Draft ports policy 'fails on several levels'

IS THERE any point in discussing the final draft of the National Commercial Ports Policy, asks the SA Federated Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Safcoc) in its final submission to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee, or has government already made up its mind? This question is raised as the private sector body casts doubt on the document's definition of the roles of the National Port Authority (NPA) and the Department of Transport (DoT) in the future control of the ports. "Exact and clear lines have to be drawn between the issues over which the DoT and the NPA will exercise control," said the Safcoc review. But it suggests that "it is disturbing to note" that - although the ports policy is still defined as a "draft", and public/private sector discussion is being encouraged - the NPA has already been established. "This raises the issue of whether comments will be seriously considered or if the policy has been agreed on, and the consultation process is being undermined." The body expresses its main goal in the future of the SA port network in the single word "privatisation". "We believe that the privatisation of SA port operations is a means to improve port efficiency and the associated logistical effectiveness, and virtually every port city in the world is following this course of action to a greater or lesser degree." But the government's definition of what port privatisation will finally be is not clearly spelled out in the draft ports policy, Safcoc complains. The manner in which the NPA, port operations department (POD) and private operators interact during the proposed "licensing and concessioning" transition is unclear, said their submission. While the draft policy provides for these, "it fails to define the institutional arrangements and relationships that have to be established" between the parties. "Government's intentions in this respect should be clearly defined," said Safcoc. The draft white paper also fails to deal with just how government will "reduce its direct involvement in operations and the provision of infrastructure", it added. In this, Safcoc agrees with the viewpoint expressed by Dr Gustav de Monie in his recent investigation on behalf of the Department of Public Enterprises. "Licensing and concessioning," De Monie said, "need to be carefully prepared. "Ideally, action should be established and executed after decisions have been made on the number of facilities and services to be transferred to private sector management and operation. "Crucial are the establishment of criteria for pre-selection and technical appraisal of bids and the decision on the most appropriate methodology to evaluate and rank the financial proposals." But, said Safcoc, very little is said about this in the draft white paper. Also missing is a definition of the various regulatory rights of the different bodies. While De Monie feels that the proposed, separate Port Regulator Body is not necessary, and that any regulation could be overseen by the contractual relationships concluded by the NPA and the Competition Authority, Safcoc thinks differently. "Policy statements will not be enough to negate the need for regulation in the short-term," it said, while recommending that a "regulatory body which is dedicated to dealing with port regulatory issues" would be "far preferable" to the current Competition Authority. At the moment, Safcoc added, the DoT, the Ports regulator and the NPA all have overlapping regulatory functions. "This will lead to confusion unless these functions are separated." Also, while the draft white paper proposes intra-port competition, it does not support inter-port competition. Safcoc, however, does not agree. "It is only by competitive pressure, both within and between ports, that efficiencies will be enhanced," said its submission. Also designed to stimulate competition is Safcoc's rejection of the draft white paper's proposal that the NPA will be the only body permitted to build and develop ports. "It is our view," it said, "that government should permit those with the necessary means and inclination to build and develop ports to do so." Safcoc has also stressed that industry representation in the Ports Regulatory Body and NPA, by way of seats on the board, is vital and that being part of the National Ports Policy Forum and the Consultative Committees is not enough. "Past experience of all forms of consultative committees is that they are ineffective," said its submission. Safcoc also proposes that the private sector should have a hand in the drafting of legislation. "It is an imperative that lawyers who have a thorough knowledge of the workings of the SA ports and their current legal status, should prepare all draft documents. This, plus the drafts being circulated for comment before finalisation, would, ensure a fully transparent process." Along with this, Safcoc proposes that integration of all regulation is necessary if conflicting regulation is to be avoided. Safcoc's detailed comment on the final paper on ports policy has been forwarded to the DoT.