Waterway Panorama - Antaq

Waterway Panorama
National Agency for Waterway Transportation – ANTAQ
Volume 4 – October 2009

Waterway Panorama
National Agency for Waterway Transportation – ANTAQ
Volume 4 – October 2009

STAFF
Fernando Antonio Brito Fialho
Director-General
Murillo de Moraes Rego Corrêa Barbosa
Director
Tiago Pereira Lima
Director
Ana Maria Pinto Canelas
Sea and Support Navigation Superintendent
José Alex Botêlho de Oliva
Inland Navigation Superintendent
Giovanni Paiva
Ports Superintendent
Wilson Alves de Carvalho
Administration and Finance Superintendent
Produced by:
Social Communication Advisory Board – ANTAQ
Claudia Resende – Social Communication Advisory Board Head
Jorge Lucio de Carvalho Pinto – Journalist
Rodrigo Duhau – Journalist
Rodrigo Vasconcelos – Journalist
Fabiana Carvalho – Publicist
Inês Albuquerque – Public Relations
Circulation: 5,000 copies
Comments and suggestions:
Ombudsman: 08006445001 or (55 61) 3447-1172
Social Communication Advisory Board – ASC
SEPN Qd. 514 - Conj. E -1° andar - Asa Norte
CEP: 70760-545 Brasília, DF, Brazil (55 61) 3447-2737
www.antaq.gov.br/asc@antaq.gov.br

CONTENTS
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 05
PORTS
l Movement at private ports and terminals
between July 2008 and June 2009 ................................................................................... 06
l Movement of goods 2008-2009 ................................................................................ 12
l Attractiveness indicators ............................................................................................ 30
l Total cargo handling at private ports and terminals ..................................................... 33
l General Grants Plan .................................................................................................... 52
ENVIRONMENT
l Port environmental management ................................................................................. 54
l Port environmental planning ....................................................................................... 57
l Revision of CONAMA Resolution 344/04...................................................................... 59
l Solid waste .................................................................................................................. 60
l Licensing process ........................................................................................................ 60
l Environmental governance analysis ............................................................................. 61
l Local environmental agenda ........................................................................................ 62
l Waste receipt at ports (GISIS) ....................................................................................... 66
MARITIME NAVIGATION
l Introduction ................................................................................................................. 70
l Regulation ................................................................................................................... 71
l Supervision ................................................................................................................. 75
l Merchant fleet .............................................................................................................. 77
l Grant ........................................................................................................................... 80
l Vessel chartering ......................................................................................................... 82
INLAND NAVIGATION
l Completion of the Tucuruí Locks ................................................................................. 97
l III International Seminar on Waterways – Brazil/Netherlands ...................................... 99
l Seminar on the Parnaíba Waterway ............................................................................. 100
l Rule edit ...................................................................................................................... 105
l Paraná-Tietê River Basin Workgroup .......................................................................... 105
l Inspections .................................................................................................................. 107
l Company regularization ............................................................................................... 109

Introduction
In the globalized world, competitiveness is crucial
for economic growth in a country which, to
be more efficient, depends on an intermodal,
well articulated, transportation logistics. Cost and
safety are two relevant variables in this equation.
Maritime and inland navigation have vast advantages
over the highway system in these two
items, in long-distance transport, however they
require modern, agile ports. ANTAQ has created
the Waterway Panorama, now in its fourth edition,
aiming at measuring the efficiency and
agility of ports, and present maritime and inland
navigation scenario.
The Panorama was consolidated during this
period as a reference for key stakeholders in the
waterway transport sector, whether public or private.
The data annually presented by ANTAQ is
collected from the stakeholders themselves: the
Port Boards and Brazilian maritime and inland
navigation Companies. Therefore, it is a joint
work done by stakeholders in the industry for
themselves, in partnership with ANTAQ.
In the fourth volume of the Waterway
Panorama, Users will find relevant information
on the handling of general cargo, containers,
and bulk liquids and solids in Brazilian ports,
which reflect the period, in the period between
July 2008 and June 2009, the effects of the
global crisis, with a decrease in handling for the
period between July 2007 and June 2008. Charter
expenses were also affected. However, developments
in recent years have still been positive,
as a whole.
Users will also follow the pace of inspections
conducted by ANTAQ, which has increased since
the introduction of the Annual Inspection Plan
(FAP) by the Agency, which consists of the planning
for inspection actions that should be carried
out in twelve months by the servers of the agency.
The Panorama also features, as in all its editions,
information on environmental management in
Brazilian ports, which become even more precious
when the environment is one of the greatest
assets of collective interest.
The Panorama is a tool employed by ANTAQ
to give notice of its action, pursuant to the law,
and simultaneously serve as a reference for the
planning of public government policies and private
sector investments. Along with seminars
conducted by the agency on inland waterways, in
partnership with Belgium, the United States and
the Netherlands, and cabotage in Brazil, which,
in its first edition this year, brought together industry
leaders, the Waterway Panorama adds
value Users’ activities, the most crucial of them in
an increasingly competitive market economy:
knowledge.
05

l Waterway Panorama
Ports
Movement at private ports and terminals
between July 2008 e June 2009
General cargo
Santos (SP) leads the movement of general
cargo in Brazil: from July 2008 to June
2009, the port of Santos handled
29,641,832 tonnes or 37.3% of the national
volume of 79,427,531 tonnes, 13.2% higher
than the total volume in the previous period,
which was 70,128,234 tonnes. Movement in
Santos is 271% higher than the Portocel Private
Terminal in Aracruz, ES, with 7,985,780 tonnes
or 10.05% of the national movement. Even so,
the main port of the country, the volume decreased
8.9%, compared to the previous period,
while Santos handled 32,553,568 tonnes,
and its percentage share, which was 46.42%,
decreased as well. This reduction in volume is an
effect of the global crisis, which affected the port
of Santos from December 2008, peaking in January
2009, when there was a decrease of 40%.
From July 2008 to June 2009, Itajaí fell from
fourth to eighth place in the ranking of the 10
top ports handling general cargo in Brazil: the
movement was 2,628,896 tonnes or 3.3% of the
national volume, implying a 55.1% decrease
over the previous period, when the Santa Catarina
port handled 5,858,395 tonnes, or 8.3% of
the total volume. The movement was affected by
the fact that the port was partially destroyed due
to heavy rains that occurred in the State of Santa
Catarina, in November 2008.
The port of Paranaguá handled 7,967,608
tonnes or 10.03% of the national volume between
July 2008 and June 2009, representing
an 8% increase over the previous period, when
total handling was 7,376,689 tonnes. This release
demonstrated that the positive effect of
the migration of charges from Itajaí to
Paranaguá was greater than the negative effects
of the global crisis. Despite the increase, the
relative share of the Paraná port in total handling
decreased 0.5 percentage points. In the
ranking, Paranaguá left the second position to
occupy the third position.
The port of Vila do Conde (PA) was not included
in the ranking in the previous period. In
the tenth position, the Pará port handled
1,833,491 tonnes or 2.31% of the aggregate
volume of general cargo. Founded in 1985 to
assist the movement of bauxite and alumina
from the industrial complex Alumar/Alunorte,
the Pará port has increased its share in general
cargo over recent years, counting on terminals
specializing in containers, leased by Santos
Brazil S.A. since 2003.
The ports handled 83.83% of the volume of
general cargo between July 2008 and June
2009, reflecting an increase of almost 4 percentage
points in relative share, compared to the
previous period, when the ports were responsible
for 80% of the movement. That means a decrease
in the relative share of private terminals
(PTs) in the total volume handled, which was
20% in the previous period.
06

SPATIAL GENERAL CARGO DISTRIBUTION
MAIN PORTS AND TERMINALS – July 2008 to June 2009
Amount Handled and Percentage Share on the Total National Volume
35.000.000
50%
30.000.000
29.641.832
40%
25.000.000
30%
20.000.000
15.000.000
37,32
25%
10.000.000
7.985.780 7.967.608
7.010.357
20%
5.000.000
0
10,05
10,03
8,83
4.366.853
5,50
3.701.051
3.421.738
2.628.896
4,66 4,31 3,31
2.598.846 1.833.491
3,27 2,31
10%
0%
SANTOS-SP
TUP PORTOCEL-ES
PARANAGUÁ-PR
RIO GRANDE-RS
VITÓRIA-ES
SUAPE-PE
SÃO FCO. DO
SUL-SC
ITAJAÍ-SC
SALVADOR-BA
VILA DO
CONDE-PA
l Amount in tonnes handled at the Port
l Share percentage of the port on the total national volume
MOVEMENT SHARE – GENERAL CARGO (%)
16,17
TUP
PO
83,83
07

l Waterway Panorama
Bulk liquids
The private terminal (PT) Almirante Barroso
(SP) has once again led the ranking of the
top 10 ports handling bulk liquids in Brazil.
Between July 2008 and June 2009, the movement
at this PT was 48,229,268 tonnes or 25.4%
of the national volume of 189,730,362 tonnes,
which was 13.4% higher compared to the previous
period, when the total movement in the
country was 167,319,008 tonnes. Still, movement
at the PT decreased 2.4% over the previous
period, when the movement was 49,442,767
tonnes. There was also a drop of 4 percentage
points in the relative share of the terminal in
Brazil movement, which was 29.5% between July
2007 and June 2008.
Secondly, the PT Admiral Maximiano Fonseca
(RJ) handled 29,939,659 tonnes of bulk liquids
or 15.8% of the total volume, representing a decrease
below 1% in the total volume handled
over the previous period (30,284,959 tonnes),
although it provided a decrease of 2.3 percentage
points in the relative share of the terminal in
the national movement.
The PT Madre de Deus (BA) was third between
July 2008 and June 2009, when it handled
19,307,515 tonnes or 10.2% of the total
volume. Private terminals operated by Petrobras
Transporte S.A. (Transpetro) therefore occupied in
the first three positions.
Transpetro also owns PTs Almirante Soares
Dutra (Brazil), in fifth place, Almirante Tamandaré
(RJ), in sixth, São Francisco do Sul (SC), in
seventh, and Manaus, in ninth, which handled,
respectively, 11,256,674 tonnes or almost 6%,
10,529,005 tonnes or 5.55%, 9,397,971 or
nearly 5% and 5,612,149 tonnes or 2.96% of the
bulk liquid movement in Brazil. These results reflect
increases of 7.7%, 6%, 5.6% and 27%, respectively,
over the previous period, when bulk
liquid movement in these ports was 10,419,330
tonnes, 7,849,382 tonnes, 8,950,208 tonnes,
and 4,420,153 tonnes, respectively. In total, the
seven Transpetro terminals accounted for 70.8%
of the national bulk liquid movement between
July 2008 and June 2009.
The eighth and tenth positions were occupied
by the port of Itaqui (MA) and the port of Suape
(PE), which handled 5,705,411 tonnes (3.01%)
and 3,840,666 tonnes (2.02%) in bulk liquids, in
that order.
The PTs handed 78.78% of the volume of bulk
liquid between July 2008 and June 2009. In absolute
terms, the bulk liquid movement in the PTs
was 149,473,828 tonnes. Handling at the ports
was 40,256,535 tonnes of bulk liquid, representing
16.17% of the total volume.
MOVEMENT SHARE – BULK LIQUID (%)
78,78
TUP
21,22
PO
08

50.000.000
SPATIAL BULK LIQUID DISTRIBUTION
MAIN PORTS AND TERMINALS – July 2008 to June 2009
Amount Handled and Percentage Share on the Total National Volume
48.229.268
50%
40.000.000
35.000.000
l Amount in tonnes handled at the Port
l Share percentage of the port on the total national volume
40%
30.000.000
29.939.659
30%
25.000.000
25%
20.000.000
25,42
19.307.515
15.000.000
10.000.000
5.000.000
15,78
10,18
13.081.557
6,89
11.256.674
5,93
10.529.005
5,55
9.397.971
4,95
5.705.411
3,01
5.612.149
3.840.666
2,96 2,02
20%
10%
0%
TUP. ALM.
BARROSO-SP
TUP. ALM. MAX.
FONSECA-RJ
TUP MADRE DE
DEUS-BA
SANTOS-SP
TUP ALM. SOARES
DUTRA-RS
TUP ALM.
TAMANDARÉ-RJ
TUP SÃO FCO.
DO SUL-SC
ITAQUI-MA
TUP MANAUS-AM
SUAPE-PE
Bulk solids
MOVEMENT SHARE – BULK SOLID (%)
The PT Ponta da Madeira (MA) led the ranking
of top ports and terminals handling bulk
solids in Brazil: Between July 2008 and July
2009, the terminal handled 86,293,646 tonnes
or 25.1% of the national volume of 343,837,863
tonnes. The second position was occupied by
the PT Tubarão (ES), with 82,173,190 tonnes
(23.9% of the total volume), representing a
21.9% decrease over the previous period, when
the terminal handled 105,181,391 tonnes.
The MBR terminal (RJ) was third, handling
36,647,379 tonnes in bulk solids in the period,
representing 10.6% of the national volume. In
the fourth position, the port of Santos (SP) moved
31,937,108 tonnes or 9.3% of the total volume.
The first four places accounted for almost 70% of
the Brazilian bulk solid movement between July
2008 and June 2009.
The terminals handled 72.57% of the bulk
solids in the period, increasing their relative share
in the national movement in 2.57 percentage
points, compared to the previous period.
72,57
TUP
27,43
PO
In absolute terms, the PTs handled
249,519,241 tonnes against 94,318,622 tonnes
handled in Brazilian ports.
09

l Waterway Panorama
SPATIAL BULK SOLID DISTRIBUTION
MAIN PORTS AND TERMINALS – July 2008 to June 2009
Amount Handled and Percentage Share on the Total National Volume
110.000.000
50%
100.000.000
90.000.000
80.000.000
70.000.000
60.000.000
86.293.646
82.173.190
l Amount in tonnes handled at the Port
l Share percentage of the port on the total national volume
40%
30%
50.000.000
40.000.000
35.000.000
30.000.000
25.000.000
25,10
23,90
36.647.379
31.937.108
25%
20%
20.000.000
15.000.000
10,66
9,29
19.312.772
15.237.473
14.212.024
10%
10.000.000
0
5,62
4,43 4,13
8.428.477
5.400.743 4.193.234
2,45 1,57 1,22
0%
TUP PONTA DA
MADEIRA-MA
TUP TUBARÃO-ES
TUP MBR-RJ
SANTOS-SP
PARANAGUÁ-PR
TUP PORTO
TROMBETAS-PA
VILA DO CONDE-PA
TUP CVRD PRAIA
MOLE-ES
RIO GRANDE-RS
SÃO FCO. DO SUL-SC
Foreign Trade
In terms of tonnes handled, the Brazilian trade
flow that used ports and terminals in 2008
reached 568 million in imports and exports of
goods. Between 2008 and 2007 this growth was
about 1.6%.
On balance, it appears that the flows of exports
reached 454 million, a surplus of around
339 million tonnes. Imports grew by 3% over
2007, higher than the 1.3% rate recorded in exports
over this period.
Between 2004 and 2008, we notice that the
average annual growth in foreign trade flows
stood at 7.2% per year, with exports at approximately
7.6% per year, and imports showing annual
variations of around 5.5%. It is recorded
that there was a greater increase in amounts
between 2006 and 2007, with a 10% increase,
boosted by imports, which stood at 19%. However,
considering the variation between 2007
and 2008, although the average annual growth
since 2003 was 7%, the tonnage of foreign trade
recorded in port handling decreased by 2%. One
can attribute this to the reflexes of the international
financial crisis, more evident in the second
half of 2008.
10

600.000.000
500.000.000
400.000.000
300.000.000
200.000.000
100.000.000
0 tolenadas
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
l Imports l Exports l Total
Containers
The containerization index refers to the percentage
of goods transported in containers,
in relation to the total general cargo. Despite
the reduction rate of 1.17%, observed in
2008 for 2007, there was a greater increase in
absolute numbers of cargo handled in containers
(5,202,847 tonnes) than general cargo loose
(4,616,299 tonnes). In 2008 there were
112,501,852 tonnes of general cargo, with
73,248,231 tonnes in containers and
39,253,621 tonnes as loose cargo. In the previous
year, they were 102,682,706 tonnes,
68,045,384 tonnes, and 34,637,322 tonnes.
The series shows the trend of logistics in the increasing
use of containers, whether for transportation
of food products or industrial products.
In some places, such as the port of Rio Grande,
surpluses of bulk ores and soybeans were transported
by this type of packaging.
68,00%
66,00%
66,27%
65,10%
64,00%
62,36%
62,00%
60,00%
57,38%
59,70%
59,23%
58,00%
56,00%
54,00%
52,00%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
l Containerization index
11

l Waterway Panorama
Movement of goods
2008 - 2009
Containers
Among public piers, the pier of Santos (SP)
had the largest movement of containers
between July 2008 and June 2009, when
the volume was 352,507 units, representing a
decrease of 4.5% over the previous period. The
second position was occupied by the port of São
Francisco do Sul (SC), which handled 135,008
units, representing an increase of 3% over the
period between June 2007 and July 2008. In the
third position, the port of Fortaleza handled
54,524 units, with an increase of 31.6% over the
previous period.
TECON Santos led the movement of containers
between leased or private terminals between
July 2008 and June 2009, when it handled
684,908 units, almost double the movement of
the public pier of Santos, which led movement
among public ports. In the previous period,
movement at TECON Santos decreased 6.3%.
The second position was occupied by TECON Rio
Grande (RS), which handled 375,531 units, an
Public Pier – Container – Amount (In units)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Santos
Public Pier
337.567
369.288
352.507
São Fco do Sul
Public Pier
133.076
131.022
135.008
Fortaleza
Public Pier
36.028
41.432
54.524
Itajaí
Public Pier
96.520
89.210
33.762
Belém
Public Pier
33.969
32.601
18.445
Imbituba
Public Pier
14.533
10.817
15.898
Vila de Conde
Public Pier
14.619
7.022
14.370
Suape
Public Pier
10.518
10.983
13.438
Natal
Public Pier
4.082
6.464
9.222
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Múlt.Use)
3.885
4.269
9.221
Santarém
Public Pier
-
880
3.539
Maceió
Public Pier
552
901
3.261
Salvador
Public Pier
2.142
3.452
3.114
Rio Grande
Public Pier
19.659
8.791
1.980
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Corex)
-
278
1.528
12

Leased Terminals / PT – Container – Amount (In units)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Santos
TECON
715.240
730.869
684.908
Rio Grande
TECON
336.252
343.041
375.531
Paranaguá
TCP
318.464
339.631
339.957
Santos
T-35
293.485
285.951
304.126
Santos
T-37
221.646
226.734
184.673
Vitória
TVV
194.522
179.684
177.398
Suape
TECON
129.727
129.119
173.320
Salvador
TECON
137.068
104.889
148.513
Itajaí
TECONVI
291.764
257.217
129.668
Santos
TECONDI
93.526
93.365
60.382
São Fco do Sul
TESC
5.023
2.941
17.896
Maceió
EMPAT
-
252
947
Vitória
Peiú
6.489
2.593
608
increase of 9.5% over the period between June
2007 and July 2008.
The third position was occupied by TCP
Paranaguá (PR), with 339,957 units, unchanged
since the previous period.
As for the average sheet, which determines the
number of containers handled per hour, the top
position of the ranking of public ports is occupied
by the port of Santos, which handled 22 units per
hour between July 2008 and June 2009, in an
average identical to the previous period. The
second position was occupied by the port of Itajaí
(SC), which handled 18 units per hour, in an
average 5.8% higher compared to the previous
period. The third one was São Francisco do Sul,
which handled 17 containers per hour, in an average
29.2% lower than the one reported between
July 2007 and June 2008.
The leader in leased or private terminals was
TECON Santos, which handled 35 containers
per hour, in an average 59% higher than the port
of Santos, which led the ranking of public ports,
and 2.7% lower than the average reached by the
terminal in the previous period. The second position
was occupied by the T-37 Libra Terminais,
also in Santos, which handled 31 units per hour,
in an average 6% lower compared with the previous
period. The third one was TECON Rio
Grande, which handled 30 containers per hour,
in an average 7.1% higher than the one reported
in the previous period.
The ports of Belém and Santarém (PA)
recorded an average delay time of less than one
hour per ship and led the ranking of public ports
between July 2008 and June 2009. The second
position was occupied by the ports of Vila do
Conde (PA) and Maceió, where ships took an
hour to dock, on average. At the port of Santos,
in 9th place, the average delay time for docking
was 11 hours. São Francisco do Sul had the
worst performance, where ships took 19 hours to
dock, on average, due to the increase in the
number of vessels, arising from the partial destruction
of the Port of Itajaí.
Among leased or private terminals, the EMPAT
terminal, in Maceió, reported an average delay
time of one hour. The second position was occupied
by the Peiú terminal in Victoria, where ships
took 5 hours to dock, on average. In the third position,
TECONDI Santos reported an average
delay time of 6 hours for docking.
The price of port services in the commercial
pier at the port of Itajaí (SC) was the lowest per
container handled in 2008: R$243,08 per unit,
20% less than Imbituba, which had the second
lowest price, and 60.7% less than the highest
price, registered at the port of Salvador. Among
the terminals, the lowest price was charged in the
T-37, of Libra, in Santos (SP), at R$233,89, 1.8%
less than TECONDI Santos, in the second position,
and 50.4% less than the price per container
handled at TECON Suape (PE).
13

l Waterway Panorama
Public Pier – Container – Average Sheet (u/h)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Santos
Public Pier
20
22
22
Itajaí
Public Pier
19
17
18
São Fco do Sul
Public Pier
20
24
17
Imbituba
Public Pier
11
17
15
Suape
Public Pier
10
17
13
Salvador
Public Pier
08
10
12
Fortaleza
Public Pier
10
11
11
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Mult.Use)
06
07
11
Rio Grande
Public Pier
11
09
09
Belém
Public Pier
10
08
09
Natal
Public Pier
04
05
08
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Corex)
-
18
07
Santarém
Public Pier
-
05
07
Maceió
Public Pier
08
-
06
Vila do Conde
Public Pier
10
08
03
Leased Terminals / PT – Container – Average Sheet (u/h)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Santos
TECON
35
36
35
Santos
T-37
29
33
31
Rio Grande
TECON
27
28
30
Santos
T-35
23
25
28
Salvador
TECON
20
07
28
Paranaguá
TCP
05
11
24
Vitória
TVV
27
27
24
Itajaí
TECONVI
21
19
23
Santos
TECONDI
24
23
19
Suape
TECON
21
22
18
Vitória
Peiú
13
10
10
São Fco do Sul
TESC
06
06
08
Maceió
EMPAT
-
04
07
14

Public Pier – Container – Average Delay Time (h/n)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Belém
Public Pier
0
0
0
Santarém
Public Pier
-
0
0
Vila de Conde
Public Pier
0
0
01
Maceió
Public Pier
01
02
01
Natal
Public Pier
0
0
03
Fortaleza
Public Pier
04
04
07
Salvador
Public Pier
07
17
08
Rio Grande
Public Pier
08
10
11
Santos
Public Pier
10
11
11
Imbituba
Public Pier
04
06
12
Suape
Public Pier
04
05
12
Itajaí
Public Pier
19
17
14
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Mult.Use)
12
20
16
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Corex)
-
28
17
São Fco do Sul
Public Pier
26
18
19
Leased Terminals / PT – Container – Average Delay Time (h/n)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Maceió
EMPAT
-
11
01
Vitória
Peiú
16
12
05
Santos
TECONDI
07
05
06
Salvador
TECON
09
26
10
Santos
T-37
18
13
13
Santos
T-35
18
12
14
Suape
TECON
22
25
14
Rio Grande
TECON
13
11
16
Santos
TECON
19
15
17
Vitória
TVV
29
15
19
Itajaí
TECONVI
18
17
19
São Fco do Sul
TESC
19
11
21
Paranaguá
TCP
18
15
21
15

l Waterway Panorama
PRICES – CONTAINERS – 2008
Port Terminal R$ US$
ITAJAÍ
Commercial Pier
243,08
104,01
IMBITUBA
Public Pier
303,79
129,99
Terminais arrendados Portos públicos
SÃO FRANCISCO DO SUL
NATAL
FORTALEZA
VILA DO CONDE
SANTOS
BELÉM
SALVADOR
SANTOS
SANTOS
SANTOS
SALVADOR
RIO GRANDE
ITAJAÍ
VITÓRIA
PARANAGUÁ
RIO DE JANEIRO
Public Pier
Public Pier
Public Pier
Public Pier
Right Bank
Public Pier
Public Pier
Libra (T37)
Tecondi
Tecon
Tecon
Tecon
Teconvi
TVV
TCP
MultiRio
312,53
318,67
360,04
390,44
408,82
430,34
619,80
233,89
238,11
240,37
296,17
311,02
318,67
322,61
339,04
351,26
133,73
136,36
154,06
167,07
174,93
184,14
265,21
100,08
101,89
102,85
126,73
133,09
136,36
138,04
145,07
150,30
SANTOS
Libra (T35)
359,91
154,01
MANAUS
Super Terminais
465,74
199,29
SUAPE
Tecon
471,40
201,71
Quotation on 12/31/2008: US$1.00 = R$2.3370
16

