Academia Journal of Scientific Research 4(6): 159-165, June 2016
DOI: 10.15413/ajsr.2016.0275
ISSN 2315-7712
©2016 Academia Publishing
Research Paper
Analysis of Cargo Handling Operations in Apapa and Tincan Island Ports
Accepted 21st March, 2016
ABSTRACT
Dosunmu Victor A., Adepoju Olusegun O.
and Somuyiwa Adebambo O.*
Department of Transport Management,
Faculty management Sciences, Ladoke
Akintola University of Technology, P.M.B.
4000, Ogbomoso, Oyo State.
*Corresponding author. E-mail:
[email protected]
This research analyzed the relationship between the adequacy of dock workers
and cargo handling equipment available at the selected seaports in Nigeria.
Similarly, it assessed the level of deployment of cargo handling equipment at the
selected ports and finally examined the differences between cargo handling
equipment and expected volume of cargo handled at the selected seaports. The
result from the Pearson Product Moment Correlation (PPMC) revealed that, cargo
operations performance is positively related to Cargo handling equipment with
correlation value of r= 0.545 at p<0.05. Also, cargo operations performance is
positively related with dock worker’s operations with coefficient value of r=0.303
which is also significant at p <0.05. Finally, there is low positive relationship
between cargo handling equipment and dock worker’s activities with r value of
0.107 at p<0.05. Using Chi-square analytical technique, there are no enough cargo
handling equipments to handle the geometric progression rate of cargo traffic at
the ports with the calculated value of 2.04 which is less than the tabulated value of
9.49 at 95% level of confidence at degree of freedom= 5-1= 4. The research
concluded that, there are no enough cargo handling equipment at the selected
seaports and there is need to train qualified personnel as dock workers not only
those that will operate these equipment, but also those that will perform manual
operations.
Key words: Cargo handling, TinCan Island, Apapa, ports.
INTRODUCTION
The world of cargo operations has changed considerably
from the days of the open stowage of merchandise. Unitized
cargoes in the form of ‘containers’ or Roll-on, Roll-off
cargoes and pillarization have generated the need for
alternative handling methods and changing cargo handling
procedures.
Ports are the gateway by which there is exchange of
commodities from surplus regions to the deficit regions.
Ports play a key role in the maritime nation like Nigeria
especially in terms of economy and development as nearly
75% of the trade between Nigeria and the rest of the world
is handled in ports. Ports also hold a social role, as they
strongly contribute to the national economy and to
employment. In total, around three million people are
employed in ports in the 22 maritime States (Notteboom et
al., 2010). Therefore, the importance of ensuring efficiency
in ports is related to make Nigerian ports highly
competitive at the international level.
Cargo handling equipment is important at the port
because the pieces determine the operations at the quay
and moreover in the sheds. In the port, the equipment used
includes mobile cranes, forklifts and betotti. These, though
still in use in ports of the world they need to be
supplemented in the port with modern equipment to be
efficient. Modern ships require modern equipment for
operations because of their design. However, Nigerian ports
seem to lack the ability to adapt efficiently in order to meet
the ever-changing and developing needs of industries. This
is particularly the case where levels of public finance are no
longer forthcoming and the economic crisis has reduced the
Academia Journal of Scientific Research; Victor et al.
capacity of governments to finance long term
infrastructure. It should also be considered that the
heterogeneous nature of the port sector increases the
complexity of guaranteeing consistent development of the
sector as a whole.
According to PwC and Panteia (2013) report, port
authorities are often limited in their ability to determine
the level of dues, thus to impact on their resources and
determine their operating income. Port costs account for a
greater share of total cost associated with the logistics
chain, when compared to direct transport by road. Ports
also act as gateways for rail and inland waterway networks.
Importers and exporters rely upon efficient transport
networks and expect consistently high standards. In
Nigeria, the ocean and river ports (developed and
potential) are (a) Lagos (TinCan Island and Apapa), Port
Harcourt, Bonny, Calabar, Sapele, Warri, Burutu, Koko
(developed) (b) Oron, Badagry, Epe, Opobo, Eket, Forcados,
Akassa, Brass, NunIbeno and Ikang (potential). Several
studies from East Europe (Murray, 1993; Bloomen, 1994),
Asia (Speece and Kawahara, 1995) and African (Dadziie,
1990) identified several reasons for the poor state of
performance in ports of developing nations like Nigeria.
