DOCSLIB.ORG

Port Privatisation: Ownership Involvement by External Companies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Port Privatisation: Ownership Involvement by External Companies MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MARITIME SCIENCE MASTER DISSERTATION Academic year 2017 – 2018 Port privatisation: Ownership involvement by external companies Alan Johnson Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements Supervisor: Prof. dr. Theo Notteboom for the degree of: Master of Science in Maritime Science Assessor: Prof. Daan Schalck PERMISSION I declare that the content of this Master dissertation may be consulted or reproduced, provided that the source is referenced. Alan Johnson PREFACE This Master dissertation marks the conclusion of my advanced studies in the Master of Science in Maritime Science. I would like to explicitly thank certain people who have contributed to the realisation of this thesis. In the first place, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Prof. dr. Theo Notteboom and co-promotor Prof. Daan Schalck for their confidence and valuable feedback. Their willingness and assistance have resulted in the accomplishment of this dissertation. Furthermore, my appreciation goes to the interviewees for their cooperation and insights as well as to the respondents for completing the survey regarding my qualitative research. Many thanks go to my friends who are always available for advice. Their relentless and unconditional enthusiasm mean a lot to me. Last but not least, I am deeply grateful to my parents for the opportunity they have offered me to follow and finalise this additional master programme. Their exceptional support and motivation are extremely valuable for me. Alan Johnson Ghent, 24 January 2018 I II TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ...................................................................................................................................................... I Table of contents .................................................................................................................................... III List of abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. VII List of figures ...................................................................................................................................... VIII List of tables .......................................................................................................................................... IX INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 1 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE IN PORTS .................................................................................. 3 1.1 Port ownership models.........................................................................................................4 1.1.1 Latin model………………………………………………………………………. 4 1.1.2 Hanseatic model………………………………………………………………….. 5 1.1.3 Anglo-Saxon model……………………………………………………………… 5 1.1.4 Mixed model……………………………………………………………………... 6 1.1.5 Summary…………………………………………………………………………. 6 1.2 Port management approaches .............................................................................................6 1.2.1 Service port………………………………………………………………………. 7 1.2.2 Tool port………………………………………………………………………….. 8 1.2.3 Landlord port……………………………………………………………………... 8 1.2.4 Private port……………………………………………………………………….. 9 1.2.5 Summary…………………………………………………………………………. 9 1.3 Port devolution ...................................................................................................................10 1.3.1 Modernisation…………………………………………………………………... 11 1.3.2 Liberalisation…………………………………………………………………….11 1.3.3 Commercialisation……………………………………………………………… 12 1.3.4 Corporatisation………………………………………………………………….. 12 1.3.5 Privatisation……………………………………………………………………...13 1.4 Motives for port privatisation ...........................................................................................14 1.4.1 Increased efficiency and flexibility…….……………………………………….. 14 1.4.2 Reduced public expenses……………………………………………………….. 15 1.4.3 Increased profits………………………………………………………………… 16 1.4.4 Increased competition…………………………………………………………... 16 1.4.5 Reduced politicisation…………………………………………………………... 18 III 1.5 Port regulation ................................................................................................................... 18 1.5.1 Port functions…………………………………………………………………… 19 1.5.2 Port concessions………………………………………………………………… 20 1.5.3 Land ownership…………………………………………………………………. 22 1.5.4 Port subsidisation……………………………………………………………….. 23 1.6 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 23 2 PORT PRIVATISATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM ......................................................... 25 2.1 Privatisation process ......................................................................................................... 25 2.1.1 First privatisation wave…………………………………………………………. 26 2.1.2 Second privatisation wave……………………………………………………….27 2.1.3 Current situation………………………………………………………………… 28 2.2 Port functions ..................................................................................................................... 30 2.2.1 Operator and landlord function…………………………………………………. 31 2.2.2 Regulatory function……………………………………………………………... 31 2.3 Private port holdings ......................................................................................................... 32 2.3.1 Associated British Ports………………………………………………………… 32 2.3.2 Peel Ports………………………………………………………………………... 33 2.3.3 Forth Ports………………………………………………………………………. 33 2.3.4 PD Ports………………………………………………………………………… 33 2.3.5 Hutchison Ports…………………………………………………………………. 34 2.4 Privatisation results ........................................................................................................... 34 2.4.1 Efficiency and investments……………………………………………………... 34 2.4.2 State revenues……………………………………………………………………36 2.4.3 Profit-making…………………………………………………………………… 37 2.4.4 Competition……………………………………………………………………... 37 2.4.5 Employment…………………………………………………………………….. 38 2.4.6 National integration……………………………………………………………... 38 2.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 39 3 PORT PRIVATISATION IN GREECE ...................................................................................... 