port of freetown equipment needs and physical expansion

In association with GENAC, Freetown

PORTCONSULT A/S

CMU - Ministry of Transport and Communications Republic of Sierra Leone

Port of Freetown Equipment Needs and Physical Expansion

FEASIBILITY STUDY

PHRD GRANT # TF052414

Final Report

January 2005

E1889 v.3P

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

ed

CMU - Ministry of Transport and Communications Republic of Sierra Leone

Port of Freetown Equipment Needs and Physical Expansion

FEASIBILITY STUDY

PHRD GRANT # TF052414

Final Report

January 2005

Portconsult A/S Sortemosevej 2 Telephone +45 4810 4200 DK-3450 Alleroed Fax +45 4814 1971 F.R.I, FIDIC Denmark E-mail [email protected]

Final Report 2005-01-09 GBj JHa GBj No. Revision Date Prepared Checked Approved

Port of Freetown – Equipments Needs and Physical Expansion Project Page i Feasibility Study - Final Report January 2005

Final Report.R4.doc NIRAS Portconsult In association with GENAC

1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 1 1.1 General ............................................................................................. 1 1.2 References ........................................................................................ 2

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 3 2.1 General ............................................................................................. 3 2.2 Port Traffic ....................................................................................... 3

2.2.1 Current Traffic .................................................................... 3 2.2.2 Trends ................................................................................. 3 2.2.3 Shipping Services ............................................................... 3 2.2.4 The Economy of Sierra Leone............................................ 3 2.2.5 Traffic Forecasts ................................................................. 4

2.3 Port Operations and Facilities .......................................................... 5 2.3.1 Cargo Storage Areas at Berths 5-6 ..................................... 5 2.3.2 Container Handling Equipment and Maintenance.............. 5 2.3.3 Container Handling............................................................. 6 2.3.4 Container Storage ............................................................... 6 2.3.5 Customs Clearing and Security .......................................... 7 2.3.6 Equipment........................................................................... 7 2.3.7 Institutional Requirements.................................................. 7

2.4 Physical Conditions.......................................................................... 7 2.4.1 Unpaved Operating Areas .................................................. 7 2.4.2 Soil Conditions ................................................................... 8 2.4.3 Fenders................................................................................ 8 2.4.4 Siltation............................................................................... 8

2.5 Navigational Aids............................................................................. 8 2.6 Recommended Solution for Civil Works ......................................... 8 2.7 Port Environmental Management Plan ............................................ 9

2.7.1 Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework.................... 9 2.7.2 Means to Achieve Compliance with MARPOL 73/78....... 9 2.7.3 Expected Environmental Impacts of Port Extension........ 10 2.7.4 Institutional Strengthening ............................................... 11

2.8 Cost Analysis.................................................................................. 11 2.9 Economic Evaluation ..................................................................... 12

2.9.1 New Container Handling Equipment ............................... 12 2.9.2 Paving ............................................................................... 13

Port of Freetown – Equipments Needs and Physical Expansion Project Page ii Feasibility Study - Final Report January 2005


2.10 Financial Evaluation....................................................................... 14

3. RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................ 17 3.1 General ........................................................................................... 17 3.2 Container Handling Equipment...................................................... 17

3.2.1 Acquisition of new Equipment ......................................... 17 3.2.2 Maintenance...................................................................... 17

3.3 Institutional Requirements ............................................................. 17 3.4 Navigational Aids........................................................................... 17 3.5 Civil Works .................................................................................... 18 3.6 Environmental Management Plan .................................................. 18

4. PORT TRAFFIC......................................................................................... 19 4.1 Current Port Traffic and Recent Trends ......................................... 19

4.1.1 Historical Trends .............................................................. 21 4.1.2 Relationship between Port Traffic and GDP .................... 23 4.1.3 Containerisation and Other Handling Methods ................ 24 4.1.4 Shipping Traffic................................................................ 27

4.2 The Economy of Sierra Leone ....................................................... 29 4.3 Traffic Forecasts............................................................................. 30

4.3.1 Approach to the Forecasts ................................................ 30 4.3.2 Forecast by Commodity.................................................... 32 4.3.3 Traffic Forecasts by Handling Method............................. 42

5. PORT OPERATIONS AND FACILITITES.............................................. 45 5.1 Existing Port Infrastructure ............................................................ 45

5.1.1 Berths and Aprons ............................................................ 45 5.1.2 Cargo Storage Areas......................................................... 45 5.1.3 Sheds and Warehouses ..................................................... 45 5.1.4 Roads, Gates and Fences .................................................. 46

5.2 Container Handling Equipment and Maintenance ......................... 46 5.2.1 Equipment......................................................................... 46 5.2.2 Maintenance...................................................................... 49 5.2.3 Training ............................................................................ 49

5.3 Cargo Handling .............................................................................. 50 5.3.1 General.............................................................................. 50 5.3.2 Bulk Cargo........................................................................ 50 5.3.3 General Cargo................................................................... 50 5.3.4 Containers ......................................................................... 50

5.4 Container Storage ........................................................................... 51 5.4.1 General.............................................................................. 51 5.4.2 Storage Area Required for Projected Traffic.................... 51 5.4.3 Container Monitoring, Customs Clearing and Security ... 54

Port of Freetown – Equipments Needs and Physical Expansion Project Page iii Feasibility Study - Final Report January 2005


5.5 Equipment ...................................................................................... 54 5.5.1 Container Handlers ........................................................... 54 5.5.2 Front Loaders for Empties ................................................ 55 5.5.3 Terminal Trucks ............................................................... 55

5.6 Institutional Requirements ............................................................. 55

6. PHYSICAL AND BERTHING CONDITIONS ........................................ 57 6.1 General ........................................................................................... 57 6.2 Unpaved operating areas ................................................................ 57 6.3 Survey............................................................................................. 57 6.4 Soil Conditions ............................................................................... 58 6.5 Coping Elements/Gabions.............................................................. 58 6.6 Fenders ........................................................................................... 58 6.7 Siltation .......................................................................................... 59

7. NAVIGATIONAL AIDS ........................................................................... 61 7.1 General ........................................................................................... 61 7.2 Present situation ............................................................................. 61 7.3 Final recommendation for provision of navigational aids.............. 61 7.4 Bidding Documents for Procurement............................................. 62 7.5 Cost Estimate.................................................................................. 62

8. RECOMMENDED SOLUTION FOR CIVIL WORKS ............................ 67 8.1 General ........................................................................................... 67 8.2 The Project ..................................................................................... 67

8.2.1 Paving ............................................................................... 68 8.2.2 Area Lighting.................................................................... 68 8.2.3 Dredging ........................................................................... 68 8.2.4 Concrete Coping at Berth 6 .............................................. 68 8.2.5 Filter Behind Concrete Coping......................................... 69 8.2.6 Fenders.............................................................................. 69 8.2.7 Ladders ............................................................................. 69

8.3 Implementation............................................................................... 69 8.4 Tender Documents ......................................................................... 70

9. PORT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................. 71 9.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 71 9.2 Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework ............................... 71

9.2.1 Administrative and Legal Framework.............................. 71 9.2.2 Participation in International Conventions ....................... 75

9.3 Project Objectives and Description ................................................ 75 9.4 Baseline Data.................................................................................. 75

9.4.1 National Project Setting.................................................... 75

Port of Freetown – Equipments Needs and Physical Expansion Project Page iv Feasibility Study - Final Report January 2005


9.4.2 The Project Intervention Site ............................................ 76 9.4.3 Existing Port Reception Facilities in Freetown Port ........ 82

9.5 Means to achieve Compliance with MARPOL 73/78.................... 83 9.5.1 General.............................................................................. 83 9.5.2 Mitigating Measures for Oil Spill..................................... 83 9.5.3 Receipt of Bilge Water ..................................................... 84 9.5.4 Separation of Bilge Water ................................................ 84 9.5.5 Receipt of Sewage ............................................................ 85 9.5.6 Receipt and Disposal of Solid Waste ............................... 86

9.6 Potential Impacts – Construction/Installation Period..................... 87 9.6.1 The Water Environment at Freetown Port........................ 87 9.6.2 Utilisation of Natural Resources....................................... 88 9.6.3 Pollution Sources in the Port Area ................................... 88 9.6.4 Land Use in Project Area.................................................. 88 9.6.5 Air Quality, Sanitation and Health Conditions................. 88 9.6.6 Traffic Conditions on Access Roads to/from the Port...... 88

9.7 Potential Impacts – Operational Period.......................................... 89 9.7.1 The Water Environment at Freetown Port........................ 89 9.7.2 Utilisation of Natural Resources....................................... 90 9.7.3 Pollution in the Port Area ................................................. 90 9.7.4 Reception Facilities in Freetown Port .............................. 90 9.7.5 Land Use in Project Area.................................................. 90 9.7.6 Air Quality, Sanitation and Health Conditions................. 90 9.7.7 Traffic Conditions on Access Roads to/from the Port...... 90

9.8 Analysis of Alternatives ................................................................. 91 9.9 Mitigation Plan............................................................................... 91 9.10 Environmental Monitoring Plan..................................................... 92 9.11 Institutional Strengthening ............................................................. 96 9.12 Estimated Cost and Implementation Schedule............................... 96

9.12.1 Means to achieve compliance with MARPOL 73/78....... 96 9.12.2 Environmental Monitoring Programme............................ 97

9.13 Reporting and Supervision ............................................................. 98 9.14 Disclosure of Information .............................................................. 98

10. COST ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 99

11. ECONOMIC EVALUATION.................................................................. 103 11.1 Investment Proposals.................................................................... 103 11.2 Investment Costs .......................................................................... 103 11.3 Economic Benefits ....................................................................... 103

11.3.1 Benefits of New Container Handling Equipment........... 104 11.3.2 Paving of the Remaining Areas of the Container

Marshalling Area ............................................................ 109

Port of Freetown – Equipments Needs and Physical Expansion Project Page v Feasibility Study - Final Report January 2005


11.4 Economic Internal Rates of Return .............................................. 112 11.5 Conclusion.................................................................................... 120

12. FINANCIAL EVALUATION.................................................................. 123 12.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 123 12.2 Current Revenues and Costs ........................................................ 123 12.3 Effects of the Investment Programme on SLPA Revenues and Costs125

Port of Freetown – Equipments Needs and Physical Expansion Project Page vi Feasibility Study - Final Report January 2005


void

Port of Freetown – Equipments Needs and Physical Expansion Project Page 1 Feasibility Study - Final Report January 2005


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 General This report presents the results of an update of the Master Plan and Feasibility Study reported in January 1996, cf. /3/.

The work has been carried out under the Transport Sector Project, PHRD Grant # TF052414. A contract agreement was entered into - on 18 June 2004 -between the Coordination and Monitoring Unit (CMU) on behalf of the Ministry of Transportation and Communication, Republic of Sierra Leone and NIRAS Port-consult, Denmark, for the Project – Port of Freetown Equipment Needs and Port Physical Expansion, Preliminary Design, Feasibility and Final Design Study.

Associated to NIRAS Portconsult was GENAC of Sierra Leone.

The Project comprises four tasks, which were carried out in close collaboration with Sierra Leone Ports Authority (SLPA):

• Task 1: Container Stacking Area Extension Feasibility Study Update, including the Need for Equipment

• Task 2: Needs Assessment of Navigational Aids • Task 3: Prepare a Port Environmental Management Plan • Task 4: Prepare Final Design, Cost Estimates and Implementation

Schedules

The expatriate field team comprised:

• Mr Gunnar Bjork, Project Manager • Mr Edward T. Laing, Transport Economist • Mr Preben Basse, Navigational Aids Specialist • Mr Per K Rasmussen, Environmental Specialist

The study team from Sierra Leone comprised:

• Mr Sylvanus Taylor-Lewis, Genac • Mr G. Gulama, Genac, Surveyor



Within the period of time of 17 June through 1 July 2004 all members of the field team visited Freetown Port and collected data, carried out site inspections and interviewed senior officials, heads and/or specialists of government agen-cies and important customers of the port, not to mention the members of the CMU and SLPA management team.

The team members wish to acknowledge the help received and the co-operation experienced during the field mission.

The Draft Final Report was submitted in October 2004. Comments dated 22 November 2004 were received from the CMU. Modification of the report has been carried out based on the comments.

1.2 References Reference is made to the following reports:

/1/ Sub-Soil Investigation and Preliminary Pavement Design for the Container Stacking Area", prepared for SLPA by Techsult & Co. LTD, Freetown, Dec. 1994.

/2/ Rehabilitation Study , Freetown Port - Sierra Leone , Assessment of Quay Wall, 31 March 1995, Prepared by Portconsult, Genac and TecnEcon.

/3/ Transport Rehabilitation Project, Master Plan Study for the Rehabilitation of Freetown Port, Final Report, January 1996, Prepared by Portconsult, Genac and TecnEcon.

/4/ Operational Policies and Bank Procedures of Environmental Assessments, OP/BP 4.01, The World Bank, January 1999.

/5/ The Environment Protection Act, 2000, adopted by the Parliament of Si-erra Leone, 1st February 2000, and printed in the Supplement to the Sierra Leone Gazette Vol. CXXXI, No. 14 dated 2nd March 2000.

/6/ The Republic of Sierra Leone, Environmental Impact Assessment Proce-dures, prepared by Ministry of Lands Housing, Country Planning and the Environment, Freetown, July 1999.

/7/ The Merchant Shipping Act, 2003, printed in the Supplement to the Sierra Leone Gazette Vol. CXXXIV, No. 33 dated 10th July 2003.

/8/ Oil Spill Contingency Plan for Freetown and Environs”, prepared by Free-town Oil Spill Contingency Planning Committee, November 1994.



2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 General The objectives of the study are (as quoted from the Terms of Reference):

(i) To review the existing Port Development Plan and the Environmental Management Plan and assess and update the medium term development needs of the Freetown Port, in respect of the container stacking area, navigational aids (including buoys and lighthouse), end environmental safety measures;

(ii) Identify and carry out final design for the economically justified facili-ties and equipment viable for funding under the IDP.

2.2 Port Traffic 2.2.1 Current Traffic

The Port of Freetown handled 863 000 tonnes of cargo in 2003, of which over 90% was imported. Almost 40% of the traffic was containerised corresponding to a total container traffic of approx. 36 000 TEU.

2.2.2 Trends During the period 2000 through 2003 the cargo traffic rose from 474 000 to 863 000 tonnes annually (see Table 4.1.2).

During the same period the growth in cargo has been far above the growth in GDP due mainly to 1) donor financed imports, 2) imports for UNAMSIL, WFP and ESCO and 3) building materials for reconstruction works, see Table 4.1.3.

2.2.3 Shipping Services Shipping traffic is dominated by container and Roro vessels, which accounted for 65% of total calls in 2003. The number of ship calls has, however, increased at a much lower rate than that of cargo, due to a sharp increase in the average consignment size at Freetown.

2.2.4 The Economy of Sierra Leone The economy of Sierra Leone is primarily agricultural. The agricultural sector accounts for over 50% of GDP and the majority of the employment.



Sierra Leone is reasonably well endowed with resources, and was moderately prosperous 30 years ago.

During the 1990s the increasing rebel activity disrupted agriculture and mining. The cost of the war has been high, consuming resources and funds badly needed elsewhere.

Since 2000, however, the stabilizing of the military situation has allowed the economy to start to grow again. In the period 2000-2003 GDP growth averaged 6.3% p.a., cf. Table 4.2.1.

2.2.5 Traffic Forecasts Past trends can only give a partial guide to future traffic levels, for several rea-sons:

1. the growth of traffic has been much faster than GDP in the last four years – as a result of (i) donor driven import levels and (ii) imports for UNAMSIL forces. Neither of these conditions will be sustained.

2. the crucial determinant of economic growth will be the degree of political stability achieved during the remainder of the decade. Interviews with im-porters and exporters confirmed that they also held this view.

It was emphasised, however, that political stability will not necessarily entail economic success. World markets are highly competitive; and the stagnant state of the economy pre-dates the current instability.

The fundamental assumptions made in drawing up the forecast are as follows:

• GDP growth will average 5% p.a.

• Imports will rise in line with GDP, also increasing at 5% p.a.

• The phasing out of UNAMSIL forces over the next two years will result in a decline of 15% in port traffic over the next two years, offsetting the growth associated with the national economy.



Table 2.2.1 - Traffic Forecast by Handling Method (000 tonnes)

2005 2010 2015 2020

Containers 322 396 505 645

Bulk (clinker and wheat) 286 340 340 340

General Cargo, etc 351 468 613 790

Total 959 1 204 1 458 1 774

Containers in TEU 34 100 41 900 53 400 68 200 See Tables 4.3.18 – 4.3.20

2.3 Port Operations and Facilities 2.3.1 Cargo Storage Areas at Berths 5-6

A total of approx. 34 000 m2 open areas are available for cargo storage in the up to 140 m wide zone behind the Berths 5-6.

Of this approx. 13 300 m2 were paved during the phase 1 works with concrete pavers, and the rest is unpaved.

2.3.2 Container Handling Equipment and Maintenance Container handling is carried out by container handlers assisting the operation at the berth and by delivery of containers from the stack. Transport between berth and stack is carried out by terminal trucks and trailers, when available (only one was operational during field mission).

From Table 5.2.1 it may be seen that only one 20 year old container handler was in operation during the field mission. One container handler acquired in 2001 was under repair.

Spares have been located and ordered for the repair of two Boss handlers. SLPA can only rely on these machines until they need another major repair due to lack of spares.

To alleviate this major problem of limited container handling equipment the port is renting/borrowing container handlers from private operators/organisations like UNAMSIL, AMA, SLSA and NDS.

In order to improve cargo handling there is an immediate need for basic opera-tional cargo handling equipment:



• Container handlers • Fork lifts for stacking empties • Terminal truck and trailers

The workshop suffers moreover from lack of the most essential spare parts for maintaining the equipment.

It is recommended that SLPA should improve training of the staff in the Section. It has been assessed that the recommended training programme will result in increased availability of the cargo handling equipment.

2.3.3 Container Handling Container handling speeds are still low by international standards. The average handling speeds in the last quarter of 2003 were approximately 9-10 TEU per ship hour in port. This is equivalent to only 7 boxes per ship hour in port, or 3-4 if two cranes are assumed (the ships are typically quite large).

2.3.4 Container Storage The designated storage area along Berth 5 is far from large enough to accom-modate the present annual traffic of 35 000 TEU’s. Containers are stored at the unpaved area south of the Central Road Way and even on the road itself.

The container operation is at present based on forklift trucks and terminal trucks/trailers. The disadvantages in the use of forklift trucks include: 1) de-mand for heavy duty pavement due to extraordinarily heavy axle loads and 2) demand for larger storage areas.

In a later stage more sophisticated equipment such as straddle carriers or tran-stainers (rubber tyred gantry cranes) may be preferable.

Criteria often used for planning and design of required transit storage areas for containers give ratios between TEU’s per year and the required number of groundslots, cf. Table 5.3.1.

Layouts for an annual traffic of 43 000 TEU’s (in 2010) are shown on Enclo-sure 5.2, corresponding to a total stacking area of 32 000 m2.

The fully developed container yard layout (utilising the same area of 32 000 m2) has been shown on Enclosure 5.4 corresponding to an annual traffic of 69 000 TEU's (in 2020) when the full containers are stacked 4 deep and 3 high on the northern part of the stacking area (close to the berths) as shown. This method involves more lifts per container, but is assessed to be economical because the machines and handling will become more efficient and expensive paved area can be utilised optimally.



2.3.5 Customs Clearing and Security Customs clearing, security check and the like shall be avoided in the stacking area and arranged at an 2 000 m2 area located next to the gate.

In order to adhere to the new ISPS Code (International Ship and Port Facility Security Code), SLPA is planning to acquire a scanner for scanning containers entering and leaving the port.

2.3.6 Equipment There is an immediate need to acquire three container handlers, which is sup-ported by (a) working rules derived from operations at container terminals else-where, (b) the views of port users and (c) the economic analysis.

It is envisaged that the 18 year old fork lift is phased out in the near future and replaced by a frontloader with a spreader for 20’ and 40’ empty containers.

It has been assessed that three terminal trucks should be acquired, bringing the total number of terminal trucks to five in order to bring containers from the quay to the stack during peak periods. Each truck should be with a gooseneck and accompanied by two flatbed trailers.

2.3.7 Institutional Requirements The purchase of new equipment, however, is unlikely to solve the port’s container handling problems by itself. The track record of the SLPA over the last ten years has shown that even if equipment is purchased it has proved difficult to keep it operation.

The additional need is for institutional change: i.e. for privatisation of the con-tainer handling, including equipment maintenance. Experience elsewhere shows the beneficial effects of privatisation. The Port of Dar es Salam was privatised in 2000, and now has the fastest handling speeds of any African ports, with handling speeds of over 20 moves. Lower speeds result in penalties under their concession agreement. Improvements have been even greater in other areas. For example, the Indian ports which have privatised container terminals have seen 200% increases in handling speeds.

The privatisation of container operations, including maintenance, is in line with government policy – which favours a shift to a landlord role for the port authority, i.e. a withdrawal from cargo handling operations.

2.4 Physical Conditions 2.4.1 Unpaved Operating Areas

The unpaved area south of the Central Road Way is used for stacking mainly empty containers and the surface was found to be very uneven for the container



handling equipment. There is no doubt that this surface has a detrimental effect to the wear and tear of both tyres and mechanical parts of the equipment.

2.4.2 Soil Conditions The soils investigations already carried out describe the actual soil conditions very well and it has been assessed that no further soil investigations are neces-sary for carrying out the detailed design.

2.4.3 Fenders Nearly all of the original fenders installed are missing. The present fendering system presents a hazard to the berthing vessels and is clearly inadequate.

2.4.4 Siltation The site team was informed about reduced water depths, particularly during the rainy season, at Berths Nos. 3/4 and 5/6.

2.5 Navigational Aids Today all navigation to the entrance of Sierra River and to the Port of Freetown is performed without the aid of any navigational lights or buoyage system.

Navigation through the river entrance to Queen Elizabeth II quay can be hazard-ous, particularly during night, due to occasional very strong tidal streams and the presence of shoals and offshore dangers.

The port is therefore in urgent need of navigational aids to improve the safety of navigation for in particular larger container vessels.

On basis of the preliminary assessment agreed between SLPA and the consultant it is recommended to provide new navigational aids (buoys, beacons etc.) as outlined in Section 7.3.

The Consultant has prepared Draft Bidding Documents with technical specifica-tions for procurement of the recommended navigational aids.

The installation of the navigational aids and provision of sinkers for marker buoys etc. will be carried out by SLPA.

2.6 Recommended Solution for Civil Works In order to accommodate the expected increase in the container traffic until 2020 it has been concluded that it is necessary to pave the ‘unpaved’ Stacking Area 6 and a 40 m area south of the Central Road Way parallel to Berths 5 and 6.

