Nervous port users fear that concessioning might destroy neutrality

Terry Hutson THE RECENT official launch of a new corporate identity for the National Ports Authority (NPA) of South Africa, with lots of razzmatazz at the Johannesburg function and more subdued gatherings around the country, has been welcomed by those who see this as the most tangible step towards full port transformation and the process of concessioning. But not all stakeholders seem happy with the development. Although the full significance of having clearly defined port authority and port operation functions has still to be revealed, most stakeholders see the process as having reached the point of no turning back, which is what fills some with unease. The trade unions, which have long expressed concern and opposition, amplified their position with recent marches and a two-day stay away. Cosatu has warned that it may continue with ongoing action, and general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi reminded reporters that it was Nelson Mandela who advised workers to take on the government if they felt that it was not pursuing their interests and to bring it back in line. Among other port stakeholders the reaction has been mixed. A number of port users canvassed said they welcomed the development and regarded the unveiling of a new corporate identity as the most significant step so far towards unbundling and transforming the company from a government parastatal that was stuck in the past, to one that is open to market forces and new ideas. ÔDoes anyone really think that if one of my ships arrives at the same time as another which is owned or operated by an associate company of the terminal operator, that my ship will get preference?Õ Generally they say that the NPA must now take care not to drop the ball, and that they want the process speeded up. For them concessioning can only bring about higher levels of productivity and expertise to the ports. Other port users however would prefer the status quo to remain. Concerns expressed centre mainly on fears that their own interests may not be well served by terminal operators who could in effect be their competitors. ÒDoes anyone really think that if one of my ships arrives at the same time as another which is owned or operated by an associate company of the terminal operator, that my ship will get preference?Ó asked one prominent port user, a sentiment soon repeated by others. Most stakeholders agree that Portnet held a good track record regarding common user access to the ports, although this often had a cost in terms of service levels. These fears will need to be addressed. While the government has gone on record saying that they will not replace one monopoly with another, the answer may lie in adequate service level agreements between the operators and users, something that the old Portnet has so far been unable to bring into effect. Critics of the process say they would also like further assurance that competition will exist.