Posted: October 20th, 2022

THE IMPACT OF TERMINALCONCESSIONON OPERATION: A CASE STUDY OFAPAPA PORT NIGERIA

THE IMPACT OF TERMINALCONCESSIONON OPERATION: A CASE STUDY OFAPAPA PORT NIGERIA

MasrurAdam
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Liverpool John Moores Universityfor the degree of Bachelorof Science with Honours

The author declares that the work is the result of his own investigation, except where indicated

BSc (Hons) Nautical Science 2013

ABSTRACT
Seaports have always been an integral part of a nation’s development. Their productivity, includingperformance, will determine the economy as well as development of the country. Often countrieswithout waterways find it is a negative impact on their development.
Having such important, waterways, necessitate the need to manage and operate the ports efficiently.Before, the public sector through the national authority manages and operates the ports. But laterfollowing the level of low productivity led to the introduction of private sector through the reformprocess, as participant, in the port operations. Among the tools under the reform process is theconcession. Many countries had already conceded their ports to private sectors as they found to havebest impact on development with the concession agreement. However, in some countries the ports arestill run by the government, for example, the port of San Diego and other ports in the United States ofAmerica.
This research demonstrates the impact of terminal concession onoperations at Apapaport, Nigeria,awarded in 2006. It examines basically the port indicators that drive the port’s productivity. Theyinclude cargo throughput, ships turnaround time, berth occupancy rate, revenue generated and tonnagearrived at the port. These indicators are compared before and after the concession were awarded and thechanges are noticed. Furthermore, a comparison between Malaysian ports and Apapa port is appliedusing the Matching Framework Analysis (MFA). This MFA is based on the environmental, structuraland strategic aspects of the ports. Following such analysis, using the MFA terminologies, indicatesApapa port to be more of centralised, efficient and organic, but with little mechanistic.
However, after the concession was awarded in 2006 at the Apapa port, the services have improved, butnot as expected. The ships turnaround time has not improved as expected as well as berth occupancyrate. Still port charges are high, bad access roads as well as congestion and poor port infrastructure, allin the port. However, the tonnage increases along with the number of ships and the generated revenue.
It was found that both the government and concessionaires are not adhering to the concessionagreement in providing their responsibilities. The Nigerian Port Authority (NPA) and the Bureau ofPublic Enterprise (BPE) controls majority of the ports operation and setting the port charges .It issuggested that there should be an independent regulator that can monitor and ensure both thegovernment and concessionaires adhere to the concession agreement. This will help to decentralise theport and make it more organic and effective.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank the Almighty God for his infinite blessings and guidance. In addition, manythanks to my family and friends for their ultimate support and prayers all time. They will always beremembered.
My regards and respect goes to NIMASA and Kaduna State Government for their support all through.
Moreover, my sincere appreciation also goes to those who helped, with information, in one way or theother while carrying this research. Particularly, Bashir Aliyu, Lawal Gangarawa and Abdu Ja’afaruBambale for their adequate advise and riposte when needed.
Iappreciated all the efforts and guidance given by the staffs that helped towards seeing this research asuccess.
Thanks a lot.

ABBREVIATIONS
ABP Association of British Ports
ANLCA Association of Nigerian Licensed Customs Agents
APMT Arnold Peter Moller Terminal
BOO Build Own and Operate
BOT Build Operate and Transfer
BOT Build Own Operate and Transfer
BPE Bureau of Public Enterprise
DEA Data Envelopment Analysis
EOT Equip Operate and Transfer
FDH Free Disposal Hull
FDI Foreign Direct Investment
GRT Gross Register Tonnage
ITO International Terminal Operators
MFA Matching Framework Analysis
NCP National Council on Privatisation
NCS Nigerian Custom Service
NIMASA Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency
NPA Nigerian Port Authority
NRT Net Register Tonnage
NTC National Transport Committee
PPIAF Public Private Investment Advisory Facility
PPP Public Private Partnership
PTP Port of Tanjung Pelepas
ROT Rehabilitate Operate and Transfer
SFA Stochastic Frontier Analysis
TEU Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit
TFP Total Factor Productivity
TNC Terminal Transitional Corporation
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
WBPRTK World Bank Port Reform Tool Kit

TABLES
TITLE PAGE NUMBER
Table 2.1 Colombian General Port Superintendent 10
Table 4.1 Revenue Statistics at Apapa Port 32
Table 4.2 Number of Ships, GRT and NRT at Apapa Port 32
Table 4.3 Container Traffic Handled at Apapa Port 33
Table 4.4 General Cargo Traffic Handled at Apapa Port 35
Table 4.5 Dry Bulk Cargo Traffic Handled at Apapa Port 36
Table 4.6 Liquid Bulk Cargo Handled at Apapa port 36
Table 4.7 Total Cargo Traffic Handled at Port of Apapa 37
Table 4.8 Container Throughput of Malaysian Ports 37
Table 5.1 Composition of the MFA 44
Table 5.2 Application of MFA to Malaysian Ports 51
Before and after their Reform Process

Table 5.3 Application of MFA to Apapa Port 52
Before and after concession

FIGURES
TITLE PAGE NUMBER
Figure 4.1 Turnaround Time of Ships at Apapa Port 34
Figure 4.2 Berth Occupancy Rate at Apapa Port 35
Figure 4.3 Responses from Questionnaire with Regards to 38
Average Ships Turnaround time at Apapa Port
Figure 4.4 Responses from Questionnaire with Regards to 39
Berth Occupancy Rate at Apapa Port
Figure 5.1 Matching Framework Analysis 42
Figure 5.2 Responses from Questionnaire with Regards to 52
The Need for Independent Regulator at Apapa Port
Figure 6.1 Improved Congestion at Apapa Port 57
Figure 6.2 Service Delivery at Apapa Port 57
Figure 6.3 Average Ships Waiting time at Apapa Port 58
Figure 6.4 Inconsistencies between the Number of Ships and 60
Berth Occupancy Rate.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION1
1.1 BACKGROUND1
1.2 THE RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION2
1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES3
1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH3
1.5 THE RESEARCH SOURCE OF INFORMATION3
1.6 ETHICAL ISSUES3
1.7 DISSERTATION STRUCTURE4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND METHODOLOGY5
2.1 INTRODUCTION5
2.2. LITERATURE REVIEW5
2.2.1 The Trends in awarding Concession5
2.2.2 The Concept of Bidding and Competition in Concession10
2.2.4. The Assessment Procedure of Port Performance and Productivity15
2.3 METHODOLOGY18
2.3.1 Introduction18
2.3.2 Data Collection in This Research In Relation To the Research Objectives: 18
2.3.3 Comparison of Port Performance and Productivity Using Matching Framework Analysis21
2.4 SUMMARY21
CHAPTER 3: THE CONCESSION PROCESS22
3.1 INTRODUCTION22
3.2 THE REFORM PROCESS22
3.2.1 The Concept of Concession22
3.2.2 The Idea of Investment Involved In the Concession Process23
3.3 THE TRENDS INVOLVED IN THE NIGERIAN PORTS24
3.3.1 The Concession Processes Involved In the Country24
3.3.2. Apapa Port after the Concession Was Awarded27
3.4 SUMMARY29
CHAPTER 4: PORT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS30
4.1 INTRODUCTION30
4.2 THE PORT PRODUCTIVITY30
4.3 THE APAPA PORT INDICATORS31
4.4 RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE:38
4.4 SUMMARY39
5.1 INTRODUCTION40
5.2. GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION40
5.3 THE COMPARISSON PROCESS40
5.3.1 Benchmarking.40
5.3.2 The Theories Deriving the MFA41
5.3.3 The Composition of MFA44
5.4 THE PORT OF MALAYSIA46
5.5 THE APAPA PORT48
5.6 APPLIATION OF MFA BETWEEN MALAYISA AND NIGERIAN PORTS; APAPA PORT.51
5.6.1 Malaysian Port Before and After Their Reform51
5.6.2 Apapa Port Before and After Their Reform52
5.8 SUMMARY53
CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS54
6.1 INTRODUCTION54
6.2 PRIOR THE PRIVATE PARTICIPATION IN THE PORT OPERATION AT APAPA54
6.3 THE REFORM PROCESS IN NIGERIA55
6.4 OPERATIONS AT APAPA PORT AFTER THE AWARDING OF 2006 CONCESSIONS56
6.5 COMPARISON BETWEEN MALAYSIAN PORTS AND APAPA PORT USING THE MFA58
6.6 DISCUSSION ON THE IMPACT OF CONCESSION AT APAPA PORT59
7.1 CONCLUSION61
7.2 REFLECTION62
7.3 AREA FOR FURTHER RESEARCH63
REFERENCES:64
APPENDIX 173
PART A: QUESTIONNAIRE73
PART B: THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS77

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Nigeria’s readiness to initiate port reform, through the concession process, started in late 1990s, being aprocess of modifying and developing the ports for better productivity. This was mainly due to the levelof low efficiency at the ports which resulted in so many issues. These issues were long turnaround timefor vessels which takes weeks to load and unload a vessel, instead of the 48 hours international standardand also increased container dwell time. It was recorded in 1975 that the average waiting time at Apapaport to be 240 days (Owen and Shneerson, 1982). Other issues are excessive cargo theft and high portrelated charges. Perhaps worst of all, the port infrastructure required considerable repair and restoration.However, such investment was going to need considerable external financial aid which the governmentwas discouraged and unwilling to provide following such existing operating inefficiencies (Leiglandand Palsson, 2007).
The more and more participation of private sector operating the ports the better the productivity. Theconcession process involves the giving out the port operating rights to the private institution, normallyby the public institution, subject to contractual terms. This was due to the inadequacies when carried bythe public institution itself. It includes many approaches which in turn results in the creation of organicstructure or decentralisation (Kay and Tompson, 1986 p: 18). These approaches are presented inchapter 2. The Nigerian ports represent a vital opportunities to both local and international investors,especially the port of Apapa. The port serves as the nation’s largest port and has the highest throughputthan any other port. It helps serve other neighbouring landlocked countries like the Niger and Chad. Itis therefore a gateway to serve not only Nigeria. As a result, investors are attracted to participate in theport’s operations (UNCTAD, 2011).
In 2004, the Federal Government of Nigeria through the National Council on Privatisation positivelyinitiated one of the most needed strategy to reform the nation’s ports; the concession programme.Twenty long-term concessions were awarded in 2006 and later in the following years 6 more wereawarded, making a total of 26 terminals conceded (Oghojafor, Kuye and Alaneme, 2012 ; Leigland andPalsson, 2007). Among those ports that benefited in the country is Apapa port in the state of Lagos. It isthe earliest and largest port in Nigeria, established in 1913 with a total quay of 4,059 metres. Itconnects to other modes of transportation (rail, road and inland waters) (NPA, 2011). The port alonehas 5 terminals conceded. Among the concessionaires are the Apapa bulk terminal, ENL consortium,AP Mollar (Maersk Group), Green view Development Nigeria limited and Inland Container Depot. APMollar has the largest terminal, among all, and also invested more in the country. The Group alonesigned a concession contract for 25 years to manage a container terminal, by investing, aiming toprovide a better productivity. The NET present value of the bid was reported to be US$1.06 billion, ofwhich about US$300 million was the capital investment (Leigland and Palsson, 2007).
The concession programme impacts the port’s operation and its productivity. This research analysessuch impact the concession has to operation and productivity in Apapa port.

1.2 THE RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION
The concession programme was awarded in 2006, following the inefficiencies in the Nigerian portsector. As a result, the need to analyse the effectiveness of this process on both operations andproductivity , specifically in Apapa port, is required not only for being the nation’s largest port andbusiest but also in the western African region. Another justification was the use of MatchingFramework Analysis (MFA) to compare the port performance and productivity between Malaysianports and Apapa port.

1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES
The main aim of this academic research is to analyse the impact of terminal concession on operation inApapa port. Specifically, the study will achieve the following objectives:
To explain the concept of concession.
To ascertain the history ofApapa port and current status.
To examine Apapa port performance and productivity.
To analyse the significance of concession on the port’s operation and its productivity afterthe 2006 concession was awarded in the country.

1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH
The concept of concession is vague and compound in many perspectives. This research mainly focusedon the port operations, being dependent on the port indicators, driving its productivity. These includesthe cargo throughput, berth occupancy rate, ships turnaround time, and the rest discussed in theresearch, all with regards to Apapa port, Nigeria.

1.5 THE RESEARCH SOURCE OF INFORMATION
In this research primary data were collected and used, mainly through questionnaire and interview. Theresponses camemostly via post, email and phone calls from the Nigerian Port Authority (NPA),Nigerian Custom Service (NCS), Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) andterminal operators. However, that could not be sufficient to carry the research; as a result, a lot ofsecondary data were used. The source includes books, journals, articles, newspapers, conference papersand internet websites.

1.6 ETHICAL ISSUES
As a normal norm of carrying a research, unspecified personality is required when collecting primarydata. A lot of such primary data were gathered of which were vital to this research. Those people whohelped with such data, though not all, asked to conceal their identities and consider all informationconfidential, and such was adhered to following this research.

1.7 DISSERTATION STRUCTURE
The dissertation’s aim and objectives necessitate constructing some chapters, to help achieve such aimand objectives, in a logical and academic pattern. This dissertation is divided in to seven chapters. Thefirst chapter is the introduction, with overall background of study. The second chapter is the literaturereview in relation to the research aim and objectives. Along same line in the chapter is the methodologyadhered to while carrying the research.
The third chapter examines the concession process in general and then in specific to Apapa port.Together examined in the chapter is the reform policy adapted by the Nigerian Government in 2006, thefinancing and managing of the ports in the country. This, will however, help to understand the structureof the Apapa port.
The fourth chapter is the port performance indicators driving the port’s productivity of Apapa. Thisincludes the ships turnaround time, cargo throughput, berth occupancy rate and revenue generated. Thechapter includes the statistics of such indicators before and after the concession was awarded.
The fifth chapter is the Matching Framework Analysis. This allows a comparison of port performanceand productivity,between two ports, in relation to their operating environment, strategy and structure.Malaysian ports and Apapa port are compared.
The sixth chapter is the overall analyses and discussion on the dissertation, following the researchfindings.
The seventh chapter is the overall conclusion and reflection, following the overall chapters of thedissertation. It also includes area for further research.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter is divided in to two parts. The first part (Section 2.2) is the literature review on portconcession, operations and port productivity. The second part (2.3) is on the methodology used inachieving the aim and objectives of this research.
For the purpose of this research ‘’the impact of terminal concession on operation at Apapa port’’ in thefirst part is a review on the previous literatures. It includes the trends behind concession, the role ofboth public and private sector in the port operation. It then discusses on the port productivity using theport performance indicators. It further explains the application of Matching Framework Analysis(MFA), used in chapter 5, to compare the port performance and productivity between ports. Thischapter will consider MFA and the alternative methods of comparison. It will make clear why MFA hasbeen selected for this project.
In the second part details the methodology used in the research to achieve the overall aim andobjectives of the research. This includes how data were collected, used and presented in the research.

