Stakeholders in the Nigerian maritime industry said that former Minister of Transportation, Rotimi Amaechi, failed to develop the industry during his seven-year tenure, and should therefore not be reappointed into the position.

Amaechi, who served as Transportation Minister from December 2017 to May 16, 2022, resigned to contest the presidential primary election of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), which he lost to former Lagos State Governor Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

However, there are speculations that the former Minister is allegedly lobbying to be reappointed as Minister by President Muhammadu Buhari.

But speaking with SHIPS & PORTS, the Founding President, Nigerian Shipowners’ Association of Nigeria (NISA), Chief Isaac Jolapamo, said Amaechi’s tenure as Transportation Minister led to a “retrogression” of the maritime industry, as many Nigerian shipping companies went under.

“If he has resigned, what is he looking for again? He has not made any significant impact. He has only retrogressed the industry 20 years backward,” the leading ship owner said.

Also speaking, the National Vice President, National Association of Government Approved Freight Forwarders (NAGAFF), Segun Musa said the former Minister neglected the development of the industry during his tenure.

“He has added no value to the maritime industry. Currently, we, in collaboration with the Minister of State for Transportation, Gbemisola Saraki, are looking for how we can resuscitate the industry.

“As a matter of fact, the country’s failure to win the last IMO election showed that Amaechi failed. Ordinary Category C, we couldn’t win. He has only showed up to politicise the industry. And this is someone that is comfortable in speaking with all sense of arrogance to our stakeholders in the industry. You can’t just start talking arrogantly to stakeholders in the industry without significant impact.

“Ordinary Cabotage Vessel Financing Fund (CVFF), he couldn’t facilitate it’s disbursement, so what can you point out that he did in the Industry? Nothing.

“I prefer Saraki to remain there but not someone like Amaechi. There is no reason bringing him back,” Musa said.

Also, the Public Relations Officer, National Association of Government Approved Freight Forwarders (NAGAFF), Stanley Ezenwa, said, “Is he coming to do anything different from what he has done before? During the term of Amaechi, CVFF disbursement has been a mirage. It has not been achieved till today. He has been the Alpha and Omega of CRFFN. Now he’s out, let him be out and let new hands carry on with the assignment.”

On his part, the Chairman, Association of Nigerian Licensed Customs Agents (ANLCA), Apapa Chapter, Dom Onyeka, said, “God forbid Amaechi comes back to the Ministry of Transportation. We have not seen anything that can be described as development in the maritime industry since he emerged as the Minister of Transportation.

“You came on board to suspend the constitution that regulates the operation of CRFFN (Council for the Regulation of Freight Forwarding in Nigeria), and subjected it to discretional manipulation. Instead of electing the Chairman of the Council, you’ll use your discretion to appoint, which is not consonance with the Constitution.

“Despite the money he spent on railway construction in Nigeria, passengers were still being kidnapped. What makes the railways different from what we have in the time of colonial rule? Are we saying that the railways can’t be sophisticated and secure passengers enough from kidnap or abduction? The bottom line is that, he can’t even come back,” Onyeka said.

The Port of Savannah, the second-busiest port on the East Coast, recorded an all-time cargo record in May as strong consumer demand and shifting inbound trade continued to drive record productivity at the port.

The Georgia Ports Authority reported Wednesday that Savannah moved an all-time high 519,390 TEU in May, breaking the previous record of 504,350 TEUs set in October 2021. May volumes grew by 8.5 percent, or 40,770 TEUs, compared to the same month last year.

“Despite global supply chain challenges, the Port of Savannah continues to be an economic driver, providing reliable, world-class service for port customers across our state and nation,” said Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp.

GPA Executive Director Griff Lynch noted Garden City Terminal is handling more business during the current influx of trade than during the previous spike experienced last fall. The additional trade is driven in part by vessels diverting to Savannah from other East and West Coast ports, the GPA said.

“Strong consumer demand continues to drive higher volumes at the Port of Savannah,” Lynch said. “The infrastructure improvements and pop-up yards approved by the GPA Board have enabled our operations to maintain the flow of cargo across our terminal, despite unprecedented container volumes passing through the port.”

