Waterway Panorama - Antaq
Waterway Panorama - Antaq
Waterway Panorama - Antaq
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
National Agency for <strong>Waterway</strong> Transportation – ANTAQ<br />
Volume 4 – October 2009
<strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
National Agency for <strong>Waterway</strong> Transportation – ANTAQ<br />
Volume 4 – October 2009
STAFF<br />
Fernando Antonio Brito Fialho<br />
Director-General<br />
Murillo de Moraes Rego Corrêa Barbosa<br />
Director<br />
Tiago Pereira Lima<br />
Director<br />
Ana Maria Pinto Canelas<br />
Sea and Support Navigation Superintendent<br />
José Alex Botêlho de Oliva<br />
Inland Navigation Superintendent<br />
Giovanni Paiva<br />
Ports Superintendent<br />
Wilson Alves de Carvalho<br />
Administration and Finance Superintendent<br />
Produced by:<br />
Social Communication Advisory Board – ANTAQ<br />
Claudia Resende – Social Communication Advisory Board Head<br />
Jorge Lucio de Carvalho Pinto – Journalist<br />
Rodrigo Duhau – Journalist<br />
Rodrigo Vasconcelos – Journalist<br />
Fabiana Carvalho – Publicist<br />
Inês Albuquerque – Public Relations<br />
Circulation: 5,000 copies<br />
Comments and suggestions:<br />
Ombudsman: 08006445001 or (55 61) 3447-1172<br />
Social Communication Advisory Board – ASC<br />
SEPN Qd. 514 - Conj. E -1° andar - Asa Norte<br />
CEP: 70760-545 Brasília, DF, Brazil (55 61) 3447-2737<br />
www.antaq.gov.br/asc@antaq.gov.br
CONTENTS<br />
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 05<br />
PORTS<br />
l Movement at private ports and terminals<br />
between July 2008 and June 2009 ................................................................................... 06<br />
l Movement of goods 2008-2009 ................................................................................ 12<br />
l Attractiveness indicators ............................................................................................ 30<br />
l Total cargo handling at private ports and terminals ..................................................... 33<br />
l General Grants Plan .................................................................................................... 52<br />
ENVIRONMENT<br />
l Port environmental management ................................................................................. 54<br />
l Port environmental planning ....................................................................................... 57<br />
l Revision of CONAMA Resolution 344/04...................................................................... 59<br />
l Solid waste .................................................................................................................. 60<br />
l Licensing process ........................................................................................................ 60<br />
l Environmental governance analysis ............................................................................. 61<br />
l Local environmental agenda ........................................................................................ 62<br />
l Waste receipt at ports (GISIS) ....................................................................................... 66<br />
MARITIME NAVIGATION<br />
l Introduction ................................................................................................................. 70<br />
l Regulation ................................................................................................................... 71<br />
l Supervision ................................................................................................................. 75<br />
l Merchant fleet .............................................................................................................. 77<br />
l Grant ........................................................................................................................... 80<br />
l Vessel chartering ......................................................................................................... 82<br />
INLAND NAVIGATION<br />
l Completion of the Tucuruí Locks ................................................................................. 97<br />
l III International Seminar on <strong>Waterway</strong>s – Brazil/Netherlands ...................................... 99<br />
l Seminar on the Parnaíba <strong>Waterway</strong> ............................................................................. 100<br />
l Rule edit ...................................................................................................................... 105<br />
l Paraná-Tietê River Basin Workgroup .......................................................................... 105<br />
l Inspections .................................................................................................................. 107<br />
l Company regularization ............................................................................................... 109
Introduction<br />
In the globalized world, competitiveness is crucial<br />
for economic growth in a country which, to<br />
be more efficient, depends on an intermodal,<br />
well articulated, transportation logistics. Cost and<br />
safety are two relevant variables in this equation.<br />
Maritime and inland navigation have vast advantages<br />
over the highway system in these two<br />
items, in long-distance transport, however they<br />
require modern, agile ports. ANTAQ has created<br />
the <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong>, now in its fourth edition,<br />
aiming at measuring the efficiency and<br />
agility of ports, and present maritime and inland<br />
navigation scenario.<br />
The <strong>Panorama</strong> was consolidated during this<br />
period as a reference for key stakeholders in the<br />
waterway transport sector, whether public or private.<br />
The data annually presented by ANTAQ is<br />
collected from the stakeholders themselves: the<br />
Port Boards and Brazilian maritime and inland<br />
navigation Companies. Therefore, it is a joint<br />
work done by stakeholders in the industry for<br />
themselves, in partnership with ANTAQ.<br />
In the fourth volume of the <strong>Waterway</strong><br />
<strong>Panorama</strong>, Users will find relevant information<br />
on the handling of general cargo, containers,<br />
and bulk liquids and solids in Brazilian ports,<br />
which reflect the period, in the period between<br />
July 2008 and June 2009, the effects of the<br />
global crisis, with a decrease in handling for the<br />
period between July 2007 and June 2008. Charter<br />
expenses were also affected. However, developments<br />
in recent years have still been positive,<br />
as a whole.<br />
Users will also follow the pace of inspections<br />
conducted by ANTAQ, which has increased since<br />
the introduction of the Annual Inspection Plan<br />
(FAP) by the Agency, which consists of the planning<br />
for inspection actions that should be carried<br />
out in twelve months by the servers of the agency.<br />
The <strong>Panorama</strong> also features, as in all its editions,<br />
information on environmental management in<br />
Brazilian ports, which become even more precious<br />
when the environment is one of the greatest<br />
assets of collective interest.<br />
The <strong>Panorama</strong> is a tool employed by ANTAQ<br />
to give notice of its action, pursuant to the law,<br />
and simultaneously serve as a reference for the<br />
planning of public government policies and private<br />
sector investments. Along with seminars<br />
conducted by the agency on inland waterways, in<br />
partnership with Belgium, the United States and<br />
the Netherlands, and cabotage in Brazil, which,<br />
in its first edition this year, brought together industry<br />
leaders, the <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong> adds<br />
value Users’ activities, the most crucial of them in<br />
an increasingly competitive market economy:<br />
knowledge.<br />
05
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Ports<br />
Movement at private ports and terminals<br />
between July 2008 e June 2009<br />
General cargo<br />
Santos (SP) leads the movement of general<br />
cargo in Brazil: from July 2008 to June<br />
2009, the port of Santos handled<br />
29,641,832 tonnes or 37.3% of the national<br />
volume of 79,427,531 tonnes, 13.2% higher<br />
than the total volume in the previous period,<br />
which was 70,128,234 tonnes. Movement in<br />
Santos is 271% higher than the Portocel Private<br />
Terminal in Aracruz, ES, with 7,985,780 tonnes<br />
or 10.05% of the national movement. Even so,<br />
the main port of the country, the volume decreased<br />
8.9%, compared to the previous period,<br />
while Santos handled 32,553,568 tonnes,<br />
and its percentage share, which was 46.42%,<br />
decreased as well. This reduction in volume is an<br />
effect of the global crisis, which affected the port<br />
of Santos from December 2008, peaking in January<br />
2009, when there was a decrease of 40%.<br />
From July 2008 to June 2009, Itajaí fell from<br />
fourth to eighth place in the ranking of the 10<br />
top ports handling general cargo in Brazil: the<br />
movement was 2,628,896 tonnes or 3.3% of the<br />
national volume, implying a 55.1% decrease<br />
over the previous period, when the Santa Catarina<br />
port handled 5,858,395 tonnes, or 8.3% of<br />
the total volume. The movement was affected by<br />
the fact that the port was partially destroyed due<br />
to heavy rains that occurred in the State of Santa<br />
Catarina, in November 2008.<br />
The port of Paranaguá handled 7,967,608<br />
tonnes or 10.03% of the national volume between<br />
July 2008 and June 2009, representing<br />
an 8% increase over the previous period, when<br />
total handling was 7,376,689 tonnes. This release<br />
demonstrated that the positive effect of<br />
the migration of charges from Itajaí to<br />
Paranaguá was greater than the negative effects<br />
of the global crisis. Despite the increase, the<br />
relative share of the Paraná port in total handling<br />
decreased 0.5 percentage points. In the<br />
ranking, Paranaguá left the second position to<br />
occupy the third position.<br />
The port of Vila do Conde (PA) was not included<br />
in the ranking in the previous period. In<br />
the tenth position, the Pará port handled<br />
1,833,491 tonnes or 2.31% of the aggregate<br />
volume of general cargo. Founded in 1985 to<br />
assist the movement of bauxite and alumina<br />
from the industrial complex Alumar/Alunorte,<br />
the Pará port has increased its share in general<br />
cargo over recent years, counting on terminals<br />
specializing in containers, leased by Santos<br />
Brazil S.A. since 2003.<br />
The ports handled 83.83% of the volume of<br />
general cargo between July 2008 and June<br />
2009, reflecting an increase of almost 4 percentage<br />
points in relative share, compared to the<br />
previous period, when the ports were responsible<br />
for 80% of the movement. That means a decrease<br />
in the relative share of private terminals<br />
(PTs) in the total volume handled, which was<br />
20% in the previous period.<br />
06
SPATIAL GENERAL CARGO DISTRIBUTION<br />
MAIN PORTS AND TERMINALS – July 2008 to June 2009<br />
Amount Handled and Percentage Share on the Total National Volume<br />
35.000.000<br />
50%<br />
30.000.000<br />
29.641.832<br />
40%<br />
25.000.000<br />
30%<br />
20.000.000<br />
15.000.000<br />
37,32<br />
25%<br />
10.000.000<br />
7.985.780 7.967.608<br />
7.010.357<br />
20%<br />
5.000.000<br />
0<br />
10,05<br />
10,03<br />
8,83<br />
4.366.853<br />
5,50<br />
3.701.051<br />
3.421.738<br />
2.628.896<br />
4,66 4,31 3,31<br />
2.598.846 1.833.491<br />
3,27 2,31<br />
10%<br />
0%<br />
SANTOS-SP<br />
TUP PORTOCEL-ES<br />
PARANAGUÁ-PR<br />
RIO GRANDE-RS<br />
VITÓRIA-ES<br />
SUAPE-PE<br />
SÃO FCO. DO<br />
SUL-SC<br />
ITAJAÍ-SC<br />
SALVADOR-BA<br />
VILA DO<br />
CONDE-PA<br />
l Amount in tonnes handled at the Port<br />
l Share percentage of the port on the total national volume<br />
MOVEMENT SHARE – GENERAL CARGO (%)<br />
16,17<br />
TUP<br />
PO<br />
83,83<br />
07
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Bulk liquids<br />
The private terminal (PT) Almirante Barroso<br />
(SP) has once again led the ranking of the<br />
top 10 ports handling bulk liquids in Brazil.<br />
Between July 2008 and June 2009, the movement<br />
at this PT was 48,229,268 tonnes or 25.4%<br />
of the national volume of 189,730,362 tonnes,<br />
which was 13.4% higher compared to the previous<br />
period, when the total movement in the<br />
country was 167,319,008 tonnes. Still, movement<br />
at the PT decreased 2.4% over the previous<br />
period, when the movement was 49,442,767<br />
tonnes. There was also a drop of 4 percentage<br />
points in the relative share of the terminal in<br />
Brazil movement, which was 29.5% between July<br />
2007 and June 2008.<br />
Secondly, the PT Admiral Maximiano Fonseca<br />
(RJ) handled 29,939,659 tonnes of bulk liquids<br />
or 15.8% of the total volume, representing a decrease<br />
below 1% in the total volume handled<br />
over the previous period (30,284,959 tonnes),<br />
although it provided a decrease of 2.3 percentage<br />
points in the relative share of the terminal in<br />
the national movement.<br />
The PT Madre de Deus (BA) was third between<br />
July 2008 and June 2009, when it handled<br />
19,307,515 tonnes or 10.2% of the total<br />
volume. Private terminals operated by Petrobras<br />
Transporte S.A. (Transpetro) therefore occupied in<br />
the first three positions.<br />
Transpetro also owns PTs Almirante Soares<br />
Dutra (Brazil), in fifth place, Almirante Tamandaré<br />
(RJ), in sixth, São Francisco do Sul (SC), in<br />
seventh, and Manaus, in ninth, which handled,<br />
respectively, 11,256,674 tonnes or almost 6%,<br />
10,529,005 tonnes or 5.55%, 9,397,971 or<br />
nearly 5% and 5,612,149 tonnes or 2.96% of the<br />
bulk liquid movement in Brazil. These results reflect<br />
increases of 7.7%, 6%, 5.6% and 27%, respectively,<br />
over the previous period, when bulk<br />
liquid movement in these ports was 10,419,330<br />
tonnes, 7,849,382 tonnes, 8,950,208 tonnes,<br />
and 4,420,153 tonnes, respectively. In total, the<br />
seven Transpetro terminals accounted for 70.8%<br />
of the national bulk liquid movement between<br />
July 2008 and June 2009.<br />
The eighth and tenth positions were occupied<br />
by the port of Itaqui (MA) and the port of Suape<br />
(PE), which handled 5,705,411 tonnes (3.01%)<br />
and 3,840,666 tonnes (2.02%) in bulk liquids, in<br />
that order.<br />
The PTs handed 78.78% of the volume of bulk<br />
liquid between July 2008 and June 2009. In absolute<br />
terms, the bulk liquid movement in the PTs<br />
was 149,473,828 tonnes. Handling at the ports<br />
was 40,256,535 tonnes of bulk liquid, representing<br />
16.17% of the total volume.<br />
MOVEMENT SHARE – BULK LIQUID (%)<br />
78,78<br />
TUP<br />
21,22<br />
PO<br />
08
50.000.000<br />
SPATIAL BULK LIQUID DISTRIBUTION<br />
MAIN PORTS AND TERMINALS – July 2008 to June 2009<br />
Amount Handled and Percentage Share on the Total National Volume<br />
48.229.268<br />
50%<br />
40.000.000<br />
35.000.000<br />
l Amount in tonnes handled at the Port<br />
l Share percentage of the port on the total national volume<br />
40%<br />
30.000.000<br />
29.939.659<br />
30%<br />
25.000.000<br />
25%<br />
20.000.000<br />
25,42<br />
19.307.515<br />
15.000.000<br />
10.000.000<br />
5.000.000<br />
15,78<br />
10,18<br />
13.081.557<br />
6,89<br />
11.256.674<br />
5,93<br />
10.529.005<br />
5,55<br />
9.397.971<br />
4,95<br />
5.705.411<br />
3,01<br />
5.612.149<br />
3.840.666<br />
2,96 2,02<br />
20%<br />
10%<br />
0%<br />
TUP. ALM.<br />
BARROSO-SP<br />
TUP. ALM. MAX.<br />
FONSECA-RJ<br />
TUP MADRE DE<br />
DEUS-BA<br />
SANTOS-SP<br />
TUP ALM. SOARES<br />
DUTRA-RS<br />
TUP ALM.<br />
TAMANDARÉ-RJ<br />
TUP SÃO FCO.<br />
DO SUL-SC<br />
ITAQUI-MA<br />
TUP MANAUS-AM<br />
SUAPE-PE<br />
Bulk solids<br />
MOVEMENT SHARE – BULK SOLID (%)<br />
The PT Ponta da Madeira (MA) led the ranking<br />
of top ports and terminals handling bulk<br />
solids in Brazil: Between July 2008 and July<br />
2009, the terminal handled 86,293,646 tonnes<br />
or 25.1% of the national volume of 343,837,863<br />
tonnes. The second position was occupied by<br />
the PT Tubarão (ES), with 82,173,190 tonnes<br />
(23.9% of the total volume), representing a<br />
21.9% decrease over the previous period, when<br />
the terminal handled 105,181,391 tonnes.<br />
The MBR terminal (RJ) was third, handling<br />
36,647,379 tonnes in bulk solids in the period,<br />
representing 10.6% of the national volume. In<br />
the fourth position, the port of Santos (SP) moved<br />
31,937,108 tonnes or 9.3% of the total volume.<br />
The first four places accounted for almost 70% of<br />
the Brazilian bulk solid movement between July<br />
2008 and June 2009.<br />
The terminals handled 72.57% of the bulk<br />
solids in the period, increasing their relative share<br />
in the national movement in 2.57 percentage<br />
points, compared to the previous period.<br />
72,57<br />
TUP<br />
27,43<br />
PO<br />
In absolute terms, the PTs handled<br />
249,519,241 tonnes against 94,318,622 tonnes<br />
handled in Brazilian ports.<br />
09
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
SPATIAL BULK SOLID DISTRIBUTION<br />
MAIN PORTS AND TERMINALS – July 2008 to June 2009<br />
Amount Handled and Percentage Share on the Total National Volume<br />
110.000.000<br />
50%<br />
100.000.000<br />
90.000.000<br />
80.000.000<br />
70.000.000<br />
60.000.000<br />
86.293.646<br />
82.173.190<br />
l Amount in tonnes handled at the Port<br />
l Share percentage of the port on the total national volume<br />
40%<br />
30%<br />
50.000.000<br />
40.000.000<br />
35.000.000<br />
30.000.000<br />
25.000.000<br />
25,10<br />
23,90<br />
36.647.379<br />
31.937.108<br />
25%<br />
20%<br />
20.000.000<br />
15.000.000<br />
10,66<br />
9,29<br />
19.312.772<br />
15.237.473<br />
14.212.024<br />
10%<br />
10.000.000<br />
0<br />
5,62<br />
4,43 4,13<br />
8.428.477<br />
5.400.743 4.193.234<br />
2,45 1,57 1,22<br />
0%<br />
TUP PONTA DA<br />
MADEIRA-MA<br />
TUP TUBARÃO-ES<br />
TUP MBR-RJ<br />
SANTOS-SP<br />
PARANAGUÁ-PR<br />
TUP PORTO<br />
TROMBETAS-PA<br />
VILA DO CONDE-PA<br />
TUP CVRD PRAIA<br />
MOLE-ES<br />
RIO GRANDE-RS<br />
SÃO FCO. DO SUL-SC<br />
Foreign Trade<br />
In terms of tonnes handled, the Brazilian trade<br />
flow that used ports and terminals in 2008<br />
reached 568 million in imports and exports of<br />
goods. Between 2008 and 2007 this growth was<br />
about 1.6%.<br />
On balance, it appears that the flows of exports<br />
reached 454 million, a surplus of around<br />
339 million tonnes. Imports grew by 3% over<br />
2007, higher than the 1.3% rate recorded in exports<br />
over this period.<br />
Between 2004 and 2008, we notice that the<br />
average annual growth in foreign trade flows<br />
stood at 7.2% per year, with exports at approximately<br />
7.6% per year, and imports showing annual<br />
variations of around 5.5%. It is recorded<br />
that there was a greater increase in amounts<br />
between 2006 and 2007, with a 10% increase,<br />
boosted by imports, which stood at 19%. However,<br />
considering the variation between 2007<br />
and 2008, although the average annual growth<br />
since 2003 was 7%, the tonnage of foreign trade<br />
recorded in port handling decreased by 2%. One<br />
can attribute this to the reflexes of the international<br />
financial crisis, more evident in the second<br />
half of 2008.<br />
10
600.000.000<br />
500.000.000<br />
400.000.000<br />
300.000.000<br />
200.000.000<br />
100.000.000<br />
0 tolenadas<br />
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008<br />
l Imports l Exports l Total<br />
Containers<br />
The containerization index refers to the percentage<br />
of goods transported in containers,<br />
in relation to the total general cargo. Despite<br />
the reduction rate of 1.17%, observed in<br />
2008 for 2007, there was a greater increase in<br />
absolute numbers of cargo handled in containers<br />
(5,202,847 tonnes) than general cargo loose<br />
(4,616,299 tonnes). In 2008 there were<br />
112,501,852 tonnes of general cargo, with<br />
73,248,231 tonnes in containers and<br />
39,253,621 tonnes as loose cargo. In the previous<br />
year, they were 102,682,706 tonnes,<br />
68,045,384 tonnes, and 34,637,322 tonnes.<br />
The series shows the trend of logistics in the increasing<br />
use of containers, whether for transportation<br />
of food products or industrial products.<br />
In some places, such as the port of Rio Grande,<br />
surpluses of bulk ores and soybeans were transported<br />
by this type of packaging.<br />
68,00%<br />
66,00%<br />
66,27%<br />
65,10%<br />
64,00%<br />
62,36%<br />
62,00%<br />
60,00%<br />
57,38%<br />
59,70%<br />
59,23%<br />
58,00%<br />
56,00%<br />
54,00%<br />
52,00%<br />
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
l Containerization index<br />
11
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Movement of goods<br />
2008 - 2009<br />
Containers<br />
Among public piers, the pier of Santos (SP)<br />
had the largest movement of containers<br />
between July 2008 and June 2009, when<br />
the volume was 352,507 units, representing a<br />
decrease of 4.5% over the previous period. The<br />
second position was occupied by the port of São<br />
Francisco do Sul (SC), which handled 135,008<br />
units, representing an increase of 3% over the<br />
period between June 2007 and July 2008. In the<br />
third position, the port of Fortaleza handled<br />
54,524 units, with an increase of 31.6% over the<br />
previous period.<br />
TECON Santos led the movement of containers<br />
between leased or private terminals between<br />
July 2008 and June 2009, when it handled<br />
684,908 units, almost double the movement of<br />
the public pier of Santos, which led movement<br />
among public ports. In the previous period,<br />
movement at TECON Santos decreased 6.3%.<br />
The second position was occupied by TECON Rio<br />
Grande (RS), which handled 375,531 units, an<br />
Public Pier – Container – Amount (In units)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Santos<br />
Public Pier<br />
337.567<br />
369.288<br />
352.507<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
Public Pier<br />
133.076<br />
131.022<br />
135.008<br />
Fortaleza<br />
Public Pier<br />
36.028<br />
41.432<br />
54.524<br />
Itajaí<br />
Public Pier<br />
96.520<br />
89.210<br />
33.762<br />
Belém<br />
Public Pier<br />
33.969<br />
32.601<br />
18.445<br />
Imbituba<br />
Public Pier<br />
