There are, naturally, huge variations in performance and productivity, many of them due to factors such as type of cargo handled, nautical access, economies of scale and frequency/ regularity of ship calls, says the report. But another key  factor highlighted is private operators versus public port authorities.

“High performance is observed in private terminals and poorest performance is often associated with ports run by public port authorities, still in charge of cargo handling and maintenance of equipment,” says the report. “Beyond such a statement, explaining a poor or a good performance may require a more thorough analysis.”

Mr Fourgeaud says exceptionally high performances occur when all parameters concur positively:“As far as containers are concerned, the typical high-performing  terminal is dedicated to one or a few shipping lines and privately run, processes regular and well-timed calls of  large ships, with economies of scale allowing it to be geared with the most high-performing gantry cranes, and handles shipments representing the major part of the ship capacity.Similar parameters can be mentioned in the case of bulk traffic.”

Conversely, in poor performing ports,many causes – often interrelated – can be mentioned, he says. These include a dredging backlog and other factors, including narrowing the access window; land access;  ill-maintained pavements; restricted access to land transportation networks; actual port capacity; lack of berths and storage areas; and insufficient room for modern ship-to-shore operations.

Then there are the organisational parameters,such as handling capacity – unsuitable and ill-maintained handling equipment, poorly trained workforce, not enough crane drivers, unsuitable, congested and poorly managed storage areas; and organisation – non-productive methods, ill-prepared calls, overrestricted working time, unwillingness of port operators to work at night, commercial operations interfering with ship-to-shore operations, excessive dwell time of cargo, and documentation delays. Overstaffing issues, also considered in the report,are not easily addressed, says Mr Fourgeaud.

“The most valid way to build confidence in the process … is to bring together port users,port labour and port and maritime employers.The objective is to allow all stakeholders to share common concerns about competitiveness of port services, and a better understanding of how any weakening of this competitiveness would be detrimental to all, and in particular to the workforce, which would be the first to bear the consequences of reduced economic activity, both inside the outside the port.”

In setting out some proposed benchmarks, Mr Fourgeaud suggests for landlord port authorities regulating a diversified activity, managing a public and private domain but not involved in commercial operations or services such as pilotage or towage:

● A small authority handling a few million tonnes: about 50 staff.

● An average port authority, 10m-20m tonnes: 150 to 200 staff.

● Large ports, 300m tonnes: 1,100 staff.

“More generally, an indicative ratio would be 100,000 tonnes per staff per year, with large variations. Small ports require more than this proportion, large ports are more productive.General cargo requires more staffing than bulk traffic.” Recent studies suggest a relatively constant productivity in box operations of about 1,000 teu per staff per year for a throughput of 150,000 teu- 600,000 teu.