Soybean (grains and bran)
The (public) Corex of Paranaguá handled
8,745,021 tonnes of soybeans, a volume
6.5% higher than the one reported in the
previous period and almost 3 times higher than
the volume reported by the port of São Francisco
do Sul (SC), in the second position, which
handled 2,929,072 tonnes in the period, 22.2%
more than the movement in the previous period.
Increases in the movement of soybean reflect
the tax policy in Argentina, which is surcharging
exports of its products, thereby stimulating
Brazilian exports.
Among leased or private terminals, the leader
was Corex Santos, which handled 6,572,555
tonnes of soybeans between July 2008 and June
2009, with a volume 66% higher than the previous
period and almost twice as much as the volume
of PT Tubarão (ES), which handled
3,328,687 tonnes of soybeans over the same period,
with a volume 248% higher than the one reported
between July 2007 and June 2008. In the
third position, the Tergrasa terminal in Rio
Grande (RS) handled 2,650,276 tonnes, with a
decrease of 28.6% over the previous period.
The PT Cotegipe, located in the Bay of Todos
os Santos, had an increase of 106% in the movement
of soybean in relation to the previous period.
This significant increase was achieved by
the transfer of the shipment of grain from the
west of Bahia through the port of Ilhéus to the private
terminal in order to provide less road movement
and better infrastructure and equipment.
The public port of Bahia had a decrease of 91%
over the previous period.
As for the average sheet, which indicates
tonnes of soybean handled per day, the public
pier of Paranaguá (Corex) reported an average
of handling of 28,462 tonnes per day and led
the ranking of public ports between July 2008
and June 2009, ahead of the public pier of São
Francisco do Sul, which handled 16,237 tonnes
per day, in an average 6% lower than the one reported
between July 2007 and June 2008.
Among leased or private terminals, the PT
Tubarão (ES) led the ranking by handling 37,684
tonnes per day between July 2008 and June
2009, in an average 75.8% higher than the one
reported in the previous period. The second position
was occupied by TGG Santos, with an average
handling of 26,065 tonnes per day, 62.5%
more than the average from July 2007 to June
2008. The third position was occupied by Corex
Santos, with 14,525 tonnes per day, in an average
19.4% higher than the one reported in previous
period.
The lowest average delay time between the
public ports was reported at the port of Ilhéus
(BA), where ships had a one-hour delay to dock,
on average. The second position was occupied
by the port of Santos, with an average of 8
hours, and, the third one was occupied by the
port of Paranaguá (Multiple Use), where ships
had an average delay time of 3 days and 16
hours to dock.
In São Francisco do Sul and Paranaguá
(Corex), the average delay time for docking was
3 days and 22 hours and 4 days and 8 hours, respectively.
In the case of the port of Paranaguá,
the delay time was high due to the restrictions to
night shipping, which occurs due to lack of maintenance
on buoys and lack of maintenance
dredging in the port’s canal.
Among leased or private terminals, the leaders
of the ranking were the PT of Granel
Química, in Mato Grosso do Sul, and the PT
Oleoplan in Rio Grande do Sul, where the ships
docked in less than one hour on average, as in
the previous period. The Tergrasa terminal, in
second place, had an average time of 16 hours
for docking against to 15 hours in the previous
period and, in the third position, the Bunge terminal,
in Rio Grande, reported an average of 23
hours, 34.3% less than the time reported between
July 2007 and June 2008.
The price of port services practiced in the
(public) Corex of Paranaguá was the lowest price
per tonne of soybean handled, at R$7.80, almost
38% lower than the price applied at the port of
São Francisco do Sul (SC) and 44.6% less than
the price applied at the port of Ilhéus (BA).
Among the terminals, the lowest price was
charged by Corex Santos, at R$4.88, a price
5.6% lower than the one charged by the Cargill
terminal in Santos, and 56.7% lower than the
one charged by Tergrasa, in Rio Grande (RS).
17

l Waterway Panorama
Public Pier – Soybean – Amount (In tonnes)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Corex)
8.777.134
8.213.216
8.745.021
São Fco do Sul
Public Pier
2.277.509
2.396.104
2.929.072
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Mult. Use)
1.076.968
1.325.149
1.200.494
Santos
Public Pier
165.283
114.606
51.675
Ilhéus
Public Pier
674.757
407.232
35.665
Leased Terminal / PT – Soybean – Amount (In tonnes)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Santos
Corex (ADM)
4.409.932
3.957.240
6.572.555
Tubarão
TUP Tubarão
-
956.349
3.328.687
Rio Grande
Tergrasa
1.833.977
3.714.475
2.650.276
Santos
TGG
896.235
2.398.753
2.257.166
Rio Grande
Bianchini
2.632.247
2.807.498
2.233.086
Santos
Cargill
2.807.445
2.188.600
2.095.025
Cotegipe
TUP Cotegipe
318.454
896.769
1.848.971
Rio Grande
Terminal Bunge
1.058.565
986.207
994.140
Santarém
Cargill
-
-
977.860
Rio Grande
Termasa
803.596
1.078.917
763.688
Oleoplan
TUP Oleoplan
-
-
261.701
Public Pier – Soybean – Average Sheet (t/d)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Corex)
14.585
13.888
28.462
São Fco do Sul
Public Pier
17.287
15.194
16.237
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Mult. Use)
9.450
8.303
14.881
Santos
Public Pier
8.448
8.545
9.878
Ilhéus
Public Pier
3.451
3.441
9.406
Public Pier – Soybean – Average Delay Time (h/n)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Ilhéus
Public Pier
0
26
01
Santos
Public Pier
124
74
08
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Mult. Use)
75
94
88
São Fco do Sul
Public Pier
77
97
94
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Corex)
124
339
104
18

Leased Terminals / PT – Soybean – Average Sheet (t/d)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Tubarão
TUP Tubarão
-
21.429
37.684
Santos
TGG
10.639
16.040
26.065
Santos
Corex (ADM)
11.930
12.160
14.525
Rio Grande
Termasa
12.598
13.783
14.341
Santos
Cargill
13.527
13.743
14.337
Rio Grande
Bianchini
8.719
7.272
11.776
Rio Grande
Tergrasa
7.043
8.614
10.120
Oleoplan
TUP Oleoplan
-
-
9.984
Cotegipe
TUP Cotegipe
11.998
10.810
9.746
Rio Grande
Terminal Bunge
8.636
10.271
9.512
Leased Terminals / PT – Soybean – Average Delay Time (h/n)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Oleoplan
TUP Oleoplan
-
-
0
Granel Química
TUP Granel Química
-
0
0
Rio Grande
Tergrasa
04
15
16
Rio Grande
Terminal Bunge
25
35
23
Rio Grande
Bianchini
25
37
35
Santos
TGG
27
34
44
Santos
Cargill
51
42
48
Rio Grande
Termasa
32
52
58
Santos
Corex (ADM)
66
66
84
Tubarão
TUP Tubarão
-
61
85
Cotegipe
TUP Cotegipe
20
62
160
PRICES – SOYBEAN AND BRAN – 2008
Port Terminal R$ US$
Public
Ports
PARANAGUÁ
SÃO FRANCISCO DO SUL
ILHÉUS
Corex
Public Pier
Public Pier
7,80
12,51
14,09
3,34
5,35
6,03
SANTOS
Corex (ADM)
4,88
2,09
SANTOS
Cargill
5,17
2,21
Leased
Terminals
SANTOS
RIO GRANDE
RIO GRANDE
TGG
Bianchini*
Termasa*
6,23
9,19
9,38
2,67
3,93
4,01
RIO GRANDE
Tergrasa
11,29
4,83
* Private Terminal
Quotation on 12/31/2008: US$1.00 = R$2.3370
19

l Waterway Panorama
Wheat
The port of Fortaleza was led the handling of
wheat between July 2008 and June 2009,
when it reached 815,886 tonnes, nearly
equaling the previous period. The second position
was occupied by the port of Santos, which
handled 743,743 tonnes, 2.8 times more than
the volume reported in the previous period. In the
position, the port of Recife handled 501,282
tonnes of wheat, a decrease of 4.4% compared
to the previous period.
Among leased or private terminals, the Termasa,
in Rio Grande (RS), handled 843,952
tonnes of wheat, and, even with a decrease of
16% over the previous period, it had, by far, the
best performance. The second position was occupied
by the PT Cotegipe, which handled
292,645 tonnes of wheat, representing a decrease
of 11.6% over the previous period, and the
third position was occupied by Rio Grande (Tergrasa)
with 193,565 tonnes of wheat per day.
As for the average sheet, the (public) Corex of
Paranaguá had the best performance between
July 2008 and June 2009, when it handled
11,294 tonnes of wheat per day on average. The
second position was occupied by the port of Fortaleza,
with 7,338 tonnes per day (an average almost
7% lower than in the previous period) and
the third position was occupied by the port of Maceió,
with 4,412 tonnes per day (an increase of
almost 20%).
Among terminals, Bianchini, in Rio Grande,
led the ranking by handling 9,764 tonnes of
wheat daily, in an average 38.9% lower than the
one reported between June 2007 and July
2008. In the second position, the Bunge terminal,
also in Rio Grande, handled 6,319 tonnes
per day, and in the third position, the Tergrasa
terminal handled 5,451 tonnes per day, in an
average 52% lower than the one reported in the
previous period.
The port of Belém reported an average delay
time of less than 1 hour, while the port of Natal
reported 2 hours, 1 hour less than the average
recorded between July 2007 and June 2008.
The next position was occupied by Cabedelo
(PB), where vessels took 3 hours to dock, on average,
and the port of Vitória, with an average
delay time of 4 hours, 90% lower than the average
of the previous period.
Among terminals, Serra Morena and Oleoplan,
both in Rio Grande do Sul, reported an average
delay time of less than one hour, repeating
the performance of the previous period. They
were followed by PTs Granel Química and
Ocrim, who recorded average delay times of 2
and 5 hours, respectively.
The price of port services in the port of Fortaleza
was R$5.88 per tonne of wheat moved in
2008, the lowest price recorded, with a reduction
of 9.2% in relation to the amount charged by the
Port of Natal, which applied the second lowest
price, and 73.5% lower than the highest price,
charged by the port of Recife. Among terminals,
the price of Corex Santos was R$8.81, the lowest
price, nearly 9% below the price charged by
TESC, in São Francisco do Sul (SC), and 47.4%
lower than the lowest price, charged by the Serra
Morena terminal, in Porto Alegre.
20

Public Pier – Wheat – Amount (In tonnes)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Fortaleza
Public Pier
803.856
812.138
815.886
Santos
Public Pier
660.654
265.031
743.743
Recife
Public Pier
540.299
524.594
501.282
Salvador
Public Pier
348.062
428.118
353.904
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Mult. Use)
240.293
196.343
164.141
Belém
Public Pier
-
-
136.031
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Corex)
-
-
115.603
Vitória
Cais Capuaba
719.697
273.637
111.938
Imbituba
Public Pier
147.291
64.518
110.519
Suape
Public Pier
-
-
90.543
Maceió
Public Pier
41.259
64.431
89.960
Natal
Public Pier
85.848
97.194
88.619
Cabedelo
Public Pier
51.020
-
80.208
Itaqui
Public Pier
78.285
85.116
70.255
São Fco do Sul
Public Pier
51.291
50.901
67.579
Public Pier – Wheat – Average Sheet (t/d)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Corex)
-
-
11.294
Fortaleza
Public Pier
7.626
7.885
7.338
Maceió
Public Pier
4.250
3.682
4.412
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Mult. Use)
3.863
4.045
4.204
Natal
Public Pier
3.666
3.169
3.828
São Fco do Sul
Public Pier
4.827
5.790
3.639
Santos
Public Pier
4.759
3.802
3.483
Vitória
Cais Capuaba
3.532
2.773
3.361
Imbituba
Public Pier
3.834
3.495
3.309
Suape
Public Pier
-
-
3.063
Cabedelo
Public Pier
2.514
-
2.895
Salvador
Public Pier
2.160
2.889
2.665
Recife
Public Pier
1.972
2.007
2.502
Santos
Public Pier (Moinho Santista)
2.155
2.385
2.406
Itaqui
Public Pier
1.546
1.749
1.491
Belém
Public Pier
-
-
750
21

l Waterway Panorama
Leased Terminals / PT – Wheat – Amount (In tonnes)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Rio Grande
Termasa
707.748
1.005.600
843.952
Cotegipe
TUP Cotegipe
125.038
330.373
292.645
Rio Grande
Tergrasa
42.437
467.780
193.565
Rio Grande
Bianchini
97.220
211.047
170.813
Porto Alegre
Serra Morena
101.358
132.742
156.473
Santos
Corex (ADM)
340.148
177.301
146.593
Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa
TUP Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa
-
-
135.903
São Fco do Sul
TESC
283.460
178.459
73.931
Ocrim
TUP Ocrim
-
30.116
57.742
Granel Química
TUP Granel Química
-
19.901
10.567
Rio Grande
Terminal Bunge
-
-
6.319
Oleoplan
TUP Oleoplan
-
-
2.504
Leased Terminals / PT – Wheat – Average Sheet (t/d)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Rio Grande
Bianchini
3.758
15.991
9.764
Rio Grande
Terminal Bunge
-
-
6.319
Rio Grande
Tergrasa
9.973
11.355
5.451
Rio Grande
Termasa
3.175
4.072
4.954
Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa
TUP Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa
-
-
4.399
Santos
Corex (ADM)
4.814
4.277
4.289
Cotegipe
TUP Cotegipe
4.318
3.982
3.894
São Fco do Sul
TESC
4.612
5.154
3.612
Oleoplan
TUP Oleoplan
-
-
3.323
Porto Alegre
Serra Morena
1.038
1.418
1.982
Ocrim
TUP Ocrim
-
1.385
1.265
Granel Química
TUP Granel Química
-
1.571
705
22

Public Pier – Wheat – Average Delay Time (h/n)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Belém
Public Pier
-
-
0
Natal
Public Pier
0
03
02
Cabedelo
Public Pier
09
-
03
Vitória
Public Pier (Capuaba)
41
41
04
Maceió
Public Pier
113
71
05
Suape
Public Pier
-
-
08
Fortaleza
Public Pier
12
31
12
Recife
Public Pier
13
26
12
Santos
Public Pier (Moinho Santista)
16
29
13
Salvador
Public Pier
09
16
15
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Mult. Use)
91
59
22
Santos
Public Pier
14
19
33
Imbituba
Public Pier
30
12
54
São Fco do Sul
Public Pier
48
45
72
Itaqui
Public Pier
47
62
81
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Corex)
-
-
262
Leased Terminals / PT – Wheat – Average Delay Time (h/n)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Porto Alegre
Serra Morena
0
0
0
Oleoplan
TUP Oleoplan
-
-
0
Granel Química
TUP Granel Química
-
0
02
Ocrim
TUP Ocrim
-
7
05
Rio Grande
Bianchini
38
56
20
Rio Grande
Tergrasa
32
21
31
Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa
TUP Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa
-
-
40
Rio Grande
Termasa
45
70
53
São Fco do Sul
TESC
60
52
53
Santos
Corex (ADM)
57
12
57
Cotegipe
TUP Cotegipe
07
15
73
Rio Grande
Terminal Bunge
-
-
74
23

l Waterway Panorama
PRICES – WHEAT – 2008
Port Terminal R$ US$
FORTALEZA
Public Pier
5,88
2,52
NATAL
Public Pier
6,48
2,77
CABEDELO
Public Pier
8,02
3,43
SÃO FRANCISCO DO SUL
Public Pier
9,51
4,07
Leased Terminals Public Ports
SANTOS
IMBITUBA
VITÓRIA
RIO DE JANEIRO
SALVADOR
BELÉM
MACEIÓ
RECIFE
SANTOS
SÃO FRANCISCO DO SUL
SANTOS
RIO GRANDE
RIO GRANDE
PORTO ALEGRE
Right Bank
Public Pier
Cais Capuaba
Moinho Santista
Moinho Salvador
Public Pier
Cais Publico
Public Pier
Corex (ADM)
Tesc
Moinho Santista
Tergrasa
Termasa*
Serra Morena
11,82
13,38
16,92
18,88
20,06
20,68
20,80
22,21
8,81
9,68
12,14
13,59
15,58
16,77
5,06
5,73
7,24
8,08
8,58
8,85
8,90
9,50
3,77
4,14
5,19
5,82
6,67
7,18
* Private Terminal
Quotation on 12/31/2008: US$1.00 = R$2.3370
24

Fertilizers
Prior to the world crisis (September 2008),
importers of fertilizers had accumulated
large stocks, as prices were rising, given
the warming of the global economy and favorable
prices of agricultural commodities. However,
with the start of the crisis, companies in possession
of these stocks failed to pass on these products
to farmers, and thus had large losses, reducing
imports.
The port of Paranaguá (PR) handled
2,429,692 tonnes of fertilizer between July 2008
and June 2009, representing a decrease of
48.8% over the previous period. Still it led the
ranking of public ports, handling more than any
of the terminals. The second position was occupied
by the port of Rio Grande (RS), with
978,057 tonnes, representing a decrease of
22.7% over the previous period. The third one
was the port of Aratu (BA), which handled
514,881 tonnes of fertilizer, with a decrease of
33.1% over the period between July 2007 and
June 2008.
Among terminals, the Yara Fertilizantes terminal
led the ranking, handling 1,775,873
tonnes, with a decrease of 51.2% in relation to
the period between July 2007 and June 2008.
The second position was occupied by the PT Fospar
in Paranaguá, with 1,564,945 tonnes, representing
a decrease of 33.9% over the previous
period. In third, TMG Santos (SP) handled
719,185 tonnes, with a decrease of 47%.
The port of São Francisco do Sul (SC) had the
best performance in the average sheet by handling
11,292 tonnes of fertilizer between July
2008 and June 2009, in an average 185.6%
higher than the one reported between July 2007
and June 2008. The second position was occupied
by the port of Salvador, with 6,014 tonnes
per day (202% more than in the previous period),
and the third position was occupied by the Multiple
Use (public) terminal of the port of
Paranaguá, with 5678 tonnes per day (13.2%
more than in the previous period).
The sea terminal Inácio Barbosa, managed by
Vale, in Sergipe, reported an average of 9,748
tonnes of fertilizer handled per day, leading the
ranking in the terminal segment, ahead of the PT
Fospar, which reported an average of 8,787
tonnes per day. The third position was occupied
by TMG, in Santos (SP), which handled 6,091
tonnes per day, with a decrease of 14.5% in relation
to the average reported between July 2007
and June 2008.
Navegantes Pier in Porto Alegre had the lowest
delay time among public piers, with an average
of less than one hour, followed by the Port of
Pelotas, with an average time of 2 hours and Recife,
with an average of 11 hours for docking.
Among terminals, Serra Morena, in Porto Alegre,
and the PT Oleoplan reported an average
delay time of less than 1 hour, whereas vessels
took 61 hours to dock, on average, in the Yara
Fertilizantes terminal and up to 73 hours in the
PT Fospar in Paranaguá (PR).
The lowest price for port services charged
per tonne of fertilizer among public ports in
2008 was R$11.30, an amount charged by
the port of Santos (SP), 18.2% lower than the
price charged by the port of Rio Grande (RS), in
the second position, and 70.4% lower than the
price charged by the Port of Aratu (BA), the
highest price. Among terminals, the lowest
price was charged by the Yara Fertilizantes terminal,
at R$8.49, 20.3% lower than the price
charged by the Tefer/TMG terminal in Santos,
in the second position, and 56.6% lower that
the Fospar terminal in Paranaguá (PR), which
had the highest price.
25

l Waterway Panorama
Public Pier – Fertilizers – Amount (In tonnes)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Mult.Use)
3.000.282
4.749.831
2.429.692
Rio Grande
Public Pier
737.164
1.266.210
978.057
Aratu
Public Pier
410.699
769.845
514.881
Itaqui
Public Pier
467.836
453.541
378.210
Santos
Public Pier
289.169
879.645
352.418
Porto Alegre
Cais Navegantes
445.150
357.972
257.318
Imbituba
Public Pier
88.247
192.377
185.557
Maceió
Public Pier
121.861
126.515
116.686
Recife
Public Pier
296.811
231.609
112.302
São Fco do Sul
Public Pier
-
29.010
102.332
Vitória
Cais Capuaba
15.804
105.721
56.106
Salvador
Public Pier
11.591
39.001
39.670
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Corex)
71.467
-
37.142
Pelotas
Commercial Pier
19.181
17.261
13.111
Leased Terminals / PT – Fertilizers – Amount (In tonnes)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Rio Grande
Yara Fertilizantes
3.017.180
3.643.545
1.775.873
Paranaguá
TUP Fospar
1.632.731
2.366.379
1.564.945
Santos
TMG
1.043.230
1.358.717
719.185
Santos
Ultrafértil
1.188.277
886.608
677.702
Tubarão
TUP Tubarão
-
184.948
410.590
Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa
TUP Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa
-
-
205.216
Porto Alegre
Serra Morena
-
30.675
145.438
Vitória
Peiú
32.300
146.669
140.838
São Fco do Sul
TESC
47.000
408.551
116.122
Oleoplan
TUP Oleoplan
-
-
11.837
26

Public Pier – Fertilizers – Average Sheet (t/d)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
São Fco do Sul
Public Pier
-
3.953
11.292
Salvador
Public Pier
1.095
1.987
6.014
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Mult. Use)
3.226
5.016
5.678
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Corex)
4.919
-
4.223
Imbituba
Public Pier
3.879
3.900
4.046
Santos
Public Pier
2.943
5.174
3.728
Porto Alegre
Cais Navegantes
2.403
2.424
2.848
Itaqui
Public Pier
2.684
2.293
2.658
Rio Grande
Public Pier
2.729
2.827
2.494
Recife
Public Pier
2.183
2.233
2.331
Vitória
Cais Capuaba
4.683
1.668
2.156
Aratu
Public Pier
2.652
2.224
1.431
Pelotas
Commercial Pier
1.202
1.770
1.414
Maceió
Public Pier
2.395
1.291
1.265
Public Pier – Fertilizer – Average Delay Time (h/n)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Porto Alegre
Cais Navegantes
01
01
0
Pelotas
Commercial Pier
0
0
02
Recife
Public Pier
21
22
11
Salvador
Public Pier
01
73
22
Santos
Public Pier
25
39
41
Imbituba
Public Pier
29
72
52
Maceió
Public Pier
160
163
55
Rio Grande
Public Pier
57
74
60
São Fco do Sul
Public Pier
-
70
70
Itaqui
Public Pier
63
87
108
Vitória
Cais Capuaba
11
57
135
Aratu
Public Pier
75
136
146
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Mult. Use)
166
529
165
Paranaguá
Public Pier (Corex)
207
-
190
27

l Waterway Panorama
Leased Terminals / PT – Fertilizers – Average Sheet (t/d)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa
TUP Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa
-
-
9.748
Paranaguá
TUP Fospar
8.350
8.676
8.787
Santos
TMG
4.671
7.122
6.091
Tubarão
TUP Tubarão
-
5.728
5.444
Santos
Ultrafértil
7.229
4.657
4.897
São Fco do Sul
TESC
1.788
3.718
3.926
Rio Grande
Yara Fertilizantes
2.538
2.552
3.144
Vitória
Peiú
2.196
3.356
2.854
Oleoplan
TUP Oleoplan
-
-
2.402
Porto Alegre
Serra Morena
-
1.381
1.715
Leased Terminals / PT – Fertilizers – Average Delay Time (h/n)
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Porto Alegre
Serra Morena
-
0
0
Oleoplan
TUP Oleoplan
-
-
0
Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa
TUP Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa
-
-
24
Rio Grande
Yara Fertilizantes
53
78
61
Paranaguá
TUP Fospar
139
287
73
São Fco do Sul
TESC
22
88
82
Vitória
Peiú
30
56
141
Santos
Ultrafértil
237
255
164
Santos
TMG
291
280
204
Tubarão
TUP Tubarão
-
252
262
28