2.2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.2.1 The Trends in awarding Concession
2.2.1.1 Port Reform
Concession came along through the reform process as a tool.Port reform is defined as the modificationof port’s business institutional structure and high involvement of private institution in the exploitationof financing of port facilities, terminals and services (World Bank, 2007; UNCATD, 1998; andCullinane, Song and Roe, 2001). The port reform changes the relationship between public and privatesector. Some of the common reform processes used is Commercialisation, Deregulation, Devolution,Corporatisation and Privatisation. For the purpose of this research, there is need to understand some ofthe reform process for clarity and specification on the method used.
UNCTAD (1998) helped in identifying the idea behind the reform processes.Commercialisationinvolves the introduction of commercial policies and practices to the management and operation of aport. This will however need a port to operate under market discipline. It is done through negotiationbetween the government (as owner) and port management. It provides decentralisation of decisionmaking process and also not too much hierarchy of port organisation. This allows the port manager toexecute greater control over (UNCTAD, 1998). The other method isDeregulationwhich is a temporaryHelping by private institution to carry certain port activities which was served by the public before. Inthis reform, the private body will provide such services in a competitive environment with the aim ofefficiency while competing with the existing public port organisation. Furthermore,Devolutionprocessis the increase participation of private sector in the delivery of port services without private investment(UNCTAD, 1998).
Along the same line is thePrivatisationthat involves transferring the production of goods and servicesfrom the public sector to the private sector. Here, it means having done privately that which was donepublicly. It is not a policy but an approach. It is an approach which recognises that the regulation,which the market imposes on economic activity, is superior to any regulation which men can devise andoperate by law (Pirie, 1988: 2- 3). This privatisation can either be partial or comprehensiveprivatisation (World Bank, 2007).
Some argue about what actually privatisation is, saying concession is privatisation. Kay andTompson (1986: 18) understanding is that privatisation is a term which is used to cover several distinctand possibly alternative means of changing the relationship between government and the private sector.An example added is the denationalisation (the sale of publicly owned assets), deregulation (theintroduction of competition into statutory monopolies) and concession (giving right to private firms theport’s operation). While Dunleavy (1986: 1) understanding of privatisation is strictly permanenttransferring of services or goods production activities previously carried out by public servicebureaucracies to private firms and not concession.
However, Concession as defined by(World Bank, 2007) is a system that works on contractual basiswhere the government handle the operating rights to the private institution for the benefit of the country.This will permit the government the ultimate ownership of the Portland, construction activities,safeguard public interest, substantial risk and financial burdens. Concession is regarded as partialprivatisation (World Bank, 2007). Following all such understanding, from different views make aconclusion, for the purpose of this research to regard concession as not a privatisation, but rather partialprivatisation. However, the idea of Public Private Partisanship (PPP) came along following the partialprivatisation that involves more private participation (Song, Cullinane and Roe, 2001).

2.2.1.2 The Port Ownership Models
Highlighted below are some of the approaches regarding the ownership of ports, financing andadministration (Song, Cullinane and Roe, 2001; and Alderton, 2008). These are:
I) Landlord port: This is the most dominant where the public own the land & the around approach andthen lease out the terminals to private institutions to operate. The landlord provides the infrastructurewhile the tenant (concessionaire) provides the superstructure including cranes and other cargo handlingequipment. Nigeria goes with this system since 2006.
ii) Tool port: Both the superstructure and infrastructure are provided by the landlord, even though notoften a practice now a days.
iii) Service port: Here the port authorities provide both the services and facilities for the ship and cargoin the port including stevedoring.
However, the port authority in most countries is responsible for the governing and controlling of theport and hence in the issue of landlord port is the landlord; the port authority. This port authority has ajurisdiction for managing the port. In addition, under the landlord system is the BOT (build operate andtransfer) a scheme of financing and managing a port under concession arrangement. Here, the privatesector is involved in financing and operations for some certain time and later handle to the public asagreed. The other ones are the BOO (build own and operate), EOT (equip operate and transfer), BOOT(build, own, operate and transfer) and ROT (rehabilitate own and transfer) (World Bank, 2007;Alderton, 2008). Nigeria adapted ROT.

2.2.1.3 The Rationale for Increased Private Participation
A survey was carried out by the International Association of Ports and Harbours (IAPH) in 1999, in188 seaports, while examining the role of both the public and the private participation forbetterdevelopment as well as efficiency in that ports. They survey indicate that the participation of privatecompanies is increasing especially their role in providing cargo handling facilities, but still the role ofpublic sector is significant, especially in the provision and maintenance of navigations aids andchannels (Lee and Cullinane, 2005: 138). Also added that it can be seen largely that the port authorityprovides the warehousing and port information services while the private sector provides most otherport added services, for example, the stevedoring services (Lee and Cullinane, 2005).
Napier University had taken a survey also based on the IAPH survey. They focused on the topcontainer portsin the world, while analysing the strategic methods used by the ports to effect privateparticipation as well as its benefits. They survey conclude that there is a share of investment betweenthe public and private institutions, where they both benefited. For the public are mainly the revenue andtax, while for the private are less port charges, advance performance and escalating the trade business(Lee and Cullinane, 2005: 139).
Regardless, many argued about the public/private influence for better performance and economicefficiency. Vickers and Yarrow(1998) understanding is that in many situations when focused from theeconomic perspective ,the public sector will provide better performance in a good way than the privatesector. Adding that it is not good to finalise the affair of ownership has engaged a central place in theadvancement of economic analysis. Being supportive by Goss (1982) produced evidence indicating thatthe oligopolistic or monopolistic system exists, within the market, when private companies run the port.Adding that the private sector operators probably will lose the lure to advance port performances.While examining the position of oligopoly in Australia, it was found that not only the high charges inthe ports, but also the incapability was the major concern. A similar issue was discovered in the UK(Saundry & Turbull, 1997).
Notwithstanding, the above exist, but the role of private sector cannot be eliminated. Liu (1992) arguedthat the public sector encompasses with inefficiencies due to the different orders of public monitoringthat impedes the system of flow and too much ministerial interference in operational resolutions.Further added that the existence of lucidity in coordinate design and operative authority. Song,Cullinane and Roe (2001) indicate that the major tool for achieving a better performance and economicefficiency in the ports is the private sector participation. Adding that, the introduction of intra-portcompetition has been a bigger step the participation of private sector (Song, Cullinane and Roe, 2001)
Alderton (2008) examined the port of Klang in Malaysia, which was conceded under the landlordsystem for 21 years contract, where container terminals were selected at first, in 1986. Since then theadministration and maintenance cost have been cut, as a result all other terminals were conceded in1992. The cost was further reduced to half when compared with that when run by the public sector fully.There was an increase of 75% tonnage as well as 85% wages.
Without doubt, as said earlier, the private sector provides a more efficient performance than the publicsector when running the ports. The association of the American Port Authorities reported that 30% ofthe 66 US public ports perform at loss. The acknowledgement of political intervention andinconceivable encouragement to perform excessively are the main issues affecting the ports in the US(Alderton, 2008:78). Below is the statistics of Columbian port before the private involvement in 1993and after. It can be seen from table 2.1 that all the indicators improved after the private sector take overthe port operations.
Indicators Before 1993 1996

Average vessel waiting time

Working days per year

Working hours per day

Bulk cargo
(tonnes / vessel /day)

General cargo(tonnes/vessel/day)

Containers per vessel/hours(gross)
10

280

16

500

750

16
Virtually no waiting

365

24

2500(minimum)

1700

25

Table: 2.1 Source: Colombian general port superintendent (1997)(cited in Alderton, 2008:78)

2.2.2 The Concept of Bidding and Competition in Concession
It does not just happened, for concession process include a systematic way of a bidding process andcompetition among the operators. UNCTAD (2011) suggested that when carrying the concessionprocess should adapt a bidding process by the authorizing party. This will make the private companiesenter into a bidding for certain port operations and services which may include terminal operations,cargo handling, and warehousing and others. Among the bidding process is that the operators( locallyor internationally) will have to be assessed base on their international experience on terminal operations,technical proposal with a development and investment plan for assessment by transaction advisors,financial proposal to the licensing authority indicating the readiness of commencement ,lease andthroughput fees offered to the government through the port authority. Immediately after the financialbid, will be the interested party to enter a direct negotiation with the government to finalize theconcession agreement. This however makes the government target the ITOs as a strategy to attract FDI(Foreign Direct Investment). The strategy is mainly to attract FDI to help advance the nation’s economyand improve the port infrastructure (UNCTAD, 2011).
When looking at the competition, it has to be with regard to the market structure within the industry.Especially, in container ports, the structure of the market should be understood from the view point of acountry (Scherer & Ross, 1990 cited in Wang, Cullinane & Song, 2005). This competition may eitherbe intra or inter port completion.
The inter port competition: here, the competition is between different ports. It may either be betweencomplete range of ports, ports in different nation or within same country. However, this may seem to bedifficult when distinguishing with private investors, but often this competition leads to the participationof private institutions (Wang, Cullinane & Song, 2005). Goss (1990a) marked out the range upon whichcompetition depends, which includes geographic location and the movement of goods within. Before,the inter port competition was regarded as less effective until the time of containerisation. Moreover,the current advancement of logistics and the containerisation change the issue of the market; beingbehold as monopolistic or oligopolistic due to the fixed geographical location (Goss, 1990b).
The other competition method is the intra port completion. Goss (1990c: 256) defines it as:
‘‘This [intra-port competition] does not necessarily mean that there should actually be alarge number of firms competing simultaneously: It means that the market in questionshould be contestable in the sense that entry is easy for a new firm, whose exit will also beeasy if its efforts turn out to be unsuccessful’’.
However, it is necessary to relate the competition with port ownership. There will be no completion if asingle port is run by the public (Wang, Cullinane & Song, 2005). As said earlier the ownership couldeither be the comprehensive where the public runs all the operation or the landlord where the publictransfer the operations to the private institutions. In between the comprehensive and the landlord is thehybrid port (Wang, Cullinane & Song, 2005).
Accustomed business organisation belief implies that the each of the contest has his own wizard andtrick in any organisation .The intra port competition is almost agreed globally due to its developed portperformance and hence encouraged. Goss (1990c) recommends that the landlord ports attain efficiencyby bringing up competition, while the comprehensive ports attain the efficiency by absoluteadministration. Added, that the port authority role is to encourage, as well as the assurance ofcompetition. UNCTAD (2011) also suggests the adaption of the intra port competition, within theprivate operators, in the port. This will create a significant potential for competitive environment whichin turn allow the private participant to invest more. This will, however, allow more of foreign anddomestic investment, while maximizing financial returns to the government (UNCTAD, 2011).

2.2.3 The Port Productivity
The understanding of performance is a strategic basis to any business. It can either be weighing theachievements in relation to the planned aims and objectives or may be against contest. Seaports are thereal players in doing that. Their performance will determine the productivity of the port and is base onthe set of inputs and outputs (Esmer, 2008). in order words the port indicators. It is a discouraging taskto measure port. Many factors accord to port efficiency. Connection between rail and trucking lines,dock facilities, harbour features (including channel depth and tidal movement), custom clearance timeand labour relation, are considerably most of the factors (Esmer, 2008; Sola & Oba, 2010).
Following a literature (Tatcchi, Cagnazzo and Botareeli, 2008) indicates that the operationalperformances in some seaports were found to be substandard. An example is the Nigerian ports (Obaand Sola, 2011). These have led many literatures which established logistics as an important aspect ofenhancing efficiency in seaports, beside other port indicators.
When looking at the central joints of the world’s increasing international trade development, the portperformance and efficiency have become more concerned and important (Blonigen & Wilson, 2006).However, those seaports having poor performance will certainly impede the trade volumes which willhave a big impact to the trade; specifically developing countries and less developed nations (Clerket al,2004; Wilsonet al, 2004, all cited in Blonigen & Wilson, 2006). Tongzon (1989); Chin and Tongzon(1998) added that efficiency has been an important contributor to a country’s internationalcompetitiveness, though not an easy thing to measure especially when the port services are not standardand declining (Esmer, 2008). Many facilities in the port are costly and often not easy to purchase.Therefore under-utilization will yield in capital lost and the high running cost. These defectiveequipments will result in time delays to handle ships and cargoes as well. This results capital andcustomer lost which in turn affect the port productivity (Tahar & Hussain, 2000). It is therefore animportant aspect to look upon and hence survive in the competitive market in the world of shippingthrough utilization of the port indicators.
The rate at which a ship is discharged, the rate at which goods are handled and the length of stay ofsuch goods in port before shipment or post discharge will determine how efficient a port is (Choo,1993). Adding that it also includes the look upon how the seaports assets are maintained properly aswell as looking into the financial side with regard to those operations. The indicators to determine theseaport performance are often connected to the tonnage of shipping calling at the port and of the cargohandled volume, and hence seaports activities in the main are given to cargo and ships. Some ofindicators are mainly berth occupancy rate , average waiting time(idle),average ships turnaround time,average vessel time at berth ,TEU per crane(hook) hour (Choo,1993).
Choo (1993) added that the performance could be categorise into two; the financial and assetperformance. For the financial includes the income details, profit and loss account and a balance sheet.The details connect the port’s income formation surpluses and investments to the overall NRT or GRTof shipping and also the overall tonnage of cargo being taken care up at the port. These will certainlydetermine the performance of a port. The asset performance involves the utilization of seaport assetswhich are dependent on tonnage of ships coming to the port or the tonnage of cargo handled. Berth isamong the most important and useful asset in port and therefore measuring it performance will beconsidered as sufficient (Choo, 1993). This includes the berth throughput i.e. the overall cargo handledat the berth. The utilization of berth is dependent on the rate of utilization (Choo, 1993; Esmer, 2008).
According to UNCTAD (1999) the port indicators are categorised into macro performance indicators(quantifying average effect of the port operations on the economic growth) and micro indicators(assessing input/output ratio measurement of the port operations), being supportive by (Bichou andGray, 2004). Initially, the port productivity has been identified by cargo handling productivity at berth(Bendall and Stent, 1987; Tabernacle, 1995; and Ashar, 1997; all cited in Esmer, 2008). It can also beby comparing the port throughput over a specified period of time (Talley, 1998, cited in Esmer). Theproduction indicators, productivity indicators, service measurement and utilization indicators are othersuggested indicators (Thomas and Monie, 2000, cited in Esmer, 2008). The production is to measurethe level of business activity, while the productivity will measure the ratio of output to input.Utilization indicator will measure how frequently the production resources are used and the servicesmeasurement will indicate the satisfaction of the services by the customer in terms of regularity,rapidity and reliability (Thomas and Monie, 2000 cited in Esmer, 2008).
However, (Trujillo and Nombela, 1999) categorised the port indicators into 3; the physical indicators(example is the ship turnaround time and cargo throughput), factor productivity indicators (measuresthe labour and capital needed to load and unload cargo from a vessel) and the economic and financialindicators (to measure the GRT and NRT). Moreover, the physical and the financial and economicindicators are the key determinants of productivity in the seaports (Choo, 1993; Esmer, 2008).
Essentially, in this research, the physical and the financial and economic indicators are used to indicatethe Apapa port productivity.

