par i son of R e la t i v e Growt h Rate I nde x i n C o nt a i ner T hro ughp ut i n 20 01 - 2 00 5 %

(Figure 7.7)�

Shen

zhen

Shan

ghai

Qin

gdao

Tian

jin

Tanj

ung

Pele

pas

Laem

Cha

bang

Sing

apor

e

Port

Klan

g

Busa

n

Toky

o

Hong

Kon

g

Kaoh

siun

g

0

200

400

600

800

1000

848

718

539 537

401

244 189 184 181 178

100 99

R e gi ona l Com pa ri son o f R e l at i v e G rowt h R a t e In dex i n Contai ner T h rough put in 2 001 - 20 05

%

(Figure 7.8)�

24


Shan

ghai

Sh

enzh

en

Sing

apor

e Ho

ng K

ong

Duba

i

Busa

n

Qin

gdao

Ha

mbu

rg

Rotte

rdam

Ti

anjin

Lo

s An

gele

s An

twer

p Lo

ng B

each

Ta

njun

g Pe

lepa

s Ka

ohsi

ung

Port

Klan

g Ne

w Y

ork

Laem

Cha

bang

To

kyo

0

2

4

6

8

10

12 11.75 11.12

7.62

4.6 4.12

3.77 3.67 3.4 3.19 2.79

2.3 2.27 2.25 2.12 1.93 1.78 1.48 1.46 1.16

Gl ob al Com p ari so n of A ctual Gr ow th i n C o nt a i ner T hro ugh put i n 20 01 - 2 00 5 M

illio

n TE

U

(Figure 7.9)�

Shan

ghai

Shen

zhen

Sing

apor

e

Hong

Kon

g

Busa

n

Qin

gdao

Tian

jin

Tanj

ung

Pele

pas

Kaoh

siun

g

Port

Klan

g

Laem

Cha

bang

Toky

o

0

2

4

6

8

10

12 11.75 11.12

7.62

4.6 3.77 3.67

2.79 2.12 1.93 1.78 1.46 1.16

Reg io nal Com par is on of Act ua l Growt h i n Contai ner T hrough put i n 2 00 1 - 20 05

Mill

ion

TEU

(Figure 7.10)

7.2 Container Terminals

7.2.1 Hong Kong has been a container port for more than three decades.

Containerized cargoes handled in Hong Kong represent about 74 per cent by weight of

Hong Kong's total cargo throughput which is one of the key factors in the prosperity

and economic growth of Hong Kong. The container port is also vital for Southern

25

Antw

erp

Ham

burg

Si

ngap

ore

New

Yor

k Lo

ng B

each

H

ong

Kon

g K

aohs

iung

Bus

an

Port

Klan

g Sh

angh

ai

Los

Ange

les

Shen

zhen

Toky

o

Qin

gdao

Dub

ai

Rotte

rdam

La

em C

haba

ng

Tian

jin

Ning

bo

Tanj

ung

Pele

pas

Global Comparison of Number of Berths

50

45

40

35 33

30 28 27

24 22

20 2020 19 16

14 13 13 13 12

10 9 8 7 6

0


China as some 78 per cent of the throughput is related to the area. The port of Hong

Kong is a major hub port in the global supply chain and is served by some 80

international shipping lines with over 450 container liner services per week to over

500 destinations worldwide. Hence, it would be useful to know the relative position of

Hong Kong's container terminals in terms of hardware and efficiencies.

7.2.2 The physical characteristics : number of berths, total quay length, maximum

alongside depth, total terminal area and total container storage capacity will be

benchmarked against the top 20 ports. By comparing the annual throughput per metre

quay length and container storage capacity over total terminal area, it can give an

indication on how the efficiencies of the terminals are fare. The following

comparisons are based on 2004 container terminal data obtained from the

"Containerization International Yearbook 2005". It should be noted that the total quay

length and total terminal area data of 2004 are obtained from the “Port of Hong Kong

in Figures 2005”. These figures assumed full operation of Terminal 9 but in fact, only

four berths of Terminal 9 were in operation in 2004 and the remaining two berths

commenced operation only in 2005.