PRICES – FERTILIZERS – 2008
Port Terminal R$* US$*
SANTOS
Cais Publico
11,30
4,84
RIO GRANDE
Public Pier
13,81
5,91
IMBITUBA
Public Pier
14,73
6,30
Public Ports
ITAQUI
MACEIÓ
PARANAGUÁ
Public Pier
Cais Publico
Múltiplo Uso
15,92
20,22
22,06
6,81
8,65
9,44
RECIFE
Public Pier
24,07
10,30
PORTO ALEGRE
Cais Navegantes
25,23
10,80
ARATU
Cais Publico
38,17
16,33
RIO GRANDE
Yara Fertilizantes*
8,49
3,63
Leased
Terminals
SANTOS
SANTOS
PARANAGUÁ
Tefer/TMG
Ultrafértil *
Fospar
10,85
13,66
19,59
4,64
5,85
8,38
* Private Terminal
Quotation on 12/31/2008: US$1.00 = R$2.3370
29

l Waterway Panorama
Attractiveness Indicators
This indicator is composed of four variables:
total amount handled, average delay time
for ships to dock and average sheet during
the second half of 2008 and first half of 2009,
and average handling price per unit (containers)
or tonnes (dry bulk) during the year 2008.
For each variable, scores were given ranging
from five to ten, multiplied by weights that reflect
the relative importance of each indicator in
terms of cargo handled. The final score for
each port or terminal has a weighted average
of four scores.
For the handling of containers, the weight
three was given to indicators “amount handled”
and “average price”, and weights 2.5 (two and
a half) and 1.5 (one and a half) were given to
indicators “delay time” and “average sheet”, respectively.
For the handling of soybean (grain and
bran), wheat and fertilizers, the weights given
were four to “amount handled”, three to “average
price”, one to “delay time”, and two to
“average sheet”.
The indicators measure the attractiveness of
each port or terminal on users. The overall
ranking for each indicator, referring to the handling
of containers, soybean and bran, wheat
and fertilizers, is presented below.
To create this ranking, we considered only
ports and terminals that are fully integrated into
the Port Performance System.
FINAL SCORE – SOYBEAN AND BRAN – 2008/2009
Public ports
Port Terminal Score
PARANAGUÁ
SÃO FRANCISCO DO SUL
ILHÉUS
Corex
Public Pier
Public Pier
Leased terminals
9,29
7,09
5,50
Port Terminal Score
SANTOS
SANTOS
SANTOS
RIO GRANDE
RIO GRANDE
RIO GRANDE
Corex (ADM)
TGG
Cargill
Bianchini
Tergrasa
Termasa*
8,78
7,99
7,42
6,46
6,15
5,90
*Private Terminal
30

FINAL SCORE – CONTAINERS – 2008/2009
Public ports
Port Terminal Score
SANTOS
NATAL
ITAJAÍ
BELÉM
SÃO FRANCISCO DO SUL
FORTALEZA
VILA DO CONDE
IMBITUBA
SALVADOR
SANTOS
SANTOS
RIO GRANDE
SALVADOR
Right Bank
Public Pier
Commercial Pier
Public Pier
Public Pier
Public Pier
Public Pier
Public Pier
Public Pier
Tecon
Libra (T37)
Tecon
Tecon
Leased terminals
8,44
7,43
7,41
7,25
7,21
7,21
7,15
7,13
6,47
9,06
8,03
7,70
7,66
Port Terminal Score
SANTOS
PARANAGUÁ
SUAPE
VITÓRIA
ITAJAÍ
SANTOS
Libra (T35)
TCP
Tecon
TVV
Teconvi
Tecondi
7,29
6,74
6,60
6,56
6,49
6,25
*Private Terminal
31

l Waterway Panorama
FINAL SCORE – WHEAT – 2008/2009
Public ports
Port Terminal Score
FORTALEZA
SANTOS
NATAL
CABEDELO
RECIFE
SALVADOR
SÃO FRANCISCO DO SUL
VITÓRIA
IMBITUBA
MACEIÓ
BELÉM
Public Pier
Right Bank
Public Pier
Public Pier
Public Pier
Moinho Salvador
Public Pier
Capuaba
Public Pier
Cais Publico
Public Pier
Leased terminals
9,92
8,45
7,45
7,14
6,84
6,65
6,61
6,47
6,44
6,21
5,82
Port Terminal Score
RIO GRANDE
SANTOS
RIO GRANDE
SANTOS
SÃO FRANCISCO DO SUL
PORTO ALEGRE
Termasa
Corex (ADM)
Tergrasa
Moinho Santista
Tesc
Serra Morena
8,12
7,35
7,14
7,08
6,84
5,71
FINAL SCORE – FERTILIZERS – 2008/2009
Public ports
Port Terminal Score
PARANAGUÁ
RIO GRANDE
SANTOS
IMBITUBA
ITAQUI
PORTO ALEGRE
RECIFE
MACEIÓ
ARATU
Múltiplo Uso
Public Pier
Cais Publico
Public Pier
Public Pier
Cais Navegantes
Public Pier
Cais Publico
Cais Publico
Leased terminals
8,90
7,70
7,64
7,34
6,96
6,71
6,50
6,34
5,44
Port Terminal Score
RIO GRANDE
Yara Fertilizantes*
9,00
PARANAGUÁ
Fospar
8,07
SANTOS
TMG
6,78
32
SANTOS
Ultrafértil *
6,25
*Terminal de Uso Privativo

Total cargo handling at
private ports and terminals
In the first half of 2009, Brazilian ports handled
a total 335,924,894 tonnes, with a decrease
of 1.7% over the same period last year, when
the national volume was 341,664,477 tonnes.
In 2008, total handling was 768,323,550
tonnes, with an increase of 1.8% in relation to
2007, when it reached 754,716,655 tonnes. In
the five-year series, there was an increase of
23.7%.
By nature of the cargo, bulk solid handling
was 3.5% lower in the first half of 2009 compared
to the same period last year, falling from
201,159,709 tonnes (58.8%) to 194,015,929
tonnes (57.7% of the total volume ). In 2008, the
bulk solid handling was 460,187,652 tonnes
(59.9% of the total volume), remaining stable in
relation to the previous year. In the five-year series,
bulk solid handling rose 24.5%.
Bulk liquid handling was 3.2% higher in the
first half of 2009 over the same period last year,
rising from 92,282,654 tonnes (27% of the total
volume) to 95,234,730 tonnes (28.3% of the total
volume). In 2008, bulk liquid handling was
195,637,355 tonnes (25.4% of the total volume),
remaining stable in relation to 2007. In the
five-year series, bulk liquid handling rose 17.4%.
General cargo handling had an increase of
1.1% in the first half of 2009 over the same period
last year, rising from 16,899,556 tonnes (5%
of the total volume) to 17,092,302 tonnes (5% of
the total volume). In 2008, general cargo handling
was 39,250,312 tonnes (5.1% of the total
volume), with an increase of 12.9% over the previous
year. In the five-year series, general cargo
handling rose 15.2%.
Container handling had a decrease of 5.8%
in the first half of 2009, compared to the first
quarter of 2008, falling from 31,322,558 tonnes
(9.1% of the total volume) to 29,581,933 tonnes
(8.8% of the total volume). In 2008, container
handling was 73,248,231 tonnes (9.5% of the
total volume), with an increase of 7.8% over
2007. In the five-year series, container handling
rose 45.1%.
By type of shipping, long-haul handling had a
decrease of 4.7% in relation to first half of 2008
and 2009, falling from 254,607,463 tonnes
(74.5% of the total volume) to 242,541,731
tonnes (72.2% of the total volume). In 2008, the
long-haul handling was 568,404,889 tonnes
(74% of the total volume), with an increase of
1.67% compared to 2007. In the five-year series,
there was an increase of 27.1%.
Cabotage handling had an increase of 6.5%
between the first half of 2008 and 2009, rising
from 74,894,198 tonnes (21.9% of the total
volume) to 79,798,581 tonnes (23.7% of the total
volume). In 2008, cabotage handling was
167,342,279 tonnes (21.8% of the total movement),
virtually unchanged compared with
2007. In the five-year series, there was an increase
of 12.7%.
Other types of navigation had handlings
11.7% higher in the first half of 2009 over the
same period last year, with an increase from
12,162,817 tonnes (3.5% of the total volume) to
13,584,582 tonnes (4% of the total volume). In
2008, other types of navigation totaled
32,576,382 tonnes (4.2% of the total volume),
with an increase of 19.7% over 2007. In the
five-year series, there was an increase of 29.4%.
In relation to foreign trade, long-haul cargo
handling was divided as follows: a) 45,814,690
tonnes (18.8% of the total volume) imported in
the first half of 2009, against 55,798,341
tonnes (21.9% of the total volume) in the same
period of 2008, with a decrease of 17.9%; and
b) 196,727,041 tonnes (81.2% of the total volume)
exported in the first half of 2009, compared
with 198,809,121 tonne (78.1% of the total
volume) in the same period of 2008, with a
decrease of 1%.
In 2008, imports reported 114,696,055
tonnes (20.1% of the total volume), being stable
compared to 2007. In the five-year series, imports
rose 20%.
Exports, in turn, reported 454,629,292 tonnes
(79.9% of the total volume) in 2008 compared to
447,837,373 tonnes (80.1%) in 2007, with an
increase of 1.5% in the period. In the five-year
series, exports rose 29.3%.
33

l Waterway Panorama
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO
In tonnes
Year Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total
2004
369.611.250
166.555.087
34.077.930
50.476.278
620.720.545
2005
392.903.932
163.717.494
37.833.211
54.964.144
649.418.781
2006
415.727.739
175.541.324
38.225.648
63.338.757
692.833.468
2007
457.435.373
194.598.576
34.760.346
67.922.360
754.716.655
2008
460.187.652
195.637.355
39.250.312
73.248.231
768.323.550
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO
In tonnes
Period Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total
1st Half of 2008
201.159.709
92.282.654
16.899.556
31.322.558
341.664.477
1st Half of 2009
194.015.929
95.234.730
17.092.302
29.581.933
335.924.894
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF SHIPPING
Year Long Haul Cabotage
2004
447.136.221 148.418.917
2005
473.057.421 150.112.048
2006
502.919.319 163.520.202
2007
559.045.893 168.455.583
2008
568.404.889 167.342.279
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
Outras
Navegações
25.165.407
26.249.312
26.393.947
27.215.179
32.576.382
Total
In tonnes
620.720.545
649.418.781
692.833.468
754.716.655
768.323.550
ANNUAL EVOLUTION OF FOREIGN TRADE
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING
In tonnes
Year Imports Exports Total
2004
95.547.924
2005
82.974.736
2006
90.010.736
2007
111.208.520
2008
114.696.055
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
351.588.297
390.082.685
412.908.583
447.837.373
454.629.292
447.136.221
473.057.421
502.919.319
559.045.893
569.325.347
34

BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF SHIPPING
In tonnes
Period Long Haul Cabotage Other Total
1st Half of 2008
254.607.463
74.894.198
12.162.817
341.664.478
1st Half of 2009
242.541.731
79.798.581
13.584.582
335.924.894
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION OF FOREIGN TRADE
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING
In tonnes
Period Imports Exports Total
1st Half of 2008
55.798.341
198.809.121
254.607.462
1st Half of 2009
45.814.690
196.727.041
242.541.731
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
35

l Waterway Panorama
North Region
The ports of the North Region handled
24,837,628 tonnes (7.4% of the total volume)
in the first half of 2009, with an increase
of 15.2% over the first half of 2008, when
total handling was 21,555,421 tonnes (63% of
the total volume). In 2008, total handling in the
north was 63,793,657 tonnes (8.3% of the national
volume), with an increase of 10.3% over
2007 and 26.6% in the five-year series.
By type of cargo, bulk solid handling in the
North was 16,920,287 tonnes in the first half of
2009 against 14,681,914 tonnes in the same
period last year, representing an increase of
15.2%. In 2008, bulk solid handling was
43,329,418 tonnes (68% of the total regional
volume and 9.42% of the bulk solids handled in
Brazil), with an increase of 4.9% over 2007 and
27.4% in the five-year series.
Bulk liquid handling was 5,687,126 tonnes in
the first half of 2009 against 4,655,420 tonnes
in the same period of 2008, with an increasing
22.1%. In 2008, bulk liquid handling was
12,293,218 tonnes (19.2% of the total regional
volume and 6.28% of bulk liquids handled in
Brazil), with an increase of 1% over 2007 and
7.8% in the five-year series.
General cargo handling was 778,705 tonnes
in the first half of 2009, with a decrease of
42% over the same period in 2008, when handling
was 1,343,701 tonnes. In 2008, general
cargo handling was 4,397,308 tonnes (6.9% of
the total regional volume and 11.2% of the
general cargo handled in the country), with an
increase of 53.5% over 2007 and 37.7% in the
five-year series.
Container handling reported 1,451,510
tonnes in the first half of 2008, with an increase
of 66% over the first six months of 2008, which
reported 874,386 tonnes. In 2008, container
handling was 3,773,713 tonnes (5.9% of the total
regional volume and 5.15% of the national
container handling), with an increase of 138.5%
over 2007 and 111.8% in the five-year series.
By type of navigation, long-haul shipping handled,
in the North Region, 7,657,965 tonnes in
the first half of 2009, representing an increase of
2.4% over the same period in 2008, when
7,474,171 tonnes were handled. In 2008, longhaul
shipping handled 24,731,259 tonnes
(38.7% of the total regional volume and 4.35%
of the total long-haul volume in Brazil) in the
North Region, with an increase of 26% compared
to 2007 and 35% in the five-year series.
Cabotage handled 10,095,018 tonnes in the
first half of 2009, 2.3% more than in the first six
months of 2008, when 9,869,915 tonnes were
handled. In 2008, the cabotage reported
24,269,040 tonnes handled (38% of the total regional
volume and 14.5% of total Brazilian cabotage),
with a decrease of 13.1% over 2007 and
an increase of 5.9% in the five-year series.
Other types of navigation totaled 7,084,645
tonnes handled in the first half of 2009, with an
increase of 68.2% over the same semester in the
previous year. In 2008, other types of navigation
handled 14,793,358 tonnes (23.15% of the total
regional volume and 45.41% of the national
volume handled by all types of navigation, except
long-haul shipping and cabotage), with an increase
of 44% over 2007 and 61.7% in the fiveyear
series.
Imports handled 1,371,367 tonnes and exports
handled 6,286,598 tonnes in the first half
of 2009, with a decrease of 23.1% and an increase
of 10.5%, respectively, in relation to the
same period last year. In 2008, imports totaled
3,341,567 tonnes (13.6% of the total regional
volume and 2.91% of the national volume) and
exports 21,203,046 handled tonnes (86.4% of
the total regional volume and 4.66% of the national
volume), with increases of 44.5% and
22.4% over 2007, respectively, and 70% and
29.6% in the five-year series, respectively.
36

Participation of the North Region in Handling in Brazil
By Type of Cargo
12,00%
10,00%
l 2004 l 2006 l 2008
8,00%
6,00%
4,00%
2,00%
0,00%
Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO
In tonnes
Year Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total
2003
28.044.137
10.635.946
2.160.235
1.777.493
42.617.811
2004
34.012.641
11.399.655
3.191.710
1.781.400
50.385.406
2005
35.324.423
11.099.143
3.251.678
1.501.246
51.176.490
2006
41.558.600
11.766.389
3.131.075
2.067.520
58.523.584
2007
41.304.061
12.086.457
2.864.512
1.581.820
57.836.850
2008
43.329.418
12.293.218
4.397.308
3.773.713
63.793.657
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO
In tonnes
Period Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total
1st Half of 2008
14.681.914
4.655.420
1.343.701
874.386
21.555.421
1st Half of 2009
16.920.287
5.687.126
778.705
1.451.510
24.837.628
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
37

l Waterway Panorama
50,00%
Participation of the North Region in Handling in Brazil
By Type of Navigation
40,00%
l 2004 l 2006 l 2008
30,00%
20,00%
10,00%
0,00%
Long Haul Cabotage Other
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF NAVIGATION
In tonnes
Year Long Haul Cabotage
Outras
Navegações
Total
2003
13.274.676
22.456.318
6.886.817
42.617.811
2004
18.321.155
22.916.415
9.147.836
50.385.406
2005
17.424.538
23.853.854
9.898.098
51.176.490
2006
18.649.534
30.108.111
9.765.939
58.523.584
2007
19.635.045
27.929.276
10.272.529
57.836.850
2008
24.731.259
24.269.040
14.793.358
63.793.657
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF NAVIGATION
Period Long Haul Cabotage
1st Half of 2008 7.474.171 9.869.915
1st Half of 2009 7.657.965 10.095.018
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
Outras
Navegações
4.211.335
7.084.645
Total
In tonnes
21.555.421
24.837.628
38

Participation of the North Region in Foreign Trade Long-Haul Cargo Handling
5,00%
4,00%
3,00%
2,00%
l 2004
l 2006
l 2008
1,00%
0,00%
Imports
Exports
ANNUAL EVOLUTION OF FOREIGN TRADE
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING
In tonnes
Year Imports Exports Total
2003
1.844.893
2004
1.964.973
2005
1.734.724
2006
2.086.330
2007
2.312.477
2008
3.341.567
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
11.429.783
16.356.182
15.689.814
16.563.204
17.322.568
21.203.046
13.274.676
18.321.155
17.424.538
18.649.534
19.635.045
24.544.613
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION OF FOREIGN TRADE
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING
In tonnes
Period Imports Exports Total
1st Half of 2008
1.784.804
5.689.367
7.474.171
1st Half of 2009
1.371.367
6.286.598
7.657.965
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
39

l Waterway Panorama
Northeast Region
In the first half of 2009, the ports in the Northeast
Region handled 74,124,495 tonnes (22%
of the total volume), with a decrease of 4.65%
over the same period of 2008, which recorded
77,745,269 tonnes handled (22.7% of the total
volume). In 2008, total handling in the Northeast
was 176,424,179 tonnes (23% of the national
volume), with an increase of 8.3% over 2007 and
31.2% in the five-year series.
By type of loading, bulk solid handling in the
Northeast was 47,324,486 tonnes in the first
half of 2009 against 50,848,369 tonnes in the
same period last year, representing a decrease of
6.9%. In 2008, bulk solid handling was
116,635,887 tonnes (66.1% of the total regional
volume and 25.35% of the bulk solids handled in
Brazil), with an increase of 9% over 2007 and
34% in the five-year series.
In the first half of 2009, bulk liquid handling
was 21,360,738 tonnes against 22,168,901
tonnes in the same period in 2008, with a decrease
of 3.6%. In 2008, bulk liquid handling
was 47,865,036 tonnes (27.1% of the total regional
volume and 24.47% of bulk liquids handled
in Brazil), with an increase of 2.3% over
2007 and 18.3% in the five-year series.
In the first half of 2009, general cargo handling
was 2,295,551 tonnes, with a decrease of
57.8% over the same period in 2008, when
1,454,879 tonnes were handled. In 2008, general
cargo handling was 5,021,054 tonnes
(2.84% of the total regional volume and 12.79%
of the national general cargo volume), with an
increase of 186.7% over 2007 and 85.8% in the
five-year series.
Container handling reported 3,143,720
tonnes handled in the first half of 2008, with a
decrease of 3.95% over the first six months of
2008, which reported 3,273,120 tonnes. In
2008, container handling was 6,902,202 tonnes
(3.9% of the total regional volume and 9.42% of
the national volume of containers handled), with
a decrease of 6% over 2007 and an increase of
61.9% in the five-year series.
By type of navigation, long-haul shipping handled,
in the Northeast Region, 53,452,391
tonnes in the first half of 2009, with a decrease
of 9% over the same period in 2008, when
58,726,745 tonnes were handled. In 2008,
long-haul shipping handled 127,339,438 tonnes
(72.1% of the total regional volume and 22.4%
of total volume handled by long-haul shipping in
Brazil) in the Northeast Region, with an increase
of 9.23% in relation to 2007 and 37.6% in the
five-year series.
Cabotage handled 20,298,087 tonnes in the
first half of 2009, 9.7% more than in the first six
months of 2008, when 18,504,717 tonnes were
handled. In 2008, cabotage reported
47,237,459 tonnes handled (26.7% of the total
regional volume and 28.23% of total Brazilian
cabotage), with an increase of 8% over 2007 and
8.7% in the five-year series.
Other types of navigation totaled 374,017
tonnes handled in the first half of 2009, with a
decrease of 27% over the same period last year.
In 2008, other types of navigation handled
1,847,282 tonnes (1% of the total regional volume
and 5.67% of the national volume handled
by all types of navigation, except long-haul
shipping and cabotage), with a decrease of
28.2% compared to 2007 and 14.2% in the
five-year series.
Imports handled 6,406,009 tonnes and exports
handled 47,046,382 tonnes in the first half
of 2009, with decreases of 9.2%% and 8.9% respectively,
in relation to the same period last
year. In 2008, imports totaled 16,538,748
tonnes (13% of total regional volume and
14.42% of the national volume) and exports totaled
110,800,690 tonnes (87% of total regional
volume and 24.37% of the national volume),
with increases of 2.92% and 10.24% compared
to 2007, respectively, and 39% and 61.38% in
the five-year series, respectively.
40

Participation of the Northeast Region in Handling in Brazil
By Type of Navigation
30,00%
25,00%
20,00%
l 2004 l 2006 l 2008
15,00%
10,00%
5,00%
0,00%
Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO
In tonnes
Year Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total
2003
76.543.614
36.292.240
2.599.609
3.799.261
119.234.724
2004
87.035.906
40.461.485
2.701.513
4.263.262
134.462.166
2005
95.371.684
43.038.867
3.019.461
4.595.287
146.025.299
2006
102.626.924
44.926.330
2.249.514
5.564.846
155.367.614
2007
106.987.844
46.770.782
1.751.151
7.347.751
162.857.528
2008
116.635.887
47.865.036
5.021.054
6.902.202
176.424.179
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO
In tonnes
Period Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total
1st Half of 2008
50.848.369
22.168.901
1.454.879
3.273.120
77.745.269
1st Half of 2009
47.324.486
21.360.738
2.295.551
3.143.720
74.124.495
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
41

l Waterway Panorama
30,00%
Participation of the Northeast Region in Handling in Brazil
By Type of Navigation
25,00%
20,00%
l 2004 l 2006 l 2008
15,00%
10,00%
5,00%
0,00%
Long Haul Cabotage Other
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF NAVIGATION
Year Long Haul Cabotage
2003
80.487.422 36.558.642
2004
92.516.468 39.792.857
2005
101.580.195 42.140.599
2006
109.136.211 44.173.738
2007
116.569.066 43.715.251
2008
127.339.438 47.237.459
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
Outras
Navegações
2.188.660
2.152.841
2.304.505
2.057.665
2.573.211
1.847.282
Total
In tonnes
119.234.724
134.462.166
146.025.299
155.367.614
162.857.528
176.424.179
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF NAVIGATION
In tonnes
Period Long Haul Cabotage
Outras
Navegações
Total
1st Half of 2008
58.726.745
18.504.717
513.807
77.745.269
1st Half of 2009
53.452.391
20.298.087
374.017
74.124.495
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
42