In addition to paving the said areas other elements have been recommended for consideration. These are:



1. Paving of the road between the coping and the drain along Berth 6. 2. Area lighting of the new stacking area south of the Central Road Way. 3. Dredge along Berths 5 and 6 to original depth. 4. Strengthening of the concrete coping at Berth 6. 5. Installation of filter behind the concrete coping along Berth 6 in order to

avoid sinkholes. 6. Installation of fenders to replace the damaged or missing fenders. 7. Installation of ladders to replace the missing ladders.

The Consultant has prepared and forwarded Draft Tender Documents for the solu-tion recommended above, based on the tender documents prepared for the Phase 1 designs and tender documents.

Implementation of the civil works has been assessed to take 10 months.

2.7 Port Environmental Management Plan 2.7.1 Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework

The legal cornerstone of environmental management in Sierra Leone is the “En-vironment Protection Act” adopted in 2000. It provides requirements for Envi-ronmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for construction projects in the country and outlines the institutional setup and procedures for implementation of EIA’s with the Department of Environment under Ministry of Land, Country Planning and Environment, headed by the Director of the Department, as the focal point. In addition, the National Environment Protection Board (NEPB) has been estab-lished as an advisory and assisting body, with representatives of various institu-tions. The Consultant has been informed that a separate act on environmental issues related to the maritime and shipping sector is under preparation, and they have referred to the Coordination and Monitoring Unit (CMU) under the Ministry of Transport and Communication for more information on this. This act will in-clude the management of oil spill and compliance with MARPOL 73/78. The Sierra Leone Maritime Administration (SLMA) has prepared a Marine Envi-ronmental Protection Bill.

2.7.2 Means to Achieve Compliance with MARPOL 73/78 The Consultant collected information on the different types of possible pollut-ants involving vessels calling at the port and has identified environmental meas-ures to be considered by SLPA, in order to adhere to the commitments of the ratified Annexes of MARPOL 73/78, as follows:

(a) Mitigating measures for oil spill;



(b) Installations for receipt of bilge water; (c) Separation of bilge water (port based filters separating oil and water); (d) Receipt of and possible treatment of sewage; (e) Receipt and treatment of garbage (port based incinerators versus transport

and dumping at landfill); Mitigating Measures for Oil Spill The Port should have the capacity to respond to smaller oil spills originating mainly from fuel tanks leaking due to possible collisions.

Acquisition of approx. 600 m of oil booms and auxiliary equipment should be considered by SPA.

Receipt of bilge Water After collection of the bilge water it shall be stored in tanks before treatment. The bilge water is transported by road tankers between the vessel and the stor-age tanks. It is suggested that they should be located at a fenced-off area in the reclaimed area near the Lower Savage Square entrance.

Separation of Bilge Water The free oil and oily droplets in the bilge water should be separated from the water by a separator. These separators are standard equipment. It is suggested to use a dual stage separator where free oil is removed in the first stage and the emulsified oil is removed in the second stage by using filtration membranes.

Receipt of sewage There are no public facilities available in Freetown for treatment of sewage. It is therefore recommended that a septic tank system should be installed in the re-claimed are near the Lower Savage Square entrance.

Receipt of Solid Waste It is recommended that the Port shall have a pool of closed waste containers. These shall be for the sole use of the port and shall be used on request by the vessels requiring collection of their solid waste. The containers shall be emptied at Freetown’s landfill in the Kissy area. At present there are no recycling facili-ties available at the landfill.

2.7.3 Expected Environmental Impacts of Port Extension The proposed port extension, with pavement of an existing container stacking area, which is under present ownership of SLPA, has been assessed to have neg-ligible environmental impacts on land.



The water quality along the port appears generally good in the present state, whereas there are observed high values of BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand) and faecal coliforms off the central parts of Freetown further towards west, indi-cating pollution with organic matters and human waste. The main pollution sources and their environmental impacts will not be changed by the proposed port extension on land, which will have only very insignificant impacts on the water environment at the port, unlikely to be detectable in nature.

2.7.4 Institutional Strengthening Presently, SLPA does not have any environmental unit or any officer appointed to have responsibility for environmental management. Nobody at SLPA has received formal training or education in environmental management. A general oil spill contingency plan for the whole Freetown area has been in place since November 1994, with SLPA as one of the governmental bodies involved it its implementation, but lack of equipment hampers the efficiency of the plan.

SLPA has presently one officer attending an 18-month training course at World Maritime University in Malmö, Sweden, scheduled for completion in late 2005.

The project includes a proposal for the establishment of an environmental unit at SLPA, which will be responsible for environmental management at Freetown Port, including monitoring during construction/operation, compliance with MARPOL 73/78, health and safety issues etc.

2.8 Cost Analysis Cost estimates for civil works, equipment, navigational aids and environmental measures have been outlined in Section 10.



A brief summary is presented below. For details see Tables 10.1 to 10.3:

Table 2.8.1 – Summary of Costs

Item Amount

USD

Total

USD

Civil Works and Container Handling Equipment 6 760 000

Civil Works – Pavements etc. 3 750 000

Dredging, Fenders, Ladders 685 000

Consultant’s Supervision 350 000

Container Handling Equipment 1 975 000

Navigational Aids 280 000 280 000

Environmental Issues 530 000

Compliance with MARPOL 73/78 430 000

Set-up of Environmental Monitoring Programme 100 000

Total 7 570 000 a) Price level: September 2004, b) local taxes, duties levies not included

2.9 Economic Evaluation 2.9.1 New Container Handling Equipment

The main benefit of new handling equipment for containers would be faster turnround of ships. Current container ship turnround is very slow by interna-tional standards. The average handling speed per ship hour at berth is just under 10 TEU, equivalent to just under 250 TEU per ship day at berth. The cost of the ship time in port is high, averaging around $15,000 per day. The economic benefits of the new forklifts for current traffic would be reduc-tions in the costs of ship time at berth. The economic internal rates of return on the three new forklifts are estimated as follows (the EIRRs were calculated with and without the assumption of privatisation of operations and maintenance: the figures shown below assume privatisation):

EIRRs With Current Operations With Privatised Operation

2nd Forklift 243% 166% 3rd Forklift 49% 41% 4th Forklift -9% 7%

It is concluded that the purchase of two additional container handlers (FLTs) to bring the total up to three is economically justifiable. A fourth would be justi-



fied soon after that. This is consistent with working rules for operations in the industry.

2.9.2 Paving The paving of the remainder of the container terminal would have three main benefits. They are: (a) Reduced damage to handling equipment, (b) Faster operations when serving the ships' cranes, and (c) Avoidance of high maintenance and repair costs at the unpaved terminal. These potential savings give an estimated economic internal rate of return of 13%.



2.10 Financial Evaluation The SLPA makes only a limited profit at present. In 2003 its surplus was 670 million Leones, equivalent to USD 0.3 million, giving a margin of only 3% over costs.

The SPLA’s revenues have not increased significantly since the mid 1990s, de-spite the doubling of port traffic and container traffic. There are several reasons for this. They include the following:

The loss of ferry revenues which accounted for just under 10% of the reve-nues in the mid 1990s.

The exemption of the military and UN cargoes which are imported by

UNAMSIL, WFP and ESCO from paying port charges.

The fact that ship traffic has increased at a much slower rate than cargo and container traffic. A large part of SLPA revenues comes from tariffs on ships (levied on length) rather than cargo.

Some of the revenues – in particular revenues from shore handling and stor-

age - are fixed in Leones and have therefore declined in terms of US dollars when tariff revisions have been delayed.

But while revenues have declined slightly, costs have increased slightly. As a result the SPLA surplus has fallen from USD 1.6 million in 1994 to USD 0.3 million in 2003. Although it is not within the Terms of Reference for this study, it is clear that there is scope for cost reductions. In particular, the port is over-staffed by inter-national standards, with about 2600 personnel, including casuals, at present.

The financial benefits of the proposed rehabilitation programme would be mi-nor. Most of the economic benefits outlined in Chapter 11 accrue to shipping lines and port users, rather than to the port itself. Only a minor part of the bene-fits would be reflected in the port's accounts. In particular: - The paving of the marshalling areas would be unlikely to attract any

significant additional revenues for the port. National cargo volumes will not be affected and the prospects of attracting transit or transhipment traffic for neighboring countries in the region are very limited, as the shipping lines consider Freetown an expensive port with only moderate handling rates.



The main financial benefits of paving would therefore be limited to (i) a reduction in maintenance costs for equipment and (ii) a reduction in maintenance costs for the pavement (as described in the section on the economic evaluation).

- The purchase of new container handling equipment would also be

unlikely to generate additional incomes for the port. Nor would it reduce port costs below current levels. The main benefits would accrue initially to the shipowners in the form of faster turnround for their ships. These benefits may eventually be passed on to importers in the form of lower freight rates. But these economic benefits would not appear in the port's financial accounts.

Against this background, the revenues and expenditures of the SLPA are fore-cast and compared on two sets of assumptions – (i) with and (ii) without the proposed investment programme. “Without investment” the SLPA would be able to operate with a surplus aver-aging about USD 0.5 million p.a. during the period 2005-2015. The surplus is small, and it might be concluded that the port would be in a more secure posi-tion if costs, and particularly labour costs, could be reduced. “With investment” the surpluses are lower than in the “without investment case”, giving additional incentives to reduce costs. It is concluded that the financial benefits of the rehabilitation programme to the SLPA would be lower than the economic benefits to Sierra Leone. With very low profit margins forecast in the medium term, it would be preferable if the investment programme were to be accompanied by cost reductions, possibly including staff reductions.



void



3. RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 General This chapter lists and summarises the recommendations made in the report.

3.2 Container Handling Equipment 3.2.1 Acquisition of new Equipment

In order to improve the present container handling situation there is an immedi-ate need to acquire:

• 3 Nos. container handlers • 3 Nos. terminal trucks with flatbed trailers

3.2.2 Maintenance It is recommended that the workshop should build up a stock of the most com-mon spare parts for each piece of equipment in order to minimise the time the said piece of equipment would be out of operation.

It is moreover recommended that a Technical Assistance programme is de-ployed in the port. The objective is to improve the availability of the cargo han-dling equipment, to assist the management of the workshop and to set up a proper Maintenance Management System.

3.3 Institutional Requirements It is recommended to consider privatisation of the container handling, incl. equipment maintenance. For further details see Section 5.8.

3.4 Navigational Aids At present all navigation from the entrance of the river to the port is performed without aid of any navigational lights or buoyage system.

It is recommended that new navigational aids should be provided, as outlined in Section 7.

The Consultant has prepared tender documents for procurement of the above recommended works. The Draft Tender Documents have been forwarded under separate cover.



3.5 Civil Works The recommended plan for extending the port comprises the following main elements:

• Paving of approx. 21 000 m2 for container stacking, customs handling and port security, incl. area lighting

• Paving of approx. 2 000 m2 for access along Berth 6 • Rehabilitation of coping structure • Dredging, fenders and ladders

The Consultant has carried out detailed design for the above recommended works. The Draft Tender Documents have been forwarded under separate cover.

3.6 Environmental Management Plan In order to achieve compliance with the ratified Annexes of MARPOL 73/78 SLPA should consider implementing a number of environmental measures.

An integrated plan, including introduction of mitigating measures and reception facilities for waste has been outlined in Section 9.



4. PORT TRAFFIC

4.1 Current Port Traffic and Recent Trends The port of Freetown handled 863,000 tonnes of cargo in 2003. Imports accounted for over 90% of the total cargo if shipments of empty con-tainers are excluded. The main imports were foodstuffs (especially rice) which accounted for 43% of the total, and industrial goods (especially clinker and ce-ment) which accounted for 29%. Details of the other cargoes are given in Table 4.1.1. The import traffic, however, has been inflated since 2000 by supplies for the UNAMSIL forces which reached a peak of 17,500 in 2002. This traffic, to-gether with World Food Programme traffic, accounted for an estimated 7% of total imports and 16% of containerised imports in 2003. Exports accounted for only 10% of the cargo. The relatively low volume of ex-ports is partly explained by the fact that Sierra Leone’s main exports are not handled at Freetown. Rutile and bauxite are loaded in the south (although they are on hold at present); and diamonds move by air rather than ship. The three main exports handled at Freetown accounted for only 34,000 tonnes in 2003: they consisted of 23,000 tonnes of scrap, 7,950 tonnes of cocoa and 2,800 ton-nes of coffee. Almost 40% of the traffic is containerised (see section 4.1.4 for details).



Table 4.1.1 Cargo Handled at the Port of Freetown (a) by Commodity, 2003 IMPORTS 000 tonnes % of total Sugar 27 Rice 170Flour 14Wheat 34Others (a) 119Sub-total foodstuffs 364 42% Sub-total consumer goods 51 6% Vehicles 17Vehicle accessories 5Machinery etc 13 Sub total capital goods 35 4% Cement 43Clinker 120Others 89Sub total Industrial raw materials 252 29% Miscellaneous goods 73 8% TOTAL 775 90% EXPORTS Empty containers 29Cocoa 8Coffee 3Others 48 EXPORTS 88 10% IMPORTS + EXPORTS 863 100% - of which Containers (TEU) 35,555 39%(a)

(a) Excluding cargoes handled outside the main quays (Queen Elizabeth II

Quays). The main cargo handled outside these quays in 2003 was 190,000 tonnes of oil products.

(b) Salt, onions, frozen food, etc (c) See section 4.1.4 for details.



4.1.1 Historical Trends Historically, Freetown’s traffic has been through several phases: - It rose steadily through the 1970s, when Sierra Leone, which is reasonably

well endowed with resources, was moderately prosperous. The country was self-sufficient in rice, and earned substantial export revenues from cocoa and coffee. Traffic in this period peaked at 638,000 tonnes in 1979/80.

- After 1980 growth was undermined by regional instability, corruption and

rigidity in the economy. By the mid 1980s the country was no longer self sufficient in rice, production having fallen by about one quarter. To rectify this, a “green revolution” was mounted in 1986. But it failed to raise rice production. Furthermore, exports of the cash crops, coffee and cocoa, were declining sharply. In 1988 IMF credit lines were suspended, mainly because of the increasing debts. During this period traffic fell by about one third, reaching 458,000 tonnes in 1986; and, after a dip in 1987-88, it remained fairly static in the range 400-435,000 tonnes throughout the early 1990s,as follows:

(000 tonnes) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 431 406 411 432 433

- The economy then entered a period of instability because of the civil disor-

der. Traffic fell to under 300,000 tonnes in 1999 when the rebels entered Freetown:

- From 2000 to 2003, however, traffic revived and rose to a new peak of

863,000 tonnes in 2003:

(000 tonnes) 2000 2001 2002 2003 474 645 793 863

The main sets of cargoes which have increased were: - Foodstuffs, which increased by 10% p.a. in the period 2000-2003 (see

Table 4.1.2); and - Industrial raw materials, especially clinker and cement, which increased

by 31% p.a. in the period 2000-2003 A significant part of this growth, however, is associated with the imports of supplies for UNAMSIL, WFP and ESCO (which is under contract to import supplies for UNAMSIL, see section 6.1.4 for details)



The overall growth rate of cargo traffic in the period 2000-2003 averaged 22% p.a., with container traffic increasing by 17% p.a. (see Table 4.1.2)

Table 4.1.2 Growth of Cargo Traffic at the Port of Freetown 1994-2003 (000 tonnes)

1994 2000 2001 2002 2003 Growth p.a.

IMPORTS

2000-2003

Sugar 11 13 29 20 27 28% Rice 106 136 158 179 170 8% Flour 4 6 8 17 14 33% Wheat 31 28 31 27 34 7% Others (a) 70 90 126 167 119 10% Sub-total foodstuffs 222 273 352 410 364 10% Sub-total consumer goods 28 15 23 25 51 50% Vehicles 7 9 20 17 17 24% Vehicle accessories .. 2 2 3 5 36% Machinery etc .. 6 9 6 13 29% Sub total capital goods 30 17 31 26 35 27% Cement 34 0 9 25 43 Clinker 30 83 107 146 120 13% Others .. 30 35 54 89 44% Sub total Industrial raw materials 113 151 225 252 31% Miscellaneous goods .. 32 45 49 73 32% TOTAL IMPORTS 399 450 602 735 775 20%



1994 2000 2001 2002 2003 Growth p.a.

EXPORTS

2000-2003

Empty containers 13 18 26 29 29 17% Cocoa 3 3 5 6 8 38% Coffee 4 2 2 2 3 12% Others 13 1 10 16 48 264% TOTAL EXPORTS 33 24 43 53 88 54% IMPORTS + EXPORTS 433 474 645 788 863 22% - of which Containers (TEU) 15,073 22,317 30,331 34,681 35,555 17% EXCLUDING UNAMSIL,ESCO and WFP IMPORTS + EXPORTS 433 413 563 726 809 25% - of which Containers (TEU) 15,073 15,206 20,497 27,463 29,763 25%

(a) Salt, onions, frozen food, etc

Sources: SLPA, UNAMSIL, ESCO, WFP

The 1996 forecast for containers was accurate. The 1996 report forecast 31,000 TEU for 2005, equivalent to 29000 TEU for 2003. This was very close to the actual container traffic in 2003, which was 29,763 TEU if UNAMSIL and aid agency traffic are excluded (the military/aid agencies added another 6000 TEU, giving a total of 35,500 TEU) The 1996 forecasts for other cargoes, on the other hand , were below actual traf-fic. Traffic was forecast at 599,000 in 2005, equivalent to about 565,000 in 2003, but actual traffic was almost 300,000 tonnes higher than forecast, at 863,000 tonnes. The main reasons were that, after the civil war, traffic was boosted by (i) large volumes of additional cement/clinker imports for recon-struction of destroyed buildings, (ii) rice imports to compensate for the disrup-tion of agricultural production, and (iii) exports of scrap. These three cargoes alone accounted for over 200,00 tonnes of additional traffic

4.1.2 Relationship between Port Traffic and GDP The growth of cargo traffic has been far above that of GDP over the last five years. The main reason is that growth of Sierra Leone’s imports has been more



than four times as high as GDP growth, averaging 26.6% p.a. in terms of US dollars. Consequently, import traffic growth at Freetown was very high, averag-ing 20.5% p.a. (see Table 4.1.3) over the period 2000-2003. GDP growth, in contrast, averaged only 6.3% p.a.

Table 4.1.3 Comparison of Growth Rates for GDP, Imports and Port Traffic, 2000-2003 (%) 2001 2002 2003 Average

Growth (% p.a.)

Sierra Leone Economy GDP 5.3 6.7 6.9 6.3 Imports (in USD) 23.3 42.6 14.1 26.6 Port Traffic Imports via port (tonnes) 33.8 22.9 4.7 20.5 Containers ( TEU) 35.9 14.3 2.5 17.6

Source: SLPA, EIU The reasons for the high ratio of imports and port traffic to GDP include:

- Availability of donor funds to finance imports. If imports were limited to

the same level as exports, they would only be one third of current levels (see section 4.2).

- Imports of supplies and equipment for UNAMSIL, ESCO and WFP. - Additional imports for services used by temporary foreign residents (for

restaurants, shops, etc). - Large consignments of cement and clinker for the reconstruction of build-

ings destroyed during the civil disorder of the late 1990s.

4.1.3 Containerisation and Other Handling Methods About 30% of Freetown’s cargo was containerised in 2003. The overall break-down of cargo by handling methods is shown in Table 4.1.4 Table 4.1.4 Freetown Cargo by Handling Method 2003 000 tonnes % Containers 336 39 Bulk Cargoes (a) 154 18 Conventional and Others (b) 373 43 Total 863 100



(a) The bulk cargoes are clinker (120,000 tonnes) and wheat (34,000 tonnes) (b) The “Others” include vehicles, project cargo and fish. The most important

cargoes handled conventionally in 2003 were bagged rice (170,000 tonnes) and bagged cement (43,000 tonnes)

Source: SLPA statistics The underlying share of containers is in fact slightly lower than that shown in Table 4.1.4. The share shown there includes imports for UNAMSIL, ESCO and the WFP, which are more highly containerised than Sierra Leone’s national im-ports and exports. Most of the cargoes suitable for containers have already been containerised, and penetration has not increased over the last four years. At first sight it appears to have fallen (see Table 4.1.5); but the figures shown are misleading. The pene-tration factor depends on the volumes of general cargo and bulks, and these tend to fluctuate more than container traffic. As shown in Table 4.1.4, the overall increase in containerisation has been modest since the early 1990s. Table 4.1.5 Containers’ Share of Total Traffic at Freetown 1990-2003 000 TEU 000 tonnes Containers’ share of

total cargo 1990 16 164 44% 1991 13 130 33% 1992 14 121 31% 1993 16 141 33% 1994 15 130 30% 2000 22 198 42% 2001 30 266 41% 2002 35 284 36% 2003 36 336 39%

Source: SLPA

Growth of Container Traffic Container traffic has increased rapidly since 2000. The average growth rate in the period 2000-2003 was 17.6% p.a. Table 4.1.6



Growth of Container Traffic 1990-2003 TEU Growth, % p.a. 1990 15,989 .. 1991 12,749 -20 1992 14,254 +12 1993 15,578 +9 1994 15,073 -3 2000 22,317 .. 2001 30,331 +36 2002 34,681 +14 2003 35,555 +3 Average Growth 2000-2003 +17.6%

Source: SLPA Part of the growth in container traffic is attributable to UNAMSIL’s peace keep-ing force, plus their supplies imported by ESCO, and WFP imports. UNAMSIL has had between 13,500 and 17,500 personnel in Sierra Leone in the period 2000-2003. The traffic volumes assonated with these operations are estimated as follows, on the basis of information provided by the agencies. Table 4.1.7 Container Traffic Generated by UNAMSIL, ESCO and the WFP (TEU) 2000 2001 2002 2003 Containers inbound for UNAMSIL, ESCO and WFP

2,844 3,934 2,887 2,317

Containers, total including out-bound empties

5,689 7,867 5,775 4,633

Additional traffic generated by UNAMSIL (for local shops, restaurants, etc) (a)

1,422 1,967 1,444 1,158

Total 7,111 9,834 7,218 5,792

(a) Assumed to be equivalent to 25% of the container traffic generated by the

agencies After subtracting the UNAMSIL, ESCO and the WFP traffic, the container traf-fic gendered by the Sierra Leonean economy is estimated as follows: Table 4.1.8



Container Traffic Generated by the Sierra Leone Economy (TEU) 2000 2001 2002 2003 Growth p.a.