Number of Berths (Figures 7.11 to 7.12)

7.2.3 In terms of number of berths Hong Kong is average in global context

and second to Singapore in regional context. The result is similar to that of the last

study.

26

Sing

apor

e

Hon

g K

ong

Kaoh

siun

g

Bus

an

Port

Kla

ng

Shan

ghai

Shen

zhen

Toky

o

Qin

gdao

Laem

Cha

bang

Tian

jin

Nin

gbo

Tanj

ung

Pele

pas

Regional Comparison of Number of Berths

40

35 33

30

25 24 22

20 20 20 19

15 14 13 13

10 9 8 7

6 5�

0�

Global Comparison of Total Quay Length

14000

1 2 12 0 12000

1 1 07 0 1 04 75

10000 9 1 63 9 0 37 9 00 2

r 8000 7 69 4 ete 6 7 36 6 71 1

M 6000 5 97 3 5 5 43

5 1 00 5 09 6 4 9 13

4000 3 6 86 30 0 0

25 7 0 24 50 2 16 0 2 13 8 2000

0

rp

m

ore

urg k s g h ng

n n o i i s r le on

a g o g a o c a

nzhe a h

ort K

lan y ne a o b jin

ntw d k pa b

rd

a s a np b iu Y ge b ia ea se ngm Du

ing w n g

K Be

Bu

ing To l

A ott T e

Ha

Ne A n g oh he ha haQ N

ing

R S os on Ka S S P

L em C g

P

Ho

L un

La njaT


(Figure 7.12)

Total Quay Length (Figures 7.13 - 7.14)

7.2.4 In this aspect, Hong Kong is also found to be on par with the global

trend and is only having shorter total quay length than Singapore in Asian region. The

result is similar to that of the last study. However, this position may change in the next

few years as Shenzhen is continuously expanding Yantian and is building a new port

at Dachan.

(Figure 7.13) 27

Sing

apor

e

Hon

g K

ong

Kao

hsiu

ng

Busa

n

Shen

zhen

Qin

gdao

Shan

ghai

Port

Kla

ng

Toky

o

Laem

Cha

bang

Tian

jin

Tanj

ung

Pele

pas

Nin

gbo

Regional Comparison of Total Quay Length M

eter

12000

10475 10000�

8000� 7694

6711 5973 6000 5543

5100 5096 4913

4000 3686 3000

2450 2160 2138

2000�

0�

Global Comparison of Maxium Alongside Depth

18 17 .5

17 1 6.8 1 6.7 1 6.6

16 16 16 1 6 15 .8

r 15 .5

e 1 5.2

et 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 1 5

M

1 4.3 1 4.2 14

13

12

o h rg

m

nzhe

n

bai g rp o o c rk

y a re g

u a o njin

s n n ae ng

ng s

le hai

da a p gb onusng Be

mb rd Y le ok poDu a

ge gb iuia nte ha

s

he w ntw

T e Nin T B ga g K

t Kla

oh n

Qi ag a

on C e P r A hH ot A in nS N g Ho oR S P Ka S

L m os

ea jun L

nL

Ta


(Figure 7.14)

Maximum Alongside Depth (Figures 7.15 - 7.16)

7.2.5 The maximum alongside water depth of Hong Kong's container

terminals is 15 metres which is within the average band but behind our neighboring

port - Shenzhen. On comparison with the last study, it can be seen that the number of

ports having over 15 metres alongside depth berths has increased from 4 to 10.

Although majority of the ports in the region are still having a maximum of 15 metres

alongside depth, it can be expected that more and more ports would seek to provide

deeper berths.