41 3.1 Importance of the Mediterranean port range ................................................................. 41 3.1.1 Transhipment hubs……………………………………………………………… 43 3.1.2 Trans-European Transport Network……………………………………………. 46 3.1.3 One Belt, One Road…………………………………………………………….. 48 3.2 Greek port reform ............................................................................................................. 49 3.2.1 First port reform: corporatisation……………………………………………….. 50 3.2.2 Second port reform: liberalisation………………………………………………. 51 3.2.3 Third port reform: privatisation………………………………………………… 53 IV 3.3 Privatisation results ...........................................................................................................55 3.3.1 Efficiency and investments……………………………………………………... 55 3.3.2 State revenues……………………………………………………………………56 3.3.3 Profit-making and growth………………………………………………………. 56 3.3.4 Competition……………………………………………………………………... 57 3.3.5 Employment…………………………………………………………………….. 58 3.3.6 Regulation and geopolitics……………………………………………………… 58 3.4 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................60 4 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 63 4.1 Research methods ...............................................................................................................63 4.1.1 Questionnaire…………………………………………………………………… 63 4.1.2 Online survey…………………………………………………………………… 64 4.1.3 Interviews……………………………………………………………………….. 65 4.2 Results: the effects of port privatisation...........................................................................65 4.2.1 Efficiency of commercial operations and administrative tasks………………….65 4.2.2 Financial performance of the port authority and port fees……………………… 67 4.2.3 Intra-port competition and inter-port cooperation……………………………….69 4.2.4 Hinterland integration…………………………………………………………... 71 4.2.5 Employment level at the port…………………………………………………… 72 4.2.6 Port regulation…………………………………………………………………... 73 4.2.7 Risk-seeking behaviour of the port authority…………………………………… 74 4.2.8 Foreign investments in the port…………………………………………………. 75 4.2.9 Focus on short- and long-term goals by the port authority……………………... 76 4.2.10 Benefits for the local communities and environmental impact on the region…...77 4.3 Results: case Port of Piraeus .............................................................................................79 4.3.1 Integration with the TEN-T network…………………………………………….79 4.3.2 Maritime traffic to the Northwest-European ports……………………………… 80 4.3.3 Cooperation with other Mediterranean seaports………………………………... 81 4.3.4 Protectionist reactions from other ports against privatisation…………………... 82 4.3.5 Aversion from other European countries towards China’s geopolitical aspirations………………………………………………………………………. 83 4.4 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................84 5 REFLECTION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Commercial & Technical Evolution of the Ferry
    THE COMMERCIAL & TECHNICAL EVOLUTION OF THE FERRY INDUSTRY 1948-1987 By William (Bill) Moses M.B.E. A thesis presented to the University of Greenwich in fulfilment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy October 2010 DECLARATION “I certify that this work has not been accepted in substance for any degree, and is not concurrently being submitted for any degree other than that of Doctor of Philosophy being studied at the University of Greenwich. I also declare that this work is the result of my own investigations except where otherwise identified by references and that I have not plagiarised another’s work”. ……………………………………………. William Trevor Moses Date: ………………………………. ……………………………………………… Professor Sarah Palmer Date: ………………………………. ……………………………………………… Professor Alastair Couper Date:……………………………. ii Acknowledgements There are a number of individuals that I am indebted to for their support and encouragement, but before mentioning some by name I would like to acknowledge and indeed dedicate this thesis to my late Mother and Father. Coming from a seafaring tradition it was perhaps no wonder that I would follow but not without hardship on the part of my parents as they struggled to raise the necessary funds for my books and officer cadet uniform. Their confidence and encouragement has since allowed me to achieve a great deal and I am only saddened by the fact that they are not here to share this latest and arguably most prestigious attainment. It is also appropriate to mention the ferry industry, made up on an intrepid band of individuals that I have been proud and privileged to work alongside for as many decades as covered by this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Ports: Definition and Study of Types, Sizes and Business Models
    Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management JIEM, 2013 – 6(4): 1055-1064 – Online ISSN: 2013-0953 – Print ISSN: 2013-8423 http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.770 Ports: definition and study of types, sizes and business models Ivan Roa1 ,Yessica Peña1, Beatriz Amante1, María Goretti 2 1Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 2Torrella Ingenieros (Spain) [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Received: March 2013 Accepted: July 2013 Abstract: Purpose: In the world today there are thousands of port facilities of different types and sizes, competing to capture some market share of freight by sea, mainly. This article aims to determine the type of port and the most common size, in order to find out which business model is applied in that segment and what is the legal status of the companies of such infrastructure. Design/methodology/approach: To achieve this goal, we develop a research on a representative sample of 800 ports worldwide, which manage 90% of the containerized port loading. Then you can find out the legal status of the companies that manage them. Findings: The results indicate a port type and a dominant size, which are mostly managed by companies subject to a concession model. Research limitations/implications: In this research, we study only those ports that handle freight (basically containerized), ignoring other activities such as fishing, military, tourism or recreational. Originality/value: This is an investigation to show that the vast majority of the studied segment port facilities are governed by a similar corporate model and subject to pressure from the markets, which increasingly demand efficiency and service.
