Captain Manfred Menzel was managing director of German firm Rogge Marine Consulting (RMC) that won a tender to draw a port master plan for BA in 1987
From 1980 to 2006 German Sea Captain Manfred Menzel was the managing director of Germany’s Rogge Marine Consulting (RMC), a company which, under a bilateral treaty between Germany and Argentina, won a tender to draw a port master plan for Buenos Aires City in 1987, jointly with the General Ports Administration, national state company, which runs the port of Buenos Aires.
In an interview via e-mail with the Herald, the expert addresses a wide range of issues, among them, he urges an at least six-month postponement of a tender the AGP called for March 30, to expand Terminal 5, including the construction of a 15,000 TEU container berth.
In February 2014 the AGP signed a preliminary accord for the three international terminals operating in Buenos Aires to invest US$737 million to adapt the port to the new, larger 360-metre-long vessels in line with the capacity of the expanded Panama Canal.
Terminals 1, 2 and 3 TRP (operated by Dubai Ports International, from the United Arab Emirates), Terminal 4 (operated by APM Terminal, from Denmark) and Terminal 5 Bactssa (operated by Hutchison, from Hong Kong), “showed readiness to continue betting on Argentina’s foreign trade,” AGP trustee Sergio Borrelli told the Herald at that time. He added that roughly speaking, TRP accounts for about 50 percent of the port’s volume while Terminal 4 and Terminal 5 account for about 25 percent each. Under the accords TRP would invest US$186 million in docks and US$109 million in cranes, creating some 1,100 new jobs; Terminal 4 would invest US$137 million in docks and USD$55 million in cranes and also create 1,100 jobs, and Terminal 5 would invest US$162 million in docks and US$88 million in cranes, for a grand total of US$737 million. Among other works, TRP would build one 470-metre and one 360-metre docks and Terminal 4 a new 400-metre long dock.
Captain Menzel, I know that it could sound somewhat a too simplistic question, but ¿What is a port?
It is good that you pose that question. Many people tend to think that they clearly know what a port is. However, the answer is not always so simple. What a port is depends on the people that plan, build and operate it. Unfortunately, it often is or develops into something that it should not be.
And, what should it be?
If we talk about commercial seaports, they should be the catalysts to facilitate imports and exports of cargoes.
Then, we are talking about commercial dry cargo ports, not passenger terminals, marinas, tanker terminals, fishing ports or navy ports.
Yes, let’s concentrate on that.
Does Buenos Aires Port (BAP) qualify as a catalyst for in- and outbound cargoes?
Looking at its statistics since the early 90s, it appears to have more facilities than what is needed to handle the type and volumes of cargo that, in fact, it did and does handle.
So, there is no need to do anything about BAP?
When containerization started in the 60s of the last century, ports were not geared to handle them, and quickly developed into bottlenecks to the smooth flow of container and conventional dry cargo. The result was that containers were scattered all over the place in and outside ports — unprotected and out of sight and/or control of Customs, cargo owners, stevedores and others with legitimate interests in them. Some ports started soon to build container terminals, others followed suit later. One thing they all had in common: They did not know or neglected the undisputed rule that ports must be active in their planning for the future. Reacting once the need is there is too late since this invites all sorts of trouble, inconveniences and cost, hefty costs which could have been avoided, if they had acted in a pre-emptive rather than a reactive way. A rather grave example of what happens then was in the international shipping circles last year in Manila, the capital city and main port of the Philippines. When planning a container terminal or other cargo handling facilities, planners must, I repeat, must look beyond the boundaries of their facility. Otherwise, the bottleneck port is quickly transferred into one or more bottlenecks outside the port.
To answer your question: There is a permanent need for any and all ports to ensure their facilities are up to date and not only ready to serve the present but also prepared for the future.
Are you suggesting that those concerned have failed to cater for the future of BAP?
No, I am not suggesting anything of this nature but I would like to base my comments on personal experiences I had at BA: In the mid 70s, as a young master mariner, I used to call at BA first with a max-size bulk carrier and, later, with a modern semi-container ship. Under a bilateral agreement between Germany and Argentina, the German company Rogge Marine Consulting (RMC) won a tender to elaborate a port master plan for BA in 1987.
The co-operation with AGP was reciprocally satisfactory. Jointly they produced results in 1988 which were implemented in subsequent years. It is on record that key AGP staff proudly recommended to neighbouring and other Latin American countries to reorganize its ports the way Buenos Aires did. Unfortunately, joint recommendations of RMC and AGP, beyond a time horizon of five years appear to not to have been pursued.
Moreover, under an agreement between the European Union and Argentina, RMC won a tender to conduct the study “Estudio de Desarrollo Portuario de la Hidrovía Paraguay-Paraná.” The work was performed in 1996/7. Participating countries were Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina and Uruguay. All five issued separate, individual letters of appreciation to RMC for its study results.
