port operations

ASEAN PORTS ASSOCIATION

BEST PRACTICES MANUAL ONPORT OPERATIONS

The information contained in this document is solely for the use of the ASEAN Ports Association (APA) for the purpose for which it was prepared. The APA Permanent Secretariat takes no responsibility for inaccurate or incomplete information that may have been submitted to it. The facts published indicate the result of inquiries conducted and no warranty as to their accuracy is given by the APA Permanent Secretariat.

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page i

Published by the Permanent Secretariat of the ASEAN Ports Association, Philippine Ports Authority, Marsman Building, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila, Philippines

© 2003 APA Permanent Secretariat

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page ii

FOREWORD

This reference material, one in a series of APA port practices manuals, is the fruition of the collaborative efforts of the 25th APA Main Meeting held in 1999 in Bali, Indonesia. It is APA’s intent to draft a manual that would provide yardsticks on efficiency and productivity, particularly in cargo handling, pilotage and tug operations, as they are adopted and applied at specific areas of responsibility in APA member-ports.

Responses indicated on the customized survey questionnaire, which underwent several amendments to address identified survey lapses, served as groundworks in the preparation of the manual. A total of 42 respondent ports/terminals from the seven APA member-countries, namely: Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippine, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, took pains in providing the needed data inputs. The survey also focused on aspects of resource/logistics management such as port documentation, equipment, personnel, security, facilities and amenities besides port operational activities.

At hindsight, the survey returns did not yield any definitive standards nor “hard and fast” rules on the “how-to” of quality port management and/or service delivery, taking into mind a singular ASEAN perspective. It has to be reckoned with that the touchstones of efficiency and productivity are the consequences between the interplay of resources and capabilities, which may be peculiar in an area and are largely defined by the like-mindedness of the stakeholders concerned.

In view of the foregoing, it was, thus, decided and agreed upon during the 28 th

APA Main Meeting, held in 2002 in Singapore, for the APA Permanent Secretariat to just proceed for the time being with the compilation, analysis and presentation of the canvassed results as captured through the latest survey instrument. The Permanent Secretariat, however, committed to come up with a more refined and comprehensive manual, which may afford general reference for a wider range of users/readers, especially those affiliated with the maritime industry.

The benefit this manual can offer could only be something relative, depending on the objectives of the user. Still, further improvements can be incorporated into this text to gradually and eventually fully satisfy the port information needs of APA member-ports. So, let us leave it as what it is for the moment and have this undertaking be a continuing process that would document the best and the exemplary in ASEAN port operations practices.

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was prepared by the Permanent Secretariat of the ASEAN Ports Association which would like to acknowledge the following agencies, groups and individuals:

BRUNEI DARUSSALAM

1. Ports Department2. PSA Muara Container Terminal SDN. BHD

INDONESIA

1. Tanjung Priok/Pt JICT2. PT Terminal Petikemas, Surabaya3. Palembang Port4. Panjang/General Cargo5. Port of Tanjung Perak6. Pontianak Port7. Tanjung Priok/General Cargo8. Panjang/UTPK9. Tanjung Priok/Multi-Purpose

MALAYSIA

1. Miri Port Authority2. Rajang Port Authority3. Kuantan Port Consortium SDN. BHD4. Kuching Port5. Sabah Port6. Johor Port

PHILIPPINES

1. North Star Port Development Corp.2. Manila International Container Terminal3. Regal Arrastre and Stevedoring, Inc. – Legaspi4. Port Management Office of Cotabato5. Asian Terminals, Inc.6. Gold City Integ. Port Services Inc./Continental Arrastre and Stevedoring Co., Inc. – Cagayan de Oro7. Port Management Office of Nasipit8. Port Management Office of Iligan

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page iv

9. South Cotabato Integ. Port Services, Inc.10. Port Management Office of Davao11. BREDCO II, Pulupandan12. Port Management Office of Tacloban 13. Port Management Office of Tagbilaran14. Cebu International Port15. Port Management Office of Iloilo16. Port Management Office of Ozamis

SINGAPORE

1. Port of Singapore Authority2. Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore

THAILAND

1. Bangkok Port2. LCB Container Terminal3. Laem Chabang Port/TIPS4. Eastern Sea Laem Chabang Terminal Co., Inc.

VIETNAM

1. Baria Serece2. Saigon Port3. Danang Port

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND …………………………………….. 1

II. DEFINITION OF BEST PRACTICE ……………………………………. 2

III.BEST PRACTICES ……………………………………………………….. 3

A. Institutional Best Practices ……………………………………………. 3

1. Entity Responsible For Cargo Handling …………………………. 32. Types Of Skilled Labor And Unskilled Labor Employed In

Cargo Handling Operations …………………………………… 33. Skills Acquisition ………………………………………………….. 44. Portworkers’ Compensation And Benefits ………………………. 4

B. Operational Best Practices ……………………………………………. 6

1. Types Of Quay And Yard Equipment Deployed ………………… 62. Processing Of Requests For Workers And Equipment …………. 63. Deployment Of Portworkers ………………………………………. 74. Cargo Tracking System ……………………………………………. 75. Cargo Documentation System ……………………………………. 86. Security Measures ………………………………………………… 157. Processing Of Claims Due To Loss/Injury And Damage To

Life/Property…………………………………………………… 158. Type Of Billing/Collection System ………………………………. 169. Documentation Processes And Procedures……………………… 16

a. Timely Receipt Of Source Documents For Billing Purposes ………………………………………16

b. Accuracy Of Information In Source Documents …………… 16c. Uniform Application Of Cargo Handling Tariff …………….16d. Proper Billing/Collection Of Cargo Handling Tariff ………. 17

10. Interfacing Of Various Operational Systems In The Port………1711. Productivity Standards And Measurement Of Port

Performance …………………………………………………… 1812. Provision Of Amenities ……………………………………………18

C. Best Practices On Pilotage …………………………………………… 19

1. Policy On The Use Of Pilotage…………………………………… 192. Institutional Set-Up For The Provision Of Pilotage ……………. 193. Accreditation/Licensing Of Pilots ……………………………….. 20

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page vi

D. Best Practices On Tug Services ………………………………………21

1. Policy On The Use Of Tug Services …………………………….. 212. Institutional Set-Up For The Provision Of Tug Services………. 223. Operating Parameters And Tariff For Tug Services…………… 224. Obligations And Liabilities Of Tug Operators ………………….265. Types Of Services Provided ………………………………………266. Manning Of Tugs And Qualifications…………………………… 267. Accreditation/Licensing Of Tug Operators …………………….. 278. Tug Requirements For Berthing/Unberthing Of Vessels ……… 289. Manner Rates For Tug Services Are Determined ………………2910. Mechanisms For Determining Liability Of Tugboat

Operators And Compensating Aggrieved Parties…………… 29

E. Best Practices Survey – Cargo Handling Statistics………………… 40

IV. APPENDICES

A. Questionnaire On Port Operations StandardsB. List Of Respondents, Their Categories And Entity Responsible For

Undertaking Cargo HandlingC. List Of Documents/Forms Submitted By APA PortsD. Results Of Questionnaires On Port Operations Standards

1. Best Practices Survey – Cargo Handling Statistics2. Best Practices Survey – Quay and Yard Equipment Inventory

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page vii

ABBREVIATIONS / ACRONYMS

1. APA - ASEAN Ports Association2. ASEAN - Association of Southeast Asian Nations3. ATI - Asian Terminals, Incorporated4. BOC - Bureau of Customs5. CBA - Collective Bargaining Agreement6. CITOS - Computer Integrated Terminal Operating System7. EDI - Electronic Data Interchange8. GRT - Gross Registered Tonnage9. GT - Gross Tonnage10. HP - Horse Power11. ID - Identification12. KPH - Kilometer per Hour13. LOA - Length Over-all14. MARINA - Maritime Industry Authority15. MICT - Manila International Container Terminal16. MT - Metric Ton17. NGH - Net Gang Hour18. PCG - Philippine Coast Guard19. PPA - Philippine Ports Authority20. PSA - Port of Singapore Authority21. PUNNS - Port Users’ Needs and Satisfaction Survey22. PVOER - Port Vessel Operations Evaluation Report23. VOC - Vessel Operations Commitment

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page viii

DEFINITION OF TERMS

1. Pilotage - the act of conducting a vessel from/to the Pilot’s Boarding Station, to/from berth or anchorage, at any government or private wharf or pier.