14.533<br />
10.817<br />
15.898<br />
Vila de Conde<br />
Public Pier<br />
14.619<br />
7.022<br />
14.370<br />
Suape<br />
Public Pier<br />
10.518<br />
10.983<br />
13.438<br />
Natal<br />
Public Pier<br />
4.082<br />
6.464<br />
9.222<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Múlt.Use)<br />
3.885<br />
4.269<br />
9.221<br />
Santarém<br />
Public Pier<br />
-<br />
880<br />
3.539<br />
Maceió<br />
Public Pier<br />
552<br />
901<br />
3.261<br />
Salvador<br />
Public Pier<br />
2.142<br />
3.452<br />
3.114<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Public Pier<br />
19.659<br />
8.791<br />
1.980<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Corex)<br />
-<br />
278<br />
1.528<br />
12
Leased Terminals / PT – Container – Amount (In units)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Santos<br />
TECON<br />
715.240<br />
730.869<br />
684.908<br />
Rio Grande<br />
TECON<br />
336.252<br />
343.041<br />
375.531<br />
Paranaguá<br />
TCP<br />
318.464<br />
339.631<br />
339.957<br />
Santos<br />
T-35<br />
293.485<br />
285.951<br />
304.126<br />
Santos<br />
T-37<br />
221.646<br />
226.734<br />
184.673<br />
Vitória<br />
TVV<br />
194.522<br />
179.684<br />
177.398<br />
Suape<br />
TECON<br />
129.727<br />
129.119<br />
173.320<br />
Salvador<br />
TECON<br />
137.068<br />
104.889<br />
148.513<br />
Itajaí<br />
TECONVI<br />
291.764<br />
257.217<br />
129.668<br />
Santos<br />
TECONDI<br />
93.526<br />
93.365<br />
60.382<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
TESC<br />
5.023<br />
2.941<br />
17.896<br />
Maceió<br />
EMPAT<br />
-<br />
252<br />
947<br />
Vitória<br />
Peiú<br />
6.489<br />
2.593<br />
608<br />
increase of 9.5% over the period between June<br />
2007 and July 2008.<br />
The third position was occupied by TCP<br />
Paranaguá (PR), with 339,957 units, unchanged<br />
since the previous period.<br />
As for the average sheet, which determines the<br />
number of containers handled per hour, the top<br />
position of the ranking of public ports is occupied<br />
by the port of Santos, which handled 22 units per<br />
hour between July 2008 and June 2009, in an<br />
average identical to the previous period. The<br />
second position was occupied by the port of Itajaí<br />
(SC), which handled 18 units per hour, in an<br />
average 5.8% higher compared to the previous<br />
period. The third one was São Francisco do Sul,<br />
which handled 17 containers per hour, in an average<br />
29.2% lower than the one reported between<br />
July 2007 and June 2008.<br />
The leader in leased or private terminals was<br />
TECON Santos, which handled 35 containers<br />
per hour, in an average 59% higher than the port<br />
of Santos, which led the ranking of public ports,<br />
and 2.7% lower than the average reached by the<br />
terminal in the previous period. The second position<br />
was occupied by the T-37 Libra Terminais,<br />
also in Santos, which handled 31 units per hour,<br />
in an average 6% lower compared with the previous<br />
period. The third one was TECON Rio<br />
Grande, which handled 30 containers per hour,<br />
in an average 7.1% higher than the one reported<br />
in the previous period.<br />
The ports of Belém and Santarém (PA)<br />
recorded an average delay time of less than one<br />
hour per ship and led the ranking of public ports<br />
between July 2008 and June 2009. The second<br />
position was occupied by the ports of Vila do<br />
Conde (PA) and Maceió, where ships took an<br />
hour to dock, on average. At the port of Santos,<br />
in 9th place, the average delay time for docking<br />
was 11 hours. São Francisco do Sul had the<br />
worst performance, where ships took 19 hours to<br />
dock, on average, due to the increase in the<br />
number of vessels, arising from the partial destruction<br />
of the Port of Itajaí.<br />
Among leased or private terminals, the EMPAT<br />
terminal, in Maceió, reported an average delay<br />
time of one hour. The second position was occupied<br />
by the Peiú terminal in Victoria, where ships<br />
took 5 hours to dock, on average. In the third position,<br />
TECONDI Santos reported an average<br />
delay time of 6 hours for docking.<br />
The price of port services in the commercial<br />
pier at the port of Itajaí (SC) was the lowest per<br />
container handled in 2008: R$243,08 per unit,<br />
20% less than Imbituba, which had the second<br />
lowest price, and 60.7% less than the highest<br />
price, registered at the port of Salvador. Among<br />
the terminals, the lowest price was charged in the<br />
T-37, of Libra, in Santos (SP), at R$233,89, 1.8%<br />
less than TECONDI Santos, in the second position,<br />
and 50.4% less than the price per container<br />
handled at TECON Suape (PE).<br />
13
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Public Pier – Container – Average Sheet (u/h)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Santos<br />
Public Pier<br />
20<br />
22<br />
22<br />
Itajaí<br />
Public Pier<br />
19<br />
17<br />
18<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
Public Pier<br />
20<br />
24<br />
17<br />
Imbituba<br />
Public Pier<br />
11<br />
17<br />
15<br />
Suape<br />
Public Pier<br />
10<br />
17<br />
13<br />
Salvador<br />
Public Pier<br />
08<br />
10<br />
12<br />
Fortaleza<br />
Public Pier<br />
10<br />
11<br />
11<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Mult.Use)<br />
06<br />
07<br />
11<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Public Pier<br />
11<br />
09<br />
09<br />
Belém<br />
Public Pier<br />
10<br />
08<br />
09<br />
Natal<br />
Public Pier<br />
04<br />
05<br />
08<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Corex)<br />
-<br />
18<br />
07<br />
Santarém<br />
Public Pier<br />
-<br />
05<br />
07<br />
Maceió<br />
Public Pier<br />
08<br />
-<br />
06<br />
Vila do Conde<br />
Public Pier<br />
10<br />
08<br />
03<br />
Leased Terminals / PT – Container – Average Sheet (u/h)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Santos<br />
TECON<br />
35<br />
36<br />
35<br />
Santos<br />
T-37<br />
29<br />
33<br />
31<br />
Rio Grande<br />
TECON<br />
27<br />
28<br />
30<br />
Santos<br />
T-35<br />
23<br />
25<br />
28<br />
Salvador<br />
TECON<br />
20<br />
07<br />
28<br />
Paranaguá<br />
TCP<br />
05<br />
11<br />
24<br />
Vitória<br />
TVV<br />
27<br />
27<br />
24<br />
Itajaí<br />
TECONVI<br />
21<br />
19<br />
23<br />
Santos<br />
TECONDI<br />
24<br />
23<br />
19<br />
Suape<br />
TECON<br />
21<br />
22<br />
18<br />
Vitória<br />
Peiú<br />
13<br />
10<br />
10<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
TESC<br />
06<br />
06<br />
08<br />
Maceió<br />
EMPAT<br />
-<br />
04<br />
07<br />
14
Public Pier – Container – Average Delay Time (h/n)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Belém<br />
Public Pier<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Santarém<br />
Public Pier<br />
-<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Vila de Conde<br />
Public Pier<br />
0<br />
0<br />
01<br />
Maceió<br />
Public Pier<br />
01<br />
02<br />
01<br />
Natal<br />
Public Pier<br />
0<br />
0<br />
03<br />
Fortaleza<br />
Public Pier<br />
04<br />
04<br />
07<br />
Salvador<br />
Public Pier<br />
07<br />
17<br />
08<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Public Pier<br />
08<br />
10<br />
11<br />
Santos<br />
Public Pier<br />
10<br />
11<br />
11<br />
Imbituba<br />
Public Pier<br />
04<br />
06<br />
12<br />
Suape<br />
Public Pier<br />
04<br />
05<br />
12<br />
Itajaí<br />
Public Pier<br />
19<br />
17<br />
14<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Mult.Use)<br />
12<br />
20<br />
16<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Corex)<br />
-<br />
28<br />
17<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
Public Pier<br />
26<br />
18<br />
19<br />
Leased Terminals / PT – Container – Average Delay Time (h/n)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Maceió<br />
EMPAT<br />
-<br />
11<br />
01<br />
Vitória<br />
Peiú<br />
16<br />
12<br />
05<br />
Santos<br />
TECONDI<br />
07<br />
05<br />
06<br />
Salvador<br />
TECON<br />
09<br />
26<br />
10<br />
Santos<br />
T-37<br />
18<br />
13<br />
13<br />
Santos<br />
T-35<br />
18<br />
12<br />
14<br />
Suape<br />
TECON<br />
22<br />
25<br />
14<br />
Rio Grande<br />
TECON<br />
13<br />
11<br />
16<br />
Santos<br />
TECON<br />
19<br />
15<br />
17<br />
Vitória<br />
TVV<br />
29<br />
15<br />
19<br />
Itajaí<br />
TECONVI<br />
18<br />
17<br />
19<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
TESC<br />
19<br />
11<br />
21<br />
Paranaguá<br />
TCP<br />
18<br />
15<br />
21<br />
15
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
PRICES – CONTAINERS – 2008<br />
Port Terminal R$ US$<br />
ITAJAÍ<br />
Commercial Pier<br />
243,08<br />
104,01<br />
IMBITUBA<br />
Public Pier<br />
303,79<br />
129,99<br />
Terminais arrendados Portos públicos<br />
SÃO FRANCISCO DO SUL<br />
NATAL<br />
FORTALEZA<br />
VILA DO CONDE<br />
SANTOS<br />
BELÉM<br />
SALVADOR<br />
SANTOS<br />
SANTOS<br />
SANTOS<br />
SALVADOR<br />
RIO GRANDE<br />
ITAJAÍ<br />
VITÓRIA<br />
PARANAGUÁ<br />
RIO DE JANEIRO<br />
Public Pier<br />
Public Pier<br />
Public Pier<br />
Public Pier<br />
Right Bank<br />
Public Pier<br />
Public Pier<br />
Libra (T37)<br />
Tecondi<br />
Tecon<br />
Tecon<br />
Tecon<br />
Teconvi<br />
TVV<br />
TCP<br />
MultiRio<br />
312,53<br />
318,67<br />
360,04<br />
390,44<br />
408,82<br />
430,34<br />
619,80<br />
233,89<br />
238,11<br />
240,37<br />
296,17<br />
311,02<br />
318,67<br />
322,61<br />
339,04<br />
351,26<br />
133,73<br />
136,36<br />
154,06<br />
167,07<br />
174,93<br />
184,14<br />
265,21<br />
100,08<br />
101,89<br />
102,85<br />
126,73<br />
133,09<br />
136,36<br />
138,04<br />
145,07<br />
150,30<br />
SANTOS<br />
Libra (T35)<br />
359,91<br />
154,01<br />
MANAUS<br />
Super Terminais<br />
465,74<br />
199,29<br />
SUAPE<br />
Tecon<br />
471,40<br />
201,71<br />
Quotation on 12/31/2008: US$1.00 = R$2.3370<br />
16
Soybean (grains and bran)<br />
The (public) Corex of Paranaguá handled<br />
8,745,021 tonnes of soybeans, a volume<br />
6.5% higher than the one reported in the<br />
previous period and almost 3 times higher than<br />
the volume reported by the port of São Francisco<br />
do Sul (SC), in the second position, which<br />
handled 2,929,072 tonnes in the period, 22.2%<br />
more than the movement in the previous period.<br />
Increases in the movement of soybean reflect<br />
the tax policy in Argentina, which is surcharging<br />
exports of its products, thereby stimulating<br />
Brazilian exports.<br />
Among leased or private terminals, the leader<br />
was Corex Santos, which handled 6,572,555<br />
tonnes of soybeans between July 2008 and June<br />
2009, with a volume 66% higher than the previous<br />
period and almost twice as much as the volume<br />
of PT Tubarão (ES), which handled<br />
3,328,687 tonnes of soybeans over the same period,<br />
with a volume 248% higher than the one reported<br />
between July 2007 and June 2008. In the<br />
third position, the Tergrasa terminal in Rio<br />
Grande (RS) handled 2,650,276 tonnes, with a<br />
decrease of 28.6% over the previous period.<br />
The PT Cotegipe, located in the Bay of Todos<br />
os Santos, had an increase of 106% in the movement<br />
of soybean in relation to the previous period.<br />
This significant increase was achieved by<br />
the transfer of the shipment of grain from the<br />
west of Bahia through the port of Ilhéus to the private<br />
terminal in order to provide less road movement<br />
and better infrastructure and equipment.<br />
The public port of Bahia had a decrease of 91%<br />
over the previous period.<br />
As for the average sheet, which indicates<br />
tonnes of soybean handled per day, the public<br />
pier of Paranaguá (Corex) reported an average<br />
of handling of 28,462 tonnes per day and led<br />
the ranking of public ports between July 2008<br />
and June 2009, ahead of the public pier of São<br />
Francisco do Sul, which handled 16,237 tonnes<br />
per day, in an average 6% lower than the one reported<br />
between July 2007 and June 2008.<br />
Among leased or private terminals, the PT<br />
Tubarão (ES) led the ranking by handling 37,684<br />
tonnes per day between July 2008 and June<br />
2009, in an average 75.8% higher than the one<br />
reported in the previous period. The second position<br />
was occupied by TGG Santos, with an average<br />
handling of 26,065 tonnes per day, 62.5%<br />
more than the average from July 2007 to June<br />
2008. The third position was occupied by Corex<br />
Santos, with 14,525 tonnes per day, in an average<br />
19.4% higher than the one reported in previous<br />
period.<br />
The lowest average delay time between the<br />
public ports was reported at the port of Ilhéus<br />
(BA), where ships had a one-hour delay to dock,<br />
on average. The second position was occupied<br />
by the port of Santos, with an average of 8<br />
hours, and, the third one was occupied by the<br />
port of Paranaguá (Multiple Use), where ships<br />
had an average delay time of 3 days and 16<br />
hours to dock.<br />
In São Francisco do Sul and Paranaguá<br />
(Corex), the average delay time for docking was<br />
3 days and 22 hours and 4 days and 8 hours, respectively.<br />
In the case of the port of Paranaguá,<br />
the delay time was high due to the restrictions to<br />
night shipping, which occurs due to lack of maintenance<br />
on buoys and lack of maintenance<br />
dredging in the port’s canal.<br />
Among leased or private terminals, the leaders<br />
of the ranking were the PT of Granel<br />
Química, in Mato Grosso do Sul, and the PT<br />
Oleoplan in Rio Grande do Sul, where the ships<br />
docked in less than one hour on average, as in<br />
the previous period. The Tergrasa terminal, in<br />
second place, had an average time of 16 hours<br />
for docking against to 15 hours in the previous<br />
period and, in the third position, the Bunge terminal,<br />
in Rio Grande, reported an average of 23<br />
hours, 34.3% less than the time reported between<br />
July 2007 and June 2008.<br />
The price of port services practiced in the<br />
(public) Corex of Paranaguá was the lowest price<br />
per tonne of soybean handled, at R$7.80, almost<br />
38% lower than the price applied at the port of<br />
São Francisco do Sul (SC) and 44.6% less than<br />
the price applied at the port of Ilhéus (BA).<br />
Among the terminals, the lowest price was<br />
charged by Corex Santos, at R$4.88, a price<br />
5.6% lower than the one charged by the Cargill<br />
terminal in Santos, and 56.7% lower than the<br />
one charged by Tergrasa, in Rio Grande (RS).<br />
17
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Public Pier – Soybean – Amount (In tonnes)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Corex)<br />
8.777.134<br />
8.213.216<br />
8.745.021<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
Public Pier<br />
2.277.509<br />
2.396.104<br />
2.929.072<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Mult. Use)<br />
1.076.968<br />
1.325.149<br />
1.200.494<br />
Santos<br />
Public Pier<br />
165.283<br />
114.606<br />
51.675<br />
Ilhéus<br />
Public Pier<br />
674.757<br />
407.232<br />
35.665<br />
Leased Terminal / PT – Soybean – Amount (In tonnes)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Santos<br />
Corex (ADM)<br />
4.409.932<br />
3.957.240<br />
6.572.555<br />
Tubarão<br />
TUP Tubarão<br />
-<br />
956.349<br />
3.328.687<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Tergrasa<br />
1.833.977<br />
3.714.475<br />
2.650.276<br />
Santos<br />
TGG<br />
896.235<br />
2.398.753<br />
2.257.166<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Bianchini<br />
2.632.247<br />
2.807.498<br />
2.233.086<br />
Santos<br />
Cargill<br />
2.807.445<br />
2.188.600<br />
2.095.025<br />
Cotegipe<br />
TUP Cotegipe<br />
318.454<br />
896.769<br />
1.848.971<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Terminal Bunge<br />
1.058.565<br />
986.207<br />
994.140<br />
Santarém<br />
Cargill<br />
-<br />
-<br />
977.860<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Termasa<br />
803.596<br />
1.078.917<br />
763.688<br />
Oleoplan<br />
TUP Oleoplan<br />
-<br />
-<br />
261.701<br />
Public Pier – Soybean – Average Sheet (t/d)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Corex)<br />
14.585<br />
13.888<br />
28.462<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
Public Pier<br />
17.287<br />
15.194<br />
16.237<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Mult. Use)<br />
9.450<br />
8.303<br />
14.881<br />
Santos<br />
Public Pier<br />
8.448<br />
8.545<br />
9.878<br />
Ilhéus<br />
Public Pier<br />
3.451<br />
3.441<br />
9.406<br />
Public Pier – Soybean – Average Delay Time (h/n)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Ilhéus<br />
Public Pier<br />
0<br />
26<br />
01<br />
Santos<br />
Public Pier<br />
124<br />
74<br />
08<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Mult. Use)<br />
75<br />
94<br />
88<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
Public Pier<br />
77<br />
97<br />
94<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Corex)<br />
124<br />
339<br />
104<br />
18
Leased Terminals / PT – Soybean – Average Sheet (t/d)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Tubarão<br />
TUP Tubarão<br />
-<br />
21.429<br />
37.684<br />
Santos<br />
TGG<br />
10.639<br />
16.040<br />
26.065<br />
Santos<br />
Corex (ADM)<br />
11.930<br />
12.160<br />
14.525<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Termasa<br />
12.598<br />
13.783<br />
14.341<br />
Santos<br />
Cargill<br />
13.527<br />
13.743<br />
14.337<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Bianchini<br />
8.719<br />
7.272<br />
11.776<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Tergrasa<br />
7.043<br />
8.614<br />
10.120<br />
Oleoplan<br />
TUP Oleoplan<br />
-<br />
-<br />
9.984<br />
Cotegipe<br />
TUP Cotegipe<br />
11.998<br />
10.810<br />
9.746<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Terminal Bunge<br />
8.636<br />
10.271<br />
9.512<br />
Leased Terminals / PT – Soybean – Average Delay Time (h/n)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Oleoplan<br />
TUP Oleoplan<br />
-<br />
-<br />
0<br />
Granel Química<br />
TUP Granel Química<br />
-<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Tergrasa<br />
04<br />
15<br />
16<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Terminal Bunge<br />
25<br />
35<br />
23<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Bianchini<br />
25<br />
37<br />
35<br />
Santos<br />
TGG<br />
27<br />
34<br />
44<br />
Santos<br />
Cargill<br />
51<br />
42<br />
48<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Termasa<br />
32<br />
52<br />
58<br />
Santos<br />
Corex (ADM)<br />
66<br />
66<br />
84<br />
Tubarão<br />
TUP Tubarão<br />
-<br />
61<br />
85<br />
Cotegipe<br />
TUP Cotegipe<br />
20<br />
62<br />
160<br />
PRICES – SOYBEAN AND BRAN – 2008<br />
Port Terminal R$ US$<br />
Public<br />
Ports<br />
PARANAGUÁ<br />
SÃO FRANCISCO DO SUL<br />
ILHÉUS<br />
Corex<br />
Public Pier<br />
Public Pier<br />
7,80<br />
12,51<br />
14,09<br />
3,34<br />
5,35<br />
6,03<br />
SANTOS<br />
Corex (ADM)<br />
4,88<br />
2,09<br />
SANTOS<br />
Cargill<br />
5,17<br />
2,21<br />
Leased<br />
Terminals<br />
SANTOS<br />
RIO GRANDE<br />
RIO GRANDE<br />
TGG<br />
Bianchini*<br />
Termasa*<br />
6,23<br />
9,19<br />
9,38<br />
2,67<br />
3,93<br />
4,01<br />
RIO GRANDE<br />
Tergrasa<br />
11,29<br />
4,83<br />
* Private Terminal<br />
Quotation on 12/31/2008: US$1.00 = R$2.3370<br />
19
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Wheat<br />
The port of Fortaleza was led the handling of<br />
wheat between July 2008 and June 2009,<br />
when it reached 815,886 tonnes, nearly<br />
equaling the previous period. The second position<br />
was occupied by the port of Santos, which<br />
handled 743,743 tonnes, 2.8 times more than<br />
the volume reported in the previous period. In the<br />
position, the port of Recife handled 501,282<br />
tonnes of wheat, a decrease of 4.4% compared<br />
to the previous period.<br />
Among leased or private terminals, the Termasa,<br />
in Rio Grande (RS), handled 843,952<br />
tonnes of wheat, and, even with a decrease of<br />
16% over the previous period, it had, by far, the<br />
best performance. The second position was occupied<br />
by the PT Cotegipe, which handled<br />
292,645 tonnes of wheat, representing a decrease<br />
of 11.6% over the previous period, and the<br />
third position was occupied by Rio Grande (Tergrasa)<br />
with 193,565 tonnes of wheat per day.<br />
As for the average sheet, the (public) Corex of<br />
Paranaguá had the best performance between<br />
July 2008 and June 2009, when it handled<br />
11,294 tonnes of wheat per day on average. The<br />
second position was occupied by the port of Fortaleza,<br />
with 7,338 tonnes per day (an average almost<br />
7% lower than in the previous period) and<br />
the third position was occupied by the port of Maceió,<br />
with 4,412 tonnes per day (an increase of<br />
almost 20%).<br />
Among terminals, Bianchini, in Rio Grande,<br />
led the ranking by handling 9,764 tonnes of<br />
wheat daily, in an average 38.9% lower than the<br />
one reported between June 2007 and July<br />
2008. In the second position, the Bunge terminal,<br />
also in Rio Grande, handled 6,319 tonnes<br />
per day, and in the third position, the Tergrasa<br />
terminal handled 5,451 tonnes per day, in an<br />
average 52% lower than the one reported in the<br />
previous period.<br />
The port of Belém reported an average delay<br />
time of less than 1 hour, while the port of Natal<br />
reported 2 hours, 1 hour less than the average<br />
recorded between July 2007 and June 2008.<br />
The next position was occupied by Cabedelo<br />
(PB), where vessels took 3 hours to dock, on average,<br />
and the port of Vitória, with an average<br />
delay time of 4 hours, 90% lower than the average<br />
of the previous period.<br />
Among terminals, Serra Morena and Oleoplan,<br />
both in Rio Grande do Sul, reported an average<br />
delay time of less than one hour, repeating<br />
the performance of the previous period. They<br />
were followed by PTs Granel Química and<br />
Ocrim, who recorded average delay times of 2<br />
and 5 hours, respectively.<br />
The price of port services in the port of Fortaleza<br />
was R$5.88 per tonne of wheat moved in<br />
2008, the lowest price recorded, with a reduction<br />
of 9.2% in relation to the amount charged by the<br />
Port of Natal, which applied the second lowest<br />
price, and 73.5% lower than the highest price,<br />
charged by the port of Recife. Among terminals,<br />