May’s cargo numbers follow the port’s third busiest month on record in April, when it handled just shy of 500,000 TEUs. Unfortunately, these higher volumes have caused the backup of ships waiting at the port’s anchorages to swell in recent weeks. The Georgia Ports Authority website showed 26 containerships waiting at anchor as of this morning, up from around just 3 ships waiting as of mid-May and approaching the levels experienced during peak congestion last Fall. Savannah also dodged a bullet this week after a large containership ran aground—and was later freed—on the Savannah River.

May’s cargo volumes highlight challenges the Biden Administration faces in reducing congestion and backlogs at ports that have pushed shipping freight rates higher throughout the pandemic, raising costs for American consumers and contributing to inflation. The recently-passed Ocean Shipping Reform Act, which gives the Federal Maritime Commission greater authority to regulate foreign ocean carriers’ practices and promote exports, is unlikely to help much as cargo volumes continue to exceed port capacity.

That’s not to say the Georgia Ports Authority has not making an effort. The GPA website says the Port of Savannah is the “single largest and fastest-growing container terminal in America.” In 2021, the port blew past the 5 million TEU mark (5.6 million TEU) for the first time in its history, handling about 20% more containers than it did in 2020. After last year’s record, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp called the port “an example to the nation in solving the supply chain crisis” for its efforts to reduce congestion by adding capacity by undertaking short and long-term projects and initiatives to tackle congestion, such as using “pop-up” container yards.

As of April, the port authority has added 900,000 TEUs of annual capacity to the Garden City Terminal, and another 300,000 are expected to come online in July for a new total of more than 7 million TEUs of container handling space.

Phase I of the Garden City Terminal West expansion has added a 25-acre container yard adjacent to the primary truck route approaching the main terminal. Phase II will add up to 1 million TEUs of annual capacity, which will begin coming online in 2023.

“By increasing container space at Garden City Terminal, GPA is accommodating the expansion in global commerce that supports job growth in Georgia,” said GPA Board Chairman Joel Wooten. “Industries from logistics to auto manufacturing, and agriculture to retail depend on Georgia’s ports for reliable supply chain solutions.”

The Port of Savannah completed 327,400 truck gate moves in May, counting loaded import and export containers, as well as the movement of empty chassis. Thanks in part to expanded night gate hours, the Garden City Terminal facilitated more than 15,000 truck moves between the hours of 7 and 11 p.m. last month, up from just over 10,000 in April. Another 48,000 containers (approximately 88,000 TEUs) moved by rail in May.

In addition to the container trade, GPA achieved a 28 percent increase in breakbulk cargo for the month. Breakbulk commodities including iron and steel, rubber, and forest products reached 320,722 tons in May, up 70,780 tons.

Panama announced that it has entered into a new agreement with an investment group that is partnering with an affiliate of Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) to complete and operate the long-delayed Panama Canal Container Port. The project had started eight years ago by a Chinese company but after the 2019 elections in Panama, the new government canceled the concession.

Under the new agreement, Notarc Management Group, a private investment and asset management company active in Panama, Latin America, and the Caribbean will take over the project which was 40 percent completed before the prior contract was canceled.  The group acquired the rights to the project and will finalize the plans and complete construction at the container terminal which will be located in Colon, new the Caribbean entrance to the Panama Canal. Terminal Investment Limited, an affiliate of MSC joined the project and will also undertake management and oversee operations at the facility.

“Panama is an ideal gateway hub in the Americas and the world,” said Dion Bowe, Managing Partner of NMG Latin America and the newly appointed CEO for the Panama Canal Container Port. “This acquisition is a strategic opportunity for us to further develop and integrate a regional logistics platform while investing in assets which are synergistic to our investment model and where innovation and location offer an incomparable business footprint in the region.”

The new group said it would review the designs and resume construction at the location before the end of 2022. They estimated that the total investment will have grown to $1.4 billion for the creation of the port facility versus the original $900 million in the agreement with the Chinese. The modernized transshipment facility is expected to handle 2.5 million TEUs in its initial years and grow to a capacity of 5 million TEUs.