2. Port Authority - the port management body that is vested by the State with the authority to oversee the ports within a specified area of jurisdiction.

3. Port Contractor - any government or private entity, individual or company that is granted by the State or Port Authority, as the case may be, with the permit or license to provide services in a port, usually related to infrastructure development.

4. Port Operator - any government or private entity, individual or company that is granted by the State or Port Authority, as the case may be, with the permit or license to operate the port and provide other related services.

5. Port Owner - any government or private entity, individual or company that has the legal entitlement or proprietorship of the port.

6. Terminal Operator - any government or private entity, individual or company that is granted by the State or Port Authority, as the case may be, with the permit or license to operate the terminal in a port and provide other related services.

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page ix

BEST PRACTICES MANUAL ONPORT OPERATIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

Background

In its 25th Main Meeting held on December 1-3, 1999 in Bali, Indonesia, the ASEAN Ports Association (APA) identified a number of projects designed to establish standards of efficiency and productivity in member-ports. One such project was intended to come up with a manual on best practices in Port Operations designed to provide benchmarks for productivity in cargo handling, pilotage and tug operations.

A draft survey questionnaire was prepared in early 2000 to generate the information necessary for the preparation of the manual. After undergoing several revisions/amendments, the finalized form of the questionnaire was disseminated to ports of APA member-countries in February 2001. The accomplished forms were processed by the APA Permanent in May of the same year.

The survey did not yield sufficient data needed for the manual. Among the major problems encountered in the analysis of the responses were dissimilarities in the units of measurement being used by member ports, incomplete or unrelated responses, and unanswered questions.

The results of the February 2001 Survey were presented and discussed in the 22nd APA Technical Committee Meeting held in Cebu City, Philippines on January 22-24, 2002. Further amendments were made on the questionnaire to address the identified deficiencies. The revised questionnaire (Annex A) was subsequently re-distributed to concerned member-ports in February 2002. The questionnaire focused on port operational activities such as cargo handling, pilotage and tug operation as well as aspects of resource/logistics management such as port documentation, equipment, personnel, security, facilities and amenities.

Forty-two ports/terminals from the following seven APA member-countries responded to the February 2002 survey questionnaire:

Best Practices Manual on Port Operations Page 1

1. Brunei Darussalam – 22. Indonesia – 93. Malaysia – 64. Philippines – 165. Singapore – 26. Thailand – 47. Vietnam - 3

---Total 42

The respondents were categorized and distributed as follows:

1. Port authority 31 percent2. Terminal operator 243. Port operator 194. Port contractor 75. Port owner/operator 76. Port owner 57. Others 7

==Total 100 percent

As with the results of the first survey in 2001, the following problems were encountered:

1. Deviation from the uniform units of measurement for productivity standards, cargo volume, capacity and rates specified in the questionnaire;

2. Unclear or incomplete responses;3. Unanswered questions;4. Use of acronyms;5. Names of the same port documents differed from port to port;6. Poor response in submission of relevant reference materials on policies,

guidelines and flowcharts as requested in the questionnaire to substantiate the information/data entered in the survey forms.

7. Submitted reference materials were prepared in the language of the country of the respondent.

II. DEFINITION OF BEST PRACTICE

The term “Best Practice” derives from various phrases now being used to refer generally to processes, procedures and measures designed to improve performance, in this case, in port operations. There are no generally accepted criteria by which to judge which is and which is not best practice.


In addition, best practices could be applied only to cases where similar sets of operating conditions and characteristics prevail. Hence, the same operating standard would have meaning only in one kind of operating environment and would be totally meaningless in another.

Best practice also depends on one’s viewpoint. A port user such as a shipping line, a shipper or a consignee would have more stringent measures of performance compared to, say, a cargo handling operator who must deal with various constraints such as physical limitations in the port, equipment limitations, labor laws and policies, port authority regulations, institutional and other concerns as well as meeting his own profit targets. The major respondent categories pre-identified in the Survey are as follows: port authority, terminal operator, port operator, port contractor, port owner/operator and port owner. Hence, these shall constitute the main perspective for assessing best practices in the ASEAN ports.

One perspective that would be an important subject for a separate study that may be integrated in this manual on best practices is that of the port users (shipping lines, shippers, consignees). A move in this direction was the Port Users’ Needs and Satisfaction Survey (PUNSS) conducted by the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) in 2001. An APA-wide diagnostic survey should yield results that would be informative and provide some blueprint for documenting best practices in the ASEAN region.

III. BEST PRACTICES

A. Institutional Best Practices

1. Entity responsible for cargo handling

The survey responses largely indicate that private contractors/ terminal operators and port authorities/owners/ operators are the providers of cargo handling services in ASEAN ports/terminals.

2. Types of skilled labor and unskilled employed in cargo handling operations

The categories comprising the highest number in terms of the type of equipment operators employed in cargo handling operations include the following:

a. Forklift operatorb. Mobile crane operatorc. Reach stacker operatord. Prime mover operatore. Trailer operator


The foregoing types of labor are common specifically in port/terminals handling containerized and general cargo, which utilize these types of equipment on a large-scale.

However, there are ports handling containerized and general cargo which continue to retain the use of unskilled laborers comprised mostly of stevedores particularly in the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. This labor-intensive system of cargo handling require the employment of foremen, tallymen, signalmen and timekeepers.

Operators of forklifts, mobile cranes, reach stackers, prime movers and trailers comprise the bulk and most commonly available equipment operators in the ports, specifically in ports/terminals handling containerized and general cargo, particularly in the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. Tallymen, foremen, signalmen and timekeepers account for a significant share of the labor force in the ports covered in the survey. (Certain respondents indicated the employment of equipment operators and portworkers but did not specify the actual number and positions/skills available.)

3. Skills acquisition

Cargo handling and related skills are acquired largely through the following ways:

a. Experienceb. Formal trainingc. On-the-job training

While there are concrete efforts towards the implementation of regular manpower development and skills enhancement programs, it appears that no guidelines have been prepared, formalized and maintained in any of the ports surveyed.

For the majority of the respondents, opportunities for skills acquisition are made available through continuing skills enhancement programs for both equipment operators and other portworkers. No specific information was obtained in this respect.

4. Portworkers’ Compensation and Benefits

Portworkers’ remuneration and compensation are based largely on the following:


a. Existing Lawsb. Collective Bargaining Agreementsc. Market Rates

Existing laws are predominantly the basis for determining remuneration and compensation packages. In some ports/terminals in the Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia, Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) govern the payment of portworkers’ compensation.