    [Show full text]
  • New Grade a Industrial / Distribution Building 47,060
    Dartford | M25 Junction 1A NEW GRADE A INDUSTRIAL / DISTRIBUTION BUILDING 47 47,060 SQ FT TO LET DC2 PROLOGIS PARK LITTLEBROOK ON JUNCTION FAST URBAN & 57M YARD CONNECTIVITY LOCATION PORT ACCESS DEPTH & LABOUR prologislittlebrook.co.uk ® 47 DC2 PROLOGIS PARK LITTLEBROOK Off Junction 1A Fast access Rail and fastrack Excellent local Direct urban of the M25 to ports bus services amenities access Location Public Transport Local Amenity Orbital 47 is located at Prologis Park Littlebrook, Bus: Orbital 47 lies within a 10 minute walk of the Littlebrook lies adjacent to The Bridge, a 265 acre north Dartford adjacent to Junction 1A of the M25. Littlebrook Fastrack Bus Stop. Fastrack connects mixed use regeneration joint venture between Littlebrook with Dartford town centre, Greenhithe, Prologis and Dartford Borough Council. Bluewater, and Ebbsfleet International Railway Station. Unrivalled Connectivity Advantages to local occupiers include: The service runs 7 days a week from 6am through By Road: The A2, A20 and A13 dual carriageways to midnight, with services up to every 10 minutes at 1,500 new homes providing a local labour pool. provide excellent access to London the UK’s largest peak times. The service expands the labour catchment Science & Technology education facilities, consumer market. The M20 and M2 lead to the providing a cost effective and convenient mode of with the opportunity to develop relationships. gateway to Continental Europe for road freight - the transport for staff, as well as visitors. Ports of Folkestone, Dover and the Channel Tunnel. Hotel, restaurant, café and shop facilities. Rail: Ebbsfleet International Railway Station has a The M25 offers direct access to the rest of the direct service to London St Pancras with an 18 minute 80 acres of open space and wildlife habitat UK motorway network.
    [Show full text]
  • For Our Time EUROPE 8I Moresignsthat Britain Is Makingthe Grade in Eurcpe
    August/September 1981 Picasso and Turner - European painters for our time EUROPE 8I Moresignsthat Britain is makingthe grade in Eurcpe Our breakdown of the performance of British industry i.n Europe Published by the Commission of the (page I5),based on the latest figures, confirms that the United. European Communities, 20 Kensington Kingdom's trade with the rest of tlr.e Community continues to Palace Gardens, London tI78 4QQ. Tel: 0l-727 8090 increase, despite a falling-off in such traditional industries as iron and steel andmotor car manufacture.Areport onthe cross-Channel Editor-in-Chief: George Scott ferries, on the Business Page, tells a similar story. Editor: JohnGreenwood Associate Editor: Denis Thomas Desigl : Lawrence Edwards Our second rep ort ( opposite ) on how European fund.s are being mad.e available to help in the recovery of IAIales, covers both southern and Printed by Lawrence-Allen Ltd, lU7eston-super-Mare, Avon northern parts of the Principality. In both regions ttre prospects 1ook Europe 8l does not necessarily reflect, goodfor tourism - now accepted throughout Europe as a key area for in all economic growbh. particulars, the opinions of the Community institutions. Unsigned material may be quoted or reprinted without payment, We also report on two Britlsh families who are making new lives for subiect to suitable acknowledgement. themselves in France (page g), and on the situation in Tanzania, where European aid, under the terms of Lome Belfust Offce : W'ndsor House, the agreements, is 9/15 Bedford Street, Belfast BT2 7EG being put to urgent use (page 7). Tel. (0232) 40708 C ardiff Offi ce : 4 Cathedral Road, CardiffCFl 9SG Anyone who is con-firsed by stories of how EEC regulations are Tel.