Prominent and common to all the weak logistics system,
deriving from poor infrastructural base, management
inertia and incremental but uncoordinated and
unimpressive improvement in logistics are directly specific
to Nigeria (Ballou, 1985; Cullinane and Wang, 2007;
Ogunsiji and Ogunsiji, 2010). It is necessary therefore to
examine performance within the sector, and to test
whether current institutional arrangements are sufficiently
robust to ensure that market incentives are strong enough
to foster best practice in all parts of the cargo handling
operations at the ports.
Visiting the port to witness the activities and cargo
handling operations may not present the real challenges
and situations of Nigerian ports unlike being an importer or
exporter. Many ports are unable to provide potential
customers with the right mix or standard of services
because they do not have the right mix of infrastructure.
Common complaints from shipping lines and other port
users according to (Pwc and Panteia, 2013) can be related
to insufficient depth of water; lack of quay space, resulting
in vessels having to wait for a berth; lack of storage space
behind the quay, often caused by the “city centre” locations
of older ports and insufficient (or outdated) mechanical
equipment. For container ships, the most common
problems are too few cranes (preventing the ship from
working as many holds as the operator would like) or the
absence of ship-to-shore gantry cranes (resulting in slower
handling rates). Yard congestion caused by lack of space
can also slow down crane handling rates on the berth. For
bulk ships, the most common problem is lack of automation
(ship loaders and pneumatic or screw discharge equipment
linked to high speed conveyor systems to the storage area
or plant); and poor interface arrangements for rail and
160
inland waterway transport. Part of the problem is when
customers or shippers want to reserve berthing windows
so that scheduled services are not disrupted by unforeseen
delays waiting for a berth; to negotiate service contracts
with the port authority or cargo handling company giving
them a guaranteed loading/discharge rate or ship turnaround time; dedicated storage areas within the port and
extended cargo collection and delivery times. Of course,
these always tend to cause commotions and confusion at
the ports.
LITERATURE
UNDERPINNING
REVIEW
AND
CONCEPTUAL
Seaport system
A seaport is a subsystem of the maritime transportation
system. It is an essential organ of the transportation system
of a nation. A seaport is also recognized as an entry point
for goods coming into a country from other countries. In
other words, it is a place where intermodal transfer of
passengers and cargoes takes place. It is a place of transfer
between land and sea transport. A seaport is a knot where
ocean and inland transport lines meet and interwine. The
primary functions of a seaport are the provision of resting
place for ships as well as, the provision of facilities and
equipment for safe transfer of passengers and cargoes from
ocean to land transports and vice versa. There is a positive
relationship existing between a ship and a seaport. This
relationship by Esra and Walters (1979) is termed a
master/servant relationship.
Clark et al. (2001) described a port as an enterprise that
must provide quality service to her customers to survive
economically. This is because shippers as well as, ship
owners demand efficiency services from port operators for
continual patronage. The ability of a ship to function
economically depends among other factors, the availability
of a good functional port. In the same manner, Ugboma et
al. (2004) sees a port as a service facility that need to be
equipped properly to service her master efficiently if its
usefulness and performance level is to be recognized.
According to Ugboma (2004), just as the shipping
industry's usefulness, efficiency and overall performance is
evaluated in the light of services rendered to the entire
international trade of a nation.
PwC and Pantia (2013) observed that, more recently, the
literature on port efficiency has focused on total factor
productivity, using techniques such as Data Envelopment
Analysis (DEA) or Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA). The
aim is to identify the maximum output that can be achieved
from a given set of inputs, or – alternatively – the minimum
resource cost of producing a given output. The overall
efficiency of individual ports can then be measured by
comparing their output (normally annual cargo
throughput) and resource inputs with those of the nearest
Academia Journal of Scientific Research; Victor et al.
161
Table 1. Cargo movements at Nigerian ports.