Brunei Darussalam grants compensation using prevailing market rates.

Compensation and benefits generally come in the form of the following:

1. Salary2. Overtime pay3. Night differential4. Social security5. Uniform allowance6. Transportation allowance7. Pension plan8. Medical benefits9. Death benefits/burial assistance10. Rice allowance11. Profit-sharing12. Productivity benefits13. Shift allowance

Almost all ports granted the first five benefits: salary, overtime pay, night differential, social security and uniform allowance. Ports in Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia gave additional benefits such as transportation allowance, pension plan and medical benefits.

Philippine ports granted further benefits in the form of death benefits/burial assistance and rice allowance.

Malaysian ports, on the other hand, provided profit-sharing, productivity incentives and shift allowance.


B. Operational Best Practices

1. Types of Quay and Yard Equipment Deployed

For quay operations:

Based on the survey, the following types of quay equipment were found to be in use in various combinations:

1. Prime movers2. Trailers3. Forklifts4. Quay cranes5. Panamax and post-panamax quay cranes6. Floating cranes

The majority of ports use prime movers, trailers and forklifts. Quay cranes are provided in Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines.

Panamax and post-panamax quay cranes are made available in Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand.

Only Saigon Port in Vietnam offers the use of a floating crane.

For yard operations:

1. Reach stackers2. Forklift3. Top loaders4. Mobile cranes

The most commonly supplied yard equipment includes reach stackers, forklifts, top loaders and mobile cranes. However, information on number of units and capacities was not supplied. In addition, no information was submitted on written guidelines and procedures pertaining to the deployment, allocation and utilization of this equipment.

2. Processing of requests for workers and equipment

The survey yielded the following with regard to processing time for requests for workers and equipment:

a. Philippines – 1 to 24 hoursb. Malaysia – 17 to 36 hoursc. Thailand – 5 minutes to 6 days


d. Indonesia – 9 hours to 7 dayse. Vietnam – 8 hours

Nearly all the ports indicated that portworkers and equipment were available at the time of receipt of requests.

3. Deployment of portworkers

Current practices in the deployment/assignment of workers include the following:

a. Rotationb. Per Work Schedulec. First-come/First-serve scheme

The majority of the ports make use of the first two schemes either exclusively or in combination. The third is practiced in certain ports in the Philippines and Indonesia.

4. Cargo tracking system

A tracking system to monitor the status and particular location of cargo in port is implemented at about 99 percent of the ports that responded to the survey. Fifty (50) percent of the ports utilize a computer-based system. In the ports dedicated to the handling of containers and those handling substantial volumes of specialized cargo such as dry and liquid bulk, the extent of computerization of the tracking system was in the range between 70 to 100 percent. Several of the respondents only indicated the software/programs being utilized which included ETMS, NAVIS, Computer Integrated Terminal Operating System (CITOS), NAVIS-SPARCS Yard Planning Program and Block Land Bay Ron Tier. They did not elaborate on these programs.

About 48 percent of surveyed ports were ports identified as handling largely break-bulk cargo. These generally utilize manual systems.

The remaining ports, which handle a mix of cargo types, indicated that they employed a combination of computerized and manual systems. One port reported utilizing a computer-based system for its container operations and a manual system for its general and break-bulk cargo operations. Another reported using computer-based systems for all its cargo operations.


5. Cargo documentation system

Cargo Discharging

The survey results showed that about 85 percent of the respondents indicated that only one document was used for cargo unloading operations while the remaining 15 percent reported using two documents.

Containerized Cargo Documentation

The 24 ports that responded to the survey admitted to the following documentation practices:

1. Containerized cargo handling operations generally require shipping documents (at an incidence of 78 percent).

2. Around 65 percent of these documents consisted of the cargo manifest/container list.

3. Documents issued by cargo handlers constituted 22 percent of which 50 percent were tally sheets.

4. Containerized cargo documents are normally submitted to the following: Terminal/Terminal Operators at a submission incidence of 57 percent; the Cargo Handlers at 25 percent or both at 18 percent incidence.

5. Submission of documents is done in one of the following modes:a. Before vessel arrival as prescribed (as practiced by

around 56 percent)b. At the end of the loading shift as demanded (by

about 22 percent)c. Before cargo/container loading operations as

required (by 15 percent)d. 36 hours after vessel arrival (by 4 percent)

(The remaining 3 percent did not indicate any response.)

General Cargo Documentation

For general cargo handling operations, the 14 ports surveyed admitted to the following documentation practices:

1. Required shipping documents (75 percent incidence)2. Required Cargo Handler documents (25 percent)


The utilization rates of the following shipping documents were as follows:

1. The Bill of Lading has a usage rate of about 43 percent among the shipping documents.

2. Tally Sheet, Cargo List and Report on Receipt of Cargo Manifest, all prepared by the Cargo handlers, have similar usage weights.

Submission of documents is done conversely, i.e., shipping documents are received by the cargo handlers and vice versa. The prescribed period for submission differs from port to port and was recorded as follows:

1. Before vessel arrival (33 percent)2. Upon vessel arrival (25 percent)3. After cargo discharging operations (17 percent), and4. During cargo unloading activities (14 percent)

Dry Bulk Cargo Documentation

The two respondent ports that reported dry bulk cargo handling operations use only the shipping document, either the cargo manifest or the stowage plan, which is submitted to the Operations Department, (the entity to which this Office is attached, whether cargo handling firm or the port operator, was not indicated), upon vessel arrival.

Liquid Bulk Cargo Documentation

The three ports surveyed for liquid bulk cargo handling operations utilize documents either prepared by the cargo handlers, at 67 percent usage rate, or by the shipping lines at 33 percent frequency. The Operation Planning Report and Out Turn Report, both emanating from the Cargo Handlers, are submitted to the Port Operator and Shipping Lines, respectively, within 24 hours from vessel arrival or upon completion of discharging operations. On the other hand, the Manifest, which is a Shipping record, is submitted to Planning, (no indication given regarding affiliation to any entity), one day before vessel arrival.

Cargo Delivery/Withdrawal Documentation

Around 70 percent of the respondents accounted for the single-document-user group. Fifteen percent comprised the two-document-user category while the remaining 15 percent withheld their answers


to all the survey variables under this phase of cargo handling operations.

Containerized Cargo

For containerized cargo delivery operations, the 24 respondents indicated varying documentary requirements and submission schedules. The shipping documents required, with their respective usage rates, are:

1. Delivery Order (38 percent)2. Bill of Lading (26 percent)3. In/Out Form (12 percent)4. Discharging List (12 percent) and5. ISD (12 percent)

Those issued by the Cargo Handlers comprise the Gate Pass (26 percent), Delivery Receipt (26 percent), Gate Pre-Advice (12 percent), Tally Sheet (12 percent), Container Delivery Note (12 percent) and VLUTS (12 percent). The Forwarders/Consignees provide the Delivery Document (50 percent) and Import Entry and Transshipment Permit (50 percent). The Terminal Operators prepare the Convoy Note (50 percent), Wharf Receipt (25 percent) and EIR (no further description given, at 25 percent). The Shipping documents are either submitted to the Terminal Operator, (at an incidence rate of 60 percent), or the Cargo Handler (40 percent) before cargo delivery or before vessel arrival. The documents from the Cargo handlers are usually received by the Terminal Operators (75 percent incidence) before or upon cargo delivery. Those prepared by the Forwarder/ Consignee are either submitted to the Terminal Operator or the Cargo Handler, at equal frequency, after cargo delivery or cargo unloading operations. The documents from the Terminal Operators are transmitted only to Forwarders/ Consignees upon delivery or upon presentation of Customs clearance.