28

Qin

gdao

Shen

zhen

Laem

Cha

bang

Tian

jin

Tanj

ung

Pele

pas

Nin

gbo

Toky

o

Busa

n

Sing

apor

e

Hon

g K

ong

Port

Kla

ng

Kao

hsiu

ng

Shan

ghai

Regional Comparison of Maxium Alongside Depth M

eter

18

17.5

17

16 16 16

15.2 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

14.2 14�

13�

12�

Los

Ange

les

New

Yor

k An

twer

p Ha

mbu

rg

Long

Bea

ch

Rot

terd

am

Shan

ghai

Si

ngap

ore

Busa

n Ho

ng K

ong

Shen

zhen

Dub

ai

Kaoh

siun

g Po

rt K

lang

Ta

njun

g Pe

lepa

s Q

ingd

ao

Laem

Cha

bang

Ti

anjin

Toky

o

Ning

bo

Global Comparison of Total Terminal Area

7000

6000 6 16 1

5 6 80

5000

er

5 0 68 5 0 55 4 83 5 4 66 7

4000

e M

etS

quar 4 01 0

3 3 90

3000 nd

2 9 23 2 7 50

1000

2000

Thou

sa 2 2 90 18 9 9 17 2 1

14 9 3 12 00 11 36 10 26 1 00 4 89 4 75 7


(Figure 7.16)

Total Terminal Area (Figures 7.17 - 7.18)

7.2.6 The physical size of Hong Kong's container terminals is considered as

medium. The finding is similar to that of the last study.

(Figure 7.17)�

29

Shan

ghai

Sing

apor

e

Bus

an

Hong

Kon

g

Shen

zhen

Kao

hsiu

ng

Port

Kla

ng

Tanj

ung

Pele

pas

Qin

gdao

Laem

Cha

bang

Tian

jin

Toky

o

Ning

bo

Thou

sand

Squ

are

Met

er

5000

4010 4000

3390

2923 2750

3000

2290

2000 1721

1493

1200 1136 1026 1004 8941000 757

Hon

g K

ong

Los

Ange

les

Shen

zhen

Sh

angh

ai

Antw

erp

Bus

an

Ham

burg

Qin

gdao

Lo

ng B

each

Ta

njun

g Pe

lepa

s D

ubai

Kaoh

siun

g Si

ngap

ore

New

Yor

k R

otte

rdam

Po

rt K

lang

Toky

o La

em C

haba

ng

Tian

jin

Ning

bo

0

50

100

150

200 20 4 20 1

18 5 17 0

16 4 16 3

14 7 14 5 13 8

10 8 10 2

8 7

6 6 5 6 5 2 5 1 5 1 4 9

2 2

0

Global Comparison of Total Storage Capacity

Thou

sand

TE

U


Regional Comparison of Total Terminal Area

(Figure 7.18)

Total Storage Capacity (Figures 7.19 - 7.20)

7.2.7 Hong Kong's container terminal is medium in size, its storage capacity

is found to having the highest storage capacity in the world in this study.

(Figure 7.19)�

30

Ho

ng K

ong

Shen

zhen

Shan

ghai

Bus

an

Qin

gdao

Tanj

ung

Pele

pas

Kaoh

siun

g

Sing

apor

e

Port

Kla

ng

Toky

o

Laem

Cha

bang

Tian

jin

Nin

gbo

204

185 170

163

145

108

87

66 51 51 49

22

Thou

sand

TE

U

200

150

100

50

0 0

Shan

ghai

Dub

ai

Shen

zhen

Si

ngap

ore

Bus

an

Nin

gbo

Hon

g K

ong

Tanj

ung

Pele

pas

Tian

jin

Kao

hsiu

ng

Laem

Cha

bang

Po

rt K

lang

Q

ingd

ao

Toky

o Lo

ng B

each

Lo

s An

gele

s H

ambu

rg

Rot

terd

am

Antw

erp

New

Yor

k

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000 2 85 5

2 5 02 2 4 64

2 0 36 1 91 4 1 87 1

1 74 5 1 6 11 1 5 55

1 4 47

1 2 07 10 5 8 10 0 8 9 7 1

8 5 8 8 2 2 7 6 4 74 3

50 0 49 6

Global Comparison of Productivity per Metre Quay Length

TEU

per

Met

er


Regional Comparison of Total Storage Capacity

(Figure 7.20)