In addition to the transshipment port, Notarc has entered into a memorandum of understanding with U.S.-based SGP BioEnergy to construct and develop a bioenergy facility and other logistics infrastructure at the Colon project.

Amid the gloom of spiralling energy costs, inflation, war, and the recent United Nations IPCC report which revealed that global carbon emissions are still rising, and governments are not following through on COP 26 assurances, shipping’s own endeavours to cut carbon emissions are in sharp focus. Congested ports, broken supply chains, and Covid-related hold-ups more generally, compound the concerns.

Yet the customers of many container lines – large and small – tell a different story. They can’t wait to speed up shipping’s decarbonisation journey and, what’s more, they say “We’ll pay for it!” Many are already engaged in a series of pilot projects. Others have set up new lobby groups, such as coZEV – Cargo Owners for Zero Emission Vessels – to further the cause by aggregating demand.

Singapore is the latest signatory to the Clydebank Declaration, agreed at COP 26, to which 23 countries have now pledged their commitment. The Clydebank Declaration aims to establish six green corridors where trailblazing shippers, carriers and fuel providers cooperate to cut emissions and try out new sources of ship energy. I see these six green corridors multiplying fast in the months ahead.

At LR, we believe that having the right metrics to measure is an essential component of the fuel transition process. So we’ve built a model – First Movers Framework – designed to assess all of the variables in the equation – well-to-wake emissions, fuel production, supply, transport and infrastructure, safety, regulation, technology readiness, financial implications, and societal response.

Putting this model into practice, we have also launched a new project in Asia – the Silk Alliance – based on container trade between Singapore and Hong Kong. It’s a fine example of the collaboration that is essential in the fuel transition process.

Our partners include MSC, Wärtsilä, Wan Hai Express Feeders, PIL, Keppel Offshore & Marine, Asian Development Bank etc. We expect other stakeholders to become involved – perhaps including one or more signatories to the Poseidon Principles initiative which now accounts for about 50% of global ship finance lending.

To me, two aspects of the Silk Alliance stand out. One, it’s not open-ended. It’s a 12-month project building on our First Movers Framework and a completed pilot study. And two, it’s not limited to new ships and fuels which are not yet available, we can address the challenge of retrofits and decarbonising existing vessels.

I believe that the container sector should be the primary focus for several reasons. In terms of monetary value, the world’s container trades are estimated to account for about 60% of global seaborne trade. Not only do carriers operate ships on specified routes with fixed schedules, but they also carry cargoes for many different customers.

No single shipper, therefore, bears the brunt of dramatically higher fuel costs. Analysts often use trainers as an example. A 20-foot container has capacity for about 3,000 boxes of trainers. For every additional $100 of freight charged for the box to cover more expensive fuel, that’s three cents per pair. Admittedly, most white goods are larger and take more space. But extra fuel costs would still mean only a few extra dollars.

It is logical to start small, with the Silk Alliance and green corridor projects. But these initiatives will spill over to other routes in other regions, and we can scale up fast. The world’s largest liner trade between Asia and Europe offers the most impact potential of any single route, for which the intra-Asia focus of the Silk Alliance provides a good foundation!

We must also manage the enthusiasm of shippers. They may wish to commit their products to ships running on zero-carbon ammonia, for example, but the technology does not yet exist. The first ammonia internal combustion engine is under development and not expected until late 2024 or 2025.

Having shipping’s customers onside is very encouraging, but the testing and assurance of new fuel technologies is essential and cannot be rushed. However, if such fuels were now available, shippers would be seeking RFPs – Request for Proposals – and committing significant volumes of cargo on five- or ten-year deals. That would, in turn, enable shipowners to consider switching to sustainable marine fuel, in the knowledge of a reliable payback.

But we must be realistic. Let’s not forget the regulatory process. Scrutiny of and compliance with competition rules, and approvals from the authorities that oversee them, can take a long time. The liner sector is no stranger to regulatory probes into its business models.

Yet, despite these challenges, I am optimistic. In the container business, the collaboration that is necessary to meet shipping’s unprecedented challenge is now even stronger than it was because we have many of our leading customers onside.