General Cargo

The 14 surveyed ports with general cargo delivery operations routinely require the submission of the Delivery/Cargo Receipt, which recorded a usage rate of 55 percent and normally submitted to the Forwarder/Consignee upon processing of cargo withdrawal from the port. The documents prepared by the Cargo handlers are needed at an incidence of 45 percent.


Dry Bulk Cargo

Two respondent ports reported using the dry bulk cargo delivery document, Delivery Order, which is either prepared by the Customer/Consignee or the Shipping Company and submitted to the Sales/Business Department, (no data given as to entity affiliation), upon issuance of delivery clearance or receipt of cargoes.

Liquid Bulk Cargo

The three surveyed ports that process liquid bulk cargo delivery utilize any one of the following documents: Delivery Order prepared by the Shipping Lines, Delivery Order prepared by the Forwarder or the BPRP, (no description given), issued by the Cargo Handler. The Shipping Company submits the document to the Planning Operator, (no entity affiliation indicated), six hours before delivery; the Forwarder transmits his document to the Stevedoring Company 24 hours before delivery; and the Cargo Handler hands over its document to the Cargo Owner/Consignee upon cargo delivery.

Cargo Entry Documentation

A total of 30 respondents, comprising 87 percent of the total surveyed ports, utilize only one document in processing cargo entry. The other 13 percent of the respondents require two documents at a time.

Containerized Cargo

Containerized Cargo entry processing differs among the respondents in terms of documents used as issued by the Shipping Lines at an incidence of 45 percent, the Forwarder/Shipper (25 percent), the Cargo Handler (20 percent) and the Terminal Operator (10 percent). Among the Shipping documents, largely utilized is the Bill of Lading with a weight of 43 percent. The Cargo Entry Permit, with a usage rate of 50 percent, tops the documents issued by the Cargo Handlers in terms of usage rate. The Forwarder/Shipper prepares any of these documents at equal rate of incidence: Receiving Document, Bangkok No. 308.2, Export Declaration, and EIR (no further description given). In the case of Miri Port, only the Import/Export Activity Record Book is prepared. Majority of these documents (60 percent) are submitted to the Terminal/Terminal Operator while the remaining 40 percent are handed over to the Cargo Handler, usually before vessel arrival or cargo loading.


General Cargo

General Cargo entry operations require shipping documents at an incidence of about 70 percent. The Cargo Handler provides the documentary requirements at 20 percent incidence while the Private Contractor/Terminal Operator at 10 percent usage rate. Shipping documents vary from the Delivery Receipt with a reference rate of 43 percent while the rest, such as Bill of Lading, Shipping Order and Delivery Order share equal usage rates. These are regularly submitted to the cargo handler before cargo entry or after vessel arrival. The Private Contractor/Terminal Operator prepares the CEWP, (without further description given), which is retained by the same office for reference purposes on cargo entry particulars. The Cargo Handler readies only the Cargo Receipt, which is submitted to the Shipper or his duly authorized representative upon entry of cargo in port.

Dry Bulk Cargo

Dry bulk cargo entry procedure, according to one respondent, requires the submission of the Export Clearance, which is prepared by the Customer and submitted to the Sales Department, (no entity affiliation indicated), upon vessel berthing. Another respondent utilizes the Tally Sheet that is submitted by the Warehouse Staff and transmitted to the Business Department, (no data given on entity), with no indication on submission schedule.

Liquid Bulk Cargo

Liquid bulk cargo entry processing also varies depending on the respondent port. The Shipping Document, Delivery Order, is required with a usage rate of 33 percent and submitted to the Planning Operator, (no entity affiliation indicated), usually six hours before vessel arrival. The Cargo Handler prepares the BPRP, (also 33 percent, with no further description given), and submits same to the Cargo Owner upon cargo entry in port. The Forwarder prepares the Surat Jalan (no translation given) and submits this to the Stevedoring Company 24 hours before vessel arrival.

Cargo Loading Documentation

For this cargo-handling phase, 90 percent of the total respondents constituted the single document-users, 8 percent made up the two


document-users and a minor 2 percent comprised the three document-users.

Containerized Cargo

The Shipping document, with a reference rate of about 46 percent, emerged as the most frequently required record for containerized cargo loading operations. Among the Shipping documents, the Loading / Export List has the highest usage rate of 33 percent, followed by the Bill of Lading at 22 percent. Other documents referred to, each with an 11 percent usage rate, are the Outward Coasting Manifest, Booking Forecast, Shipping Order and Stowage Instructions. The documents prepared by the Cargo Handlers, with a total reference rate of 37 percent, are the Loading Tally Sheet, VOC, PVOER and Cargo Handling Permit. Those submitted by the Forwarder/Shipper (Shipping Order Advice) and the Terminal Operator (Window System and Load Sequence List) have minor usage rates. All these documents are usually submitted to the Terminal Operator or the Cargo Handler before or after vessel departure, depending on the submission policy of the ports concerned.

General Cargo

For the general cargo loading operations, the documents used are either prepared by the Shipping or the Cargo Handler at a reference ratio of 7:4. The shipping documents, each with equal usage rates, are the Bill of Lading, Delivery Receipt, Ship Tally Load, Loading List, CEWP, Operation Planning and Shipping Note. These are normally submitted to the Shipper, Terminal Operator and/or Cargo Handler before or upon loading operations. The documents from the Cargo Handler, also with similar usage rates, are the Delivery Receipt, Tally Sheet, Stowage Plan and General Report of Loading. These are usually forwarded to the Shipping Lines a day after vessel arrival in some ports or after vessel departure in the case of the other ports.

Dry Bulk Cargo

Dry bulk cargo loading operations utilize documents either prepared by the Shipping Agent or the Shipper, which are the Stowage Plan and the Cargo List, respectively. The former is submitted to the Operations Department, (no given entity affiliation), upon issuance of clearance, while the latter is handed over to the Business Department, (also no indication as to particular entity), with no given period of submission.


Liquid Bulk Cargo

Liquid bulk cargo loading procedure needs either the Cargo Handler or Shipper documents at a reference ratio of 2:1. The Cargo handler’s document, entitled Operation Planning, is submitted to the Terminal Operator a day before loading operations. The other document, named Loading Report, is given to the Shipping Lines upon completion of loading operations. The Delivery Order, prepared by the Shipper, is transmitted to the Planning Operator six hours before loading time.

Shifting Operations Documentation

All of the respondents referred to only one document during shifting operations.

Containerized Cargo

The shifting activity of containerized cargoes requires either the Shipping documents at an incidence of 64 percent or the Cargo Handler’s at a reference rate of 36 percent. The Shipping documents, each with equal usage rate, are the Shifting List, Re-stow List Container Movement Order, Shifting Form, Container Movement and the Shipping Agent Instruction. These are regularly submitted to the Terminal Operator several hours to a day before shifting operations. The Van Transfer Slip, Shifting Slip, Foreman’s Report, All Plan and Shifting Permit are the documents emanating from the Cargo Handlers. Each shares similar usage rates and is either submitted to the Terminal Operator usually before start of shifting activity or maintained by the issuing firm itself for cargo control purposes.