Productivity per metre Quay Length (Figures 7.21 - 7.22)

7.2.8 The Kwai Tsing container port handled 13.425 million TEU of

containers in 2004 which gives a yearly productivity of 1,745 TEU per metre quay

length. The productivity is of average amongst leading container ports, recorded a

downward movement since the last study (2003 TEU). The decrease in productivity

may be related to the additional quay length after the opening of container terminal 9.

(Figure 7.21)

31

Shan

ghai

Shen

zhen

Sing

apor

e

Busa

n

Nin

gbo

Hong

Kon

g

Tanj

ung

Pele

pas

Tian

jin

Kao

hsiu

ng

Laem

Cha

bang

Port

Kla

ng

Qin

gdao

Toky

o

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Regional Comparison of Productivity per Metre Quay Length TE

U p

er M

eter

2 85 5

97 1

24 64

1 0 08

2 0 36

10 5 8

19 14

1 20 7

1 87 1

1 44 7

17 4 5 1 5 55 16 1 1

Qin

gdao

Ta

njun

g Pe

lep

Shen

zhen

K

aohs

iung

H

ong

Kon

g

Toky

o

Bus

an

Dub

ai

Laem

Cha

bang

Sh

angh

ai

Port

Kla

ng

Los

Ange

les

Antw

erp

Long

Bea

ch

Ham

burg

Tian

jin

Sing

apor

e R

otte

rdam

N

ew Y

ork

Ning

bo


(Figure 7.22)

Storge Capacity / Terminal Area (Figures 7.23 - 7.24)

7.2.9 The ratio of container storage capacity over total terminal area in 2004

was 74 TEU per thousand square metre that ranks the fifth behind Kaohsiung with a

ratio of 80 TEU per thousand square metre.

TEU

per

Tho

usan

d S

quar

e M

eter

Global Comparison of Storage Capacity / Terminal Area 140

128

120�

100�90

81 80 80 74

60 57 56 54 48

42 40 34 33 32 29 29

22 19 20 11 10

(Figure 7.23)�

32

0 0

Qin

gdao

Tanj

ung

Pele

p

Shen

zhen

Kaoh

siun

g

Hong

Kon

g

Toky

o

Busa

n

Laem

Cha

bang

Shan

ghai

Port

Kla

ng

Tian

jin

Sing

apor

e

Nin

gbo

Regional Comparison of Storage Capacity / Terminal Area TE

U p

er T

hous

and

Squ

are

Met

er

140 128

120�

100�90

81 8080 74

60 57 56 48

42 40 34

22 19 20

00


(Figure 7.24)

Terminal Productivity (Figure 7.25)

7.2.10 The container port is an important link in the overall supply chain, the

level of terminal productivity is an important indicator to a port's efficiency. While

there could be other indicators to represent terminal productivity, crane rate is the

most frequently used indicator for gauging container terminals.

7.2.11 Crane productivity is not well documented for many ports. In this

study, a data set of 12 container ports has been collected, the comparison is

graphically presented as in Figure 7.25.

7.2.12 From the collected data, worldwide crane productivity ranges from 23

to 40 moves per hour (MPH) with many advanced ports able to achieve a rate of at

least 30 MPH. Crane rate depends on many factors including layout of the terminal,

its facilities, type of ships handled, interfacing with yard gantries/tractors, proximity

and stacking of the containers and loading/unloading sequence planning. For Hong

Kong's container terminals, the average crane rate is 36 MPH with peak rate at 40

MPH. This makes Hong Kong one of the most efficient container port in the world.