2.2.4. The Assessment Procedure of Port Performance and Productivity
Many studies have been accomplished in relation to port performance Assessment methods. For exampleKorea, Mexico & Bangladesh while focusing on their current states, other countries concentred on localoutlook of supply chain management and the status of the logistics area (Kamaluddin, 1991; Kim,1996; and McMullan, 1996; all cited in Sola and Oba, 2011). In addition, some focused on inter locallogistics system (Bookbinder & Tan, 2003). Absolutely as many, and different, as the perspective,hence many are the techniques also of assessing the port performance and productivity (Sola and Oba,2011). Adding that, the reality of making the aspect of logistics, being a service industry tool ofenhancing efficiency, makes the logistics a determinant tool, as an indicator, for measuring portperformance (Sola and Oba, 2011).
Sola and Oba (2011) indicate that the Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA), Data Envelopment Analysis(DEA), Total Factor productivity (TFP) and Free Disposal Hull (FDH) are mainly the methods used toevaluate the port performance and productivity, especially for container terminals. This will allowexamining their technical efficiency as well as the effectiveness of privatisation and nationalisation onseaport’s operational efficiency (Kim and Sachish, 1986, cited in Sola and Oba, 2011; and Liu, 1995).To establish the necessary and most effective assessment technique needs a wide understanding of theactivities in the seaports as well as advancing the adjustment of performance measurement planstogether with a systematic set of goal of the port (Ireland, Hitt, Sumon, 2003; Sola and Oba, 2010).
Sola and Oba (2011) indicate that the services in connection therewith port activities in Nigeria arecategorised into 4; thus:
Services possessed and run by the public sector
Services possessed by the public but run by private institutions.
Services provided by private institutions under a competitive situation.
The provision by private institutions the land transport services. These are increasinglyconnected to maritime transport system.
The arrangement of these services stands as an essential connection with the international logistics, theefficiency of which has been affected by the group of complex internal ports and a large number ofbodies hindered the movement of cargo between vessels and inland transport carriers (Sola and Oba,2010; Sola and Oba ,2011).
Along this line, the efficiency of seaports is altered by a linkage of stakeholders, customers and theenvironment. All these impose a huge effect to the local economy. The adherence to the aboveapproaches as mentioned for evaluating port performance and efficiency assumed to be toosophisticated and unrelated appropriate to the operations in a country like Nigeria (Sola and Oba ,2010).For that, the Matching Framework Analysis (MFA) will be a preferred approach to use. The approachis assumed to be the most significant, despite the fact it is non-parametric, but also because it does notinvolve absolutea prioridetermination of connections between inputs and outputs or the context ofstrict essential Assessment for many factors (Estache,Gonzale and Trujilo, 2002). It also consists ofmany other approaches consumed into one with frugality (Andy, 1992; Dell, 1989; all cited in Sola andOba, 2011; Harman and Jones, 1996). Finally, the application of such approach has an added advantagealso of being primarily qualitative, without computational sophistication, which would be more likelyto be understood by unsophisticated port administrators.
According to (Sola and Oba ,2010) when using the MFA variables (environment, structure andstrategy) with regards to the problems of congestion, theft, port capacity relative to volume of traffic,handling equipment, modal complimentarily and stakeholders perception from 2001 to 2006 indicatedthat the Nigerian seaports logistics performance is not encouraging. Even though not now, but (Fawcett,Birou and Taylor, 1993) indicated the same thing in 1993. Moreover, there was lack of a proof, theconnection between berth occupancy rate and turnaround time showing a conflicting opposite and anabsolute linkage infrequently over years. In addition, a more difficult to understand is the stage whenstaff development investment and the turnaround time were all increasing with both berth occupancyratio and operation investment at increasing rate the reverse of logistical a priori assumptions (Sola &Oba ,2010) .
However the contradictory defects were later found to be as a result of incompetent staffs, trainingprogrammes for development, and inaccuracies in the port’s security as well ascending the number ofunchecked equipments among others (Sola and Oba, 2010). Further added that the three components(environment, structure and strategy) of enhancing the port performance were overthrown and alsoindicates poor operations at the ports even with the private participation .This resulted to the degree ofpoor performance not only in Nigeria, but other African countries also engaged in the maritimebusiness (Sola and Oba ,2010).
According to Drunker (1962 cited in Sola and Oba, 2011) the American business logistics is theeconomy’s dark ingredient and most prominent. Logistics yielded the success of Japanese managementplans (Itami, 1980 cited on Sola and Oba, 2011).Further added that there are three major factors inglobal supply chain which affect the efficiency of seaports. These factors are port’s core competence,cost trade off in operations and information and communication technology. Moreover, Logisticsinvolves the running of more store and associated activities which involve the stage of production andconsumption (Blanchard, 1981; Ballou 1985; Oba, 2010, cited in Sola and Oba, 2011). Therefore,logistics should not be ignored when addressing port performance and efficiency (Sola and Oba, 2010).

2.3 METHODOLOGY
2.3.1 Introduction
Both primary and secondary data were obtained and presented in this research. These data werecollected in relation to the research aim and objectives and used in different chapters.

2.3.2 Data Collection in This Research In Relation To theResearch Objectives:
2.3.2.1Explaining the Concession Process
In order to explain the concept of concession process requires literature. These data were used in thechapters, especially in chapter 2 and 3. The literature review explained the concept in general andchapter 3 examined the process adapted in Apapa port, Nigeria.
2.3.2.2 Ascertaining the Apapa Port History and Current Status
This objective also relied upon literature. The collected data were used in the research chapters,basically in the research background in chapter 1 and chapter 3 where the history of Apapa port ispresented.

2.3.2.3 Examining Apapa Port Performance and Productivity
In order to examine the port performance and its productivity requires some data. This helped inanalysing the impact of concession on operations at Apapa port. Both literature and questionnaire wereused.
For the port indicators, mainly, the ships turnaround time, berth occupancy rate and cargo throughput,were obtained and used in the chapter 4. These data were attained basically through literatures. But toget other data, with regards to such indicators and service delivery (satisfaction), requires personalopinion, and that necessitate the need to construct questionnaire to collect the personal responses.Additionally, an interview was carried, via phone calls, based on the set questions in the questionnaireincluding additional question as can be seen in Appendix 1.
Moreover, it was essential to compare Apapa port with others in other to ascertain how the Apapa portperformance and productivity is. The Matching Framework Analysis is used to compare the Apapa portand Malaysian ports. This is presented in chapter 5. The data in relation to Malaysian ports, while usingthe MFA, were available online, while for Apapa port that relates to such comparison was not. In orderto get those data is another reason that necessitates constructing the questionnaire.

2.3.2.4 Analyses of Terminal Concession on Operation at Apapa Port
This is the last objective and the main aim of the research and is presented in chapter 6 following theoverall research findings presented in all the chapters. Moreover, chapter 7 is the overall conclusionwhere it mentioned clear how the aim and objectives were achieved.

2.3.2.5 The Questionnaire and Interview
A questionnaire was used to collect opinions and data from port participants. A combined questionnairewas developed, containing both close and open questions with regards to the Apapa port operations.The open questions will allow the respondent to add his/her opinion while the close questionsare sethaving different options for the respondent to select (Leung, 2001). This combine format of questionshelps in collecting of valuable data and hence provides a good interpretation relevant to a survey.
Additionally, an interview through phone calls was carried, with specific questions fromthequestionnaire and one additional question. It was an as alternative method to collect data, where 5people corporate. They are from NIMASA, NPA and NCS.
Initially, it was planned for the author to go to the port of Apapa, but this could not happen. As a result,questionnaires and interview was used. The questionnaire was sent to both terminal operators,NIMASA, NCS and NPA by email. It was sent to 10 participants, although only 7 responded byconventional mail. The questionnaire can be seen in Appendix 1.
In general, 13 people responded. A lot of data came from the NPA being the authority holding most ofthe port’s statistics and other activities. Even the terminal operators mentioned in the questionnaire, inresponse to some questions, to consult NPA for such data required in the questionnaire. Below is thelist of some of those who helped in proving the primary data. They responded to the questionnaire,replied to emails or answered the phone calls:
 Lawal Yusuf, the Chief Internal Auditor of NPA.
 E.O.Ekpo, Statistic Department of NPA.
 Ngige. S.N, Apapa Bulk Terminal Limited Apapa.
 Yakubu Abdullahi, ENL Consortium Terminal Apapa.
 Joseph Oma, AP Mollar Terminal Apapa.
 Ibrahim Jibril of NIMASA
 Bashir Aliyu of NCS
The collected primary data were used in several chapters of this project, as appropriate.
2.3.2.6 The Literature
Many of the data used in this research is the secondary data. The source includes internet, Books,Journals, articles, conference papers both in paper form and electronically. Moreover, the idea ofunderstanding was acquired through attending classes. This helped in the interpretation of the literature.
The NPA when sending back the questionnaire sent together along a review and statistic of the port ofApapa. This contains a lot of data which were vital in this research and as a result were used. The dataare mostly the physical port indicators.
These data; literature, were used and interpreted in all the chapters; especially chapter 2 (literaturereview), chapter 3 and chapter 5.

2.3.3 Comparison of Port Performance and Productivity Using Matching Framework Analysis
Additionally, in order to ascertain and examine how productive a port is, a comparison can be made.Apapa port is compared with Malaysian ports. This is linked to the third objective of this research ‘’toexamine the Apapa port performance and productivity’’. Despite the fact the two countries are located indifferent part of the world, but some of their ports operate in a similar environment. Example is the portof Apapa in Nigeria and Port Klang in Malaysia. To ascertain the level of productivity in Apapa port,the port performance indicators were essential. But still to benchmark with other ports is required,especially with a port in a different country. Performance improves through benchmarking, bycomparing and making necessary adjustments.
The idea behind the MFA is to benchmark the port performances between two or more ports withregards to theiroperating environment, strategy and structure. Apapa port and Malaysian ports arecompared. Moreover, the application and theories of MFA is presented in chapter 5

2.4 SUMMARY
This chapter explained the literature review and methodology of the whole research. The first partdiscussed on literature that indicates the role of both public and private sector in the ports operation andtheir efficiency. Moreover, the chapter explainedport productivity, port ownership as well as methodsused for assessing port performance and productivity.
The second part explained the methodology used in while carrying this research. This includes howdata were collected and used. The primary data were obtained mainly through questionnaire andinterview while the secondary data were obtained from previous literatures. MFA is used to comparethe port performance between Apapa port and Malaysian ports. The MFA is applied in chapter 5.
The next chapter will examines the concession process adopted by the Nigerian government and itsignificance.

CHAPTER 3: THE CONCESSION PROCESS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter examines the concession process in general and also it significance to operations (section3.2). Section 3.3 then examines the concession agreement adapted by the National Council onPrivatisation (NCP) of Nigeria as a strategic process of improving the country’s ports productivity, inspecific to Apapa port, by introducing private sectors to operate the ports. It includes the concept ofinvestment involved in the concession agreement.
Moreover, as part of section 3.3, it examines the significance of concession to port operations inNigeria in specific to port of Apapa before after the 2006 concession was awarded. This includes thecomplaints from both the government and concessionaires. Section 3.4 is the summary of this chapter.

