Ministry of Shipping Govt. of India 7th July, 2011.

Quay line capacity benchmarks (Teu per metre of quay p.a)

Large Terminal more than 1,000 Meters of continuous Quayline

Medium TerminalBetween 500 and 1,000 Meters of Quayline

Small Terminal Between 250 & 500 Meters of Quayline

JNPT -1992 meters of Quay Length

JNPT -680 meters of Quay Length

DPW -600 meters of Quay Length

APM Terminals Mumbai 712 meters of Quay Length

Mixed arrival schedule, competition encouraged, freemarket tariff, gateway port Mixed arrival schedule, regulated tariff, high berth occupancy, common user facility, gateway port

1200

1000

800 2148 1200 2621 2656

1500

1200

1000

As per global benchmark, JN Port should be doing 2.99 million Teus per annum, whilst last year the Port reached a throughput of 4.27 million Teus. Hence, in terms of productivity and volume throughput, Terminals at JNP are among the top quartile in the world.

PORT Singapore PSA NSICT Colombo-SLPA International Standards

Berth Productivity for large vessels 45 30 23 -

Crane Productivity for large vessel 36 22 18 27-33

If one expands the productivity parameters from Turnaround time to Dwell Time and compare Port of Singapore, in general terms, the position emerges as follows:
Ports Dwell Time (days) 3.78 0.60 Crane productivity (Moves/hr) 20 30 Evacuation System Manual Automatic flow-thrugate system Vessel evacuation rate (Containers/hr) 40 100 Turnaround time (days) 1.77 0.50

Major Indian Ports Singapore

Port

Quay Length (meters)

2010 Thruput (teus)

Teus per meter of Quaylength per annum

3,180 1,707 857 1,268 1,552 2,149 1,201 2,621 2,656

Gross Crane Moves

Shanghai Singapore Rotterdam Colombo Jebel Ali JNPT JNPCT NSICT APM Terminals Mumbai

9,142 16,654 13,000 3,154 1,992 1,992 680 600 712

29,069,000 28,430,800 11,145,805 4,000,000 4,279,943 4,279,943 816,470 1,572,366 1,891,107

29 mph 25 mph 25 mph 27 mph 27 mph

15 mph 25 mph 30 mph

In terms of Productivity per meter of berth length (a global benchmark), JNPT is right up there to global standards.

The annual average growth in cargo throughput at non-major ports during first four years of Eleventh Five Year Plan was15% compared to 14% during Tenth Five Year Plan. During 2009-10, growth in cargo handled by non-major ports was 35.7%. During 2010-11, the growth in cargo has declined to 8.7%. The deceleration in growth rates of both major and non-major ports can be attributed to restrictions on export of iron ore from Indian Ports.

NTPC imported 10 million tonnes of coal in 2010-11. The share of major ports was 42%. This is despite the fact that coal handling capacity of major ports increased from 85 MT to 105 MT during 2010-11. DOF imported 21 MT of fertilizer in 2010-11. The share of major ports was 12.4 MT representating 60%. Major share of GOI imports is given to non-major ports. GOI has allowed the facility of priority berthing of vessels carrying fertilizers in major ports.

Largely through PPP. Work commenced only in 2009-10 as 2 year of 11th Five Year Plan were spent in finalising the Model Concession Agreement. In 2009-10, 13 PPP Projects worth Rs.2653.77 crores were awarded. In 2010-11, 9 PPP Projects worth Rs.3356.65 crores were awarded. Upon completion of these 22 projects an additional capacity generation of 117.417MT per annum will take place.

During 2011-12, 23 PPP Projects of Rs.16,672.62 crores are planned for award.

Partnership projects (PPP) 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter

No. of Projects 4 4 4

Estimated Cost ( in crores) Rs.5604.58 Rs.7493.43 Rs.1336.17

Capacity (MTPA) 74.42 80.19 23.64

4th Quarter 11 Rs.2238.14 52.20 ___________________________________________________________________________ Total 23 Rs.16672.32 230.45 ___________________________________________________________________________

EDI/PCS.

Integration with customs.

Bringing down of transaction costs.

Integration with non-major ports.

Decided by COS in 2006. 12 pending NHAI projects. 10 pending Railway projects.

Proposals sent to Railway Board for rail connectivity to major ports during Twelfth Five Year Plan.
Proposals from non-major ports being received.

Maritime states allocating large areas to private parties without tendering process. Once PPPAC clears a project, it goes directly to CCI. Objections at CCI Stage by Planning Commission/Ministry of Environment & Forests unwarranted. State Governments delaying CRZ/ Forest clearance for port projects. Only EC should suffice for port projects. Dredging subsidy for major ports. High Courts giving stay orders freely thereby delaying projects. Empowered Committee at the level of MOS should clear all port projects. No need for either PPPAC/PIB/CCI. No further amendments to MCA be allowed. It has been cleared by cabinet.