Participation of the Northeast Region in Foreign Trade
Long-Haul Cargo Handling
30,00%
25,00%
20,00%
15,00%
l 2004
l 2006
l 2008
10,00%
5,00%
0,00%
Imports
Exports
ANNUAL EVOLUTION FOREIGN TRADE
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING
In tonnes
Year Imports Exports Total
2003
11.831.006
2004
12.646.192
2005
11.920.533
2006
13.062.763
2007
16.069.105
2008
16.538.748
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
68.656.416
79.870.276
89.659.662
96.073.448
100.499.961
110.800.690
80.487.422
92.516.468
101.580.195
109.136.211
116.569.066
127.339.438
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION OF FOREIGN TRADE
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING
In tonnes
Period Imports Exports Total
1st Half of 2008
7.055.949
51.670.796
58.726.745
1st Half of 2009
6.406.009
47.046.382
53.452.391
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
43

l Waterway Panorama
Southwest Region
In first half of 2009, the ports in the Southeast
Region handled 187,755,857 tonnes (55.9%
of the total volume), being virtually stable in relation
to the same period in 2008, which reported
188,689,838 tonnes handled (55.2% of the total
volume). In 2008, total handling in the
Southeast Region was 424,506,544 tonnes
(55.2% of the national volume), being stable over
2007 and representing an increase of 33.4% in
the five-year series.
By type of cargo, bulk solid handling in the
Southeast Region was 106,217,837 tonnes in the
first half of 2009 against 108,452,157 tonnes in
the same period last year, representing a decrease
of 2%. In 2008, the bulk solid handling
was 253,803,646 tonnes (59.8% of the total regional
volume and 55.15% of the total volume
handled in Brazil), with a decrease of 1.3% over
2007 and 36.4% in the five-year series.
In the first half of 2009, bulk liquid handling
was 54,145,264 tonnes against 50,866,773
tonnes in the same period in 2008, with an increase
of 6.4%. In 2008, bulk liquid handling
was 106,041,422 tonnes (25% of the total regional
volume and 54.2% of bulk liquids handled
in Brazil), being stable over 2007 and rising
18.8% in the five-year series.
In the first half of 2009, general cargo handling
was 11,241,111 tonnes, with an increase
of 7.1% over the same period in 2008, when
10,494,998 tonnes were handled. In 2008, general
cargo handling was 23,657,847 tonnes
(5.6% of total regional volume and 60.27% of
the national volume of general cargo handled),
being stable in relation to 2007 and rising 15%
in the five-year series.
Container handling reported 16,151,645
tonnes in the first half of 2008, with a decrease
of 14.4% over the first six months of 2008, which
reported 18,875,910 tonnes. In 2008, container
handling reported 41,003,629 tonnes (9.6% of
the total regional volume and 56% of the national
volume of containers handled), with an increase
of 8% over 2007 and 83.3% in the fiveyear
series.
By type of navigation, long-haul shipping handled,
in the Southeast Region, 145,324,216
tonnes in the first half of 2009, with a decrease
of 2.4% over the same period in 2008, when the
148,934,016 tonnes were handled. In 2008,
long-haul shipping handled 341,951,426 tonnes
(80.5% of the total regional volume and 60.16%
of the total volume handled by long-haul shipping
in Brazil) in the Southeast Region, being stable
in relation to 2007 and rising 26.7% in the
five-year series.
Cabotage handled 40,456,352 tonnes in the
first half of 2009, 7.4% more than in the first six
months of 2008, when 37,670,508 tonnes were
handled. In 2008, cabotage reported
78,808,201 tonnes handled (18.5% of the total
regional volume and 47.09% of total Brazilian
cabotage), with a decrease of 0.9% over 2007
and an increase of 9.2% in the five-year series.
Other types of navigation totaled 1,975,289
tonnes handled in the first half of 2009, with a
decrease of 5.2% over the same period last year.
In 2008, other types of navigation handled
3,746,917 tonnes (0.88% of total regional volume
and 11.50% of the national volume handled
by all types of navigation, except long-haul
shipping and cabotage), with an increase of
1.32% in relation to 2007 and 24.9% in the fiveyear
series.
Imports handled 27,826,661 tonnes and exports
handled 117,497,555 tonnes in the first
half of 2009, with a decrease 10.1%, and stable
handling, respectively, compared to the same
period last year. In 2008, imports totaled
63,819,520 tonnes (18.6% of the total regional
volume and 55.64% of the national volume) and
exports totaled 278,114,487 tonnes (81.4% of
the total regional volume and 61.17% of national
volume) , with an increase of 2.8% and a decrease
of 0.6% over 2007, respectively, and an
increase of 26.3% and 44.5% in the five-year series,
respectively.
44

Participation of the Southwest Region in Handling in Brazil
By Type of Cargo
80,00%
70,00%
l 2004 l 2006 l 2008
60,00%
50,00%
40,00%
30,00%
20,00%
10,00%
0,00%
Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO
In tonnes
Year Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total
2003
185.992.677
89.258.650
20.560.746
22.366.228
318.178.301
2004
205.299.878
90.355.920
21.872.396
27.629.178
345.157.372
2005
225.822.417
84.346.019
23.021.346
31.857.526
365.047.308
2006
227.577.132
91.876.077
25.851.187
36.525.878
381.830.274
2007
257.196.970
106.210.336
23.545.636
37.946.862
424.899.804
2008
253.803.646
106.041.422
23.657.847
41.003.629
424.506.544
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO
In tonnes
Period Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total
1st Half of 2008
108.452.157
50.866.773
10.494.998
18.875.910
188.689.838
1st Half of 2009
106.217.837
54.145.264
11.241.111
16.151.645
187.755.857
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
45

l Waterway Panorama
Participation of the Southwest Region in Handling in Brazil
By Type of Navigation
70,00%
60,00%
l 2004 l 2006 l 2008
50,00%
40,00%
30,00%
20,00%
10,00%
0,00%
Long Haul Cabotage Other
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF NAVIGATION
Year Long Haul Cabotage
2003
242.958.327 72.219.400
2004
269.911.593 72.162.060
2005
290.450.897 70.930.456
2006
305.256.535 74.002.356
2007
342.019.497 79.570.557
2008
341.951.426 78.808.201
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
Outras
Navegações
3.000.574
3.083.719
3.665.955
2.571.383
3.309.750
3.746.917
Total
In tonnes
318.178.301
345.157.372
365.047.308
381.830.274
424.899.804
424.506.544
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF NAVIGATION
Period Long Haul Cabotage
1st Half of 2008 148.934.016 37.670.508
1st Half of 2009 145.324.216 40.456.352
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
Outras
Navegações
2.085.314
1.975.289
Total
In tonnes
188.689.838
187.755.857
46

Participation of the Southwest Region in Foreign Trade
Long-Haul Cargo Handling
70,00%
60,00%
50,00%
40,00%
l 2004
l 2006
l 2008
30,00%
20,00%
10,00%
0,00%
Imports
Exports
ANNUAL EVOLUTION OF FOREIGN TRADE
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING
In tonnes
Year Imports Exports Total
2003
50.528.748
2004
57.164.778
2005
46.774.491
2006
50.735.979
2007
62.067.874
2008
63.819.520
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
192.429.579
212.746.815
243.676.406
254.520.556
279.951.623
278.114.487
242.958.327
269.911.593
290.450.897
305.256.535
342.019.497
341.934.007
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION OF FOREIGN TRADE
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING
In tonnes
Period Imports Exports Total
1st Half of 2008
30.977.688
117.956.328
148.934.016
1st Half of 2009
27.826.661
117.497.555
145.324.216
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
47

l Waterway Panorama
South Region
In the first half of 2009, the ports in the South
Region handled 48,165,143 tonnes (14.33%
of the total volume), with a decrease of 5.5%
over the same period in 2008, which reported
50,964,175 tonnes handled (14.91% of the total
volume). In 2008, total movement in the
South Region was 99,254,790 tonnes (12.91%
of national), with a decrease of 6.8% over 2007
and 12.8% in the five-year series.
By type of cargo, bulk solid handling in the
South was 22,525,612 tonnes in the first half of
2009 against 24,467,495 tonnes in the same
period last year, representing a decrease of
7.9%. In 2008, bulk solid handling was
42,074,321 tonnes (42.39% of the total regional
volume and 9.14% of total bulk solids handled in
Brazil), with a decrease of 14.7% over 2007 and
an increase of 3.2% in the five-year series.
In the first half of 2009, bulk liquid handling
was 14,040,329 tonnes against 14,591,560
tonnes in the same period of 2008, with a decrease
of 3.7%. In 2008, bulk liquid handling
was 29,437,679 tonnes (29.65% of the total regional
volume and 15.05% of bulk liquids handled
in Brazil), being stable over 2007 and rising
21.2% in the five-year series.
In the first half of 2009, general cargo handling
was 2,764,144 tonnes, with a decrease of
23.3% over the same period in 2008, when
3,605,978 tonnes were handled. In 2008, general
cargo handling was 7,504,882 tonnes
(7.56% of the total regional volume and 19.12%
of the national volume of general cargo handled),
with an increase of 13.85% over 2007 and
22.35% in the five-year series.
Container handling recorded 8,835,058
tonnes handled in the first half of 2009, with an
increase of 6.4% in the first six months of 2008,
which recorded 8,299,142 tonnes handled. In
2008, container handling was 20,237,908
tonnes (20.38% of the total regional volume and
27.63% of the national volume of containers
handled), with a decrease of 3.8% over 2007
and an increase of 20.4% in the five-year series.
By type of navigation, long-haul shipping handled,
in the South Region, 35,552,512 tonnes in
the first half of 2009, with a decrease of 8.7%
over the same period in 2008, when the drive
was 38,967,974 tonnes. In 2008, long-haul
shipping handled 74,382,766 tonnes (74.94% of
total regional volume and 13.09% of the volume
handled by long-haul shipping in Brazil) in the
South Region, with a decrease of 1.23% in relation
to 2007 and an increase of 12 % in the fiveyear
series.
Cabotage handled 8,948,824 tonnes in the
first half of 2009, 1.1% more than in the first six
months of 2008, when 8,849,058 tonnes were
handling. In 2008, cabotage reported
17,026,980 tonnes handled (17.15% of the
total regional volume and 10.17% of total
Brazilian cabotage), with a decrease of 1.23%
over 2007 and an increase of 25.7 % in the
five-year series.
Other types of navigation totaled 3,663,807
tonnes handled in the first half of 2009, with an
increase of 16.4% over the same semester in the
previous year. In 2008, other types of navigation
handled 7,845,044 tonnes (7.9% of the total regional
volume and 24.08% of the national volume
handled by all types of navigation, except
long-haul shipping and cabotage), with a decrease
of 7.2% in relation to 2007 and 2.5% in
the five-year series.
Imports handled 10,210,653 tonnes and exports
handled 25,341,859 tonnes in the first
half of 2009, with a decline of 36% and an increase
of 10.2%, respectively, in relation to the
same period last year. In 2008, imports totaled
30,625,482 tonnes (42% of the total regional
volume and 26.7% of the national volume) and
exports handled 42,190,291 tonnes (58% of
the total regional volume and 9.28% of the national
volume), being stable and dropping
15.7% over 2007, respectively, with an increase
of 28.8% and a decrease of 1% in the five-year
series, respectively.
48

Participation of the South Region in Handling in Brazil
By Type of Cargo
35,00%
30,00%
l 2004 l 2006 l 2008
25,00%
20,00%
15,00%
10,00%
5,00%
0,00%
Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO
In tonnes
Year Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total
2003
43.151.998
25.699.245
5.447.983
13.728.694
88.027.920
2004
40.767.384
24.281.744
6.133.724
16.802.438
87.985.290
2005
33.874.360
25.233.465
8.476.412
17.010.085
84.594.322
2006
40.589.550
26.972.528
6.942.581
19.180.513
93.685.172
2007
49.353.050
29.531.001
6.591.676
21.045.927
106.521.654
2008
42.074.321
29.437.679
7.504.882
20.237.908
99.254.790
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO
In tonnes
Period Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total
1st Half of 2008
24.467.495
14.591.560
3.605.978
8.299.142
50.964.175
1st Half of 2009
22.525.612
14.040.329
2.764.144
8.835.058
48.165.143
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
49

l Waterway Panorama
Participation of the South Region in Brazil
By Type of Navigation
35,00%
30,00%
l 2004 l 2006 l 2008
25,00%
20,00%
15,00%
10,00%
5,00%
0,00%
Long Haul Cabotage Other
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF NAVIGATION
Year Long Haul Cabotage
2003
64.875.843 14.692.165
2004
66.387.005 13.547.585
2005
63.601.791 13.187.139
2006
69.877.039 15.235.997
2007
80.822.285 17.240.499
2008
74.382.766 17.026.980
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
Outras
Navegações
8.459.912
8.050.700
7.805.392
8.572.136
8.458.870
7.845.044
Total
In tonnes
88.027.920
87.985.290
84.594.322
93.685.172
106.521.654
99.254.790
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF NAVIGATION
Period Long Haul Cabotage
1st Half of 2008 38.967.974 8.849.058
1st Half of 2009 35.552.512 8.948.824
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
Outras
Navegações
3.147.144
3.663.807
Total
In tonnes
50.964.175
48.165.143
50

Participation of the South Region in Foreign Trade
Long-Haul Cargo Handling
30,00%
25,00%
20,00%
15,00%
l 2004
l 2006
l 2008
10,00%
5,00%
0,00%
Imports
Exports
ANNUAL EVOLUTION OF FOREIGN TRADE
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING
In tonnes
Year Imports Exports Total
2003
23.510.734
2004
23.771.981
2005
22.544.988
2006
24.125.664
2007
30.759.064
2008
30.625.482
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
41.365.109
42.615.024
41.056.803
45.751.375
50.063.221
42.190.291
64.875.843
66.387.005
63.601.791
69.877.039
80.822.285
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION OF FOREIGN TRADE
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING
In tonnes
Period Imports Exports Total
1st Half of 2008
15.979.096
22.988.878
38.967.974
1st Half of 2009
10.210.653
25.341.859
35.552.512
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals
51

l Waterway Panorama
General Grants Plan
The General Grants Plan (PGO) has identified
19 areas, divided into 45 smaller
areas along the Brazilian coast, which
are priorities for the installation of public ports
or areas targeted at cargo terminals. Prepared
by ANTAQ, in partnership with the Center for
Excellence in Transportation Engineering (Centran),
the study meets the provisions of Decree
6,620 of October 29, 2008.
The process of identifying these areas was
based on three main points. The first point is
to identify the volumes of major current and
projected cargoes to be flown in each vector
logistics. The second point refers to the indication
of minimum depths according to cargoes
expected in charts, on the coast relating
to each logistics vector and in the Amazon
basin.
The third point, in turn, is based on the establishment
of planned or implemented highway,
railway, and waterway networks that
serve or are close to areas suitable for the installation
of public ports and regions targeted
at private terminals.
On April 8, 2009, the director-general of
ANTAQ, Fernando Fialho, presented the plan
to the chief minister of the Special Secretariat
of Ports (SEP), Pedro Brito, at the Agency’s
headquarters in Brasilia during a business
meeting attended by officials and corporate
representatives connected to the port sector.
According to the director-general, the PGO
will guide decisions for public and private investment
in the port infrastructure. According
to Fialho, the plan, alongside the National
Plan of Logistics and Transport (PNLT), represents
the resumption of strategic planning
in Brazil.
The PGO allows public and private investors
to have an integrated view of the port
system and other models, based on load flow
scenarios that consider current scenarios and
projections to 2023. In addition, the plan may
be revised every two years.
52

Premises
I – regional characterization of the country
should be defined based on land and port infrastructure
and the potential flow of cargo
and passengers, as well as the guidelines for
regional development established by the Federal
Government;
II – characterization of the demand and supply
of regional port capacity;
III – competitive impact studies that identify, by
region, the distribution of the potential market,
by product type, among the existing terminals;
IV – calculation of indicators of market concentration;
and
V – aspects of technical, environmental and
operational feasibility to determine, by region,
the appropriate areas for the installation of
new organized ports.
According to the Director-General,
the PGO should serve as reference
for the strategic planning of
port activities by the public and for
the investment decisions of key
representatives of the private sector.
Data from the study itself
should mark the regulatory activity
developed by ANTAQ.
On September 18, 2009, the
SEP approved the PGO proposed
by ANTAQ, transiently. The study
will be reviewed by the Agency and
be subject to the approval of the
SEP within fifteen months, in line
with Administrative Rule SEP/PR
178/2009 and in accordance with
the guidelines and policies of Decree
6.620/2008, taking into account
certain topics and premises
(see charts).
The review should consider
the following points:
l The need for additional studies and surveys submitted by
ANTAQ and implemented to meet the guidelines and policies
established by Decree 6620, of October 29, 2008;
l The fact that, for the fulfillment of items I to IV of Article
44 of Decree 620/2008, the mapping and characterization
of port facilities are necessary conditions, as well as the calculation
of the current and maximum capacity installed,
aiming at optimizing the national port structure, required in
that legal instrument;
l The need for further studies affirming the capacity for expansion
of public ports; and
l The projects of public and private terminals being implemented
in the country.
53

l Waterway Panorama
Environment
Port environmental management
The gathering of information on environmental
management in Brazilian public ports by
ANTAQ was expanded in 2009 with the increase
in the number of ports – two more than in
2007 – and the inclusion of new provisions and
environmental aspects in the Integrated Environmental
Management System – SIGA.
With the inclusion of Ilhéus (BA) and Pelotas
(RS), the assessment now encompasses 32 ports.
The others are: Maceió (AL), Macapá (AP), Manaus
(AM), Aratu and Salvador (BA), Fortaleza
(CE), Vitória (ES), Itaqui (MA), Belém, Santarém
and Vila do Conde (PA), Cabedelo (PB), Antonina
and Paranaguá (PR), Recife and Suape (PE), Natal
(RN), Angra dos Reis, Forno, Itaguaí, Niterói
and Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Porto Alegre and Rio
Grande (RS), Porto Velho (RO), Imbituba, Itajaí
and São Francisco do Sul (SC), and Santos and
São Sebastião (SP).
The number of provisions assessed by the
Agency has also increased, from 13 to 24 items:
l Environmental Center;
l Pollution Risk Management;
l Solid Waste Management;
l Internal Procedure Manual;
l Personal Emergency Plan – PEI;
l Emergency Control Plan - PCE;
l Environmental Risk Prevention Program – PPRA;
l Environmental Licensing for Ports;
l Environmental Licensing for Dredging;
l Port Support Services;
l Center for Occupational Safety and Medicine;
Environmental Audit;
l Environmental Licensing for Leases;
l Center for Safety and Occupational Medicine,
Environmental Audit;
l Environmental Licensing for Leases;
l Security Unit, ISPS, and Certification by the IMO;
l Dangerous Goods;
l Environmental Liabilities;
l Voluntary Certification (ISO, others);
l “Environmental” Development and Zoning Plan
– PDZA;
l Global Integrated Shipping Information System
– GISIS;
l Avian Influenza Contingency Plan;
l Environmental Training and Qualification Plan;
l Atmospheric emissions;
l Noise Pollution; and
l Port Environmental Agenda.
SIGA is developed by the Board of Environment
of ANTAQ (GMA), through periodic visits to ports,
in which not only representatives of environmentrelated
areas are contacted, but also sectors of
planning, engineering and operations, occupational
safety and health, and port security units.
During these visits, the GMA uses the SIGA
Form as a tool for gathering information as a basis
for assessing the environmental performance of
ports. Compliance, whether legal or not, is organized
in the form in the form of items and folders,
so that its application may be carried out in a
quick, practical way.
54

New form
Albeit recent, port environmental management
has significantly evolved around the world
to meet legal and market requirements, which,
in turn, are renewed according to the demands
of society and consumers, depending on the
availability of new technologies cleaner, environment-friendlier
energy sources.
To follow this evolution, and in accordance
with the experience gained over the years in the
implementation of the SIGA, the GMA has conducted
reviews and made updates to the contents
of the form, which increased from nine
provisions in 2003 compliance to 24 provisions
in 2009.
The table below shows the evolution of the
scope of environmental compliance included in
the SIGA Form since its first draft. This year, in
addition to adjustments made in some of the
items already considered, the following items
were included:
1. Development Zoning Plan – PDZ, which
aims at observing the effective implementation
of the PDZ in port’s planning process and assess
how environmental aspects involved in port activities
are considered by this instrument;
2. Global Integrated Shipping Information
System – GISIS, which aims at supporting the
work already done by the GMA in surveying
and consolidating information about the availability
of services and adequate facilities for the
receipt of waste from ships in Brazilian ports;
3. Avian Influenza Contingency Plan, to
monitor the development and implementation of
avian influenza contingency plans at ports covered
by the national plan;
4. Atmospheric Emissions, aiming at identifying
effective measures to control greenhouse
gas emissions and the dust generation by cargo
handling, especially relating to bulk solids, at
ports;
5. Environmental Training and Qualification
Programs, to survey training experiences
developed at each port and specific demands of
inquiries by this criterion by environment sectors;
6. Noise Pollution, which aims at identifying
effective measures to control and monitor noise
in port operations; and
7. Port Environmental Agenda, to follow the
process of implementation of local port environmental
agendas by port authorities.
55

l Waterway Panorama
56

Port environmental planning
The Development and Zoning Plan – PDZ is
the instrument of organization and growth
of port activities. It is a planning tool of the
activities, in which the current and future cargoes
are arranged in order to achieve better efficiency
while transported. However, this instrument
has still not achieved it due to the lack of
proper tools for this purpose.
Port activities are primarily carried out within
areas defined by presidential decree. There is
no restriction for that area (polygon) to be
amended whenever the relevant authority requires
it. However, there is not much flexibility in
this process, as its expansion is subject to its surroundings.
Many urban ports are limited in
space by the cities where they are located, leaving
them solely with the area now available.
Within the polygon, there is a set of natural resources
that are exclusively available to the port
authority. And these natural resources should be
used so as to obtain the best possible environmental
quality and mitigate impacts as much as
possible, compensating what is necessary for
environmental damages.
The purpose of this planning instrument, from
the environmental standpoint, for the decision to
ANTAQ should incorporate environmental studies
that subsidize strategies for deciding the form
and amount of use of natural resources, as well
as actions to improve the quality of the environment
in its current status.
These studies include: the study of port activity
and its relation to the surroundings of the organized
port with respect to ecosocial-economic
aspects; assessment of the quality of natural resources
within the polygon, and characterization
of the main elements of fauna and flora within
the port polygon with the identification of possible
situations of protection.
Besides strategically providing the organiza-
57

l Waterway Panorama
tion of the port space in terms of transit cargo,
these studies allow for the obtaining of environmental
clearance for activities arising from it.
The qualification process occurs by licensing, in
which the environmental impact assessment is
the primary element. The assessment uses studies
of the PDZ environmentally developed.
Another advantage environmental studies in
the Development and Zoning Plan is that, being
factors of activity organization according to criteria
of environmental quality, they effectively
improve management. For example, grouping
similar activities provides the concentration of
environmental control instruments that are specific
for that particular area. If the port holds set
of facilities for bulk liquids, oil and byproducts,
in a particular area, it should focus on devices to
combat pollution by oil and byproducts.
Similarly, if a particular part of the organized
port holds a number of facilities for bulk solids,
such as grains, this area should focus on devices
for dealing with particles that pollute the air.
The proper arrangement of the loads from
the standpoint of environmental quality brings
a considerable gain for the management of
those parts of the organized port and the port
as a whole.
Last but not least, some ports have sensitive
areas of the environmental point of view that
does not allow any further impact on those locations.
Tankage facilities are some that create
that situation by casting. Many are also located
inappropriately in the middle of big cities, with
the risks inherent in this situation.
The appropriate arrangement of the cargoes,
from the environmental quality standpoint,
brings considerable gains in the management
of parts of the organized port and the
port as a whole.
Last but not least, some ports have environmentally
sensitive areas that do not allow for any
further impact on those locations. Tankage facilities
are among those that create that situation
by leakage. They are usually inappropriately located
in the middle of large cities, with the risks
inherent in this situation.
These are the considerations that are being
proposed for the formulation of a PDZ based on
the environment, which would be established
as a basic rule to be followed by ports. The
work is still widely discussed before being finalized
with internal and external audiences of the
Agency. This proposal is backed by the Bylaws of
the Agency (Law 10,233/01), which has been
given the task to seek activities with environmental
quality.
Once made, the studies would meet the obligations
of the Boards of the Port Authority and
port authorities that conducted and approved
them, to protect the environment, in accordance
with Articles 30 and 33 of Law 8,630/93.
With a system of environmental clearance for
port activities, based on licensing, any environmental
intervention for expansion shall require
an assessment of its significant impacts to the
environment. Knowledge of the impacts is a key
part of control and command process that licensing
agencies and stakeholders involved
should exercise, as well as other public representatives
of the Brazilian society in this field.
Although it is an appropriate system, it was
designed and set up during the 80s and regulated
in 90s, with content relating to precaution,
valid at the time, but now it may be simplified for
the benefit of the entire Brazilian society. It was
created within the principle of constant improvement,
which suggests its revision in some cases.
58