    [Show full text]
  • Port of Tilbury Backs Lower Thames Crossing - but Only with a Junction Into the Expanding Port Area
    Port of Tilbury backs Lower Thames Crossing - but only with a junction into the expanding port area Posted: 2017-04-12 The Port of Tilbury, London’s major port and the closest significant transport operation to the proposed new motorway and tunnel, welcomes the Government’s decision today (12th April) on the Lower Thames Crossing. Charles Hammond, Chief Executive of the Forth Ports group (owner of the Port of Tilbury), welcomed the Government's decision on the route of the Lower Thames Crossing, while continuing to make the case for a junction into the Port of Tilbury area: "With Brexit looming, it is imperative that the UK prioritises major infrastructure improvements to key international trading corridors. "This investment is as much about north-south connectivity, as east-west road links on and off the motorway. "It is vital that nationally significant transport operations like the Port of Tilbury have high quality and reliable road connections. That's why we will maintain the case for an all-moves junction off the new motorway into the expanding port area." According to Highways England's latest draft route strategy, the Port of Tilbury has one of the least reliable and least resilient road connections to the national motorway network of any major port. Tilbury supports option C - a new tunnel and motorway connection east of the towns of Gravesend and Tilbury - but with the proviso that the proposed crossing and new road through Thurrock provides a step change in the connectivity to and from the port. Over the next 12-18 months as the details of route and junctions are refined by Highways England, the Port will continue to call for the inclusion of an all-moves junction east of Tilbury with a direct link to the Port of Tilbury area.
    [Show full text]
  • Forth Ports Limited
    FORTH PORTS LIMITED Marine Rates and Charges Operative from 1st January 2019 - 1 - Contents Pages INTRODUCTION 3 DEFINITIONS 4 - 6 PILOTAGE 7 - 13 CONSERVANCY 14 - 16 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 17 - 18 - 2 - INTRODUCTION This booklet sets out the charges of Forth Ports Limited as statutory harbour authority and competent harbour authority in respect of pilotage services, the granting of pilotage exemption certificates, conservancy and anchorage. The terms and conditions set out at the end of this booklet determine the basis upon which Forth Ports Limited’s facilities and anchorages may be used and Forth Ports Limited’s marine services are provided. The terms and conditions also set out the circumstances under which payments are due to Forth Ports Limited and establish liability for payment of these charges. The charges shall apply for the period from 1st January 2018 to 31st December 2019. Details of other port charges are contained in the published port charges booklets for each port, copies of which are available from Forth Ports Limited, 1 Prince of Wales Dock, Edinburgh EH6 7DX. All initial bookings will be required to be confirmed in writing in the form of a NOTICE OF PROPOSED VESSEL MOVEMENT before the services are required. This form can be found on the Forth Ports website at www.forthports.co.uk The agency making the booking and confirming it in writing will be the sole agency responsible for the payment of invoices relating to the services booked and provided. By making the confirmed booking the agency are confirming that they have sufficient funds from their principle to cover the cost of the services provided.