the price of Corex Santos was R$8.81, the lowest<br />
price, nearly 9% below the price charged by<br />
TESC, in São Francisco do Sul (SC), and 47.4%<br />
lower than the lowest price, charged by the Serra<br />
Morena terminal, in Porto Alegre.<br />
20
Public Pier – Wheat – Amount (In tonnes)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Fortaleza<br />
Public Pier<br />
803.856<br />
812.138<br />
815.886<br />
Santos<br />
Public Pier<br />
660.654<br />
265.031<br />
743.743<br />
Recife<br />
Public Pier<br />
540.299<br />
524.594<br />
501.282<br />
Salvador<br />
Public Pier<br />
348.062<br />
428.118<br />
353.904<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Mult. Use)<br />
240.293<br />
196.343<br />
164.141<br />
Belém<br />
Public Pier<br />
-<br />
-<br />
136.031<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Corex)<br />
-<br />
-<br />
115.603<br />
Vitória<br />
Cais Capuaba<br />
719.697<br />
273.637<br />
111.938<br />
Imbituba<br />
Public Pier<br />
147.291<br />
64.518<br />
110.519<br />
Suape<br />
Public Pier<br />
-<br />
-<br />
90.543<br />
Maceió<br />
Public Pier<br />
41.259<br />
64.431<br />
89.960<br />
Natal<br />
Public Pier<br />
85.848<br />
97.194<br />
88.619<br />
Cabedelo<br />
Public Pier<br />
51.020<br />
-<br />
80.208<br />
Itaqui<br />
Public Pier<br />
78.285<br />
85.116<br />
70.255<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
Public Pier<br />
51.291<br />
50.901<br />
67.579<br />
Public Pier – Wheat – Average Sheet (t/d)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Corex)<br />
-<br />
-<br />
11.294<br />
Fortaleza<br />
Public Pier<br />
7.626<br />
7.885<br />
7.338<br />
Maceió<br />
Public Pier<br />
4.250<br />
3.682<br />
4.412<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Mult. Use)<br />
3.863<br />
4.045<br />
4.204<br />
Natal<br />
Public Pier<br />
3.666<br />
3.169<br />
3.828<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
Public Pier<br />
4.827<br />
5.790<br />
3.639<br />
Santos<br />
Public Pier<br />
4.759<br />
3.802<br />
3.483<br />
Vitória<br />
Cais Capuaba<br />
3.532<br />
2.773<br />
3.361<br />
Imbituba<br />
Public Pier<br />
3.834<br />
3.495<br />
3.309<br />
Suape<br />
Public Pier<br />
-<br />
-<br />
3.063<br />
Cabedelo<br />
Public Pier<br />
2.514<br />
-<br />
2.895<br />
Salvador<br />
Public Pier<br />
2.160<br />
2.889<br />
2.665<br />
Recife<br />
Public Pier<br />
1.972<br />
2.007<br />
2.502<br />
Santos<br />
Public Pier (Moinho Santista)<br />
2.155<br />
2.385<br />
2.406<br />
Itaqui<br />
Public Pier<br />
1.546<br />
1.749<br />
1.491<br />
Belém<br />
Public Pier<br />
-<br />
-<br />
750<br />
21
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Leased Terminals / PT – Wheat – Amount (In tonnes)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Termasa<br />
707.748<br />
1.005.600<br />
843.952<br />
Cotegipe<br />
TUP Cotegipe<br />
125.038<br />
330.373<br />
292.645<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Tergrasa<br />
42.437<br />
467.780<br />
193.565<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Bianchini<br />
97.220<br />
211.047<br />
170.813<br />
Porto Alegre<br />
Serra Morena<br />
101.358<br />
132.742<br />
156.473<br />
Santos<br />
Corex (ADM)<br />
340.148<br />
177.301<br />
146.593<br />
Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa<br />
TUP Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa<br />
-<br />
-<br />
135.903<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
TESC<br />
283.460<br />
178.459<br />
73.931<br />
Ocrim<br />
TUP Ocrim<br />
-<br />
30.116<br />
57.742<br />
Granel Química<br />
TUP Granel Química<br />
-<br />
19.901<br />
10.567<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Terminal Bunge<br />
-<br />
-<br />
6.319<br />
Oleoplan<br />
TUP Oleoplan<br />
-<br />
-<br />
2.504<br />
Leased Terminals / PT – Wheat – Average Sheet (t/d)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Bianchini<br />
3.758<br />
15.991<br />
9.764<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Terminal Bunge<br />
-<br />
-<br />
6.319<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Tergrasa<br />
9.973<br />
11.355<br />
5.451<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Termasa<br />
3.175<br />
4.072<br />
4.954<br />
Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa<br />
TUP Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa<br />
-<br />
-<br />
4.399<br />
Santos<br />
Corex (ADM)<br />
4.814<br />
4.277<br />
4.289<br />
Cotegipe<br />
TUP Cotegipe<br />
4.318<br />
3.982<br />
3.894<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
TESC<br />
4.612<br />
5.154<br />
3.612<br />
Oleoplan<br />
TUP Oleoplan<br />
-<br />
-<br />
3.323<br />
Porto Alegre<br />
Serra Morena<br />
1.038<br />
1.418<br />
1.982<br />
Ocrim<br />
TUP Ocrim<br />
-<br />
1.385<br />
1.265<br />
Granel Química<br />
TUP Granel Química<br />
-<br />
1.571<br />
705<br />
22
Public Pier – Wheat – Average Delay Time (h/n)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Belém<br />
Public Pier<br />
-<br />
-<br />
0<br />
Natal<br />
Public Pier<br />
0<br />
03<br />
02<br />
Cabedelo<br />
Public Pier<br />
09<br />
-<br />
03<br />
Vitória<br />
Public Pier (Capuaba)<br />
41<br />
41<br />
04<br />
Maceió<br />
Public Pier<br />
113<br />
71<br />
05<br />
Suape<br />
Public Pier<br />
-<br />
-<br />
08<br />
Fortaleza<br />
Public Pier<br />
12<br />
31<br />
12<br />
Recife<br />
Public Pier<br />
13<br />
26<br />
12<br />
Santos<br />
Public Pier (Moinho Santista)<br />
16<br />
29<br />
13<br />
Salvador<br />
Public Pier<br />
09<br />
16<br />
15<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Mult. Use)<br />
91<br />
59<br />
22<br />
Santos<br />
Public Pier<br />
14<br />
19<br />
33<br />
Imbituba<br />
Public Pier<br />
30<br />
12<br />
54<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
Public Pier<br />
48<br />
45<br />
72<br />
Itaqui<br />
Public Pier<br />
47<br />
62<br />
81<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Corex)<br />
-<br />
-<br />
262<br />
Leased Terminals / PT – Wheat – Average Delay Time (h/n)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Porto Alegre<br />
Serra Morena<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Oleoplan<br />
TUP Oleoplan<br />
-<br />
-<br />
0<br />
Granel Química<br />
TUP Granel Química<br />
-<br />
0<br />
02<br />
Ocrim<br />
TUP Ocrim<br />
-<br />
7<br />
05<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Bianchini<br />
38<br />
56<br />
20<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Tergrasa<br />
32<br />
21<br />
31<br />
Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa<br />
TUP Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa<br />
-<br />
-<br />
40<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Termasa<br />
45<br />
70<br />
53<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
TESC<br />
60<br />
52<br />
53<br />
Santos<br />
Corex (ADM)<br />
57<br />
12<br />
57<br />
Cotegipe<br />
TUP Cotegipe<br />
07<br />
15<br />
73<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Terminal Bunge<br />
-<br />
-<br />
74<br />
23
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
PRICES – WHEAT – 2008<br />
Port Terminal R$ US$<br />
FORTALEZA<br />
Public Pier<br />
5,88<br />
2,52<br />
NATAL<br />
Public Pier<br />
6,48<br />
2,77<br />
CABEDELO<br />
Public Pier<br />
8,02<br />
3,43<br />
SÃO FRANCISCO DO SUL<br />
Public Pier<br />
9,51<br />
4,07<br />
Leased Terminals Public Ports<br />
SANTOS<br />
IMBITUBA<br />
VITÓRIA<br />
RIO DE JANEIRO<br />
SALVADOR<br />
BELÉM<br />
MACEIÓ<br />
RECIFE<br />
SANTOS<br />
SÃO FRANCISCO DO SUL<br />
SANTOS<br />
RIO GRANDE<br />
RIO GRANDE<br />
PORTO ALEGRE<br />
Right Bank<br />
Public Pier<br />
Cais Capuaba<br />
Moinho Santista<br />
Moinho Salvador<br />
Public Pier<br />
Cais Publico<br />
Public Pier<br />
Corex (ADM)<br />
Tesc<br />
Moinho Santista<br />
Tergrasa<br />
Termasa*<br />
Serra Morena<br />
11,82<br />
13,38<br />
16,92<br />
18,88<br />
20,06<br />
20,68<br />
20,80<br />
22,21<br />
8,81<br />
9,68<br />
12,14<br />
13,59<br />
15,58<br />
16,77<br />
5,06<br />
5,73<br />
7,24<br />
8,08<br />
8,58<br />
8,85<br />
8,90<br />
9,50<br />
3,77<br />
4,14<br />
5,19<br />
5,82<br />
6,67<br />
7,18<br />
* Private Terminal<br />
Quotation on 12/31/2008: US$1.00 = R$2.3370<br />
24
Fertilizers<br />
Prior to the world crisis (September 2008),<br />
importers of fertilizers had accumulated<br />
large stocks, as prices were rising, given<br />
the warming of the global economy and favorable<br />
prices of agricultural commodities. However,<br />
with the start of the crisis, companies in possession<br />
of these stocks failed to pass on these products<br />
to farmers, and thus had large losses, reducing<br />
imports.<br />
The port of Paranaguá (PR) handled<br />
2,429,692 tonnes of fertilizer between July 2008<br />
and June 2009, representing a decrease of<br />
48.8% over the previous period. Still it led the<br />
ranking of public ports, handling more than any<br />
of the terminals. The second position was occupied<br />
by the port of Rio Grande (RS), with<br />
978,057 tonnes, representing a decrease of<br />
22.7% over the previous period. The third one<br />
was the port of Aratu (BA), which handled<br />
514,881 tonnes of fertilizer, with a decrease of<br />
33.1% over the period between July 2007 and<br />
June 2008.<br />
Among terminals, the Yara Fertilizantes terminal<br />
led the ranking, handling 1,775,873<br />
tonnes, with a decrease of 51.2% in relation to<br />
the period between July 2007 and June 2008.<br />
The second position was occupied by the PT Fospar<br />
in Paranaguá, with 1,564,945 tonnes, representing<br />
a decrease of 33.9% over the previous<br />
period. In third, TMG Santos (SP) handled<br />
719,185 tonnes, with a decrease of 47%.<br />
The port of São Francisco do Sul (SC) had the<br />
best performance in the average sheet by handling<br />
11,292 tonnes of fertilizer between July<br />
2008 and June 2009, in an average 185.6%<br />
higher than the one reported between July 2007<br />
and June 2008. The second position was occupied<br />
by the port of Salvador, with 6,014 tonnes<br />
per day (202% more than in the previous period),<br />
and the third position was occupied by the Multiple<br />
Use (public) terminal of the port of<br />
Paranaguá, with 5678 tonnes per day (13.2%<br />
more than in the previous period).<br />
The sea terminal Inácio Barbosa, managed by<br />
Vale, in Sergipe, reported an average of 9,748<br />
tonnes of fertilizer handled per day, leading the<br />
ranking in the terminal segment, ahead of the PT<br />
Fospar, which reported an average of 8,787<br />
tonnes per day. The third position was occupied<br />
by TMG, in Santos (SP), which handled 6,091<br />
tonnes per day, with a decrease of 14.5% in relation<br />
to the average reported between July 2007<br />
and June 2008.<br />
Navegantes Pier in Porto Alegre had the lowest<br />
delay time among public piers, with an average<br />
of less than one hour, followed by the Port of<br />
Pelotas, with an average time of 2 hours and Recife,<br />
with an average of 11 hours for docking.<br />
Among terminals, Serra Morena, in Porto Alegre,<br />
and the PT Oleoplan reported an average<br />
delay time of less than 1 hour, whereas vessels<br />
took 61 hours to dock, on average, in the Yara<br />
Fertilizantes terminal and up to 73 hours in the<br />
PT Fospar in Paranaguá (PR).<br />
The lowest price for port services charged<br />
per tonne of fertilizer among public ports in<br />
2008 was R$11.30, an amount charged by<br />
the port of Santos (SP), 18.2% lower than the<br />
price charged by the port of Rio Grande (RS), in<br />
the second position, and 70.4% lower than the<br />
price charged by the Port of Aratu (BA), the<br />
highest price. Among terminals, the lowest<br />
price was charged by the Yara Fertilizantes terminal,<br />
at R$8.49, 20.3% lower than the price<br />
charged by the Tefer/TMG terminal in Santos,<br />
in the second position, and 56.6% lower that<br />
the Fospar terminal in Paranaguá (PR), which<br />
had the highest price.<br />
25
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Public Pier – Fertilizers – Amount (In tonnes)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Mult.Use)<br />
3.000.282<br />
4.749.831<br />
2.429.692<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Public Pier<br />
737.164<br />
1.266.210<br />
978.057<br />
Aratu<br />
Public Pier<br />
410.699<br />
769.845<br />
514.881<br />
Itaqui<br />
Public Pier<br />
467.836<br />
453.541<br />
378.210<br />
Santos<br />
Public Pier<br />
289.169<br />
879.645<br />
352.418<br />
Porto Alegre<br />
Cais Navegantes<br />
445.150<br />
357.972<br />
257.318<br />
Imbituba<br />
Public Pier<br />
88.247<br />
192.377<br />
185.557<br />
Maceió<br />
Public Pier<br />
121.861<br />
126.515<br />
116.686<br />
Recife<br />
Public Pier<br />
296.811<br />
231.609<br />
112.302<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
Public Pier<br />
-<br />
29.010<br />
102.332<br />
Vitória<br />
Cais Capuaba<br />
15.804<br />
105.721<br />
56.106<br />
Salvador<br />
Public Pier<br />
11.591<br />
39.001<br />
39.670<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Corex)<br />
71.467<br />
-<br />
37.142<br />
Pelotas<br />
Commercial Pier<br />
19.181<br />
17.261<br />
13.111<br />
Leased Terminals / PT – Fertilizers – Amount (In tonnes)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Yara Fertilizantes<br />
3.017.180<br />
3.643.545<br />
1.775.873<br />
Paranaguá<br />
TUP Fospar<br />
1.632.731<br />
2.366.379<br />
1.564.945<br />
Santos<br />
TMG<br />
1.043.230<br />
1.358.717<br />
719.185<br />
Santos<br />
Ultrafértil<br />
1.188.277<br />
886.608<br />
677.702<br />
Tubarão<br />
TUP Tubarão<br />
-<br />
184.948<br />
410.590<br />
Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa<br />
TUP Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa<br />
-<br />
-<br />
205.216<br />
Porto Alegre<br />
Serra Morena<br />
-<br />
30.675<br />
145.438<br />
Vitória<br />
Peiú<br />
32.300<br />
146.669<br />
140.838<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
TESC<br />
47.000<br />
408.551<br />
116.122<br />
Oleoplan<br />
TUP Oleoplan<br />
-<br />
-<br />
11.837<br />
26
Public Pier – Fertilizers – Average Sheet (t/d)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
Public Pier<br />
-<br />
3.953<br />
11.292<br />
Salvador<br />
Public Pier<br />
1.095<br />
1.987<br />
6.014<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Mult. Use)<br />
3.226<br />
5.016<br />
5.678<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Corex)<br />
4.919<br />
-<br />
4.223<br />
Imbituba<br />
Public Pier<br />
3.879<br />
3.900<br />
4.046<br />
Santos<br />
Public Pier<br />
2.943<br />
5.174<br />
3.728<br />
Porto Alegre<br />
Cais Navegantes<br />
2.403<br />
2.424<br />
2.848<br />
Itaqui<br />
Public Pier<br />
2.684<br />
2.293<br />
2.658<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Public Pier<br />
2.729<br />
2.827<br />
2.494<br />
Recife<br />
Public Pier<br />
2.183<br />
2.233<br />
2.331<br />
Vitória<br />
Cais Capuaba<br />
4.683<br />
1.668<br />
2.156<br />
Aratu<br />
Public Pier<br />
2.652<br />
2.224<br />
1.431<br />
Pelotas<br />
Commercial Pier<br />
1.202<br />
1.770<br />
1.414<br />
Maceió<br />
Public Pier<br />
2.395<br />
1.291<br />
1.265<br />
Public Pier – Fertilizer – Average Delay Time (h/n)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Porto Alegre<br />
Cais Navegantes<br />
01<br />
01<br />
0<br />
Pelotas<br />
Commercial Pier<br />
0<br />
0<br />
02<br />
Recife<br />
Public Pier<br />
21<br />
22<br />
11<br />
Salvador<br />
Public Pier<br />
01<br />
73<br />
22<br />
Santos<br />
Public Pier<br />
25<br />
39<br />
41<br />
Imbituba<br />
Public Pier<br />
29<br />
72<br />
52<br />
Maceió<br />
Public Pier<br />
160<br />
163<br />
55<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Public Pier<br />
57<br />
74<br />
60<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
Public Pier<br />
-<br />
70<br />
70<br />
Itaqui<br />
Public Pier<br />
63<br />
87<br />
108<br />
Vitória<br />
Cais Capuaba<br />
11<br />
57<br />
135<br />
Aratu<br />
Public Pier<br />
75<br />
136<br />
146<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Mult. Use)<br />
166<br />
529<br />
165<br />
Paranaguá<br />
Public Pier (Corex)<br />
207<br />
-<br />
190<br />
27
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Leased Terminals / PT – Fertilizers – Average Sheet (t/d)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa<br />
TUP Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa<br />
-<br />
-<br />
9.748<br />
Paranaguá<br />
TUP Fospar<br />
8.350<br />
8.676<br />
8.787<br />
Santos<br />
TMG<br />
4.671<br />
7.122<br />
6.091<br />
Tubarão<br />
TUP Tubarão<br />
-<br />
5.728<br />
5.444<br />
Santos<br />
Ultrafértil<br />
7.229<br />
4.657<br />
4.897<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
TESC<br />
1.788<br />
3.718<br />
3.926<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Yara Fertilizantes<br />
2.538<br />
2.552<br />
3.144<br />
Vitória<br />
Peiú<br />
2.196<br />
3.356<br />
2.854<br />
Oleoplan<br />
TUP Oleoplan<br />
-<br />
-<br />
2.402<br />
Porto Alegre<br />
Serra Morena<br />
-<br />
1.381<br />
1.715<br />
Leased Terminals / PT – Fertilizers – Average Delay Time (h/n)<br />
Port Terminal 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009<br />
Porto Alegre<br />
Serra Morena<br />
-<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Oleoplan<br />
TUP Oleoplan<br />
-<br />
-<br />
0<br />
Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa<br />
TUP Term. Mar. Inácio Barbosa<br />
-<br />
-<br />
24<br />
Rio Grande<br />
Yara Fertilizantes<br />
53<br />
78<br />
61<br />
Paranaguá<br />
TUP Fospar<br />
139<br />
287<br />
73<br />
São Fco do Sul<br />
TESC<br />
22<br />
88<br />
82<br />
Vitória<br />
Peiú<br />
30<br />
56<br />
141<br />
Santos<br />
Ultrafértil<br />
237<br />
255<br />
164<br />
Santos<br />
TMG<br />
291<br />
280<br />
204<br />
Tubarão<br />
TUP Tubarão<br />
-<br />
252<br />
262<br />
28
PRICES – FERTILIZERS – 2008<br />
Port Terminal R$* US$*<br />
SANTOS<br />
Cais Publico<br />
11,30<br />
4,84<br />
RIO GRANDE<br />
Public Pier<br />
13,81<br />
5,91<br />
IMBITUBA<br />
Public Pier<br />
14,73<br />
6,30<br />
Public Ports<br />
ITAQUI<br />
MACEIÓ<br />
PARANAGUÁ<br />
Public Pier<br />
Cais Publico<br />
Múltiplo Uso<br />
15,92<br />
20,22<br />
22,06<br />
6,81<br />
8,65<br />
9,44<br />
RECIFE<br />
Public Pier<br />
24,07<br />
10,30<br />
PORTO ALEGRE<br />
Cais Navegantes<br />
25,23<br />
10,80<br />
ARATU<br />
Cais Publico<br />
38,17<br />
16,33<br />
RIO GRANDE<br />
Yara Fertilizantes*<br />
8,49<br />
3,63<br />
Leased<br />
Terminals<br />
SANTOS<br />
SANTOS<br />
PARANAGUÁ<br />
Tefer/TMG<br />
Ultrafértil *<br />
Fospar<br />
10,85<br />
13,66<br />
19,59<br />
4,64<br />
5,85<br />
8,38<br />
* Private Terminal<br />
Quotation on 12/31/2008: US$1.00 = R$2.3370<br />
29
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Attractiveness Indicators<br />
This indicator is composed of four variables:<br />
total amount handled, average delay time<br />
for ships to dock and average sheet during<br />
the second half of 2008 and first half of 2009,<br />
and average handling price per unit (containers)<br />
or tonnes (dry bulk) during the year 2008.<br />
For each variable, scores were given ranging<br />
from five to ten, multiplied by weights that reflect<br />
the relative importance of each indicator in<br />
terms of cargo handled. The final score for<br />
each port or terminal has a weighted average<br />
of four scores.<br />
For the handling of containers, the weight<br />
three was given to indicators “amount handled”<br />
and “average price”, and weights 2.5 (two and<br />
a half) and 1.5 (one and a half) were given to<br />
indicators “delay time” and “average sheet”, respectively.<br />
For the handling of soybean (grain and<br />
bran), wheat and fertilizers, the weights given<br />
were four to “amount handled”, three to “average<br />
price”, one to “delay time”, and two to<br />
“average sheet”.<br />
The indicators measure the attractiveness of<br />
each port or terminal on users. The overall<br />
ranking for each indicator, referring to the handling<br />
of containers, soybean and bran, wheat<br />
and fertilizers, is presented below.<br />
To create this ranking, we considered only<br />
ports and terminals that are fully integrated into<br />
the Port Performance System.<br />
FINAL SCORE – SOYBEAN AND BRAN – 2008/2009<br />
Public ports<br />
Port Terminal Score<br />
PARANAGUÁ<br />
SÃO FRANCISCO DO SUL<br />
ILHÉUS<br />
Corex<br />
Public Pier<br />
Public Pier<br />
Leased terminals<br />
9,29<br />
7,09<br />
5,50<br />
Port Terminal Score<br />
SANTOS<br />
SANTOS<br />
SANTOS<br />
RIO GRANDE<br />
RIO GRANDE<br />
RIO GRANDE<br />
Corex (ADM)<br />
TGG<br />
Cargill<br />
Bianchini<br />
Tergrasa<br />
Termasa*<br />
8,78<br />
7,99<br />
7,42<br />
6,46<br />
6,15<br />
5,90<br />
*Private Terminal<br />
30
FINAL SCORE – CONTAINERS – 2008/2009<br />
Public ports<br />
Port Terminal Score<br />
SANTOS<br />
NATAL<br />
ITAJAÍ<br />
BELÉM<br />
SÃO FRANCISCO DO SUL<br />
FORTALEZA<br />
VILA DO CONDE<br />
IMBITUBA<br />
SALVADOR<br />
SANTOS<br />
SANTOS<br />
RIO GRANDE<br />
SALVADOR<br />
Right Bank<br />
Public Pier<br />
Commercial Pier<br />
Public Pier<br />
Public Pier<br />
Public Pier<br />
Public Pier<br />
Public Pier<br />
Public Pier<br />
Tecon<br />
Libra (T37)<br />
Tecon<br />
Tecon<br />
Leased terminals<br />
8,44<br />
7,43<br />
7,41<br />
7,25<br />
7,21<br />
7,21<br />
7,15<br />
7,13<br />
6,47<br />
9,06<br />
8,03<br />
7,70<br />
7,66<br />
Port Terminal Score<br />
SANTOS<br />
PARANAGUÁ<br />
SUAPE<br />
VITÓRIA<br />
ITAJAÍ<br />
SANTOS<br />
Libra (T35)<br />
TCP<br />
Tecon<br />
TVV<br />
Teconvi<br />
Tecondi<br />
7,29<br />
6,74<br />
6,60<br />
6,56<br />
6,49<br />
6,25<br />
*Private Terminal<br />
31
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
FINAL SCORE – WHEAT – 2008/2009<br />
Public ports<br />
Port Terminal Score<br />
FORTALEZA<br />
SANTOS<br />
NATAL<br />
CABEDELO<br />
RECIFE<br />
SALVADOR<br />
SÃO FRANCISCO DO SUL<br />
VITÓRIA<br />
IMBITUBA<br />
MACEIÓ<br />
BELÉM<br />
Public Pier<br />
Right Bank<br />
Public Pier<br />
Public Pier<br />
Public Pier<br />
Moinho Salvador<br />
Public Pier<br />
Capuaba<br />
Public Pier<br />
Cais Publico<br />
Public Pier<br />
Leased terminals<br />
9,92<br />
8,45<br />
7,45<br />
7,14<br />
6,84<br />
6,65<br />
6,61<br />
6,47<br />
6,44<br />
6,21<br />
5,82<br />
Port Terminal Score<br />
RIO GRANDE<br />