Revision of CONAMA Resolution 344/04
The first licensing rules that enable or guarantee
the quality of production environments
are under review. Of these, the best
known regulation is CONAMA Resolution
344/04. The Brazilian environmental clearance
progress lacks environmental management regulations,
unlike licensing rules, which could be
simplified, without losing their potential to ensure
environmental quality.
As for environmental management, there are
not many rules. The regulatory process of environmental
management, necessarily beginning
with licensing to establish the focus of management,
needs to be expanded. It may comprise
compulsory rules, which mostly follow the
line of manuals or similar procedures. We have
this culture and, unfortunately, do not follow
other countries.
The CONAMA Resolution 344, in turn, has
that opportunity. It could constitute a new model
of environmental regulation, in a comprehensive
document, with a good mastery of the principles
that govern environmental laws, good
range of content, aggregation of state-of-the-art
technology in dealing with environmental protection,
and proper understanding. These are
the attributes of environmental management
instruments.
In the revision of environmental regulations,
this has been the proposal of ANTAQ and other
stakeholders of port activities. This means moving
forward on environmental regulation, so
that we may implement management tools that
environmental agencies and production agents
need. In the current design of our system of environmental
qualification, this task would be attributed
to CONAMA, which, however, has been
shy in promoting the advancement of environmental
technology.
To remedy this lack of environmental governance,
ANTAQ, alongside the Ministry of Environment
(MMA), is developing instructions in the
form of manuals or handbooks that make it
easier for port agents to protect the environment.
This work is in the context of the Port Environmental
Agenda, nationally. The Local Environmental
Agenda differs by the presence of environmental
regulation locations and (public
and private) regulated agents.
In this case, it is important that the manuals
are sufficiently indicative regarding the stakeholders’
action to achieve the desired end result;
a healthy environment in terms of occupational
safety and health; and valuation of natural resources
existing in this environment.
The elaboration of the new document, replacing
CONAMA Resolution 344, will induce
the formation of an environmental database.
This database should already be available to
private agents, but it is not due to the lack of focus
on the environmental issue of licensing
agencies. This database, addressed by Law
10,650/03, would be developed by federal and
local environmental agencies as a result of the
licensing, as they excel in this area and have a
responsibility within the system of environmental
regulation created by Law 6,938/81.
This type of information among the most important
environmental principles, as it requires
us to perform the scientific and technical development,
present in nearly all the environmental
regulation, particularly in CONAMA 344, i.e.,
the relationship between agents and impact
produced by them.
In the original version of CONAMA 344, due
to the lack of these environmental data, the
resolution had to be restricted to assessing the
quality of sediments. Today, it has no support, as
it is possible to have a resolution of the environmental
management of these services in the
ports, adding the knowledge acquired on environmental
dredging. This is a limitation of the
current Resolution that needs to be corrected.
59

l Waterway Panorama
Solid waste
Solid waste is also entering a new phase with
the review of the RDC 217 of the National
Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA). The
promulgation of the RDC 056/08 brought a new
concept of good environmental practices for
waste. As in other legislation texts (the same subject
is treated as a Plan of Waste, such as Law
9,966/00), the correct understanding of this provision
is necessary.
Good environmental practices for collection
and disposal of waste should be achieved by organized
ports and other facilities, regardless of
formal plans. The question still faces regulations
with different determinations established by AN-
VISA and the International System of Agricultural
Surveillance (VIGIAGRO).
It is important that the proper treatment be
given to facilitate destination, which should happen
after autoclaving in the primary zone, as required
by the VIGIAGRO. The use of autoclaves
meets the elimination or exclusion of incinerated
waste in port areas, for the high environmental
impact they cause.
Licensing process
It is a process of great relevance to port activities
and, therefore, should be built within
an understanding of environmental logic. To
this end, it is essential review prior licensing
and its environmental impact assessments.
By design, prior licensing for undertakings is
a license of decision, that is, the environmental
possibility to implement the undertaking, where
it is designed, is taken into consideration. Environmental
impact assessments should meet
the demand for the assessment alone, as it is
relevant to the decision-making process. In the
current licensing practice, this does not happen
that way. The environmental impact assessment,
EIA is nearly always, unnecessarily, a
prospective study of possible impacts. Therefore,
it has impacts of little relevance, liable to
well-known, technically manageable processes
of minimization.
These normal impacts, which may be adequately
minimized, should not be part of this
assessment. They should rather be part of the
executive project for installation licensing, providing
time to the environmental licensing
agency. This is an unnecessary social burden
that may be easily resolved.
A major flaw of our clearance process is
that environmental impact assessments, even in
its current form, should generate management
indicators of the environments to which they relate,
for the undertaking they enable. Being so
complex and extensive, they never reach their
goal and generate more confusion than knowledge
about the impacting forces they are supposed
to map.
60

Environmental governance analysis
Currently, solid waste production may be
considered a major environmental impact
of port activities. Such waste may be generated
by the port operation itself (operational
waste) or by ships (crew).
In order to minimize the impacts caused by
waste, there are several international and national
regulations. Brazil has signed the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships (MARPOL 73/78). Annex 5 dictates
rules for the prevention of pollution by garbage
from ships.
Internally, Law 9,966/2000 consolidates the
internalization of principles of MARPOL 73/78.
According to Article 5 of the Law, all organized
ports, port facilities, and platforms, as well as their
support facilities, shall mandatorily have facilities
or adequate means to receive and process various
types of waste, and combat pollution in compliance
with rules and criteria established by the
relevant environmental authority.
In order to receive waste from ships, there are
some basic rules: ships should deliver their waste
at waste reception facilities before leaving the
port (properly segregated, packaged, and
sealed); they should also give notice of the waste
to be discharged (quantity, quality, and reception
facilities) and pay a fee required to cover the
costs of the reception facilities.
ANVISA, alongside the VIGIAGRO, has its own
regulations to deal with the matter within their respective
areas.
The National Agency for Waterway Transportation
(ANTAQ) also plays an important role to
establish rules and standards of quality to port activities,
including environmental rules. Moreover,
it represents Brazil before international navigation
agencies, such as the International Maritime Organization
(IMO), in conventions, agreements
and treaties on waterway transportation.
In this sense, ANTAQ been working to define
the real roles of diverse stakeholders involved in
organized ports regarding the generation of
waste in port areas.
61

l Waterway Panorama
Local Environmental Agenda
Public ports provide their maritime and land
infrastructure to users, who pay values defined
in a tariff table. This maritime and
land infrastructure includes the environmental
infrastructure.
Many of these ports have received significant
investments, which are being applied in the Port
Subsector, targeted at the improvement and expansion
of the superstructure through the Growth
Acceleration Program (PAC). These developments,
combined with routine port operations,
are known to generate environmental impacts of
various natures.
Realizing that natural resources may be used
in a sustainable manner demanded the creation
of the National Policy on Environment,
established by Law 6,938 of August 31, 1981,
establishing environmental clearance as a guiding
instrument for actions to be taken. And its
core includes conditions to be met by entrepreneurs.
Environmental management is defined in
Article 3 as “the set of conditions, laws, influences
and physical, chemical and biological interactions,
enabling, sheltering and governing
life in all its forms”.
The first instrument designed to organize environmental
management in ports was the Port
Environmental Agenda, approved by the Interministerial
Commission for Sea Resources
(CIRM) and developed by the Interministerial
Group for Coastal Management (GIGERCO).
This Agenda renewed discussions on environmental
issues, establishing a first set of actions,
indicating stakeholders involved and the
processes of environmental actions that should
happen in port sites. Currently, the Agenda is undergoing
updates through a Technical Group
coordinated by ANTAQ.
The impact of the implementation of the Port
Environmental Agenda by ports and other facilities
has encouraged the establishment of a Local
Environmental Agenda, which has been
drawn up by each port authority, in order to assist
the implementation and monitoring of a
management system.
The Board of Environment of ANTAQ has
been working for some years on environmental
issues in an integrated way and has recently won
the support of the Special Secretariat of Ports,
which published Decree 104 of April 29, 2009,
which provides for the creation and structuring of
the Department of Environmental Management
and Occupational Safety and Health at ports.
The development of the Local Agenda has
been discussed with other agencies involved environmental
issues, in particular the Board of
Coastal and Marine Quality, the Secretariat on
Climate Change and Environmental Quality of
the Ministry of Environment, IBAMA, and the
Special Secretariat of Ports to strengthen the role
of the Port Authority as a conduit for the process
that should be a forum for ongoing discussion
and negotiation.
With the support to the activities, the group is
studying the possibility of drawing up a series of
work guidelines, addressing each set of specific
topics related to a broad range of subjects relating
to the ports’ environmental agenda.
Another instrument that should be highlighted
is the National Port Environmental Training Program
(PNCAP), under the Port Environmental
Agenda and structured by ANTAQ in partnership
with the Ministry of the Environment and the Port
Authority. The PNCAP provides for actions to
raise the awareness of technicians and other
employees and users of port services, as well as
training in specific technical skills for the prevention
of environmental damage and control
thereof, comprising staff from the operational
area (in varying degrees) to the administrative
staff related the sectors of project management
and planning.
62

Topics of the Local Agenda
Evaluation of the Development and Zoning Plan (PDZ) – it is aimed at the physical planning
of facilities and operations in the use of the port’s land, becoming an instrument of spatial organization
and cargo transit dynamics, with the rational planning of activities for its operation
in response the provisions of Article 4 of Administrative Rule 104 of April 29, 2009, the Special
Secretariat of Ports, which provides for the integration of the variables of environment, safety and
health in the planning of port development and zoning;
Evaluation of the Personal Emergency Plan (PEI) – it sets out specific control measures in the
safety area. Its priority is the reactive emergency action and should be articulated (via the
Agenda) with the organizational view of the PDZ; and
Evaluation of the Best Sanitary Practices in the Management of Solid Waste – it is a set of procedures
designed and implemented to minimize risks in waste generation and provide safe disposal
of waste, aiming at protecting workers and the preserving public health , natural resources
and the environment, with special attention to the requirements of the Specific Plan for the Prevention
of Influenza at Ports.
Referring to a few issues, it is possible to illustrate
the peculiarity of this Agenda, its role in
planning and coordinating activities and being
the organizing center of sectors, stakeholders
and various programs, with the common goal of
the articulation of environmental management,
health and safety actions.
First of all, the Port Environmental Agenda is
an institutional, trans-sector arrangement, which
acts as a tool in the strategic planning of port activities,
aiming at developing a governance structure
targeted at the achievement of environmental
quality, especially reducing risks, not only
caring for accidents and repair thereof, taking
into account the peculiarities of each unit.
The construction of schedules that are agreed
upon requires the organization of democratic
spaces for discussion, which should involve all
relevant stakeholders. The identification of these
stakeholders and their involvement in the process
is paramount to ensuring that the decisions made
will be effective in order to be acknowledged as
legitimate. Its implementation should express a
commitment to local quality targets that are
agreed upon and legally supported, assuming a
specific programming for this level of action.
63

l Waterway Panorama
Structure of the Local Agenda
Based on the structure of the National
Agenda and the experience gained in its
implementation, the development of a responsive
proposal is proposed, with reading
and language accessible to non-specialists, presented
in a clear way, with goals, actions and
programs aligned with the local demands. Thus,
its structure should include the following steps:
Characterization of the port and its activity
1. Information on the location of the port
site, its dimensions, the transport system, and
characterization of its surroundings;
2. Information on its institutional status;
3. Outline of the Development and Zoning
Plan (ZEE, Master Plans, Basin Plans, Orla Project,
etc.);
4. Survey of facility’s conditions in the face
of port management, informing legal requests
already met and gaps identified. Data on license
documents and possible disputes and legal
holdovers regarding the environment and
other stakeholders;
5. Survey of programs and action plans
relevant to environmental management, pointing
out measures to control pollution and accidents
committed, their daily activities and simulation,
identifying sectors, stakeholders,
obligations and responsibilities of each stakeholder
listed; and
6. information on the structure of the Sector
of Environmental Management and Occupational
Health and Safety at Work (OHS), as
required by Administrative Rule 104 of April
298, 2009, of the Special Secretariat of Ports.
Environmental diagnosis:
1. Characterization of the port environment,
with information on the environment, notably on
the hydrodynamics, the main ecosystems and
the positive and negative influences on the
Ecosystem(s);
2. Identification of existing environmental liabilities
and their causes;
3. Identification of current environmental
problems, relating the types and locations of
major sources of pollution in the port and its
area of influence, aiming at informing the indicators
of their existence;
4. Presentation of the history of environmental
accidents occurring on the port premises in
recent decades, indicating causes and magnitude
of damage; and
5. Presentation of the list of harmful or dangerous
substances handled at the port area,
indicating handling amounts and frequencies.
Identification of locations and conditions of storage
of such products and areas of transit at the
port, plus specification of protection mechanisms
adopted in their handling.
64

Occupational health and safety diagnosis:
1. Meeting of Occupational Engineering
provisions addressed in the Regulatory Rule 29
(NR-29), the Ministry of Labor and Employment
(MTE), as follows:
a) Environmental Risk Prevention Program –
PPRA;
b) Evaluation of the Center for Occupational
Safety Engineering, SESMT – Specialized Service
for Safety Engineering and Occupational Medicine
(NR-4) or Specialized Service for Occupational
Health and Safety – SESSTP (NR-29); and
c) Emergency Control Plan and Mutual Aid
Plan - PCE/PAM;
2. Presentation of the history of accidents
occurring on the premises or during port operations,
indicating causes and magnitude of
damage;
3. Evaluation of Port Support Services
a) Fuel Supply
b) Hull Maintenance, Peeling, and Painting; and
4. Facilities Assessment
a) Water Supply
b) Electricity Supply
c) Communication and Telephony
d) Other facilities
Proposed actions:
1. Development of a synthesis of diagnoses
made by organizing the matter raised in terms of
current and projected demands (negative situations)
to be addressed by the Agenda;
2. Definition of general and specific objectives
of the Agenda;
3. Development of a framework of identified
problems, partial goals and desired ends (positive
situations), actions and activities necessary to
achieve them;
4. Listing of human, technical, material and
logistical resources for the implementation of actions
defined;
5. Identification of existing structural deficiencies
that hinder the actions planned, and details
of the means to avoid them in the short and
medium term;
6. Identification of stakeholders and agents
involved or mobilized in the face of programmed
actions, specifying articulation mechanisms available
or to be created; and
7. Preparation of a summary table that provides
goals, actions, mechanisms, means and
stakeholders in an organized planning system.
Management of the Agenda:
1. Definition of parameters to evaluate the
performance of actions of the Agenda, including
the development of a system for its monitoring
and tracking, always considering the need for
periodic adjustments;
2. Definition of the implementation strategy
of the Agenda, with the specification of its institutional
model of operation, preparing organizational
charts and flowcharts of inter-relationships;
and
3. Definition of the schedule of implementation
of planned actions.
The proposed structure exposes the general
pattern desired, offering general reference for
the formulation of an Agenda. Each unit port
may add new points of approach to this script
(either in terms of location logistics, cargo handling,
or others).
65

l Waterway Panorama
Waste receipt at ports
(GISIS)
Created by the International Maritime Organization
(IMO), the Port Reception Facilities
Database – PRFD aims at providing
aid to the owner in planning the removal of
waste from vessels during traffic and proper
disposal at the ports, avoiding thereby the pollution
of marine environments, which may be
recipients thereof. This data system integrates
the GISIS (Global Integrated Shipping Information
System), of the IMO.
ANTAQ is responsible for collecting data for
the PRFD/GISIS system at Brazilian ports. The
information collected allows for the effective
control over the quantity and quality of transit
of waste coming from vessels at most Brazilian
ports (see results within the chart throughout
this paper).
Removal of waste from vessels is an obligation
of the signatory countries to the MARPOL
Convention, including Brazil, and has the practical
effect of creating a formal market for the
provision of that service by private agents. According
to our current model of management,
Brazilian port authorities do not perform this operation
(Law 8,630/93). However, although
MARPOL mentions waste reception facilities in
ports, Law 9.966/00 determined that signatory
countries should only provide these services.
Today, there is still no market for this sector
that has been adequately established, allowing
for the occurrence of failure in the provision of
services to vessels with regard to waste collection,
favoring the occurrence of complaints from
foreign ship-owners to the IMO. In this context,
the safe collection of hazardous waste is very
important, avoiding the risk of harm to human
health, present in pandemics such as Avian Flu
or Swine Flu, in the case of contaminated waste
falling into the hands of third parties outside the
pre-established traffic between the port and the
destination.
To meet the demand of information for the
PRFD/GISIS system, ANTAQ has developed the
following activities:
l institutionalization of charge by the
Agency;
l awareness of the need of this service (data
collection);
l service operationalization;
l compilation of data; and
l evaluation of the process of generating
and receiving the data; difficulties and needs for
improvement.
Institutionalization of charge – The Agency
has provided organized ports with the first
PRFD/GISIS System service request record, later
complemented by a second record, issued after
a first evaluation of the responses obtained.
These records were responsible for the first information
of the System, also considering the
format established by the IMO. This form was
the same for any residue, causing confusion;
Awareness of the service – ANTAQ and AN-
VISA have held several events in partnership,
with the purpose of discussing the process of
waste management at organized ports. During
these and other industry meetings, presentations
were made about the PRFD/GISIS System
to public and private port agents.
During the events related to Avian Flu, ten
events at organized ports in 2007 and 2008, a
call was made to the GISIS issue, highlighting
the importance of control over the waste by
those who operate in this field and how to do it.
A highlight was the need for the Port Authority
to have a more clear-cut participation in the
service provision process by private agents, at
the request of ship-owners or their agents at the
ports of stay.
In early 2009, during the event on the Local
Port Environmental Agenda, held in partnership
with the Ministry of Environment (MMA) at
the Port of Santos, ANTAQ presented the system
once more. To distribute these events, the
Agency prepared an easily comprehensible
folder listing all information necessary, from the
need for it to what should be contained in it.
Service operationalization – To operationalize
the process of provision of the requested information,
ANTAQ has produced specific forms
for each type of waste handled by the System,
with versions in Portuguese. This provided more
flexibility to the process of data collection and
transmission to ANTAQ.
Compilation of data – Compilation of data
66

was performed by a table listing ports and waste
(types) attended. Easily comprehensible, the
table is an efficient tool to control the services by
organized ports.
Evaluation of data collection – Port Authorities
play a leading role in the process, but many
of them are not familiar with the procedures of
the IMO in shipping regulation and their effects
in organized ports. Several IMO regulations,
beginning in the vessel, show how onshore facilities
may achieve better results in protecting
ships. Port authorities should handle this system
and transfer the information to ANTAQ. This
control of the port authorities on the process of
waste has a number of reasons, such as issues
relating to port management and operation,
safety, and health of the population in general.
The lack of control over this process had disastrous
consequences for the activities in the
case of the ship Artemis, which docked at the
port of Recife. The verification of the facts that
led to the complaint, at the IMO, against the
port by the ship-owner taught us that the port
was disconnected to the entire process of waste
release on board, and that non-release was
made without the knowledge of that authority,
even if it has been carried out legally and in the
interest of the country.
Therefore, it is important that the forms contain
more information than requested by the
IMO, without prejudice to the speed of services.
The proper identification of service providers
and services provided should aid in the proper
control of this process. It is necessary to create
a file for the service, in addition to the form of
service provision.
The generation of information within the
process, from waste collection to destination
thereof, shall produce a database. As a history
of waste disposal is provided, we may avoid that
waste not typical of vessels be disposed of in the
Brazilian territory, because we do not intend to
turn Brazil into a route of harmful waste from
other countries.
This process, still not fully implemented, shall
require a market technically and economically
more compatible with the activity in which it
operates. In this case, it is important to better
understand the transit of waste, to have an adequate
qualification of the provision of services
to vessels. A better interaction among the various
authorities that work with waste at ports is
also needed. The lack of communication has
caused many problems in this field of environmental
management.
The lack of suitable sites for waste disposal
has also brought difficulties to the appropriate
service provision of ports. The waste leaves
ports, but without proper security, it has an inadequate
allocation.
To solve most of these shortcomings, AN-
TAQ may pass a resolution defining responsibilities
for the transit of waste at organized
ports, from the process of delivery to service
providers to its final destination.
This first part of the work, initiated two and a
half years ago, is far from being over. The main
goal is the promulgation of a rule to control the
flow of information. The GISIS database is already
available. It should now be improved.
67

l Waterway Panorama
Numbers of waste collection service providers
at organized ports
Caption:
No. = number of service providers
Note: (1) Outeiros and Miramar terminals of the Port Region included
AT=Provided NR= No Response ND = Not Available
68

Maritime navigation
With international trade, the contribution of the maritime model in cargo transportation is the
majority, both in volume and value. Things are not different in Brazil and the graphs below
show the relevance of maritime transportation in the commercial flow of goods, both for Brazilian
exports and imports:
DISTRIBUTION OF BRAZILIAN EXPORTS – 2008 VOLUME
TRANSPORTED BY MEANS OF TRANSPORT
DISTRIBUTION OF BRAZILIAN EXPORTS – 2008 AMOUNT
US$ FOB TRANSPORTED BY MEANS OF TRANSPORTE
1%
1%
5%
1% 3%
96%
7%
87%
l Maritime
l Highway
l Maritime
l Highway
l River
l Others
l Pipe-duct
l Others
DISTRIBUTION OF BRAZILIAN IMPORTS – 2008 VOLUME
TRANSPORTED BY MEANS OF TRANSPORT
6%
5%
7%
DISTRIBUTION OF BRAZILIAN IMPORTS – 2008 AMOUNT
US$ FOB TRANSPORTED BY MEANS OF TRANSPORTE
3%
5%
19%
82%
73%
l Maritime
l Aerial
l Maritime
l Highway
l Highway
l Others
l Aerial
l Others
Source: Alice-web – Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade
Prepared by: ANTAQ/SNM/GDM
69

l Waterway Panorama
Introduction
In this scenario, a Brazilian merchant navy
plays a key role, as it is a strategic segment for
the development of the national economy and
works as a mechanism to control abuse of shipping
prices, create jobs and income, allows for
the growth in sectors such as shipbuilding and
ship spare parts, and ensure national sovereignty
in cases of crisis and internal and external
emergency.
Maritime and support navigation, the scope of
action of ANTAQ, encompasses the provision of
transport services in long-haul shipping, cabotage,
marine support, and port support.
Maritime navigation carries out international
transport. According to the law, the operation or
exploitation of freight transport in this type of
navigation is open to ship-owners, shipping companies
and vessels of all countries, subject to the
agreements signed by the Federal Government,
in compliance with the principle of reciprocity.
Equally important is cabotage, which, in comparison
with other transport models, allows for the
domestic handling of goods at lower unit costs,
with higher efficiency, greater transport capacity,
and high level of cargo security. Cabotage is limited
to Brazilian shipping companies, although
there is no restriction regarding the participation
of foreign capital in these companies. Foreign
vessels may only participate in this type of navigation
if chartered by Brazilian shipping companies,
in compliance with the current legislation and
rules of ANTAQ or, still, when not chartered by
Brazilian shipping companies, being supported by
an international agreement signed by the Brazilian
government, provided that reciprocity is
granted to the Brazilian flag by the other State.
Set in a highly heated market due to the activities
of prospecting and mining of minerals
and hydrocarbons, especially regarding domestic
oil found in the pre-salt layers, this maritime
support navigation counts on great technological
innovations and investment projects.
Positive factors point to a promising scenario in
this segment such as, for example, orders from
Petrobras vessels, with high levels of national
content in buildings designed to meet the demand
of the pre-salt area.
Port support shipping is also worth mentioning,
as it is necessary to serve vessels and port
facilities, being exclusively carried out in ports
and waterway terminals throughout the national
territory. The increase of the number of
grant requests in 2009 specifically point to the
growth of the sector, as well as the backlog of
orders from national shipyards to vessels of
this type of navigation.
70