General Cargo

General cargo shifting operations recorded a need for Shipping and Cargo Handler documents at a ratio of 3:2. The Shipping’s Bill of Lading and Shifting order, both with equal usage rates, are submitted to the Cargo Handler and Terminal Operator, in that order, usually before shifting starts.

Dry Bulk Cargo

The dry bulk shifting process refers to the Shifting Order prepared by the Shipping agent and submitted, as needed, to the Operations Department, (no entity indicated). Only Vietnam’s Baria Serece provided data for this particular survey item.


Liquid Bulk Cargo

The shifting of liquid bulk cargoes either requires the shipping or the Cargo Handler documents. The shipping report, named Agent Instruction/ Ship Master, is submitted to the Terminal Operator six hours before shifting starts. The Cargo handler’s Work Order is submitted to the Cargo Owner upon completion of the shifting activity.

6. Security Measures

Security measures that are commonly implemented in various APA ports consisting of Brunei Darussalam (PSA Muara), Indonesia Ports (Palembang, Panjang, Tanjung Perak, Tanjung Priok, Pontianak and Petikemas Surabaya), Malaysia Ports (Sabah-Johor, Kuantan, Rajang and Miri), Philippine Ports (Pulupandan-BREDCO II, Tacloban, Tagbilaran, Iloilo and Ozamiz), Thailand (LCT, Laem Chabang and Eastern Sea Laem-Chabang), Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) and Vietnam Ports (Danang, Saigon and Baria Serece) are the following:

a) Only authorized labor is allowed access to operational areas;b) Authorized laborers wear prescribed uniform, IDs and protective

gears/hats;c) Safety signs and slogans are posted in conspicuous places;d) Security personnel are posted in strategic locations;e) Pedestrian lanes are properly marked;f) Special areas are designated for dangerous cargoes.

Incidences Of Breaches To Security Of Cargoes And People Within The Port Premises - There are very rare reported breaches in security according to the survey results. Reasons cited for security lapses include lack of awareness among personnel and human error. In cases of damaged or lost cargo, there is a set of well-defined procedures for processing claims. Another very effective measure to eliminate such incidences was the installation of “close circuit television,” which is also largely adopted by many commercial establishments such as banks and merchandising outlets.

7. Processing Of Claims Due To Loss/Injury And Damage To Life/Property

There is a well-defined process for filing and settlement of claims in generally all member-ports of APA. In Indonesia, for example, the party which suffered loss files the claim or “minute” describing the nature of loss which is concurred with by the party which inflicted the loss. These are almost the same procedures being observed in Vietnam Ports. This is then submitted to the Port Corporation for


resolution. In Kuantan Port of Malaysia, the insurance agent undertakes the assessment of loss and compensates the claimant after proper filing of claims. In the Philippines, a Damage Report is filed and this is investigated and compensation is paid if the claim is found meritorious. The details of procedures followed, however, are not indicated in the accomplished survey forms or in any attachment to these.

8. Type Of Billing/Collection System

Among the 10 container-dedicated ports that responded to the survey, only three have fully automated Billing and Collection Systems. No further systems description was given, except for one respondent which only gave the name of its system as TOPS SYSTEM. For the ports catering exclusively to general cargo operations, (two in number), the Billing and Collection System is still done manually. On the other hand, about 40 percent of the 30 ports with mixed cargo operations have fully automated systems while the rest still implement the manual system. Three respondents did not provide any response to this survey item.

9. Documentation Processes And Procedures

a. Timely Receipt Of Source Documents For Billing Purposes

Around 80 percent of the container-dedicated ports reported promptly receiving their source documents while the remaining 20 percent experience an average delay of one day. Two ports, with solely general cargo operations, registered no delays in the receipt of the required documents. Around 90 percent of ports that accommodate mixed cargoes indicated hassle-free incidence in the receipt of source documents. The remaining 10 percent had to deal with delays of one to two days.

b. Accuracy Of Information In Source Documents

With regard to completeness and accuracy of data in source documents for purposes of billing port charges, only one of the surveyed ports, under the category with mixed cargo operations, reported encountering problems. All the rest indicated that they did not experience any related problems.

c. Uniform Application Of Cargo Handling Tariff

All ports in the Philippines and selected ports/terminals in other members of the ASEAN like Indonesia’s Tanjung Priok PT JICT


impose uniform cargo handling tariff regardless of the type of cargo handled.

d. Proper Billing/Collection Of Cargo Handling Tariff

Prescribed cargo handling tariff is reported to be regularly and properly billed and collected in all ports. In Malaysia’s Johor Port, the tariff rate depends on the category of cargo. The accomplished survey forms did not offer much other than these items of information. There was no information on the rates of tariff as no respondent provided a copy of their tariff schedules.

10. Interfacing Of Various Operational Systems In The Port

Of the two container-dedicated ports that reported implementing systems interfaces, only one furnished information on its name and nature: E-Terminal and EDI interface for information purposes. Five other ports disclosed that no systems interface exists, while one reported that systems interface is routinely done with the Harbor Master for coordination purposes only. Two abstained from providing answers. Two ports handling exclusively general cargo either have no systems interface or refrained from giving any information. Twelve or 41 percent of the ports with mixed cargo operations have their Port Operations Systems linked with other systems through one of the following methods:

a. Interfaces with the Delivery/Loading System for inspection and customs clearance purposes, usually done before cargo delivery/entry

b. Links with the Documentation Systems of the Customs Department, Haulers, Ship Operators, Container Operators, Forwarding Agents, major shippers/consignees and other related government departments for purposes of permit processing, normally undertaken as the need arises

c. Connection with the PCG (acronym was not spelled out) system for information purposes on arrival/departure schedule of vessels, regularly accomplished before vessel arrival/departure

d. Interfaces with the SRA (acronym was not spelled out) system for cargo information purposes, which is regularly done before cargo loading period

e. Attachment to the BOC (acronym was not spelled out) system for foreign cargo information purposes


f. Looping with the computer networks and EDI linkages of Customs, Shipping Lines and Ship agents, on a regular basis, for transfer and exchange of cargo information, and for information purposes of operations planning and service center

g. Connection with the Shipper system for PKK (acronym not spelled out) purposes and with the Port system 24 hours before vessel entry.

h. Regular interfacing with the Harbor Master for coordination purposes only

i. Links with the Shipping Lines, Port Authority, stevedore company, shipper/consignee, and/or Port corporation for operation planning and service center needs around 25 hours before vessel entry

j. Loops with the Port Authority using its PORTNET system for ITH purposes.

Ten of the mixed cargo ports have no systems interface with other computer networks. One of these ports did not respond.

11. Productivity Standards And Measurement Of Port Performance

With regard to identification of productivity standards used in the major areas of port operations, all survey forms submitted were either partially accomplished or bore incomplete data/answers for the particular survey item. Some of the respondents who provided partial answers did not adhere to the unit of measurement specified for each indicator of productivity. For instance, MT/NGH was used by one port in measuring actual performance for Liquid Bulk Handling instead of metric tons per ship-hour specified in the questionnaire. No guidelines/policies or relevant records/documents on productivity were submitted to corroborate data indicated in the survey forms.

With regard to reasons for inability to meet the target productivity level of operation, equipment breakdown was commonly cited as the reason for failure to meet the productivity standards. Some ports did not offer reasons.