33

Tokyo

Singap

ore

Hong K

ong

Shenz

hen

Tanjun

g Pele

pas

Los A

ngele

s

Long

Bea

ch

Shang

hai

Xiamen

Rotterd

am

Melbou

rne

Busan


Comparison of Crane Productivity of 12 Ports

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45 40

38 36 35

33 32 32 30 30 30

28

23

Mov

e pe

r Hou

r

(Figure 7.25)�

34


8 Analysis on Port Services, Port Formality Procedures

and Application of Information Technology in Hong Kong

8.1 Port Services

8.1.1 In supporting safe and efficient port operations and protecting the

environment, seaports provide a number of port services to visiting ships. Apart from

basic services such as navigation aids, bunkering, fresh water and garbage collection,

modern ports also provide vessel traffic services (VTS), Differential Global

Positioning System (DGPS) broadcasting and waste reception services.

8.1.2 The purpose of VTS is to actively monitor and tending navigational advice

to vessels particularly within confined and busy waterways. For automation in vessel

identification, more and more VTS centres are integrating the Automatic

Identification System (AIS) transponder signals into their surveillance systems.

8.1.3 To improve the accuracy of the position obtained from the "degraded"

civilian GPS signal by shipboard receivers, many ports use a network of fixed ground

based reference stations to broadcast the difference between the positions indicated by

the satellited systems and the known fixed positions. This system is commonly known

as DGPS.

8.1.4 Shore-base waste reception facilities allow ships to discharge the chemical

wastes accumulated on board thus protecting the environment from shipboard

discharges.

8.1.5 From the results of literature research and data collection, these services are

provided by the majority of the top 20 ports with only a few exceptions in one or two

services. Table 8.1 below shows the services provided by the top 20 container ports. It

confirms that Hong Kong has provided comprehensive services to visiting ships.

35

DGPS Waste Reference Reception

Port VTS AIS Integration Station Facility Hong Kong Yes Yes Yes Yes Singapore Yes Yes Yes Yes Shanghai Yes Yes Yes Yes Shenzhen Yes Yes - -Busan Yes Yes Yes Yes Kaohsiung Yes - - -Rotterdam Yes Yes Yes Yes Los Angeles Yes Yes Yes Yes Hamburg Yes Yes Yes Yes Dubai Yes Yes - -Antwerp Yes Yes Yes Yes Long Beach Yes Yes Yes -Port Klang Yes Yes Yes Yes Qingdao Yes Yes Yes Yes New York Yes Yes Yes -Ningbo Yes - Yes Yes Tianjin Yes Yes Yes Yes Laem Chabang - - - -Tokyo Yes Yes Yes Yes Tanjung Pelepas Yes - - Yes


(Table 8.1)

8.2 Port Formality Procedures

8.2.1 Long processing time, inappropriate formalities and unclear

rules/regulations can become serious obstacles to visiting ships. In comparing the

inward and outward clearance, information on activities, pre-arrival notification

requirements, number of documents required by ports and port formality processing

time are collected from shipping companies.

8.2.2 Majority of the ports, including Hong Kong, require notification to be given

24 hours in advance of the arrival of a ship. The exceptions are Singapore and US

ports. Singapore only requires a 12 hour advance pre-arrival notification while the US

dictates all vessels to give a 96 hour advance notification due to security

considerations.

8.2.3 The number of documents required for port formalities ranging from 4 to

17, amongst a total of 12 ports that we are able to collect the relevant information.

Hong Kong asks for 10 different documents for completing the port formalities : The

crew list, passenger list, maritime declaration of health, vaccination list, deratting

exemption certificate, bonded store/personnel effects/arms/drugs/narcotics list, port of

call list, arrival declaration of dutiable stores, cargo manifest and general declaration

(MO 618).

36


8.2.4 The port formality time of the ports reported by shipping companies ranges

from 1 to 7 hours. Two thirds of these ports require less than 2 hours to complete the

formalities. In Hong Kong our performance pledge for processing port formalities

with Marine Department is 20 minutes and this is being met in 90% of cases.