Regulation
Seminar
The 1st Seminar on the Development of Brazilian
Cabotage was held on August 12 and 13,
2009, in Brasilia, DF. The event was promoted by
ANTAQ, the Ministry of Transport and, the National
Union of Maritime Navigation Companies
(SYNDARMA), bringing together government
officials, Brazilian shipping companies,
representatives of the sector, maritime labor,
cargo transportation users, port authorities and
operators, among others.
The main recommendations of the meeting
were the following:
1. to establish a significant public policy for
the waterway transportation sector based on the
National Plan of Logistics and Transport – PNLT
with concrete actions that lead to a better balance
in the transport matrix of Brazil;
2. to actualize the provisions of Law
9,432/97, extending to vessels operating in cabotage,
maritime support, and port support, the
fuel prices (bunker and maritime diesel) charged
long-haul vessels;
3. to amend Law 9,432/97, ordering waterway
transportation, in order to correct flaws
that do not allow the Brazilian Special Registration
– REB to be effective
4. compensation, with funds from the Merchant
Navy Fund – FMM, of the social security of
the crew;
5. exemption from Income Tax – IRPF for seafarers
on board;
6. to ensure timely reimbursement of the Additional
Merchant Navy Freight (AFRMM);
7. to establish a sustainable, independent policy
for national merchant navy and shipbuilding;
8. no quota restrictions to the Professional
Maritime Education Development Fund (FDEPM);
9. to reactivate the Harmonization Program
for Activities of Port Authority Agents – PRO-
HAGE;
10. to evaluate the establishment of a unique
tax to ship-owners, as in most of the world, along
the lines of the “tonnage tax”;
11. create a tripartite committee of Brazilian
Shipping Companies, Unions and the Brazilian
Navy to study and monitor the training of seafarers;
12. to study the reduction of import tariffs for
ship spare parts not manufactured in Brazil for
the Brazilian Shipping Companies;
13. to stimulate the creation of exclusive shipyards
for repair;
14. to streamline cabotage cargo handling at
Brazilian ports
71

l Waterway Panorama
Agreement with the Brazilian Navy
On July 30, 2009, ANTAQ and the Shipping
Operations Command – COMOPNAV, of the
Brazilian, signed the term of technical cooperation
for the exchange of information and expertise
for the improvement of navigational
safety and monitoring of waterway transportation
activities.
Through the term of cooperation, the Navy
shall provide ANTAQ with information on various
national and foreign vessels operating in Brazilian
waters, as well as automatic, graphic data allowing
for the better monitoring of the operation
of approved companies in long-haul shipping,
cabotage, and maritime support.
ANTAQ, in turn, shall work with the Navy in
the disclosure of information relating to the waterway
transportation sector. This information
shall be forwarded to Brazilian shipping companies
as a contribution to security and the monitoring
of maritime traffic. In addition, the Agency
shall provide advice on matters relating to waterway
transport and maritime and port support
that are of interest to the Navy.
Foreign relations
As a legal competence, ANTAQ represents
Brazil before international shipping organizations
and in conventions, agreements and
treaties on waterway transportation, the guidelines
of the Ministry of Transport and specific
roles of other federal agencies. See the main actions
on the following page.
Negotiations of the Multilateral Transportation
Agreement of the MERCOSUR
The Multilateral Agreement on Maritime
Transport of the MERCOSUR is part of an integration
process and a commitment to harmonize
laws in certain areas, taking into account the
need to establish equal conditions for the provision
of shipping services among shipowners/shipping
companies in Brazil, Argentina,
Paraguay and Uruguay. The premise of the
Agreement shall ensure efficiency, regularity and
reduction of costs of maritime transport services
within the MERCOSUR, as well as the development
of its merchant navies.
The 12 meetings held by the Commission of
Maritime Transport Experts of Brazil, Argentina,
Paraguay and Uruguay, as part of the meetings
of the Working Subgroup SGT 5 MERCOSUR
Transport, have produced significant advances
towards the development of the Agreement.
However, the latest draft approved by Brazil, Argentina
and Paraguay was not fully accompanied
by Uruguay. The main obstacle is the inclusion of
feeder service cargoes, under the Agreement.
ANTAQ has endeavored to promote the resolution
of the impasse, as it believes that a
strengthened MERCOSUR shall provide opportunities
for negotiations with other blocs, such as
the European Union.
Service Trade Liberalization Protocol of
the MERCOSUR
The Montevideo Protocol on Trade in Services
made on 12/15/1997, by the governments of
Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, states
that the Members States shall hold annual rounds
of negotiations to be completed in up to ten
years as of its entry into force, the Service Trade
Liberalization Program in the MERCOSUR.
The Montevideo Protocol entered into force on
12/07/2005 and the deadlines set in the Montevideo
Protocol to complete the intra-zone Service
Trade Liberalization Program requires the
definition of guidelines for the work of the MER-
COSUR in this area and for the decision-making
process in the Member States.
By mid-2009, six rounds of negotiation were
completed, always coordinated by the Services
Group of the MERCOSUR, captained in the
Brazilian side by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
– MRE. During the rounds of negotiations, the
lists of commitments undertaken by each Member
State are presented and discussed, according
to sector/sub-sector, limitations on market
access and national treatment limitations in
their modes of supply, in order to map and
overcome, to the extent possible, existing regulatory
restrictions, and thus converge to the liberalization
of service trade.
ANTAQ monitors and participates in meetings
of the Services Group of the MERCOSUR, analyzing
proposals, and providing the necessary
support to the negotiations on issues that concern
the segment of waterway transportation.
72

Follow-up of 12 (twelve) Bilateral Agreements on Maritime Transport, signed by Brazil
Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GDM
73

l Waterway Panorama
IBAS
On July 14 and 15, 2009, ANTAQ participated,
at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Rio de
Janeiro, in the meeting of the Working Group of
Transport (maritime segment) of the IBAS Dialogue
Forum. The forum provides for the cooperation
between India, Brazil and South Africa on
16 sectors including transport (air and sea).
During the meeting, information was exchanged
among the delegations of the three
countries about the possibilities for cooperation in
eight projects related to maritime transport:
l Cooperation among organizations and maritime
shipping companies;
l Cooperation among maritime education and
human resources training institutions;
l Exchange of data and information on trade
flows at ports;
l Cooperation among maritime administrations
on the regulatory functions of the sector;
l Cooperation among private companies of the
construction and ship repair sector;
l Cooperation in port development and port operation
technology;
l Cooperation in regional cargo concentration
maritime port development (hubs);
l Cooperation in ballast water management
techniques.
The action plan follows the trilateral agreement
on maritime transport and other topics related to
the sector, signed by the three countries on September
13, 2006, in the Brasilia Declaration. The
declaration was signed on June 6, 2003 and
created the IBAS Dialogue Forum.
IMO
The International Maritime Organization –
IMO is the agency of the United Nations (UN)
aiming at fostering, among governments, cooperation
on the regulatory and governmental procedures
related to technical matters of all kinds
affecting international commercial shipping.
In the year 2009, in addition to the preparatory
meetings of the IMO, involving subjects related
to waterway transportation in Brazil, ANTAQ
participated in two sessions in London: the 35th
Session of the Facilitation Committee (FAL) and
the 102nd Council Meeting – IMO.
The meeting of the FAL addressed the revision
of the Convention on Facilitation of International
Maritime Traffic and the establishment of measures
for its implementation by Member States
and the adoption of electronic means to simplify
and streamline the release of ships at ports.
The Council Meeting, the executive organ of
IMO, responsible for supervising the work of the
Organization, addressed, among other administrative
topics, piracy and armed robbery against
ships, particularly on account of acts occurred off
the coast of Somalia, the Gulf of Aden, and certain
areas of the Red Sea.
74

Supervision
In inspections of the provision of maritime and
support navigation transport services, the actions
of ANTAQ are driven by the Extraordinary
Inspections at maritime and support navigation
companies relating to complaints or evidence of
illegal trade practices or violation of legal and
regulatory provisions, and the Annual Inspection
Plan - PAF, designed to verify the requirements for
the maintenance of grants of shipping companies
authorized by ANTAQ, implemented as of the
year 2007.
Annual Inspection Plan – PAF and
Extraordinary Inspections
The Annual Inspection Plan – PAF, within maritime
and support navigation, takes into account
authorized companies and their respective headquarters
aiming at the formulation, implementation
and monitoring by the ANTAQ, considering
the skills of boards monitoring and regional administrative
units. The following graph illustrates
the evolution of the PAF, taking into account the
population of authorized maritime and support
navigation companies and the implementation of
inspections scheduled.
Annual inspection plan – PAF
Maritime and Support Navigation
77%
89%
80%
Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GFM
62%
67% 71% 2008 2009 (até agosto)
2007
l Sample (Programmed/ Total Authorized)
l Level of Achievement (Inspections Carried out/Expected)
It is noteworthy that the Agency has expanded
the size of the samples each year, due to the increase
of its staff and the decentralization of supervisory
actions, based on the creation of new
regional administrative units. It is possible to notice
a significant increase in the execution of programmed
inspections between 2007 and 2008.
The inspections conducted in 2009 (until August),
considering the PAF and Extraordinary Inspections,
by type of navigation, are available in
the chart below:
Inspections carried out in 2009 (until August),
PAF and Extraordinary – by type of navigation
Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GFM
Amount
24
65
2
26
l Extraordinary
1
3
l PAF
3
5
Port Support
Maritime Support
Long Haul
Cabotage
75

l Waterway Panorama
Of the 211 authorized maritime and support
navigation companies, 168 inspections were
scheduled to the PAF/2009 up to November
2008, comprising 80% of the total number of
companies. Until August 2009, inspections were
planned at 108 companies authorized to operate
in long-haul shipping, cabotage, maritime support,
and port support. Of this total, 104 inspections
were effectively carried out inspections (96%
of the schedule for the period ranging from January
to August and 62% for year 2009), with the
following results:
STATUS OF INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT
PAF/2009 (until August)
Regular before ANTAQ
Regular upon fulfillment of the Term of Settlement (TAC)
TAC proposed
Fulfilling TAC
Under Simplified Administrative Proceeding (PAS)
Under analysis of suggestions for the establishment of the Litigious Administrative Proceeding (PAC)
Within the deadline to remedy inspection holdovers
Preparing the Inspection Report
Grant waiver
Proceedings suspended according to Administrative Rule 227/2008-DG, relating to the evidence of
maritime support navigation operation
Amount
55
4
3
7
1
5
2
13
4
10
Among the requirements of ANTAQ for companies
to keep grants, deficiencies often detected
are: lack of documents (audited balances
sheets, financial statements, certificates, and
documents of the vessel), proof of current ratio
and proof of operation.
As for Extraordinary Inspections, 29 companies
were inspected until August 2009, the equivalent
of 30 inspections, considering the type of
navigation, for investigations on alleged illegal
operations and compliance with Resolution
843/ANTAQ by Dredging companies, with the
following results:
STATUS OF INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT
EXTRAORDINARY INSPECTIONS 2009 (until August)
PAC brought for operations without the authorization of ANTAQ
Irregularity not proven
Dredging companies requesting complaints
Dredging companies that are regular before ANTAQ
Preparing the Inspection Report
Amount
2
5
8
11
3
76

Litigious Administrative Proceedings
From 2003 to August 2009, ANTAQ initiated
95 Litigious Administrative Proceedings – PAC, 64
of which were closed, 9 are under review, 19
await a decision, and two await appeal.
It should be noted that the 64 PAC closed is
equivalent to 67% of the total number, being divided
into: 7 companies suffered no penalty, 7
met the Rules of ANTAQ, 9 waived the granting
of authorization, 17 were warned, 4 were fined,
2 had their licenses suspended, and 8 had their
licenses canceled.
The chart below shows the series on Litigious
Administrative Proceedings initiated:
Litigious administrative proceedings initiated
Maritime and Support Navigation
Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GFM
23
18
17
Amount
14
10
11
2
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 (until August)
Merchant fleet
The Brazilian flag fleet in maritime and support
navigation relating to long haul, cabotage,
maritime support, and port support, consists
of 1,127 vessels. Of this total, 69.5% (783
vessels) are over 18 years of age. The average
age of the fleet is 19.5 years, which is very
high, considering that the life cycle of ships is
around 20 years.
When analyzing the total fleet, it is possible to
note that 143 (one hundred and forty-three)
vessels, or 12.7% of them, operate in cabotage
and long-haul shipping, accounting for a carrying
capacity of 3,099,664.4dwt. Other vessels
serve maritime support and port support vessels.
In international maritime shipping (long-haul
shipping), the participation of Brazilian ships is
irrelevant, due to direct competition with foreign
ships, which are mostly registered in countries
with open enrollment, or “flag of convenience”,
thereby achieving lower operating costs.
The Brazilian merchant fleet, which had been
declining over recent decades due to lack of renewal,
has shown growth with the return of shipbuilding
and ship designs of the latest generation,
being environmentally efficient, sized to
cabotage traffic, and having adequate conditions
to Brazilian port infrastructure.
Similarly, maritime support and port support
fleets are also being reviewed and showing significant
growth, due to the development of exploration
and production of offshore oil and investment
in the sector.
The following tables illustrate the situation of
the national merchant fleet:
77

l Waterway Panorama
LONG HAUL, CABOTAGE, MARITIME SUPPORT AND PORT SUPPORT
BRAZILIAN FLAG FLEET (PRIVATE AND CHARTERED)
Type of ship Amount %
FERRY
BARGE
DERRICK/CRANE
FREIGHTER
CATAMARAN
LIGHTER
FLOATING
LIQUEFIED GAS
BULK CARRIER
BULK CARRIER (ORE-OIL)
BOAT
PRACTICAL BOAT
LINE HANDLING
WATER TANK
OTHER VESSELS
PASSENGER/GENERAL CARGO
PASSENGER
RESEARCH
TANKER
CONTAINER CARRIER
TUG/THRUSTER
ROLL-ON/ROLL-OFF
SUPPLY
CHEMICAL TANKER
TOTAL / WEIGHTED AVERAGE
61
41
12
18
1
49
32
9
36
1
241
11
5
1
97
12
3
2
48
13
318
5
102
9
1.127
5,4
3,6
1,1
1,6
0,1
4,3
2,8
0,8
3,2
0,1
21,4
1,0
0,4
0,1
8,6
1,1
0,3
0,2
4,3
1,2
28,2
0,4
9,1
0,8
100
Source: Corporate System / ANTAQ
Average age
(years)
14
21
36
26
0
31
12
19
28
36
20
16
11
34
14
15
11
12
23
9
22
16
11
18
19,5
DWT %
63.894,4 1,8
136.288,0 3,8
5.119,2
0,1
206.350,7 5,8
45,0
0,0
22.088,9 0,6
3.627,2
0,1
74.601,5 2,1
860.385,6 24,0
777,5
0,0
2.830,4
0,1
44,4
0,0
1.298,6
0,0
28.801,0 0,8
3.204,6
0,1
3.488,0
0,1
65,3
0,0
19,4
0,0
1.327.908,3 37,1
364.350,0 10,2
46.622,5 1,3
107.568
3,0
216.541,4 6,0
107.009,0 3,0
3.582.928,4 100
LONG HAUL AND CABOTAGE
BRAZILIAN FLAG FLEET (PRIVATE AND CHARTERED)
78
Type of ship Amount %
FERRY
BARGE
BULK CARRIER
FLOATING
LIQUEFIED GAS
FREIGHTER
WATER TANK
OTHER VESSELS
TANKER
CONTAINER CARRIER
TUG/THRUSTER
ROLL-ON/ROLL-OFF
CHEMICAL TANKER
TOTAL / WEIGHTED AVERAGE
4
14
14
1
9
21
1
1
39
13
12
5
9
143
2,8
9,8
9,8
0,7
6,3
14,7
0,7
0,7
27,3
9,1
8,4
3,5
6,3
100
Average age
(years)
10
7
22
35
19
24
34
36
22
9
6
16
18
17,6
DWT %
4.834,0
89.187,2
205.584,5
2.721,0
74.601,5
808.545,6
28.801,0
156,0
1.303.322,3
364.350,0
3.284,7
107.267,6
107.009,0
3.099.664,4
0,2
2,9
6,6
0,1
2,4
26,1
0,9
0,0
42,0
11,8
0,1
3,5
3,5
100
Source: Corporate System/ ANTAQ
Updated on 09/10/2009

MARITIME SUPPORT – BRAZILIAN FLAG FLEET (PRIVATE AND CHARTERED)
Type of ship Amount %
Average age
(years)
DWT %
FERRY
7
2,0
6
10.269,6
3,5
BARGE
4
1,2
26
12.811,0
4,4
DERRICK/CRANE
1
0,3
7
2.082,0
0,7
FREIGHTER
3
0,9
24
3.158,2
1,1
CATAMARAN
1
0,3
0
45,0
0,0
BULK CARRIER (ORE-OIL)
1
0,3
36
777,5
0,3
BOAT
48
14,0
21
1.747,6
0,6
LINE HANDLING
5
1,5
11
1.298,6
0,4
OTHER VESSELS
26
7,6
13
4.077,3
1,4
PASSENGER/GENERAL CARGO
4
1,2
10
164,8
0,1
PASSENGER
1
0,3
25
64,2
0,0
TANKER
2
0,6
9
6.676,2
2,3
TUG/THRUSTER
139
40,4
14
30.079,2
10,4
SUPPLY
102
29,7
11
216.201,5
74,7
TOTAL / WEIGHTED AVERAGE
344
100
17,6
289.452,6
100
Source: Corporate System / ANTAQ
Updated on 09/18/2009
PORT SUPPORT – BRAZILIAN FLAG FLEET (PRIVATE AND CHARTERED)
Type of ship Amount %
Average age
(years)
DWT %
FERRY
55
6,7
13
57.354,4
24,4
BARGE
26
3,2
29
39.600,8
16,8
DERRICK/CRANE
11
1,3
37
3.037,2
1,3
FREIGHTER
1
0,1
71
502,0
0,2
LIGHTER
49
6,0
31
22.088,9
9,4
FLOATING
31
3,8
11
906,2
0,4
BULK CARRIER
15
1,8
33
47.846,0
20,3
BULK CARRIER (ORE-OIL)
1
0,1
36
777,5
0,3
BOAT
219
26,6
20
1.479,3
0,6
PRACTICAL BOAT
11
1,3
16
44,8
0,0
LINE HANDLING
2
0,2
6
513,6
0,2
OTHER VESSELS
81
9,9
13
2.926,1
1,2
PASSENGER/GENERAL CARGO
11
1,3
14
3.369,1
1,4
PASSENGER
2
0,2
5
1,1
0,0
RESEARCH
2
0,2
12
19,4
0,0
TANKER
9
1,1
29
21.332,9
9,1
TUG/THRUSTER
294
35,8
22
32.327,1
13,7
SUPPLY
2
0,2
16
1.303,1
0,6
TOTAL / WEIGHTED AVERAGE
822
100
20,6
235.429,4
100
Source: Corporate System / ANTAQ
Updated on 09/18/2009
79

l Waterway Panorama
Grant
By the end of August 2009, the amount of
companies regulated by ANTAQ in provision
of transport services in maritime and
support navigation was 232 Brazilian shipping
companies.
Albeit partial, this result is an increase of
0.9% compared to 2008.
The following chart shows the evolution of the
number of companies regulated by the Agency:
Brazilian Shipping Companies
Source: Corporate System/ANTAQ
230
232
Amount
205
2007
2008 2009 (until August)
The reason for the small changes between
2008 and 2009 (until August) is the large number
of extinctions of licenses for dredging companies,
as a result of the entry into force of Law
11,610/07 (National Program of Port and Waterway
Dredging) and Administrative Rule 3 of
January 6, 2009, by the Ministry of Transport,
which repealed Administrative Order 461, of
December 15 1999, which fell within the execution
of dredging services as port support
navigation.
It is noteworthy that the amount of regulated
companies is not necessarily the total amount
of authorization grants issued by ANTAQ, as
the same shipping company may provide waterway
transportation services in more than
one type of navigation.
Thus, the graphs below illustrate the total
number of authorization grants existing at the
end of each financial year and their distribution
by type of navigation:
Total Grants
Source: Corporate System/ANTAQ
305
299
Amount
285
2007
2008 2009 (until August)
80

LONG HAUL GRANTS
CABOTAGE GRANTS
Source: Corporate System/ANTAQ
Amount
Amount
34
33
22
19 19
31
2007
2008
2009
(until August)
2007
2008
2009
(until August)
MARITIME SUPPORT GRANTS
PORT SUPPORT GRANTS
150
165
161
Amount
Amount
79
84
92
2007
2008
2009
(until August)
2007
2008
2009
(until August)
The year 2007 represented a significant leap
in the number of grants issued annually, reflecting
a phase of seeking settlement with the
Agency, due to the start of the implementation of
the Annual Inspection Plan – PAF.
In 2008, growth was driven by the entry of
shipping port support navigation companies. Analyzing
the grants of 2009, we note that the exit
of port support navigation dredging companies
from the scope of action of ANTAQ activities was
offset by maintaining the pace of growth in the
number of maritime support navigation companies
in relation to the previous year.
The outlook for the coming years is as follows:
a) growing trend for cabotage, as the market’s
bet on the success of the growth acceleration
program (PAC) in the reduction of costs in
the sector with improved efficiency in logistics
and government actions to relieve the sector and
attract investments;
b) increase of the number of companies interested
in maritime support, which may be explained
by the prospect of high heating of the
maritime support market and expectations of exploitation
of large reserves of oil in the pre-salt
layer;
c) growing trend for port support companies
and fleet renewal, driven by the leverage of maritime
support and cabotage.
81

l Waterway Panorama
Vessel Chartering
The regulation of ANTAQ for the chartering
of vessel for the provision of existing maritime
and support navigation transport
services is performed through registration or
authorization.
Registered chartering occurs for Brazilian
flag vessels, foreign vessels, when the provisions
of Decree-Law 666/69 for long-haul navigation
(which addresses the mandatory transport
in Brazilian flag vessels for prescribed
cargo) does not apply, or even foreign vessels
under bareboat charter, suspended flag, for
cabotage, support maritime, according to certain
limitations of deadweight tonnage.
Authorized chartering occurs in the foreign
vessels by time or trip, cabotage or maritime and
port support navigations, as well as bareboat in
port support navigation, or even long-haul shipping
in the case of suspension of the mandatory
cargo transport under the Brazilian flag.
Chartering is further subdivided by m,
namely: bareboat, time, and trip. The latter receives
specific names (for control purposes),
i.e., by space, for the chartering of part of a
vessel for a trip.
Through its rules, ANTAQ establishes chartering
procedures and criteria to be followed,
depending on the type of navigation.
The monitoring of boat chartering authorizations/records,
as well as the release of transport
of cargo under the Brazilian flag in foreign
vessels, belonging to foreign shipping companies,
allows for the assessment of the level of
competitiveness of Brazil in the political/economic
scenario of international maritime transportation.
Despite the need for chartering, motivated
by the lack of Brazilian flag vessels, such expenses
allow for the exchange remittance to
foreign countries.
Balancing the development of a national
merchant marine, while attracting foreign investment,
albeit through the participation of
foreign companies in the capital of Brazilian
shipping companies, is the challenge to be
faced while regulating the sector. However, for
such success, it is essential to establish public
policies for the sector to encourage the consolidation
of existing regulatory frameworks of
waterway transportation.
The following charts show the behavior of
chartering performed over the past three years.
82

Evolution of the amount of charters
(Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GAM)
2.561
2.510
2.466
Amount
2.004
1.855
1.952
557
655
514
2006
2007 2008
l Authorization l Registration l Total
Evolution of the amount of authorized charters by type of navigation
1.418
456
1.259
449
1.291
526
Amount
105
171 126
25
24
9
2006
2007 2008
l Cabotage l Long Haul l Maritime Support l Port Support
Evolution of the amount of registered charters by type of navigation
432
998
432
90
68
Amount
34
33
19
14
1
6
0
2006
2007 2008
l Long Haul l Cabotage l Maritime Support l Port Support
83

l Waterway Panorama
Evolution of chartering expenses
(Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GAM)
3.039.759.052
2.302.924.701
2.280.385.696
1.963.874.363
US$
1.395.077.586
1.492.640.902
1.075.884.688
907.847.114
787.744.794
2006
2007 2008
l Authorization l Registration l Total
Evolution of authorized chartering expenses by type of navigation
1.339.548
991.619
988.633
480.761
US$ x 1000
295.907
73.743
335.485
94.466
126.554
36.795
71.071
17.012
2006
2007 2008
l Cabotage l Long Haul l Maritime Support l Port Support
Evolution of registered chartering expenses by type of navigation
780.596.913
798.491.924 573.671.948
284.494.837
207.547.937
US$ x 1000
103.645.182
5.526.008
3.690.888
9.235.443
184.000
3.581.650
1.557.496
2006
2007 2008
l Long Haul l Maritime Support l Cabotage l Port Support
84

Evolution of Authorized + Registered cabotage chartering expenses
(by type)
59.351
36.704
87.326
(Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GAM)
US$ x 1000
29.499
20.428
18.378
13.065
0 0
26.621
21.252
590
2006
2007 2008
l By time l By trip l By space l Bareboat
100%
Distribution of cabotage chartering expenses
by type of storage
90%
80%
23,70%
42,27%
33,41%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
100%
85%
70%
43,83%
45,31%
26,72%
7,13%
5,71% 5,29%
45,38%
6,09%
15,11%
2006 2007 2008
l Automotive l Bulk solids l Bulk liquids l Container l General Cargo
Distribution of cabotage chartering expenses
by type of vessel
15,95% 16,40% 14,47%
24,63%
6,94%
9,26%
(Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GAM)
6,03%
13,07%
60%
50%
7,14%
11,29%
21,91%
15,07%
40%
30%
19,15%
14,28%
24,33%
20%
21,85%
31,20%
27,04%
0%
2006 2007 2008
l Bulk Carrier l Tanker l Chemical l Multi-Purpose l Container Carrier l Other
85

l Waterway Panorama
Evolution of Authorized + Registered long-haul chartering
(by type)
1.225.286
1.090.941
1.173.530
US$ x 1000
369.162
156.241
380.318
51.649
836.809
62.458
36.437
42.383
47.348
2006
2007 2008
l By time l By trip l By space l Bareboat
Distribution of long-haul chartering by type of storage
100%
4,00%
6,00%
5,00%
95%
90%
60%
79,00%
75,00%
81,00%
50%
10%
5%
16,00%
17,00%
12,00%
0%
1,00% 1,00%
2,00%
2006 2007 2008
l Automotive l Bulk solids l Bulk liquids l Container l General Cargo
Distribution of long-haul chartering expenses by type of vessel
100%
90%
80%
2,35%
4,36%
6,17%
8,68%
3,03%
5,28%
7,40%
4,41%
5,52%
4,40%
5,15%
5,34%
70%
14,96%
16,58%
11,04%
60%
30%
63,70%
63,30%
68,55%
86
0%
2006 2007 2008
l Tanker l Container Carrier l Chemical l Gas Tanker l Bulk Carrier l Other