12. Provision Of Amenities

Amenities that are generally made available in all APA ports are toilets and drinking stations. In some, there are medical/health clinics, canteens/restaurants/cafeterias, immigration posts, ticket booths,


reefer facilities, tennis courts, transport services booths, meeting rooms, prayer rooms, fresh water supply facilities, bunkers, duty-free shops, lockers, recreational facilities, etc. The types of amenities that are provided at the ports are generally consistent with the state of the economic affairs of the country where the ports are located. For example, Singapore which is recognized as the most economically advanced member nation of the ASEAN happens to also play host to one of the most efficient ports in the world with amenities that exceed the commonly provided ones like recreational facilities.

C. Best Practices On Pilotage

1. Policy On The Use Of Pilotage

The summary of the survey questionnaires reveals that almost all ports require compulsory pilotage. This may be attributed to the fact that the respondents are either operating under state regulations or classified under a port authority vested with the responsibility of enforcing mandatory measures to ensure utmost safety within the harbor or port.

2. Institutional Set-up For The Provision Of Pilotage

Institutional concerns regarding pilotage include:

a. Who Provides Pilotage Servicesb. Qualification Of Pilotsc. Number Of Vessels That Avail Of Pilotage Services Per Yeard. Number Of Harbor Pilots Availablee. Who Prescribes Pilotage Rates

In most ports, the state provides pilotage either through a service branch of the port authority or a government-run pilotage organization. Although in some ports where the government delegates undertaking of such services to private organizations, it is safe to assume that the regulatory function is still maintained by the State.

Since most respondent ports require compulsory pilotage, the maximum number of vessels that should have availed of pilotage services per year should obviously be the number of ship-calls per year. Hence, it would, therefore, be more worthwhile instead to identify policy criteria for exempting vessels from pilotage services. The following are possible cases for exemption to be considered:

1. Relatively small vessels (100 GRT and less)2. Government vessels, e.g. military/naval ships


3. Home-ported or local flag-carrying vessels4. Vessels engaged in daily ferry service5. Vessels calling at private ports whose owner has formally waived

compulsory pilotage

With regard to the number of harbor pilots available, the responses ranged from two to as high as 22. These responses may be misleading as some of the respondents may have provided the total number of pilots in the association as well as available pilots, while others counted only those pilots assigned to a particular terminal or port.

The port authority usually promulgates a schedule of fees within a pilotage district. However, in some ports, the terms of any contract for pilotage, including rates or pilot fees, are negotiated and agreed upon by the parties involved.

3. Accreditation/Licensing Of Pilots

As the basis for approving applications for the accreditation/licensing of pilots, aside from the minimum requirements like age, nationality and fitness, the applicant may be required to:

Submit recommendations from one or more trade or professional organizations;

Submit certifications from previous employer;

Submit a license or certification issued by a specific licensing agency;

Complete and pass both oral and written examinations;

Provide other satisfactory evidence of competence.

Procedures For The Accreditation Of Pilots – No information on these procedures was obtained to address this item. However, based on common practice, the port authority usually has the power and duty to issue pilot licenses pursuant to rules and regulations applicable to those who seek to engage in the profession of harbor pilot within the territory. The application for appointment is most likely addressed and filed with the port authority, which has jurisdiction over the pilotage district being applied for. In some cases, an evaluation committee composed of maritime officials is created to determine the qualifications necessary to obtain an appointment.


D. Best Practices on Tug Services

For the following set of questions covering tug services, there were 39 respondents, as follows:

Singapore (1 respondent) Port of Singapore AuthorityIndonesia (7 respondents) Tanjung Priok/PT JICT; PT Terminal Petikemas

Surabaya; Pontianak Port; Tanjung Priok/General Cargo; Palembang; Panjang/General Cargo; Port of Tanjung Perak

Thailand (4 respondents) LCE Container Terminal; Laem Chabang Port/TIPS; Eastern Sea Laem Chabang Terminal Co., Inc.; Bangkok Port

Brunei (2 respondents) PSA Muara Container Terminal Sdn. Bhd.; Ports Department

Malaysia (6 respondents) Miri Port Authority; Kuching; Sabah Port Authority - Kota Kinabalu; Johor Port Container Terminal; Kuantan Port Consortium Sdn. Bhd; Rajang Port Authority

Vietnam (3 respondents) Saigon Port; Baria Serece; Danang PortPhilippines (16 respondents) MICT; ATI (South Harbor); North Harbor (Pier

4); Pulupandan BREDCO II; Tacloban; Tagbilaran; Iloilo; Ozamiz; Cagayan de Oro; Nasipit; Iligan; General Santos; Davao; Cebu International Port; Legazpi; Cotabato

Of these 39 ports , five (5) did not respond to any of the questions. These were LCE Container Terminal of Thailand, PSA Muara Container Terminal Sdn Bhd of Brunei, Miri Port Authority of Malaysia, and MICT and ATI (South Harbor) of the Philippines.

1. Policy On The Use Of Tug Services

In about 57 percent of the respondent ports, that is, 22 out of 39, the use of tug services is compulsory. Fifteen (15) of these are ports from the various ASEAN member-countries, except the Philippines which accounts for the remaining seven (7) that are all inter-island ports. The other 44 percent is distributed among the following categories: Not compulsory – 23 percent for a total of 9 respondents; Not applicable – 5 percent for 2 respondents; and No answer – 15 percent for 6 respondents.

The non-compulsory option for tug assistance is not absolute. In some ports, even if such service is not obligatory, tug assistance becomes compulsory under certain conditions. In the Philippines, for example, state regulations require compulsory tug assistance to a vessel when the vessel’s capability to safely maneuver in a port may be adversely affected by strong currents with a velocity of 4 knots or more, wind factor with a velocity and direction of air currents


traveling at 30-50 kph, the conditions at the port that include the manner of the approach to the berth, port structures and its facilities, location of the berth and limited maneuvering space for vessel, inclement weather and mechanical defects in the vessel. Furthermore, one port makes tug assistance mandatory for vessels over 1,000 GRT while another for docking vessels only.

2. Institutional Set-up For The Provision Of Tug Services

From the responses taken, the following show what kind of entities provide tug assistance: Port authority/owner/ operator – 12; Private tug operator – 12; The Marine Department – 1; and the pilot association – 1. Four of the respondents said they did not provide any tug services.

The reasons for preferring the employment of a particular tug assistance provider to another were not offered since this was not included in the questionnaire. In the absence of such information, it would be difficult to suggest which type of tug service provider is better than the others.

Additional explanations would have provided further clarification to the responses. But these were not offered. In the case of Indonesia, for example, why in all the seven (7) respondent ports, the Port Authority/Operator is the provider of tug assistance. The same is true with Thailand whose 3 ports indicated the Port Authority as the provider of tug services. On the other hand, in Malaysia’s Johor Port and Rajang Port Authority, tug assistance is provided by private tug operator/s while in Kuantan Port, it is again the port authority that provides tug assistance.

In the case of Singapore, tug orders are automatically generated and serviced by PSA Marine Pte Ltd. for vessels that are booked by the agents at any of the PSA Terminals. However, the customer may use an alternative tug service provider whose name it must provide so that PSA Marine will not deploy tugs for such vessel.


3. Operating Parameters And Tariff For Tug Services

Only six (6) respondents, excluding those from the Philippines, provided answers to the question. From the responses gathered, it is difficult to establish a typical pattern or even a common practice. One factor that contributed to this difficulty is the use of different brackets or ranges of measurement. Another is the use of different units of measurement. For example, one respondent employs 2 brackets only, another uses 3 ranges and still others use 4 groups, all in GRT. At least two (2) use length overall (LOA) as the basis. Even the use of interpolation or similar mathematical technique cannot provide any clear results. Without any additional and reliable data, it is deemed not advisable to attempt to explain the differences and variances at this time.