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Total
Inward
35,544,965
41,195,616
45,757,149
46,928,848
52,022,105
46,222,127
267,670,810
Outward
(Tonnes)
21,928,385
23,177,133
20,018,360
29,815,879
31,439,592
30,870,498
157,249,847
Throughput
57,473,350
64,372,749
65,775,509
76,744,727
83,461,697
77,092,625
424,920,657
Source: Nigerian Ports Authority (2014).
point on the “production frontier”, which itself is based on
the input/output ratios of the best performing ports in the
sample. It is difficult (although not impossible) for DEA and
SFA models to handle more than one type of output. So they
are usually applied to single-cargo terminals rather than
multi-cargo ports.
The ports used for efficiency comparisons are usually at
different stages in their life cycles. Ports approaching full
capacity are generally recorded as “efficient”, even when
they are congested and offer poor standards of service,
because they are maximizing the output obtained from the
available facilities. New ports, in contrast, often show up as
inefficient because capacity can only be built in relatively
large increments and several years of traffic growth may be
needed before it is filled up and the port is achieving its
maximum output. Table 1 however, indicated that Nigeria
imports more than the exports and this portends that the
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the country may not be
economically sound
Several factors or conditions influence port productivity.
Some but major among these factors include type of cargo
being handling, the number of gangs and people employed
in each and their skill, type of ship being worked, type of
equipment used and skill of crane drivers (Alderton, 1995).
Others are stowage of cargo in the holds and conditions of
storage area. To sum it all, productivity is greatly
determined by the organization of work at the berth and on
the ship. The efficiency of a port is largely a function of
labour and labour productivity to a large extent determines
the quality of service to port users such as shippers and
ship-owners. Gross gang output is the average tonnage
handled/hour taken into account idle time or delays caused
by unlashing, equipment breakdown, labour strife and
weather, etc. Net gang output is the average tonnage
handled/hour when there is no idle time or delays. In fact,
idle time caused by ship movement/preparation, labour
and equipment breakdown has been prominent in the port.
Okeudo (2013) stated that, Lagos port complex (port
performance) noted the following as the contributing
factors to low port performance at Nigerian ports: (a) poor
services and poor cargo handling (b) documentation
procedures characterized by long procedures (c) poor
labour performance (d) queuing for berths problems and
allocation (e) poor customs and port authority relationship
(f) corruption and port pilfering etc. Emeghara (1992)
noted that from 1975 1976, ship congestions at the
Nigerian seaports was not due to lack of berthing facilities,
but due to the fact that the cargoes stacking areas were not
relieved of traffic as early as they should be. Related issues
like; slow cargo clearance procedures, documentation
errors, the desire of customers to use the port as free or
cheap warehousing, and uncertainty regarding inland
destinations of cargo at the time of discharge can also affect
the cargo handling operations in ports. Congested ports
frequently make use of off-dock depots or (Inland
Container Depots ICDs) – these allow the cargo to be
removed from the port quite quickly, but result in double
handling of the cargo and additional land transport costs
(Cochrane, 2008).
Most port Key Performance Indicators (KPI) measure the
productivity of single factors of production. Usually they
measure the percentage of the time for which each
individual resource is utilized or its productivity (tonnes or
TEUs per annum per metre of quay or per employee, rate of
return on capital employed etc). However, they largely
ignore the interaction between different factors of
production, and the extent to which they are substitutes.
For example, high rates of labour productivity can be
achieved through efficient organization of operations, but
also by investing heavily in mechanical equipment.
Therefore, there seems to be a mismatch between the
capacities of different systems components in ports.
Common examples are the mismatch between quay and
yard capacities, and quay cranes which can handle cargo
faster than the yard equipment supporting them.
However, like other ports in the world, mechanization
has been introduced in the Nigerian ports but going at a
slow pace compared to many other ports. The introduction
of unitization and containerization has a great impact not
only on the ratio of labour to capital in cargo handling, but
also on land use, inland transport and human skills. The
main dock labour management difficulty today in Nigerian
ports is the problem of replacing the large number of
labour force with capital intensive technology in cargo
Academia Journal of Scientific Research; Victor et al.
162
Table 2. Correlation analysis of relationship between dock workers and cargo operations.