2000-2003 Total Freetown 22,317 30,331 34,681 35,555 17% - for UNAMSIL, ESCO and the WFP

7,111 9,834 7,218 5,792 -7%

- for Sierra Leone economy

15,206 20,497 27,463 29,763 25%

Other Handling Methods

Growth of other handing methods in 2003 is summarised in the following table. Table 4.1.9 Shares of Freetown Traffic by Handling Method Traffic 2003

(000 tonnes) Growth p.a. (%)

2000-2003 Containers 336 16.8% Bulk Cargoes (a) 154 11.5% Conventional and Others (b) 373 34.9% Total 863 22.1%

Source SLPA statistics

4.1.4 Shipping Traffic Shipping Services Shipping traffic at the port of Freetown’s Queen Elizabeth II Quays is domi-nated by container and Roro vessels. They accounted for 65% of total calls in 2003. The container ships serve a range of West African ports and discharge relatively small numbers of containers at Freetown. The market leader is Maersk, which serves routes to all regions of the world, transhipping via Algeciras at the Western end of the Mediterranean. The re-mainder of the containers are carried by Delmas, Nile Dutch, Grimaldi, P&O, Messina and other lines. Nile Dutch and Grimaldi use roro ships rather than cel-lular container ships.



The container ships used are fairly large and expensive to operate. They are all self-sustaining, having their own cranes. Although Maersk’s ships are described as feeder ships they have capacities of over 1000 TEU and are quite new. Most of the remaining cargo arrives in non-liner vessels. Rice is handled in chartered conventional ships of up to 15,000 tonnes; and wheat and clinker are handled in bulk ships. Ship Calls by Type of Ship 1994-2003 The number of ship calls at Freetown has increased at a much lower rate than that of cargo. Whereas total cargo increased by 99% in the period 1994-2003, ship calls increased by only 10% (see Table 4.1.10) Table 4.1.10 Number of Ship Calls at Freetown 1994-2003 1994 2000 2001 2002 2003

Growth 1994-2003

Container 98 89 134 161 116 18% Roro 29 29 63 48 56 93% (container + Roro) (127) (118) (197) (209) (172) (35%) Conventional plus bulk

113 65 98 98 92 -19%

Total (a) 240 183 295 307 264 10%

(a) This table excludes tankers, fishing boats and other ships which are handled

outside the main port (i.e. Queen Elizabeth II Quays) Source: SLPA The reason for the relatively low growth in ship calls is the sharp increase in the average consignment size at Freetown. The average consignment size for con-tainers in 1994 was only 119 TEU (including outbound as well relatively low growths inbound containers) per ship call. But by 2003 it had risen to 207 TEU. The average consignment size for general cargo and bulk ships increased even faster during the same period, from 2,681 tonnes to 5,728 tonnes (see Table 4.1.11). Table 4.1.11 Consignment Sizes per Ship Call 1994-2003

1994 2000 2001 2002 2003 Growth

1994-2003



Containers (TEU per call) 119 189 154 166 207 74%GC and Bulk (tonnes per call) 2681 4246 3867 5143 5728 114%

The average length of the ships calling in 2003 was about 135 metres. But this average is pulled down by calls by very small ships/craft. The largest vessels calling have lengths of 216 metres. Frequency of ship calls Container and Roro ships account for an average of just over three calls per week. Most of the ships visit the port frequently. Total ship calls, including bulk and general cargo ships, average about 5 calls a week.

4.2 The Economy of Sierra Leone The economy of Sierra Leone is primarily agricultural. The agricultural sector accounts for over 50% of GDP and the majority of Sierra Leone's employment. The main product is rice, followed by cassava, groundnuts, maize, millet and vegetables. There is also an active mining industry - the main products in de-creasing order of importance in terms of 2003 export values being diamonds, cocoa and coffee. Diamonds, however account for over 90% of exports. Manufacturing industry is very limited, accounting for only about 5% of GDP. Sierra Leone is reasonably well endowed with resources, and was moderately prosperous 30 years ago. It was self sufficient in rice, and earned substantial export revenues from cocoa and coffee. But progress since 1980 was undermined by regional instability, corruption and rigidity in the economy. By the mid 1980s the country was no longer self suffi-cient in rice, production having fallen by about one quarter; and exports of the cash crops, coffee and sugar, were declining sharply. In 1988, IMF credit lines were suspended, mainly because of increasing debts. During the 1990s the increasing rebel activity further disrupted agriculture and mining. The cost of the war has been high, consuming resources and funds badly needed elsewhere. Since 2000, however, the stabilizing of the military situation has allowed the economy to start to grow again. In the period 2000-2003 GDP growth averaged 6.3% p.a. Details are shown in Table 4.2.1.



Table 4.2.1. Growth of Sierra Leone’s GDP, Imports and Exports 1997-2003

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Average Growth

p.a 2001-2003

GDP Growth (real) -17.6 -0.8 -8.1 3.8 5.3 6.7 6.9 6.3% Import Growth (%)

-55.8% 4.3% -32.8% 82.9% 24.0% 41.9% 14.0% 26.7%

Export Growth (%)

-16.0% -26.2% -76.4% 103.2% 128.1% 66.4% 90.7% 95.1%

Imports (USD mill) 117 122 82 150 186 264 301 Exports (USD mill) 36 27 6 13 29 49 93 Balance of payments -81 -95 -76 -137 -157 -215 -208

Source: EIU

Growth in imports was over 4 times as high as GDP growth in the period 2001-2003. But these rates of growth clearly cannot continue. Export revenues (USD93 million) covered only 31% of the import bill (USD301 million) in 2003, with much of the remaining cost being funded by donor agencies.

Despite the poor historical record, there are now hopeful signs. GDP growth now well above that of the 1980s and 1990s; rapidly increasing cement sales demonstrate that rebuilding is now well under way; and international donors appear committed to the reconstruction of the economy. The fundamental assumptions made in drawing up the forecast are as follows: • GDP growth will average 5% p.a. • Imports will rise in line with GDP, also increasing at 5% p.a. (Sierra Leone

has very little industry and has to import most of its manufactured goods).

4.3 Traffic Forecasts 4.3.1 Approach to the Forecasts

Past trends can only give a partial guide to future traffic levels, for several rea-sons. First, the growth of traffic has been much faster than GDP in the last four years (see box below) – as a result of (i) donor driven import levels and (ii) imports for UNAMSIL forces. Neither of these conditions will be sustained. The traffic



generated by UNAMSIL will be phased out in the near future; and import traffic growth is likely to become more “normal”.

Average growth 2000-2003 (% p.a.) GDP 6.3% Imports (in USD) 26.6% Port Traffic Imports via Freetown 20.5% Container Traffic 17.6% Secondly, the growth rate for the economy is also uncertain, and cannot be in-ferred from past trends. The crucial determinant of economic growth will be the degree of political stability achieved during the remainder of the decade. Inter-views with imports and exporters confirmed that they also held this view. It was emphasised, however, that political stability will not necessarily entail economic success. World markets are highly competitive; and the stagnant state of the economy pre-dates the current instability. The fundamental assumptions made in drawing up the forecast are as follows: • GDP growth will average 5% p.a. • Imports will risel in line with GDP, also increasing at 5% p.a. (Sierra Leone

has very little industry and has to import most of its manufactured goods). • The phasing out of UNAMSIL forces over the next two years will result in a

decline of 15% in port traffic over the next two years, offsetting the growth associated with the national economy.



4.3.2 Forecast by Commodity (a) Rice Thirty years ago Sierra Leone was self-sufficient in rice. And modest surpluses were exported in some years. But after the end of the 1970s production fell (see Table 4.3.1). Over the last five years it has averaged just under 400,000 tonnes p.a. Table 4.3.1 Long Term Trends in Rice Production in Sierra Leone (000 tonnes) Year Paddy Rice Milled Rice Equivalent 1968 630 400 1978 500 325 1988 466 303 1994 486 316 1998 461 300 1999 530 344 2000 248 161 2001 311 202 2002 422 274

Because of the limited national production, Sierra Leone has been importing over 40% of the national requirements in recent years (see Table 4.3.2). Rice imports have averaged 160,000 tonnes in the last five years Table 4.3.2 Rice Imports as a USD of Total Demand (000 tonnes) Local Production

Milled Rice Equivalent

Imports Imports’ Share

1994 316 106 25% 2000 161 136 46% 2001 202 158 44% 2002 274 179 40%



The improvement in political stability which has been achieved in recent years has renewed access to rice growing areas which were previously cut off; and this has allowed national production to revive to some extent. But this will be a once-only effect. As shown in Table 4.3.2, imports’ share of total demand has been increasing rather than falling. The rice traders confirmed that they expect imports to remain at high levels. They do not expect a return to self-sufficiency, partly because of lack of gov-ernment assistance programmes – for fertilisers, seedlings, equipment and other inputs. Demand for rice has increased sharply since 2000, but is still only slightly higher than in the mid 1990s, see Table 4.3.3. Table 4.3.3 Growth in Demand for Rice 1994-2003 (000 tonnes) (a) National

Production Imports Total Demand Growth

(% p.a.) 1994 316 106 422 .. 2000 161 136 297 .. 2001 202 158 360 +21% 2002 274 179 453 +26%

(a) in terms of milled rice Against this background it will be assumed that future demand will rise in line with GDP, and that imports will remain at around 40% of total demand. On this basis rice imports are forecast as follows. Table 4.3.4 Forecast of Rice Imports (000 tonnes) 2003 170 2005 187 2010 240 2015 305 (b) Wheat Wheat is not grown in Sierra Leone. It therefore has to be imported for the manufacture of flour.



The wheat is imported by the Seaboard Flour Mill, which is located behind Berth 1 at the port. It is the only flour mill in Sierra Leone, and imported 34,000 tonnes of wheat in 2003. In addition 14,000 tonnes of manufactured flour were imported via Freetown by local merchants. The combined wheat and flour traffic in terms “flour equivalent” amounted to 40,000 tonnes in 2003 (on the basis that one tonne of flour requires 1.33 tonnes of wheat). Details are shown in Table 4.3.4. The underlying a pattern over the last 20 years is that most flour is manufactured in Sierra Leone from imported wheat. There was a diversion from this pattern in the late 1980s, when the local flour mill became inefficient and imports of flour took an increasing share of the market. But the fortunes of the local flour mill revived when it was taken over in 1991 by Seaboard West Africa Ltd; and for the last decade the plant has been operating at close to capacity. However, de-mand now exceeds supply and flour imports have been increasing again. The pattern is shown in Table 4.3.4. Table 4.3.4 Growth of Wheat and Flour Consumption (000 tonnes) Wheat Imports Flour Imports 1986 22 7 1987 18 17 1988 7 14 1989 9 26 1990 8 20 1991 21 15 1992 16 7 1993 34 6 1994 31 4 2000 28 6 2001 31 8 2002 27 17 2003 34 14

Source: SLPA As demand now exceeds supply, Seaboard is going to expand its capacity by 25% within the next year. Consequently, most of the imported flour will again be displaced by national production.



Growth in demand has been high since 2000, but the growth has been from a depressed base; in fact over the longer term growth has not increased dramati-cally since the mid 1990s. The average growth rate in total demand was about 4% p.a. over the period 1994-2003. (See Table 4.3.5). Table 4.3.5 Growth in Demand for Flour in Sierra Leone 1994-2003 (000 tonnes) Wheat

Imports Flour Imports Total demand

in flour equivalent

Growth (% p.a.)

1994 31 4 27 2000 28 6 27 .. 2001 31 8 31 16% 2002 27 17 37 19% 2003 34 14 40 6%

The forecast shown below makes the assumptions that flour consumption will increase at about 4% p.a. as in the last decade; and that most of the demand will be supplied by the flour mill. After the plant reaches full capacity, however, the additional flour requirements will be imported. On this basis wheat and flour imports are forecast as in table 4.3.5.



Table 4.3.6 Forecast of Wheat and Flour Imports (000 tonnes) Total Demand

in flour Equivalent

Flour Production

Wheat Imports

Flour Imports

2003 40 26 34 14 2004 41 35 46 7 2005 43 35 46 8 2006 45 35 46 10 2007 46 35 46 12 2008 48 35 46 14 2009 50 35 46 15 2010 52 45 60 7 2011 54 45 60 9 2012 56 45 60 11 2013 59 45 60 14 2014 61 45 60 16 2015 63 45 60 18 2020 73 45 60 28

(c) Other Foods The Port of Freetown imported 119,000 tonnes of foods other than rice, wheat and flour (which were dealt with in previous paragraphs) in 1994. The main “other” foods were sugar, onions, milk, potatoes, frozen foods and beverages. The growth of these other foods averaged 10% p.a. in the period 2000-2003 Table 4.3.7. But this growth was from a low base, in the aftermath of the civil disorder in 1999; and was boosted by temporary demand from UNAMSIL per-sonnel staying in Sierra Leone. Table 4.3.7 Imports of Other Foods 1994-2003 (000 tonnes) 1994 2000 2001 2002 2003 Growth p.a.

2000-2003 70 90 126 167 119 10%

Future imports are forecast on the basis of average growth in national demand in line with GDP (5% p.a.), offset in the next two years by a 15% reduction in traf-fic as a result of the withdrawal of the UNAMSIL personnel.



Table 4.3.8 Forecast of Other Foods (000 tonnes) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020 146 143 140 147 155 162 170 179 228 292

(d) Clinker and Cement Sierra Leone imported 120,000 tonnes of clinker plus 43,000 tonnes of cement in 2003. Table 4.3.9 Imports of Cement and Clinker 1994-2003 (000 tonnes) 1994 2000 2001 2002 2003 Cement 34 0 9 25 43 Clinker 30 83 107 146 120

Until 1994 most of Sierra Leone’s cement requirements were imported in the form of manufactured cement. During this period the country’s only cement plant, which is located immediately outside the port, had been more or less inac-tive. It was badly managed and failure to keep stocks of spares resulted in long periods out of operation. The plant was bought in 1994 by Scancem, a large Swedish/Norwegian cement company, which was later taken over by Heidelburg of Germany, in 1999. They have eleven cement plants in Africa. Scancem has rehabilitated the Freetown plant, which now operates under the name Leocem. Leocem is now producing at full capacity (about 170,000 tonnes p.a) which re-quires clinker imports of about 135,000 tonnes). Leocem supplies that whole national market. That is to say, Leocem imports all the finished cement which is necessary to meet shortfalls in demand. Sierra Leone’s consumption of cement has risen by almost 50% p.a. over the period 2000-2003 (see Table 4.3.10). The rapid growth is explained partly by the need for reconstruction after the civil disorder of the late 1990s.



Table 4. 3.10 Sierra Leone Consumption of Cement 1995-2003 (000 tonnes) Growth p.a. 1995 51 1996 74 45% 1997 47 -30% 1998 37 -21% 1999 43 16% 2000 79 84% 2001 113 43% 2002 146 29% 2003 200 37% Average growth p.a. 2000-2003 48%

Leocem is committed to expanding the capacity of its cement plant to 400,000 tonnes in the near future. They expect national demand to reach this level within two years, due to the need for reconstruction in Sierra Leone after the war. None of the planned production is for export. It will be assumed that in practice production at the new plant will average 85-90% of the plant’s capacity. The clinker requirement for this production would be 280,000 tonnes (see table 4.3.11) Table 4.3.11 Forecast Imports of Clinker and Cement (000 tonnes) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020 Cement 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clinker 120 120 240 280 280 280 280 280 280 280

(e) Capital Goods Freetown handled 35,000 tonnes of capital goods in 2003, but only 13,000 ton-nes if vehicles and their accessories are excluded. The growth over the period 2000-2003 was very high, averaging 27% p.a.; but this growth was from a de-pressed base, following the end of the civil disorder. In fact, growth since 1994 has been modest, averaging 2% p.a. over the period 1994-2003. Table 4.3.12 Imports of Capital Goods 1994-2003 (000 tonnes)

1994 2000 2001 2002 2003 Growth p.a. 2000-2003

30 17 31 26 35 27%



Future imports are forecast on the basis of average growth in national demand in line with GDP (5% p.a.), offset in the next two years by a 15% reduction as a result of the withdrawal of the UNAMSIL personnel, whose presence has ac-counted for part of the increase in vehicles. On this basis the capital goods are forecast as follows: Table 4.3.13 Forecast of Imports of Capital Goods (000 tonnes) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 202035 34 34 35 37 39 41 43 55 70

(f) Consumer Goods Freetown handled 51,000 tonnes of consumer goods in 2003. The growth over the period was very high, averaging 50% p.a. Table 4.3.14. This growth, how-ever, is from the depressed base of 2000, following the civil disorder of the late 1990s. In fact growth since the mid 1990s was much more modest, averaging 7% p.a. between 1994 and 2003. Table 4.3.14 Imports of Consumer Good 1994-2003 (000 tonnes)

1994 2000 2001 2002 2003 Growth p.a. 2000-2003

28 15 23 25 51 50% Future imports are forecast on the basis of average growth in national demand in line with GDP (5% p.a.), offset in the next two years by a 15% reduction in traf-fic as a result of the withdrawal of the UNAMSIL personnel. Table 4.3.15 Forecast of Consumer Goods (000 tonnes) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020

51 50 50 52 55 58 61 64 81 104 (g) Exports Exports via Freetown are very limited relative to imports. But they have been reviving since 2000. Historically, the main seaborne exports have been cocoa and coffee. The cocoa declined in the period 1986-2000, but has recovered to it earlier levels in the period 2000-2003. In contrast, coffee exports remain well below the levels of the 1980s, although they have revived slightly.



Table 4.3.16 Exports via Freetown 1994-2003 (000 tonnes)

1986 1994 2000 2001 2002 2003

Growth, % p.a.

2000-2003 Cocoa 9 3 3 5 6 8 38% Coffee 16 4 2 2 2 3 12% Others (a) .. 13 1 10 16 48 264% Total (b) 20 6 17 24 59 114%

(a) Mainly scrap (b) Excluding empty containers Recent trends are assumed to continue, with cocoa exports increasing at 2000 tonnes p.a. and coffee exports increasing at 1000 tonnes p.a. (see Table 4.3.1) Table 4.3.17 Forecast of Exports (000 tonnes)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020 Empty containers 29 28 28 29 30 31 33 34 44 56 Cocoa 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 32 42 Coffee 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20 Others (a) 48 51 53 56 59 62 65 68 87 111 EXPORTS 88 92 98 104 111 118 126 134 177 228

(a) Assumed to increase at 5% p.a. (i) Summary of Cargo Forecasts The commodity forecast from the previous sections are drawn together in Table 4.3.18



Table 4.3.18 Summary of Cargo Forecasts (000 tonnes)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020

IMPORTS

Rice 170 179 187 197 207 217 228 239 305 390 Flour 14 7 8 10 12 14 15 7 18 28 Wheat 34 46 46 46 46 46 46 60 60 60 Others (a) 146 143 140 147 155 162 170 179 228 292

Sub-total foodstuffs 364 375 382 400 419 439 459 485

612

769 Sub-total consumer goods 51 50 50 52 55 58 61 64

81

104

Sub total capital goods 35 34 34 35 37 39 41 43

55

70

Cement 43 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clinker 120 120 240 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 Others 89 87 85 90 94 99 104 109 139 178

Sub total Industrial raw materials 252 287 325 370 374 379 384 389

419

458

Miscellaneous goods 73 72 70 74 77 81 85 89

114

146

TOTAL IMPORTS 775 818 861 931 963 996 1030 1070

1281

1546

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020

EXPORTS

Empty containers 29 28 28 29 30 31 33 34

44

56 Cocoa 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 32 42 Coffee 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20 Others 48 51 53 56 59 62 65 68 87 111

TOTAL EXPORTS 88 92 98 104 111 118 126 134

177

228 IMPORTS + EXPORTS 863 910 959 1,035 1,074 1,115 1,156 1,204

1,458

1774

- of which

Containers (000 TEU) 35.5 33.7 34.1 35.1 36.2 38.0 39.9 41.9

53.5

68.2



4.3.3 Traffic Forecasts by Handling Method Growth in container traffic was very high in the period 2000-2003, averaging 17% p.a. But it was inflated by cargo for UNAMSIL and the World Food Pro-gramme which started in 2000, and reached a peak in 2002 but is now declining. Consequently container growth rates have been declining, as follows:

(000 TEU) Growth 2001 30,331 35.8% 2002 34,681 14.3% 2003 35,555 2.5% The withdrawal of UNAMSIL over the next two years will result in a reduction in total container traffic. Sierra Leone’s national container traffic, however, should continue to rise in line with GDP, for the following reasons: • Sierra Leone produces relatively few manufactured goods, and therefore

depends mainly on imports • Donor aid will allow imports to increase at least in line with GDP. It is

unlikely that that the international agencies will abandon the economy now that the military situation has been stabilised.

On this basis Freetown’s container traffic is forecast as follows: Table 4.3.19 Forecast of Freetown Container Traffic (000 TEU)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020 UNAMSIL, ESCO, WFP. 5.8 2.5 1.2 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 Sierra Leone Traffic 29.8 31.2 32.8 34.4 36.1 38.0 39.9 41.9 53.4 66.2 Total 35.6 33.8 34.1 35.1 36.1 38.0 39.9 41.9 53.4 68.2

The other traffic forecast in Table 4.3.19 will be handled by either break-bulk/conventional of bulk handling methods. The two bulk cargoes are clinker and wheat. The remainder will be handled in break-bulk form. On this basis the forecast traffic is broken down by handling method as follows:



Table 4.3.20 Forecast of Freetown Cargo Traffic by Handling Methods (000 tonnes)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020

Container 336 319 322 332 342 359 377 396 505 645

Bulk (clinker and wheat) 154 166 286 326 326 326 326 340 340

340

General cargo, etc 373 425 351 378 406 430 453 468 613 790

Total 863 910 959 1,035 1,074 1,115 1,156 1,204 1,458 1774 Container Transhipment. Freetown is unlikely to attract significant numbers of transhipment containers, for the following reasons: - transhipment is a highly competitive business; - many, many ports all over the world have aspirations to be the hub port, but

there are few successes; - there is little transhipment in as yet in West Africa; - several other ports, mostly larger and deeper, are hoping to become hubs,

including Nigeria, Ivory Coast, the Gambia and Ghana; - Maersk, the dominant shipping line, has already set up a terminal else-

where, and is bidding for others; and - the dominant criteria for selecting a hub are handling speeds and tariffs. On

both counts Freetown is not a contender. The dominant shipping operator stated that they charge more to Freetown because of their high cost and low productivity

In brief, Freetown, which does not handle transhipment today, has far to go before it would have an outside chance of becoming a container hub port.

Impact of The Proposed Investments on Traffic Volumes

Given that (i) Freetown is unlikely to attract transhipment of other countries’ containers, and (ii) the low probability the Sierra Leone’s imports and exports might be handled at ports outside the country, the impact of cost-reducing in-vestment on traffic volumes is likely to be minimal. In other words, the price elasticity of demand is zero. All traffic is captive, consisting of national imports and exports. The same traffic would use the port whether the tariffs were kept the same, doubled or halved.



void



5. PORT OPERATIONS AND FACILITITES

5.1 Existing Port Infrastructure 5.1.1 Berths and Aprons

Queen Elizabeth II Quay comprises six berths with a total length of 1067 me-tres.