Likewise, establishing a standard rate of charge or a semblance of it is extremely difficult. While some use a single factor in the computation of charges, e.g., per hour, others use a combination of variables such as per-GT and per-hour. Still others charge a base or flat rate in addition to charges based on variables. It is possible that charging rates are dictated by the State or the government as was indicated by respondent Baria Serece of Vietnam. (See matrix)

Similar situations exist as in the case of the Philippine Ports as no standard schedules and rates are followed. (See table on Philippine ports.)


MATRIX OF INFORMATION ON TUG SERVICES IN APA PORTS (except Philippine Ports)

Laem Chabang Johor Port Pontianak Port Palembang Panjang Tanjung Perak Danang Port2 units required

<5000GRT (LOA up to 125m)1x40004MR/hr

<3500GRT800150 U$

2001-7000GRT1x 600 HPU$3/hr

LOA 70m-100m1x1160HP145+.004/GT/hr

3500GT1xmin 800HPU$178/hr

LOA 70-100m1 tug x 500HPU$34/hp/hr

>5000GT (LOA>125m) 2 x 3600 or 4000 RM4/m/hr

3501– 8000GRT1600HP400 U$

7001-13100GRT2x600-3400HPU$6.22/hr

LOA 100m-150m2x1700+1740HPU$375 + .004/GT/hr

3501-80002xmin.2400464/hr

LOA 120-140m2 w/1100HPU$170/hr

8001-14000GRT3400HP600U$

13100-30000GT2x3400-5000HPU$1340/hr

LOA 150-200m3x1700+1740+1160HPU$1280+.004/GT/hr

8001-140002xmin 3000712/hr

LOA 170-250m3 w/1700HPU$300/hr

>30000GT2x5000-10000HPU$1600/hr

14001-180002xmin 5000894/hr26001-400003x6500HP1400/hr40001-750003x7000 HP1700/hr


MATRIX ON INFORMATION ON TUG SERVICES IN PHILIPPINE PORTS

Iloilo Ozamiz Cagayan de Oro Nasipit Iligan General Santos Davao148.351500HP

500-1500 GRT300HP or equiv.

1500-3000GRT500 HP/equiv.Php6,000

1000-5000GRT2 tugs @ 600HP each per agreed rate

2000 GRT and below750 HPP3,000.00

1500-3000GRT500 HPper agreed rates

500-27,000GRT1 x 1,000 HPPhp9,214 (foreign docking)

1501-3000GRT700HP

3001-10000GRT700HP/equiv.Php10,000

5000 GRT & over3-4 tugs at 600HP each per agreed rate

2001-3000GRT750 HPPhp 6,000

3001-10000GRT700 HPper agreed rate

500-27,000GRT2 x 1,200 HPPhp9,214(undocking)

10001-15000GRT1000HP

10001-15000GRT1000HP/equiv.Php16000

3001-10000GRT850 HPPhp 10,000

15000 GRT-up1,500 HP per agreed rate

500-27,000GRT1 x 1,300 HPPhp8,907 x 2 for docking & undocking

15,001 GRT & above1500 HP

15001-20000GRT1500HP/equiv.Php24,000

10001-15000GRT850HPPhp 16,000

500-27,000GRT1 x 444 HP Domestic P2,000 x 2 (docking & undocking)

15001-20000GRT1,000 HPPhp24,00020001-25000GRT1,000HP pernegotiation25001-35000GRT1,200HP per negotiation35001 GRT-above1500 HP per negotiation

4. Obligations And Liabilities Of Tug Operators

Only ten (10) ports responded to this item. With regard to the responsibility to the client, good service and client satisfaction appear to be the common denominator. One way of achieving these is having tugboats that are readily available and sufficient in number and capacity. Johor Port, however, indicated no liabilities and obligations to the clients, possibly for the reason that since tug assistance is provided by its terminal operator, the obligation belongs to that terminal operator and not to the port itself.

With respect to responsibility to the port authority, the general view is that tug operators are under obligation to conduct their services in strict compliance with government or port rules and regulations, and with the safety of life and property as a primary concern. They are likewise expected to meet their financial obligations to the government or port.

Only four (4) provided answers with regard to the third item which pertains to responsibilities to others. These range from responsibilities arising from accidents involving other vessels that are not connected with port operations to responsibilities of ensuring profit for the owner.

5. Types Of Tug Services Provided

Results of the survey show that towing vessels entering or departing from the port is the fundamental service being provided by tug operators. This type of service appears to be very crucial and vital especially for foreign vessels and vessels on their maiden voyages because of the ship captain’s unfamiliarity with the situation and/or conditions at the ports in the particular country/area.

In certain ports, Johor Port, for example, other tug services such as escorting, as well as for stand-by and emergency operations are also provided by tug operators. In Saigon Port, likewise, services for emergency operations are available.

6. Manning Of Tugs And Qualifications

Manpower requirements vary from port to port. This can be gleaned from the answers where up to 5 types of manpower are indicated by each of the ports that responded to the question. Different position titles or descriptions are used and it is possible that some of these may mean the same type of manpower or function. It is, thus, not easy, in most cases, to provide a position title or description that would appropriately encompass the others. The same is true with the

qualifications indicated in the responses. Given this, the most that could be done was to list the types of manpower and qualifications as provided by the respondents, as follows:

Type Of Manpower QualificationTugboat Captain/ Master/Pilot Master Mariner/Certificate HolderChecker DiplomaController UniversityWharf Traffic Officer DiplomaCrew/Crew Complement Helmsman/First Mate

Certificate/Licensed Tugboat Patron

Chief Engineer Third Engineer Certificate/Class 4Helmsman Class 6Greaser Class 5Mooring/Unmooring personnel

In-house/BST/work experience/PMR

Engine Department Worker Engine SeamanDeck Department WorkerSailorLinemanPortworkers

7. Accreditation/Licensing Of Tug Operators

There were only twelve (12) respondents to this item, four of which were ports in the Philippines. From the very limited answers given, there appear to be common documents that are required by some of the respondent ports (with different document titles). These include the following:

Tug Registration Certificate – This document is submitted to the government agency concerned. At Kuching Port, this is submitted to the Port Administrator. At Saigon Port, the registration certificate form is submitted to the Vietnam Inland Waterway or Vietnam National Maritime Bureau for tugboats with HP below 1000 and with HP above 1000, respectively. In the Philippines, the form is submitted to the Philippine Coast Guard/MARINA.

Safety Equipment Certificate/Seaworthy Certificate – At Panjang and Saigon Ports, this is submitted to the Harbor Master.

Radio/Radio Safety Certificate – This is submitted likewise to the Harbor Master or Port Administrator.

Crew List – This is submitted to the Port Administrator/PCG.

Permit-To-Operate/Business Permit –In the Philippines, this is submitted to the PPA.

Other documents seem to be exclusive only to a particular port, such as the Health Body or Bill of Health and the International Load Line Certificate which are required at Kuching Port. Johor Port indicated “mandatory certificates” only and these are submitted to the Marine Department of Malaysia for endorsement and approval.