Issue of certificates of prescribed cargo release (CLCP)
l Imports l Exports l Total
(Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GAM)
1797
1694
Amount
312
203
515
673
828
155
103
2006
2007 2008
Evolution of Authorized + Registered maritime support
chartering expenses (by type)
US$ x 1000
392.356.758
7.195.602
531.827.428 714.344.953
11.205.618
50.911.042
2006
2007 2008
l By time l Bareboat
100%
95%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Distribution of maritime support chartering expenses
23%
2%
4%
8%
6%
6%
10%
17%
2%
4%
6%
10%
6%
12%
15%
14%
3%
3%
4%
6%
6%
9%
11%
13%
30%
20%
10%
0%
16%
9%
7%
8%
10%
10%
10%
2006 2007 2008
l AHTS 18000 l PSV l PSV 3000 l AHTS 12000 l AHTS 15000 l PSV 1500
l AHTS l AHTS 7000 l PSV 1000 l RSV l Other
15%
15%
87

l Waterway Panorama
Evolution of Authorized + Registered port support chartering expenses
33.581,25 68.749,96
US$ x 1000
5.902,76
13.937,79
4.631,80
3.397,25
2006
2007 2008
l By time l Bareboat
Distribution of port support chartering expenses by type of vessel
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
70%
9,79%
5,28%
1,98%
82,95%
(Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GAM)
1,22% 3,86%
4,59% 4,10%
3,67%
3,00%
8,40%
9,21%
22,56%
19,98%
60%
50%
40%
30%
64,96%
54,46%
20%
10%
0%
2006 2007 2008
l Dredge l Non-propelled ferry l Derrick/Crane l Tug l UT 250 l Other
88

Chartering expenses
Cabotage
Petrobras was the company that spent the
most in cabotage chartering in 2008, more
than US$39 million (an increase of 88.7%
over 2007) or 29.2% of the total amount of
US$135.78 million spent on charters in 2008.
Companhia de Navegação Norsul had the second
biggest expenses, with little more than
US$30 million (an increase of 4.3% over 2007)
or 22.3% of the total amount. The two companies
accounted for more than half of cabotage
chartering expenses, together.
The significant participation of Petrobras in
cabotage chartering expenses is also reflected
on the distribution of expenses by vessel: the
chartering of chemical, oil, and gas tankers
was US$61.3 million (an increase of 37.4%
over 2007) or 45 % of the total amount.
The biggest expense with chartering by type
of storage occurred in the transport of bulk liquids
(oil and derivatives), which was $61.6 million
(increase of 38.5% over 2007) or 45.4% of
the total amount. Expenses for chartering bulk
solid transport occupied the second position
with US$45.3 million (increase of 9.3% over
2007) or 33.4% of overall expenses in cabotage
in 2007.
As for modality, the biggest expense occurred
with charters per trip, which totaled US$87.3
million (an increase of 47.1%) or 64.3% of the
total amount. The secondly position was occupied
by chartering by time, which totaled
US$26.6 million (an increase of 44.8%) or
19.6% of the total amount.
Companies
2006
Amount (US$)
2007
Amount (US$)
2008
Amount (US$)
Agemar Transp e Empreendimentos
37.026,00
37.332,00
35.190,00
Aliança Navegação e Logística
16.662.545,00
2.486.400,00
4.737.720,00
Chaval Navegação Ltda.
0,00
0,00
706.964,16
Cia. Navegação da Amazônia
0,00
0,00
4.463.055,00
Comercial Marítima Oceânica
1.827.525,00
4.359.823,72
265.000,00
Companhia de Navegação Norsul
11.969.811,73
29.111.535,89
30.378.900,00
Companhia Libra de Navegação
3.681.565,00
1.710.780,00
1.476.910,00
Empresa de Navegação Elcano
3.285.084,85
9.914.546,10
5.829.129,14
FLUMAR - Transportes de Químicos e Gases
8.777.027,65
4.257.980,32
12.061.812,56
Frota Oceânica e Amazônica
0,00
4.344.944,40
0,00
Global Transporte Oceânico
912.235,20
10.339.424,87
3.378.043,54
Granéis do Brasil Marítima
0,00
174.273,18
1.319.100,05
H. Dantas - Comércio, Navegação e Indústria
7.172.694,25
7.691.355,00
15.349.625,00
Mercosul Line Navegação e Logística
217.935,00
667.615,00
723.155,00
Metalnave S/A - Comércio e Navegação
1.267.020,35
0,00
0,00
Narval Serviços de Transportes
0,00
0,00
12.950,00
Navegação Guarita
0,00
860.400,00
568.750,00
Nav. São Miguel
0,00
0,00
3.570.000,00
Pancoast Navegação
0,00
1.176.000,00
11.235.573,03
Petróleo Brasileiro S/A - Petrobras
23.458.117,69
21.024.698,30
39.677.068,63
TOTAL
79.268.587,72
98.157.108,78
135.788.946,11
89

l Waterway Panorama
Type of vessel
2006
Amount (US$)
2007
Amount (US$)
2008
Amount (US$)
Propelled Barge
2.774.000,00
463.600,00
0,00
Freighter
1.890.509,60
6.908.309,49
8.113.260,47
Gas Tanker
7.808.554,54
8.451.927,57
7.805.195,10
Bulk Carrier
17.317.096,38
30.621.798,28
36.718.795,65
Heavy-Lift
0,00
97.500,00
3.570.000,00
Multi-Purpose
5.658.035,85
9.093.099,44
17.746.228,89
Oil Tanker
15.176.940,13
14.016.273,93
33.031.055,90
Container Carrier
19.521.526,11
6.814.278,87
8.188.726,12
Chemical Tanker
8.948.639,56
21.509.621,19
20.459.833,98
Ro-Ro
173.286,06
180.700,00
155.850,00
TOTAL
79.268.588,23
98.157.108,77
135.788.946,11
BY STORAGE
Type of Charter
2006
Amount (US$)
2007
Amount (US$)
2008
Amount (US$)
Automotive
31.500,00
0,00
8.500,00
General Cargo
4.526.007,04
5.190.712,23
20.521.000,00
Container
21.177.196,11
6.994.893,95
8.265.576,12
Bulk Liquids
34.745.160,23
44.478.754,69
61.625.307,75
Bulk Solids
18.788.724,85
41.492.747,90
45.368.562,24
TOTAL
79.268.588,23
98.157.108,77
135.788.946,11
BY MODEL OF CHARTER
Type of Charter
2006
Amount (US$)
2007
Amount (US$)
2008
Amount (US$)
By time
13.065.440,00
18.378.146,69
26.620.774,72
By trip
36.703.962,75
59.350.611,72
87.326.195,86
By space
29.499.185,48
20.428.350,36
21.252.182,98
Bareboat
0,00
0,00
589.792,55
TOTAL
79.268.588,23
98.157.108,77
135.788.946,11
90

Chartering expenses
Long Haul
Petrobras spent US$1.63 billion with charters
in long-haul navigation (an increase of
50.1% over 2007) or 76.8% of US$2.1 billion
spent in the long-haul shipping in 2008.
Companies Aliança Navegação e Logística,
Companhia Libra de Navegação, H. Dantas
and Elcano spent together US$374.4 million
(17.6% of the total amount). Other companies
accounted 5.6% of expenses on long-haul chartering
in 2008.
The main long-haul chartering expenses by
type of storage was liquid bulk (oil and byproduct,
mainly), which totaled US$1.7 billion in
2008 (an increase of 45.3% over 2007) or 81%
of the total amount. The second position was occupied
by containers, with US$252.7 million
(with a decrease of 7.4% compared to 2007) or
12% of the total amount.
The expense of Petrobras is responsible for
most of the costs relating to oil tanker chartering
(US$1.45 billion) and gas tankers (US$109.2
million), with an increase of 40.9% over 2007,
when both costs totaled $1.1 billion, together.
Other highlights were chartering expenses with
container carriers, which reached US$233.9 million,
with a decrease of 9.7% compared to the
previous year.
Chartering by time accounted for US$1.17
billion spent in long haul chartering, or 55% of
the total amount in 2008, with a decrease of
7.3% compared to 2007. The second position
was occupied by chartering by trip, which totaled
US$ 836.8 million, with an increase of 120%
over 2007 and 39.5% of the total amount.
Companies
2006
Amount (US$)
2007
Amount (US$)
2008
Amount (US$)
Aliança Navegação e Logística
157.779.345,11
161.289.400,00
155.102.370,00
Chaval Navegação
1.145.000,00
5.080.069,50
18.120.950,00
Comercial Marítima Oceânica
14.525.125,62
21.923.142,73
10.894.261,55
Companhia de Navegação Norsul
8.562.300,00
11.704.250,00
9.463.500,00
Companhia Libra de Navegação
149.207.283,90
138.922.658,18
107.663.819,59
DANDY Overseas
0,00
7.387.928,50
0,00
Empresa de Navegação Elcano
27.082.239,55
39.746.271,39
44.126.471,29
Flumar Transporte de Químicos e Gases
125.362.637,46
14.106.729,86
12.464.533,35
Global Transporte Oceânico
3.194.236,41
400.730,08
11.246.797,32
Granéis do Brasil Marítima
0,00
0,00
1.648.761,62
H. Dantas - Comércio Navegação e Indústria
49.979.950,00
45.101.290,00
67.545.500,00
Log-ln
0,00
0,00
7.410.544,94
Metalnave S/A - Comércio e Indústria
2.355.816,00
661.500,00
0,00
Navegação Guarita
3.253.644,00
7.578.350,00
7.863.350,00
Pancoast Navegação
0,00
2.872.000,00
4.399.000,00
Petrobras Transporte S/A - Transpetro
23.041.720,00
23.041.720,00
23.104.848,00
Petróleo Brasileiro S/A - Petrobras
1.221.635.951,79
1.085.474.409,95
1.629.949.333,41
Transnave
0,00
0,00
9.140.478,80
TOTAL
1.787.125.249,84
1.565.290.450,19
2.120.144.519,87
91

l Waterway Panorama
Type of vessel
2006
Amount (US$)
2007
Amount (US$)
2008
Amount (US$)
Freighter
5.262.800,00
4.586.000,00
14.467.552,00
Gas Tanker
110.006.407,38
115.821.497,42
109.248.837,78
Bulk Carrier
77.726.596,11
82.664.340,00
93.328.432,96
Heavy-Lift
190.000,00
400.000,00
82.500,00
Multi-Purpose
17.147.246,84
27.708.974,76
46.467.983,12
Ore-Oil
4.097.077,55
0,00
0,00
Tanker
1.135.802.754,10
990.819.138,65
1.453.328.793,23
Container Carrier
266.812.332,90
259.468.971,34
233.973.971,83
Chemical Tanker
154.814.522,37
69.061.097,86
113.266.003,08
Tug
0,00
0,00
0,00
Ro-Ro
15.265.512,59
14.760.430,16
15.893.110,71
GNL Tanker
0,00
0,00
40.087.335,16
TOTAL
1.787.125.249,84
1.565.290.450,19
2.120.144.519,87
Type of storage
2006
Amount (US$)
2007
Amount (US$)
2008
Amount (US$)
Automotive
3.201.525,59
2.374.095,00
2.669.872,88
General Cargo
22.722.440,00
23.164.074,02
45.064.267,13
Container
277.173.076,74
273.109.387,74
252.734.335,65
Bulk Liquids
1.405.268.761,41
1.175.701.733,93
1.717.615.982,00
Bulk Solids
78.759.446,11
90.941.159,50
102.060.061,62
TOTAL
1.787.125.249,85
1.565.290.450,19
2.120.144.519,28
92

Chartering expenses
Maritime support
Maritime support chartering expenses were
attributed to Petrobras, which spent
US$618.5 million (increase of 34.3%) in
2008, or 80.7% of the total amount of US$
765.2 million.
The amount is almost the total of US$660
million (increase of 42.8% over 2007) spent in
2008 for different types of AHTS (Anchor Handling
Tug Supply) vessels, the function of which is
to install and maintain oil platforms and PSVs
(Platform Support Vessel), which provides support
services to the platforms. Another 24 companies
accounted for the remaining US$146.7 million.
As for the type of charter, most maritime support
expenses were allocated to chartering by
time, reaching a value of US$714.3 million (an
increase of 34.3% over 2007) or 93.3% of the total
amount. The remaining 6.7% or US$50.9
million (an increase of 362% over 2007) were
paid in the bareboat charters.
Companies
2006
Amount (US$)
2007
Amount (US$)
2008
Amount (US$)
Alfanave Transportes marítimos
1.480.000,00
1.314.975,00
1.786.950,00
Astromaríma Navegação
400.000,00
18.825.680,52
12.258.154,27
BOS Navegação
0,00
4.328.100,00
6.954.398,00
Bram Offshore Transportes Marítimos
0,00
1.911.275,50
18.965.351,75
Camorim Serviços Marítimos
0,00
1.122.750,00
2.182.750,00
Delba Marítima Navegação
234.900,00
540.000,00
0,00
DOF Navegação
0,00
0,00
663.780,00
Galáxia Marítima
6.119.945,82
11.499.000,00
8.166.900,00
Gulf Marine (Ser. Mar.) do Brasil
0,00
0,00
9.662.997,07
Luanova Serviços Marítimos
0,00
8.060,00
168.588,81
Maersk Brasil (Brasmar)
1.943.913,00
0,00
0,00
Maré Alta do Brasil Navegação
8.217.400,00
9.558.321,95
11.325.137,25
Navegção São Miguel
209.000,00
12.830.000,00
10.958.000,00
Navemar Transp Comércio Marítimo
0,00
0,00
325.116,33
Norskan Offshore
0,00
0,00
11.781.000,00
Petróelo Brasileiro S/A – Petrobras
338.591.879,43
460.570.040,44
618.522.694,26
R&P Transportes Marítimos
0,00
22.116,60
81.764,40
Seabulk Offshore do Brasil
0,00
0,00
5.088.787,71
Subsea 7 do Brasil Serviços
41.543.000,00
19.488.400,00
9.048.800,00
Trico Serviços Marítimos
812.322,00
1.014.326,90
350.251,95
Acergy do Brasil S/A
0,00
0,00
25.353.050,00
Fugro Brasil – Serv Subm e Levantamentos
0,00
0,00
388.742,93
Maersk Supply Service – Ap Marítimo Ltda
0,00
0,00
9.884.889,22
Acamim navegação e Serviços Portuarios
0,00
0,00
1.035.632,38
Serviços Marítimox Dialcar
0,00
0,00
243.660,00
Technip Brasil Eng Instal e Apoio Marítimo
0,00
0,00
58.598,80
TOTAL
399.552.360,25
543.033.046,91
765.255.995,13
93

l Waterway Panorama
Type of vessel
2006
Amount (US$)
2007
Amount (US$)
2008
Amount (US$)
AHTS 12000
63.991.985,00
80.887.885,00
86.220.094,64
AHTS15000
41.567.850,00
62.929.225,00
71.806.000,00
PSV
28.715.485,76
56.839.946,57
111.004.830,23
PSV 3000
34.152.701,07
53.424.315,32
100.469.808,74
AHTS
24.396.068,00
53.363.875,52
45.452.909,64
AHTS18000
31.707.620,00
52.393.900,00
112.979.213,00
AHTS 7000
32.921.060,00
31.361.169,03
32.068.802,29
PSV 1500
25.813.504,95
31.116.658,91
48.781.414,63
PSV 1000
14.904.683,60
20.304.363,20
25.855.860,91
AHTS 10000
12.521.190,00
14.141.192,25
18.024.041,72
UT 4000
8.803.575,00
11.882.797,00
13.183.394,02
RSV
9.063.000,00
9.804.400,00
20.829.800,00
PSLV
31.360.000,00
9.684.000,00
0,00
LH 1 200
2.242.732,00
7.417.048,00
8.273.006,54
UT 750
4.127.368,82
5.937.809,22
4.732.154,08
Passenger Boat
4.500.340,90
5.626.607,24
7.122.280,22
AHTS 5000
5.051.700,00
5.152.880,00
4.649.622,00
SV1000
1.278.774,00
5.029.380,20
2.471.733,56
Multi-Purpose
1.110.000,00
4.230.000,00
1.890.000,00
SV300
2.274.010,00
3.563.029,39
7.786.882,91
TS 10000
0,00
3.321.500,00
3.789.937,26
PSV 2000
1.226.700,00
3.079.800,00
3.184.200,00
UT 2500
1.633.875,00
2.062.250,00
4.552.801,12
Seismic Ship Support
612.000,00
1.878.000,00
2.525.375,31
TS 7000
3.400.700,00
1.643.700,00
1.494.990,00
Line Handling
1.371.943,75
1.432.349,05
1.465.573,80
Cargo Ferry
8.580.032,40
1.370.005,60
394.111,20
Tug
36.500,00
936.500,00
4.083.142,77
LH 1 800
605.710,00
878.335,70
1.299.082,56
AHSV
0,00
549.000,00
0,00
LH300
0,00
271.324,50
662.031,78
Mixed Boat
0,00
234.978,83
2.713.396,86
AHT
0,00
183.000,00
9.295.210,00
Flotel
0,00
55.850,00
880.680,00
Support Boat
0,00
45.971,38
0,00
Hovercraft
0,00
0,00
867.920,76
MSV
1.120.000,00
0,00
0,00
TS 3000
461.250,00
0,00
3.528.247,50
TS
0,00
0,00
58.598,80
P2
0,00
0,00
858.546,28
TOTAL
399.552.360,25
543.033.046,91
765.255.695,13
94

By type of charter
2006
Amount (US$)
2007
Amount (US$)
2008
Amount (US$)
By time
392.356.758,25
531.827.428,46
714.344.952,98
Bareboat
7.195.602,00
11.205.618,45
50.911.042,15
TOTAL
399.552.360,25
543.033.046,91
765.255.995,13
Chartering expenses
Port support
Thyssekrupp CSA Companhia Siderúrgica accounted
for US$11.94 million or 64.3% of the
US$18.56 million spent on port support navigation
chartering in 2008, with a decrease of
75.2% over the previous year. Somar, Superpesa,
and Deme, totaled US$5.24 million or 28.2% of
the total amount, together.
More than half the of port support chartering expenses
were allocated to dredgers: US$10.1 million
or 54.4% of the total amount. The second position
was occupied by non-propelled ferries, with
US$3.7 million. As for models, an amount of
US$13.9 million (a decrease of 79.7%) was spent
on chartering by time – 75% of the overall port support
expenses – and US$4.6 million in bareboat
charters (a decrease of 21.5%).
Companies
2006
Amount (US$)
2007
Amount (US$)
2008
Amount (US$)
Bandeirantes Dragagem e Construção
184.000,00
365.000,00
172.000,00
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce
0,00
239.200,00
193.600,00
Construção e Comércio Camargo Correia
16.764.249,60
0,00
0,00
Delba Marítima Navegação
731.000,00
0,00
0,00
Deme Brazil Serviços de Dragagem
0,00
2.619.034,28
1.191.895,84
Enterpa Engenharia
255.231,00
166.738,50
0,00
Navegação São Miguel
549.000,00
543.000,00
544.500,00
Ne N navegação e Logística
0,00
0,00
81.900,00
Saveiros Camuyrano – Serviços Marítimos
0,00
358.416,00
0,00
Serviços de Operações Marítimas – SOMAR
16.542.521,57
8.215.805,45
2.421.639,00
Superpesa – Cia de Transp. Esp. e Intermodais
1.952.500,00
2.241.500,00
1.628.000,00
Thyssenkrupp CSA Companhia Siderúrgica
0,00
59.904.025,50
11.944.055,59
Tug Brasil
0,00
0,00
392.000,00
TOTAL
36.978.502,17
74.652.719,73
18.569.590,43
95

l Waterway Panorama
Type of vessel
2006
Amount (US$)
2007
Amount (US$)
2008
Amount (US$)
Non-propelled ferry
731.000,00
16.839.228,74
3.709.665,00
Support vessel
2.887.257,60
0,00
0,00
Derrick/Crane
1.952.500,00
2.241.500,00
1.709.900,00
Bulk Lighter
184.000,00
365.000,00
172.000,00
Lighter
30.674.744,57
48.497.972,57
10.113.633,47
Oil Tanker
549.000,00
543.000,00
544.500,00
Tug
0,00
2.737.263,42
1.559.331,76
UT 250
0,00
3.428.755,00
760.560,20
TOTAL
36.978.502,17
74.652.719,73
18.569.590,43
By type of charter
2006
Amount (US$)
2007
Amount (US$)
2008
Amount (US$)
By time
33.581.248,67
68.749.955,87
13.937.787,35
Bareboat
3.397.253,50
5.902.763,86
4.631.803,08
TOTAL
36.978.502,17
74.652.719,73
18.569.590,43
96

INLAND NAVIGATION
Completion of Tucuruí Locks
Rivers cross the Center-West and Amazon
regions, forming the largest drainage area
entirely within the national territory, coupled
with their strategic role with great potential
for hydropower, agriculture, mining, navigation,
and power generation. The basin includes
the states of Pará, Tocantins, Goiás, Mato
Grosso and Maranhão, in addition of the Federal
District.
This area is distinguished by high production
of maize, rice, soybeans and sugar cane, among
other products, with great potential for increased
production. The basin formed by the rivers gathers
grain producing areas and includes the livestock
and mineral sectors, with extensive production
of aluminum, asbestos, bauxite,
limestone, copper, iron ore, and nickel. The agricultural
potential of the waterway joins the multimodal
network, where the waterways are part of
the Carajás and North-South railways, bringing
goods to the Port of Itaqui in Maranhão, and Vila
do Conde, in Pará, and maritime transport.
The construction of Tucuruí locks was initiated
in 1981 and halted in 1989. Resumed in September
1998, the works were again interrupted
in December 2002. The last of the work was resumed
in July 2004. In 2007, the project was included
in the Growth Acceleration Plan – PAC,
with the allocation of R$815 million between
2007 and 2010 for the completion of works.
To bridge the gap of 39 meters from the lake
formed by the busbar and the river, 6.5km below,
the Tucuruí presents a general arrangement
of structures with two locks connected by an intermediate
channel which allows for the crossing
and maneuvering of vessels, thus enabling
the fully independent operation of the locks.
This set bridges the gap on site and is developed
on the left bank of the Tocantins River,
starting in the reservoir with Lock 1, embedded
in the earth dam by concrete walls and ending
on Lock 2 and the downstream approach channel
on the Tocantins River, located near the city
of Tucuruí.
97

l Waterway Panorama
The chamber of Lock 1 is 210 meters long
and 33 meters wide and has a gap of 36 meters.
Filling time is 13 minutes.
Lock 2 has the same dimensions, but it has
a difference of 33 meters and a shorter filling
time.
To illustrate the enormity of the project, the
chambers of the locks of the Panamá Canal are
304.8 meters long and 33.5 meters wide, requiring
a set of 3 locks in series to bridge the
gap of 26 meters.
The intermediary channel is 6km long. It consists
of a main dock, located on the right of the
system, from upstream to downstream, and a
shorter dock, which closes the intermediate canal
downstream, on the left of the axis, next to
Lock 2.
The elements described above also include
others that may be summarized as follows: floating
guide wall to be installed upstream of Lock
1, guide walls downstream of Lock 1 and upstream
and downstream of Lock 2, and spill way
to the intermediary canal.
The dimensions of the chambers of the locks
should allow for the passage of trains consisting
of four 85x16m lighters and a 30m-long tug,
being 32 meters wide and 200 meters long in
total.
Operationally, the draft of vessels is 4.50m.
The absolute minimum water table is 5m at Lock
1 and the intermediate canal, and 3.50 meters
at Lock 2 and the downstream canal, in the most
critic water levels (AHIMOR) – see figure below.
To illustrate it, carrying the same cargo requires
9.1 hopper trains with 273 wagons with
capacity for 70 tonnes. In the case of highway
transport, the equivalence is increased to 543 B-
train wagons of 35 tonnes, or 764 trucks of 25
tonnes.
According to data by the Ministry of Transport,
from September 2009, 95% of Lock,
1.78% of Lock 2 and 88% of the intermediary
channel have been completed, with a total percentage
of execution of 88% of the system. After
all tests, start-up is expected to occur in
June 2010.
98

