‘Sapo is penalising its own customers for supporting it’ Alan Peat THE CONGESTION surcharge of US$100 per 20-foot (6-metre) container will cost cargo owners in the Western Cape alone an estimated R30-million a month, according to calculations by Colin Schultz, chairman of the Western Cape Cargo Owners (WCCO). “We strongly believe that a lack of capital investment over the years is one of the prime causes of the situation we find ourselves in,” he said, “and it is no secret that money collected by Transnet, ostensibly for this purpose, was channelled into other areas. “Clearly the shipping lines have every justification for reacting to this. But equally clearly, their argument is with Transnet, and not with their own customers.” Over the years cargo owners have more than paid for the “dubious privilege” of using the port infrastructure and services. “Only last year,” he said, “we accounted for close to R1.8-billion that was sunk into the Transnet coffers.” But despite this, Schultz complained, cargo owners have no say in port operations because SA Port Operations (Sapo) sees shipping lines as their exclusive customers. “It is highly unusual for a commercial operation to penalise its own customers for supporting it,” said Schultz, “but this is exactly what is happening here. “The shipping lines are unable to control their supplier, for whatever reason, and so this unilateral charge must now be levied on cargo owners.” And the lines have not been very transparent about the growing problem and cost of port congestion, Schultz added. “Through the port liaison forum (PLF) in Cape Town we have had channels of communication since 1995 that could be used by any of the port users to raise problems and request assistance in resolving issues. “But regrettably this did not happen as at no time did the lines approach any of the parties present at these meetings (with the possible exception of Sapo), indicating that they had a problem.” The lines’ “consistent unwillingness” to engage with the broader shipping community on the matter, according to Schultz, has contributed to a situation where they are now penalising the very people with whom they would not consult. “We are all acutely aware of the cost that the lines have to absorb,” he said. “But I am sure that cargo owners have also suffered major losses which have, in some cases, resulted in loss of employment for the breadwinner. “How much more must we pay?” Schultz feels that the shipping lines have had many opportunities to approach cargo owners to solicit assistance in lobbying Transnet and government. “But regrettably this has not happened. “Even to the point that, on most occasions, it has been the cargo owners that have called for special port congestion meetings through the PLF, not the lines.” Schultz also feels that the work groups established with the PLF have made “material contributions” to alleviating congestion. “One wonders how much more progress might have been made if the lines had been willing to participate,” he said. Another point individual to the port of Cape Town entered Schultz’s argument. “With Cape Town now fluid why do we in the Western Cape continue to have to endure the threat and possible burden of the surcharge? “Had the lines raised their problems with the cargo owners at any of the PLF meetings - and we had taken no action - then I believe that there could have been some justification for their surcharge. “But that was never the case.” The WCCO has advised cargo owners to resist payment viewed as “inappropriate and unjustified”, Schultz told FTW. “The fact that the lines operate in concert through the medium of the conferences to which they belong,” he said, “justifies closer examination in terms of legislation on competition, and this aspect is also being made clear to cargo owners.” Schultz calls on the lines to join the party. “Cargo owners are tired of being pawns in their one-sided game,” he said. “We look forward to working together with all parties in an effort to maintain port fluidity.”
Lines’ argument is with Transnet, not shippers - Schultz
Comments | 0