Correlations
Performance
Cargo handling
equipment
Dock workers
Performance
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
1
204
0.545*
0.000
204
0.303*
0.007
204
Cargo handling
equipment
0.545*
0.000
204
1
204
0.107
0.011
204
Dock workers
0.303*
0.007
204
0.107
.0.11
204
1
204
**. Correlation is not significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). Source: Output results based on field survey (2015).
handling as a consequence of containerization in the
absence of adequate financial resources from the
stevedoring contractors.
Granted, the handling of traditional general cargo is
usually labour intensive and time-consuming, the growth of
container traffic and new cargo handling equipment has
changed the scenario (Couper, 1986). Chang (1997) opined
that the productivity of labour and other operational staff
in cargo handling depends not only on their professional
skills. It is also on how satisfied they are with the condition
of work because it is the dock labour employed in the
handling of cargo that bear the burden of traffic variations
and technological changes necessary to obtain sustained
improvement in port operations.
Cargo handling equipment
According to House (2007), several ships have been
constructed with side loading facilities for specific
commodities, that is, paper and forestry products, on the
Baltic trades. Watertight hull openings work in conjunction
with internal elevators to move cargoes to differing deck
levels. These openings, shell doors as such, may function as
a loading ramp or platform depending on cargo and
designation and fork lift trucks being engaged on board the
vessel to position cargo parcels. A lot of terminal or port
cargo handling equipment is provided to facilitate
movement of the cargo to and from the ship's side and the
transit shed, warehouse, barge, railway wagon or road
vehicle. House (2007) described some cargo equipment to
include the followings: cranes, Gantry crane, derricks, fork
lifts, dockside cranes, level-luffing cranes and mobile cranes
etc.
METHODOLOGY
The study areas for this research can be within the context
of cargo handling operations at both TinCan Island and
Apapa ports-Nigeria. The study focused more on the
available number of personnel used in cargo operations and
the available equipment at the selected ports. The Nigerian
Port Authority (NPA), Nigerian Shipper’s Council (NSC),
Custom Licensed Agents and Maritime Workers Union
formed the Population of this study. Of the 205
questionnaires distributed across the relevant agencies, the
sample size according to the calculation postulated by
Yamane (1967) was used to determine the sample size
given as:
n= N
1+N(e)2
Where,
n = Sample size;
N = Population size;
and e = Level of significance (at 5%).
Purposive sampling technique was used the sampling size :
n = 205/ 1+ 205 (0.05)2= 135.5= 136
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter analyzed the data collected from the field. The
objective to determine the relationship between the
number of dock workers and cargo operations in the
selected seaports was carefully analyzed.
Table 2 shows that Cargo operations performance is
positively related to cargo handling equipment with
Pearson correlation value of r= 0.545 at p<0.05. Similarly,
cargo operations performance is positively related with
dock worker’s operations with coefficient value of r=0.303
which is also significant at p <0.05. Finally, there is positive
relation between cargo handling equipment and dock
worker’s activities with r value of 0.107 at p<0.05.
At any rate, the cargo handling equipment is showing
better performance than the dock workers. However, since
Academia Journal of Scientific Research; Victor et al.
163
Table 3. Frequency of cargo handling equipment at the selected ports.
Variable
Gantry cranes
Fork lift
Rope sling
Car sling
Derricks
Winches
Tin Can Island (RoRo) and APAPA Observed
62
81
192
182
56
144
Expected
106
278
350
240
189
208
Source: Author’s computation (2015).
Table 4. Chi-square table.
Variable
Gantry cranes
Fork lift
Rope sling
Car sling
Derricks
Winches
O
62
81
192
182
56
144
there is positive relationship between dock workers
operation and cargo handling equipment, it therefore
means that, cargo handling equipment can not achieve any
form of substantial performance without dock worker’s
activities involved. Calculating the R2 for cargo handling
equipment means that it has about 54.5% in terms of its
performance in cargo operations at the port than dock
worker’s performance of about 30.3%.