SANTOS<br />
RIO GRANDE<br />
SANTOS<br />
SÃO FRANCISCO DO SUL<br />
PORTO ALEGRE<br />
Termasa<br />
Corex (ADM)<br />
Tergrasa<br />
Moinho Santista<br />
Tesc<br />
Serra Morena<br />
8,12<br />
7,35<br />
7,14<br />
7,08<br />
6,84<br />
5,71<br />
FINAL SCORE – FERTILIZERS – 2008/2009<br />
Public ports<br />
Port Terminal Score<br />
PARANAGUÁ<br />
RIO GRANDE<br />
SANTOS<br />
IMBITUBA<br />
ITAQUI<br />
PORTO ALEGRE<br />
RECIFE<br />
MACEIÓ<br />
ARATU<br />
Múltiplo Uso<br />
Public Pier<br />
Cais Publico<br />
Public Pier<br />
Public Pier<br />
Cais Navegantes<br />
Public Pier<br />
Cais Publico<br />
Cais Publico<br />
Leased terminals<br />
8,90<br />
7,70<br />
7,64<br />
7,34<br />
6,96<br />
6,71<br />
6,50<br />
6,34<br />
5,44<br />
Port Terminal Score<br />
RIO GRANDE<br />
Yara Fertilizantes*<br />
9,00<br />
PARANAGUÁ<br />
Fospar<br />
8,07<br />
SANTOS<br />
TMG<br />
6,78<br />
32<br />
SANTOS<br />
Ultrafértil *<br />
6,25<br />
*Terminal de Uso Privativo
Total cargo handling at<br />
private ports and terminals<br />
In the first half of 2009, Brazilian ports handled<br />
a total 335,924,894 tonnes, with a decrease<br />
of 1.7% over the same period last year, when<br />
the national volume was 341,664,477 tonnes.<br />
In 2008, total handling was 768,323,550<br />
tonnes, with an increase of 1.8% in relation to<br />
2007, when it reached 754,716,655 tonnes. In<br />
the five-year series, there was an increase of<br />
23.7%.<br />
By nature of the cargo, bulk solid handling<br />
was 3.5% lower in the first half of 2009 compared<br />
to the same period last year, falling from<br />
201,159,709 tonnes (58.8%) to 194,015,929<br />
tonnes (57.7% of the total volume ). In 2008, the<br />
bulk solid handling was 460,187,652 tonnes<br />
(59.9% of the total volume), remaining stable in<br />
relation to the previous year. In the five-year series,<br />
bulk solid handling rose 24.5%.<br />
Bulk liquid handling was 3.2% higher in the<br />
first half of 2009 over the same period last year,<br />
rising from 92,282,654 tonnes (27% of the total<br />
volume) to 95,234,730 tonnes (28.3% of the total<br />
volume). In 2008, bulk liquid handling was<br />
195,637,355 tonnes (25.4% of the total volume),<br />
remaining stable in relation to 2007. In the<br />
five-year series, bulk liquid handling rose 17.4%.<br />
General cargo handling had an increase of<br />
1.1% in the first half of 2009 over the same period<br />
last year, rising from 16,899,556 tonnes (5%<br />
of the total volume) to 17,092,302 tonnes (5% of<br />
the total volume). In 2008, general cargo handling<br />
was 39,250,312 tonnes (5.1% of the total<br />
volume), with an increase of 12.9% over the previous<br />
year. In the five-year series, general cargo<br />
handling rose 15.2%.<br />
Container handling had a decrease of 5.8%<br />
in the first half of 2009, compared to the first<br />
quarter of 2008, falling from 31,322,558 tonnes<br />
(9.1% of the total volume) to 29,581,933 tonnes<br />
(8.8% of the total volume). In 2008, container<br />
handling was 73,248,231 tonnes (9.5% of the<br />
total volume), with an increase of 7.8% over<br />
2007. In the five-year series, container handling<br />
rose 45.1%.<br />
By type of shipping, long-haul handling had a<br />
decrease of 4.7% in relation to first half of 2008<br />
and 2009, falling from 254,607,463 tonnes<br />
(74.5% of the total volume) to 242,541,731<br />
tonnes (72.2% of the total volume). In 2008, the<br />
long-haul handling was 568,404,889 tonnes<br />
(74% of the total volume), with an increase of<br />
1.67% compared to 2007. In the five-year series,<br />
there was an increase of 27.1%.<br />
Cabotage handling had an increase of 6.5%<br />
between the first half of 2008 and 2009, rising<br />
from 74,894,198 tonnes (21.9% of the total<br />
volume) to 79,798,581 tonnes (23.7% of the total<br />
volume). In 2008, cabotage handling was<br />
167,342,279 tonnes (21.8% of the total movement),<br />
virtually unchanged compared with<br />
2007. In the five-year series, there was an increase<br />
of 12.7%.<br />
Other types of navigation had handlings<br />
11.7% higher in the first half of 2009 over the<br />
same period last year, with an increase from<br />
12,162,817 tonnes (3.5% of the total volume) to<br />
13,584,582 tonnes (4% of the total volume). In<br />
2008, other types of navigation totaled<br />
32,576,382 tonnes (4.2% of the total volume),<br />
with an increase of 19.7% over 2007. In the<br />
five-year series, there was an increase of 29.4%.<br />
In relation to foreign trade, long-haul cargo<br />
handling was divided as follows: a) 45,814,690<br />
tonnes (18.8% of the total volume) imported in<br />
the first half of 2009, against 55,798,341<br />
tonnes (21.9% of the total volume) in the same<br />
period of 2008, with a decrease of 17.9%; and<br />
b) 196,727,041 tonnes (81.2% of the total volume)<br />
exported in the first half of 2009, compared<br />
with 198,809,121 tonne (78.1% of the total<br />
volume) in the same period of 2008, with a<br />
decrease of 1%.<br />
In 2008, imports reported 114,696,055<br />
tonnes (20.1% of the total volume), being stable<br />
compared to 2007. In the five-year series, imports<br />
rose 20%.<br />
Exports, in turn, reported 454,629,292 tonnes<br />
(79.9% of the total volume) in 2008 compared to<br />
447,837,373 tonnes (80.1%) in 2007, with an<br />
increase of 1.5% in the period. In the five-year<br />
series, exports rose 29.3%.<br />
33
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO<br />
In tonnes<br />
Year Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total<br />
2004<br />
369.611.250<br />
166.555.087<br />
34.077.930<br />
50.476.278<br />
620.720.545<br />
2005<br />
392.903.932<br />
163.717.494<br />
37.833.211<br />
54.964.144<br />
649.418.781<br />
2006<br />
415.727.739<br />
175.541.324<br />
38.225.648<br />
63.338.757<br />
692.833.468<br />
2007<br />
457.435.373<br />
194.598.576<br />
34.760.346<br />
67.922.360<br />
754.716.655<br />
2008<br />
460.187.652<br />
195.637.355<br />
39.250.312<br />
73.248.231<br />
768.323.550<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO<br />
In tonnes<br />
Period Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total<br />
1st Half of 2008<br />
201.159.709<br />
92.282.654<br />
16.899.556<br />
31.322.558<br />
341.664.477<br />
1st Half of 2009<br />
194.015.929<br />
95.234.730<br />
17.092.302<br />
29.581.933<br />
335.924.894<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF SHIPPING<br />
Year Long Haul Cabotage<br />
2004<br />
447.136.221 148.418.917<br />
2005<br />
473.057.421 150.112.048<br />
2006<br />
502.919.319 163.520.202<br />
2007<br />
559.045.893 168.455.583<br />
2008<br />
568.404.889 167.342.279<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
Outras<br />
Navegações<br />
25.165.407<br />
26.249.312<br />
26.393.947<br />
27.215.179<br />
32.576.382<br />
Total<br />
In tonnes<br />
620.720.545<br />
649.418.781<br />
692.833.468<br />
754.716.655<br />
768.323.550<br />
ANNUAL EVOLUTION OF FOREIGN TRADE<br />
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING<br />
In tonnes<br />
Year Imports Exports Total<br />
2004<br />
95.547.924<br />
2005<br />
82.974.736<br />
2006<br />
90.010.736<br />
2007<br />
111.208.520<br />
2008<br />
114.696.055<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
351.588.297<br />
390.082.685<br />
412.908.583<br />
447.837.373<br />
454.629.292<br />
447.136.221<br />
473.057.421<br />
502.919.319<br />
559.045.893<br />
569.325.347<br />
34
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF SHIPPING<br />
In tonnes<br />
Period Long Haul Cabotage Other Total<br />
1st Half of 2008<br />
254.607.463<br />
74.894.198<br />
12.162.817<br />
341.664.478<br />
1st Half of 2009<br />
242.541.731<br />
79.798.581<br />
13.584.582<br />
335.924.894<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION OF FOREIGN TRADE<br />
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING<br />
In tonnes<br />
Period Imports Exports Total<br />
1st Half of 2008<br />
55.798.341<br />
198.809.121<br />
254.607.462<br />
1st Half of 2009<br />
45.814.690<br />
196.727.041<br />
242.541.731<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
35
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
North Region<br />
The ports of the North Region handled<br />
24,837,628 tonnes (7.4% of the total volume)<br />
in the first half of 2009, with an increase<br />
of 15.2% over the first half of 2008, when<br />
total handling was 21,555,421 tonnes (63% of<br />
the total volume). In 2008, total handling in the<br />
north was 63,793,657 tonnes (8.3% of the national<br />
volume), with an increase of 10.3% over<br />
2007 and 26.6% in the five-year series.<br />
By type of cargo, bulk solid handling in the<br />
North was 16,920,287 tonnes in the first half of<br />
2009 against 14,681,914 tonnes in the same<br />
period last year, representing an increase of<br />
15.2%. In 2008, bulk solid handling was<br />
43,329,418 tonnes (68% of the total regional<br />
volume and 9.42% of the bulk solids handled in<br />
Brazil), with an increase of 4.9% over 2007 and<br />
27.4% in the five-year series.<br />
Bulk liquid handling was 5,687,126 tonnes in<br />
the first half of 2009 against 4,655,420 tonnes<br />
in the same period of 2008, with an increasing<br />
22.1%. In 2008, bulk liquid handling was<br />
12,293,218 tonnes (19.2% of the total regional<br />
volume and 6.28% of bulk liquids handled in<br />
Brazil), with an increase of 1% over 2007 and<br />
7.8% in the five-year series.<br />
General cargo handling was 778,705 tonnes<br />
in the first half of 2009, with a decrease of<br />
42% over the same period in 2008, when handling<br />
was 1,343,701 tonnes. In 2008, general<br />
cargo handling was 4,397,308 tonnes (6.9% of<br />
the total regional volume and 11.2% of the<br />
general cargo handled in the country), with an<br />
increase of 53.5% over 2007 and 37.7% in the<br />
five-year series.<br />
Container handling reported 1,451,510<br />
tonnes in the first half of 2008, with an increase<br />
of 66% over the first six months of 2008, which<br />
reported 874,386 tonnes. In 2008, container<br />
handling was 3,773,713 tonnes (5.9% of the total<br />
regional volume and 5.15% of the national<br />
container handling), with an increase of 138.5%<br />
over 2007 and 111.8% in the five-year series.<br />
By type of navigation, long-haul shipping handled,<br />
in the North Region, 7,657,965 tonnes in<br />
the first half of 2009, representing an increase of<br />
2.4% over the same period in 2008, when<br />
7,474,171 tonnes were handled. In 2008, longhaul<br />
shipping handled 24,731,259 tonnes<br />
(38.7% of the total regional volume and 4.35%<br />
of the total long-haul volume in Brazil) in the<br />
North Region, with an increase of 26% compared<br />
to 2007 and 35% in the five-year series.<br />
Cabotage handled 10,095,018 tonnes in the<br />
first half of 2009, 2.3% more than in the first six<br />
months of 2008, when 9,869,915 tonnes were<br />
handled. In 2008, the cabotage reported<br />
24,269,040 tonnes handled (38% of the total regional<br />
volume and 14.5% of total Brazilian cabotage),<br />
with a decrease of 13.1% over 2007 and<br />
an increase of 5.9% in the five-year series.<br />
Other types of navigation totaled 7,084,645<br />
tonnes handled in the first half of 2009, with an<br />
increase of 68.2% over the same semester in the<br />
previous year. In 2008, other types of navigation<br />
handled 14,793,358 tonnes (23.15% of the total<br />
regional volume and 45.41% of the national<br />
volume handled by all types of navigation, except<br />
long-haul shipping and cabotage), with an increase<br />
of 44% over 2007 and 61.7% in the fiveyear<br />
series.<br />
Imports handled 1,371,367 tonnes and exports<br />
handled 6,286,598 tonnes in the first half<br />
of 2009, with a decrease of 23.1% and an increase<br />
of 10.5%, respectively, in relation to the<br />
same period last year. In 2008, imports totaled<br />
3,341,567 tonnes (13.6% of the total regional<br />
volume and 2.91% of the national volume) and<br />
exports 21,203,046 handled tonnes (86.4% of<br />
the total regional volume and 4.66% of the national<br />
volume), with increases of 44.5% and<br />
22.4% over 2007, respectively, and 70% and<br />
29.6% in the five-year series, respectively.<br />
36
Participation of the North Region in Handling in Brazil<br />
By Type of Cargo<br />
12,00%<br />
10,00%<br />
l 2004 l 2006 l 2008<br />
8,00%<br />
6,00%<br />
4,00%<br />
2,00%<br />
0,00%<br />
Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container<br />
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO<br />
In tonnes<br />
Year Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total<br />
2003<br />
28.044.137<br />
10.635.946<br />
2.160.235<br />
1.777.493<br />
42.617.811<br />
2004<br />
34.012.641<br />
11.399.655<br />
3.191.710<br />
1.781.400<br />
50.385.406<br />
2005<br />
35.324.423<br />
11.099.143<br />
3.251.678<br />
1.501.246<br />
51.176.490<br />
2006<br />
41.558.600<br />
11.766.389<br />
3.131.075<br />
2.067.520<br />
58.523.584<br />
2007<br />
41.304.061<br />
12.086.457<br />
2.864.512<br />
1.581.820<br />
57.836.850<br />
2008<br />
43.329.418<br />
12.293.218<br />
4.397.308<br />
3.773.713<br />
63.793.657<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO<br />
In tonnes<br />
Period Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total<br />
1st Half of 2008<br />
14.681.914<br />
4.655.420<br />
1.343.701<br />
874.386<br />
21.555.421<br />
1st Half of 2009<br />
16.920.287<br />
5.687.126<br />
778.705<br />
1.451.510<br />
24.837.628<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
37
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
50,00%<br />
Participation of the North Region in Handling in Brazil<br />
By Type of Navigation<br />
40,00%<br />
l 2004 l 2006 l 2008<br />
30,00%<br />
20,00%<br />
10,00%<br />
0,00%<br />
Long Haul Cabotage Other<br />
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF NAVIGATION<br />
In tonnes<br />
Year Long Haul Cabotage<br />
Outras<br />
Navegações<br />
Total<br />
2003<br />
13.274.676<br />
22.456.318<br />
6.886.817<br />
42.617.811<br />
2004<br />
18.321.155<br />
22.916.415<br />
9.147.836<br />
50.385.406<br />
2005<br />
17.424.538<br />
23.853.854<br />
9.898.098<br />
51.176.490<br />
2006<br />
18.649.534<br />
30.108.111<br />
9.765.939<br />
58.523.584<br />
2007<br />
19.635.045<br />
27.929.276<br />
10.272.529<br />
57.836.850<br />
2008<br />
24.731.259<br />
24.269.040<br />
14.793.358<br />
63.793.657<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF NAVIGATION<br />
Period Long Haul Cabotage<br />
1st Half of 2008 7.474.171 9.869.915<br />
1st Half of 2009 7.657.965 10.095.018<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
Outras<br />
Navegações<br />
4.211.335<br />
7.084.645<br />
Total<br />
In tonnes<br />
21.555.421<br />
24.837.628<br />
38
Participation of the North Region in Foreign Trade Long-Haul Cargo Handling<br />
5,00%<br />
4,00%<br />
3,00%<br />
2,00%<br />
l 2004<br />
l 2006<br />
l 2008<br />
1,00%<br />
0,00%<br />
Imports<br />
Exports<br />
ANNUAL EVOLUTION OF FOREIGN TRADE<br />
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING<br />
In tonnes<br />
Year Imports Exports Total<br />
2003<br />
1.844.893<br />
2004<br />
1.964.973<br />
2005<br />
1.734.724<br />
2006<br />
2.086.330<br />
2007<br />
2.312.477<br />
2008<br />
3.341.567<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
11.429.783<br />
16.356.182<br />
15.689.814<br />
16.563.204<br />
17.322.568<br />
21.203.046<br />
13.274.676<br />
18.321.155<br />
17.424.538<br />
18.649.534<br />
19.635.045<br />
24.544.613<br />
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION OF FOREIGN TRADE<br />
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING<br />
In tonnes<br />
Period Imports Exports Total<br />
1st Half of 2008<br />
1.784.804<br />
5.689.367<br />
7.474.171<br />
1st Half of 2009<br />
1.371.367<br />
6.286.598<br />
7.657.965<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
39
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Northeast Region<br />
In the first half of 2009, the ports in the Northeast<br />
Region handled 74,124,495 tonnes (22%<br />
of the total volume), with a decrease of 4.65%<br />
over the same period of 2008, which recorded<br />
77,745,269 tonnes handled (22.7% of the total<br />
volume). In 2008, total handling in the Northeast<br />
was 176,424,179 tonnes (23% of the national<br />
volume), with an increase of 8.3% over 2007 and<br />
31.2% in the five-year series.<br />
By type of loading, bulk solid handling in the<br />
Northeast was 47,324,486 tonnes in the first<br />
half of 2009 against 50,848,369 tonnes in the<br />
same period last year, representing a decrease of<br />
6.9%. In 2008, bulk solid handling was<br />
116,635,887 tonnes (66.1% of the total regional<br />
volume and 25.35% of the bulk solids handled in<br />
Brazil), with an increase of 9% over 2007 and<br />
34% in the five-year series.<br />
In the first half of 2009, bulk liquid handling<br />
was 21,360,738 tonnes against 22,168,901<br />
tonnes in the same period in 2008, with a decrease<br />
of 3.6%. In 2008, bulk liquid handling<br />
was 47,865,036 tonnes (27.1% of the total regional<br />
volume and 24.47% of bulk liquids handled<br />
in Brazil), with an increase of 2.3% over<br />
2007 and 18.3% in the five-year series.<br />
In the first half of 2009, general cargo handling<br />
was 2,295,551 tonnes, with a decrease of<br />
57.8% over the same period in 2008, when<br />
1,454,879 tonnes were handled. In 2008, general<br />
cargo handling was 5,021,054 tonnes<br />
(2.84% of the total regional volume and 12.79%<br />
of the national general cargo volume), with an<br />
increase of 186.7% over 2007 and 85.8% in the<br />
five-year series.<br />
Container handling reported 3,143,720<br />
tonnes handled in the first half of 2008, with a<br />
decrease of 3.95% over the first six months of<br />
2008, which reported 3,273,120 tonnes. In<br />
2008, container handling was 6,902,202 tonnes<br />
(3.9% of the total regional volume and 9.42% of<br />
the national volume of containers handled), with<br />
a decrease of 6% over 2007 and an increase of<br />
61.9% in the five-year series.<br />
By type of navigation, long-haul shipping handled,<br />
in the Northeast Region, 53,452,391<br />
tonnes in the first half of 2009, with a decrease<br />
of 9% over the same period in 2008, when<br />
58,726,745 tonnes were handled. In 2008,<br />
long-haul shipping handled 127,339,438 tonnes<br />
(72.1% of the total regional volume and 22.4%<br />
of total volume handled by long-haul shipping in<br />
Brazil) in the Northeast Region, with an increase<br />
of 9.23% in relation to 2007 and 37.6% in the<br />
five-year series.<br />
Cabotage handled 20,298,087 tonnes in the<br />
first half of 2009, 9.7% more than in the first six<br />
months of 2008, when 18,504,717 tonnes were<br />
handled. In 2008, cabotage reported<br />
47,237,459 tonnes handled (26.7% of the total<br />
regional volume and 28.23% of total Brazilian<br />
cabotage), with an increase of 8% over 2007 and<br />
8.7% in the five-year series.<br />
Other types of navigation totaled 374,017<br />
tonnes handled in the first half of 2009, with a<br />
decrease of 27% over the same period last year.<br />
In 2008, other types of navigation handled<br />
1,847,282 tonnes (1% of the total regional volume<br />
and 5.67% of the national volume handled<br />
by all types of navigation, except long-haul<br />
shipping and cabotage), with a decrease of<br />
28.2% compared to 2007 and 14.2% in the<br />
five-year series.<br />
Imports handled 6,406,009 tonnes and exports<br />
handled 47,046,382 tonnes in the first half<br />
of 2009, with decreases of 9.2%% and 8.9% respectively,<br />
in relation to the same period last<br />
year. In 2008, imports totaled 16,538,748<br />
tonnes (13% of total regional volume and<br />
14.42% of the national volume) and exports totaled<br />
110,800,690 tonnes (87% of total regional<br />
volume and 24.37% of the national volume),<br />
with increases of 2.92% and 10.24% compared<br />
to 2007, respectively, and 39% and 61.38% in<br />
the five-year series, respectively.<br />
40
Participation of the Northeast Region in Handling in Brazil<br />
By Type of Navigation<br />
30,00%<br />
25,00%<br />
20,00%<br />
l 2004 l 2006 l 2008<br />
15,00%<br />
10,00%<br />
5,00%<br />
0,00%<br />
Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container<br />
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO<br />
In tonnes<br />
Year Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total<br />
2003<br />
76.543.614<br />
36.292.240<br />
2.599.609<br />
3.799.261<br />
119.234.724<br />
2004<br />
87.035.906<br />
40.461.485<br />
2.701.513<br />
4.263.262<br />
134.462.166<br />
2005<br />
95.371.684<br />
43.038.867<br />
3.019.461<br />
4.595.287<br />
146.025.299<br />
2006<br />
102.626.924<br />
44.926.330<br />
2.249.514<br />
5.564.846<br />
155.367.614<br />
2007<br />
106.987.844<br />
46.770.782<br />
1.751.151<br />
7.347.751<br />
162.857.528<br />
2008<br />
116.635.887<br />
47.865.036<br />
5.021.054<br />
6.902.202<br />
176.424.179<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO<br />
In tonnes<br />
Period Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total<br />
1st Half of 2008<br />
50.848.369<br />
22.168.901<br />
1.454.879<br />
3.273.120<br />
77.745.269<br />
1st Half of 2009<br />
47.324.486<br />
21.360.738<br />
2.295.551<br />
3.143.720<br />
74.124.495<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
41
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
30,00%<br />
Participation of the Northeast Region in Handling in Brazil<br />
By Type of Navigation<br />
25,00%<br />
20,00%<br />
l 2004 l 2006 l 2008<br />
15,00%<br />
10,00%<br />
5,00%<br />
0,00%<br />
Long Haul Cabotage Other<br />
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF NAVIGATION<br />
Year Long Haul Cabotage<br />
2003<br />
80.487.422 36.558.642<br />
2004<br />
92.516.468 39.792.857<br />
2005<br />
101.580.195 42.140.599<br />
2006<br />
109.136.211 44.173.738<br />
2007<br />
116.569.066 43.715.251<br />
2008<br />
127.339.438 47.237.459<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
Outras<br />
Navegações<br />
2.188.660<br />
2.152.841<br />
2.304.505<br />
2.057.665<br />
2.573.211<br />
1.847.282<br />
Total<br />
In tonnes<br />
119.234.724<br />
134.462.166<br />
146.025.299<br />
155.367.614<br />
162.857.528<br />
176.424.179<br />
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF NAVIGATION<br />
In tonnes<br />
Period Long Haul Cabotage<br />
Outras<br />
Navegações<br />
Total<br />
1st Half of 2008<br />