3.2 THE REFORM PROCESS
3.2.1 The Concept of Concession
This is not a new technique, in the port reform process, but also a global reform process. It involves thegiving out the port operating rights to the private institution, normally carried by the public institution,subject to contractual terms (World Bank, 2007). This was due to the inadequacies when carried by thepublic institution itself. It includes many approaches which in turn results in the creation of organicstructure (decentralisation). The government would have to focus and choose the most desirableapproach, needed, to boost the NET and hence a benefit to the seaport and the country at large. Thebenefits will depends upon the basic aims and objectives of such government which may includemodernizing the terminals, solving problems, new approach to port investment, reducing the portcharges as well as extending the national trade. Example, the United Kingdom government privatisedall the ports for the purpose of reducing financial burdens (Baird, 2000).
3.2.2 The Idea of Investment Involved In the Concession Process
Investment in such capital process should not be ignored. In the seaport, the infrastructureshould begiven more emphasis, as it will directly affect the productivity of the port operations and therewithconnectable to other modes of transport that will enhance better operations (UNCTAD, 2011). However,as a result the need for investment should be adhered to, though depends with the type of portgovernance the port has and such will be discussed later in this chapter.
Foreign direct investment (FDI) assumes to be the most efficient and attractive mechanism within theconcession agreement, especially in developing countries like Nigeria. It involves mostly theconcession of bulk cargo and container terminals to the Transitional Corporations (TNCs) also knownas the International Terminal Operators (ITOs). These operators are responsible for the investment forthe agreed length of time. In contrast to the local investors and public institutions, these ITOs willhowever yield better economic of scale, access cheaper financing, and have cutting edge technology, inaddition to the well employment management and operational practice (UNCTAD, 2011). Furthermore,the challenges regarding the investment, resulting from the private participation including the FDI,should not be kept away. They will however include, but not limited to, providing the required legaland organisational framework, modifying the port facilities, managing and the bidding procedure. Theyshould make a deal with the ITOs as well as establishing clean and effective regulation policy coveringthe whole period of the project.
The method used for the participation of both the public and private institutions splits, count on somefactors, thus: local/national laws, the demand and supply status as well as the degree of competition.Although the participation of private sector is magnificent in port operations and services, but stillcannot descend the power of public sector, importantly in all instances, takes legion than just being adevelop arrangement (Cullinane and Lee, 2005). Adding that in all researches carried revealed thatthere is no single, standard and common way of seaport investment. However, though, in the case ofNigeria and other developing states concession and lease arrangement are most of the approaches usedfor enhancing the private participation and as a result yields better performance.
3.3 THE TRENDS INVOLVED IN THE NIGERIAN PORTS
3.3.1 The Concession Processes Involved In the Country
For the purpose of this research, basically based on Nigeria, with regards to Apapa port containing themost needed plans of attracting and benefiting from the FDI in the port terminals is discussed. The portalone has 5 terminals conceded, among the overall 26 terminal in the country, to the private institutionsboth locally and internationally. Apapa port has the larger terminals conceded with APM terminalbeing the largest one in the whole country given to the ITOs. This participation of both the foreign andprivate entities in the shipping industry often helps in improving better port performance (UNCTAD,2011). In this era of globalisation, government had shown inadequacies upon the resources and theability to manage the modern ports especially in terms of its operations (Razak, 2005). Most of theseaports now in the world are operated by the private institution through the public private participation(PPP). This was as a result of low efficient operation, by the Nigerian government and port authority, asa result the private came into the scene (Notteboom, 2007).
The government made many consultations locally and internationally, upon which at the end, the NCPasked the Public Private Investment Advisory Facility (PPIAF) to fund a study on reform process toreview the best port system to adapt in the country’s ports. This idea of private participation in Nigeriastarted in 2003 by the NCP, the top body on policies regarding reforms in the country, together with theBureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) (Razak, 2005). In 2004, all approved the idea of concession schemeon port infrastructure (Leighland and Palsson, 2007). This scheme got global credibility that includesthe World Bank, Royal Haskoning of Holland and CPCS Transcom of Canada, as the processcounsellors, consultant and the concession bid managers respectively (Fivestar logistics, 2008, cited inLeighland and Palsson, 2007). However, in 2006, twenty (20) long terms were given and later 6 more.These terminals were conceded under the landlord approach (Leighland and Palsson, 2007). Othersuggested reform processes were the full privatization, corporatization, which were all rejected butaccepted the concession of the port terminals (UNCTAD, 2011).
The largest of all the concessions in Nigeria is the container terminal in the port of Apapa. Both theinternational and local investors were allowed to bid freely for all or any of the terminals up forconcession. This helps to prevent anti competitive behaviour by not awarding the operator all terminalswithin a single port. As a result, the concessions agreements were based on ROT following theexistence of both infrastructure and superstructure (UNCTAD, 2011. The operators will have to pay thegovernment the commencement, lease and cargo throughput fees. However, among the bidding processwas that, the operators were assessed base on their international experience on terminal operations,technical proposal with a development and investment plan for assessment by transaction advisors.Financial proposal was sent to BPE indicating the readiness of commencement, lease and throughputfees to the government. Immediately after the financial bid, the interested party to enter a directnegotiation with the BPE to finalize the concession agreement (UNCTAD, 2011).
Both the national and international investors were called to place the bid following their globalexperience. This made the BPE targeted the major ITOs. This strategy was mainly to attract FDI to helpadvance the nation’s economy and improve the port infrastructure (UNCTAD, 2011;Ndikom andEmeghara, 2012).
Some of the problems associated with Nigerian ports before the concession were:
Not only in Apapa port but all other ports within the country were operating at low efficientlevel. There was long turnaround time of vessels and ascend of container dwell time (Leiglandand Palsson, 2007). The standard load and unload time internationally is 48 hours but that wasnot the case in Nigeria in those days as it takes weeks.
Port charges were too high as well as high over load work force and also high percentage ofgoods theft (Ndikom and Emeghara, 2012).
The port infrastructure, the most important aspect to be considered was not good as it supposeto (Sola and Oba, 2011).
Not only Nigerian ports, but basically the common poor performance from history indicates a similarreason worldwide. Mostly are due to conflicting and mixed roles driven by politicians, predominance ofuncompleted contracts and subsidies from government. These are however directly or indirectly linkedto internal inefficiencies , too much bureaucratic command, to much government impedance andintervention as well as other public service behaviour of downgrading and compromising efficiencyand optimum outcomes (Sola and Oba, 2010; Jerome,2008, cited in Alaneme, Kuye and Oghojafor,2012).
As a result of the above mentioned problems attracted foreign financial aid following the lack ofproviding the responsibilities by the Nigerian government. This was mostly due to the existingcorruption and inadequacies in operations .Following such results port operators and users are leftdissatisfied (Leigland and Palsson, 2007).
The Federal Government of Nigeria initiated the concession process to tackle issues of insufficiencies,corruption, and mismanagement and also due to the high debt that distinguish the Nigerian ports. Again,the logic behind the concession involves the $34million indebtedness of the NPA as well as excess of24 out of 83 managers and poor management structure. The concession process came into sceneinitially in 2003 with 110 applicants who applied but just 20 granted in 2006. The terminals wereconceded for the range of 10-25 years (Leigland and Palsson, 2007; Kieran, 2005; Akinwale andAremo, 2010).

3.3.2. Apapa Port after the Concession Was Awarded
Even with the private participation in the port’s operation still not much development had taken place inApapa port as well as other Nigerian ports after the concession process. Many operators werecomplaining of high port charges, Inadequacy and lack of equipment by the terminal operators.Corruption has been running around and hence could not allow the main purpose of concession and it’sachievable to take place and benefit the nation. In addition, there are also issues with bad portinfrastructures and which in turn affects the business either in operations or cost perspective. Anexample given by the Francis Omotosho of the Association of Nigerian Licensed Customs Agents(ANLCA) to vanguard newspaper is saying that:
“Shipping agents presently collects about seven illegal charges from port users, waterfront terminal operators collect about 11 charges on every container while their counterpartin the off dock operation (bonded terminals) collect about 20 different charges…’’ (Bivbere2011, p: 29).
Along the same line, it was reported by the Nigerian Voice that stakeholders were saying:
“Has anything changed at the ports? Four years, it was easier to access the port in Lagos,but now it has become near impossible to carry out any business successfully at the portwithout getting stuck. The traffic congestion is hellish, the infrastructure at the ports hasdepreciated, congestion is the order of the day at the terminals and importers are skilfullyripped off in the name of demurrage. To worsen matters, nobody monitors anybody adsheer manipulation has become the order of the day’’ (Cited in Oghojafor, Kuye andAlaneme, 2012).
Also added by the Anti-corruption committee chairman Sulaiman Hameen in 2011 following samereport is that:
“There is no meaningful infrastructural development at the nation’s port despite the hugerevenue collected by the government after the concession…corruption is a major factorresponsible for the poor state of infrastructure at the ports. Port development is an ongoingprocess, but what is happening in Nigeria is that the ports have realised a lot of revenuesfrom the port concessionaires, but they are not used for port development due to corruption.Government is not putting back to the ports. The port industry needs the proper interventionof presidency; otherwise will be losing the cargoes to the neighbouring countries, becauseanything that comes to the port you will find out that 45% of charges are imposed withoutbeing tied to service” (Cited in Oghojafor, Kuye and Alaneme, 2012).
It was noticed also that Anti competitive behaviour (oligopoly) exist not only in Apapa port but all theports in Nigeria (UNCTAD, 2011). Other issue given by the government is that the terminal operatorsalso are not adhering to their duties as per the contractual terms. Following a report by (Adenekan,2010 cited in Oghojafor, Kuye and Alaneme, 2012) indicated that the Nigerian Senate Committee onmaritime issue rejected the idea that yielded the 2006 concession ,saying that there were irregularitiesin the amount given by the concessionaires. The concessionaires failed to bring their investment as perthe contract agreement (Adenekan, 2010 cited in Oghojafor, Kuye and Alaneme, 2012).
Initially, it was proposed by the counsellors like the CSPC Trancom of Canada to create independentregulatory body (Leigland and Palsson, 2007; UNCTAD, 2011. This results the suggestion to create theNational Transport Committee (NTC) which is still a bill and has not been enacted by the senate. Itappears that the NPA and BPE are responsible for monitoring the concession agreement and setting thetariff basis that in turn led to the disorientation among stakeholders (UNCTAD, 2011).
On the other hand, the concessionaires are still complaining that there is a still high port charges evenwith the increase of revenue the government generates (Alaneme Kuye and Oghojafor, 2012). Theyalso added that poor port infrastructure, high dwell time and unfriendly business environment at theseaport are tied to Apapa port. Access roads are also not good. There is lack of trucks in the port whichcauses port congestion, especially for clearing containers. These result to the poor logistics system(Oghojafor, Kuye and Alaneme, 2012). Moreover, it was advised not ignored the significance ofinformation and communication technology, as it helps in reducing the handling cost, corruption andthe related crime within the Nigerian ports (Oghojafor, Kuye and Alaneme, 2012).
Without doubt the above issues exist, but still that should not be considered as the only impact theconcession has on Apapa port operations. There is an increase in turnaround time, cargo throughput,and improved berth occupancy rate. The revenue generated by the government also increases. Theseindicators are examined in chapter 4.
3.4 SUMMARY
The port reform policy is aimed to reshuffle the operational performance based on the government’starget towards the National Port Authority and hence improve the port’s productivity.
This chapter examined the concession process that includes the concept of investment involved in theconcession agreement in general and then focused in Nigerian ports, especially Apapa port. It furtheridentified the problems that led to the introduction of private sectors in the Apapa port operations.However, following the research findings in this chapter indicates that both the government and theconcessionaires have their own lapses in meeting the concession agreement. This result manycomplaints from both concessionaires and the government regarding the Apapa port operations after the2006 concession was awarded.
To understand more, the next chapter examines the port indicators that measure the Apapa portproductivity.

CHAPTER 4: PORT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter examines the port performance indicators that measure the port productivity (section 4.2).Section 4.3 analyses the Apapa port performance using these indicators before and after the concessionwas awarded. These port indicators will show how productive and efficient Apapa port has becomebecause of the concession process.
The chapter also examines the two Malaysian ports container throughput after their reform in 1986.This will help in the comparison between Apapa port and Malaysian ports. Section 4.4 is the responsesfrom questionnaire and interview. Section 4.5 is the summary of this chapter.

4.2 THE PORT PRODUCTIVITY
The idea of efficiency is not something small but vague to look upon following it difficulties to beapplied in a conventional port industry spreading across trading, production and service industry. Theseaports are complicated and multi-parts institutions that allow the intersection at the same certain stagethe institution and it functions (Bichou and gray, 2004). The logistics aspect is of very potential ofenhancing efficiency ( Itami,1980 cited in Sola and Oba, 2011; Tatcchi, Cagnazzo and Batareelic,2008) .However, Nigeria lack such expertise skills in strategy to execute such plans for developing andenhancing well logistical system efficiently (Sola and Oba, 2011). Esmer (2008) indicates some of themajor reasons that necessitate the measuring of port performance. These are:
 To compare the port performance with another port through the use of benchmarking. This willhowever help in distinguishing where to improve.
 To promote the shipping business and hence attracts more customers. This helps to monitor howsatisfied the customers are with the facilities as well as the services offered.
To identify and know how efficient is a port. This depends on the cargo handling (for aspecified period of time), resources (facilities, people and area) needed to carry out the servicesand the cost involved in carrying the services.
To compare and see how past the performance with the present one. This will enable theassessment and making necessary adjustment. Example, has the turnaround time increased overthe year on decreased?
 To see if the set target is achieved against the initial aim. Example, has the terminal’sproductivity achieved against the targeted productivity?
Measuring port performance and its efficiency is categorised in 3 parts by (Trugillo and Nombella,1999) as:
Physical indicator: these include the time measurement of ships turnaround time, ships waitingtime and the berth occupancy rate. In addition, it can also measure the cargo dwell time or thetime taken to clear the unloaded goods from the port.
 Factor productivity indicator: deals with the measurement of labour and capital needed to loadand unload cargo from a vessel.
 Financial and economical indicator: are significantly linked to the sea access that includes theincome in relation to GRT or NRT.

4.3 THE APAPA PORT INDICATORS
a) Revenue Statistics at Apapa Port from 2002 to 2010.
From table 4.1 it can be seen that the revenue is increasing year after year. Surprisingly, in the early2000s before the concession was awarded, the value was much better compared to after the concessionin US dollars. In 2004 the revenue generated increased to about $2,022.3 but in 2006 decreased to$1202.7. In 2010 it was $196.3. However, when looking at the current Nigerian currency (Naira) it canbe seen that in 2009 the revenue generated was 5,381.7(in naira) higher than in 2004, while in USdollars was at $182.5 in 2009 against the $20,022.3 in 2004. This was mainly due to the marketinstability in those years as it always fluctuate and also resulting from the decrease in import ofpetroleum products with its associated impact on fire coverage debit notes which is always raised inNaira (NPA, 2011).
Year
Revenue generated (in MillionNaira) Revenue generated (in MillionDollars)
2002 3,211 50.1
2003 2,849 40.8
2004 3,325 2,022.3
2005 3,389 2,359.7
2006 43 1,202.7
2007 1,670 96.7
2008 3,260.9 202
2009 5,381.7 182.5
2010 2,197.2 196.3
Table 4.1 Source: NPA (2011)

b) Number of Ships, Their GRT and NRT at Apapa Port from 2002 to 2010
Year No. Of ships
GRT NRT
2002 1,342 19,52,739 10,137,918
2003 1,345 21,120,002 10,935,584
2004 1,376 20,837,109 10,512,042
2005 1,351 19,679,442 9,948,534
2006 1,376 20,000,926 102,98,387
2007 1,359 23,139,112 11,914,225
2008 1,452 25,783,968 12,868,968
2009 1,545 28,111,564 14,030,688
2010 1,587 29,276,646 14,776,054
Table 4.2 Source: NPA (2011).
From the above table, 4.2, it can be seen that there have been increase in both the number of ships,GRT and NRT. However, in 2005, prior the concession, the number of ships arrived at Apapa port were1,351 with total capacity of 19,679,442 GRT and 9,948,534 NRT. In 2010 the number of ships arrivedat Apapa port were 1,587 with a capacity of 29,276,646 GRT and 14,776,054 NRT (NPA, 2011).

c) The Container Traffic (in TEUs) Handled at Apapa Port from 2002 to 2010
Year
Inward outward Total
2002 172,351 167,779 340,130
2003 184,308 152,115 336,423
2004 200,281 124,918 325,199
2005 215,258 167,275 382,533
2006 184,520 215,449 399,969
2007 222,571 227,940 450,511
2008 264,399 258,398 522,797
2009 240,158 248,618 488,776
2010 243,297 216,199 459,496
Table 4.3 Source: NPA (2011).
From the above table, 4.3, it can be seen that the number of container traffic handled at Apapa portvaries. In 2002 the inward containers were 172,351 TEUs while the outward was at 167779 TEUs,which altogether give a total of 340,130 TEUs. However, in 2003, the inward was 184,308 TEUs whilethe outward at 152,115 TEUs. In 2008 the total throughput was 522,797 TEUs better than 20100 whichwas 459,496 TEUs (NPA, 2011).

d) The Turnaround Time of Ships at Apapa Port from 2002 to 2010
Another indicator of port performance is the turnaround time. From figure 4.1 below, it can be seen thenumber of vessels arrived at Apapa port and the number of days they used while at the port. In 2002,there were 1,342 ships and spent averagely 23 days at the port all in the course of operation (loadingand unloading). However, in 2008 it reduced to 10 days while the number of ship increased to 1,452.Moreover, in 2010, the number of ships increased while the turnaround time decreased to 7 days (NPA,2011).