The research revealed that, even if the cargo handling
equipment increases, there will also be the need to increase
the dock workers as there are positively related. It is true
that the cargo handling equipment can carry heavy load
that dock workers can and must never attempt to carry, but
the equipment itself cannot get hooked with the load except
there is someone who will do that. The work of the
stevedore/longshoreman has moved on to a vastly different
role to that previously employed in general cargo holds.
The cargo units are labour saving and tend to require a
different mode of working. In many cases, ship’s crews or
rigging gangs have replaced the role of the previous style of
dock labour.
The fork lift truck and the container gantry have been the
source of the major causes of change within the cargohandling environment and the demise of labour intensive
activities (House, 2007).
The relationship between the cargo handling equipment
at the selected seaports and expected volume of cargo
handled is analyzed (Table 3) using Chi-square analytical
technique:
X2=
E
106
89
198
202
62
147
(O-e)2
1936
64
36
100
36
9
= 0.72 +0.18+0.5+0.58+0.06= 2.04.
The calculated value of 2.04 is less than the tabulated value
of 9.49 at 95% level of confidence at degree of freedom= 51= 4; we therefore, accept null hypothesis (Table 4).
There is no relationship between the cargo handling
equipment at the selected seaports and expected volume of
cargo to be handled at these ports. This means that, at these
selected seaports, there is no enough cargo handling
equipments to handle the geometric progression rate of
expected cargo traffic at the ports.
The use of descriptive analysis was used to explain the
variation in cargo handling equipment available at the
selected ports (Figure 1). Gantry cranes, Rope sling and
Derric cranes are more pronounced at Apapa port whereas,
Car sling and winches are more at Tin can Island ports.
These may be attributed to the kind of cargoes being
handled at these ports. However, the forklift is relatively
the same at the two ports.
Summary
The research has been able to reveal the activities involved
in cargo handling operations at the selected seaports. The
research established that, there is positive relationship
between the cargo handling equipment and dock workers
in the output performance of the selected ports. However, it
was realized that equipment is more versatile and effective
than the use of labour in carrying cargo at the ports.
Although; equipment cannot function without labour, that
is why there is linear relationship between the two.
Academia Journal of Scientific Research; Victor et al.
164
Figure 1. Comparative analysis of Cargo handling equipment at the selected ports. Source: Output results based
on field survey (2015).
The level of efficiency attained in vessel pilotage,
anchorage and cargo handling maximizes cargo output in
the berth and quickens the turn around time of ships in the
port and reduces cargo handling cost, demurrage and
enhances international distribution of goods and logistics.
Derricks, cranes and winches, together with their
associated fittings should be regularly overhauled and
inspected under a planned maintenance schedule,
appropriate to the ship. Winch guards should always be in
place throughout winching operations and operators
should conform to the Code of Safe Working Practice
(CSWP).
As indicated in the results presented, that there are no
enough cargo handling equipment at our various ports,
there is need to lay more emphasis on modern technology
in maritime operations for effective cargo handling. The
disparity between the available and unavailable cargo
handling equipment at the ports should be looked into.
However, the impact of cargo handling equipment can be
felt in Nigerian Maritime industry only when there is
efficient freight movement and effective port management.
Conclusion
The research concluded that, there are no enough cargo
handling equipments at the selected ports and there is need
to train qualified personnel’s as dock workers not only
those that will operate these equipment, but also those that
will perform manual operations. The many changes which
have occurred in cargo-handling methods have brought
about extensive developments in specialized lifting gear.
These developments aimed at efficient and cost-effective
cargo handling and modern vessels will be equipped with
some type of specialist rig for operation within the medium
to heavy-lift range. At no time should any attempt be made
to lift weights in excess of the Safe Working Load (SWL) of
the weakest part of the gear. The SWL is stamped on all
derricks, blocks and shackles as well as, noted on the ‘test
certificates’.
Recommendations
Cargo handling equipment however, differs by type and
age, state of repair and efficiency. It is therefore necessary
to standardize the equipment pool in order to meet the
growing demand for particular types according to the types
and sizes of cargo and vessels handled. In other words,
specific and good mix of equipment of similar make
depending on the kind of goods handled should be
acquired. A poor equipment mix causes inefficiencies
Academia Journal of Scientific Research; Victor et al.
within the port which reflect in delays and turnaround
time. In fact poor mix of equipment imposes certain
constraints on the port complex which include:
-Increased needs for training of mechanics;
-Increased number of repair equipment;
-Increased needs for the training of driver to familiarize
with different equipment;
-Difficulties in managing spare parts as they are not
interchangeable.