    [Show full text]
  • Statistics in Focus
    Maritime Transport in the MED Countries, 2000 An increase of 13% in the transport of goods since 1998 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Georgios Xenellis Figure 1: Share of each country in the overall MED maritime transport of goods Jordan (JO) Egypt (EG) (2) 2.5% Statistics (1) 11.3% Lebanon (LB) Tunisia (TN) 1.1% Syria (SY) 6.0% 5.4% Israel (IL) in focus 8.9% Morocco (MA) 11.0% Cyprus (CY) 1.5% TRANSPORT Malta (MT) 1.2% Algeria (DZ) 20.6% Turkey (TR) THEME 7 – 9/2002 (3) 30.6% NB: For footnotes, please refer to Table 1. Contents Highlights Highlights...................................1 With 58 major ports the overall tonnage of cargo loaded and unloaded in the MED region reached 487 million tonnes in 2000, increasing by 12.8% since 1998. General Developments .............1 Most countries experienced positive average annual growth rates, the outstanding performances being in Malta (16%) and Turkey (11%). However, Inwards and outwards Lebanon suffered a decrease (-5.5%) and Jordan’s maritime economy remained tonnage ......................................2 stable (-0.5%). The 15 biggest ports in the region achieved freight turnovers of well over The top-15 ports in the 11 million tonnes each. Bethioua in Algeria handled the largest quantity of MED region on the basis of maritime cargo reaching 36.4 million tonnes in 2000, followed by Izmit in Turkey the gross weight of goods .......3 with 31.4 million tonnes and Alexandria in Egypt with 28.4 million tonnes. The largest MED port would feature at the 15th position in a EU-MED list. Main type of cargo handled......4 The EU ranks as by far the largest maritime partner for a number of MED countries, and particularly for the Maghreb region.
    [Show full text]
  • Modernising Trust Ports [Second Edition] I
    Modernising Trust Ports [second edition] i. Introduction This is the second edition of Modernising Trust Ports (MTP). The first was published in 2000 by the then Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and followed a review of the trust ports sector that focused principally on corporate governance and accountability. That review highlighted a need for a general improvement in the openness and accountability with which trust ports conduct their business, and prompted the Department to stipulate governance guidelines which it expected all trust port boards to use as the benchmark of best practice — Modernising Trust Ports. A similar exercise was undertaken with respect to municipal ports. The general improvement sought by the Government has been widely in evidence in the years since then, and the sector should be congratulated for the considerable strides it has taken in this direction. In 2006 the successor Department for Transport embarked upon a thorough review of ports policy, in light of devolution in the UK planning and political systems, and the evolution of global trading patterns. The review looked among other things at the future of the mixed ports sector, including the outlook for trust ports in the coming decades. This was set against the backdrop of the decision by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) in 2001 to classify the largest trust ports as public corporations, which had the effect of placing those ports’ borrowing on the Department’s accounts, and the relevant ports' subsequent applications, now on hold, to remove themselves from perceived public sector controls through the pursuit of appropriate Harbour Revision Orders (HROs).
    [Show full text]
  • CH Brochure-Folder Pages V3 Final All Pages
    | centrally located in Ipswich | high quality open-plan office suites to let www.crownhouse-ipswich.co.uk | location | Crown House has undergone an extensive refurbishment programme and now provides some of the highest quality office accommodation in the area. Ipswich is the county town and principal commercial The A12 and A14 trunk routes provide excellent road communications with the national motorway network, with Occupying a prominent position on Crown Street, part of Ipswich’s inner ring road, the central focus for this Major business occupiers in and around the town centre of Suffolk with a population of approximately Cambridge, Bury St Edmunds, Colchester, Chelmsford and Norwich within easy reach. The M25 and Stansted property is its superb setting. Crown House benefits from a multi-storey car park (1,160 spaces) to the rear, a include Legal & General, AXA, Associated British Ports, 130,000 people. Airport are within a one hour drive and the Ipswich railway station provides an inter-city service with a train cosmopolitan town centre immediately to the south, and the historic and beautiful Christchurch Park close by. Willis and Call Connect. Ipswich also benefits from a journey time to London (Liverpool Street) of approximately 70 minutes. The offices are on the cusp of a vibrant, expanding business and leisure area with shops including Marks & strong academic presence, being home to both New The Port of Felixstowe is within approximately 12 miles. Spencer, Debenhams and H&M. The town is home to a number of good quality hotels, restaurants and café bars, Suffolk College and University Campus Suffolk.