Figure4.1 Source: NPA (2011)

e)The Berth Occupancy Rate at Apapa Port from 2002 to 2010
Another indicator is the berth occupancy rate in figure 4.2. It varies also, not fixed, as can be seen in2005 that the rate reduced to 57% against 1,351 ships compared with 2006 of which the rate was at63.4% against 1,376 ships. However, in 2002 the rate was at 81.7% against 1,342 ships. The number ofships also varies, not always increases, as can be seen in 2004 and 2005 having 1376 and 1351respectively (NPA, 2011).

Figure 4.2 Source: NPA (2011)

f) General Cargo Traffic (in tonnes) Handled at Apapa Port from 2002 to 2010
Year
Inward Outward Total
2002 4,629,962 379,222 5,009,184
2004 397,5127 283,667 4,258,794
2006 1,534,123 34,109 1,568,232
2007 14,624,324 190,641 14,814,965
2008 1,820,115 11,624 1,831,739
2009 1,627,251 6,868 1,634,119
2010 1,863,366 1,706 1,865,072
Table 4.4 Source: NPA (2011)
From the above table, 4.4, of general cargo throughput, it can be seen that in 2002 showed a happy year.In that year, there were 4,629,962 tonnes of inward cargo, 379,222 tonnes outward and a total of5,009,185 tonnes. But in 2010 the inward was at 1,863,366 tonnes, 1,706 tonnes outward and a total of1,865,072 tonnes (NPA, 2011). It shown a decrease, although fluctuates.
g) Dry Bulk Cargo Traffic Handled at Apapa Port from 2002 to 2010
Year
Inward Outward Total
2002 4,869,687 166,423 5,036,110
2004 5,924,253 176,839 6,101,092
2006 7,747,964 198,358 7,946,322
2007 6,513,076 188,750 6,701,826
2008 7,245,675 177,452 7,423,127
2009 8,127,380 161,709 8,289,089
2010 7,466,658 189,881 7,656,539
Table 4.5 Source: NPA (2011).
Among the other cargo throughput indicators is the dry bulk as shown in table 4.5. It is fluctuating alsoas can be seen that in 2009 there were 8,127,380 tonnes inward of dry bulk, 161,709 tonnes of outwardand a total of 8,289,089 tonnes, but in 2010 the inward was 7,466,658 tonnes, an outward of 189,881tonnes and a total of 7,656,539 tonnes (NPA, 2011). In 2006 the total throughput was higher than thatof 2010 and 2007.

h) Liquid Bulk Cargo Traffic (in tonnes) Handled at Apapa Port from 2002 to 2010
Year
Inward Outward Total
2002 4,260,925 None 4,260,925
2004 4,792,510 None 4,792,510
2006 5,708,786 None 5,708,786
2007 6,775,605 None 6,775,605
2008 8,161,504 10,726 8,172,230
2009 8,990,268 1,400 8,991,668
2010 8,638,096 None 8,638,096
Table 4.6 NPA (2011)
In table 4.6 is the liquid cargo traffic handled at Apapa port. The port has most of the liquid tanksreceiving the liquid cargo when imported, but do not serve much in loading activities, rather at BonnyIsland in the country. For the past decade only in 2008 and 2009 Apapa accounted an outward liquidbulk cargo with 10,726 tonnes and 1,400 tonnes respectively. However the liquid bulk cargothroughput has been increasing since 2002, only in 2009 when it reached 8,991,668 tonnes against thatof 2010 with 8,638,096 tonnes. In general, the throughput increases (NPA, 2011)

I) Total Cargo Traffic (in tonnes) Handled at Apapa Port from 2002 to 2010
Year
Inward Outward Total
2002 13,760,574 545,645 14,306,219
2004 14,691,890 460,506 15,152,396
2006 14,990,873 232,467 15,233,240
2007 27,913,005 379,391 28,292,396
2008 17,227,294 199,802 17,427,096
2009 18,744,899 169,977 18,914,876
2010 17,968,120 191,587 18,159,707
Table 4.7 Source: NPA (2011)
The total cargo throughput includes the total of dry, liquid and general cargo. It can be seen that thethroughput in 2002 was 14,306,219 tonnes and since then has been increasing. However In 2007 thetotal throughput was 28,292,396 tonnes which was higher than that of 2010 which was 18,159,707tonnes and any of the years listed. This was due to the high number of general cargo throughput in thatyear (2007) as can be seen in table 4.4 (general cargo statistics) (NPA, 2011).
As part of the MFA, below is the container throughput of two Malaysian ports.
Year Port Klang Port Tanjung Pelapas (PTP)
1986 0.242 –
1991 0.608 –
1996 1.409 –
2001 3.759 2.050
2005 5.715 4.177
j) Malaysian Major Seaports Container Throughput Between1986 to 2005 (in million TEUs)
Table 4.8 Source: Cullinane, Gashat and Wilmsmeier (2011).
In 1986, there were 0.242million TEUs at port of Klang, being the first port to be conceded. Since then,the amount has been increasing as can be seen in table 4.8. In 2001, when both the two ports wereconceded it can be seen a happy moment in the ports. In that year (2001) at port of Klang thethroughput was 3.759million TEUs and at PTP was 2.050million TEUs. In 2005, there were 5.715million TEUs and 4.177million TEUs throughput in port Klang and PTP respectively.

4.4 RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE:
A summary of responses of relevant questions given in questionnaire is given below. The respondentswere mainly the NPA, NCS and terminal operators.
a)
Figure4.3 Source: Author
With regards to figure 4.3, 6 respondents indicate that the ships turnaround time improved to less than aweek, while 7 indicate it to be more than a week.

b)

Figure 4.4 Source: Author
In relation to the berth occupancy rate, 7 respondents indicates that even after the award of concessionsthe rate has not improved, while 6 says it has improved.

4.4 SUMMARY
This chapter examined the Apapa port indicators before and after the concession was awarded. Thishelps in showing how productive Apapa port is. It also contained the two Malaysian containerthroughputs before and after their port reform. The presented indicators show a significant impact onApapa port’s productivity after the concession was awarded.
This chapter is linked to chapter 5 where an assessment of Apapa port performance and that ofMalaysian ports is established using MFA. The chapter also linked with the previous chapter (3) whereit supports the arguments presented there with regards to the Apapa port operations that depend mostlyon the port’s indicators.
The next chapter discusses upon MFA and it application between Apapa port in Nigeria and Malaysianports.
CHAPTER 5: COMPARISSON OF PORT PERFORMANCE ANDPRODUCTIVITY: USING THE MATCHING FRAMEWORKANALYSIS (MFA).

5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter compares the port performance and productivity of ports using MFA. Apapa portperformance is compared with two Malaysian ports, since both the countries undergone the port reformprocess, although in different years. It looks at their operating environment, strategy and structure,which are the fundamental factors of comparison under the MFA. Moreover, in achieving the benefitsof MFA, benchmarking and justification is incorporated.
The chapter also includes the theories behind the MFA (section 5.3.2). In section 5.6, the MFA is thenapplied to both countries before and after their reform processes. It then explains some achievementsderived from them.

5.2. GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
Apapa port is located in Lagos Nigeria. It has a south coast that lies on the Gulf of Guinea of theAtlantic Ocean. It is the busiest and largest port in the country and hence competes with other seaports,not only in the country but other African countries, particularly in West Africa. It attracts a hugeamount of transhipment traffic; especially containers between East-West.
However, Malaysia is situated in south East Asia having it seaports located on Malacca strait, being oneof the busiest and significant places in the world.
5.3 THE COMPARISSON PROCESS
5.3.1 Benchmarking.
Having known that Nigeria and Malaysia are located in different location, but a comparison of theirport performance and productivity is essential using MFA. This MFA will certainly help in assessingthe port performance and productivity between the ports. Along this line, in respect to Malaysian portsdevelopments and achievements, it can be said that Apapa port can be converted to regional hub ports;especially when looking at the container terminals following the more competitive market within theWest African states. However, this will be accomplished through benchmarking (Cullinane, Gashat andWilmsmeier (2011).
Through benchmarking performance improves. Although it does not rely fully on comparison ofefficiency, but rather what are the processes involved in achieving those outcomes. In order words whatproved to provide more efficient performance. When found an interesting aspect can be copied, andeven add by developing further to achieve more (Cullinane, Gashat and Wilmsmeier (2011). For that, itis good, though much needed in this research to benchmark, to analyse the port performance ofMalaysia ports with that of Apapa port. Furthermore, as said earlier, often the processes ofbenchmarking goes beyond the comparison tactics of performance but also include the technicalefficiency of such port.

5.3.2 The Theories Deriving the MFA
In figure 5.1, it demonstrates that using MFA will yield a better performance of an organisation’soperation (Baltazar and Brooks, 2001). This includes the facilitation of more desirable matchingbetween the organisation’s strategy, environment and structural characteristics. The MFA is derivedfrom the contingency theory having its basis in organisational theories and strategic management. Thebackbone of the theory driving this MFA is the environment, especially the operating environment,which imposes a significant effect on the organisation. Miles and Snow (1978) identified theenvironment as not a homogenous entity but often contain a more compound combination of factors.However, the latent theory indicates that the changes in the organisational structure and or strategieswill often have a direct effect to the environmental changes, and hence such changes should be givenmuch concern.

Figure 5.1 MFA (Baltazar and Brooks, 2001)
Conor, Lake and Stackman (2003) provided two sources which could lead to a change in theenvironment. These are the internal and external Changes. Furthermore, Draft (1992) pointed suchexternal changes that may affect the external environment as the government, international institutionsinfluence, and economic condition and socio cultural activities. Others are industry, human resource,raw materials, market, financial resources and technology. Along same line are the internal changeswhich include new goals, new knowledge learned and changes in organisational resources. Moreover, itwas argued by (Shrivastrava, 1994) that the organisational environment contains the modification of acompetitive marketplace performing within the world’s economy. The above mentioned componentspresent the image of forces that strike on such an environment Cullinane, Gashat and Wilmsmeier(2011).
Ambiguity is the result of changes in the operating environment. It was described by Draft (1992) thatthe environment consists of high or low ambiguity. Adding that high ambiguity involves a largenumber of compound factors which changes often and unreliable. On the other hand the low ambiguitytakes the opposite. The ambiguity of environment presents the image of a significant possibility for anorganisational structure and internal behaviour Cullinane, Gashat and Wilmsmeier (2011). However,following an organisational theorist point of view indicates that the organisation’s structure is the bestcomponent for tackling ambiguity.
Burn and Stalker (1961) while carrying a seminal work indicates that the performance of anyorganisation is directly linked to it structure as well as the environment where it is operating. Theyfurther added that the ambiguity of such environment can be best tackled through well adherence of anorganic structure. This organic structure implies to a system used in contingency theory to identify anorganisation’s structure that is distinguished by a basic absence of formal chain that involves ahorizontal coordination than the vertical, a deficiency of solid methods, short functional specificationand specification of industrial work roles. The structure is basically dependant on the power ofindividual personality and to develop a teamwork and communication through the loosely-coupledlinks of various excellent personnel who engages in many work. This will however develop flexibilitythat will enable employees reflect to the changes and also change as fast as possible as required to thechanging conditions (George, 2005).
Furthermore, Weber(1947 cited in Cullinane, Gashat and Wilmsmeier, 2011) understanding is thatorganic structure lies in contrast to a mechanic structure which is categorised as highly central andmore of formal basis. This involves highly specialised roles within a specified chain which in turnmakes employees act as expected and responsibly. However, this system induces many different layersof authority that separate the senior management from the dynamic reality of what is happening in themarket scene (Mintzberg, 1979). With this (George, 2005) concluded that this system of structure doesnot reflect as quick as possible and to the environmental pressure and hence suggested that it is more tostable or certain environments. Moreover, the formalization retards the organisational changes andtherefore will develop the risk of organisational failure (Glisson and Martin, 1980; Aiken, Bacharachand French, 1980; Covin and Slevin, 1989). Further, they supported the advised contrary equivalencebetween formalization and organisation’s performance, especially in a more dynamic environment.They believed that a dynamic environment will do better if their structure is more dynamic.
When looking at the strategic management will see different views in relation to the environment. Theorganisation may change it operational environment to adjust with the prevailing changes (Porter;1980; 1985). Adding that, it is left for organisation to choose, for example, a coast leadership strategy(efficient strategy) or differentiation (effectiveness strategy). It was argued by (Miles and Snow, 1978)that the organisation may wish to select between a prospector or defender strategy. Adding that, thedefender is an efficient strategy and the prospector to be an innovation. The selected strategy indicatesa modification in strategy than the whole environment itself. Moreover, even if strategy is to tackle theambiguity, yet replacing the organisation’s structure is needed (Cullinane, Gashat and Wilmsmeier,2011). However, it was found that the changes in strategy require changes in the structure of suchorganisation (Conor, Lake and Stackman, 2003; Shrivastra, 1994; Dobson, Starkey and Richards, 2004;Rosen, 1995; Miles and Snow, 1978; and Miller, 1986).