My experience of those studies and subsequent observations has given me a good knowledge of the situation and inherent prospects.
What was your personal involvement in those studies?
I was the managing director of RMC from 1980 to 2006. Hence, I do have fond memories of Argentina in general, Buenos Aires in particular and the AGP specifically. It is for this reason that I do appreciate the opportunity of being interviewed by the Herald.
Which of the joint RMC/AGP recommendations were not implemented?
The most important one was, and still is, that port master plans must be updated periodically. If I remember correctly, the suggestion was “every five years or earlier, if trade and shipping developments suggest that changes might be forthcoming and require different or additional facilities and services.”
Are you accusing the AGP of having failed in that?
Sorry, I am not accusing anyone of having failed in anything. For sure not AGP. However, I may or must confirm having no knowledge of any actual port master plan for BA, — neither an update of the 1988 one nor a new one.
What other recommendations were not implemented?
Very obvious, the aforesaid and gravest bottleneck that was transferred from the port beyond its boundaries lies in the traffic junction off and between Terminal 5 and the EMCYM yard of Terminal 4. When daily commuters head south or north to drive back home to the province of Buenos Aires, they encounter tremendous congestion in the Ramón Castillo Avenue, causing not only the loss of valuable commuting but also very expensive lorry-time. More so, they cause frustration, aggression and dissatisfaction with decision-makers and politicians who are alleged to be unable to solve this problem and, in more general terms, to live up to their assigned duties and responsibilities.
And what recommendations would have avoided this particular bottleneck?
The answer is twofold: A national transport master plan was urged, same as a national port master plan. The latter was recommended as part of the former. Reasons are manifold. For territorial states (that is, large areas states) like Argentina, transportation infrastructure is of paramount importance to their development and wellbeing. Its ports are their gateways to the world. Hence, any individual port, be it Buenos Aires or any other, should be part of a national port master plan and all ports of the national plan must be integrated into the national transportation master plan.
Any other suggestion regarding these issues?
Yes, many, although this would probably take too long.
Give me a catchphrase, please.
I’ll give you two: 1) The legal framework must be in order for business, in particular to attract foreign investments and, 2) the business environment must be attractive for commerce to prosper and, thus, to create additional jobs.
Could you elaborate on that?
Didn’t we agree to concentrate on BA port?
Yes, we did.
Okay, then, what is your next question?
Have you heard of the new tender for Terminal 5? And, if so, what do you think of it?
Yes, I have heard of it and also saw it on the AGP list. However, I am unable to comment on it in detail but would like to tell you what I should think of it in the light of my earlier supposition that there is no port development plan for BA, let alone a national one?
The tender includes the construction of a 15.000 TEU container berth at Terminal 5.
I know and I guess the motorists on the Avenida Ramón Castillo waste so much time on congestion that it would be better for you to ask for their opinion. And I bet, if they had a say, the answer would be a loud and clear “NO.” And, should that not suffice, they may add: “We will take our decisions during the forthcoming elections.”
We do know the situation at the said traffic junction but, as a last question, I would like to know from you what your opinion is on this issue.
For cross-ocean carriers, BAP is the turn-around port, i.e. even 10.000 TEU carriers will hardly ever arrive at or sail from BAP fully laden. My guestimate would be, they carry less than, say, 4.500 TEUs. So, why should the public and the private concessionaires invest a billion dollars to accommodate new mega-carriers?
Would that mean, BAP becoming a feeder port for larger container terminals at southern Brazilian ports?
Yes, indeed. But then, what is wrong with being called a feeder port? In the early 70s I was the Captain of one of the two largest container ships (panamaxes) at that time in a liner trade between the East Coast of North America via the Panama Canal up the US-West Coast, across the Pacific to Japan, down to Taiwan, across the Taiwan Strait to Hong Kong, our turn-around port, hardly ever half-laden. Would anyone on earth have called Hong Kong a feeder port?
Another example? Due to draft limitations and smaller shipments to/from ports, feeder ships do most of the container traffic into and out of the Baltic Sea. They serve 50 million inhabitants along its coasts with an additional 30 million further inland. The ultimate turn-around port of the Baltic Sea is Saint Petersburg (SPB) in Russia. It has a population of about five million and another 12 million in Moscow for which SPB is the main port. Should Saint Petersburg take offence against a classification as feeder port? That would be a real laugh. And since that is so, I cannot imagine BA, with a population of three million, would have any reason to feel degraded if its port would be referred to as a feeder port. This although I, admittedly, would refer to it as the ultimate turn-around port on the East Coast of South America.
Would you have some additional suggestion in relation to the BAP modernization programme?
One) I am not aware of such a programme. Two), yes, I have three distinctive ones: 1) Postpone the present tender for a minimum of six months and use the time to re-evaluate pros and cons for such a tender; 2) Obtain copies of the above-mentioned studies and evaluate them in the light of today’s situation; 3) Call for a public hearing soonest.