58.726.745<br />
18.504.717<br />
513.807<br />
77.745.269<br />
1st Half of 2009<br />
53.452.391<br />
20.298.087<br />
374.017<br />
74.124.495<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
42
Participation of the Northeast Region in Foreign Trade<br />
Long-Haul Cargo Handling<br />
30,00%<br />
25,00%<br />
20,00%<br />
15,00%<br />
l 2004<br />
l 2006<br />
l 2008<br />
10,00%<br />
5,00%<br />
0,00%<br />
Imports<br />
Exports<br />
ANNUAL EVOLUTION FOREIGN TRADE<br />
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING<br />
In tonnes<br />
Year Imports Exports Total<br />
2003<br />
11.831.006<br />
2004<br />
12.646.192<br />
2005<br />
11.920.533<br />
2006<br />
13.062.763<br />
2007<br />
16.069.105<br />
2008<br />
16.538.748<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
68.656.416<br />
79.870.276<br />
89.659.662<br />
96.073.448<br />
100.499.961<br />
110.800.690<br />
80.487.422<br />
92.516.468<br />
101.580.195<br />
109.136.211<br />
116.569.066<br />
127.339.438<br />
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION OF FOREIGN TRADE<br />
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING<br />
In tonnes<br />
Period Imports Exports Total<br />
1st Half of 2008<br />
7.055.949<br />
51.670.796<br />
58.726.745<br />
1st Half of 2009<br />
6.406.009<br />
47.046.382<br />
53.452.391<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
43
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Southwest Region<br />
In first half of 2009, the ports in the Southeast<br />
Region handled 187,755,857 tonnes (55.9%<br />
of the total volume), being virtually stable in relation<br />
to the same period in 2008, which reported<br />
188,689,838 tonnes handled (55.2% of the total<br />
volume). In 2008, total handling in the<br />
Southeast Region was 424,506,544 tonnes<br />
(55.2% of the national volume), being stable over<br />
2007 and representing an increase of 33.4% in<br />
the five-year series.<br />
By type of cargo, bulk solid handling in the<br />
Southeast Region was 106,217,837 tonnes in the<br />
first half of 2009 against 108,452,157 tonnes in<br />
the same period last year, representing a decrease<br />
of 2%. In 2008, the bulk solid handling<br />
was 253,803,646 tonnes (59.8% of the total regional<br />
volume and 55.15% of the total volume<br />
handled in Brazil), with a decrease of 1.3% over<br />
2007 and 36.4% in the five-year series.<br />
In the first half of 2009, bulk liquid handling<br />
was 54,145,264 tonnes against 50,866,773<br />
tonnes in the same period in 2008, with an increase<br />
of 6.4%. In 2008, bulk liquid handling<br />
was 106,041,422 tonnes (25% of the total regional<br />
volume and 54.2% of bulk liquids handled<br />
in Brazil), being stable over 2007 and rising<br />
18.8% in the five-year series.<br />
In the first half of 2009, general cargo handling<br />
was 11,241,111 tonnes, with an increase<br />
of 7.1% over the same period in 2008, when<br />
10,494,998 tonnes were handled. In 2008, general<br />
cargo handling was 23,657,847 tonnes<br />
(5.6% of total regional volume and 60.27% of<br />
the national volume of general cargo handled),<br />
being stable in relation to 2007 and rising 15%<br />
in the five-year series.<br />
Container handling reported 16,151,645<br />
tonnes in the first half of 2008, with a decrease<br />
of 14.4% over the first six months of 2008, which<br />
reported 18,875,910 tonnes. In 2008, container<br />
handling reported 41,003,629 tonnes (9.6% of<br />
the total regional volume and 56% of the national<br />
volume of containers handled), with an increase<br />
of 8% over 2007 and 83.3% in the fiveyear<br />
series.<br />
By type of navigation, long-haul shipping handled,<br />
in the Southeast Region, 145,324,216<br />
tonnes in the first half of 2009, with a decrease<br />
of 2.4% over the same period in 2008, when the<br />
148,934,016 tonnes were handled. In 2008,<br />
long-haul shipping handled 341,951,426 tonnes<br />
(80.5% of the total regional volume and 60.16%<br />
of the total volume handled by long-haul shipping<br />
in Brazil) in the Southeast Region, being stable<br />
in relation to 2007 and rising 26.7% in the<br />
five-year series.<br />
Cabotage handled 40,456,352 tonnes in the<br />
first half of 2009, 7.4% more than in the first six<br />
months of 2008, when 37,670,508 tonnes were<br />
handled. In 2008, cabotage reported<br />
78,808,201 tonnes handled (18.5% of the total<br />
regional volume and 47.09% of total Brazilian<br />
cabotage), with a decrease of 0.9% over 2007<br />
and an increase of 9.2% in the five-year series.<br />
Other types of navigation totaled 1,975,289<br />
tonnes handled in the first half of 2009, with a<br />
decrease of 5.2% over the same period last year.<br />
In 2008, other types of navigation handled<br />
3,746,917 tonnes (0.88% of total regional volume<br />
and 11.50% of the national volume handled<br />
by all types of navigation, except long-haul<br />
shipping and cabotage), with an increase of<br />
1.32% in relation to 2007 and 24.9% in the fiveyear<br />
series.<br />
Imports handled 27,826,661 tonnes and exports<br />
handled 117,497,555 tonnes in the first<br />
half of 2009, with a decrease 10.1%, and stable<br />
handling, respectively, compared to the same<br />
period last year. In 2008, imports totaled<br />
63,819,520 tonnes (18.6% of the total regional<br />
volume and 55.64% of the national volume) and<br />
exports totaled 278,114,487 tonnes (81.4% of<br />
the total regional volume and 61.17% of national<br />
volume) , with an increase of 2.8% and a decrease<br />
of 0.6% over 2007, respectively, and an<br />
increase of 26.3% and 44.5% in the five-year series,<br />
respectively.<br />
44
Participation of the Southwest Region in Handling in Brazil<br />
By Type of Cargo<br />
80,00%<br />
70,00%<br />
l 2004 l 2006 l 2008<br />
60,00%<br />
50,00%<br />
40,00%<br />
30,00%<br />
20,00%<br />
10,00%<br />
0,00%<br />
Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container<br />
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO<br />
In tonnes<br />
Year Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total<br />
2003<br />
185.992.677<br />
89.258.650<br />
20.560.746<br />
22.366.228<br />
318.178.301<br />
2004<br />
205.299.878<br />
90.355.920<br />
21.872.396<br />
27.629.178<br />
345.157.372<br />
2005<br />
225.822.417<br />
84.346.019<br />
23.021.346<br />
31.857.526<br />
365.047.308<br />
2006<br />
227.577.132<br />
91.876.077<br />
25.851.187<br />
36.525.878<br />
381.830.274<br />
2007<br />
257.196.970<br />
106.210.336<br />
23.545.636<br />
37.946.862<br />
424.899.804<br />
2008<br />
253.803.646<br />
106.041.422<br />
23.657.847<br />
41.003.629<br />
424.506.544<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO<br />
In tonnes<br />
Period Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total<br />
1st Half of 2008<br />
108.452.157<br />
50.866.773<br />
10.494.998<br />
18.875.910<br />
188.689.838<br />
1st Half of 2009<br />
106.217.837<br />
54.145.264<br />
11.241.111<br />
16.151.645<br />
187.755.857<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
45
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Participation of the Southwest Region in Handling in Brazil<br />
By Type of Navigation<br />
70,00%<br />
60,00%<br />
l 2004 l 2006 l 2008<br />
50,00%<br />
40,00%<br />
30,00%<br />
20,00%<br />
10,00%<br />
0,00%<br />
Long Haul Cabotage Other<br />
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF NAVIGATION<br />
Year Long Haul Cabotage<br />
2003<br />
242.958.327 72.219.400<br />
2004<br />
269.911.593 72.162.060<br />
2005<br />
290.450.897 70.930.456<br />
2006<br />
305.256.535 74.002.356<br />
2007<br />
342.019.497 79.570.557<br />
2008<br />
341.951.426 78.808.201<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
Outras<br />
Navegações<br />
3.000.574<br />
3.083.719<br />
3.665.955<br />
2.571.383<br />
3.309.750<br />
3.746.917<br />
Total<br />
In tonnes<br />
318.178.301<br />
345.157.372<br />
365.047.308<br />
381.830.274<br />
424.899.804<br />
424.506.544<br />
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF NAVIGATION<br />
Period Long Haul Cabotage<br />
1st Half of 2008 148.934.016 37.670.508<br />
1st Half of 2009 145.324.216 40.456.352<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
Outras<br />
Navegações<br />
2.085.314<br />
1.975.289<br />
Total<br />
In tonnes<br />
188.689.838<br />
187.755.857<br />
46
Participation of the Southwest Region in Foreign Trade<br />
Long-Haul Cargo Handling<br />
70,00%<br />
60,00%<br />
50,00%<br />
40,00%<br />
l 2004<br />
l 2006<br />
l 2008<br />
30,00%<br />
20,00%<br />
10,00%<br />
0,00%<br />
Imports<br />
Exports<br />
ANNUAL EVOLUTION OF FOREIGN TRADE<br />
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING<br />
In tonnes<br />
Year Imports Exports Total<br />
2003<br />
50.528.748<br />
2004<br />
57.164.778<br />
2005<br />
46.774.491<br />
2006<br />
50.735.979<br />
2007<br />
62.067.874<br />
2008<br />
63.819.520<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
192.429.579<br />
212.746.815<br />
243.676.406<br />
254.520.556<br />
279.951.623<br />
278.114.487<br />
242.958.327<br />
269.911.593<br />
290.450.897<br />
305.256.535<br />
342.019.497<br />
341.934.007<br />
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION OF FOREIGN TRADE<br />
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING<br />
In tonnes<br />
Period Imports Exports Total<br />
1st Half of 2008<br />
30.977.688<br />
117.956.328<br />
148.934.016<br />
1st Half of 2009<br />
27.826.661<br />
117.497.555<br />
145.324.216<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
47
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
South Region<br />
In the first half of 2009, the ports in the South<br />
Region handled 48,165,143 tonnes (14.33%<br />
of the total volume), with a decrease of 5.5%<br />
over the same period in 2008, which reported<br />
50,964,175 tonnes handled (14.91% of the total<br />
volume). In 2008, total movement in the<br />
South Region was 99,254,790 tonnes (12.91%<br />
of national), with a decrease of 6.8% over 2007<br />
and 12.8% in the five-year series.<br />
By type of cargo, bulk solid handling in the<br />
South was 22,525,612 tonnes in the first half of<br />
2009 against 24,467,495 tonnes in the same<br />
period last year, representing a decrease of<br />
7.9%. In 2008, bulk solid handling was<br />
42,074,321 tonnes (42.39% of the total regional<br />
volume and 9.14% of total bulk solids handled in<br />
Brazil), with a decrease of 14.7% over 2007 and<br />
an increase of 3.2% in the five-year series.<br />
In the first half of 2009, bulk liquid handling<br />
was 14,040,329 tonnes against 14,591,560<br />
tonnes in the same period of 2008, with a decrease<br />
of 3.7%. In 2008, bulk liquid handling<br />
was 29,437,679 tonnes (29.65% of the total regional<br />
volume and 15.05% of bulk liquids handled<br />
in Brazil), being stable over 2007 and rising<br />
21.2% in the five-year series.<br />
In the first half of 2009, general cargo handling<br />
was 2,764,144 tonnes, with a decrease of<br />
23.3% over the same period in 2008, when<br />
3,605,978 tonnes were handled. In 2008, general<br />
cargo handling was 7,504,882 tonnes<br />
(7.56% of the total regional volume and 19.12%<br />
of the national volume of general cargo handled),<br />
with an increase of 13.85% over 2007 and<br />
22.35% in the five-year series.<br />
Container handling recorded 8,835,058<br />
tonnes handled in the first half of 2009, with an<br />
increase of 6.4% in the first six months of 2008,<br />
which recorded 8,299,142 tonnes handled. In<br />
2008, container handling was 20,237,908<br />
tonnes (20.38% of the total regional volume and<br />
27.63% of the national volume of containers<br />
handled), with a decrease of 3.8% over 2007<br />
and an increase of 20.4% in the five-year series.<br />
By type of navigation, long-haul shipping handled,<br />
in the South Region, 35,552,512 tonnes in<br />
the first half of 2009, with a decrease of 8.7%<br />
over the same period in 2008, when the drive<br />
was 38,967,974 tonnes. In 2008, long-haul<br />
shipping handled 74,382,766 tonnes (74.94% of<br />
total regional volume and 13.09% of the volume<br />
handled by long-haul shipping in Brazil) in the<br />
South Region, with a decrease of 1.23% in relation<br />
to 2007 and an increase of 12 % in the fiveyear<br />
series.<br />
Cabotage handled 8,948,824 tonnes in the<br />
first half of 2009, 1.1% more than in the first six<br />
months of 2008, when 8,849,058 tonnes were<br />
handling. In 2008, cabotage reported<br />
17,026,980 tonnes handled (17.15% of the<br />
total regional volume and 10.17% of total<br />
Brazilian cabotage), with a decrease of 1.23%<br />
over 2007 and an increase of 25.7 % in the<br />
five-year series.<br />
Other types of navigation totaled 3,663,807<br />
tonnes handled in the first half of 2009, with an<br />
increase of 16.4% over the same semester in the<br />
previous year. In 2008, other types of navigation<br />
handled 7,845,044 tonnes (7.9% of the total regional<br />
volume and 24.08% of the national volume<br />
handled by all types of navigation, except<br />
long-haul shipping and cabotage), with a decrease<br />
of 7.2% in relation to 2007 and 2.5% in<br />
the five-year series.<br />
Imports handled 10,210,653 tonnes and exports<br />
handled 25,341,859 tonnes in the first<br />
half of 2009, with a decline of 36% and an increase<br />
of 10.2%, respectively, in relation to the<br />
same period last year. In 2008, imports totaled<br />
30,625,482 tonnes (42% of the total regional<br />
volume and 26.7% of the national volume) and<br />
exports handled 42,190,291 tonnes (58% of<br />
the total regional volume and 9.28% of the national<br />
volume), being stable and dropping<br />
15.7% over 2007, respectively, with an increase<br />
of 28.8% and a decrease of 1% in the five-year<br />
series, respectively.<br />
48
Participation of the South Region in Handling in Brazil<br />
By Type of Cargo<br />
35,00%<br />
30,00%<br />
l 2004 l 2006 l 2008<br />
25,00%<br />
20,00%<br />
15,00%<br />
10,00%<br />
5,00%<br />
0,00%<br />
Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container<br />
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO<br />
In tonnes<br />
Year Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total<br />
2003<br />
43.151.998<br />
25.699.245<br />
5.447.983<br />
13.728.694<br />
88.027.920<br />
2004<br />
40.767.384<br />
24.281.744<br />
6.133.724<br />
16.802.438<br />
87.985.290<br />
2005<br />
33.874.360<br />
25.233.465<br />
8.476.412<br />
17.010.085<br />
84.594.322<br />
2006<br />
40.589.550<br />
26.972.528<br />
6.942.581<br />
19.180.513<br />
93.685.172<br />
2007<br />
49.353.050<br />
29.531.001<br />
6.591.676<br />
21.045.927<br />
106.521.654<br />
2008<br />
42.074.321<br />
29.437.679<br />
7.504.882<br />
20.237.908<br />
99.254.790<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF CARGO<br />
In tonnes<br />
Period Bulk solids Bulk liquids General Cargo Container Total<br />
1st Half of 2008<br />
24.467.495<br />
14.591.560<br />
3.605.978<br />
8.299.142<br />
50.964.175<br />
1st Half of 2009<br />
22.525.612<br />
14.040.329<br />
2.764.144<br />
8.835.058<br />
48.165.143<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
49
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Participation of the South Region in Brazil<br />
By Type of Navigation<br />
35,00%<br />
30,00%<br />
l 2004 l 2006 l 2008<br />
25,00%<br />
20,00%<br />
15,00%<br />
10,00%<br />
5,00%<br />
0,00%<br />
Long Haul Cabotage Other<br />
ANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF NAVIGATION<br />
Year Long Haul Cabotage<br />
2003<br />
64.875.843 14.692.165<br />
2004<br />
66.387.005 13.547.585<br />
2005<br />
63.601.791 13.187.139<br />
2006<br />
69.877.039 15.235.997<br />
2007<br />
80.822.285 17.240.499<br />
2008<br />
74.382.766 17.026.980<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
Outras<br />
Navegações<br />
8.459.912<br />
8.050.700<br />
7.805.392<br />
8.572.136<br />
8.458.870<br />
7.845.044<br />
Total<br />
In tonnes<br />
88.027.920<br />
87.985.290<br />
84.594.322<br />
93.685.172<br />
106.521.654<br />
99.254.790<br />
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION, BY TYPE OF NAVIGATION<br />
Period Long Haul Cabotage<br />
1st Half of 2008 38.967.974 8.849.058<br />
1st Half of 2009 35.552.512 8.948.824<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
Outras<br />
Navegações<br />
3.147.144<br />
3.663.807<br />
Total<br />
In tonnes<br />
50.964.175<br />
48.165.143<br />
50
Participation of the South Region in Foreign Trade<br />
Long-Haul Cargo Handling<br />
30,00%<br />
25,00%<br />
20,00%<br />
15,00%<br />
l 2004<br />
l 2006<br />
l 2008<br />
10,00%<br />
5,00%<br />
0,00%<br />
Imports<br />
Exports<br />
ANNUAL EVOLUTION OF FOREIGN TRADE<br />
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING<br />
In tonnes<br />
Year Imports Exports Total<br />
2003<br />
23.510.734<br />
2004<br />
23.771.981<br />
2005<br />
22.544.988<br />
2006<br />
24.125.664<br />
2007<br />
30.759.064<br />
2008<br />
30.625.482<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
41.365.109<br />
42.615.024<br />
41.056.803<br />
45.751.375<br />
50.063.221<br />
42.190.291<br />
64.875.843<br />
66.387.005<br />
63.601.791<br />
69.877.039<br />
80.822.285<br />
BIANNUAL EVOLUTION OF FOREIGN TRADE<br />
LONG-HAUL CARGO HANDLING<br />
In tonnes<br />
Period Imports Exports Total<br />
1st Half of 2008<br />
15.979.096<br />
22.988.878<br />
38.967.974<br />
1st Half of 2009<br />
10.210.653<br />
25.341.859<br />
35.552.512<br />
Source: Port Authorities and Private Terminals<br />
51
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
General Grants Plan<br />
The General Grants Plan (PGO) has identified<br />
19 areas, divided into 45 smaller<br />
areas along the Brazilian coast, which<br />
are priorities for the installation of public ports<br />
or areas targeted at cargo terminals. Prepared<br />
by ANTAQ, in partnership with the Center for<br />
Excellence in Transportation Engineering (Centran),<br />
the study meets the provisions of Decree<br />
6,620 of October 29, 2008.<br />
The process of identifying these areas was<br />
based on three main points. The first point is<br />
to identify the volumes of major current and<br />
projected cargoes to be flown in each vector<br />
logistics. The second point refers to the indication<br />
of minimum depths according to cargoes<br />
expected in charts, on the coast relating<br />
to each logistics vector and in the Amazon<br />
basin.<br />
The third point, in turn, is based on the establishment<br />
of planned or implemented highway,<br />
railway, and waterway networks that<br />
serve or are close to areas suitable for the installation<br />
of public ports and regions targeted<br />
at private terminals.<br />
On April 8, 2009, the director-general of<br />
ANTAQ, Fernando Fialho, presented the plan<br />
to the chief minister of the Special Secretariat<br />
of Ports (SEP), Pedro Brito, at the Agency’s<br />
headquarters in Brasilia during a business<br />
meeting attended by officials and corporate<br />
representatives connected to the port sector.<br />
According to the director-general, the PGO<br />
will guide decisions for public and private investment<br />
in the port infrastructure. According<br />
to Fialho, the plan, alongside the National<br />
Plan of Logistics and Transport (PNLT), represents<br />
the resumption of strategic planning<br />
in Brazil.<br />
The PGO allows public and private investors<br />
to have an integrated view of the port<br />
system and other models, based on load flow<br />
scenarios that consider current scenarios and<br />
projections to 2023. In addition, the plan may<br />
be revised every two years.<br />
52
Premises<br />
I – regional characterization of the country<br />
should be defined based on land and port infrastructure<br />
and the potential flow of cargo<br />
and passengers, as well as the guidelines for<br />
regional development established by the Federal<br />
Government;<br />
II – characterization of the demand and supply<br />
of regional port capacity;<br />
III – competitive impact studies that identify, by<br />
region, the distribution of the potential market,<br />
by product type, among the existing terminals;<br />
IV – calculation of indicators of market concentration;<br />
and<br />
V – aspects of technical, environmental and<br />
operational feasibility to determine, by region,<br />
the appropriate areas for the installation of<br />
new organized ports.<br />
According to the Director-General,<br />
the PGO should serve as reference<br />
for the strategic planning of<br />
port activities by the public and for<br />
the investment decisions of key<br />
representatives of the private sector.<br />
Data from the study itself<br />
should mark the regulatory activity<br />
developed by ANTAQ.<br />
On September 18, 2009, the<br />
SEP approved the PGO proposed<br />
by ANTAQ, transiently. The study<br />
will be reviewed by the Agency and<br />
be subject to the approval of the<br />
SEP within fifteen months, in line<br />
with Administrative Rule SEP/PR<br />
178/2009 and in accordance with<br />
the guidelines and policies of Decree<br />
6.620/2008, taking into account<br />
certain topics and premises<br />
(see charts).<br />
The review should consider<br />
the following points:<br />
l The need for additional studies and surveys submitted by<br />
ANTAQ and implemented to meet the guidelines and policies<br />
established by Decree 6620, of October 29, 2008;<br />
l The fact that, for the fulfillment of items I to IV of Article<br />
44 of Decree 620/2008, the mapping and characterization<br />
of port facilities are necessary conditions, as well as the calculation<br />
of the current and maximum capacity installed,<br />
aiming at optimizing the national port structure, required in<br />
that legal instrument;<br />
l The need for further studies affirming the capacity for expansion<br />
of public ports; and<br />
l The projects of public and private terminals being implemented<br />
in the country.<br />
53
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Environment<br />
Port environmental management<br />
The gathering of information on environmental<br />
management in Brazilian public ports by<br />
ANTAQ was expanded in 2009 with the increase<br />
in the number of ports – two more than in<br />
2007 – and the inclusion of new provisions and<br />
environmental aspects in the Integrated Environmental<br />
Management System – SIGA.<br />
With the inclusion of Ilhéus (BA) and Pelotas<br />
(RS), the assessment now encompasses 32 ports.<br />
The others are: Maceió (AL), Macapá (AP), Manaus<br />