The quay is divided by a 38 degree bend between Berths 2 and 3 so that Berths 1 and 2 have a total length of 360 metres and Berths 3-6 have a total length of 707 metres.

Aprons between the quay fronts and sheds or stacking areas are 15 metres wide at Berths 1-2 and 18 metres wide at Berths 3-6.

A plan of the port has been shown on Enclosure 5.1.

5.1.2 Cargo Storage Areas A total of approx. 34 000 m2 open areas are available for cargo storage in the up to 140 m wide zone behind the Berths 5-6.

Of this area:

• approx. 20 000 m2 are used for storage of containers next to Berths 5 and 6. Of this approx. 13 300 m2 were paved during the phase 1 works with concrete pavers.

• approx. 14 000 m2, non-paved, are available and partly used for storage of containers at the stacking areas south of the central road way.

5.1.3 Sheds and Warehouses Shed storage are available in 5 buildings along the quays. Three sheds each measuring approx. 2 100 m2 along Berths 1-2 are used for dry bulk, bagged cargo and goods from LCL’s. The centre shed of the three has a second floor equipped as offices for the port administration. Two sheds each measuring 5 000 m2 are located along Berths 3 and 4, of which:



• Shed 3 is rented by a private importer of bagged cargo, and

• Shed 4 is utilised mainly by WFP (a small part by UNAMSIL).

5.1.4 Roads, Gates and Fences

The port's main gate is located at the eastern end of the port with access from Cline Street.

The gate at the western end of the port with access from Lower Savage Square is mainly used in connection with empty containers being brought to the port.

A third gate is located in the fence to the large open reclaimed area (reclamation of Fourah Bay) and is not in use for traffic purposes.

Pedestrians have access to the port via the foot bridge between the administra-tion building and the square at the end of College Road.

The port is furthermore surrounded by approx. 1 600 m of walls and wire fences.

5.2 Container Handling Equipment and Maintenance 5.2.1 Equipment

Mechanical equipment available with the port for the shore handling of the con-tainers has been listed in Table 5.2.1 overleaf.



Table 5.2.1 Cargo Handling Equipment Available

Owner Type Lifting Capac.

T

Make Year of Manuf

SLPA No.

Opera-tional

Yes/No

Remarks

SLPA Cont.Handler 34 Hyster 1982 1) TP 1133 Yes Cont. Handler 38 Hyster 2001 TP 1301 No Under repair 3) Cont. Handler 42 Boss 1990 TP 1186 No Spares not available 4) Cont. Handler 42 Lancer Boss 1997 2) TP 1291 No Spares not available 5) Fork Lift 10 Hyster 1986 TP 1094 Yes Not reliable – for

empties Front Loader 10 Hyster 2001 TP 1309 No Under repair – for

empties Fork Lift 3 Hyster 2001 TP 1302 Yes Fork Lift 3 Hyster 2001 TP 1303 Yes Fork Lift 3 Hyster 2001 TP 1304 Yes Fork Lift 3 Hyster 2001 TP 1305 Yes Termin. Truck Mafi 2001 TP 1295 Yes Termin. Truck Mafi 2001 TP 1296 No Electric Fault Termin. Truck Mafi 1990 TP 1156 No Under repair Flatbeds 40 ft. Mafi No Record Totally 4 Term. Truck Renault No Record With trailer AMA Reach Stacker 45 PPM 1996 Yes Cont. Handler 44 Hyster 1992 No Under repair Fork Lift 26 Hyster 1990 Yes Fork Lift 4 Hyster 1990 No Under repair Flatbeds Mafi No Record Yes 3 Nos. SLSA Cont. Handler 45 Kalmar No Info Yes NDS Fork Lift 32 Kalmar No Info Yes Unamsil Cont. Handler 28 Hyster 2002 Yes Only for 20’ contain-

ers Fork Lift 28 Kalmar 2002 Yes Fork Lift 7 Daewoo 2002 Yes Fork Lift 3 Daewoo 2002 Yes Fork Lift 3 Daewoo 2002 Yes

Notes: 1) The container handler was acquired second hand in 1989 (information on year of manufacture from Master Plan 1996)

2) The container handler was reconditioned in 1997 and acquired second hand in 2001.

3) Spares under way. Repair is expected finished by mid July 2004. 4) Spares are not readily available, as the Boss industry does not exist anymore. The

Mechanical section recommends replacing the container handler in stead of repair-ing it.

5) Spares are not readily available, as the Boss industry does not exist anymore. The Mechanical section recommends replacing the container handler in stead of repair-ing it.



Within the workshop premises is further equipment which has been evaluated by the workshop manager to be beyond economic repair either because the piece of equipment has been cannibalised, is damaged or spare parts are not available. A list of the said equipment available has been shown in Table 5.2.2 below. The Consultant concurs that these pieces should be scrapped and removed from the port.

Table 5.2.2 Cargo Handling Equipment to be Scrapped Owner Type Lifting

Capac. T

Make Year of Manuf

SLPA No.

Opera-tional

Yes/No

Remarks

SLPA Cont.Handler 48 Hyster 1997 1) TP 1271 No To be scrapped Termin. Truck Mafi 1990 TP 1155 No To be scrapped Termin. Truck Mafi 1990 TP 1171 No To be scrapped Fork Lift 5 Hyster TP 1091 No To be scrapped Fork Lift 5 Hyster TP 1183 No To be scrapped Fork Lift 3 Boss TP 1148 No To be scrapped Fork Lift 3 Boss TP 1149 No To be scrapped Fork Lift 3 Boss TP 1150 No To be scrapped Fork Lift 3 Boss TP 1174 No To be scrapped Fork Lift 3 Boss TP 1178 No To be scrapped Fork Lift 3 Boss TP 1182 No To be scrapped

Notes: 1) The container handler was damaged heavily during rebel incursion From Table 5.2.1 it may be seen that the port owns four container handlers of various ages and various states of repair. Of these only one 20 year old container handler was in operation during the field mission. One container handler ac-quired in 2001 through the WFP programme was under repair and two container handlers of the make Boss were not in operation due to lack of spare parts, as the Boss company is no longer in business. It has later been informed that some critically needed spare parts were located and ordered for the repair of the two Boss container handlers. Although they may soon become operational it is only a short term measure. SLPA can only rely on these machines until they need another repair/overhaul due to lack of spares.

To alleviate the major problem of available container handlers the port is rent-ing/borrowing container handlers from private operators/organisations like UNAMSIL, AMA, SLSA and NDS.

The availability of the repaired Boss machines will reduce the need for hiring equipment from the other parties in the port, while they are operational.



Equipment for moving containers between the quay apron and the stacking areas is very limited as well. Only one MAFI terminal truck – of totally three - was in operation.

Stacking empty containers is at present carried out by an 18 year old fork lift, which is not reliable any more. The other front loader for empties is under re-pair. In order to improve cargo handling there is an immediate need for basic operational cargo handling equipment:

• Container handlers

• Fork lifts for stacking empties

• Terminal truck and trailers

5.2.2 Maintenance The port has workshop facilities for maintaining cargo handling equipment, SLPA motor vehicles and air conditioners.

The workshop suffers from lack of the most essential spare parts for maintaining the equipment. It is recommended that the workshop should build up a stock of the most common spare parts for each piece of equipment in order to minimise the time the said piece of equipment would be out of operation.

The workshop manager has introduced a Log Sheet for each piece of equipment, in which maintenance costs, maintenance intervals, use of spare parts, down time etc. is noted. This is highly recommendable as it will provide necessary information for evaluation of the economic life of the equipment.

5.2.3 Training In order to improve the information level on maintenance highlighted above, and for assistance to the management of the Mechanical Section, the SLPA should improve on training of the staff in the Section.

It is recommended that a Technical Assistance programme is deployed in the port. It is envisaged that a programme of 8 – 12 months will be sufficient. The objective is to improve the availability of the cargo handling equipment, to assist the management of the workshop and to set up a proper Maintenance Manage-ment System.

The Technical Assistance would by ‘working on the floor’:

• participate in the daily planning of maintenance repair,

• set up the Maintenance Management System mentioned above,



• prepare a comprehensive list of necessary tools and workshop equipment recommended to be acquired to run a modern workshop in the port. Dur-ing the preparation he shall take into consideration cost, timing and qual-ity of the specialised jobs which today are carried out outside the port.

• teach the workshop staff about the importance of proper maintenance management.

It has been assessed that the training programme outlined above will result in an increased availability of the cargo handling equipment, so that the down time will be reduced.

5.3 Cargo Handling

5.3.1 General Cargo handling speeds are still low by international standards. The average han-dling speeds in the last quarter of 2003 were approximately as follows:

• Containers: 9-10 TEU per ship hour in port. This is equivalent to only 7 boxes per ship hour in port, or 3-4 if two cranes are assumed (the ships are typically quite large). In the Port of Banjul the handling rates are 15-18 TEU’s per hour.

• Break-bulk: 900 tonnes per ship day in port

• Bulk grain: 650 tonnes per ship day in port.

• Clinker: 6-7,000 tonnes per ship day in port

The ratio between these categories of cargoes is 39% being containerized, 43% conventional with rice being the main commodity and 18% bulk cargo (wheat and clinker).

The port is not equipped with workable cranes.

5.3.2 Bulk Cargo Bulk vessels are discharged either by suction system or vessels' gear and spouts.

5.3.3 General Cargo General cargo is discharged by vessels gear. In most operations the receiver take delivery by own transport under vessel's hook.

5.3.4 Containers The container handling is carried out by container handlers assisting the shipside operation, transport to and from the stack, stacking and delivery to consignees



from same. The handlers are assisted by terminal trucks and trailers (flatbeds) each carrying 2 x 20' or 1 x 40' container.

The container handling speed has declined in recent years. The productivity is mainly governed by the ability for the wharf operation to receive the containers and move them at such a rate that delays will not occur.

5.4 Container Storage 5.4.1 General

Rehabilitation of the port was carried out in the period 1999-2001. The main components were:

• Paving of asphaltic access roads

• Paving of central road way with concrete block pavers

• Paving of an area of approx. 13 300 m2 for storage of containers along Berth 5 with concrete block pavers.

The designated storage area along Berth 5 is far from large enough to accom-modate the present annual traffic of 35 000 TEU’s. Containers are stored at the unpaved area south of the central road way and even on the road itself.

Because of the state of repair of the container handling equipment the boxes are stacked only 2 high, which in itself requires extra stacking area, as compared to 3 high which is often done with equipment in good working condition.

5.4.2 Storage Area Required for Projected Traffic The future development in container traffic will not require major changes in the shore handling and stacking method for containers.

The container operation is at present based on forklift trucks and terminal trucks/trailers. This type of equipment is selected due to its reliability and rela-tively inexpensive operating costs. Forklift trucks as well as terminal trucks are easy to operate and versatile as they can be utilized to handle other cargo. In addition, the system is advantageous in ports like Freetown, with a large number of empty containers, because lighter machines can be used to handle the emp-ties, whereas it is more difficult to introduce lighter equipment for empties in other systems. The disadvantages include:

• Demand for heavy duty pavement due to extraordinarily heavy axle loads;

• Demand for larger storage areas.



In a later stage more sophisticated equipment such as straddle carriers or tran-stainers (rubber tyred gantry cranes) may be preferable.

At present there are no records on the actual dwell time for containers in the port. In the Master Plan of 1996, however, the dwell times were based on re-cords available. The level of average dwell time was assessed during the field mission and it was concluded – based on interviews with the senior staff of Op-erations - that the present dwell time is similar to the 1994 level, see below.

Increased traffic according to forecasts is unlikely to change the frequency of ship calls for each liner. The average combined dwell time (import + export) is dependent on the frequency in ships calls and it is not expected to change in the future.

The stacking area necessary to accommodate the projected traffic has been calcu-lated for the years 2010, 2015 and 2020, based on the following assumptions:

a. Ratio Full/Empty = 60/40.

This is a slightly conservative estimate for the planning compared with the actual ratio = 56/44 for 2003 and the traffic forecast, Section 4 does not foresee significant changes in the future for the Full/Empty ratio.

b. Average dwell time for full containers, import: 7 days.

The assumption reflects that most imported containers are transferred through the transit area during the 'free' period of 10 days for full con-tainers.

c. Average dwell time for full containers, export = 10 days.

The assumption again reflects that most exported containers are trans-ferred through the transit area during the 'free' period of 10 days for full containers.

d. Average dwell time for empty containers: export empty = 13 days.

With this criterion it is assumed that the dwell time follows the fre-quency of calls for each liner, so that each ship is exporting 80% of con-tainers imported from the previous ship call and 20% from the second last. The average frequency of liners ship calls is 16 days (import + ex-port).

e. Full containers are stacked 3 high.



f. Empty containers are stacked 3 high in blocks for the years 2010 and 2015. In 2020 the empties are assumed stacked 4 high, in order to save space and because the equipment is envisaged to be more efficient.

g. Average to maximum stacking height ratio is 0.7 for full and 1.0 for empty containers.

h. Reserve capacity (incl. seasonal variation factor) = 40%.

i. Based on the assumptions under a. through h. above it is possible to de-termine the average number of containers at hand in the port and the required number of groundslots for different traffic situations cf. Table 5.3.1 below.

Table 5.3.1 Required Storage Capacity Containers/Groundslots TEU’s per year

2010 2015 2020

43 000 54 000 69 000

Containers at hand:

Full import Full export Empty export

412 118 613

518 148 769

662 189 983

Required groundslots:

Full import Full export Empty export

275 79

286

345 99

359

441 126 344

A layout for an annual traffic of 43 000 TEU’s (until 2010) has been shown on Enclosure 5.2, corresponding to a total stacking area of 32 000 m2. The full con-tainers have been stacked 2 deep and 3 high, resulting in an average of 3 lifts per container at 100% occupancy.

For the period 2010 through 2015 the same area can accommodate an annual traffic of 54 000 TEU’s when the full containers are stacked 3 deep and 3 high on the northern part of the stacking area (close to the berths), as shown on En-closure 5.3. This arrangement is assessed to be adequate due to more efficient machines than those at hand today and in the near future. An average of 5 lifts per container is necessary at 100% occupancy.

The fully developed container yard layout has been shown on Enclosure 5.4 corresponding to an annual traffic of 69 000 TEU's during the period 2015 through 2020 when the full containers are stacked 4 deep and 3 high on the northern part of the stacking area (close to the berths) as shown. This method involves more lifts per container, but again the arrangement is assessed to be



economical because the machines and handling will become more efficient and the expensive paved area can be utilised at optimum. By introducing reach stackers at the terminal during this period the average number of lifts may be reduced, depending on the stacking configuration.

5.4.3 Container Monitoring, Customs Clearing and Security Monitoring of

- F.C.L.'s designated for customers outside the port - returning empty containers and F.C.L.'s arriving for export is suggested to be centralized at one gate (at Lower Savage Square) for container traffic to/from the port.

Customs clearing, security check and the like shall be avoided in the stacking area and arranged at an area located next to the gate.

In order to adhere to the new ISPS Code (International Ship and Port Facility Security Code), SLPA is planning to acquire a scanner for scanning containers entering and leaving the port.

An area of approx. 2 000 m2 has been designated for joint scanning and customs purpose near the western gate, as shown on Enclosures 5.2 – 5.4.

5.5 Equipment 5.5.1 Container Handlers

Only one 20 year old container handler was in operation during the field mis-sion. It is envisaged that this old piece of equipment will be phased out in the near future when is not economical to maintain it any longer. The old container handler has been maintained due to the general lack of equipment.

SLPA also has one container handler acquired in 2001, which was under repair during the field mission but is expected to be operational this summer. For the discussion of the equipment needs only one container handler has been consid-ered operational.

In order not to create any bottlenecks when container vessels are unloaded one container handler should be at the quay side and one at the stack. From the re-cords on berth occupancy in 2003 it may be deduced that two container vessels berth at the same time at least twice a month. In order to create minimum wait-ing time for the vessels it is therefore recommended that SLPA should have at minimum four operational container handlers to cater for the peak situations.



During these peak situations there will not be any delivery from the stacks as the container handlers will be busy serving the vessels.

An immediate need of four container handlers is also supported by (a) working rules derived form operations at container terminals elsewhere, (b) the views of port users and (c) the economic analysis.

5.5.2 Front Loaders for Empties It is envisaged that the 18 year old fork lift is phased out in the near future and replaced by a frontloader with spreader for 20’ and 40’ empty containers.

5.5.3 Terminal Trucks Of SLPA’s three terminal trucks one was operational during the field mission. This clearly creates a bottleneck when discharging containers from a vessel. As-suming that only two of the terminal trucks will be operational it has been as-sessed that three trucks should be acquired, bringing the total number of terminal trucks to five in order to bring containers from the quay to the stack during peak situations. The terminal trucks in Freetown Port are equipped with a gooseneck for MAFI flatbed trailers.

In order to achieve optimum use of the terminal trucks each should be equipped with two flatbed trailers. This criterion will require the acquisition of six flatbed trailers large enough to accommodate two 20’ or one 40’ container(s).

5.6 Institutional Requirements The purchase of new equipment, however, is unlikely to solve the port’s container handling problems by itself. The track record of the SLPA over the last ten years has shown that even if equipment is purchased it has proved difficult to keep it operation.

The additional need is for institutional change: i.e. for privatisation of the con-tainer handling, including equipment maintenance. Experience elsewhere shows that studies of potential operational improvements, training programmes and technical assistance often have limited impact if the operations remain under gov-ernment port authorities. The SLPA had assistance from HPC in the mid 1990s and it did not result in sustained improvement. If, however, operations are priva-tised, the evidence from worldwide experience shows overwhelmingly that im-provements in productivity are usually substantial. Furthermore, in addition to improving handling speeds, the private operators often eliminate speed money and work with customs to improve speed of processing.

The port of Dar es Salaam is a good example of the beneficial effects of privatisa-tion. It was privatised in 2000, and now has the fastest handling speeds of any African ports, well ahead of Durban, which used to be the fastest in southern Af-



rica. Dar’s handling speeds have risen from about 14 moves per hour to over 20 moves. Lower speeds result in penalties which are under their concession agree-ment. Improvements have been even greater in other areas. For example, the In-dian ports which have privatised container terminals have seen 200% increases in handling speeds.

The privatisation of container operations, including maintenance is in line with government policy – which favours a shift to a landlord role for the port authority, i.e. a withdrawal from cargo handling operations. His Excellency – Alhaji Dr. Ahmad Tejan Kabbah - President of the Republic of Sierra Leone actually ad-dressed this important issue on 3 June 2004 in the Port of Freetown.



6. PHYSICAL AND BERTHING CONDITIONS

6.1 General The management of SLPA expressed satisfaction with the rehabilitation works, which were carried out in the period 1999 through 2003. Damage to cargo han-dling equipment has been reduced considerably since a major part of the con-tainer stacking area has been paved with concrete pavers and the access roads have been rehabilitated.

6.2 Unpaved operating areas An inspection was undertaken of the operating areas which are not paved with concrete pavers.

The rest of the original stacking area, which is located west of this newly paved area, was surfaced with crushed rock with bitumen.

The area south of the central access road up to the fence of the port has never been paved. This area is used for stacking of containers – mainly of empties - due to lack of space in the paved areas.

In these unpaved stacking areas the surface was found to be very uneven for the container handling equipment. There is no doubt that this surface has a detrimen-tal effect to the wear and tear of both tyres and mechanical parts of the equipment.

6.3 Survey The paved stacking areas and roads have been surveyed as part of the ‘As built’ information.

The unpaved stacking areas were surveyed in detail during the present study and maps will been prepared showing the present levels for the final detailed design of the Project and preparation of final tender documents, cf. section 8.4. The levels are connected to the Sierra Leone Survey Datum (SLSD), and based on a bench mark on the footing of the NPA transformer station with level + 12.715 feet or + 3.876 m.



6.4 Soil Conditions Soil conditions are described in the report "Sub-Soil Investigation and Prelimi-nary Pavement Design for the Container Stacking Area", prepared for SLPA by Techsult & Co. LTD, Freetown, Dec. 1994.

A copy of the report was handed over to the CMU during the field mission.

The report shows borehole logs from soil investigations carried out in 1987 (6 boreholes) and in 1994 (10 boreholes) and lists test results from collected soil samples (sieve analysis and classification tests).

The report also describes in a few cross sections the geological situation before construction. This situation is compared with results found in the 1987 and 1994 studies.

It is noted that the sections describing the situation before construction classifies soil located at and below level - 10 m as lateritic silty sand whereas the 1987 and 1994 investigations classify the same soils as dark grey clay with patches of sand.

The reclamation of the Fourah Bay area was carried out in the mid-1970s by pumping in hydraulic sand fill, and the soils have been consolidated since that.

The soils investigations already carried out describe the actual soil conditions very well and it has been assessed that no further soil investigations are neces-sary for carrying out the detailed design as there has not been any changes to the soil conditions since the initial reclamation took place.

6.5 Coping Elements/Gabions The quay (Berths 3 to 6) comprises a cellular cofferdam topped with reinforced concrete coping elements, which are supported directly on steel piles directly. The coping elements are not supported by the cofferdam. The system was pre-pared to support light harbour cranes only.

It has been assessed that the quay is not able to support heavy portal cranes for container handling ship to shore.

6.6 Fenders Nearly all of the original fenders installed are missing. Only 2 of the original 252 can still be found on the quay wall.

78 tractor tyres have been mounted in order to replace missing fenders.

The present fendering system presents a hazard to the berthing vessels and is clearly inadequate.



6.7 Siltation The site team was informed about reduced water depths, particularly during the rainy season, at Berths Nos. 3/4 and 5/6.

A bathymetric survey will be carried out by SLPA in lines perpendicular to the quays.



void



7. NAVIGATIONAL AIDS

7.1 General A preliminary report on ‘Needs Assessment of Navigational Aids, June 2004’ was issued upon the Navigational Expert’s departure from Freetown. The con-tents of the report were included in the Inception Report of June 2004 and are summarized below.

7.2 Present situation Today all navigation to the entrance of Sierra River and to the Port of Freetown is performed without the aid of any navigational lights or buoyage system.

During day time navigation is aided by the old lighthouse at Cape Sierra Leone and a number of other conspicuous landmarks around Freetown.

The sea passage to the river entrance leading to the port can safely be performed using the modern GPS navigation equipment available onboard the majority of the commercial vessels calling at the port.

Navigation through the river entrance and inside the port area to Queen Eliza-beth II quay can, however, be hazardous, in particular during night, due to occa-sional very strong tidal streams and the presence of shoals and offshore dangers. Notably Carpenter Rock located approximately 0.8 miles WSW of Cape Sierra Leone.

The port is therefore in urgent need of navigational aids to improve the safety of navigation for in particular larger container vessels.