8.2.5 Although Hong Kong has very satisfactory port formality performance,

there are still areas that shipping lines and shipping agencies would like to see

improvements in. These areas are :-

i. At present,� registered agents can submit the arrival and departure

declarations of ships under their management by facsimile to Marine

Department. However, they still need to visit the Central Marine Office

to collect the port clearance. Nowadays, majority of shipping activities

are being conducted in the Kwai Tsing container port area, shipping

agents consider that travelling between Kwai Chung and Central for

clearing a ship is time consuming.

ii. The� existing port formality process requires the submission and

examination of the ship's original trading certificates on her first visit

and the renewed certificates upon the expiry of such documents. This

formality applies to all visiting ships including Hong Kong registered

vessels. The industry feels that, for vessels registered in Hong Kong, the

Marine Department should posses all information related to the validity

of their trading certificates. If Hong Kong ships could be exempted from

this requirement, it can save their time spent on visiting the Central

Marine Office.

8.2.6 The two suggestions are relating to port formality processes that need to be

conducted in person at the Central Marine Office. In this regard, some shipping

agencies suggest Marine Department to establish a port formality office at Kwai

Chung to minimise the commuting time. It should be noted that the two port formality

processes have been reviewed among other procedures under the Business Process

Re-engineering Study on Electronic Business System for Port Formalities and Related

37


Shipping Activities in Marine Department conducted by the Efficiency Unit in 2004.

The two processes have been included for automation in Phase 2 of the Marine

Department Electronic Business System, the details of which will be discussed in the

following Section 8.3.3.

8.3 Application of Information Technology

8.3.1 Effective use of information technology (IT) enhances service efficiency

and level of facilitation to port users. Nowadays, use of IT systems already becomes

an indispensable element of a port given the needed efficiency and complexity of

various operations. Applications of IT are found in areas like port facilitation, port

management, cargo/shipping management, communication and information

dissemination.

8.3.2 The port of Hong Kong has a long history in making use of the world wide

web technology in disseminating information and providing services to customers.

The Marine Department maintains a number of IT systems for port management and

facilitation such as the Vessel Traffic Management System, the Dangerous Goods

Information System and the Marine Department Electronic Business System (MD

eBS) Phase 1 with Phase 2 of the System being developed.

8.3.3 The MD eBS Phase 1 was implemented in April 2004. The system is an

online document submission system for port formality and other shipping related

documents including : pre-arrival notification; tanker arrival notification; general

declaration, applications for various permits; booking of Government mooring buoys;

dangerous goods manifest and etc. On completion of the Phase 2 development, the

MD eBS will provide a one-stop electronic submission solution to all port formality

procedures in Hong Kong via the internet, including those required by Port Health and

Immigration Department. As a result of the re-engineered business process to be

implemented together with the Phase 2 system, registered shipping

companies/agencies will have the flexibility of using e-printing to produce the

approved permits and port clearance at their offices. Furthermore, ship's certificates

would also be submitted electronically via MD eBS to the Marine Department instead

of producing them physically for examination. Thus, shipping agents, including those

38


managing Hong Kong registered vessels, will not need to visit the Central Marine

Office for collecting clearances or submitting ship's certificates.

8.3.4 To facilitate trade and enhance the efficiency and productivity of the

logistics sector, Hong Kong has implemented the Digital Trade and Transportation

Network (DTTN) in 2006. DTTN is an information infrastructure and multi-

compatible platform for data exchange along the supply chain. Paper-based

documents can be prepared and transmitted electronically to raise efficiency and lower

expenses. The concept of the DTTN is about providing infrastructure for

communication, especially for the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Hong

Kong and Southern China. These SMEs cannot compete with the bigger companies in

the area of in-house technology development. The DTTN assists the SMEs in bridging

the technology gap.

8.3.5 To promote electronic commerce, improve efficiency and reduce the use of

paper, the Government has, since 1997, introduced electronic services for the

submission of a number of trade documents. The electronic submission of cargo

manifests in the air, rail, river and ocean modes of transport (EMAN) was launched in

April, 2003. After constructive dialogues with industry representatives and having

ascertained the state of readiness of ocean and river carriers, electronic submission of

cargo manifests for river and ocean carriers has been made mandatory on 16 June

2006.