Derricks, cranes and winches, together with their
associated fittings should be regularly overhauled and
inspected under a planned maintenance schedule,
appropriate to the ship. Thorough inspections would detect
corrosion, damage, hairline cracks and excessive wear and
tear. Once defects are found, corrective action would be
taken to ensure that the plant is retained at 100%
efficiency. These inspections would normally be carried out
systematically under the ship’s planned maintenance
schedule. Most shipping companies comply with this
requirement by carrying out such inspections and
maintenance under a ‘planned maintenance schedule’. Such
a procedure ensures that not only lifting gear, but mooring
winches, pilot hoists and any other mechanical or weightbearing equipment is regularly maintained and
continuously monitored; inspections, tests and repairs
being dated and certificates being retained in the Register
of Lifting Appliances and Cargo-Handling Gear.
165
Emeghara GC (1991). Capacity Utilization of Nigerian Ports. An
unpublished M.Sc Thesis Presented to the Department of Transport
Management Technology, PUT, Owerri.
Estra B, Walters A (1979). Port Pricing and investment policy for
developing countries. Oxford University Press, London.
House DJ (2007): Cargo Works for Maritime Operations Seventh Edition
Elsevier
Notteboom T, Rodrigue J, De Monie G (2010). The organizational and
geographical ramifications of the 2008-2009 financial crisis on the
maritime shipping and port industries. pp. 1-27.
Ogunsiji AS, Ogunsiji OO (2010). A Consummate Precision of Strategic
Management Approach on Transport Logistics and Physical Distribution
for Port Performance Efficiency”: A case Study of Nigeria Ports. J. Emerg.
Trends Econ. Manag. Sci. 1(2): 96-101.
Okeudo GN (2013). Measurement of Efficiency Level in Nigerian Seaport
after Reform Policy Implementation. Case Study of Onne and Rivers
Seaport, Nigeria. Department of Transport Management Technology,
Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria
PwC & Panteia (2013). Final Report Study aimed at supporting an impact
assessment on: “Measures to enhance the efficiency and quality of port
services
in
the
EU”http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/21/48837794.pdf. NEA/PwC
2012
Public
Financing
of
seaports,
to
be
published.
NEA/PricewaterhouseCoopers 2012 Public Financing of seaports, to be
published.
Speece MW, Kawahara Y (1995). Transportation in China in the 1990. Int.
J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 25(8): 53-71
Ugboma C, Ibe C, Ogwude IC (2004). Service Quality measurements in
developing economy: Nigerian Port survey Managing service quality
14(16): 487-495.
REFERENCES
Alderton PM (1995). Sea Transport. Operation and Economics. London:
Thomas Reed Publications.
Ballou RH (1985). Business Logistics Management 2nd Edition Pretice
Hall, Englewood cliffs N.J
Chang T (1997). Changes in International trading practices, its effects on
Port's competitiveness: A paper presented at the 8fh African Port
Symposuim in Bengul Gambia.
Dadziie KQ (1990). Transfer of Logistics Knowledge to Third world
Countries. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 20(9): 10-16.
Clark X, Dollar D, Micco A (2001). Maritime Transport Costs and Port
Efficiency. World Bank Group Washington DC. pp. 1-38.
Cochrane R (2008). The effects of market differences on the throughput of
large container terminals with similar levels of efficiency. Marit. Econ.
Logist. 10: 32-52.
Couper AD (1986). New Cargo handling Techniques: Implications for Port
Employment and Skills. ILO, Geneva.
Cullinane KPB, Wang TF (2007). Port Government in China in Brooks
(www.trinapier.org).
Cite this article as:
Victor AD, Olusegun OA, Adebambo OS (2016). Analysis of Cargo
Handling Operations in Apapa and Tincan Island Ports. Acad. J. Sci.
Res. 4(6): 159-165.
Submit your manuscript at
http://www.academiapublishing.org/journals/ajsr