7.3 Final recommendation for provision of navigational aids On basis of the preliminary assessment agreed between SLPA and the consultant it is recommended to provide new navigational aids as follows:

1. Provision of new lighted port side Fairway Buoy at the seaward entrance to Freetown port north of Carpenter Rock.

2. Provision of lighted North Cardinal Buoy at Carpenter Rock



3. Provision of new white rotating light and fixed red sector light in the Cape Light House. The lights to be powered by solar panels and the lu-minous range should be minimum 8 miles.

4. Replacement of light beacon at Government Wharf, F.G.2M.

5. Provision of new light beacon at the pilot boarding ground at Falcon Bridge Point, Isophase 2s 3M. The beacon to be installed on new struc-ture inside fenced area close to the present position.

6. Replacement of light beacons at Q.E.II quay. Isophase R. 3s2M at west-ern end of berth No. 6 and Fl (3) G2M at Fourah Point.

7. Replacement of leading lights at Cline Point, F.R. and F. Bearing 127°.

8. Replacement of light beacons at Kissy and Tagrin Ferry terminals, Fl(2)G.7s2M

9. Provision of 2 Nos. port side lighted lateral marker buoys at obstructions and sand banks at Middle Ground along the northern side of the naviga-tion route towards the port.

10. Provision of 2 Nos. port side channel buoys along sandbanks at Tagrin Point Ferry Terminal.

Reference is made to British Admiralty Chart No. 625 concerning items 3 through 8.

The proposed position of the recommended new marker buoys items 1, 2, 9 and 10 is shown on figures 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3

7.4 Bidding Documents for Procurement Draft Bidding Documents with technical specifications for procurement of the recommended navigational aids have been prepared by the Consultant in accor-dance with “Guidelines for Procurements under IBRD and IDA loans and Credits, May 2004”. The Draft Bidding Documents have been submitted separately for comments in October 2004.

The installation of the navigational aids, provision of sinkers for marker buoys etc. will be carried out by SLPA, as agreed with SLPA.

7.5 Cost Estimate The total cost for procurement and delivery of the recommended navigational aids CIP Freetown port is estimated at USD 280,000 inclusive of spare parts for approximately 10 years operation and contingencies. A breakdown of the cost estimate is presented in Table 10.3.



Figure 7.1

Recommended Cardinal buoy at Carpenter Rock and port side lateral Marker Buoys



Figure 7.2

Recommended port side lateral Marker Buoy



Figure 7.3

Recommended Nun Buoys at Tagrim Point



void



8. RECOMMENDED SOLUTION FOR CIVIL WORKS

8.1 General The first phase of rehabilitation of the port was carried out in the period 1999-2001.

The present project should ensure that the Port of Freetown has sufficient capac-ity for the expected future container handling and storage.

A forecast of the traffic has been analysed in Chapter 4.

8.2 The Project In order to accommodate the expected increase in the container traffic until 2020 plus areas for scanning of containers it has been concluded that it is necessary to pave the ‘unpaved’ Stacking Area 6 and a 40 m area south of the Central Road Way parallel to Berths 5 and 6.

In addition to paving the said areas other elements have been recommended to be considered as well. These are:

1. Paving of road between the coping and the drain along Berth 6 (approx. 2000 m2).

2. Area lighting of the new stacking area south of the Central Road Way.

3. Dredge along Berths 5 and 6 to original depth.

4. Strengthening of the concrete coping at Berth 6.

5. Install filter behind the concrete coping along Berth 6 in order to avoid sinkholes.

6. Installation of fenders to replace the damaged or missing fenders along Berths 3 to 6.

7. Installation of ladders to replace the missing ladders along Berths 3 to 6.



8.2.1 Paving The existing unpaved areas in the port are clearly unsuitable for container han-dling equipment and storage.

The proposed works include the installation of a new adequate pavement in the designated container terminal as shown on Enclosure 8.1

A uniform pavement is recommended in the whole terminal area providing the necessary flexibility for the organization of the terminal.

The recommended pavement consists of a top layer of 80 mm concrete blocks on 40 mm sand bedding on top of a base of 300 mm lean concrete and 250 mm compacted crushed rock. This design is similar to the design for the Phase 1 works and is based on the guidelines laid down in “The Structural Design of Heavy Duty Pavements for Ports and other Industries”, as published by the Brit-ish Ports Federation in 1996. The design is suitable for excessive axle loads from container handlers as well as loads from full containers stacked up to 3 layers.

8.2.2 Area Lighting The unpaved area south of the Central Road Way is presently not equipped with powerful area lighting. In connection with paving of the proposed area it is rec-ommended to install two 30 m high floodlight towers equipped with sodium lamps, in order to provide adequate light (minimum 50 lux) for working during night.

8.2.3 Dredging Maintenance dredging is recommended in front of the main quay and reaching 15-20 m from the face of the quay.

The total quantity is estimated at 7 000 m3 in front of Berth 5 and 6.

The dredged materials shall be dumped at water depths larger than 20 m in the river. A suitable area may be found near King Tom Point where the water depth is approx. 38 m, cf. Section 9.4.2.

8.2.4 Concrete Coping at Berth 6 Berth 5 (240 m of length) was converted into a specialized container berth dur-ing the Phase 1 works. Cargo handling is carried out by heavy forklift trucks with excessive axle loads.

As it is foreseen that Berth 6 will also be used as a container berth the loading will be similar to that of Berth 5.



Due to an insufficient quantity of steel reinforcement in the gallery deck struc-ture it is considered necessary to replace the existing structure with a new stronger deck structure, as it was done at Berth 5 during the Phase 1 works.

8.2.5 Filter Behind Concrete Coping The pavement in the quay area behind the coping at Berth 6 has been suffering from occasional occurrence of sinkholes, depressions and undermining of the pavements.

Washing out of fine materials from the backfill is the obvious reason for the prob-lems.

As it is recommended to replace the paving along Berth 6 with new concrete block pavement it is important to install a filter (as for Berth 5) in order to pre-vent washing out of the fine materials.

8.2.6 Fenders Nearly all of the fenders originally installed are missing. Tractor tyres have been installed to replace some of the missing fenders, presenting a hazard to berthing vessels.

It is recommended to install new adequate fenders at Berths 5 and 6. In order to have uniform berthing conditions at all the Berths 1 through 6, it is recom-mended to consider installing new fenders at Berths 1 to 4 as well. These fend-ers have been listed as optional in the cost estimate.

8.2.7 Ladders Originally 15 ladders were installed at Berth 3 through Berth 6. These are either missing or heavily corroded.

Based on experience it has been assessed that ladders are required per approx. 70 – 80 m in order to ensure a reasonable access to the quay from small craft and for reasons of safety. It is recommended that a new ladder should be installed per every second coping element (approx. 70 m apart) at Berths 5 and 6.

It is recommended to consider new ladders at Berths 1 to 4 as an option as well.

8.3 Implementation Implementation of the civil works has been assessed to be 10 months construc-tion time.



8.4 Tender Documents The Consultant has prepared Draft Tender Documents for the recommended solu-tion above. The Draft Tender Documents were forwarded under separate cover in October 2004.

The tender documents are furthermore based on the tender documents prepared for the Phase 1 designs and tender documents, which again are based on the World Bank Standard Bidding Documents for Smaller Works.



9. PORT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

9.1 Introduction In connection with the environmental screening of the project undertaken by the World Bank at an early project stage, the Bank has classified the infrastructure development project proposed at Freetown Port as a Category B project, i.e. a project which is likely to have limited or minimal adverse environmental im-pacts. A limited EA is required.

An important part of the Consultant’s TOR is to undertake an Environmental Assessment of the Port Infrastructure Development Component, including the preparation of an environmental impact assessment and a proposal for an Envi-ronmental and Social Management Plan. The Consultant shall also confirm and justify the result of the early environmental screening of the project.

The following chapter presents all results of activities related to the Environ-mental Assessment. This has been prepared on the basis on the World Bank pro-cedures for Environmental Assessments, ref. /3/, and the one-week fact-finding visit in Freetown in the period 21st - 28th June 2004, and supplementary informa-tion obtained subsequently.

9.2 Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework 9.2.1 Administrative and Legal Framework

On 1st February 2000 the Parliament of Sierra Leone adopted the “Environment Protection Act”, which is the legal cornerstone for provision of project-specific environmental impact assessments and formal approval of the implementation of construction projects in Sierra Leone.

In the same year, the “National Maritime and Shipping Act” was also adopted. That act, however, does not include the environmental issues.

SLPA has informed that a separate act on environmental issues related to the maritime and shipping sector is under preparation. This act will include the management of oil spill and compliance with MARPOL 73/78. The Sierra Leone Maritime Administration (SLMA) has prepared a Marine Environmental Protection Bill, although the document has not yet gone through the normal leg-islative procedure to be enacted into law.



The Environment Protection Act and its functioning:

The implementation of the Environment Protection Act is vested with the De-partment of Environment under the Ministry of Land, Country Planning and Environment, with the Minister having overall responsibility. In addition the National Environment Protection Board (NEPB) has been established as an ad-visory and assisting body. NEPB has 13 members, appointed for a 3-year period at the time with possibility of extension. It consists of representatives of various institutions, e.g. governmental departments, universities, NGO’s and representa-tives of the public. The Director of the Department of Environment is the Secre-tary of NEPB. For the undertaking of specialised tasks, NEPB may assign peo-ple with expertise in particular fields to assist the board in their work.

The tasks of NEPB (see Para 4-7 in the Act) include:

• Facilitation of coordination and co-operation between line ministries, lo-cal authorities and other governmental agencies in areas related to envi-ronmental protection.

• Review of national and sectoral environmental policies and making rec-

ommendations regarding these, and taking initiatives to specific studies and research aimed at development of strategies for protection of the en-vironment.

• Review of Environmental Impact Assessments, prepared according to

the Environment Protection Act, and making recommendations regarding these to the Director of the Department of Environment.

A person or an undertaking who wants to execute a project, shall at an early stage submit an application form to the Director of the Department of Environ-ment, with a description of the project. A screening form shall also be prepared. The NEPB will undertake a review of these forms and categorize the project as being ‘Category A’ (projects with very significant impacts), ‘Category B’ or ‘Category C’ (projects with very limited impact) project. This classification is in line with World Bank standards, cf. ref. /4/

For ‘A’ and ‘B’ projects, the preparation of an EIA will be required, and there will be a public hearing prior to the issuance of a license to the applicant of the project, subject to approval by NEPB. It is the responsibility of the Director of Department of Environment to issue the license.

For ‘C’ projects there will normally not be a need to prepare an EIA, with the associated public hearing.



So far, i.e. since 2000, 4-5 projects have been subject to an EIA process accord-ing to the Environment Protection Act 2000. One of these is the construction of a hydroelectric power station at Bumbuna, Seli River, about 200 km upstream of Sierra Leone River Estuary. The other projects regard mining.

According to Para 12-13 of the Act, tasks of the Department of Environment include:

• Formulation and monitoring of environmental policies, programmes and projects, standards and regulations.

• Preparation and publishing of overall assessments of the state of envi-

ronment.

• Collection of environmental data and information, and making this available to the public.

• Promotion of the establishment of national environmental standards.

Para 34 of the Act authorises the Minister to make regulations establishing na-tional standards for water quality, effluent limitations, air quality, waste, atmos-pheric protection, ozone protection, noise control, pesticide residues and odeur. Para 35 of the Act authorises the Minister to regulate transportation and han-dling of toxic and hazardous substances and wastes in Sierra Leone, and take all steps deemed necessary and appropriate in doing so.

The Department of Environment has a total of 8 staff members, of which 5 are professionals, and yet they have not had resources to take initiative on drafting of environmental standards or regulations. They have informed us that they are understaffed, and lack training, equipment and funds.

The fact that the Department of Environment has not yet prepared environ-mental standards and regulations does not necessarily mean that such standards and regulations do not exist. Certain sectoral regulations of environmental rele-vance are available at several line ministries and their departments, e.g.:

• Ministry of Fishery and Marine Resources, • Ministry of Transport and Communications, • Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security, • Ministry of Health and Sanitation.

International examples of classification of recipient waters and associated water quality standards, together with water quality objectives of waste discharges and



effluent standards for discharge of waste water into port areas, are presented in ref. /3/.

Presently, the Department of Environment is only in possession of very limited environmental information, and they have no ongoing monitoring programmes (e.g. of water quality and air quality). They have prepared a proposal for the establishment of a central information database, but as yet they have not been successful setting it up. In obtaining environmental information they co-operate with some institutions, e.g. Institute of Marine Biology and Oceanography at Fourah Bay College.

In conclusion of the description of the Environment Protection Act it can be stated that its present main implication is that has entitled the Director of the Department of Environment with the power to issue environmental impact as-sessment licences and established procedures and institutional framework for this.

With respect to several other functions of the Department of Environment, as implied by the Environment Protection Act, it can be stated that substantial ca-pacity building within the department and ministry seems required in order to ensure a proper coordination of environmental regulations, environmental moni-toring, pollution control and sharing of information in Sierra Leone, including definition of clear interfaces and distribution of responsibilities between the ministries and their respective departments.

Non-governmental stakeholders dealing with environment:

Wrapping up this section, a few non-governmental bodies shall be mentioned. The inaugural session of the establishment of National Wetlands Committee of Sierra Leone was held in February 2002, see e.g. the internet page, ‘www.ramsar.org/mtg_sierraleone_nwc1.htm’. From Department of Environ-ment it has been Sierra Leone Conservation Society, founded in 1986, is one of the active NGO’s, and it is promoting conservation (wise use) and management of natural resources for sustainable development in Sierra Leone. The estab-lishment of these bodies can be taken as an indication of growing environmental concern and awareness in Sierra Leone.

The proposed port extension, with pavement of a container stacking area, has as appears in the following been assessed to have very insignificant implications for the natural environment, and thus no further information has been sought regarding the two mentioned organisations.



9.2.2 Participation in International Conventions Sierra Leone has been a member of IMO (International Maritime Organisation) since 1973, and the country has ratified the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 and the subsequent modification of this by the Protocol in 1978 (the MARPOL 73/78 convention), including a number of annexes to this.

The ratification of the MARPOL 73/78 convention obliges Sierra Leone, amongst other, to conform with standards for pollution reception facilities in Freetown Port, see e.g. the Terms of Reference.

Sierra Leone has also ratified the Convention for Co-operation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the West and Cen-tral African Region (the ABIDJAN convention).

Further information on the participation of Sierra Leone in international conven-tions (LONDON, PARIS) is presented in ref. /3/.

9.3 Project Objectives and Description The project and the general project objectives are described in Chapter 8.

The project respects the World Bank’s Guidelines and Operational Procedures.

9.4 Baseline Data 9.4.1 National Project Setting

The Coastal Ecosystem and Sierra Leone River Estuary:

The climate of Sierra Leone, and in particular of the coastal parts of the country, is a monsoon climate, dominated by the northeast trade winds, see ref. /3/. Dur-ing the winter, December to March, the Harmattan winds blow from Sahara to-wards the sea, these winds are dry and bring very little rainfall. During the mon-soon season, June to October, southwesterly winds prevail, bringing humidity and regular rainfalls from the Atlantic Sea towards the coast. Annual average rainfall exceeds 4000 mm in the coastal zone of Sierra Leone.

Inland, the catchment of Sierra Leone River stretches all the way to the border of Guinea, and in total the river (inland named Seli and Rokel River) drains an area of about 10,000 km2. During the monsoon season, river flows are generally high, and the river carries suspended sediments towards Sierra Leone River Es-tuary and adjacent coastal areas. Naturally, surface water salinities in the estuary are relatively low during the monsoon season with high river flows, see ref. /3/. In the estuary, some vertical salinity variations may occur during the wet season,



however due to the prevalent high tidal flow velocities it is very unlikely if stratification with distinct bottom and surface layers should occur. Tides vary between 1 and 3 m at neap and spring respectively.

The estuary bed generally consists of unconsolidated mud, silt and sand. This bed material is exposed to rapid redistribution caused by tidal streams and varia-tions in river outflows, ref. /3/. Turbidity is varying, greatest during rainy season with high river flows carrying fine sediments and during spring tides with high flow velocities.

Except for the Peninsula Mountains, with Freetown located on its northern shore, the Sierra Leone River Estuary is bordered by extensive areas of tidal mangroves and other low-lying areas.

Off the Sierra Leone River Estuary, towards the north the Atlantic coast has the same features as the estuary itself, i.e. it is dominated by mud banks, mangroves, swamps and low-lying land, and coastal waters are shallow. Towards the south, the Atlantic coast is bordered by alternating rocks and sandy beaches along the Peninsula Mountains.

Along the coast of the Peninsula Mountains a relatively deep natural channel, with water depths in excess of 10-12 m, connects the Atlantic Sea and the estu-ary, which has favoured the development of Freetown and its port on the south side of the estuary.

The Sierra Leone River Estuary with its bordering mangroves is a very produc-tive ecosystem, and the area forms rich habitats for many plants, fishes, birds and other organisms, see ref. /3/. Conditions are favourable for aquacultural pro-duction.

More information on the coastal ecosystem can be found in ref. /3/.

9.4.2 The Project Intervention Site

The Water Environment at Freetown Port:

Freetown is located on the southern shore of the Sierra Leone River Estuary, which is generally described in Section 4.1.1, on the basis of the information presented in ref. /3/. Freetown Port is situated in the eastern part of Freetown, some 9-10 km from the mouth of the estuary, where Sierra Leone River empties into the Atlantic Sea. At the port the width of the estuary is about 6 km.



A rather detailed picture of the state of the water environment and marine growth along the wharves of Freetown Port is provided in ref. /3/, based on div-ing inspections in 1995. At that time the water quality along the port appeared generally good, whereas there were observed high values of BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand) and faecal coliforms off the central parts of Freetown further towards west, indicating pollution with organic matters and human waste (sew-age, garbage and solid waste), which are emptied into the bay, partly by the sev-eral streams from the city, see ref. /3/. The net outflow through the estuary com-bined with good tidal exchange of the waters in the estuary (low residence time of water particles, in particular during the wet season) is likely to prevent that pollution from central parts of the city reaches the port area.

In general terms, there is no sign that any significant change has happened since 1995, and moreover such potential changes would not be likely to affect the assessment of the impact of the proposed port extension plan.

During the field mission in June 2004 some floating waste has been observed along the wharves, but no observation has been made of the presence of oil film or other signs of oil pollution. This is in line with observations made in 1995.

Potential sources of pollution of the water environment at Freetown Port are included in the description below.

Potential pollution sources in the Freetown Port area:

Pollution sources in the port area are described in ref. /3/ (p. 15-8 – 15-13), in-cluding a description of their potential impacts. This information, gathered dur-ing a field mission in 1995, is briefly summarized here. In general terms, the situation today is more or less as at that time.

Port operation: The total number of staff and workers in the port area exceeds 2000, a figure which has been rather stable dur-ing the last decade. Naturally, this number of people gives rise to a proportionate amount of usage of lavatory water, sewage and solid waste.

Garbage bins and containers are placed in the port for

the collection of solid waste. Lavatory water drains into the main drainage outlet west of the port. Toilets are connected to septic tanks, emptied by bowsers from the city council. The city of Freetown does not have a piped sewage discharge network with water treatment facili-ties, but instead generally relies on septic tanks for dis-charge of sewage.



There are several workshops in the port, giving rise to

waste oil which is collected in oil drums. The operation of trucks, container lifters, fork trucks and

other vehicles gives rise to the emission of exhaust gases in the port area.

Ships along quays: Ships are not allowed to cause any discharge of solid

waste, sewage, oil waste etc. into port waters, and there is no indication that ship operators do not comply with this regulation. Accidental oil spill may occur from the ships, but it is the general impression that the port waters are free of oil pollution.

Ships sailing: Ships must not discharge any waste while approaching

and leaving Freetown Port, and there is no indication that ship operators do not follow these regulations.

The major threat of pollution is an accidental oil spillage occurring as a result of ship grounding or collision. Such accidental oil spillage has potentially disastrous impacts on the ecosystem and mangroves in the area, as also pointed in ref. /3/. It has been reported from SLPA that fortunately there has been no oil spill incident within the last 10 years at least.

Dredging: As shown below dredging is rarely executed in the Free-

town port area, but it is expected that some maintenance dredging is likely to be executed within a few years, possibly as a project element. Dredging is a potential pollution source, because hazardous substances may have been accumulated in the bed sediment, which can be resuspended in the water and/or disposed with the dredge spoil, with potential effects on the ecosystem and the mangroves in the area. However, it is pointed out in ref. /3/, that the possibility of any significant chemical accumulation in the bed sediment is very little due to the absence of larger pollution sources in the area. Spillage during dredging leads to increased turbidity levels, which may potentially affect marine life.

Industrial pollution: The Flour Mill and LEOCEM (cement factory) are lo-

cated in the immediate vicinity (east) of the port , and the operation of both facilities entails some dust in the



area, in particular in connection with loading/unloading operations.

Other sources: Some other pollution sources, located outside the port

area, but which may potentially affect the port area, are also described in ref. /3/. City drains and streams, in par-ticular from the central part of Freetown, city dump sites, the shipyard and power plant may be mentioned here.

In ref. /3/ it is concluded that the port activities only occasionally lead to pollu-tion of the waters and the air of the port and its vicinity.

Present need of dredging:

Within the last 10 years no dredging has been carried out at Freetown Port. It can be mentioned that presently there is a need of dredging at some of the berths in Freetown, as siltation has taken place, primarily along berths nos. 3, 5 and 6. The reason for this siltation is not fully clear. It may be due to the river flows, however, due to accidental damage of gabions (berth no. 5) and malfunctioning filter layers in the wharf structures, slides and seepage water may have carried silty materials out, and it has settled in front of the wharves.

A depth of 10.5 m is presently available at berth no. 1/2 and 4/5, whereas the available depth is lower at the other berths. Vessels with a draught of 10.5 m will thus utilise the space of two berths when they are in the port, putting con-straints on the port capacity.

SLPA has a strong interest in execution of maintenance dredging along the wharves to achieve the full water depth at all wharves, but they have not drawn up a specific plan for this. Accurate surveys to estimate required dredging vol-umes have not been conducted yet. It has been agreed with SLPA that they will carry out a survey. Execution of the dredging is now envisaged to be included in the design of Freetown Port expansion. Total quantity has been estimated at 7,000 m3.

The dredged materials shall be dumped at water depths larger than 20 m in the river. A suitable area may be found near King Tom Point where the water depth is approx. 38 m.



Air quality, sanitary and health conditions in port area:

During the field mission in June 2004 aerial pollution in the port area has in general terms not been observed. However, on 25th-26th June rather dusty condi-tions was observed during the unloading of a bulk carrier with cement clinker and subsequent loading of trucks with this, and it has furthermore been observed that port workers worked here without carrying breathing protection.