8. Tug Requirements For Berthing And Unberthing Of Vessels

The responses show a common basis on which mandatory tug requirements depend. Generally, the length overall (LOA) of the vessel determines the number and capacity (or horsepower) of the tugs that are required to service the vessel. However, the actual LOA varies for the different ports concerned. Setting standard specifications may be hard to achieve from the practical point of view in as much as specific requirements or regulations may also differ from one port to another. Shown below is a matrix of responses to the item. Other responses are not included since they are just general statements and do not provide any basis for quantitative interpretation.

Tug Requirements For Berthing/Unberthing Of VesselsBerthing Unberthing

Kuching Port LOA >110m – requires 2 tugboats

LOA > 110m – requires 2 tugboats

Johor Port Container Terminal

Inner jetties – 2 tugsOuter jetties – less than125m – 1 tug

LOA 240m above – 1 escort tugLOA 280m above – 2 escort tugs

Brunei Ports Dept.

LOA<180m & draft <8.5m – no restrictions, else 2 tugs

LOA <180m & draft<8.5m no restrictions, else 2 tugs

Kuantan Port, Malaysia

LOA>70m – 2 tugs LOA>70m – 2 tugs

Tanjung Perak 70 –100m LOA – minimum of 1 tug w/ 600 HP

-500-3000GRT - 1 tug 1000hp-3001-7000 GRT - 2 w/ 2 x 1000 HP-7001-12,000 GRT - 2 w/ 1 x 1000 HP-12,001-20,000 GRT - 2 w/ 1 x 2400 hp, 2x2400hp

Davao 100-150m LOA – by 2 tugs w/ 1600-3400 Hp150-200m LOA – by min. 2 tug w/ 3400-5000 HP200-300m Loa-by min. 3tugs w/ 5000-10000HP

Same as above

9. Manner Rates For Tug Services Are Determined

The manner of determining the rates for tug services vary, as indicated by the responses, is listed below:

Country/Port/Entity MethodBrunei Ports Department No guidelinesKuching, Malaysia Hourly basisSaigon Port Promulgated by State Pricing

CommitteePontianak Port, Indonesia Approximately 1 to 1.5

hours/servicePalembang, Indonesia Based on tugging time and

dimensions of vesselPanjang/General Cargo Port GT of vessel, tug boat horse

power and variable tariffPort of Tanjung Perak, Indonesia

By Port Corporation based on size of the vessel

Danang Port Based on operating hours and capacity of tug

10. Mechanism For Determining Liability Of Tugboat Operators And Compensating Aggrieved Parties

No information from the responses given outlines or clearly defines and describes the mechanism or procedures in determining the liabilities of the tugboat operator and the compensation for the aggrieved party. All of them indicate, however, that the liabilities are determined based on existing laws, rules and regulations by either the port authority or competent court concerned.

E. Best Practices Survey – Cargo Handling Statistics

In the collection and maintenance of cargo statistics, there appears to be an adoption or acceptance of some standard or convention in the unit of quantity used, either in tons for all types of handling or TEUs in the case of containers. The survey questionnaire was designed to gather the following information:

1. Containers2. Bulk (Liquid)3. Bulk (Dry)4. General Cargo5. Loose6. Palletized7. Other (Logs, Sawn Lumber, Steel, Bags, Frozen, Lumber,

Sufferance Facilities, Bagged Cargo, RO-RO, Others)

Since the data submitted by the 42 target respondents were for a particular year, what could be deduced or inferred at this time are the major types of cargo handling methods currently in practice. The survey results are tabulated as follows, all of which are shown in Appendix A:

1. Respondents listed by country2. Respondents ranked by total volume3. Respondents ranked by container volume4. Respondents ranked by bulk volume5. Respondents ranked by general cargo volume:

According to total volume, covering all cargo types, the data yielded the following top ten respondents:

1. Indonesia Multi Purpose - 29,967,4822. Indonesia Tanjung Priok - 23,365,8843. Malaysia Johor Port Container Terminal (January version) -

21,372,5204. Singapore - Maritime & Port Authority of Singapore -

17,040,0005. Indonesia Port of Tanjung Perak - 16,091,7896. Indonesia Priok/PT JICT - 15,277,1307. Thailand Bangkok Port - 13,248,1778. Indonesia Panjang/General Cargo - 11,850,3969. Singapore - Port of Singapore Authority - Jurong Port PTE

LTD (JPPL) - 11,200,00010. Indonesia Palembang - 10,923,492

Cargo volumes range from 10.9 million tons to 30.0 million tons. Six of the respondents which are from Indonesia dominate this ranking. In the absence

of historical data, it is difficult to arrive at any conclusions in terms of traffic performance.

In terms of container traffic, the following ranking shown below was arrived at. Once again, Indonesian respondents lead in the trend towards greater containerization. This ranking must be taken considering that some respondents submitted only the total cargo data without specifying how much is in containerized form. In the ranking for total volumes, the Maritime and Port Authority registered 17.0 million tons and it is likely that all of this is containerized cargo. If so, it would be ranked first in the list below.

1. Indonesia Priok/PT JICT - 15,277,1302. Malaysia Johor Port Container Terminal (January version) -

11,643,5003. Philippines - MICT - 10,180,3304. Indonesia PT Terminal Petikems Surabaya - 9,290,2905. Singapore - Port of Singapore Authority - Jurong Port PTE

LTD (JPPL) - 6,500,0006. Indonesia Multi Purpose - 4,620,3737. Indonesia Panjang/UTPK - 4,200,6808. Indonesia Tanjung Priok - 3,866,5119. Philippines - South Harbor, ATI - 2,933,32110. Malaysia Kuching - 2,810,209

Despite increasing trends towards containerization, Asian ports continue to handle bulk commodities, liquid and dry. As with total cargo volumes and container volumes, Indonesian respondents reported significant bulk cargo levels indicating the presence of bulk handling facilities in these ports. It was observed that liquid bulk accounted for the greater share in the bulk cargo market.

1. Indonesia Multi Purpose - 16,654,8092. Indonesia Tanjung Priok - 13,278,2183. Indonesia Port of Tanjung Perak - 12,503,3864. Malaysia Johor Port Container Terminal (January version) -

9,729,0205. Indonesia Panjang/General Cargo - 9,340,3886. Indonesia Palembang - 9,224,7107. Malaysia Kuantan Port Consortium SDN., BHD. - 3,995,4038. Vietnam - Saigon Port - 3,173,9419. Indonesia Pontianak Port - 994,10510. Malaysia Kuching - 973,500

Aside from container handling and bulk handling facilities, respondents also reported notable levels of general cargo indicating that demand in these ports for non-specialized cargo handling facilities in these ports still exists.

1. Thailand Bangkok Port - 13,248,1772. Indonesia Multi Purpose - 8,692,3003. Indonesia Tanjung Priok - 6,221,1554. Singapore - Port of Singapore Authority - Jurong Port PTE

LTD (JPPL) - 4,700,0005. Indonesia Port of Tanjung Perak - 2,839,6326. Malaysia Kuantan Port Consortium SDN., BHD. - 2,074,1347. Indonesia Pontianak Port - 1,902,2628. Malaysia Kuching - 1,323,6769. Philippines - South Harbor, ATI - 1,277,32610. Brunei Ports Department - 1,014,992

Thailand’s Bangkok Port leads in this list. Without commodity breakdowns and other additional information, it cannot be determined which percentage of the general cargo have the potential to be absorbed in the containerization sector. It would appear that these general cargoes could reduce to minimal levels in the future.