(AM), Aratu and Salvador (BA), Fortaleza<br />
(CE), Vitória (ES), Itaqui (MA), Belém, Santarém<br />
and Vila do Conde (PA), Cabedelo (PB), Antonina<br />
and Paranaguá (PR), Recife and Suape (PE), Natal<br />
(RN), Angra dos Reis, Forno, Itaguaí, Niterói<br />
and Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Porto Alegre and Rio<br />
Grande (RS), Porto Velho (RO), Imbituba, Itajaí<br />
and São Francisco do Sul (SC), and Santos and<br />
São Sebastião (SP).<br />
The number of provisions assessed by the<br />
Agency has also increased, from 13 to 24 items:<br />
l Environmental Center;<br />
l Pollution Risk Management;<br />
l Solid Waste Management;<br />
l Internal Procedure Manual;<br />
l Personal Emergency Plan – PEI;<br />
l Emergency Control Plan - PCE;<br />
l Environmental Risk Prevention Program – PPRA;<br />
l Environmental Licensing for Ports;<br />
l Environmental Licensing for Dredging;<br />
l Port Support Services;<br />
l Center for Occupational Safety and Medicine;<br />
Environmental Audit;<br />
l Environmental Licensing for Leases;<br />
l Center for Safety and Occupational Medicine,<br />
Environmental Audit;<br />
l Environmental Licensing for Leases;<br />
l Security Unit, ISPS, and Certification by the IMO;<br />
l Dangerous Goods;<br />
l Environmental Liabilities;<br />
l Voluntary Certification (ISO, others);<br />
l “Environmental” Development and Zoning Plan<br />
– PDZA;<br />
l Global Integrated Shipping Information System<br />
– GISIS;<br />
l Avian Influenza Contingency Plan;<br />
l Environmental Training and Qualification Plan;<br />
l Atmospheric emissions;<br />
l Noise Pollution; and<br />
l Port Environmental Agenda.<br />
SIGA is developed by the Board of Environment<br />
of ANTAQ (GMA), through periodic visits to ports,<br />
in which not only representatives of environmentrelated<br />
areas are contacted, but also sectors of<br />
planning, engineering and operations, occupational<br />
safety and health, and port security units.<br />
During these visits, the GMA uses the SIGA<br />
Form as a tool for gathering information as a basis<br />
for assessing the environmental performance of<br />
ports. Compliance, whether legal or not, is organized<br />
in the form in the form of items and folders,<br />
so that its application may be carried out in a<br />
quick, practical way.<br />
54
New form<br />
Albeit recent, port environmental management<br />
has significantly evolved around the world<br />
to meet legal and market requirements, which,<br />
in turn, are renewed according to the demands<br />
of society and consumers, depending on the<br />
availability of new technologies cleaner, environment-friendlier<br />
energy sources.<br />
To follow this evolution, and in accordance<br />
with the experience gained over the years in the<br />
implementation of the SIGA, the GMA has conducted<br />
reviews and made updates to the contents<br />
of the form, which increased from nine<br />
provisions in 2003 compliance to 24 provisions<br />
in 2009.<br />
The table below shows the evolution of the<br />
scope of environmental compliance included in<br />
the SIGA Form since its first draft. This year, in<br />
addition to adjustments made in some of the<br />
items already considered, the following items<br />
were included:<br />
1. Development Zoning Plan – PDZ, which<br />
aims at observing the effective implementation<br />
of the PDZ in port’s planning process and assess<br />
how environmental aspects involved in port activities<br />
are considered by this instrument;<br />
2. Global Integrated Shipping Information<br />
System – GISIS, which aims at supporting the<br />
work already done by the GMA in surveying<br />
and consolidating information about the availability<br />
of services and adequate facilities for the<br />
receipt of waste from ships in Brazilian ports;<br />
3. Avian Influenza Contingency Plan, to<br />
monitor the development and implementation of<br />
avian influenza contingency plans at ports covered<br />
by the national plan;<br />
4. Atmospheric Emissions, aiming at identifying<br />
effective measures to control greenhouse<br />
gas emissions and the dust generation by cargo<br />
handling, especially relating to bulk solids, at<br />
ports;<br />
5. Environmental Training and Qualification<br />
Programs, to survey training experiences<br />
developed at each port and specific demands of<br />
inquiries by this criterion by environment sectors;<br />
6. Noise Pollution, which aims at identifying<br />
effective measures to control and monitor noise<br />
in port operations; and<br />
7. Port Environmental Agenda, to follow the<br />
process of implementation of local port environmental<br />
agendas by port authorities.<br />
55
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
56
Port environmental planning<br />
The Development and Zoning Plan – PDZ is<br />
the instrument of organization and growth<br />
of port activities. It is a planning tool of the<br />
activities, in which the current and future cargoes<br />
are arranged in order to achieve better efficiency<br />
while transported. However, this instrument<br />
has still not achieved it due to the lack of<br />
proper tools for this purpose.<br />
Port activities are primarily carried out within<br />
areas defined by presidential decree. There is<br />
no restriction for that area (polygon) to be<br />
amended whenever the relevant authority requires<br />
it. However, there is not much flexibility in<br />
this process, as its expansion is subject to its surroundings.<br />
Many urban ports are limited in<br />
space by the cities where they are located, leaving<br />
them solely with the area now available.<br />
Within the polygon, there is a set of natural resources<br />
that are exclusively available to the port<br />
authority. And these natural resources should be<br />
used so as to obtain the best possible environmental<br />
quality and mitigate impacts as much as<br />
possible, compensating what is necessary for<br />
environmental damages.<br />
The purpose of this planning instrument, from<br />
the environmental standpoint, for the decision to<br />
ANTAQ should incorporate environmental studies<br />
that subsidize strategies for deciding the form<br />
and amount of use of natural resources, as well<br />
as actions to improve the quality of the environment<br />
in its current status.<br />
These studies include: the study of port activity<br />
and its relation to the surroundings of the organized<br />
port with respect to ecosocial-economic<br />
aspects; assessment of the quality of natural resources<br />
within the polygon, and characterization<br />
of the main elements of fauna and flora within<br />
the port polygon with the identification of possible<br />
situations of protection.<br />
Besides strategically providing the organiza-<br />
57
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
tion of the port space in terms of transit cargo,<br />
these studies allow for the obtaining of environmental<br />
clearance for activities arising from it.<br />
The qualification process occurs by licensing, in<br />
which the environmental impact assessment is<br />
the primary element. The assessment uses studies<br />
of the PDZ environmentally developed.<br />
Another advantage environmental studies in<br />
the Development and Zoning Plan is that, being<br />
factors of activity organization according to criteria<br />
of environmental quality, they effectively<br />
improve management. For example, grouping<br />
similar activities provides the concentration of<br />
environmental control instruments that are specific<br />
for that particular area. If the port holds set<br />
of facilities for bulk liquids, oil and byproducts,<br />
in a particular area, it should focus on devices to<br />
combat pollution by oil and byproducts.<br />
Similarly, if a particular part of the organized<br />
port holds a number of facilities for bulk solids,<br />
such as grains, this area should focus on devices<br />
for dealing with particles that pollute the air.<br />
The proper arrangement of the loads from<br />
the standpoint of environmental quality brings<br />
a considerable gain for the management of<br />
those parts of the organized port and the port<br />
as a whole.<br />
Last but not least, some ports have sensitive<br />
areas of the environmental point of view that<br />
does not allow any further impact on those locations.<br />
Tankage facilities are some that create<br />
that situation by casting. Many are also located<br />
inappropriately in the middle of big cities, with<br />
the risks inherent in this situation.<br />
The appropriate arrangement of the cargoes,<br />
from the environmental quality standpoint,<br />
brings considerable gains in the management<br />
of parts of the organized port and the<br />
port as a whole.<br />
Last but not least, some ports have environmentally<br />
sensitive areas that do not allow for any<br />
further impact on those locations. Tankage facilities<br />
are among those that create that situation<br />
by leakage. They are usually inappropriately located<br />
in the middle of large cities, with the risks<br />
inherent in this situation.<br />
These are the considerations that are being<br />
proposed for the formulation of a PDZ based on<br />
the environment, which would be established<br />
as a basic rule to be followed by ports. The<br />
work is still widely discussed before being finalized<br />
with internal and external audiences of the<br />
Agency. This proposal is backed by the Bylaws of<br />
the Agency (Law 10,233/01), which has been<br />
given the task to seek activities with environmental<br />
quality.<br />
Once made, the studies would meet the obligations<br />
of the Boards of the Port Authority and<br />
port authorities that conducted and approved<br />
them, to protect the environment, in accordance<br />
with Articles 30 and 33 of Law 8,630/93.<br />
With a system of environmental clearance for<br />
port activities, based on licensing, any environmental<br />
intervention for expansion shall require<br />
an assessment of its significant impacts to the<br />
environment. Knowledge of the impacts is a key<br />
part of control and command process that licensing<br />
agencies and stakeholders involved<br />
should exercise, as well as other public representatives<br />
of the Brazilian society in this field.<br />
Although it is an appropriate system, it was<br />
designed and set up during the 80s and regulated<br />
in 90s, with content relating to precaution,<br />
valid at the time, but now it may be simplified for<br />
the benefit of the entire Brazilian society. It was<br />
created within the principle of constant improvement,<br />
which suggests its revision in some cases.<br />
58
Revision of CONAMA Resolution 344/04<br />
The first licensing rules that enable or guarantee<br />
the quality of production environments<br />
are under review. Of these, the best<br />
known regulation is CONAMA Resolution<br />
344/04. The Brazilian environmental clearance<br />
progress lacks environmental management regulations,<br />
unlike licensing rules, which could be<br />
simplified, without losing their potential to ensure<br />
environmental quality.<br />
As for environmental management, there are<br />
not many rules. The regulatory process of environmental<br />
management, necessarily beginning<br />
with licensing to establish the focus of management,<br />
needs to be expanded. It may comprise<br />
compulsory rules, which mostly follow the<br />
line of manuals or similar procedures. We have<br />
this culture and, unfortunately, do not follow<br />
other countries.<br />
The CONAMA Resolution 344, in turn, has<br />
that opportunity. It could constitute a new model<br />
of environmental regulation, in a comprehensive<br />
document, with a good mastery of the principles<br />
that govern environmental laws, good<br />
range of content, aggregation of state-of-the-art<br />
technology in dealing with environmental protection,<br />
and proper understanding. These are<br />
the attributes of environmental management<br />
instruments.<br />
In the revision of environmental regulations,<br />
this has been the proposal of ANTAQ and other<br />
stakeholders of port activities. This means moving<br />
forward on environmental regulation, so<br />
that we may implement management tools that<br />
environmental agencies and production agents<br />
need. In the current design of our system of environmental<br />
qualification, this task would be attributed<br />
to CONAMA, which, however, has been<br />
shy in promoting the advancement of environmental<br />
technology.<br />
To remedy this lack of environmental governance,<br />
ANTAQ, alongside the Ministry of Environment<br />
(MMA), is developing instructions in the<br />
form of manuals or handbooks that make it<br />
easier for port agents to protect the environment.<br />
This work is in the context of the Port Environmental<br />
Agenda, nationally. The Local Environmental<br />
Agenda differs by the presence of environmental<br />
regulation locations and (public<br />
and private) regulated agents.<br />
In this case, it is important that the manuals<br />
are sufficiently indicative regarding the stakeholders’<br />
action to achieve the desired end result;<br />
a healthy environment in terms of occupational<br />
safety and health; and valuation of natural resources<br />
existing in this environment.<br />
The elaboration of the new document, replacing<br />
CONAMA Resolution 344, will induce<br />
the formation of an environmental database.<br />
This database should already be available to<br />
private agents, but it is not due to the lack of focus<br />
on the environmental issue of licensing<br />
agencies. This database, addressed by Law<br />
10,650/03, would be developed by federal and<br />
local environmental agencies as a result of the<br />
licensing, as they excel in this area and have a<br />
responsibility within the system of environmental<br />
regulation created by Law 6,938/81.<br />
This type of information among the most important<br />
environmental principles, as it requires<br />
us to perform the scientific and technical development,<br />
present in nearly all the environmental<br />
regulation, particularly in CONAMA 344, i.e.,<br />
the relationship between agents and impact<br />
produced by them.<br />
In the original version of CONAMA 344, due<br />
to the lack of these environmental data, the<br />
resolution had to be restricted to assessing the<br />
quality of sediments. Today, it has no support, as<br />
it is possible to have a resolution of the environmental<br />
management of these services in the<br />
ports, adding the knowledge acquired on environmental<br />
dredging. This is a limitation of the<br />
current Resolution that needs to be corrected.<br />
59
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Solid waste<br />
Solid waste is also entering a new phase with<br />
the review of the RDC 217 of the National<br />
Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA). The<br />
promulgation of the RDC 056/08 brought a new<br />
concept of good environmental practices for<br />
waste. As in other legislation texts (the same subject<br />
is treated as a Plan of Waste, such as Law<br />
9,966/00), the correct understanding of this provision<br />
is necessary.<br />
Good environmental practices for collection<br />
and disposal of waste should be achieved by organized<br />
ports and other facilities, regardless of<br />
formal plans. The question still faces regulations<br />
with different determinations established by AN-<br />
VISA and the International System of Agricultural<br />
Surveillance (VIGIAGRO).<br />
It is important that the proper treatment be<br />
given to facilitate destination, which should happen<br />
after autoclaving in the primary zone, as required<br />
by the VIGIAGRO. The use of autoclaves<br />
meets the elimination or exclusion of incinerated<br />
waste in port areas, for the high environmental<br />
impact they cause.<br />
Licensing process<br />
It is a process of great relevance to port activities<br />
and, therefore, should be built within<br />
an understanding of environmental logic. To<br />
this end, it is essential review prior licensing<br />
and its environmental impact assessments.<br />
By design, prior licensing for undertakings is<br />
a license of decision, that is, the environmental<br />
possibility to implement the undertaking, where<br />
it is designed, is taken into consideration. Environmental<br />
impact assessments should meet<br />
the demand for the assessment alone, as it is<br />
relevant to the decision-making process. In the<br />
current licensing practice, this does not happen<br />
that way. The environmental impact assessment,<br />
EIA is nearly always, unnecessarily, a<br />
prospective study of possible impacts. Therefore,<br />
it has impacts of little relevance, liable to<br />
well-known, technically manageable processes<br />
of minimization.<br />
These normal impacts, which may be adequately<br />
minimized, should not be part of this<br />
assessment. They should rather be part of the<br />
executive project for installation licensing, providing<br />
time to the environmental licensing<br />
agency. This is an unnecessary social burden<br />
that may be easily resolved.<br />
A major flaw of our clearance process is<br />
that environmental impact assessments, even in<br />
its current form, should generate management<br />
indicators of the environments to which they relate,<br />
for the undertaking they enable. Being so<br />
complex and extensive, they never reach their<br />
goal and generate more confusion than knowledge<br />
about the impacting forces they are supposed<br />
to map.<br />
60
Environmental governance analysis<br />
Currently, solid waste production may be<br />
considered a major environmental impact<br />
of port activities. Such waste may be generated<br />
by the port operation itself (operational<br />
waste) or by ships (crew).<br />
In order to minimize the impacts caused by<br />
waste, there are several international and national<br />
regulations. Brazil has signed the International<br />
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution<br />
from Ships (MARPOL 73/78). Annex 5 dictates<br />
rules for the prevention of pollution by garbage<br />
from ships.<br />
Internally, Law 9,966/2000 consolidates the<br />
internalization of principles of MARPOL 73/78.<br />
According to Article 5 of the Law, all organized<br />
ports, port facilities, and platforms, as well as their<br />
support facilities, shall mandatorily have facilities<br />
or adequate means to receive and process various<br />
types of waste, and combat pollution in compliance<br />
with rules and criteria established by the<br />
relevant environmental authority.<br />
In order to receive waste from ships, there are<br />
some basic rules: ships should deliver their waste<br />
at waste reception facilities before leaving the<br />
port (properly segregated, packaged, and<br />
sealed); they should also give notice of the waste<br />
to be discharged (quantity, quality, and reception<br />
facilities) and pay a fee required to cover the<br />
costs of the reception facilities.<br />
ANVISA, alongside the VIGIAGRO, has its own<br />
regulations to deal with the matter within their respective<br />
areas.<br />
The National Agency for <strong>Waterway</strong> Transportation<br />
(ANTAQ) also plays an important role to<br />
establish rules and standards of quality to port activities,<br />
including environmental rules. Moreover,<br />
it represents Brazil before international navigation<br />
agencies, such as the International Maritime Organization<br />
(IMO), in conventions, agreements<br />
and treaties on waterway transportation.<br />
In this sense, ANTAQ been working to define<br />
the real roles of diverse stakeholders involved in<br />
organized ports regarding the generation of<br />
waste in port areas.<br />
61
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Local Environmental Agenda<br />
Public ports provide their maritime and land<br />
infrastructure to users, who pay values defined<br />
in a tariff table. This maritime and<br />
land infrastructure includes the environmental<br />
infrastructure.<br />
Many of these ports have received significant<br />
investments, which are being applied in the Port<br />
Subsector, targeted at the improvement and expansion<br />
of the superstructure through the Growth<br />
Acceleration Program (PAC). These developments,<br />
combined with routine port operations,<br />
are known to generate environmental impacts of<br />
various natures.<br />
Realizing that natural resources may be used<br />
in a sustainable manner demanded the creation<br />
of the National Policy on Environment,<br />
established by Law 6,938 of August 31, 1981,<br />
establishing environmental clearance as a guiding<br />
instrument for actions to be taken. And its<br />
core includes conditions to be met by entrepreneurs.<br />
Environmental management is defined in<br />
Article 3 as “the set of conditions, laws, influences<br />
and physical, chemical and biological interactions,<br />
enabling, sheltering and governing<br />
life in all its forms”.<br />
The first instrument designed to organize environmental<br />
management in ports was the Port<br />
Environmental Agenda, approved by the Interministerial<br />
Commission for Sea Resources<br />
(CIRM) and developed by the Interministerial<br />
Group for Coastal Management (GIGERCO).<br />
This Agenda renewed discussions on environmental<br />
issues, establishing a first set of actions,<br />
indicating stakeholders involved and the<br />
processes of environmental actions that should<br />
happen in port sites. Currently, the Agenda is undergoing<br />
updates through a Technical Group<br />
coordinated by ANTAQ.<br />
The impact of the implementation of the Port<br />
Environmental Agenda by ports and other facilities<br />
has encouraged the establishment of a Local<br />
Environmental Agenda, which has been<br />
drawn up by each port authority, in order to assist<br />
the implementation and monitoring of a<br />
management system.<br />
The Board of Environment of ANTAQ has<br />
been working for some years on environmental<br />
issues in an integrated way and has recently won<br />
the support of the Special Secretariat of Ports,<br />
which published Decree 104 of April 29, 2009,<br />
which provides for the creation and structuring of<br />
the Department of Environmental Management<br />
and Occupational Safety and Health at ports.<br />
The development of the Local Agenda has<br />
been discussed with other agencies involved environmental<br />
issues, in particular the Board of<br />
Coastal and Marine Quality, the Secretariat on<br />