At the entrance gate to the port, i.e. next to the container stacking area along berth no. 6, there are toilet and lavatory facilities for port workers.

Present land use in project area:

Physically, the port extension will take place by pavement (with concrete blocks) of additional areas utilised for container stacking in the port. These ar-eas, which are designated for the port extension, are already under ownership of the Sierra Leone Ports Authority (SLPA), and they are already under present use for container stacking.

The designated port expansion area constitutes part of a land reclamation area (Fourah Bay), which was reclaimed in connection with construction of the exist-ing Freetown Port in mid 1970-es. The whole area is under the ownership of SLPA.

In the most inner part of the original Fourah Bay, making up about half of the reclamation area, the filling level is relatively low, and today this area forms a low-lying area with grass vegetation. This low-lying area receives drainage wa-ter from a large part of the port area, partly through a system of drainage pipes. A main drainage channel then carries drainage water from the port and Fourah Bay area to the river estuary, the main outlet located at the southwestern limit of the port area, immediately west of the entrance gate to the port.

Traffic conditions on access roads to/from Freetown Port:

All vehicles entering Freetown Port do so at the western gate, next to the con-tainer stacking area at Berth no. 6.

Almost all vehicles leaving Freetown Port do so at the eastern gate, at the SLPA building at Berth no. 1. Near to this gate there is however a designated exit gate for trucks carrying cement clinker, due to the location of the cement factory (LEOCEM) next to the port.



Both access roads, connecting the port area with Fourah Bay Road, seem to have an adequate width for container trucks. The two roads are sloping as Fourah Bay Road has an elevation some 20 m higher than the port area.

The access road (Lower Savage Square) leading to the entrance gate does not seem optimal. Trucks with 40 feet containers, coming from east on Fourah Bay Road, needs to make a very sharp right turn at the entrance to Lower Savage Square. Next, due to the gentle slope and a straight road alignment trucks may attain a relatively high speed going downwards Lower Savage Square towards the entrance gate. However, some 100 m before the entrance gate there is a sharp bend to the left, where a speedy truck may potentially drive off the road and slide down the slope here. There is no warning sign, and there is no crash barrier to mitigate the adverse effects of such potential accident.

Availability of natural resources of stone and gravel:

The geology of the Freetown area and Peninsula Mountains is characterised by widespread presence of rocks and stone material. There are several locations, where natural resources of stone and gravel are extracted. The extraction of stones takes place by large-scale enterprises using modern mechanised equip-ment as well as by small-scale enterprises operating by using manual manpower using traditional methods for disintegration of the stone resources.

A visit to a large-scale quarry near Mama Beach, about 40 km south of Free-town, was made on 26th June. This quarry is operated by a contractor, CSC, who normally extracts and disintegrates stone material for his own use. I.e. they would normally not be willing to sell the material to other contractors. The qual-ity of the resource seems high, and they informed us that they have an annual production of about 120,000 tonnes, with the dominant part of the production in the dry season, November – April.

The presence of small-scale stone extraction enterprises was also observed along the road from Waterloo to Mama Beach, but no visit was made to them. Annual production at these facilities is not likely to exceed 5-10 % of the production at the large quarry at Mama Beach, although no specific figures regarding this have been obtained.

Environmental management of Freetown Port:

Presently, SLPA does not have any section or officer, who is formally assigned to undertake tasks within environmental management and monitoring. One offi-cer who is a permanent staff member, Mr. Raymond Sannoh, has since February 2004 been attending an 18-month course at World Maritime University in



Malmö, Sweden. It is expected that Mr. Sannoh, upon return from this course, will be assigned to undertake environmental tasks in SLPA.

SLPA does not maintain monitoring records of health of port workers and of work accidents in port area.

Oil Spill Contingency Plan:

Oil spill is one of the major environmental threats in the Freetown area, and an oil spill contingency plan for the Freetown area was established in 1994, ref. /7/, by The Freetown Oil Spill Contingency Planning Committee, with representa-tives from eight government bodies, including SLPA, and members of the oil industry. This oil spill contingency plan outlines strategies, actions, operations and responsibilities related to the handling of oil spill events, and it is an integral part of the overall national crises response and development plan. The Deputy Harbour Master of SLPA will be the Overall Commander in case of an oil spill event, with involvement of several institutions.

Although the oil contingency plan in principle seems to be an efficient tool of dealing with oil spill events, SLPA has informed that lack of equipment hampers proper management of oil spill incidents. However, from SLPA it has been in-formed that fortunately there has been no report on oil spill incidents in the Freetown area within the last 10 years.

9.4.3 Existing Port Reception Facilities in Freetown Port As a member of the IMO (International Maritime Organisation) since 1973, Si-erra Leone has ratified a number of the Annexes to the MARPOL 73/78 conven-tion. The Government has an obligation to consider whether Freetown Port shall have appropriate facilities for the reception of oil waste, bilge water, sewage etc., all complying with certain standards.

For a long time the SLPA has offered the service of the reception and collection of solid waste from ships calling at the port, cf. ref. /3/, but not many vessels make use of this service and only to limited extent. The service is functioning by utilising the garbage collecting trucks regularly operating in the port, which empty the content of garbage bins or drums on the city dump.

With respect to oil waste SLPA does not have reception facilities, but it happens that requests for reception of oil waste are received through agents. In such cases the port can facilitate the reception of oil waste through private contractors or enterprises. We have been informed that there is one facility for treatment of oil waste east of Freetown, but it has not been verified whether the oil waste is treated in an authorised manner.



Freetown Port does not have any facilities for reception of bilge water and sew-age, aiming at reducing pollution from ships and eliminating effects of such pol-lution. Generally, ship operators know that the port does not have such facilities, and the port very rarely receives any requests for reception of sewage and bilge water. Initiatives to establish such reception facilities have been taken by SLPA and Sierra Leone Maritime Administration (SLMA), who have conducted a fea-sibility study of the establishment of port reception facilities in 2002. Presently a draft for request of proposals for this has been prepared on the basis of the rec-ommendations given as a result of the feasibility study by an IMO-consultant in 2002, and it is expected that the request for proposals will be ready within the near future.

9.5 Means to achieve Compliance with MARPOL 73/78 9.5.1 General

The Consultant has collected information on the different types of possible pol-lutants involving vessels calling at the port and has identified environmental measures to be considered by SLPA, in order to adhere to the commitments of the ratified Annexes of MARPOL 73/78, as follows:

• Mitigating measures for oil spill; • Installations for receipt of bilge water; • Separation of bilge water; • Receipt of and possible treatment of sewage; • Receipt and treatment of garbage;

9.5.2 Mitigating Measures for Oil Spill In addition to the measures outlined in the Oil Contingency Plan for Freetown and Environs of 1994 spill response capacity should be developed by having equipment in the port for smaller oil spills. The oil spills are assumed to origi-nate from fuel tanks etc leaking due to possible collision in the port area.

In case of oil spill the most important measures for prevention of pollution of the natural environment and other harbour installations are:

• early detection of the leak.

• fast and efficient confinement of the oil spill by oil booms to prevent it from spreading and drifting.

Once an oil spill has been confined there will normally be ample time for recov-ery of the oil spill by oil skimmer or neutralization of the oil spill by chemical dispersants.



Oil booms are required for the sweeping operations to confine the oil spills. The length of the oil boom should ideally be sufficient to surround the largest vessels in the port, with an approx. length of 225 m. This will require approx. 600 m of oil boom.

The oil boom should be deployed manually from a set of storage racks.

The oil will be collected by a small skimmer lowered from the quay and oper-ated from a hydraulic power pack. The collected oil is then put into in collapsi-ble tanks standing on the quay side for further transport.

9.5.3 Receipt of Bilge Water In accordance with MARPOL standards vessels are allowed to discharge wastewater with maximum 15 ppm of oil. During the voyage the vessels typi-cally shift the bilge water between different tanks in order to “concentrate” the oil in the sludge tank. The wastewater with oil content less than 15 ppm is dis-charged directly to the sea.

If the vessels are not able to reduce the oil content in the bilge water to less than 15 ppm they may wish to discharge its oily bilge water in the Port and it will typically be a quantity of approx. 40 – 50 m3 for the vessels in question. This shall be collected at the quay side by available road tanker and transported to a storage tank before treatment.

Based on experience from the Port of Copenhagen only a few of the vessels call-ing at the Port of Freetown will use the reception facility.

The facility is suggested located at the reclaimed area near the Lower Savage Square entrance. It comprises a primary storage tank of approx. 100 m3. In this tank the oil/water will settle and the top oil layer can float into a secondary tank of approx. 50 m3, for further use. The lower water with a high content of oil will be drained into an oily water separator, see below.

9.5.4 Separation of Bilge Water The free oil and oily droplets in the bilge water should be separated from the water by a separator. These separators are standard equipment, satisfying the relevant IMO standards (and MARPOL 73/78 requirements).

It is suggested to use a dual stage separator – like ULTRA-SEP from Coffin World Water Systems – where free oil is removed in the first stage and the emulsified oil is removed in the second stage by using filtration membranes. The filter system reportedly reduces the oil content to less than 5 ppm, so the cleaned water can be discharged directly to the sea.



The oil separator should be located in the compound above in close proximity to the storage tanks for bilge water.

The oily residue containing additives etc. should either be refined or preferably burned in an incinerator.

9.5.5 Receipt of Sewage Upon ratification of Annex V of the MARPOL 73/78 the Port of Freetown un-dertook to ensure the provisions of facilities for the reception of sewage from the vessels calling at the port. Receipt of sewage is included in the port charges.

The vessels calling at Port of Freetown are obliged to collect and store their sewage in holding tanks during the voyage between ports. In order to estimate the capacity of the reception facilities in the port, it has been assessed that one vessel arrives per day at the port on average (360 vessels a year). It has been assumed that sewage from each vessel on average totals 6 m3, incl. sewage gen-erated on the voyage from last port of call and during the stay in Freetown (15 persons x 50 litres/person/day x 8 days).

As there are no public facilities available in Freetown for treatment of sewage it is recommended to install a septic tank system in the reclaimed area near the Lower Savage Square entrance.

As mentioned above the daily load is estimated to 6 m3. The design is based on a septic tank with a volume of 50 m3. If the sludge is stirred it may run to the drains, so they would become blocked. It is important that the inlet to the septic tank is levelled. To create the minimum disturbance to the sludge in the septic tank, the sludge from the vessels is col-lected in a prechamber, from where it runs to the septic tank at a flow rate of app. 1 l/sec. From the septic tank the water runs to the drainage system. As the sludge has been undergoing an anaerobe process at the vessel, it may be necessary to handle the smell from the sludge. The simplest way to handle this problem is to lead the venting through a bark filter. The preliminary design is based on tanks and drains in PEH, as the sludge and the drain water is acid, due to the anaerobe process, it has undergone.



9.5.6 Receipt and Disposal of Solid Waste Solid waste from the eastern Freetown area is collected by garbage trucks and disposed of at the landfill in the Kissy area. At present there are no recycling facilities available at the landfill.

Upon ratification of Annex V of the MARPOL 73/78 the Port of Freetown is obliged to establish reception facilities for the receipt of garbage from the ves-sels calling at the port. Receipt of garbage is included in the port charges.

There is no information available on the composition or quantities of the waste generated by the vessels in the port.

The composition of the garbage is assumed typically to be:

• 50 % food waste • 50 % rubbish, consisting of, paper, cardboard, rags and plastic

Waste generated from last call of port and during the time in port is assessed to be 0.9 t per vessel on average per call.

With approx. 300 vessels calling at the Port of Freetown per year it is estimated that approx. 270 t of solid waste shall be disposed of annually.

It is recommended that a number of closed containers should be acquired for collection of garbage from the ships. The container is equipped with lids and hatches preventing papers etc from being blown by the wind, keeping out ani-mals and birds, and with trap doors at the rear for easy emptying. The container should have a content of approx. 6 m³. It has been assessed that each vessel normally disposes of approx. 1.5 – 2.5 m³ solid waste per vessel arriving.

The Port should have one garbage container for each berth and 3 spare, or totally 9 containers in a pool.

Solid waste from vessels calling at the port has been considered disposed of in two different ways:

• At an incinerator operated by the port • At the landfill in Kissy

During the study it has been considered to install - at the Port’s premises - an incinerator of the type, which is developed for installation on large ships for incineration of waste at sea and approved to IMO standards. An incinerator of this type is able to incinerate approx. 230 kg solid waste per hour during a 4



hour cycle. In case only one cycle is carried out per day a total amount of approx. 330 t may be incinerated annually.

We have estimated that an incinerator of this type would cost approx.:

• Incinerator (like Atlas 1200 SL WS M), CIF Freetown USD 170 000 • Fencing and building works USD 15 000 • Paving USD 10 000 • Contingency, approx. 8 % USD 15 000

Total USD 210 000

It has not been found economically feasible for the Port to operate an incinerator like the above and it has been concluded that the solid waste should be disposed of at the public landfill in Kissy.

9.6 Potential Impacts – Construction/Installation Period 9.6.1 The Water Environment at Freetown Port

Planned dredging activities will be the most significant contributor to environ-mental impact on the water environment, as a result of the Freetown Port expan-sion project. Execution of dredging will invariably imply some sediment spill-age, especially when dredging silty sediments in strong currents. Thus dredging will cause increased turbidity levels in the vicinity of the port. Effects of this are likely to be relatively greatest during the dry season (December to March) with generally low turbidity levels and/or at neap tides with low flow velocity and less turbidity levels.

At the dredging site spilled sediments will be transported away from the source as sediment plumes, having a higher turbidity level than ambient water. Sedi-ments carried in these plumes will gradually settle on the bed, however as the occurrence of hazardous substances in sea bed is very small, the risk of such substances to be spread in the environment as a result of dredging is also very small. The siltation of spilled sediments is in itself not considered to cause any significant environmental impact, as the total sediment quantity will be spread in a large area yielding a very thin average thickness of spilled sediment, and the seabed according to ref. /3/ in this area is exposed to rapid redistribution of bot-tom sediments, as mentioned in above section 9.4.1.

In the disposal area environmental impacts during construction will be ...... ?? where do we dispose ??

The construction of the pavement of the container stacking area at berth no. 6 will fully take place on land, and apart from minor dust clouds possibly spread-



ing and settling in the port waters, the water environment will not be affected in the construction activities on land.

9.6.2 Utilisation of Natural Resources An implementation of the proposed port extension will require the provision of about 15,000 tonnes (about 7,000 m3) of aggregate stone material and gravel, which will be utilised for the pavement of the container stacking area. This will most likely be obtained from a local quarry near Freetown or on the Peninsula Mountain, e.g. from Mama Beach.

The required quantity does only constitute a minor fraction of the normal total annual production of stone/gravel material in the area. Therefore, the impact of the procurement of aggregate/gravel material required for the port extension, is considered insignificant.

9.6.3 Pollution Sources in the Port Area The existing pollution sources in the port area are described in section 9.4.2. Basically, there will be no change in port operations during the construction phase, and there will be no change of existing pollution sources during this pe-riod.

9.6.4 Land Use in Project Area The areas, which are designated for the port extension, are already under owner-ship of the Sierra Leone Ports Authority (SLPA), and they are already under present use for container stacking. As such, the project does neither involve any temporary resettlement of people nor imply physical changes in the neighbour-hood of housing areas nearby the port during the construction period.

9.6.5 Air Quality, Sanitation and Health Conditions During the construction period there will be a more intensive traffic of vehicles in the port area, with the associated increased noise, volume of exhaust gases etc. It can be expected that more dusty conditions will prevail in the container stacking area during the construction area, in particular during the dry season, November – April, with dry conditions and an expected higher work intensity. The mentioned impacts are not considered significant.

9.6.6 Traffic Conditions on Access Roads to/from the Port As appearing in the above section 9.6.2 the project will imply the procurement of about 15,000 tons (7,000 m3) of stone/gravel material. For delivery of this material to the port area a total number of about 700 truck loads (one truck load assumed to be 10 m3), corresponding to a daily average of 2 trucks during the whole construction period of 1 year, will be required.



Compared to the normal traffic of trucks to and from the port area, the additional truck traffic during the construction period is rather small, and the associated impact is considered insignificant.

Spillage of stones/gravel during transportation on trucks may occur, if the truck body is not closed tightly or if the truck is overloaded. In case of stones, such spillage is a potential hazard to other traffic, and spillage is as well a waste of the natural resource. Efforts shall be made to avoid spillage of material on the trucks.

9.7 Potential Impacts – Operational Period 9.7.1 The Water Environment at Freetown Port

It is very unlikely that there should be any recognizable long-term impact of the dredging activities, apart from the increased water depth along the berths. The bed in the dredged area shall be left with uniform water depth, hereby avoiding holes with stagnant water and deteriorating water quality. For the disposal area ..................... ?? where do we dispose ??

The seaward limit of the container stacking area adjacent to Berth no. 6, where a pavement with concrete blocks is proposed, lies some 10 m behind the front of the quay along the berth, i.e. the area is not directly facing the water front. In connection with the pavement drainage pipes will be installed in the area.

The establishment of the drainage will imply that rainwater on the paved area will run off somewhat faster, but the associated impact on the water environ-ment in Freetown Port is considered insignificant.

Today oil spill in the area will sink and enter the main drainage channel with seepage water and then be discharged into the port waters, this pollution will prominently take place during situations with high rain intensity, when seepage rates are high. The pavement will allow potential oil spills in the container stacking area to be cleaned after spillage situations, however, it is uncertain whether such cleaning will actually take place, and if not, oil spills may be flushed out with rain water after construction of the pavement. The net impact – as a result of the pavement - on the discharge of oil spills into port waters is likely to be insignificant.

Due to the renewal and upgrading of navigational aids along the sailing route, navigation in the approach channel to Freetown Port is considered to become safer than now. This will in principle reduce the risk of ship collisions or groundings, and hereby also the risk of major oil spillage in the area. The envi-ronmental impact of the improved navigational aids is hereby positive.



9.7.2 Utilisation of Natural Resources In the operational state there will be no change of the use of natural resources in the area, compared to existing situation.

9.7.3 Pollution in the Port Area The pavement of the container stacking area will not have any impact on the existing pollution sources in the area, which are described in section 9.4.2.

However, the pavement will facilitate more efficient cleaning-up of pollution related to solid waste, oil spills etc. in the port area, and hereby the pavement is considered to have a potential positive environmental impact.

9.7.4 Reception Facilities in Freetown Port An implementation of the proposed project will imply that SLPA and Freetown Port partly complies with the MARPOL 73/78 requirements regarding port re-ception facilities, as outlined in Section 9.6.

9.7.5 Land Use in Project Area The areas, which are designated for the port extension, are already under owner-ship of the Sierra Leone Ports Authority (SLPA), and they are already under present use for container stacking. As such, the project does neither involve any permanent resettlement of people nor imply physical changes in the neighbour-hood of housing areas nearby the port after completion of the construction works.

9.7.6 Air Quality, Sanitation and Health Conditions After completion of the pavement of the container stacking area at Berth no. 6, a tendency to dusty conditions during the dry season will be reduced. Hereby, air quality in the port area will be improved, and in general the working environ-ment will become cleaner, however this impact is not likely to be significant.

9.7.7 Traffic Conditions on Access Roads to/from the Port In the operational state the proposed port extension, implying the pavement of 21,000 m2 of stacking area, will not in itself imply any change in traffic volumes to and from Freetown Port.

However, it is expected that traffic intensity after completion will increase gradually due to general increase in volumes of import/exports to and from Freetown Port.

An improvement of the way cross between Fourah Bay Road and Lower Savage Square, aimed at facilitating a more smooth right turn for container trucks enter-ing Lower Savage Square, is considered to contribute positively to road safety in the port area.



9.8 Analysis of Alternatives This EIA is based on the recommended Extension Plan.

There has not been formulated any alternative to this recommended plan. Al-though there could be some modifications of this, it is considered that the main elements of the port extension plan will only be subject to minor changes. The environmental impact of an implementation of the recommended extension plan has been assessed to be very limited, and therefore the EIA has not included an analysis of any project alternatives.

9.9 Mitigation Plan Potential environmental impacts are described in Section 9.6 (Construction/ in-stallation period) and Section 9.7 (Operational period). Mitigation measures to reduce impacts from the construction/operation of the pavement of the container stacking area may be distinguished in:

• Managerial measures involving the creation of an institutional, regula-tory and/or monitoring framework to control ongoing activities.

• Technical measures involving some engineering or mechanical interven-tion.

Potential mitigation measures have been identified for the various negative envi-ronmental impacts occurring as a result of the port expansion works, to counter-act and minimize those, see below table.

Table 9.9.1 Mitigating Measures Mitigating Measures

Potential negative impact Managerial Technical

(Construction Phase) • Spillage and spreading of sediment during dredging operations

• Regular monitoring of sus-pended solids/turbidity during execution of dredging works.

• Ensure proper and efficient dredger operation • Use of silt curtains where possible • Avoid dredging in situations, when spillage is potentially large (e.g. when flow velocities are high)

• Spillage and spreading of sediment during disposal of dredged sediments

• Regular monitoring of sus-pended solids/turbidity in and around disposal area during execution of works.

• Avoid disposal at times of strong currents and great wave action

• Accidental spillage of rock / aggregate during transportation from quarry to port

• Preparation of instructions to truck operators and drivers on means to minimise spillage and procedures for cleaning up, if spillage occurs.

• Higher sides of truck bodies. • Tightening of hatches, through which aggregate is unloaded. • Daily check and cleaning up



(when required) of road access route from quarry to port.

• Adverse working environ-ment in port area (air pollution due to exhaust gases, noise, dust etc.) • Accidental contamination due to spillage of oil or other chemicals.

• Ensure proper monitoring of construction activities. • Establish strict regulations and safety measures for ma-chinery operation.

• Proper maintenance and usage of construction material. • Provide effective bounding around fuel tanks and other dangerous substances storage.

• Construction work for the port expansion is a disturbance for nearby population

• Instructions to machinery and vehicle operators on execution of work with due respect of neighbouring settlements. • Establishment of regular communication with represen-tatives of settlements, for re-view of progress of work and identification of problems.

• Implementation of possible improvements of work proce-dures, identified in co-operation with settlement rep-resentatives.

(Operational stage) • Health and safety hazards for port workers, amongst others due to operation of port vehi-cles in the port area

• Enforce health and safety procedures in the port area. • Produce and enforce hazard-ous cargo handling and storage procedures. • Enforce emergency proce-dures in cases of spillage of dangerous substances. • Identify clear responsibilities.

• Usage of air filter, helmet, earplug, protective gloves etc. in the port area, where neces-sary. • Up-to-date emergency treat-ment facilities.

• Increased traffic, and associ-ated number of road accidents, on port access roads, due to higher port utilization

• Identification of black spots. • Establish speed limits for trucks speeds.

• Introduction of appropriate traffic regulation measures. • Ensure maximum efficiency of land transport to/from port.