5.3.3The Composition of MFA
The organisationcharacteristics Composition 1 Composition 2
Environment Low uncertainty
Low complexity anddynamism High uncertainty
High complexity and dynamism

Strategy
Efficiency oriented
Delivery of the basic productand services Effectiveness oriented
Delivery of basic product andservices

Structure Mechanistic
Centralisation; standardization Organics
Decentralized; Mutual adjustment.

Table 5.1 Source: Cullinane, Gashat and Wilmsmeier (2011)
In table 5.1 is a summary of the composition of MFA. The above mentioned theories lead to theconfiguration theory that was basically aimed at matching the environment with its strategy andstructure in such a way that influence the operations positively. In order words, an uncertainenvironment needs an organic structure and effective strategy, while a certain environment needs amechanistic structure and efficient strategy.
One of the most influential factors to any organisation is the operational environment. The ports are theperfect example of such organisations that needs a well analysis especially as it works in a dynamicenvironment. This can be subject to product globalisation, development of the international trade aswell as technological development in the world of shipping, besides to the intra and inter portcompetition. These constituents are connected as can be recalled that trade development effect theworld container fleet which then affect the agreed ships (Cullinane and Khanna, 2000; Nottemboomand Winkelmans, 2001; and Notteboom, 2007). Adding that larger ships have been engaged and morefrequent service put into action.
Robinson (2002) indicate that the seaports are of very important mechanism in the supply chain andshould therefore be considered with due adherence as it contains many systems. They provide generallogistics and value added services. This engagement of many bodies will certainly make the ports to bemore complex. Especially, a significant development of current trend lies with the extension of inlandfreight distribution to get goods at source and accordingly to yielding a competitive market status ofseaport within the market (Notteboom and Rodrigue, 2005).
The aim of MFA in port performance is the result of the match or fit between the organisation’s externaloperating environment and its strategy and structure (Baltazar and Brooks, 2007). Adding that, a betterfit will certainly provide better performance, while the poor one provides the opposite.

5.4THE PORT OF MALAYSIA
Port Klang, Penang and Port of Tanjung Pelepas (PTP) are the major ports in Malaysia, especially forhandling containers. The largest is the port Klang which serve most of the industries within the region.It was the 12thbiggest seaport in the world; port Klang. However, the Tanjung Pelepas port assumes tobe the transhipment hub of Malaysia. This port is also among the fast developing ports in the globesince it first started operation in 1999. While Penang port is the path way leading to the northern regionof peninsula, providing services not only to Malaysia but also Indonesia and Thailand. This Penang islinked to many transportation modes and hence assumes to be best in terms of logistics (Cullinane,Gashat and Wilmsmeier, 2011).
External environment: For the past few decades, the south East Asia experienced a boost in theireconomic growth. In relation to that, concern about shipping business increased and as a result the portswere developed. However, it cannot be said only boost in the ports but also the systematic ways ofrunning the ports helped in providing a link of connection between the major economic blocks withinthe globe. In addition, competition increased among the players for the purpose of attracting customersas well as to assume themselves as transhipment hubs in the region (Cullinane, Gashat and Wilmsmeier,2011).
Notwithstanding, the global crisis affected the Malaysian external environment. This has a significantimpact in developing the strategy to change the structure of Malaysian economy, normally dependanton agriculture, to such that will rotate around trading and manufacturing. There has to be gooddevelopment and reshuffling of the country’s transportation system in order to achieve such requiredstrategy. However all ports in Malaysia were in competition for regional market basing their aim forserving the nation’s own trade and racing for transhipment traffic (Cullinane, Gashat and Wilmsmeier(2011).
Strategy: Even though Malaysia basically concentrated on building the country’s integration inthe 1980s, but the country’s trade rely upon the port of Singapore. The port of Singapore in those dayswas of better and efficient than that of Malaysia. The port charges were low than that of Malaysia, as aresult less ships came to Malaysia. In respond, the government initiated a policy to tackle such issuesby making the port Klang to serve as the national load centre, in addition for serving as regional hubport as well as transhipment centre (Cullinane, Gashat and Wilmsmeier, 2011).
Moreover, this aim was achieved through the country’s policies, which were aimed for:
Promoting and expanding the port facilities.
Maintaining the existing facilities in the port.
Advancing the port performance
However, in the middle to late 1990s was a policy of enhancing free trade zone within the port of Klang.Furthermore, the importance of port strategy is to allow foreign impartiality to be invested on theterminal project (Mark and Tai, 2001). In doing so, the port reform process was introduced aiming toattract foreign investors into the port development. This was the main strategy for enhancing suchdevelopment by attracting more local cargoes and serving it through the country’s ports, as well asdeveloping the competitive market through the introduction of a well skilled management and buildinginternal capacity. This does not stop here, but also extends such competition with other countries withinthe region. As a result attracts transhipment.
Structure: Up until 1986, all the ports in Malaysia were owned and operated by the government.However, after that during their port reform, the port of Klnag was the first to be reformed. At first, itwas chosen to be tested but was later found to be more efficient (Otman and Klarlberg, 2007).
In 1990 the second phase came into scene when the act of port reform was introduced fully by thegovernment. This was as a result of insufficient port facilities which in turn affected the cargothroughput. It was recalled that about 30% of cargo throughput of Malaysia was diverted to port ofSingapore (Indran, 1992 cited in Cullinane, Gashat and Wilmsmeier, 2011). For that the private sectorwas further allowed to carry the port operations by investing and hence make the ports morecompetitive and developed.
The third phase of the Malaysian reform came in 1994 following the concession of facilities of PalauLumnt Islnad to Klang multi terminal (Phag, 2000 cited in Cullinane, Gashat and Wilmsmeier, 2011).After the 1990s Malaysia witnessed a huge increase in their throughput, especially that of containers,mostly as a result of the major carriers in the PTP. Furthermore, Maersk Sealand in 2000 got about 30%share of PTP and was later, in the following year, joined by Evergreen and hence make the port thesecond biggest transhipment port within the region (Lam and Yap, 2008). In the previous chapter intable 4.8 is the container throughput of two ports in the country after the reform.
Malaysia achieved more through the port of Klang, as said earlier, by making it the national load centreand modifying it together with PTP into transhipment hub (Khalid, 2009 cited in Cullinane, Gashat andWilmsmeier (2011). The achievements can be seen from table 4.8; container throughput. It was foundthat in 2000 Maersk sea land moved 2million TEUs to PTP from Singapore as well as Evergreenshifted 1.2million TEUs to same port, all, from Singapore following the signed contract with theMalaysian port (Olivier, 2005; UNCTAD, 2007).
Without doubt, private participation assumed to be the best practice of enhancing better portperformance efficiency in cargo handling (Galal et al, 1994; Agustin, 1998; all cited in Cullinane,Gashat and Wilmsmeier, 2011). Port Klang productivity increased by about 76%, wages of employeesalso increased at 78% as well as the service delivery (Alderton, 2008). In addition, the port general costdecreased by about half (Haarmeyer and York, 1993; and Galal et al, 1994; all cited in Cullinane,Gashat and Wilmsmeier (2011).

5.5THE APAPA PORT
The environment, strategy and structure using MFA for Apapa port is shown in table 5.3 below.However, it shows the port is still more of central although organised.
Operating environment: When looking at the operating environment of Apapa port, will see thatthe port operates in a dynamic and competitive environment as it is located in the Gulf of Guinea,where all the countries in that region (like Ghana, Benin Republic and Togo) are racing to serve astranshipment hub in that region (Leigland and Palsson, 2007). This makes Apapa port more focused toserving bigger ships than any port, not only in Nigeria but, in the Gulf of Guinea region. As a resultattracts investors to participate in the port’s operations (UNCTAD, 2011). This competition exists notonly in the Gulf of Guinea, but within the Nigerian ports also. Apapa port dominates all other ports inthe country in serving the country’s need and therefore the port is considered as a hub port. Moreimportantly, this competition exists also within the terminal operators in Apapa port. The port helps inserving the neighbouring landlocked countries like the Niger and Chad. It is therefore a gateway toserve not Nigeria alone. Moreover, it is a free trade zone. Despite the fact competition exist, still Apapaport is noticed to operate in a little anti-competitive environment even after the 2006 concession wasawarded (UNCTAD, 2011; Alaneme, Kuye and Oghojafor, 2012)
Strategy:The strategy is improved following the adaption of concession process as a tool underthe port reform policy in the country. International Terminal operators (ITOs) were introduced andinvest in the port following the trends explained in the operating environment. AP Moller is recorded asthe biggest investor (Alaneme, Kuye and Oghojafor, 2012; Leigland and Palsson, 20077). The efficiencyimproved after the awarding of concession. More can be seen from chapter 3 and 4.﷧
Structure: Before 2006, the public sector operates the ports in the country under the Nigerian PortAuthority (NPA). However, after the 2006 reform, the private sector took over the terminal operatingactivities; hence NPA is considered as landlord. From chapter 3, it indicates that the NPA and BPE areresponsible for monitoring the concession agreement and setting the tariff basis which in turn led to thedisorientation among stakeholders (UNCTAD, 2011). Initially, it was proposed by the counsellors likethe CSPC Transcom of Canada to create an independent regulatory body. This results the suggestion tocreate the National Transport Committee (NTC) which is still a bill and has not been enacted by theNigerian Senate Committee on transport. This will help make the port to be more decentralized and willsettle the issues of both the NPA and concessionaires (UNCTAD, 2011). This is achieved by reducingthe port charges, regulating the competition charges as well as making sure both the government andthe private participants adhere to their responsibilities as per the concession contract. They NPA shouldhowever behave as the landlord accordingly (UNCTAD, 2011).
In table 5.2 and 5.3 is a summary of Malaysian ports andApapa port, respectively, before and aftertheir port reform using MFA

5.6 APPLIATION OF MFA BETWEEN MALAYISA AND NIGERIAN PORTS; APAPA PORT.
5.6.1 Malaysian Port Before and AfterTheir Reform
Characteristics Before 1986 1990s 2000s

Environment Stable, nointeraction with theexternalenvironment Uncertain the sectoropened to the market More uncertain and completion wasaccepted though the situationbecame complex and dynamic.

Strategy Efficiency;providing basicservice Efficiency; providingservices Effectiveness and hence costumer’ssatisfaction yields more competitionand more of the effectiveness

Structure Mechanistic andcentralized
Mechanistic andcentralize with a bit ofprivatisation introducedthough still thegovernment controlmost of the sector’soperations. Organic and hence the sectorbecame more decentralized whichresulted more terminals to beingoperated by private institutions.

Table 5.2 Source: Cullinane Gashat and Wilmsmeier (2011)

5.6.2 Apapa Port Before and After Their Reform
Characteristics In 1990s 2000s

Environment Do not interact with theenvironment and hence stableand not dynamic
In early 2000: Start changing to unstable with a veryslow interaction to the environment and this was dueto the local goods.
In 2006 and above: was more uncertain and interactiveto the environment and compete with other countrieswithin the region and hence dynamic and complex. Itis a free trade zone.

Strategy Efficiency hence provide basicservices at that time After 2006 Improved efficiency and still customerscomplaints of services

Structure Mechanistic and centralized After 2006 Organic, but with little mechanistic; moreof central as still the NPA has controls. However it ismore organised than before
Table 5.3 Source: Author

5.7 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE.
A summary of the response of relevant question given in questionnaire is given below. Therespondents were the NPA, NIMASA, NCS and terminal opeartors.

Figure 5.2 Source: Author
The above table, 5.2, indicates the need for independent regulator at Apapa port. Nine respondents sayyes to the idea, while four opposed.

5.8 SUMMARY
This chapter examined upon the MFA between Malaysian ports and Apapa port in Nigeria in relation totheir operating environment, strategy and structure. Both the Nigerian and Malaysian portscharacteristics under the MFA composition were discussed, both before and after their reform policy.However, the strategies of the Malaysian ports development changed following their reform policy inthe late 1980s. The fundamental objective was to bring transhipment goods that were been handled inport of Singapore. Following such, the Malaysian ports have developed both fast and flourishingly;built on their adequate accomplished and procedure performance. This also yielded the 2 regional hubports in Malaysia. Nigerian strategy changed and developed too, after the 2006 concession. It is central,organic and effective, but with little mechanistic
Furthermore, following the responses to questionnaire suggested the adaption of independent regulatorwithin the Nigerian ports that can regulate the concession agreement between both the government andconcessionaires.

CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter analyses the previous chapters presented in the research .The chapters are then interpretedaccordingly to reflect the overall aimand objectives of the research.
It analyses the productivity at Apapa port before and after the concession was awarded (section 6.2 and6.4 respectively). Section 6.3 of this chapter look into the reform process adapted by the Nigeriangovernment. Section 6.5 then compare the port performance and productivity between Malaysian portsand Apapa port using the Matching Framework Analysis.
Finally, in section 6.5, is a discussion on the effectiveness of concession on operations at Apapa port.