III International Seminar on
Waterways – Brazil / Netherlands
In March 4 and 5, The International Seminar on
Waterways – Brazil/Netherlands, sponsored by
ANTAQ in partnership with the Dutch Embassy in
Brazil, was held at the headquarters of the National
Confederation of Transport (CNT), in Brasilia.
The speakers of the seminar were representatives
of ANTAQ, the Ministry of Transport, the
National Department of Transport Infrastructure –
DNIT, National Water Agenda – ANA, by the
Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water
Management of the Netherlands and the Port
Rotterdam.
The main purpose of the event was the exchange
of experiences and information on inland
navigation between authorities and Brazilian and
Dutch experts.
The topics presented were:
1. The Waterway Transportation System in
Brazil;
2. The Role of River Transportation in the
Netherlands and Europe;
3. Strategies and Policies for the Development
of Sustainable Inland Waterway Transportation:
institutional and organizational aspects in inland
navigation;
4. River Transport Infrastructure: ports, waterways,
and vessels; and
5. Safety and Environment: Support systems
for a safe, efficient and clean inland navigation
(River Information Services, VTMS, Cargo Transportation
and Handling).
There was also the end of the event, a business
roundtable to allow the integration between Dutch
and Brazilian businessmen.
The end of the event also included a business
roundtable to allow for the integration among
Dutch and Brazilian businessmen.
One result of the business roundtable held at
the seminar was the understanding that is being
reached between Companhia Docas do Pará
(CDP) and the Dutch consultancy NEA, with the
mediation of the Dutch Embassy in Brazil. Also in
2009, an agreement should be signed between
the parties with the aim of studying for the promotion
of water transportation, port and intermodal
development in the state of Pará. Similar
work is being done for the development of inland
waterway transportation in Rio Grande do Sul.
99

l Waterway Panorama
Seminar on the Parnaíba Waterway
In May 6, 2009, in Teresina, ANTAQ and the
State of Piauí promoted the Seminar on the
Parnaíba Waterway.
With an approximate length of 1,600km and
located in the Drainage Basin of the Northeast,
the Parnaíba Waterway comprises the rivers Parnaíba
and das Balsas and is administered by the
Administration of Waterways of the Northeast –
AHINOR. It is currently used to transport cargoes
of regional interest, but it has potential for the
flow of grains produced in the agricultural frontiers
in southern Piauí, southeastern Maranhão,
and northwestern Bahia.
Completion of the lock system in the area of
the dam of Boa Esperança, the works of which
were interrupted in 1982, with 90% of installations
completed, is considered a priority for the
viability of the waterway, as other works necessary
for correction of natural the bed of the river,
such as dredging, have an easier implementation
and lower cost.
The speakers presented their views on the
waterway, emphasized its importance to logistics
in agribusiness in Brazil, and gave examples of
actions that could contribute to its implementation,
including the Public Private Partnerships –
PPP, appointed by Banco do Nordeste – BND,
highlighting the benefits for the public sector,
such as: reduced need for direct investment,
maximization of public services without bonds
that are typical of the public sector, and payment
after the start of the provision of services.
The Administration of Waterways of the
Northeast, AHINOR, highlights that, with the
coming into operation of Parnaíba, the economic
and social consequences shall be the
raising of the income level of the population of
the regions under the influence of the river and
the possibility of introducing more advanced
agricultural practices; among others; and the
need to restore the river’s course, in the process
general silting due to the lack of protection.
The Government of Piauí defended waterway
transportation as an alternative to the flow
of production. It reported that the average cost
of deployment of the waterway is approximately
US$34,000 per kilometer. In the case of the
highway, this figure rises to US$440,000.
Companhia de Desenvolvimento dos Vales
do São Francisco e do Parnaíba – CODEVASF
presented the São Francisco River Basin Revitalization
Program (PRSF). The program is divided
into five lines of actions:
1. Management and Monitoring;
2. Socio-Environmental Agenda;
3. Protection and sustainable use of natural
resources;
4. Quality of environmental sanitation; and
5. Sustainable Economies.
The ongoing activities consist of basic sanitation
works (solid waste, sewage), flood gullies
and erosion control, improved navigability, and
recovery of riparian areas. According to
CODEVASF, the program should be applied in
the Parnaíba River after adjustments.
ANTAQ presented data from the Study of Estimated
Cargo Demand for the Parnaíba Waterway,
which projects a volume of 7.5 million
tonnes of grain produced in the catchment area
of the waterway up to the year 2012 and justifies
the completion of the locks of Boa Esperança,
and investments in dredging and clearing
to make Waterway Parnaíba fully navigable.
Estimated Cargo Demand
The Region of Influence considered comprised
the states of Piauí, Maranhão, Tocantins,
and Bahia, which may use the Parnaíba River as
the preferred route for the transportation of local
produce, taking into account the lower efficiency
and absence of other transport means.
In this work, the waterway is considered only
in its navigable stretch between the cities of
Santa Filomena (PI) and Teresina (PI), taking
into account the reservoirs formed by the hydroelectric
plants of Uruçuí, Ribeiro Gonçalves,
Cachoeira, Castelhano, and Estreito, and the
completion of the locks of the HPP Boa Esperança.
The maximum distance in a straight line
between the cities considered and the Parnaiba
River was 375km.
The figure on the next page shows the selected
municipalities and the area of influence
considered in this work.
100

Current and Potential Cargo
In Brazil, the waterway model is designed to
handle large volumes of cargo of low value added.
Thus, for the area in question, local agricultural
production shall be the cargo to be transported
on the waterway.
To determine the cargo potential, grain production
was investigated in each of the 128 municipalities
in the area of influence. The data were
obtained from the IBGE and refer to the year
2007.
The following table shows the growth of grain
production in the four states with municipalities in
the area of influence between the years 2006
and 2007:
State Grain production growth between 2006 and 2007 (%)
PIAUÍ
MARANHÃO
TOCANTINS
BAHIA
* Grain production growth between 2005 and 2007
Table: Grain production growth (CONAB)
34,07*
8,7
23,44
17,76
101

l Waterway Panorama
The state of Piauí faced adverse weather conditions
in 2006, which caused a sharp drop in
production that year. The year 2007 was considered
normal, and as a result of what happened
in 2006, the rate of production growth between
the two years was 77.07% and may be considered
an atypical value. When using 2005 data,
the rate of growth between 2005 and 2007 is
34.07%.
Analyzing the values above considering them
as a limit, the projection of production for the
following years was made by adopting a conservative
growth rate for grain production in the
states of Piauí, Tocantins and Bahia de 15%,
and 8.70% for the production of Maranhão.
Thus, the projection for the production of the region
of influence in the four states is presented
in the table below:
Grain production growth
Region
2007 (t)
Growth rate
(% a.a)
2008 (t) 2009 (t) 2010 (t) 2011 (t) 2012 (t)
BA
2.170.612,00
15,00
2.496.203,80
2.870.634,40
3.301.229,50
3.796.414,00
4.365.876,10
MA
991.099,00
8,70
1.077.324,60
1.171.051,90
1.272.933,40
1.383.678,60
1.504.058,60
PI
605.798,00
15,00
696.667,70
801.167,86
921.343,03
1.059.544,49
1.218.476,16
TO
233.031,00
15,00
267.985,70
308.183,50
354.411,00
407.572,70
468.708,60
TOTAL
4.000.540,00
4.538.181,80
5.151.037,66
5.849.916,93
6.647.209,79
7.557.119,46
Number of trips
To determine the number of trips required for
the outflow of the estimated production from the
area of influence of the waterway, a convoy
was used, compatible with the template given by
the Ministry of Transport for the establishment of
the dimensions of the locks to be built alongside
the new hydroelectric developments of the Parnaíba
River. The dimensions are as follows:
• draft: 3m;
• breadth: 24m; and
• length: 200m.
While making an analogy with the convoys
used on in the Tietê-Paraná Waterway, it is possible
to obtain, in a conservative way, a load capacity
of 9,000 tonnes per convey. Thus, the
number of trips required to transport the estimated
grain production in the region for 2012
is presented in the table on the next page. We
also calculated the number of trips required to
handle the production, considering that only
part of that flows on the waterway. Thus, the values
used were 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90%
of the production.
The equivalence with the number of vehicles
of highway and railway models is shown in tables
on the following page. According to the
data shown, moving 100% of the Region’s production
on the waterway would withdraw
279,893 trucks or 209,920 B-trains from highways.
Conclusion: To flow the production by
rail would require 75,571 railcars.
102

Percentage of Production of the
Area of Influence – 2012(f)
Total (t) Convoy Capacity (t) Number of Trips
100%
7.557.119
9.000
840
90%
6.801.407
9.000
756
80%
6.045.696
9.000
672
70%
5.289.984
9.000
588
60%
4.534.272
9.000
504
50%
3.778.560
9.000
420
Table: Number of trips by the convoy to flow the produce
Cargo Carried (t)
Number of Convoys
Number of Trucks
(27 t)
Number of B-Trains
(36 t)
Number of
Wagons(100 t)
7.557.119
840
279.893
209.920
75.571
6.801.407
756
251.904
188.928
68.014
6.045.696
672
223.915
167.936
60.457
5.289.984
588
195.925
146.944
52.900
4.534.272
504
167.936
125.952
45.343
3.778.560
420
139.947
104.960
37.786
Table: Equivalence of the waterway model with other models
Emission and Shipping Cost Reduction
To compare the reduction of emissions of pollutants
by choosing to waterway model for the
transporting large volumes, we did a case study
considering moving all production of the area of
influence being flowed from the municipality of
Uruçuí (PI) to the Port of Itaqui in São Luís (MA).
From Uruçuí, there are two paths for the transport
of production:
1. the section called Highway Model: 400km
by the highway model to the city of Porto Franco
(MA), where the cargo is then transported by rail
through North-South and Carajás railways to the
port of Itaqui for 713km;
2. the section called the Waterway Model:
470km by the Parnaíba Waterway to Teresina (PI),
where the cargo is then transported by the railway
of Companhia Ferroviária Nordeste – CFN, for
453km.
Both modes considered an average distance of
150km relating to the need to shift production of
other municipalities in the area of influence to
Uruçuí. We considered carbon monoxide emissions,
and the results are presented in the table
below.
Cargo (t)
Projection
2012
Highway
(km)
Highway Model Waterway Model Emission Reduction
Railway
(kg)
CO Emission(kg)
Highway
(km)
Waterway
(km)
Railway
(km)
CO Emission
(kg)
kg %
7.557.119 550 713 1.470.630,6 150 470 453 867.119,0 603.512 41
Reduction of CO emissions from gases when using the waterway
103

l Waterway Panorama
Considering the data from the previous table,
and the two previous cases, the reduction in
shipping costs when using the waterway model is
shown in Table 6. For the calculations, we used
the following shipping values for the models:
R$0.113/t.km in the highway model; R$
0.070/t.km the railway model; and
R$0.046/t.km the waterway model. As seen in
the results, the reduction in shipping costs is
high, reaching 37.3%.
Highway Model
Waterway Model
Cost Reduction
Cargo (t)
Projection
2012
Highway
(km)
Railway
(kg)
Shipping
Cost (R$)
Highway
(km)
Waterway
(km)
Railway
(km)
Shipping
Cost (R$)
R$ %
1 (unit)
550
713
112,1
150
470
453
72,3
39,8
37,3
7.557.119
550
713
846.850.79
150
470
453
531.114.35
315.736.43
37,3
Reduction of shipping costs when using the waterway
104

Rule edit
ANTAQ is seeking to adapt rules to the reality
of inland Brazil through the Inland Navigation
Superintendence, SNI, simplifying
the process of regularization of shipping companies
and protecting the rights of users of waterway
transportation.
During this period, we note the publication of
the proposed adjustment of the rule for granting
authorizations for cargo transportation services in
inland navigation of interstate longitudinal and
international routes (Resolution 1,291-ANTAQ),
which was submitted to online and on-site public
hearings (São Paulo, Porto Alegre, Corumbá,
Porto Velho, Manaus, and Belém), under rapporteurship
for final approval. Another highlight
is the development of the rule for the chartering
of foreign vessels in inland navigation, which is
also under rapporteurship.
The SNI collaborates with the drafting of rules
for the regulation of the Cargo Transport Station
– ETC and Small-Sized Public Port Facility - IP4,
created by Law 11,518, of 2007, introducing the
peculiarities of the inland waterway sector.
Paraná-Tietê River Basin Workgroup
G5+1 is the group formed by the five federal
states located in the area of influence
of the Paraná-Tietê River Basin, consisting
of Paraná, Mato Grosso do Sul, Goiás,
Minas Gerais, and São Paulo and the Federal
Government, represented by ANTAQ, the Ministry
of Transport – MT and the National Department
of Transport Infrastructure – DNIT. This
group is formalized by the National Council of
Secretaries of Transport – CONSETRANS, which
has given legitimacy to the development of the
work and representation to the group.
The work of the G5+1 has started with the
drafting of an agenda for improvements to be
implemented in the Paraná-Tietê River Basin, focusing
on the removal of bottlenecks, increase in
length, port terminals for handling, and intermodal
services. The construction of locks at the
dams of the Paranaíba River (São Simão, Cachoeira
Dourada, and Itumbiara), overcoming
gaps of 72.90m, 30.98m and 81.87m, respectively,
would increase the length of the waterway
in 350km and flow the major soybean production
on the waterway to the ports of Paranaguá
and Santos. In Paranapanema Grande Rivers,
the possibility of overcoming the dams Rosana,
Taquaruçu, Capivara and Água Vermelha, with
gaps of 17m, 28.90m, 52.40m, and 57m, respectively,
is studied and would provide a gain of
400km in length to the waterway. These investments
are essential to handle the grain production
from producing areas of São Paulo, such as
São Simão and Itumbiara and as multimodal link
to transfer the production in Mato Grosso and
the Center-West Region of Brazil.
In the Ivaí and Ivinhema Rivers, located in
Paraná and Mato Grosso do Sul, respectively, it
is estimated that specific interventions could provide
gains in length of 137km in the Ivaí River
37km and 185km in the Ivinhema River, allowed
for the flow of the grain production in a waterway/railway
multimodal link, with the ports of
Paranaguá and Santos. Finally, it would allow for
an extensive waterway network with full inter-
105

l Waterway Panorama
modality. The map below shows the increase in
length of the waterway.
In the state of São Paulo, the extension of the
Tietê River to Salto and Artemis is currently being
studied. Such expansion would comprise over
130km in length, in connection with the railway
to the flow of the production to the Port of Santos
for export.
The increased extension of the Paraná-Tietê
could provide the integration of the production
chain with a more competitive model, creating
more development for the municipalities of the
coverage area of the Paraná-Tietê Waterway, a
larger number of municipalities served in Goiás
and Minas Gerais, services to the mining areas of
Catalão, open space for the transport of general
cargo (containers), bulk liquids (alcohol and
biodiesel), fertilizers, and connection with BR-153.
A series of seminars in the member states of
the G5 are happening successively. The first seminar
was held in Curitiba (PR), on March 19,
2009 in the auditorium of the Federation of Industries
of the State of Paraná – FIEPR, with representatives
from ANTAQ, the Waterway Department
Waterway of the State of São Paulo, the
Secretariat of Transportation of the State of
Paraná, the Ministry of Agriculture, and experts in
the implementation of Itaipu. This seminar was
attended by the DNIT and the State Government
of Paraná.
The second meeting was held in Campo
Grande, on May 15, 2009 in the auditorium of
the Federation of Industries of the State of Mato
Grosso do Sul – FIEMS, and lectures were presented
by ANTAQ, the Waterway Department of
the State São Paulo, the Secretariat of Transport
of Mato Grosso do Sul, counting on the presence
of the DNIT and the State Government of Mato
Grosso do Sul
The third event was held in Belo Horizonte on
June 5, 2009, with representatives of the National
Water Agency.
On August 7, 2009, Goiânia hosted the meeting
of the G5+1, at the Federation of Industries
of the State of Goiás. The lectures were conducted
by ANTAQ, DH/São Paulo, the Department
of Infrastructure of the State of Goiás, the
company Caramuru, and the DNIT. At the occasion,
the DNIT remarked that it authorized the
drafting of studies for the construction of locks in
São Simão, Cachoeira Dourada, and Itumbiara,
which shall offer big gains in extension in the
state of Goiás, of about 350km, and the flow of
the grain production in these regions, known as
producing areas in Brazil.
The waterway is the solution to release the immense
production in Brazil. It is the outlet that
Brazil needs, as it is the model that emits fewer
pollutants, providing less degradation of nature,
less use of lubricating oils, and the non-use of
tires. Moreover, it is possible to consider the
country’s economic gain when using the waterways,
which have costs well below highway and
railway models, with accident rates near zero,
being more economical to the implementation,
maintenance, reliability and security.
106

Inspections
The inspections programmed in inland navigation
for the 1st half of 2009, according to
the Annual Inspection Plan – PAF, sought to
assess the provision of inland transport services
in longitudinal (cargo, passenger, and mixed)
and transverse routes (crossings), as well as the
regularization of companies, based on the legal
framework and rules in force, ensuring the provision
of appropriate services and curbing malpractice.
Depending on the different types of services,
the purposes were:
1. Longitudinal cargo transport – intensive
actions to promote the settlement of operators
still not in compliance with Resolution 356/2004
and curb the illegal provision of serviced, especially
on routes that include operators already
authorized by ANTAQ;
2. Crossing transport – registration of operators
not covered by the PAF-2008 and intensive,
educational actions to promote the regularization
of service providers according to the provisions of
Resolution 1,274/2009; and
3. Longitudinal passenger and mixed transport
in the Amazon Basin – intensive actions to
promote the regularization of service providers,
according to Resolution 912/2007, curbing the
irregular provision of services, especially on lines
with operators already authorized by ANTAQ.
To achieve the goals and purposes of the PAF,
the inspection procedures were performed as
follows:
4. Prevention/Correction – inspection activities
alongside service providers with appropriate authorization
to the specific rules of ANTAQ to monitor
compliance, primarily taking into account
technical and operational aspects;
5. Education – inspection actions alongside
service providers not authorized or with authorizations
not appropriate to the new rules of AN-
TAQ;
6. Restraint – inspection actions to restrain
the provision of services without authorization
by ANTAQ, following, in each case, the guidance
of the Inland Navigation Superintendence – SNI.
From July 2008 to June 2009, ANTAQ supervised,
through the Inland Navigation Superintendence,
SNI, 218 companies, comprising 82
crossing transport companies, 72 longitudinal
passenger and mixed route companies, and 64
cargo companies, distributed into 266 inspection
procedures, with 204 PAF inspections and 62 extraordinary
inspections, namely:
Programmed Inspections / PAF – July 2008 to June 2009
Type of Transport
No. of procedures
expected
No. of procedures
carried out
%
Crossings
Longitudinal Passenger and Mixed
Longitudinal Cargo
TOTAL
132
42
63
237
89
44
71
204
67%
105%
113%
86%
107

l Waterway Panorama
Extraordinary Inspections – July 2008 to June 2009
Type of Transport No. of procedures %
Crossings
Longitudinal Passenger and Mixed
Longitudinal Cargo
TOTAL
11
41
10
62
PAF and Extraordinary Inspection Procedures carried out
(by type of transport) – Inspection Procedures – July 2008 to June 2009
Type of Transport
Crossings
Longitudinal
Passenger and Mixed
Longitudinal
Cargo
July/08
21
3
10
August/08
8
-
16
September/08
6
4
7
October/08
2
1
5
November/08
-
3
12
December/08
-
-
5
January/09
25
-
4
February/09
1
19
6
March/09
7
12
5
April/09
15
7
5
May/09
14
12
3
June/09
1
24
3
TOTAL
100
85
81
108

Company regularization
The inspection actions carried out by ANTAQ
sought to regularize waterway transportation
services, to attract entrepreneurs to legality, by
being regularized at the Agency and therefore providing
good quality services to society.
To this end, during the companies’ period to
adapt to the rules issued, ANTAQ carried out educational
inspections, guiding entrepreneurs on procedures
regarding legal requirements, gradually
increasing the number of regularized operators.
Brazilian navigation companies
Authorization Grants
Companies operating in inland navigation in
longitudinal cargo, passenger and crossing transport,
in interstate and international routes, or those
required to charter foreign vessels in these operations,
are subject to the granting of authorization
by ANTAQ.
ANTAQ provides, on its website (www.antaq.gov.br),
the information necessary for obtaining
authorization grants for each type of transport.
Simply access the link:
http://www.antaq.gov.br/Portal/autorizainteriorobter.asp
Of the 600 companies authorized to operate
in inland navigation with respect to the competence
of the Federal Government, 182 grants
were issued by the agency between 2002 and
2009, as shown in the following page. In the
same period, 105 foreign vessel chartering grants
were recorded.
109

l Waterway Panorama
Authorization Grants Issued
Source: SNI/ANTAQ
* last updated on 08/31/2009
Foreign vessel chartering
Sources: SNI/ANTAQ
* last updated on 08/31/2009
** Certificate of Inland Chartering Authorization
Source: SNI/ANTAQ
110

Fleet of authorized companies
The fleet of companies authorized by AN-
TAQ to operate in inland navigation consists of
1,248 private vessels. Overall, the total transport
capacity of these vessels is 939,404.95 deadweight
tonnes by (DWT). The average age is up
to 15 years.
Predominant vessels are ferries, barges, and
lighters, which make up a fleet of 690 units, with
792,504.76 DWT and average age of 16 years,
followed by tugs/thrusters, with 428 vessels, totaling
14,092.05 tonnes with 21 years of age,
on average.
Authorized Companies – Fleet – Private Vessels
Type Amount* % DWT % Average age
Ferry/Barge/Lighter
690
55,3
792.504,76
84,4
16,4
Freighter
2
0,2
168,30
0,0
21,0
Mixed Catamaran
2
0,2
224,00
0,0
9,0
Passenger Catamaran
1
0,1
1,00
0,0
1,0
Ferry Boat
2
0,2
196,90
0,0
5,0
Liquefied Gas
1
0,1
1.023,50
0,1
39,0
Bulk Carrier
28
2,2
66.223,27
7,1
16,0
Boat
44
3,5
753,40
0,1
24,0
Other Vessels
5
0,4
4,00
0,0
18,0
Other Bulk Liquids
27
2,2
59.042,75
6,3
2,0
Passenger/General cargo
14
1,1
4.914,72
0,5
16,0
Passenger
2
0,2
236,90
0,0
2,0
Research
2
0,2
19,40
0,0
12,0
Tug/Thruster
428
34,3
14.092,05
1,5
21,0
TOTAL
1.248
100,0
939.404,95
100,0
15,0
* last updated on 08/31/2009 - Source: SNI/ANTAQ
111

l Waterway Panorama
ANTAQ Units
BRASÍLIA
Address: SEPN, Qd. 514, Cj E
CEP: 70760-545 - Brasília – DF
Telephones: (55 61) 3447-1035
RIO DE JANEIRO
Address: Rua Rodrigo Silva, nº 26 - 1 1º andar- Centro
CEP: 20011-040 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Telephones: (55 21) 2101-2501
SÃO PAULO
Address: Rua Sampaio Viana, 277 – 4º andar,
Edifico Albatroz – Bairro Paraíso
CEP: 04004-000 - São Paulo - SP
Telephones: (55 11) 3559-8345 / (55 11) 3885-2478
FAX: (55 11) 3559-8345
FLORIANÓPOLIS
Address: Avenida Rio Branco, 691,
Centro Executivo Atlantis, rooms 101 and 102 - Centro
CEP: 88015-203 – Florianópolis – SC
Telephones: (55 48) 3225-1410 / 3225-1685
BELÉM
Address: Avenida Conselheiro Furtado, nº 2865
Edifício Síntese 21 Inteligente Business Tower, Sobreloja
São Braz. CEP: 66063-060 - Belém - PA
Telephones: (55 91) 3229-6334 / 3229-8900 / 3229-0684
PORTO VELHO
Address: Rua Carlos Gomes, 513 - Centro
CEP: 78900-030 – Porto Velho – RO
Telephones: (55 69) 3229-5563
RECIFE
Address: Avenida Lins Petit, 320, Salas 901/902 - Boa Vista
CEP: 50070 - 230 - Recife – PE
Telephones: (55 81) 3221-5447 / 3221-8720
MANAUS
Address: Avenida Eduardo Ribeiro, 520
Rooms 1504 to 1507,
Edifício Manaus Shopping Center- Centro
CEP: 69010-901 – Manaus – AM
Telephones: (55 92) 3234-9057 / (55 92) 3234-9764
112