8.3.6 Although Hong Kong may be considered a little lagging in terms of IT

application amongst leading container ports worldwide, but it is more advanced than

other ports in this region. Both the port industry and the Government have exerted

continuous effort in improving their IT systems in meeting customers' expectations.

39

9.1


9. Findings

The key findings are summarised below :-

i.� The position on total port charges is similar to the findings in 2001.

Hong Kong remains as one of the ports with the lowest cost in the

world with total port charges only slightly higher than Singapore and

Port Klang in the region.

ii.� The growth of container throughputs in Hong Kong from 2001 to

2005 was generally lower than other top container ports. The less

encouraging achievement in throughput growth indicates that Hong

Kong is unable to get an even share of the strong growth in

Mainland's container volume. Though Hong Kong is expected to

benefit from Mainland's economic growth, appropriate measures need

to be taken, if better throughput increase is to be achieved.

iii.� In terms of number of berths and total quay length, Hong Kong is

average in the global context and second to Singapore in terms of

regional context. The available alongside water depth of Hong Kong's

container terminals is 15 metres which is average for leading ports.

The Kwai Tsing container port handled 1,745 TEU per metre quay

length in 2004 which was average amongst leading container ports.

The physical size of Hong Kong's container terminals is considered

average yet our terminals have the highest container storage capacity

in the world. The ratio of container storage to total terminal area in

2004 at 74 TEU per thousand square metres ranks the fifth behind

Kaohsiung.

iv.� Worldwide crane productivity ranges from 23 to 40 moves per hour

(MPH) with many advanced ports able to achieve a rate of at least 30

MPH. For Hong Kong's container terminals, the average crane rate is

36 MPH with peak rate at 40 MPH. This makes Hong Kong one of the

most efficient container port in the world.

40


v.� The analysis on services reveals that Hong Kong is providing world

class port services to visiting ships and port formality procedures are

considered very satisfactory. Hong Kong may be considered a little

lagging in terms of IT application amongst leading container ports

worldwide, but it is more advanced than other ports in this region.

41


10. Recommendations

10.1 From the analysis and findings of this study, it is recommended that :-

• Low and simple port charge strategy should be continued.

• Efficient and simple port formalities should be maintained.

• The two suggestions made by the shipping industry on providing port

formality service at Kwai Chung and reducing physical inspection of the

trading certificates of Hong Kong registered ship will be addressed by

the MD eBS Phase 2, the effectiveness of this system on alleviating these

issues should be taken into account in system development.

• Continuous effort should be given to further promote and develop IT

applications with a view to providing more user friendly automated port

and shipping services to our customers.

• Action should be taken to improve cargo access to/from the port from the

hinterland areas.

• Given competitive demands, terminal tariff and shipping charges should

continue to ease towards prevailing levels at competitive facilities in

Shenzhen.

42


References

• A comparative analysis of port tariffs in ESCAP region, United Nations, 2002

• Containerisation International Yearbook 2005, Containerisation International,

2005

• Lloyd’s List ports of the world 2006, Lloyd’s List Press, 2006

• Regional Shipping and Port Development Strategies (Container Traffic

Forecast), UN ESCAPE, 2005

• Executive Summary, Study on Hong Kong Port - Master Plan 2020,

Economic Development and Labour Bureau, 2004

• Hong Kong Industrialist - December 2005, Federation of Hong Kong

Industries

• Shipper's Today, Hong Kong Shippers' Council

• Business Process Re-engineering Study on Electronic Business System for

Port Formalities and Related Shipping Activities in Marine Department,

October 2004, Efficiency Unit, HKSAR Government

• Port of Hong Kong in Figures 2005

43

Port Benchmarking Report - Marine · PDF filePort Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s...

Documents

Transcript of Port Benchmarking Report - Marine · PDF filePort Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s...