6.2 PRIOR THE PRIVATE PARTICIPATION IN THE PORT OPERATION AT APAPA
The Nigerian port authority operates the port before the 2006 concession policy. The operations were attheir lower ebb thatattracts major concern. However, not only in Nigeria but globally, a lot of concernhave been there with regards to port operation if carried by the public sector. The complaints mainlyinclude conflicting and mixed roles driven by politicians, predominance of uncompleted contracts andsubsidies from government. Others are many bureaucratic processes as well as too much governmentalimpedance and intervention. Additionally, it includes public service behaviour of downgrading andcompromising efficiency and optimum outcomes. All these affect efficiency often.
The major port indicators that determine the productivity at Apapa port are mainly the berth occupancyrate, turnaround time, cargo throughput, congestion, logistical system, revenue generated and portcharges. They are best to describe how efficient a port is. When assessed, the performance at Apapaport was found to be poor. Complaints from both the government and customers were raised. Mainlyare high port charges, bad port infrastructure and facilities, high container dwell time, high percentageof theft as well as corruption. There was high turnaround time of which was recorded in weeks for asingle ship, exceeding the international standard of 48 hours.
It can be seen from figure 4.1 of chapter 4 that the ships turnaround time in 2002 was more than 3weeks, although reduced to less than 2 weeks in 2004. Furthermore, the berth occupancy rate was poortoo. In 2002 the rate was at about 30% more than in 2005(figure 4.2), although is reducing which isgood.
Moreover, when looking at the revenue, it can be seen that in those years it was low though the value ofthe currency at that time was not same, but the differences is not much. In 2002, the revenue generatedwas $ 50.1million and in 2003 it further reduced to $ 40.8million (table 4.1). However, the year 2004and 2005 shows a high amount generated, but less in 2006 in US dollars.
Furthermore, the total cargo throughput increased. In 2002, the throughput was 14,306,219 tonneswhile in 2004 increased by 6% (table 4.7). Along the same line, when looking at the general cargothroughput in table 4.4 will see that in 2002 the cargo was higher than 2004 by about 15%.
6.3 THE REFORM PROCESS IN NIGERIA
Following the inadequacies and complaints upon the port operations, the National Council onPrivatisation (NCP) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria set a reform process to change the ports to betterones. They made many consultations locally and internationally. The results indicated that the Nigerianports management are centralized and mechanistic. However, following further advice from the Worldof Bank as counsellor suggested the adaption of concession process in order to make best of the port’sproductivity. In 2006, 20 terminals were conceded to private entities one of which came through theForeign Direct Investment as International Terminal Operators (ITOs). AP Moller terminal (APMT) isthe largest terminal in Apapa port as ITO. Moreover, the port of Apapa has 5 terminals conceded usingthe landlord system. The length of the contract ranges but is between 10-25 years.
6.4 OPERATIONS AT APAPA PORT AFTER THE AWARDING OF 2006 CONCESSIONS
Despite the effect of the recent economic crises that impacted the international trade, still there havebeen significant stable activities at Apapa port.
When looking at the port indicators, both the GRT and NRT increase after 2006. There have been anincrease of more than 40% of both GRT and NRT each, between 2006 and 2010 (table 4.2) of chapter 4.
Furthermore, the total cargo throughput decreased between 2009 and 2010. There has been a decreaseof more than 15% of the total cargo throughput between 2009 and 2010. The container throughput(TEUs) decreased by about 6.5% between 2008 and 2009. It further reduced by about 6 % between2009 and 2010 (table 3.4) of chapter 4.
The turnaround time improved between 2006 and 2010. There has been a reduction of about 30% of theships turnaround time between the years (figure 4.1) of chapter 4. Moreover, when looking at the berthoccupancy rate it decreased from 62.4% of 2009 to 60.5% in 2010, although in 2005 was 57% (figure4.1).
Below are some responses to questionnaire where NPA, NCS, NIMASA and terminal operatorsresponded.
a) After the 2006 concession was awarded, the congestion is reduced relatively. From figure 6.1, 9respondents indicate that the congestion at the terminals reduced, while 4 respondents say no. Goodclearance reduced also as replied by 8 respondents while 5 respondents are against that. The shipswaiting time reduced as replied by 10 respondents, while 3 respondents say no.

Figure 6.1 Source: Author
b)

Figure 6.2 Source: Author
From the above figure, 5.3, it can be seen that 9 respondents indicate the services delivery as good, 2indicate it as being excellent, while 1 respondent indicate the service delivery as being fair.

c)

Figure 6.3 Source: Author
In relation to the ships average waiting time, 10 respondents indicates the waiting time to be more than5 days, while 3 respondents indicates it to be less than 3 days.
The revenue generated at Apapa port, in US dollar, decreased by about 84% between 2006 and 2010.However, the revenue in Nigerian currency (Naira) increased in 2010 by about 51 times than in 2006(table 4.1) of chapter 4. In general, the revenue increases by about 7% yearly, although some yearswhen converted to US dollar shows a reduction. This happens often due to the market fluctuations,especially the oil market between naira and dollar.

6.5 COMPARISON BETWEEN MALAYSIANPORTS AND APAPA PORT USING MFA
The MFA is applied in chapter 5 between Malaysian ports and Apapa port while comparing theirenvironment, strategy and structure. The research findings, in all chapters, are interpreted accordingly.It was found that Malaysian ports operates on an organic and decentralised structure after their reformpolicy, while Apapa port operates on an organictoo but with little mechanistic behaviour and alsocentralised, but organised. This happen due to the high control the NPA and BPE have towards the portoperations. However, when looking at their environment all operates in a competitive and dynamicenvironment racing for transhipment. Apapa port serves other landlocked countries like Chad and Nigerand even those with waterways like Benin and the rest in the Gulf of Guinea. This attracts moreinvestment in the nearby regions, within Lagos Nigeria, as new Lekki port is due to commence, whichshould be able to handle more than 1 million TEUs a year. The strategy is the reform policy thatimproves efficiency. Using a terminology of MFA, Malaysian ports improve from beingefficiencytobeingeffectivenessfrom 1986 to 2000s. However, Nigerian ports are stillefficientafter the concessionwas awarded.It does not just happen in one time, as can be seen in Malaysia, but gradually; time isneeded. Nigeria is coming to that in time.
Moreover, when comparing the container throughput (in TEUs), between Malaysian ports and Apapaport, will see a big difference. In 2005, the TEUs handled at Port Klang is about 11 times more than atApapa port in 2010 while PTP is 9 times than Apapa port in 2010 (table 43 and 4.8) of chapter 4.

6.6 DISCUSSION ON THE IMPACT OF CONCESSION AT APAPA PORT
Yet, even with the private participation, the port’s operations have not improved as it supposed to afterthe 2006 reform. Many complaints were raised with regards to the service delivery.
The port performance improved but not as expected. Both the government and terminal operators(concessionaires) are not adhering to their responsibilities as par the standard agreed concession policy.Many complaints are still there at the port after the 7 years of reform. These include corruption, theft,bad port infrastructural facilities, bad superstructure and equipments at terminals. There is still trafficcongestion at terminals and inside the port premises, although some are caused by custom clearance.Port charges are still high. The worst situation is that nobody monitors anybody and sheer manipulationhas become order of the day. These complaints are mainly from the terminal operators and customers.
However, the government also complained that some of the concessionaires are not adhering to theirduties as per agreed especially in the investment. Lack of good superstructure and handling equipmentare the major concern. This resulted in high berth occupancy rate and turnaround time at the terminals.This helped in the congestions they are complaining of.
Below is a figure interpreted base on the used data in relation to consistency between berth occupancyrate and the number of ships at Apapa port.

Figure 6.4 Source: Author
From the above figure, 6.4, there may appear to be inconsistency between the two indicators (berthoccupancy rate and the number of ships) as the occupancy rate falls with years while the number ofships increases. In 2010, there was an average increase of 42 ships than in 2009, while the berthoccupancy rate reduced by 1.9 % in 2010. In 2002, the rate was 81.7% against 1342 ships, which is lessthan the number of ships in 2010 and the remaining years. This shows that ships are staying shorter atberths than before and hence berth efficiency is improved.
Finally, the concession helped in improving the Apapa port’s performance and productivity despite thefact not as efficient as expected.

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION AND REFLECTION
7.1 CONCLUSION
The aim of this research was to analyse the impact of terminal concession on operations at Apapa port.This was achieved through the research objectives mentioned in the start of the research; chapter 1.
The history of Apapa and current status was presented in chapter 1 and 3 of this research. However, theconcession process was presented in chapter 2 and chapter 3. Among the main reasons that attractedinvestment in Apapa port, despite the low performance and productivity, was the economic factor, forexpanding services in the West African countries. Moreover, the huge expansion of containerisationwas another reason at that time before the concession was awarded in 2006.
However, after the concession was awarded, the port’s performance and productivity have beenincreasing. This is tied to third object ’to examine the Apapaport performance and productivity’ whichwas examinedin all the chapters, especially chapter 4 and 6. Among other things, the revenueincreases, ships turnaround time reduces as well as berth occupancy rate is improving. Moreover,average ships waiting time reduces, the number of ships increases as well as the overall cargothroughput and the tonnage.
Without doubt, the above improvements exist but, still poor maintenance is the major issue leading tothe poor operations, as if no any concession occurred. Many complaints were raised from thegovernment, customers and terminaloperators afterthe terminal concessionswere awarded. Followingthe research findings indicates that there is a poor logistics service as well as high port charges. Despitethe fact of the increases in the revenue generated by the government (in Naira) there is still badinfrastructure at the port, poor access roads, poor rail services as well as high corruption are all tied toApapa port.
Furthermore, when MFA was applied to compare Malaysian ports and Apapa port while focusing ontheir operating environment, structure and strategy indicates that Apapa port is uncertain in itsoperating environment with competition and efficiency in its operations. However, in its strategy isorganic but with little mechanistic and central. This was mainly due to the fact that NPA and BPEcontrols the port in setting tariffs and other charges.
Other good impact of concession at Apapa port is the reduced congestion on cargo clearance, improvedlinks to international shipping network, advancing the international trade as well as the opportunities toadvance logistics hub.
The success of the Apapa concession had led to a new project; in due, the Lekki port in Lagos. The portshould be able to handle more than one million TEUs per year on completion.
Finally, to achieve the final objective ‘‘overall impact of terminal concession on operations at Apapaport’’, this research concludes that after the concession was awarded significant improvement wasnoticed, though not as expected, specifically to the port’s productivity and its operations. This wasexamined and analysed through all the presented chapters, especially chapter 6. It is suggested to havean independent regulator within the Nigerian port sector. This will help in making both the governmentand private sectors to adhere to their responsibilities as per the concession agreement. It will makeApapa port and other ports be fully decentralise and organic in their structure and hence can providemore productivity and to being effectiveness. The proposal is still in the Nigerian House of Assemblywaiting for approval.
7.2 REFLECTION
It was not clear what method Malaysia undergone during their reform process. Some literature indicatethat the ports undergone concession process using BOT (Build Operate and Transfer) arrangementwhile some indicates that they were devolved. In order to justify this research, ‘’Reform Process’’wasused all through when it comes to Malaysian reform process, rather than to say what is not certain. If itwas clear what method Malaysia used, this would have helped in the comparison aspect with Apapaport using MFA.
Among the challenges faced while carrying this research is getting the secondary data. Especially,getting the old literatures which some were not found in either the libraries at disposal or on the internet,and some even required payment before accessed. These data were very significant and relevant to use.Even though, recent literatures are preferable, but still the use of such old and the new literatures isnecessary to providing a good structured dissertation. A limited number of these old literature sourceswere found via e-mail from friends across the world.
Due to time constraint the source of primary data were limited. Enough of data was gathered for theproject to have some validity, but more respondents would have improved this. Additionally, thestatistics on Apapa port’s indicators obtained from the NPA were not much updated, recent data wouldhave improved the validity of such indicators also.

7.3 AREA FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Further research can be carried in relation to the criteria used in selecting port Investors. This willenable the establishment of procedures to take by the government while granting the private investorspermission for investing. From this research it was found that many investorsapplied but few wereselected. There is need to analyse those criteria used for selecting the investors. This may includereputation and experience among others. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) could be used for beingable to compare and analyses many criteria extensively than other methods of selection. Among otheradvantages of AHP is also for being able to resolve all the issue that may be tied to each criteria andhence construct hierarchies of criteria. A lecture note delivered by (Yang, 2013) indicates the more andmore use of AHP in the maritime sector that involves many complex decision processes.

REFERENCES:
Aiken, M., Bacharach, S. and French, J. (1980) Organisational Structure, Work Process and ProposalMaking in Administrative Bureaucracies.Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23(4), pp.631-652.
Akinwale, A.A and Aremo, M.O. (2010) Concession as Catalyst for Crisis Management in NigerianPorts: The African Symposium. Journal of African Education Research Network[Online], Vol. 10 (2),pp.117-126 Available at:https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/ncsu.edu/aern/TAS10.2/TAS10.2Akinwale.pdfAccessed 17thFebruary,2013]
Alderton, P. M. (2008) Port Management and Operations. 3rd. ed. London: Informa Law.
Baird, A.J. (2000) Privatisation and Deregulation in Seaports. In: Bradshaw, B. and Smith, L.T. (eds.)Privatisation and Deregulation of Transport. London: Macmillan pp. 397-412.
Ballou, R. H. (1985),Business Logistics Management. 2nd. ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall.
Baltazar, R. and Brooks, M. R. (2001)The Governance of Port Devolution: A tale of two Countries.Paper Presented at the World Conference on Transportation Research: Seoul. CD-Rom
Baltazar, R. and Brooks, M. R. (2007) Port Governance Devolution and The Matching Framework: Aconfiguration Theory. In: Brooks, M. and Cullinane, K. (eds.)In Devolution, Port Government and PortPerformance.Oxford: Elsevier pp. 379-403.
Bichou, K. and Gray, R. (2004) A logistics and Supply Chain Management: Approach to PortPerformance Measurement.Maritime Policy and Management[Online], Vol. 31 (1), pp. 47-67DOI: 10.1080/0308883032000174454 [Accessed 15January, 2013]
Bivbere, G. (2011) Shipping Agents, Terminal Operators, Bonded Terminals Defile FederalGovernment Over Illegal Charges.Vanguard Newspaper, pp. 29-36
Blanchard, B. S. (1981), Logistics Engineering & Management. 2nd. ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:Prentice Hall.
Blonigen, B.A and Wison, W.W. (2006)New Measurement of Port Efficiency Using InternationalTrade Data[Online] Available at:http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~wwilson/index_files/27%20-%20Port%20Efficiency%20-%20Blonigen.pdf[Accessed 6 November, 2012]
Bookbinder, J.H. & Tan, C.S. (2003) A Comparison of Asia & European logistics system.InternationalJournal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management[Online], Vol. 33 (1) pp. 36-58Available at:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030310460990[Accessed 5thDecember, 2012]
Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961)The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock Publishing.
Chin A. and Tongzon, J.A. (1998) Maintaining Singapore as a Major Shipping and Air Transport Hub.In: Toh, T. (eds.)Competitiveness of the Singapore Economy. Singapore: Singapore University Presspp. 83 -114
Choo, K.C (1993) Transportation, Water and Urban Development Department: The World Bank.PortPerformance Indicators[Online] Available at:http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTRANSPORT/Resources/336291-1119275973157/td-ps6.pdf[Accessed 3rdNovember, 2012]
Connor, P.E.; Lake, L.K. and Stackman, R.W. (2003)Managing Organisational Change, Westport.Connecticut: Praeger Publishing.
Covin, J. and Slevin, D. (1989) Strategic Management of Small Firms in Hostile and BenignEnvironments. Strategic Management Journal, Vol.10, pp.75-88.
Cullinane, K. and Khanna, M. (2000) Economies of Scale in Large Containerships: Optimal Size andGeographical Implications.Journal of Transport Geography[Online], Vol. 8 (3), pp. 181-195.Available at:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(00)00010-7[Accessed 10thFebruary, 2013]
Cullinane, K., Gashat, H.M. and Wilmsmeier, G. (2011) Identifying the Right ’Fit’: What can Libya CanLearn from Port Devolution in Malaysia?International Journal of Euro-Mediterranean Studies[Online],Vol. 4(1), pp. 83-117. Available at:https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/emuni.si/press/ISSN/1855-3362/4_083-117.pdf[Accessed 28thNovember,2012]
Dobson, P., Starkey, K. and Richards, J. (2004)Strategic Management: Issues and Cases. Oxford:Blackwell.
Draft, R.L. (1992)Organisation Theory and Design, 4thed. Cincinnati, Ohio: South Western CollegePublishing.
Dunleavy, P. (1986), Explaining the Privatisation Boom: Public Choice versus Radical Approaches.Public Administration, Vol. 64 (1), pp. 13-34.
Esmer, S. (2008) Performance Measurement of Container Terminal Operations.Maritime Business andAdministration School: Dokuz Eylul University. Turkey. [Online]Available at:https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/sbe.deu.edu.tr/dergi/cilt10.say%C4%B11/10.1%20esmer.pdf[Accessed 12thDecember, 2012]