    [Show full text]
  • Port of Felixstowe Logistics Park Build-To-Suit Distribution Warehouses up to 800,000 Sq.Ft Uniquely Placed to Serve the Nation 1.4 Million Sq.Ft | 68 Acres
    PORT OF FELIXSTOWE LOGISTICS PARK BUILD-TO-SUIT DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSES UP TO 800,000 SQ.FT UNIQUELY PLACED TO SERVE THE NATION 1.4 MILLION SQ.FT | 68 ACRES SINGLE BUILDING PORT OF FELIXSTOWE > HOME UP TO THE PORT OF BRITAIN 800,000 SQ.FT > PORT CENTRIC LOGISTICS The Port of Felixstowe is Britain’s busiest > AERIAL 1 container port and, as far as nationwide distribution is concerned, the most important. > AERIAL 2 The scale of its multi-modal operations dwarfs its competitors. Over 40% of the nation’s > MASTERPLAN containerised trade passes through the port 68 ACRES OF B8 LAND which, thanks to its optimal location, provides > WORKFORCE unrivalled connections to domestic and global markets. > ABOUT > CONTACTS BUILD-TO-SUIT DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSES PORT OF FELIXSTOWE LOGISTICS PARK BUILD-TO-SUIT DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSES UP TO 800,000 SQ.FT UNIQUELY PLACED TO SERVE THE NATION 1.4 MILLION SQ.FT | 68 ACRES THE BENEFITS OF > HOME W10* High Gauge Network PORT-CENTRIC forming part of the Strategic Rail > PORT CENTRIC LOGISTICS LOGISTICS Network (up to CP 5) > ROAD & SEA Increased transport costs, rising road GLASGOW Proposed future W10 loading gauge* > AERIAL 1 congestion and the challenges of transporting the largest containers inland are all making > AERIAL 2 port centric logistics more important to Freight Terminals cargo owners and their logistics providers. > MASTERPLAN * W10: Allows 2.9 m (9 ft 6 in) high Felixstowe’s location, multi-modality and Hi-Cube shipping containers to be sheer capacity explain why it is the preferred carried on standard
    [Show full text]
  • GRAHAM Appointed to Deliver New London Port, Tilbury 2
    MEDIA RELEASE – For Immediate Release 25 February 2019 GRAHAM appointed to deliver new London port, Tilbury 2 The Port of Tilbury, the UK’s fastest growing port, has appointed GRAHAM to deliver their new multimillion pound port terminal, Tilbury2. The port received development consent from the Secretary of State for Transport to build the new port last week and will now work with GRAHAM to begin construction of the port immediately. The contract will involve the creation of a new port terminal and associated facilities on land at the former Tilbury Power Station on the north bank of the River Thames at Tilbury. When operational in Spring 2020, Tilbury2 will be the UK’s largest unaccompanied freight ferry port, the country’s biggest construction processing hub and the creation of a new significantly larger rail head which can accommodate the longest freight trains of 775m. GRAHAM has been awarded the contract for both the Terrestrial and the Marine Package. The Terrestrial contract incorporates a Roll-On/Roll-Off (RoRo), highway works, the relocation of the existing railhead, and a fixed structural steel bridge to the linkspan. The Marine contract includes works within the tidal estuary beyond the existing sea wall/flood defences, including a floating pontoon, link-span/articulated bridge, associated pilings and river bed preparation for the berth. Charles Hammond, Chief Executive of Forth Ports Group (owners of the Port of Tilbury) said: “Tilbury2 is a significant project for our business and our customers. We are very pleased to have the expertise of GRAHAM to help us create this new port for London and the south east.
    [Show full text]
  • PMSC Annual Review
    Port Marine Safety Code-2019 Annual Performance Review Forth and Dundee Ports Authorities Introduction The Forth and Dundee Port Authorities aim to undertake and regulate marine operations so as to safeguard the harbours, rivers, river users, the public and the environment. Forth Ports comply with the requirements of the Port Marine Safety Code when carrying out all marine operations as confirmed by the annual audit conducted by our independent Designated Person. Our compliance to the Port Marine Safety Code was confirmed to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in January 2018 for a further 3 years. The Annual Performance Review is prepared in order that the Forth and Tay Port Authorities can report on the performance of the Authorities to the Board of Forth Ports Limited as required by the Port Marine Safety Code. This report is a summary of the activities over the year and is prepared in addition to the annual report that the Designated Person presents to the Board. The review will report on the main activities of the marine operations under the following headings: 1. Vessel Activity Report 2. Forth and Tay Navigation Service 3. Pilotage 4. Conservancy 5. Towage 6. Marine Reports 7. PMSC Meetings 8. PMSC Audit and statement of compliance 9. Pollution Report 10. Review of Marine Safety Plan 11. Summary 1. Vessel Activity Report During 2019 there were 2,256 vessel calls to the Forth and 310 vessel calls to the Tay consisting of a range of size and type of vessels from coasters to tankers, including VLCC’s, gas carriers, container vessels, general cargo vessels, ferries, cruise liners, naval vessels, oil rigs and North Sea support craft.
    [Show full text]