Climate Change and Environmental Quality of<br />
the Ministry of Environment, IBAMA, and the<br />
Special Secretariat of Ports to strengthen the role<br />
of the Port Authority as a conduit for the process<br />
that should be a forum for ongoing discussion<br />
and negotiation.<br />
With the support to the activities, the group is<br />
studying the possibility of drawing up a series of<br />
work guidelines, addressing each set of specific<br />
topics related to a broad range of subjects relating<br />
to the ports’ environmental agenda.<br />
Another instrument that should be highlighted<br />
is the National Port Environmental Training Program<br />
(PNCAP), under the Port Environmental<br />
Agenda and structured by ANTAQ in partnership<br />
with the Ministry of the Environment and the Port<br />
Authority. The PNCAP provides for actions to<br />
raise the awareness of technicians and other<br />
employees and users of port services, as well as<br />
training in specific technical skills for the prevention<br />
of environmental damage and control<br />
thereof, comprising staff from the operational<br />
area (in varying degrees) to the administrative<br />
staff related the sectors of project management<br />
and planning.<br />
62
Topics of the Local Agenda<br />
Evaluation of the Development and Zoning Plan (PDZ) – it is aimed at the physical planning<br />
of facilities and operations in the use of the port’s land, becoming an instrument of spatial organization<br />
and cargo transit dynamics, with the rational planning of activities for its operation<br />
in response the provisions of Article 4 of Administrative Rule 104 of April 29, 2009, the Special<br />
Secretariat of Ports, which provides for the integration of the variables of environment, safety and<br />
health in the planning of port development and zoning;<br />
Evaluation of the Personal Emergency Plan (PEI) – it sets out specific control measures in the<br />
safety area. Its priority is the reactive emergency action and should be articulated (via the<br />
Agenda) with the organizational view of the PDZ; and<br />
Evaluation of the Best Sanitary Practices in the Management of Solid Waste – it is a set of procedures<br />
designed and implemented to minimize risks in waste generation and provide safe disposal<br />
of waste, aiming at protecting workers and the preserving public health , natural resources<br />
and the environment, with special attention to the requirements of the Specific Plan for the Prevention<br />
of Influenza at Ports.<br />
Referring to a few issues, it is possible to illustrate<br />
the peculiarity of this Agenda, its role in<br />
planning and coordinating activities and being<br />
the organizing center of sectors, stakeholders<br />
and various programs, with the common goal of<br />
the articulation of environmental management,<br />
health and safety actions.<br />
First of all, the Port Environmental Agenda is<br />
an institutional, trans-sector arrangement, which<br />
acts as a tool in the strategic planning of port activities,<br />
aiming at developing a governance structure<br />
targeted at the achievement of environmental<br />
quality, especially reducing risks, not only<br />
caring for accidents and repair thereof, taking<br />
into account the peculiarities of each unit.<br />
The construction of schedules that are agreed<br />
upon requires the organization of democratic<br />
spaces for discussion, which should involve all<br />
relevant stakeholders. The identification of these<br />
stakeholders and their involvement in the process<br />
is paramount to ensuring that the decisions made<br />
will be effective in order to be acknowledged as<br />
legitimate. Its implementation should express a<br />
commitment to local quality targets that are<br />
agreed upon and legally supported, assuming a<br />
specific programming for this level of action.<br />
63
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Structure of the Local Agenda<br />
Based on the structure of the National<br />
Agenda and the experience gained in its<br />
implementation, the development of a responsive<br />
proposal is proposed, with reading<br />
and language accessible to non-specialists, presented<br />
in a clear way, with goals, actions and<br />
programs aligned with the local demands. Thus,<br />
its structure should include the following steps:<br />
Characterization of the port and its activity<br />
1. Information on the location of the port<br />
site, its dimensions, the transport system, and<br />
characterization of its surroundings;<br />
2. Information on its institutional status;<br />
3. Outline of the Development and Zoning<br />
Plan (ZEE, Master Plans, Basin Plans, Orla Project,<br />
etc.);<br />
4. Survey of facility’s conditions in the face<br />
of port management, informing legal requests<br />
already met and gaps identified. Data on license<br />
documents and possible disputes and legal<br />
holdovers regarding the environment and<br />
other stakeholders;<br />
5. Survey of programs and action plans<br />
relevant to environmental management, pointing<br />
out measures to control pollution and accidents<br />
committed, their daily activities and simulation,<br />
identifying sectors, stakeholders,<br />
obligations and responsibilities of each stakeholder<br />
listed; and<br />
6. information on the structure of the Sector<br />
of Environmental Management and Occupational<br />
Health and Safety at Work (OHS), as<br />
required by Administrative Rule 104 of April<br />
298, 2009, of the Special Secretariat of Ports.<br />
Environmental diagnosis:<br />
1. Characterization of the port environment,<br />
with information on the environment, notably on<br />
the hydrodynamics, the main ecosystems and<br />
the positive and negative influences on the<br />
Ecosystem(s);<br />
2. Identification of existing environmental liabilities<br />
and their causes;<br />
3. Identification of current environmental<br />
problems, relating the types and locations of<br />
major sources of pollution in the port and its<br />
area of influence, aiming at informing the indicators<br />
of their existence;<br />
4. Presentation of the history of environmental<br />
accidents occurring on the port premises in<br />
recent decades, indicating causes and magnitude<br />
of damage; and<br />
5. Presentation of the list of harmful or dangerous<br />
substances handled at the port area,<br />
indicating handling amounts and frequencies.<br />
Identification of locations and conditions of storage<br />
of such products and areas of transit at the<br />
port, plus specification of protection mechanisms<br />
adopted in their handling.<br />
64
Occupational health and safety diagnosis:<br />
1. Meeting of Occupational Engineering<br />
provisions addressed in the Regulatory Rule 29<br />
(NR-29), the Ministry of Labor and Employment<br />
(MTE), as follows:<br />
a) Environmental Risk Prevention Program –<br />
PPRA;<br />
b) Evaluation of the Center for Occupational<br />
Safety Engineering, SESMT – Specialized Service<br />
for Safety Engineering and Occupational Medicine<br />
(NR-4) or Specialized Service for Occupational<br />
Health and Safety – SESSTP (NR-29); and<br />
c) Emergency Control Plan and Mutual Aid<br />
Plan - PCE/PAM;<br />
2. Presentation of the history of accidents<br />
occurring on the premises or during port operations,<br />
indicating causes and magnitude of<br />
damage;<br />
3. Evaluation of Port Support Services<br />
a) Fuel Supply<br />
b) Hull Maintenance, Peeling, and Painting; and<br />
4. Facilities Assessment<br />
a) Water Supply<br />
b) Electricity Supply<br />
c) Communication and Telephony<br />
d) Other facilities<br />
Proposed actions:<br />
1. Development of a synthesis of diagnoses<br />
made by organizing the matter raised in terms of<br />
current and projected demands (negative situations)<br />
to be addressed by the Agenda;<br />
2. Definition of general and specific objectives<br />
of the Agenda;<br />
3. Development of a framework of identified<br />
problems, partial goals and desired ends (positive<br />
situations), actions and activities necessary to<br />
achieve them;<br />
4. Listing of human, technical, material and<br />
logistical resources for the implementation of actions<br />
defined;<br />
5. Identification of existing structural deficiencies<br />
that hinder the actions planned, and details<br />
of the means to avoid them in the short and<br />
medium term;<br />
6. Identification of stakeholders and agents<br />
involved or mobilized in the face of programmed<br />
actions, specifying articulation mechanisms available<br />
or to be created; and<br />
7. Preparation of a summary table that provides<br />
goals, actions, mechanisms, means and<br />
stakeholders in an organized planning system.<br />
Management of the Agenda:<br />
1. Definition of parameters to evaluate the<br />
performance of actions of the Agenda, including<br />
the development of a system for its monitoring<br />
and tracking, always considering the need for<br />
periodic adjustments;<br />
2. Definition of the implementation strategy<br />
of the Agenda, with the specification of its institutional<br />
model of operation, preparing organizational<br />
charts and flowcharts of inter-relationships;<br />
and<br />
3. Definition of the schedule of implementation<br />
of planned actions.<br />
The proposed structure exposes the general<br />
pattern desired, offering general reference for<br />
the formulation of an Agenda. Each unit port<br />
may add new points of approach to this script<br />
(either in terms of location logistics, cargo handling,<br />
or others).<br />
65
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Waste receipt at ports<br />
(GISIS)<br />
Created by the International Maritime Organization<br />
(IMO), the Port Reception Facilities<br />
Database – PRFD aims at providing<br />
aid to the owner in planning the removal of<br />
waste from vessels during traffic and proper<br />
disposal at the ports, avoiding thereby the pollution<br />
of marine environments, which may be<br />
recipients thereof. This data system integrates<br />
the GISIS (Global Integrated Shipping Information<br />
System), of the IMO.<br />
ANTAQ is responsible for collecting data for<br />
the PRFD/GISIS system at Brazilian ports. The<br />
information collected allows for the effective<br />
control over the quantity and quality of transit<br />
of waste coming from vessels at most Brazilian<br />
ports (see results within the chart throughout<br />
this paper).<br />
Removal of waste from vessels is an obligation<br />
of the signatory countries to the MARPOL<br />
Convention, including Brazil, and has the practical<br />
effect of creating a formal market for the<br />
provision of that service by private agents. According<br />
to our current model of management,<br />
Brazilian port authorities do not perform this operation<br />
(Law 8,630/93). However, although<br />
MARPOL mentions waste reception facilities in<br />
ports, Law 9.966/00 determined that signatory<br />
countries should only provide these services.<br />
Today, there is still no market for this sector<br />
that has been adequately established, allowing<br />
for the occurrence of failure in the provision of<br />
services to vessels with regard to waste collection,<br />
favoring the occurrence of complaints from<br />
foreign ship-owners to the IMO. In this context,<br />
the safe collection of hazardous waste is very<br />
important, avoiding the risk of harm to human<br />
health, present in pandemics such as Avian Flu<br />
or Swine Flu, in the case of contaminated waste<br />
falling into the hands of third parties outside the<br />
pre-established traffic between the port and the<br />
destination.<br />
To meet the demand of information for the<br />
PRFD/GISIS system, ANTAQ has developed the<br />
following activities:<br />
l institutionalization of charge by the<br />
Agency;<br />
l awareness of the need of this service (data<br />
collection);<br />
l service operationalization;<br />
l compilation of data; and<br />
l evaluation of the process of generating<br />
and receiving the data; difficulties and needs for<br />
improvement.<br />
Institutionalization of charge – The Agency<br />
has provided organized ports with the first<br />
PRFD/GISIS System service request record, later<br />
complemented by a second record, issued after<br />
a first evaluation of the responses obtained.<br />
These records were responsible for the first information<br />
of the System, also considering the<br />
format established by the IMO. This form was<br />
the same for any residue, causing confusion;<br />
Awareness of the service – ANTAQ and AN-<br />
VISA have held several events in partnership,<br />
with the purpose of discussing the process of<br />
waste management at organized ports. During<br />
these and other industry meetings, presentations<br />
were made about the PRFD/GISIS System<br />
to public and private port agents.<br />
During the events related to Avian Flu, ten<br />
events at organized ports in 2007 and 2008, a<br />
call was made to the GISIS issue, highlighting<br />
the importance of control over the waste by<br />
those who operate in this field and how to do it.<br />
A highlight was the need for the Port Authority<br />
to have a more clear-cut participation in the<br />
service provision process by private agents, at<br />
the request of ship-owners or their agents at the<br />
ports of stay.<br />
In early 2009, during the event on the Local<br />
Port Environmental Agenda, held in partnership<br />
with the Ministry of Environment (MMA) at<br />
the Port of Santos, ANTAQ presented the system<br />
once more. To distribute these events, the<br />
Agency prepared an easily comprehensible<br />
folder listing all information necessary, from the<br />
need for it to what should be contained in it.<br />
Service operationalization – To operationalize<br />
the process of provision of the requested information,<br />
ANTAQ has produced specific forms<br />
for each type of waste handled by the System,<br />
with versions in Portuguese. This provided more<br />
flexibility to the process of data collection and<br />
transmission to ANTAQ.<br />
Compilation of data – Compilation of data<br />
66
was performed by a table listing ports and waste<br />
(types) attended. Easily comprehensible, the<br />
table is an efficient tool to control the services by<br />
organized ports.<br />
Evaluation of data collection – Port Authorities<br />
play a leading role in the process, but many<br />
of them are not familiar with the procedures of<br />
the IMO in shipping regulation and their effects<br />
in organized ports. Several IMO regulations,<br />
beginning in the vessel, show how onshore facilities<br />
may achieve better results in protecting<br />
ships. Port authorities should handle this system<br />
and transfer the information to ANTAQ. This<br />
control of the port authorities on the process of<br />
waste has a number of reasons, such as issues<br />
relating to port management and operation,<br />
safety, and health of the population in general.<br />
The lack of control over this process had disastrous<br />
consequences for the activities in the<br />
case of the ship Artemis, which docked at the<br />
port of Recife. The verification of the facts that<br />
led to the complaint, at the IMO, against the<br />
port by the ship-owner taught us that the port<br />
was disconnected to the entire process of waste<br />
release on board, and that non-release was<br />
made without the knowledge of that authority,<br />
even if it has been carried out legally and in the<br />
interest of the country.<br />
Therefore, it is important that the forms contain<br />
more information than requested by the<br />
IMO, without prejudice to the speed of services.<br />
The proper identification of service providers<br />
and services provided should aid in the proper<br />
control of this process. It is necessary to create<br />
a file for the service, in addition to the form of<br />
service provision.<br />
The generation of information within the<br />
process, from waste collection to destination<br />
thereof, shall produce a database. As a history<br />
of waste disposal is provided, we may avoid that<br />
waste not typical of vessels be disposed of in the<br />
Brazilian territory, because we do not intend to<br />
turn Brazil into a route of harmful waste from<br />
other countries.<br />
This process, still not fully implemented, shall<br />
require a market technically and economically<br />
more compatible with the activity in which it<br />
operates. In this case, it is important to better<br />
understand the transit of waste, to have an adequate<br />
qualification of the provision of services<br />
to vessels. A better interaction among the various<br />
authorities that work with waste at ports is<br />
also needed. The lack of communication has<br />
caused many problems in this field of environmental<br />
management.<br />
The lack of suitable sites for waste disposal<br />
has also brought difficulties to the appropriate<br />
service provision of ports. The waste leaves<br />
ports, but without proper security, it has an inadequate<br />
allocation.<br />
To solve most of these shortcomings, AN-<br />
TAQ may pass a resolution defining responsibilities<br />
for the transit of waste at organized<br />
ports, from the process of delivery to service<br />
providers to its final destination.<br />
This first part of the work, initiated two and a<br />
half years ago, is far from being over. The main<br />
goal is the promulgation of a rule to control the<br />
flow of information. The GISIS database is already<br />
available. It should now be improved.<br />
67
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Numbers of waste collection service providers<br />
at organized ports<br />
Caption:<br />
No. = number of service providers<br />
Note: (1) Outeiros and Miramar terminals of the Port Region included<br />
AT=Provided NR= No Response ND = Not Available<br />
68
Maritime navigation<br />
With international trade, the contribution of the maritime model in cargo transportation is the<br />
majority, both in volume and value. Things are not different in Brazil and the graphs below<br />
show the relevance of maritime transportation in the commercial flow of goods, both for Brazilian<br />
exports and imports:<br />
DISTRIBUTION OF BRAZILIAN EXPORTS – 2008 VOLUME<br />
TRANSPORTED BY MEANS OF TRANSPORT<br />
DISTRIBUTION OF BRAZILIAN EXPORTS – 2008 AMOUNT<br />
US$ FOB TRANSPORTED BY MEANS OF TRANSPORTE<br />
1%<br />
1%<br />
5%<br />
1% 3%<br />
96%<br />
7%<br />
87%<br />
l Maritime<br />
l Highway<br />
l Maritime<br />
l Highway<br />
l River<br />
l Others<br />
l Pipe-duct<br />
l Others<br />
DISTRIBUTION OF BRAZILIAN IMPORTS – 2008 VOLUME<br />
TRANSPORTED BY MEANS OF TRANSPORT<br />
6%<br />
5%<br />
7%<br />
DISTRIBUTION OF BRAZILIAN IMPORTS – 2008 AMOUNT<br />
US$ FOB TRANSPORTED BY MEANS OF TRANSPORTE<br />
3%<br />
5%<br />
19%<br />
82%<br />
73%<br />
l Maritime<br />
l Aerial<br />
l Maritime<br />
l Highway<br />
l Highway<br />
l Others<br />
l Aerial<br />
l Others<br />
Source: Alice-web – Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade<br />
Prepared by: ANTAQ/SNM/GDM<br />
69
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Introduction<br />
In this scenario, a Brazilian merchant navy<br />
plays a key role, as it is a strategic segment for<br />
the development of the national economy and<br />
works as a mechanism to control abuse of shipping<br />
prices, create jobs and income, allows for<br />
the growth in sectors such as shipbuilding and<br />
ship spare parts, and ensure national sovereignty<br />
in cases of crisis and internal and external<br />
emergency.<br />
Maritime and support navigation, the scope of<br />
action of ANTAQ, encompasses the provision of<br />
transport services in long-haul shipping, cabotage,<br />
marine support, and port support.<br />
Maritime navigation carries out international<br />
transport. According to the law, the operation or<br />
exploitation of freight transport in this type of<br />
navigation is open to ship-owners, shipping companies<br />
and vessels of all countries, subject to the<br />
agreements signed by the Federal Government,<br />
in compliance with the principle of reciprocity.<br />
Equally important is cabotage, which, in comparison<br />
with other transport models, allows for the<br />
domestic handling of goods at lower unit costs,<br />
with higher efficiency, greater transport capacity,<br />
and high level of cargo security. Cabotage is limited<br />
to Brazilian shipping companies, although<br />
there is no restriction regarding the participation<br />
of foreign capital in these companies. Foreign<br />
vessels may only participate in this type of navigation<br />
if chartered by Brazilian shipping companies,<br />
in compliance with the current legislation and<br />
rules of ANTAQ or, still, when not chartered by<br />
Brazilian shipping companies, being supported by<br />
an international agreement signed by the Brazilian<br />
government, provided that reciprocity is<br />
granted to the Brazilian flag by the other State.<br />
Set in a highly heated market due to the activities<br />
of prospecting and mining of minerals<br />
and hydrocarbons, especially regarding domestic<br />
oil found in the pre-salt layers, this maritime<br />
support navigation counts on great technological<br />
innovations and investment projects.<br />
Positive factors point to a promising scenario in<br />
this segment such as, for example, orders from<br />
Petrobras vessels, with high levels of national<br />
content in buildings designed to meet the demand<br />
of the pre-salt area.<br />
Port support shipping is also worth mentioning,<br />
as it is necessary to serve vessels and port<br />
facilities, being exclusively carried out in ports<br />
and waterway terminals throughout the national<br />
territory. The increase of the number of<br />
grant requests in 2009 specifically point to the<br />
growth of the sector, as well as the backlog of<br />
orders from national shipyards to vessels of<br />
this type of navigation.<br />
70
Regulation<br />
Seminar<br />
The 1st Seminar on the Development of Brazilian<br />
Cabotage was held on August 12 and 13,<br />
2009, in Brasilia, DF. The event was promoted by<br />
ANTAQ, the Ministry of Transport and, the National<br />
Union of Maritime Navigation Companies<br />
(SYNDARMA), bringing together government<br />
officials, Brazilian shipping companies,<br />
representatives of the sector, maritime labor,<br />
cargo transportation users, port authorities and<br />
operators, among others.<br />
The main recommendations of the meeting<br />
were the following:<br />