Estache, A., Gonzale, M. and Trujilo, L. (2002) Efficiency Gains from Port Reform and Potential forYardstick Competition: Lessons from Mexico.World Development[Online],Vol. 30 (4), pp. 545-560Available at:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00129-2[Accessed 12thNovember, 2012]
Fawcett,S.E, Birou, L., and Taylor, B.C. (1993) Supporting Global Operations through Logistics andPurchasing:International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management [Online], Vol. 23(4), pp.3-11. Available at:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600039310041464[Accessed 5thDecember2012].
George, J. (2005)Understanding and Managing Organisational Behaviour. Custom ed. Boston: PearsonCustom Publishing.
Glisson, C. and Martin, P. (1980) Productivity and Efficiency in Human Service Organisations asRelated to Structure, Size and Age:Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23, pp.21-38.
Goss, R. (1990a) The Economic Functions of Seaports: Economic Policies and Seaports 1.MaritimePolicy and Management, Vol. 17 (3), pp.207-219.
Goss, R. (1990b) The Diversity of Port Policies: Economic Policies and Seaports 2.Maritime Policyand Management, Vol. 17(3), pp. 221-234.
Goss, R. (1990c) Are Port Authorities Necessary? Economic Policies and Seaports 3.Maritime Policyand Management, Vol. 17(4), pp. 257-271.
Goss, R. (1982) Competition in Cargo Handling: Some Experience from Australia.Maritime Policyand Management, Vol.9 (1) pp.45-47.
Harman, H.H. and Jones, W.H. (1966)Factor Analysis by Minimizing Residuals: Miners.Psychometrical, Vol. 1, pp. 351-369.
IAPH [International Association Port and Harbours](1999)Final Report of the 2000 Task ForceInstitutional Reform Working Group. Kuala Lumpur: World PortsConference
Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., Sumon, D.G. (2003) A Model of Strategic Entrepreneurship: the Constructand its Dimension.Journal of Management, Vol.29, pp.1-26
Kay, J. and Tompson, D. (1986) Privatisation: A Policy in Search of a Rationale.Economic Journal,Vol. 96, pp. 18-32
Kieran, P. (2005)Reform and Restructuring of NigerianPorts. Lagos: CPCS Transcom
Lam, J.S. and Yap, W.Y. (2008) Competition for Transhipment Containers by Major Ports in SoutheastAsia: Slot Capacity Analysis.Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 35 (1), pp. 89-101
Lee, T. W. and Cullinane, K. (2005)World Shipping and Port Development.Hampshire: PalgraveMacmillan.
Leighland, J. and Palsson, G. (2007) Port Reforms in Nigeria.Gridlines[Online], No.17. WashingtonDC: Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF)Available at:https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/ppiaf.org/sites/ppiaf.org/files/publication/Gridlines-17-Port%20Reform%20in%20Nigeria%20-%20JLeigland%20GPalsson.pdf[Accessed 2ndDecember, 2012]
Leung, W.C (2001) How to Design a Questionnaire.Student BMJ[Online],Vol. (9) Available at:https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/cochrane.es/files/Recursos/How_to_design_a_questionnaire.pdf[Accessed 16thMarch,2013]
Liu, Z. (1992)Ownership and Productive Efficiency: With Reference to British Ports. Ph.D. Thesis,Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London.
Mak, J. and Tai, B.K. (2001) Port Development within the Framework of Malaysia’s Transport Policy:Some Considerations. Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 28 (2), pp. 199-206.
Miles, R.C. and Snow, C.C. (1978)Organisation Strategy, Structure and Process. New York: NewYork.
Miller, D. (1986) Configuration of Strategy and Structure: Towards a Synthesis.Strategic ManagementJournal, Vol. 7(3), pp. 233-249
Mintzberg, H. (1979)The Structuring of Organisations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Ndikom, B.C.and Emeghara, G.C (2012) A Critical Appraisal of Port Reform and Development Policyin Nigeria.Research in Business and Management[Online] Vol. 1(1), pp. 13-22Available at:https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/resjournals.com/RBM/Pdf/2012/July/Ndikom%20and%20Emeghara.pdf[Accessed 17thFebruary, 2013]
Notteboom, T. (2007) Strategic Challenges to Container Ports. In: Brooks, M. and Cullinane, K. (eds.)In Devolution, Port Government and Port Performance.Oxford: Elsevier pp. 29-52
Notteboom, T. and Rodrigue, J. (2005)Port Regionalisation: Towardsa New Phase in PortDevelopment.Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 23 (3), pp. 297-313
Notteboom, T. and Winkelmans, W. (2001) Structural Change n Logistics: How Will Port AuthoritiesFace the Challenges?Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 28 (1), pp. 71-89
NPA [Nigerian Port Authority] (2011)Annual Reports and Accounts. Lagos Nigeria: Brandfactory.
Oghojafor, B.E, Kuye, O.L and Alaneme, G.C. (2012) Concession as a Strategic Tool for PortsEfficiency: An Assessment of the Nigerian Ports.American Journal of Business and Management,Vol.1 (4), pp. 214-222
Olivier, D. (2005) Private Entry and Emerging Partnerships in Container Terminals Operations:Evidence from Asia.Maritime Economics and Logistics, Vol. 7 (2), pp.87-115
Otman, W. and Karlberg, E. (2007)The Libyan Economy: Economic Diversification and InternationalRepositioning.New York: Springer
Owen, J.J and Schneerson, D. (1982)Port Economics.Massachusetts: The Mit Press
Pirie, M. (1988),Privatisation. London : Adam Smith Institute.
Porter, M. (1980)Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press
Porter, M. (1985)Competitive Advantage. New York: Free Press
Razak, R. (2005)Understanding Port Reforms. The Nigerian Situation (eds.). Lagos: MaritimeBusiness International.
Robinson, R. (2002) Ports as Elements in Value Driven Chain System: The New Paradigm.MaritimePolicy and Management, Vol. 29 (3), pp. 241-255.
Rosen, R. (1995)Strategic Management: An Introduction. London: Pitman
Saundry, R. and Turnbull, P. (1997) Private Profits, Public Loss: The Financial and EconomicPerformance of UK ports.Maritime Policy and Management, Vol.24 (4), pp.319-334.
Shrivastra, P. (1994)Strategic Management: Concept and Practice. Cincinnati, Ohio: South WesternCollege Publishing.
Sola, A.O and Oba, O.O. (2011) Comparative Ports Performance Efficiency Measurement inDeveloping Nations: A Matching Framework Analysis (MFA) Approach.European Journal of SocialScience[Online], Vol. 18 (4), pp. 625-631.Available at:https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/eurojournals.com/EJSS_18_4_13.pdf[Accessed 3rdNovember, 2012]
Sola, A.O. and Oba, O.O. (2010) “A Consummate Precision of Strategic Management Approach onTransport Logistics and Physical Distribution for Port Performance Efficiency: A case Study of NigeriaPorts”Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Science1[Online], Vol.1(2), pp.96-10 Available at:http://jetems.scholarlinkresearch.org/articles/Consummate%20Precision%20of%20Strategic%20Management%20Approach%20on%20Transport%20Logistics%20and%20Physical%20Distribution%20for%20Por.pdf[Accessed 5thDecember 2012]
Song, D.W. and Cullinane, K. and Roe, M. (2001)The Productive Efficiency of Container Terminals:An Application to Korea and UK. Hampshire: Ashgate.
Tahar, R.M. and Hussain, K. (2000) Simulation and Analysis for the Kelang Container TerminalOperations.Logistic Information Management[Online], Vol. 13 (1), pp. 14-20DOI: 10.1108/09576050010306350 [Accessed 9thDecember, 2012]
Taticchi, P., Cagnazzo, L. and Botareeli, M. (2008)Performance Measurement Management (PMM)for SMEs: a literature review and a reference framework for PMM Design:POMS 19th AnnualConference La Jolla, California USA [Online] Available at:http://ebiz.uoregon.edu/poms2008/FullPapers/008-0312.pdf[Accessed 5thDecember 2012]
Tongzon, J. A. (1989) The Impact of Wharfage Costs on Victoria’s Export Oriented-Industries:Economic Papers.A journal of Applied Economics and Policy[Online], Vol. 8 (3), pp. 58-64DOI: 10.1111/j.1759-3441.1989.tb01146 [Accessed 9thDecember, 2012]
Trujillo, L. andNomebela, G. (1999)Privatisation and Regulation of the Seaport Industry.PolicyResearch Working Paper[Online],No. 2181. Washington DC: The World Bank.Available at:http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1999/10/07/000094946_99092311540210/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf[Accessed 17thFebruary,2013]
UNCTAD [United Nations Conference on Trade and Development] (1999), Technical Note: TheFourth-Generation Port. UNCTAD Ports Newsletter[Online], No.19, pp. 9-12Available at:http://unctad.org/en/Docs/posdtetibm15.en.pdf[Accessed2ndJanuary, 2013]
UNCTAD [United Nations Conference on Trade and Development] (2011) Best Practices InInvestments for Development.How to Utilize FDI to Improve Transport Infrastructure –Ports: Lessonfrom NigeriaInvestment Advisory Series B (9) [Online]Available at:http://unctad.org/en/Docs/diaepcb2011d8_en.pdf[Accessed 25thDecember, 2012]
Vickers, J. and Yarrow, G. (1988)Privatisation: An Economic Analysis. Cambridge, Massachusetts:MIT Press.
Wang, T. F., Cullinane, K. and Song, D. W. (2005)Container Port Production and EconomicEfficiency.Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan
World Bank (2007)Port Reform Tool Kit. 2nded. [Online]Available at:file:///D:/project—/MODULE%203%20Alternative%20Port%20Management%20Structures%20and%20Ownership%20Models%20%20%20%20Reform%20Tools.htm[Accessed 20thNovember, 2012]
Yang, Z. (2013) Selection of Third Party Ship Management.6029MAR Maritime Economics andManagement[Online] Available at:http://blackboard.ljmu.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-2144163-dt-content-rid-6284166_2/courses/6029MAR-201213-YR-AUG/Paper%20modelling-%20new%2031082012.pdf[Accessed 3rd March 2013]

APPENDIX 1
This appendix contains the sample of questions asked in the questionnaire and also the researchquestions. Part A is questionnaire and part B is the research questions, all with regards to Apapa port,Nigeria. The questionnaire was sent mainly to NPA, NIMASA, NCS and some terminal operators.
PART A:QUESTIONNAIRE
Below is the sample of questionnaire set to collect data. It includes one extra question that was askedvia phone calls and emails.

With Regards to Apapa Port
1. What was the percentage of government revenue before and after the concession was awarded:
Before (2005): ________________ After (2011) :________________

2a). Is congestion further reduced after the concession with regards to:
i) Ships waiting time: Yes _____ or No_____
ii) Goods clearance: Yes_____ or No_____
iii) Haulers: Yes_____ or No_____
iv) Terminals: Yes_____ or No_____

b).How can you rate the service delivery particularly general cargo:-
Better _____ Good_____ Fair______ Poor______
3a) Has Employment Increased after the concession: Yes___ or No___
b) The employment, have the indigenes benefited more: Yes___ or No___

c) If Yes or No, please comment how:-

4. The average ship turnaround time for:-
i) 2005:_______ and ii) 2011:________

5. Statistics:-
a). In the following years what was the average tonnage arrived at Apapa Port :-
The year 2002 The year 2004
General cargo ships: _______________ ________________
Container ships: ___________________ ________________
Bulk (dry and wet) cargo ships: _______ _________________

The year 2008 The year 2011
General cargo ships: ______________ ________________
Container ships: _________________ ________________
Bulk (dry and wet) cargo ships: ______ ________________

b).Charges ;as per the ship’s tonnage , for :-
2005:_____________
2009:______________
2011:______________

c). The average waiting time for ship for:-
i) 2005:________ and ii) 2011:_______

6. The terminals:-
a).How many terminals are in Apapa port in the year:
i) 2005: _______ and ii) 2011________

b .Are all the terminals conceded : Yes___ or No____

c .If No from above ,how many are yet to be:________
d. List how many concessionaires benefited:-

e. Which company has the most of terminals_____________________

7. Complaints if any after the concession was awarded:-

8. Any comment:

The additional question asked, through phone calls and email, was:
Do you consider independent regulator essential Yes/No.

PART B: THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This part contain the research questions aimed to be answered in the research
Has the concession helped significantly in Apapa port? In relation to:
Decreased ships turnaround time.
Improved infrastructural and superstructure facilities.
Decreased port charges.
Improvedberth utilization.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: AI Plagiarism free essay writing tool, Australian best tutors, best trans tutors, buy essay uk, cheap dissertation writer, Do my essay assignment