• Port operation is a distur-bance for nearby population

• Establishment of regular communication with represen-tatives of settlements, for re-view of port operation.

• Implementation of any tech-nical measures, as agreed upon, in order to reduce or minimize disturbances.

9.10 Environmental Monitoring Plan An environmental monitoring plan is outlined in this section. The objective of this plan is to identify as early as possible adverse environmental development trends, giving a possibility for a quick identification of harmful practices and activities and preparation of guidelines for future development. Here, it is neces-sary with identification of appropriate indicators of environmental quality and quantification of these. The (sparse) baseline data available will to the furthest possible extent be used to quantify the changes caused by the construction and operation activities.



During the construction phase the environmental monitoring will be a shared responsibility between the Contractor and the authorities including SLPA, as reflected in the below table 9.10.1. The monitoring is required to identify im-pacts of construction works and potential mitigation measures. The role of the supervising engineer will be to check that monitoring is executed according to requirements and that results are satisfactory

In the operational stage SLPA will be responsible for the regular environmental monitoring.

The suggested monitoring requirements for the upgrading of Freetown Port are summarised in the tables below, for the construction phase and operational stage respectively.



Table 9.10.1 Monitoring Requirements for Construction Phase Monitoring re-quirement (responsible)

Indicators Baseline / reference values

Technique and fre-quency

• Dredging (Contractor)

• Vertical profiling of tur-bidity • Vertical profiling of other water quality variables (conductivity, temperature, salinity, oxygen)

• Measurement for 3 months at 2 positions before start of dredg-ing works. • Measurements at 5 positions during execution of work.

• Datalogger and sen-sors for turbidity, con-ductivity, temperature, salinity, oxygen and pressure cell (depth). • Measurements car-ried out weekly for 3 months before start. • Daily measurement during execution of work.

• Disposal of dredged sediments (Contractor)

• Vertical profiling of tur-bidity • Vertical profiling of other water quality variables (conductivity, temperature, salinity, oxygen)

• Measurement for 3 months at 2 positions before start of dredg-ing works. • Measurements at 5 positions during execution of work.

• Datalogger and sen-sors for turbidity, con-ductivity, temperature, salinity, oxygen and pressure cell (depth). • Measurements car-ried out weekly for 3 months before start. • Daily measurement during execution of work.

Spillage of aggre-gate / rock during transportation on trucks (Contractor/SLPA)

• Aggregate and/or rock material is observed on road surface along truck access route

• Route map and ½-page description of condition of planned route to be prepared before start of works

• Information from supplier and contractor• Random visual check of route (when passing for other purpose)

Working environ-ment, health and safety (SLPA)

• The health of construction and port workers • Sound safety procedures • The occurrence of acci-dents

• Internationally recognised reference values available

• Routine medical checks of port work-ers, quarterly for con-struction workers • Preparation of report on each work accident

Accidental pollu-tion events in port area (SLPA)

• Localised pollution be-yond acceptable levels. • Health conditions are affected


• Preparation of report on each event

Disturbances for nearby population settlements (SLPA)

• Local people express dissatisfaction with effects of construction works

• Baseline descrip-tion to be prepared before start of works

• Questionnaire / inter-view survey • Monthly meetings



Table 9.10.2 Monitoring Requirements for Operational Stage, by SLPA Monitoring re-quirement

Indicators Baseline / reference values

Technique and fre-quency

• Dredging area • Vertical profiling of tur-bidity • Vertical profiling of water quality variables (conduc-tivity, temperature, salinity, oxygen)

• Internationally recognised reference values • Baseline values as identified from monitoring before project start, cf. tabel 9.10.1.

• Cf. table 9.10.1. • Regular measurement to be carried out once per month at 2 posi-tions

• Disposal area for dredged sediments

• Vertical profiling of tur-bidity • Vertical profiling of water quality variables (conduc-tivity, temperature, salinity, oxygen)

• Internationally recognised reference values • Baseline values as identified from monitoring before project start, cf. tabel 9.10.1.

• Cf. table 9.10.1. • Regular measurement to be carried out once per month at 2 posi-tions

Working environ-ment, health and safety

• Number of sick days per year per worker • Occurrence of allergic or chronic diseases amongst port workers • Number of accidents in port area

• Internationally recognised reference values available • Baseline figures to be collected

• Routine medical checks of port work-ers, semi-annually • Preparation of report on each work accident

Accidental pollu-tion events in port area

• Localised pollution be-yond acceptable levels. • Health conditions are affected


• Preparation of report on each event

Efficiency of new port reception facilities

• Waste received is dis-posed of in an environmen-tally-friendly manner • Ship operators express satisfaction with port re-ception services • Quantities of received and handled waste

• Internationally recognised reference values available • Baseline informa-tion on present use and ship operators present views to be collected

• Maintain records of all received waste, with information on origin, type and means of disposal • Questionnaire / inter-view survey of ship operators

Traffic intensity on port access roads, and identification of trouble spots

• Traffic volumes • Traffic jams or accidents tend to occur at certain locations

• Baseline figures to be collected

• Traffic counts in selected sections, once quarterly • Information on acci-dents from authorities

Disturbances for nearby population settlements

• Local people express dissatisfaction with effects of the expanded port on the settlement environment

• Baseline descrip-tion to be prepared

• Questionnaire / inter-view survey • Annual meetings



9.11 Institutional Strengthening It is recommended that capacity is established at SLPA to undertake work tasks, through the appointment of one environmental affairs officer, associated with environmental management and monitoring within the following areas:

• MARPOL 73/78 and compliance with requirements

• General environmental monitoring (water quality, air quality) and moni-toring of health of port workers.

• EIA procedures.

• Green accounting.

9.12 Estimated Cost and Implementation Schedule 9.12.1 Means to achieve compliance with MARPOL 73/78

Oil Spill, cf. Section 9.5.2:

We have estimated that the above package will amount to approx.:

• Skimmer, power pack and hoses USD 30 000 • 600 m floating booms (like Lamor Light Boom) USD 70 000 • 6 Nos. Storage Racks USD 24 000 • Tow adaptor and collapsible tanks USD 15 000 • Contingency, approx. 8 % USD 11 000

Total USD 150 000

In stead of storing the oil booms in racks it is possible to store them on hydrauli-cally operated winders mounted in containers, each containing 200 m of oil boom. Extra costs for 3 sets of winders are estimated at USD 40 000.

Receipt of Bilge Water, cf. Section 9.5.3:

We have estimated that the two tanks incl. piping system, foundations and fenc-ing will amount to approx.:

• Storage tanks and piping system USD 80 000 • Fencing and building works USD 20 000 • Paving USD 10 000 • Contingency, approx. 8 % USD 10 000

Total USD 120 000



Separation of Bilge Water, cf. Section 9.5.4:

We have estimated that installation of an ULTRA-SEP separator with a capacity of 1.5 m3/h will cost USD 40 000.

Receipt of Sewage, cf. Section 9.5.5:

We have estimated the septic tank system will amount to approx.:

• Purchase and transport of tanks USD 30 000 • Installation works USD 20 000 • Drains USD 10 000 • Miscellaneous equipment USD 10 000 • Paving and fencing USD 14 000 • Contingency, approx. 8 % USD 6 000

Total USD 90 000

Receipt and Disposal of Solid Waste, cf. Section 9.5.6:

The Port should have one garbage container for each berth and 3 spare, or totally 9 containers in a pool at an estimated total cost of USD 30 000.

9.12.2 Environmental Monitoring Programme The dominant part of the environmental monitoring can be executed without procurement of sophisticated equipment. However, the monitoring of turbidity will require the use of a datalogger and sensors for monitoring of turbidity and other water quality variables, like conductivity, salinity, temperature and oxygen during execution of dredging works. In addition a computer will be required for storage and analysis of all collected data.

A lump sum of 100,000 USD is estimated for baseline preparation, set-up and execution of the environmental monitoring programme during the construction phase.

A lump sum of 30,000 USD is estimated for the annual environmental monitor-ing programme in the operational stage.



9.13 Reporting and Supervision Upon initiation of works the Contractor will issue a report on the results of base-line monitoring, including presentation of relevant internationally recognised reference values.

During execution of works the Contractor will issue a report of the environ-mental monitoring once per month.

Upon completion of the physical expansion of Freetown Port, a report will be issued by the supervising Engineer on environmental monitoring and impacts during the construction phase. This report will describe and summarise the envi-ronmental monitoring carried out, identify environmental impacts and further describe any mitigation measures taken during the construction phase to mini-mize environmental impacts.

After completion of the physical expansion of Freetown Port, i.e. in the opera-tional stage, it is proposed that SLPA issues an annual report on the port envi-ronment. This report, which should be general and not be confined to environ-mental issues related to the port expansion, will contain information on:

• Water quality.

• Air quality.

• Safety issues and work accidents in the port area.

• Health of port workers.

• Quantities of waste received from ships calling the port (cf. MARPOL 73/78), and description of the disposal of the different types.

• Green accounting (electricity, water, fuel and paper consumption, pro-duction of waste) for SLPA.

• Description of improvements of environmental related matters during the year (e.g. upgrading of reception facilities).

9.14 Disclosure of Information Disclosure of information is mainly considered relevant in connection with Pro-jects of Category A and B, which involve a proper EA process with a public hearing. The actual project is a Category C project with no public hearing, and therefore there will be no need for disclosure of information in connection with the EA process.



10. COST ANALYSIS

Costs have been specified on the basis of unit rates and lump sum rates from different relevant sources and have been assessed against the Consultant’s ex-perience from similar works in Sierra Leone and elsewhere.

Cost estimates for the works and equipment recommended are presented in Ta-bles 10.1 – 10.3 overleaf.

The cost estimates have been based on the assumption that:

• Price level is September 2004

• Local taxes, duties and levies have not been included



Table 10.1 Cost Estimate – Civil Works and Container Handling Equipment Item Amount

USD Optional Amount

USD

Amount Total USD

Total

USD

Civil Works – Pavement etc 3 750 000

Mobilisation and Demobilisation 390 000 390 000

Setting Out and Surveying 40 000 40 000

Reconstruction of Deck Slabs 300 000 300 000

Stone Filter Works 115 000 115 000

Storm Water Drains 55 000 55 000

Paving Works 2 340 000 2 340 000

Flood Light Towers (Area lighting) 110 000 110 000

Contingencies (12 %) 400 000 400 000

Dredging, Fender and Ladders 685 000

Mob. and Demob. (extra over above) 50 000 60 000

Dredging 70 000 70 000

Fenders and Ladders 190 000 300 000 490 000

Contingencies (11%) 50 000 65 000

Consultant’s Supervision 350 000 350 000 350 000

Container Handling Equipment 1 975 000

Container Handlers (3 Nos.) 1 350 000 1 350 000

Terminal Trucks (3 Nos.) 315 000 315 000

Terminal Trailers (6 Nos.) 90 000 90 000

Contingencies (10 %) 220 000 220 000

Total Civil Works/Handling Equipment

6 760 000



Table 10.2 Cost Estimate – Navigational Aids, cf. Chapter 7

Item Quantity

Unit Price USD

Total

USD

Lateral Marker Buoys 3 47 000 141 000

Nun Buoys 2 2 500 5 000

Cardinal Buoy 1 47 000 47 000

Rotating Beacon at Cape Sierra 1 10 000 10 000

Range Light 1 6 000 6 000

Marine Lanterns 6 4 000 24 000

Range Lights w/battery back up 2 5 000 10 000

Spare Parts Sum 12 000

Contingencies (10 %) 25 000

Total Navigational Aids 280 000

Table 10.3 Cost Estimate – Reception Facilities, cf. Chapter 9

Item Total

USD

Mitigating Measures for Oil Spill 150 000

Receipt of Bilge Water 120 000

Separation of Bilge Water 40 000

Receipt of Sewage 90 000

Receipt of solid Waste (garbage containers) 30 000

Total Reception Facilities 430 000



void



11. ECONOMIC EVALUATION

11.1 Investment Proposals The investment programme outlined in the earlier chapters contains four main recommendations. They are: - additional container handling equipment; - the paving of the unsurfaced areas of the container berths; - navigational aids; and - environmental measures Only the first two, however require economic justification. Navigational aids and environmental measures are evaluated on other criteria. This chapter therefore focuses on the container handling equipment and the pav-ing of the marshalling area.

11.2 Investment Costs The costs of the proposed investments are summarized in Table 11.1. Table 11.1 Summary of Costs of Proposed Investment Programme (USD 000) (USD Million) Three heavy forklifts for Container Handling, with associated terminal truck and trailers 1.98 Paving of marshalling area (a) 3.75 (a) The total cost of the civil works including fenders, ladders and dredging amounts to USD 4.3 million, see Chapter 10

11.3 Economic Benefits

The main economic benefits of the proposed investments are identified in the following paragraphs.



11.3.1 Benefits of New Container Handling Equipment The main economic benefit of new shore equipment for containers would be faster turnround of ships. Current container ship turnround is very slow by in-ternational standards. The average handling speed per ship hour at berth is just under 10 TEU, equivalent to just under 250 TEU per ship day at berth. The cost of the ship time in port is high, as the container ships calling at Free-town are fairly large (1000-1500 TEU) and self-sustaining. The average cost per ship day at present is around $15,0001; and the cost of ship time in port per TEU is around $60 (USD15,000/ 250 TEU per day). At first sight, the marshalling area equipment might appear to have little effect on vessel handling speeds. The container vessels which call have their own cranes and the speed of operation is determined primarily by the ship rather than the port staff and equipment. But in practice the marshalling area equipment is necessary to remove the con-tainers to the stack in order to avoid a build up of congestion on the apron, which would reduce crane speeds. Similarly, for export cargo, adequate equip-ment is needed to feed the ships' cranes. At the time of the project team’s visit (mid 2004) the port has only one con-tainer handler in working order. Others have been either cannibalized for spare parts, or can no longer obtain spare parts due to the closure of the manufacturer. The port therefore has to borrow equipment from UNAMSIL, AMA and other port users. On average the SPLA is able to deploy about 2 cranes per ship, but the private sector cranes are not always available and the arrangement is clearly unsatisfactory. 1 Costs of Ship Operation Price: USD25,000,000 Annual Costs (USD 000) Capital (a) 3,452 Insurance (b) 500 M&R (c) 375 Crew, etc 950 Total p.a. 5,277 Per day (d) 15,000 approx (a) at 12.5% over 20 years (b) at 2% of construction cost (c) at 1.5% of construction cost (d) assuming 350 days operation p.a.



The working rule for container forklift requirements based on operations in other countries is one container handling forklift (FLT) per 10,000 TEU of an-nual traffic - with some back up by slightly lighter (say, 15 tonne) forklifts, es-pecially for empties. This would entail four units for Freetown’s current traffic of 35,555 TEU. There was a high degree of consensus amongst port users and operational staff on this requirement. The central problem of lack of equipment was confirmed by (i) statistical analysis of the slow handling speeds at the terminal, (ii) observation of the operations at Freetown and (iii) the opinions of port users. The shipping lines confirmed that handling speeds are far below international standards, and are getting worse. The negative effects of the current lack of equipment on handling speeds are estimated in Tables 11.2 to 11.7. The first three tables show the impact on the assumption of current operations; and the last three tables show the impact with privatised operations and maintenance – which are assumed conservatively to increase productivity by 50%. The tables show:

a. The assumed variation in handling speeds with additional levels of equipment (see Tables 11.2. and 11.5)

b. The cost of ship time in port with additional levels of equipment (see Tables 11.3 and 11.6)

c. The benefits of additional forklifts in terms of the saving of ship time in port with additional levels of equipment(see Tables 11.4 and 11.7)

Tables 11.4 and 11.7 show that there would be large benefits to providing up to four forklifts for current traffic. The benefits of the successive acquisitions would be as follows.

Benefits (USD 000 p.a.) at Current Traffic Levels, 35,000 TEU(USD)

With Current Operations With Privatised Operations 2nd Forklift 1,650 1,100 3rd Forklift 433 289 4th Forklift 167 111 5th Forklift 42 28



With current operations the benefits of the fourth FLT would exceed the an-nual cost of providing the additional FLT (which is estimated at USD129,000 p.a. see below) at current traffic levels (35,000 TEU): With private operations, the benefits of only the third FLT would exceed the annual cost ($129,000 p.a) at current traffic levels (35,000 TEU). The fourth, however, would be justified by the time traffic reached 40,000 TEU and associ-ated benefits had risen to $145,000 p.a. Annual Cost of a FLT

(USD 000 p.a.) Interest and depreciation at 12% over 10 years (purchase price, USD450,000) 80 Maintenance at 6.4% 29 Fuel, etc 20

Total 129 The benefits of a fifth FLT, however, would be small, at only USD 42,000 p.a.with current operations and $28,000 with privatsised opertaion – well below the annual cost of USD 129,000. The extent to which the benefits of reduced ship time in port would accrue to the Sierra Leonean economy is not certain, but discussions with the shipping lines about the way in which they determine tariffs suggest that the benefits would probably be passed on. The lines set a different tariff for each port in the range, varying with the costs actually incurred in serving each port. Freetown is cur-rently charged more than most West African port, because of the slow container handling and high charges.



Table 11.2 Container Handling Speeds with Additional Forklift Trucks (TEU Handled per Ship Day in Port) WITHOUT PRIVATISATION

Number of Container Forklifts

1 2 3 4 5

Traffic (TEU) 35,000 140 250 315 350 360 40,000 130 232 298 333 349 45,000 120 213 280 317 338 50,000 110 195 263 300 328 55,000 90 177 245 283 317 60,000 80 158 228 267 306 70,000 70 140 210 250 295

Table 11.3 Costs of Ship Time in Port with Varying Numbers of Forklifts (USD per Day) WITHOUT PRIVATISATION

Number of Forklifts 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic (TEU)

35,000 107 60* 48 43 42 40,000 115 65 50 45 43 45,000 125 70 54 47 44 50,000 136 77 57 50 46 55,000 167 85 61 53 47 60,000 188 95 66 56 49

* Daily ship cost of USD 15,000 per day divided by 250 TEU per day Table 11.4 Benefits of Additional Forklifts: Savings in Ship Time in Port (USD 000) (a) WITHOUT PRIVATISATION

Number of Forklifts 1 2 (b) 3 4 5 Traffic (TEU)

35,000 .. 1,650 433 167 42 40,000 .. 2,025 573 217 82 45,000 .. 2,461 753 279 137 50,000 .. 2,972 989 357 210 55,000 .. 4,497 1,302 456 307 60,000 .. 5,566 1,728 581 432

(a) The figures shown are the savings in ship time at berth resulting from the addition of one new FLT.

(b) Freetown can call on about 2 forklifts on an average day, but only one is theirs, the other being borrowed from other agencies.



Table 11.5 Container Handling Speeds with Additional Forklift Trucks (TEU Handled per Ship Day in Port) WITH PRIVATISATION

Number of Container Forklifts

1 2 3 4 5

Traffic (TEU) 35,000 210 375 472.5 525 540 40,000 195 348 446 500 524 45,000 180 320 420 475 508 50,000 165 293 394 450 491 55,000 135 265 368 425 475 60,000 120 238 341 400 459 70,000 105 210 315 375 442

Table 11.6 Costs of Ship Tine in Port with Varying Numbers of Forklifts (USD per Day) WITH PRIVATISATION

Number of Forklifts 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic (TEU)

35,000 71 40 32 29 28 40,000 77 43 34 30 29 45,000 83 47 36 32 30 50,000 91 51 38 33 31 55,000 111 57 41 35 32 60,000 125 63 44 38 33

* Daily ship cost of USD 15,000 per day divided by 250 TEU per day Table 11.7 Benefits of Additional Forklifts: Savings in Ship Time in Port (USD 000) (a) WITH PRIVATISATION

Number of Forklifts 1 2 (b) 3 4 5 Traffic (TEU)

35,000 .. 1,100 289 111 28 40,000 .. 1,350 382 145 54 45,000 .. 1,641 502 186 91 50,000 .. 1,981 659 238 140 55,000 .. 2,998 868 304 204 60,000 .. 3,711 1,152 387 288

(a) The figures shown are the savings in ship time at berth resulting from the addi-tion of one new FLT. (b) Freetown can call on about 2 forklifts on an average day, but only one is theirs, the other being borrowed from other agencies.



The economic internal rates of return on the three forklifts are estimated at the end of this chapter as follows: EIRR

With Current Operations With Privatised Operations (a)

2nd Forklift 247% 166% 3rd Forklift 49% 41% 4th Forklift -9% 7%

a. assumed life 5 years

It is concluded that the purchase of two additional container handlers (FLTs) to bring the total up to three is economically justifiable in 2005 and a fourth would be justified soon afterwards. This is consistent with working rules for operations in the industry.

11.3.2 Paving of the Remaining Areas of the Container Marshalling Area The paving of the remainder of the container terminal would have three main benefits. They are:

1. Reduced damage to handling equipment, 2. Faster operations when serving the ships' cranes, and 3. Avoidance of high maintenance and repair costs at the unpaved terminal.

These benefits of the proposed paving will be estimated in this section on the as-sumption of private operations and maintenance at the container berths.

11.3.2.1 Reduced Damage to Handling Equipment Only part of the marshalling/storage area at Freetown’s container terminal is paved; and unpaved and uneven surfaces place a heavy strain on handling equipment. The container handlers, mainly FLTs, are designed to take heavy strains while operating on a flat surface. Any tilting due to slight angles when the machines are carrying loads multiplies the stresses. The main stresses might appear to be on bearings and tyres. But in practice the strain is on the whole ma-chine. In addition, dust from the unpaved surfaces also requires constant atten-tion to air filters in the dry season. The wet season creates other problems. The mechanical engineering department reports encountering routine maintenance problems with new machines well before they occur with normal operating con-ditions.



The absence of paving might have two quantifiable effects, in theory. It might (i) reduce the life of the equipment; and (ii) increase the cost of maintenance. In practice the main impact appears to be via the second factor, the maintenance costs. The first effect, the reduction of machine life is not applicable in Free-town, because the equipment lives are cut short well before the ends of their normal lives, as they are stripped and cannibalized to provide spare parts for whichever machines are operational The maintenance costs for equipment are unusually high at Freetown. They are estimated at about 750,000 (just over 2 billion Leones) in the SLPA budget for 2004, which reflects actual expenditure in recent years. Details of the mainte-nance costs by machine are not available at present, but it is presumed at about two thirds of the cost are for the heavy forklifts – i.e. around USD 500,000. The SLPA Director responsible for the maintenance of equipment confirmed that the current costs of the heavy forklifts was their greatest problem. These current maintenance costs at Freetown are much higher than those derived form 'working rules' based on international experience. The working rules given by UNCTAD are shown below.

UNCTAD’s Working Rules on Equipment Maintenance, based on European operating conditions.

(Annual Maintenance Costs

as % of Replacement Costs) Small forklift Large forklift Tractor Trailer

14 8 10 3

The working rules shown above are based on European experience. In a devel-oping country they should be lower. Labour costs are much lower than in Europe, and although spare parts are more expensive this would not offset the low labour costs. In practice, maintenance costs in developing country ports are often very low indeed; but the explanation is often that the maintenance is in-adequate (this is not the case at Freetown). It will be assumed that the 'correct' expenditure on maintenance in Sierra Leone would be 80% of that implied by the European working rules. On this basis the “normal ” maintenance costs for four forklifts in developing countries are estimated at USD 115,000 as follows:



Maintenance costs of 4 Forklifts in Normal/Efficient Conditions 4 X USD 450,000 X 6.4% p.a. = USD 115,000 p.a.

The absence of paving is assumed to at least double the costs of maintenance, as follows:

Maintenance costs for 4 Forklifts - Current, without private operations and without paving:USD500,000 - Future, with private operations but without paving: USD230,000 - Future, with private operations and with paving: USD115,000 - Future Saving, with private operations, from paving:USD115,000

The potential saving if the maintenance costs for the container handlers are brought down to normal levels are therefore estimated at about USD 115,000 p.a (i.e. USD 230,000 – USD 115,000).

11.3.2.2 Improved Productivity at the Paved Material The paving of the remainder of the terminal surface would also increase the effi-ciency of operations when moving cargo to and from the ships' cranes. It is as-sumed that the paving would add about 25% to handling speeds, raising them from about 525EU per day to 656TEU per day (with four operational forklifts under private operation). This productivity improvement would save about USD201,000 p.a. at traffic levels of 35,080 TEU in 2006 (for the calculation, see footnotes to Table 11.14)

11.3.2.3 Savings on Repair of Unprotected Areas The paving of the terminal and workshop areas would save future costs of repair to the existing unprotected areas. The estimated savings would be around USD50,000 p.a.

11.3.2.4 Combined Savings The combined benefits of the paving at 2005 traffic levels would therefore be: - lower equipment maintenance costs (USD 115,000) - reductions in ship time in port (USD201,000 p.a.) - net savings in marshalling area maintenance (USD50,000 p.a.) Total savings would therefore be about USD347,000 at 2006 traffic levels.



In addition there would be the benefits of deferring regular investment in fork-lifts from once every six years to once every ten years. These benefits would give an economic internal rate of return on the investment in paving of 13%, as shown in Table 11.14.

11.4 Economic Internal Rates of Return The Economic Internal Rates of Return for the main proposals are shown in Ta-bles 11.5 to 11.9 The results are summarised as follows: EIRRs

With Current Operations With Privatised Operation

2nd Forklift 243% 166% 3rd Forklift 49% 41% 4th Forklift -9% 7% Paving .. 13%



Table 11.8 Economic Internal Rate of Return on First Additional Container Forklift (a): Bringing SLPA Fleet up to Two (USD 000) WITHOUT PRIVATISATION

COSTS BENEFITS Traffic

(TEU) Investment M&R Savings in Ship

Time in Port

NET BENEFITS

2005 34,064 658 -658 2006 35,080 84 1654 1,569 2007 36,178 84 1,729 1,645 2008 37,986 84 1,805 1,721 2009 39,886 84 1880 1,796 2010 41,880 84 1974 1,890 2011 43,974 2012 46,173 2013 48,481 2014 50,905 2015 53,451 2016 56,123 2017 58,929 2018 61,876 2019 64,970 2020 68,218 EIRR = 243%

(a) One container handler plus one terminal truck plus two terminal trailers



Table 11.9 Economic Internal Rate of Return on Second Additional Container Forklift (a): Bringing SLPA Fleet up to Three (USD 000) WITHOUT PRIVATISATION

COSTS BENEFITS

Traffic (TEU)

Investment M&R Savings in Ship Time in

Port

NET BENEFITS

2005 34,064 658 -658 2006 35,080 84 434 350 2007 36,178 84 454 370 2008 37,986 84 474 390 2009 39,886 84 494 410 2010 41,880 84 519 434 2011 43,974 2012 46,173 2013 48,481 2014 50,905 2015 53,451 2016 56,123 2017 58,929 2018 61,876 2019 64,970 2020 68,218 EIRR = 49%




Table 11.10 Economic Internal Rate of Return on Third Additional Container Forklift (a): Bringing SLPA Fleet up to Four (USD 000) WITHOUT PRIVATISATION

COSTS BENEFITS

Traffic (TEU)


Port

NET BENEFITS

2005 34,064 658 -658 2006 35,080 84 167 83 2007 36,178 84 175 90 2008 37,986 84 182 98 2009 39,886 84 190 106 2010 41,880 84 199 115 2011 43,974 2012 46,173 2013 48,481 2014 50,905 2015 53,451 2016 56,123 2017 58,929 2018 61,876 2019 64,970 2020 68,218 EIRR = -9%




Table 11.11 Economic Internal Rate of Return on First Additional Container Forklift (a): Bringing SLPA Fleet up to Two (USD 000) WITH PRIVATISATION


(TEU) Investment M&R Savings in Ship

Time in Port

NET BENEFITS

2005 34,064 658 -658 2006 35,080 42 1103 1,060 2007 36,178 42 1,153 1,111 2008 37,986 42 1,203 1,161 2009 39,886 42 1254 1,211 2010 41,880 42 1,323 1,281 2011 43,974 42 1,392 1,350 2012 46,173 42 1,461 1,419 2013 48,481 42 1,531 1,488 2014 50,905 42 1600 1,558

2015 53,451 42 1,669 1,627 2016 56,123 2017 58,929 2018 61,876 2019 64,970 2020 68,218 EIRR = 166%




Table 11.12 Economic Internal Rate of Return on Second Additional Container Forklift (a): Bringing SLPA Fleet up to Three (USD 000) WITH PRIVATISATION

COSTS BENEFITS

Traffic (TEU)


Port

NET BENEFITS

2005 34,064 658 -658 2006 35,080 42 290 247 2007 36,178 42 303 261 2008 37,986 42 316 274 2009 39,886 42 329 287 2010 41,880 42 347 305 2011 43,974 42 366 323 2012 46,173 42 384 342 2013 48,481 42 402 360 2014 50,905 42 420 378 2015 53,451 42 438 396 2016 56,123 2017 58,929 2018 61,876 2019 64,970 2020 68,218 EIRR = 43%




Table 11.13 Economic Internal Rate of Return on Third Additional Container Forklift (a): Bringing SLPA Fleet up to Four (USD 000) WITH PRIVATISATION

COSTS BENEFITS

Traffic (TEU)


Port

NET BENEFITS

2005 34,064 658 -658 2006 35,080 42 111 69 2007 36,178 42 116 74 2008 37,986 42 122 79 2009 39,886 42 127 84 2010 41,880 42 134 91 2011 43,974 42 141 98 2012 46,173 42 148 105 2013 48,481 42 155 112 2014 50,905 42 162 119 2015 53,451 42 169 126 2016 56,123 2017 58,929 2018 61,876 2019 64,970 2020 68,218 EIRR = 7%




Table 11.14 Economic Internal Rate of Return on Paving of the Container Marshalling Area (USD 000) WITH PRIVATISATION


(TEU) Invest-ment

M&R

NET BENE-FITS

Red

uced

Eq

uipm

ent

M &

R

Fast

er

Ship

Tu

rnro

und

Red

uced

M

aint

’nce

C

osts

at T

erm

inal

(a) (b) (d) 2005 34,064 3750 -3,7502006 35,080 19 115 201 50 3472007 36,178 19 115 207 50 3532008 37,986 19 115 218 50 3642009 39,886 19 115 228 50 3752010 41,880 19 115 240 50 3862011 43,974 -1800 19 115 252 50 2,1982012 46,173 19 115 264 50 4112013 48,481 19 115 278 50 4242014 50,905 19 115 292 50 4382015 53,451 1800 19 115 306 50 -1,3482016 55,996 19 115 321 50 4672017 58,541 -1800 19 115 335 50 2,2822018 61,086 19 115 350 50 4962019 63,632 19 115 364 50 5112020 66,177 19 115 379 50 5252021 68,722 19 115 394 50 5402022 71,268 19 115 408 50 5542023 73,813 -1800 19 115 423 50 2,3692024 76,358 19 115 437 50 5842025 78,903 1250 19 115 452 50 -652

RV IRR = 13.0%

For assumptions see next page Assumptions for Table 11.14



- Forklifts last 10 years with paving and 6 years without paving - Details of other benefits as follows: Costs p.a. in 2006 Without

investment With

Investment Savings

Maintenance of Equipment $230,000 $115,000 $115,000 Ship Costs at Berth (see footnotes)

$1,002,000 $801,000 $201,000

Maintenance of back-up area

$69,000 $19,000 $50,000

Footnotes 1. Traffic (TEU p.a. 2006) 35,080 35,080 2. Handling speed (TEU per day at berth)

535 656

3. Ship cost per day at Berth $15000 $15,000 4. Ship Costs per TEU (1/2x3)

$1,002,000 $801,000 $201,000

11.5 Conclusion The purchase of 3 additional container forklifts is justified by savings in ship time in port. Paving of the container terminal plus other areas of the port and workshops is justified by (a) savings in maintenance costs for port equipment, (b) faster op-erations, which would save ship time in port, and (c) the avoidance of repair costs at the existing unpaved terminal. These potential savings would give an economic internal rate of return of 13%.

Sensitivity

The following table shows the sensitivity of the results to variations in the as-sumptions on traffic (+10% and -10%) and investment costs (15% and – 15%)



Table 11.15 Sensitivity of EIRRs to Traffic and Investment Cost Levels (EIRRs: %) 2nd Forklift 3rd Forklift 4th Forklift Paving

WITH PRIVATISATION

Traffic +10% 182 46 9 15

Traffic -10% 149 36 4 12

Investment Costs +15% 144 35 3 11

Investment Costs -15% 191 48 11 5

WITHOUT PRIVATISATION

Traffic +10% 268 57 -4 14

Traffic -10% 217 41 -14 13

Investment Costs +15% 210 39 -16 11

Investment Costs -15% 280 61 -1 16



void



12. FINANCIAL EVALUATION

12.1 Introduction This Chapter examines the impact of the proposed investment programme on SLPA's financial position. The proposed investment programme consists of four main items, which are: - additional container handling equipment; - the paving of the unsurfaced areas of the port, with emphasis on the con-

tainer marshalling area; - environmental measures; and - navigational aids. Details of the costs and economic benefits of the proposed investment in con-tainer handling equipment and paving to Sierra Leone’s economy were exam-ined in Chapter 11. This chapter focuses on the implications of the investment programme for the SLPA’s accounts.

12.2 Current Revenues and Costs SLPA’s revenues and expenditures of the SLPA in 2003 are shown in Table 12.1. As shown, the port makes only a limited profit at present. In 2003 its sur-plus was 670 million Leones (SLL), equivalent to USD 0.3 million, giving a margin of only 3% over costs.

The SPLA’s revenues have not increased significantly since the mid 1990s, de-spite the doubling of port traffic and container traffic (see Table 12.2). There are several reasons for this. They include the following:

The loss of ferry revenues which accounted for just under 10% of the reve-nues in the mid 1990s.

The exemption of the military and UN cargoes which are imported by

UNAMSIL, WFP and ESCO from paying port charges.



The fact that ship traffic has increased at a much slower rate than cargo and

container traffic. The number of ship calls rose by only about 10% between 1994 and 2003. During that time consignment sizes per ship almost dou-bled. A large part of SLPA revenues comes from tariffs on ships (levied on length) rather than cargo.

Some of the revenues – in particular revenues from shore handling and stor-

age - are fixed in Leones and have therefore declined in terms of US dollars when tariff revisions have been delayed.

Table 12.1 SLPA Revenues and Expenditures by item 2003 Billion SLL USD million REVENUES Marine Basic Marine charges 4.75 2.02 Harbour Dues, containers 2.60 1.11 Other harbour dues, etc 1.72 0.74 Total Marine 9.07 3.87 Stevedoring Container (and Roro) 4.45 1.90 Others 3.10 1.32 Total stevedoring 7.55 3.22 Shore Handling Container 2.70 1.15 Others 2.72 1.16 Total Shore Handling 5.41 2.31 Other operating income 1.57 0.67 Total Revenues 23.60 10.07 EXPENDITURE Salaries and wages 11.25 4.80 Other staff costs 2.05 0.87 Operational expenses 3.61 1.54 Maintenance expenses 3.13 1.34 Depreciation 2.07 0.88 Financial charges 0.32 0.14 Miscellaneous 0.51 0.22 Total Expenditure (a) 22.93 9.78 Surplus/Deficit 0.67 0.29 (a) excluding tax expenses



Table 12.2 SLPA Revenues and Expenditures, 1994-2003 1993/4 2001 2002 2003(In SLL million) Revenues 6,225 21,654 22,521 23,603Costs(a) 5,271 18,530 20,012 22,930Surplus 954.0 3124 2509 670(In USD million) Revenues 10.4 10.8 10.7 10.1Costs 8.8 9.3 9.5 9.8Surplus 1.6 1.6 1.2 0.3 Exchange rate (SLL: USD) 600 2,000 2,100 2,345

(a) including financial charges Source: SLPA But while revenues have declined slightly, costs have increased slightly. As a result the SPLA surplus has fallen from USD 1.6 million in 1994 to USD 0.3 million in 2003. Although it is not within the Terms of Reference for this study, it is clear that there is scope for cost reductions. In particular, the port is over-staffed by inter-national standards, with about 2600 personnel, including casuals, at present.

12.3 Effects of the Investment Programme on SLPA Revenues and Costs

The financial benefits of the proposed rehabilitation programme would be mi-nor. Most of the economic benefits outlined in Chapter 11 accrue to shipping lines and port users, rather than to the port itself. Only a minor part of the bene-fits would be reflected in the port's accounts. In particular: - The paving of the marshalling areas would be unlikely to attract any

significant additional revenues for the port. National cargo volumes will not be affected and the prospects of attracting transit or transhipment traffic for neighbouring countries in the region are very limited, as the shipping lines consider Freetown an expensive port with only moderate handling rates.

The main financial benefits of paving would therefore be limited to (i) a reduction in maintenance costs for equipment and (ii) a reduction in maintenance costs for the pavement (as described in the section on the economic evaluation).

- The purchase of new container handling equipment would also be

unlikely to generate additional incomes for the port. Nor would it reduce



port costs below current levels. The main benefits would accrue initially to the shipowners in the form of faster turnround for their ships. These benefits may eventually be passed on to importers in the form of lower freight rates. But these economic benefits would not appear in the port's financial accounts.

One possibility for increasing financial benefits would be to increase tariffs to cover the cost of new equipment. But this would be neither practicable or justi-fiable, as the port is already expensive and handling speeds are low by interna-tional standards. If the SPLA did increase tariffs the shipping lines would almost certainly pass them on to the importers and exporters. Against this background, the revenues and expenditures of the SLPA are fore-cast and compared on two sets of assumptions – (i) with and (ii) without the proposed investment programme. The “without investment” forecast is shown in Table 12.3, with all main as-sumptions in the notes after Table 12.4. The main conclusion is that SLPA would be able to operate with a surplus averaging about USD 0.5 million p.a. during the period 2005-2015. The surplus is small, and it might be concluded that the port would be in a more secure position if costs, and particularly labour costs, could be reduced. The “with investment” forecast as shown in Table 12.4. As shown, the sur-pluses are lower than in the “without investment case”, giving additional incen-tives to reduce costs.



Table 12.3 Revenue and Expenditure Forecasts A: Without Investment Programme (USD 000)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 Cargo Traffic Forecasts (000 tonnes)

Conatiners 336 319 322 332 342 359 377 396 505 General Cargo and bulks 527 591 637 704 732 756 779 808 953 Total 863 910 959 1035 1074 1115 1156 1204 1458 Revenues Marine Basic Marine charges (a) 2.02 2.08 2.14 2.22 2.26 2.31 2.35 2.40 2.64 Harbour Dues, containers (b) 1.11 1.05 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.18 1.24 1.30 1.67 Other harbour dues, etc (c) 0.74 0.82 0.89 0.98 1.02 1.05 1.09 1.13 1.33 Total Marine 3.87 3.96 4.08 4.30 4.41 4.54 4.68 4.83 5.64 Stevedoring Container (and Roro) (b) 1.90 1.80 1.82 1.87 1.93 2.03 2.13 2.23 2.85 Others (c) 1.32 1.48 1.60 1.77 1.84 1.90 1.96 2.03 2.39 Total stevedoring 3.22 3.28 3.41 3.64 3.77 3.92 4.08 4.26 5.24 Shore Handling Container (b) 1.15 1.09 1.10 1.13 1.17 1.23 1.29 1.35 1.73 Others (c) 1.16 1.30 1.40 1.55 1.61 1.66 1.71 1.78 2.09 Total Shore Handling 2.31 2.39 2.50 2.68 2.78 2.89 3.00 3.13 3.82 Other operating income 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.82 0.86 0.90 0.94 1.21 Total Revenues 10.07 10.34 10.74 11.39 11.77 12.21 12.66 13.17 15.91 Expenditure (Investment) (Outstanding loan Repayment Interest Operations Salaries and wages (d) 4.80 4.94 5.09 5.24 5.40 5.56 5.73 5.90 6.84 Other staff costs 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Operational expenses 1.54 1.62 1.71 1.84 1.91 1.99 2.06 2.15 2.60 Maintenance expenses (e) 1.34 1.41 1.48 1.60 1.66 1.73 1.79 1.86 2.26 Depreciation (existing assets) 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Depreciation (new assets) Financial charges (previous loans) 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14

0.14

Miscellaneous (f) 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.37 Total expenditure 9.78 10.09 10.41 10.84 11.14 11.44 11.76 12.10 13.95 Surplus/Deficit 0.29 0.24 0.33 0.55 0.64 0.77 0.90 1.06 1.95

Footnotes and assumptions, see after Table 12.4.



Table 12.4 Revenue and Expenditure Forecasts B: With Rehabilitation Programme (USD 000)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 Cargo Traffic Forecasts (000 tonnes)

Containers 336 319 322 332 342 359 377 396 505 General Cargo and bulks 527 591 637 704 732 756 779 808 953 Total 863 910 959 1035 1074 1115 1156 1204 1458 Revenues Marine Basic Marine charges (a) 2.02 2.08 2.14 2.22 2.26 2.31 2.35 2.40 2.64 Harbour Dues, containers (b) 1.11 1.05 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.18 1.24 1.30 1.67 Other harbour dues, etc (c) 0.74 0.82 0.89 0.98 1.02 1.05 1.09 1.13 1.33 Total Marine 3.87 3.96 4.08 4.30 4.41 4.54 4.68 4.83 5.64 Stevedoring Container (and Roro) (b) 1.90 1.80 1.82 1.87 1.93 2.03 2.13 2.23 2.85 Others (c) 1.32 1.48 1.60 1.77 1.84 1.90 1.96 2.03 2.39 Total stevedoring 3.22 3.28 3.41 3.64 3.77 3.92 4.08 4.26 5.24 Shore Handling Container (b) 1.15 1.09 1.10 1.13 1.17 1.23 1.29 1.35 1.73 Others (c) 1.16 1.30 1.40 1.55 1.61 1.66 1.71 1.78 2.09 Total Shore Handling 2.31 2.39 2.50 2.68 2.78 2.89 3.00 3.13 3.82 Other operating income 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.82 0.86 0.90 0.94 1.21 Total Revenues 10.07 10.34 10.74 11.39 11.77 12.21 12.66 13.17 15.91 Expenditure (Investment) 6.99 (Outstanding loan 6.99 6.52 6.06 5.59 3.26 Repayment 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 Interest 0.52 0.49 0.45 0.42 0.24 Operations Salaries and wages (d) 4.80 4.94 5.09 5.24 5.40 5.56 5.73 5.90 6.84 Other staff costs 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Operational expenses 1.54 1.62 1.71 1.84 1.91 1.99 2.06 2.15 2.60 Maintenance expenses (e) 1.34 1.41 1.32 1.42 1.48 1.53 1.59 1.66 2.10 Depreciation (existing assets) 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Depreciation (new assets) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Financial charges (previous loans) 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14

0.14

Miscellaneous (f) 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.37 Total expenditure 9.78 10.09 10.27 10.68 11.96 12.22 12.50 12.80 14.43 Surplus/Deficit 0.29 0.24 0.48 0.71 -0.19 -0.01 0.16 0.37 1.48

Footnotes: see next page:



(a) The basic marine charges are increased in line with ship calls, which are assumed to rise at half the growth rate for total traffic (with consignment sizes for Freetown continuing to increase)

(b) Increasing with container traffic

(c) Increasing with conventional and bulk cargo traffic

(d) Increasing with per capita income, assumed at 3% (with GDP growth of 5% and population growth of 2% p.a.). Staff levels assumed to be static.

(e) Savings in maintenance expenses resulting from the investment programme: Container Handling Equip-ment, USD 115,000; Paving, USD 50,000

(f) Includes insurance

ASSUMPTIONS FOR TABLES 12.3 and 12.4 The main assumptions that: - Revenues for containers and non-container cargoes are forecast separately.

- All cargo-related revenues (especially cargo handling) denominated in USD

would increase in line with traffic growth. - All cargo-related revenues denominated in Leones would increase in line

with traffic growth, but decline in dollar terms, as they are not protected against inflation or exchange rate devaluation.

- All revenues paid per ship call would increase at only one half of the growth

rate for traffic. This reflects the fact that, with consignment sizes increasing, ship calls have been increasing at a much slower rate than traffic volumes.

- Salaries and wages would increase in real terms, with forecast growth in per

capita national income, i.e. 3% p.a. The number of staff is assumed to re-main at the same level as in 2003.

- Depreciation would remain constant in real terms, except for additions for

the recommended new handling equipment (asset lives, 10 years) and ter-minal paving (asset lives, 40 years). Current depreciation levels appear too low to cover replacement costs of existing infrastructure and equipment, but as the question of replacement is largely theoretical (the point of much of the rehabilitation programme is to extend the life of the existing assets), the existing depreciation allowances have not been adjusted.

- Tariffs which are currently stated in Leones (most are in dollars) are as-



sumed to be adjusted regularly to protect them against domestic inflation. The simplest way to achieve this would be to have all tariffs (not just part of them) stated in dollars. Sierra Leone nationals, however, should be permit-ted to pay in the SLL equivalent of the dollar-denominated rates.

- the investment programme (USD 6.99 million) would be financed by a loan

with an interest rate of 7.5% over 15 years, with a grace period of four years; and

CONCLUSIONS The financial benefits of the rehabilitation programme to the SLPA would be lower than the economic benefits to Sierra Leone. With very low profit margins forecast in the medium term, it would be preferable if the investment pro-gramme were to be accompanied by cost reductions, possibly including staff reductions.