1. to establish a significant public policy for<br />
the waterway transportation sector based on the<br />
National Plan of Logistics and Transport – PNLT<br />
with concrete actions that lead to a better balance<br />
in the transport matrix of Brazil;<br />
2. to actualize the provisions of Law<br />
9,432/97, extending to vessels operating in cabotage,<br />
maritime support, and port support, the<br />
fuel prices (bunker and maritime diesel) charged<br />
long-haul vessels;<br />
3. to amend Law 9,432/97, ordering waterway<br />
transportation, in order to correct flaws<br />
that do not allow the Brazilian Special Registration<br />
– REB to be effective<br />
4. compensation, with funds from the Merchant<br />
Navy Fund – FMM, of the social security of<br />
the crew;<br />
5. exemption from Income Tax – IRPF for seafarers<br />
on board;<br />
6. to ensure timely reimbursement of the Additional<br />
Merchant Navy Freight (AFRMM);<br />
7. to establish a sustainable, independent policy<br />
for national merchant navy and shipbuilding;<br />
8. no quota restrictions to the Professional<br />
Maritime Education Development Fund (FDEPM);<br />
9. to reactivate the Harmonization Program<br />
for Activities of Port Authority Agents – PRO-<br />
HAGE;<br />
10. to evaluate the establishment of a unique<br />
tax to ship-owners, as in most of the world, along<br />
the lines of the “tonnage tax”;<br />
11. create a tripartite committee of Brazilian<br />
Shipping Companies, Unions and the Brazilian<br />
Navy to study and monitor the training of seafarers;<br />
12. to study the reduction of import tariffs for<br />
ship spare parts not manufactured in Brazil for<br />
the Brazilian Shipping Companies;<br />
13. to stimulate the creation of exclusive shipyards<br />
for repair;<br />
14. to streamline cabotage cargo handling at<br />
Brazilian ports<br />
71
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Agreement with the Brazilian Navy<br />
On July 30, 2009, ANTAQ and the Shipping<br />
Operations Command – COMOPNAV, of the<br />
Brazilian, signed the term of technical cooperation<br />
for the exchange of information and expertise<br />
for the improvement of navigational<br />
safety and monitoring of waterway transportation<br />
activities.<br />
Through the term of cooperation, the Navy<br />
shall provide ANTAQ with information on various<br />
national and foreign vessels operating in Brazilian<br />
waters, as well as automatic, graphic data allowing<br />
for the better monitoring of the operation<br />
of approved companies in long-haul shipping,<br />
cabotage, and maritime support.<br />
ANTAQ, in turn, shall work with the Navy in<br />
the disclosure of information relating to the waterway<br />
transportation sector. This information<br />
shall be forwarded to Brazilian shipping companies<br />
as a contribution to security and the monitoring<br />
of maritime traffic. In addition, the Agency<br />
shall provide advice on matters relating to waterway<br />
transport and maritime and port support<br />
that are of interest to the Navy.<br />
Foreign relations<br />
As a legal competence, ANTAQ represents<br />
Brazil before international shipping organizations<br />
and in conventions, agreements and<br />
treaties on waterway transportation, the guidelines<br />
of the Ministry of Transport and specific<br />
roles of other federal agencies. See the main actions<br />
on the following page.<br />
Negotiations of the Multilateral Transportation<br />
Agreement of the MERCOSUR<br />
The Multilateral Agreement on Maritime<br />
Transport of the MERCOSUR is part of an integration<br />
process and a commitment to harmonize<br />
laws in certain areas, taking into account the<br />
need to establish equal conditions for the provision<br />
of shipping services among shipowners/shipping<br />
companies in Brazil, Argentina,<br />
Paraguay and Uruguay. The premise of the<br />
Agreement shall ensure efficiency, regularity and<br />
reduction of costs of maritime transport services<br />
within the MERCOSUR, as well as the development<br />
of its merchant navies.<br />
The 12 meetings held by the Commission of<br />
Maritime Transport Experts of Brazil, Argentina,<br />
Paraguay and Uruguay, as part of the meetings<br />
of the Working Subgroup SGT 5 MERCOSUR<br />
Transport, have produced significant advances<br />
towards the development of the Agreement.<br />
However, the latest draft approved by Brazil, Argentina<br />
and Paraguay was not fully accompanied<br />
by Uruguay. The main obstacle is the inclusion of<br />
feeder service cargoes, under the Agreement.<br />
ANTAQ has endeavored to promote the resolution<br />
of the impasse, as it believes that a<br />
strengthened MERCOSUR shall provide opportunities<br />
for negotiations with other blocs, such as<br />
the European Union.<br />
Service Trade Liberalization Protocol of<br />
the MERCOSUR<br />
The Montevideo Protocol on Trade in Services<br />
made on 12/15/1997, by the governments of<br />
Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, states<br />
that the Members States shall hold annual rounds<br />
of negotiations to be completed in up to ten<br />
years as of its entry into force, the Service Trade<br />
Liberalization Program in the MERCOSUR.<br />
The Montevideo Protocol entered into force on<br />
12/07/2005 and the deadlines set in the Montevideo<br />
Protocol to complete the intra-zone Service<br />
Trade Liberalization Program requires the<br />
definition of guidelines for the work of the MER-<br />
COSUR in this area and for the decision-making<br />
process in the Member States.<br />
By mid-2009, six rounds of negotiation were<br />
completed, always coordinated by the Services<br />
Group of the MERCOSUR, captained in the<br />
Brazilian side by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs<br />
– MRE. During the rounds of negotiations, the<br />
lists of commitments undertaken by each Member<br />
State are presented and discussed, according<br />
to sector/sub-sector, limitations on market<br />
access and national treatment limitations in<br />
their modes of supply, in order to map and<br />
overcome, to the extent possible, existing regulatory<br />
restrictions, and thus converge to the liberalization<br />
of service trade.<br />
ANTAQ monitors and participates in meetings<br />
of the Services Group of the MERCOSUR, analyzing<br />
proposals, and providing the necessary<br />
support to the negotiations on issues that concern<br />
the segment of waterway transportation.<br />
72
Follow-up of 12 (twelve) Bilateral Agreements on Maritime Transport, signed by Brazil<br />
Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GDM<br />
73
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
IBAS<br />
On July 14 and 15, 2009, ANTAQ participated,<br />
at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Rio de<br />
Janeiro, in the meeting of the Working Group of<br />
Transport (maritime segment) of the IBAS Dialogue<br />
Forum. The forum provides for the cooperation<br />
between India, Brazil and South Africa on<br />
16 sectors including transport (air and sea).<br />
During the meeting, information was exchanged<br />
among the delegations of the three<br />
countries about the possibilities for cooperation in<br />
eight projects related to maritime transport:<br />
l Cooperation among organizations and maritime<br />
shipping companies;<br />
l Cooperation among maritime education and<br />
human resources training institutions;<br />
l Exchange of data and information on trade<br />
flows at ports;<br />
l Cooperation among maritime administrations<br />
on the regulatory functions of the sector;<br />
l Cooperation among private companies of the<br />
construction and ship repair sector;<br />
l Cooperation in port development and port operation<br />
technology;<br />
l Cooperation in regional cargo concentration<br />
maritime port development (hubs);<br />
l Cooperation in ballast water management<br />
techniques.<br />
The action plan follows the trilateral agreement<br />
on maritime transport and other topics related to<br />
the sector, signed by the three countries on September<br />
13, 2006, in the Brasilia Declaration. The<br />
declaration was signed on June 6, 2003 and<br />
created the IBAS Dialogue Forum.<br />
IMO<br />
The International Maritime Organization –<br />
IMO is the agency of the United Nations (UN)<br />
aiming at fostering, among governments, cooperation<br />
on the regulatory and governmental procedures<br />
related to technical matters of all kinds<br />
affecting international commercial shipping.<br />
In the year 2009, in addition to the preparatory<br />
meetings of the IMO, involving subjects related<br />
to waterway transportation in Brazil, ANTAQ<br />
participated in two sessions in London: the 35th<br />
Session of the Facilitation Committee (FAL) and<br />
the 102nd Council Meeting – IMO.<br />
The meeting of the FAL addressed the revision<br />
of the Convention on Facilitation of International<br />
Maritime Traffic and the establishment of measures<br />
for its implementation by Member States<br />
and the adoption of electronic means to simplify<br />
and streamline the release of ships at ports.<br />
The Council Meeting, the executive organ of<br />
IMO, responsible for supervising the work of the<br />
Organization, addressed, among other administrative<br />
topics, piracy and armed robbery against<br />
ships, particularly on account of acts occurred off<br />
the coast of Somalia, the Gulf of Aden, and certain<br />
areas of the Red Sea.<br />
74
Supervision<br />
In inspections of the provision of maritime and<br />
support navigation transport services, the actions<br />
of ANTAQ are driven by the Extraordinary<br />
Inspections at maritime and support navigation<br />
companies relating to complaints or evidence of<br />
illegal trade practices or violation of legal and<br />
regulatory provisions, and the Annual Inspection<br />
Plan - PAF, designed to verify the requirements for<br />
the maintenance of grants of shipping companies<br />
authorized by ANTAQ, implemented as of the<br />
year 2007.<br />
Annual Inspection Plan – PAF and<br />
Extraordinary Inspections<br />
The Annual Inspection Plan – PAF, within maritime<br />
and support navigation, takes into account<br />
authorized companies and their respective headquarters<br />
aiming at the formulation, implementation<br />
and monitoring by the ANTAQ, considering<br />
the skills of boards monitoring and regional administrative<br />
units. The following graph illustrates<br />
the evolution of the PAF, taking into account the<br />
population of authorized maritime and support<br />
navigation companies and the implementation of<br />
inspections scheduled.<br />
Annual inspection plan – PAF<br />
Maritime and Support Navigation<br />
77%<br />
89%<br />
80%<br />
Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GFM<br />
62%<br />
67% 71% 2008 2009 (até agosto)<br />
2007<br />
l Sample (Programmed/ Total Authorized)<br />
l Level of Achievement (Inspections Carried out/Expected)<br />
It is noteworthy that the Agency has expanded<br />
the size of the samples each year, due to the increase<br />
of its staff and the decentralization of supervisory<br />
actions, based on the creation of new<br />
regional administrative units. It is possible to notice<br />
a significant increase in the execution of programmed<br />
inspections between 2007 and 2008.<br />
The inspections conducted in 2009 (until August),<br />
considering the PAF and Extraordinary Inspections,<br />
by type of navigation, are available in<br />
the chart below:<br />
Inspections carried out in 2009 (until August),<br />
PAF and Extraordinary – by type of navigation<br />
Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GFM<br />
Amount<br />
24<br />
65<br />
2<br />
26<br />
l Extraordinary<br />
1<br />
3<br />
l PAF<br />
3<br />
5<br />
Port Support<br />
Maritime Support<br />
Long Haul<br />
Cabotage<br />
75
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Of the 211 authorized maritime and support<br />
navigation companies, 168 inspections were<br />
scheduled to the PAF/2009 up to November<br />
2008, comprising 80% of the total number of<br />
companies. Until August 2009, inspections were<br />
planned at 108 companies authorized to operate<br />
in long-haul shipping, cabotage, maritime support,<br />
and port support. Of this total, 104 inspections<br />
were effectively carried out inspections (96%<br />
of the schedule for the period ranging from January<br />
to August and 62% for year 2009), with the<br />
following results:<br />
STATUS OF INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT<br />
PAF/2009 (until August)<br />
Regular before ANTAQ<br />
Regular upon fulfillment of the Term of Settlement (TAC)<br />
TAC proposed<br />
Fulfilling TAC<br />
Under Simplified Administrative Proceeding (PAS)<br />
Under analysis of suggestions for the establishment of the Litigious Administrative Proceeding (PAC)<br />
Within the deadline to remedy inspection holdovers<br />
Preparing the Inspection Report<br />
Grant waiver<br />
Proceedings suspended according to Administrative Rule 227/2008-DG, relating to the evidence of<br />
maritime support navigation operation<br />
Amount<br />
55<br />
4<br />
3<br />
7<br />
1<br />
5<br />
2<br />
13<br />
4<br />
10<br />
Among the requirements of ANTAQ for companies<br />
to keep grants, deficiencies often detected<br />
are: lack of documents (audited balances<br />
sheets, financial statements, certificates, and<br />
documents of the vessel), proof of current ratio<br />
and proof of operation.<br />
As for Extraordinary Inspections, 29 companies<br />
were inspected until August 2009, the equivalent<br />
of 30 inspections, considering the type of<br />
navigation, for investigations on alleged illegal<br />
operations and compliance with Resolution<br />
843/ANTAQ by Dredging companies, with the<br />
following results:<br />
STATUS OF INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT<br />
EXTRAORDINARY INSPECTIONS 2009 (until August)<br />
PAC brought for operations without the authorization of ANTAQ<br />
Irregularity not proven<br />
Dredging companies requesting complaints<br />
Dredging companies that are regular before ANTAQ<br />
Preparing the Inspection Report<br />
Amount<br />
2<br />
5<br />
8<br />
11<br />
3<br />
76
Litigious Administrative Proceedings<br />
From 2003 to August 2009, ANTAQ initiated<br />
95 Litigious Administrative Proceedings – PAC, 64<br />
of which were closed, 9 are under review, 19<br />
await a decision, and two await appeal.<br />
It should be noted that the 64 PAC closed is<br />
equivalent to 67% of the total number, being divided<br />
into: 7 companies suffered no penalty, 7<br />
met the Rules of ANTAQ, 9 waived the granting<br />
of authorization, 17 were warned, 4 were fined,<br />
2 had their licenses suspended, and 8 had their<br />
licenses canceled.<br />
The chart below shows the series on Litigious<br />
Administrative Proceedings initiated:<br />
Litigious administrative proceedings initiated<br />
Maritime and Support Navigation<br />
Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GFM<br />
23<br />
18<br />
17<br />
Amount<br />
14<br />
10<br />
11<br />
2<br />
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 (until August)<br />
Merchant fleet<br />
The Brazilian flag fleet in maritime and support<br />
navigation relating to long haul, cabotage,<br />
maritime support, and port support, consists<br />
of 1,127 vessels. Of this total, 69.5% (783<br />
vessels) are over 18 years of age. The average<br />
age of the fleet is 19.5 years, which is very<br />
high, considering that the life cycle of ships is<br />
around 20 years.<br />
When analyzing the total fleet, it is possible to<br />
note that 143 (one hundred and forty-three)<br />
vessels, or 12.7% of them, operate in cabotage<br />
and long-haul shipping, accounting for a carrying<br />
capacity of 3,099,664.4dwt. Other vessels<br />
serve maritime support and port support vessels.<br />
In international maritime shipping (long-haul<br />
shipping), the participation of Brazilian ships is<br />
irrelevant, due to direct competition with foreign<br />
ships, which are mostly registered in countries<br />
with open enrollment, or “flag of convenience”,<br />
thereby achieving lower operating costs.<br />
The Brazilian merchant fleet, which had been<br />
declining over recent decades due to lack of renewal,<br />
has shown growth with the return of shipbuilding<br />
and ship designs of the latest generation,<br />
being environmentally efficient, sized to<br />
cabotage traffic, and having adequate conditions<br />
to Brazilian port infrastructure.<br />
Similarly, maritime support and port support<br />
fleets are also being reviewed and showing significant<br />
growth, due to the development of exploration<br />
and production of offshore oil and investment<br />
in the sector.<br />
The following tables illustrate the situation of<br />
the national merchant fleet:<br />
77
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
LONG HAUL, CABOTAGE, MARITIME SUPPORT AND PORT SUPPORT<br />
BRAZILIAN FLAG FLEET (PRIVATE AND CHARTERED)<br />
Type of ship Amount %<br />
FERRY<br />
BARGE<br />
DERRICK/CRANE<br />
FREIGHTER<br />
CATAMARAN<br />
LIGHTER<br />
FLOATING<br />
LIQUEFIED GAS<br />
BULK CARRIER<br />
BULK CARRIER (ORE-OIL)<br />
BOAT<br />
PRACTICAL BOAT<br />
LINE HANDLING<br />
WATER TANK<br />
OTHER VESSELS<br />
PASSENGER/GENERAL CARGO<br />
PASSENGER<br />
RESEARCH<br />
TANKER<br />
CONTAINER CARRIER<br />
TUG/THRUSTER<br />
ROLL-ON/ROLL-OFF<br />
SUPPLY<br />
CHEMICAL TANKER<br />
TOTAL / WEIGHTED AVERAGE<br />
61<br />
41<br />
12<br />
18<br />
1<br />
49<br />
32<br />
9<br />
36<br />
1<br />
241<br />
11<br />
5<br />
1<br />
97<br />
12<br />
3<br />
2<br />
48<br />
13<br />
318<br />
5<br />
102<br />
9<br />
1.127<br />
5,4<br />
3,6<br />
1,1<br />
1,6<br />
0,1<br />
4,3<br />
2,8<br />
0,8<br />
3,2<br />
0,1<br />
21,4<br />
1,0<br />
0,4<br />
0,1<br />
8,6<br />
1,1<br />
0,3<br />
0,2<br />
4,3<br />
1,2<br />
28,2<br />
0,4<br />
9,1<br />
0,8<br />
100<br />
Source: Corporate System / ANTAQ<br />
Average age<br />
(years)<br />
14<br />
21<br />
36<br />
26<br />
0<br />
31<br />
12<br />
19<br />
28<br />
36<br />
20<br />
16<br />
11<br />
34<br />
14<br />
15<br />
11<br />
12<br />
23<br />
9<br />
22<br />
16<br />
11<br />
18<br />
19,5<br />
DWT %<br />
63.894,4 1,8<br />
136.288,0 3,8<br />
5.119,2<br />
0,1<br />
206.350,7 5,8<br />
45,0<br />
0,0<br />
22.088,9 0,6<br />
3.627,2<br />
0,1<br />
74.601,5 2,1<br />
860.385,6 24,0<br />
777,5<br />
0,0<br />
2.830,4<br />
0,1<br />
44,4<br />
0,0<br />
1.298,6<br />
0,0<br />
28.801,0 0,8<br />
3.204,6<br />
0,1<br />
3.488,0<br />
0,1<br />
65,3<br />
0,0<br />
19,4<br />
0,0<br />
1.327.908,3 37,1<br />
364.350,0 10,2<br />
46.622,5 1,3<br />
107.568<br />
3,0<br />
216.541,4 6,0<br />
107.009,0 3,0<br />
3.582.928,4 100<br />
LONG HAUL AND CABOTAGE<br />
BRAZILIAN FLAG FLEET (PRIVATE AND CHARTERED)<br />
78<br />
Type of ship Amount %<br />
FERRY<br />
BARGE<br />
BULK CARRIER<br />
FLOATING<br />
LIQUEFIED GAS<br />
FREIGHTER<br />
WATER TANK<br />
OTHER VESSELS<br />
TANKER<br />
CONTAINER CARRIER<br />
TUG/THRUSTER<br />
ROLL-ON/ROLL-OFF<br />
CHEMICAL TANKER<br />
TOTAL / WEIGHTED AVERAGE<br />
4<br />
14<br />
14<br />
1<br />
9<br />
21<br />
1<br />
1<br />
39<br />
13<br />
12<br />
5<br />
9<br />
143<br />
2,8<br />
9,8<br />
9,8<br />
0,7<br />
6,3<br />
14,7<br />
0,7<br />
0,7<br />
27,3<br />
9,1<br />
8,4<br />
3,5<br />
6,3<br />
100<br />
Average age<br />
(years)<br />
10<br />
7<br />
22<br />
35<br />
19<br />
24<br />
34<br />
36<br />
22<br />
9<br />
6<br />
16<br />
18<br />
17,6<br />
DWT %<br />
4.834,0<br />
89.187,2<br />
205.584,5<br />
2.721,0<br />
74.601,5<br />
808.545,6<br />
28.801,0<br />
156,0<br />
1.303.322,3<br />
364.350,0<br />
3.284,7<br />
107.267,6<br />
107.009,0<br />
3.099.664,4<br />
0,2<br />
2,9<br />
6,6<br />
0,1<br />
2,4<br />
26,1<br />
0,9<br />
0,0<br />
42,0<br />
11,8<br />
0,1<br />
3,5<br />
3,5<br />
100<br />
Source: Corporate System/ ANTAQ<br />
Updated on 09/10/2009
MARITIME SUPPORT – BRAZILIAN FLAG FLEET (PRIVATE AND CHARTERED)<br />
Type of ship Amount %<br />
Average age<br />
(years)<br />
DWT %<br />
FERRY<br />
7<br />
2,0<br />
6<br />
10.269,6<br />
3,5<br />
BARGE<br />
4<br />
1,2<br />
26<br />
12.811,0<br />
4,4<br />
DERRICK/CRANE<br />
1<br />
0,3<br />
7<br />
2.082,0<br />
0,7<br />
FREIGHTER<br />
3<br />
0,9<br />
24<br />
3.158,2<br />
1,1<br />
CATAMARAN<br />
1<br />
0,3<br />
0<br />
45,0<br />
0,0<br />
BULK CARRIER (ORE-OIL)<br />
1<br />
0,3<br />
36<br />
777,5<br />
0,3<br />
BOAT<br />
48<br />
14,0<br />
21<br />
1.747,6<br />
0,6<br />
LINE HANDLING<br />
5<br />
1,5<br />
11<br />
1.298,6<br />
0,4<br />
OTHER VESSELS<br />
26<br />
7,6<br />
13<br />
4.077,3<br />
1,4<br />
PASSENGER/GENERAL CARGO<br />
4<br />
1,2<br />
10<br />
164,8<br />
0,1<br />
PASSENGER<br />
1<br />
0,3<br />
25<br />
64,2<br />
0,0<br />
TANKER<br />
2<br />
0,6<br />
9<br />
6.676,2<br />
2,3<br />
TUG/THRUSTER<br />
139<br />
40,4<br />
14<br />
30.079,2<br />
10,4<br />
SUPPLY<br />
102<br />
29,7<br />
11<br />
216.201,5<br />
74,7<br />
TOTAL / WEIGHTED AVERAGE<br />
344<br />
100<br />
17,6<br />
289.452,6<br />
100<br />
Source: Corporate System / ANTAQ<br />
Updated on 09/18/2009<br />
PORT SUPPORT – BRAZILIAN FLAG FLEET (PRIVATE AND CHARTERED)<br />
Type of ship Amount %<br />
Average age<br />
(years)<br />
DWT %<br />
FERRY<br />
55<br />
6,7<br />
13<br />
57.354,4<br />
24,4<br />
BARGE<br />
26<br />
3,2<br />
29<br />
39.600,8<br />
16,8<br />
DERRICK/CRANE<br />
11<br />
1,3<br />
37<br />
3.037,2<br />
1,3<br />
FREIGHTER<br />
1<br />
0,1<br />
71<br />
502,0<br />
0,2<br />
LIGHTER<br />
49<br />
6,0<br />
31<br />
22.088,9<br />
9,4<br />
FLOATING<br />
31<br />
3,8<br />
11<br />
906,2<br />
0,4<br />
BULK CARRIER<br />
15<br />
1,8<br />
33<br />
47.846,0<br />
20,3<br />
BULK CARRIER (ORE-OIL)<br />
1<br />
0,1<br />
36<br />
777,5<br />
0,3<br />
BOAT<br />
219<br />
26,6<br />
20<br />
1.479,3<br />
0,6<br />
PRACTICAL BOAT<br />
11<br />
1,3<br />
16<br />
44,8<br />
0,0<br />
LINE HANDLING<br />
2<br />
0,2<br />
6<br />
513,6<br />
0,2<br />
OTHER VESSELS<br />
81<br />
9,9<br />
13<br />
2.926,1<br />
1,2<br />
PASSENGER/GENERAL CARGO<br />
11<br />
1,3<br />
14<br />
3.369,1<br />
1,4<br />
PASSENGER<br />
2<br />
0,2<br />
5<br />
1,1<br />
0,0<br />
RESEARCH<br />
2<br />
0,2<br />
12<br />
19,4<br />
0,0<br />
TANKER<br />
9<br />
1,1<br />
29<br />
21.332,9<br />
9,1<br />
TUG/THRUSTER<br />
294<br />
35,8<br />
22<br />
32.327,1<br />
13,7<br />
SUPPLY<br />
2<br />
0,2<br />
16<br />
1.303,1<br />
0,6<br />
TOTAL / WEIGHTED AVERAGE<br />
822<br />
100<br />
20,6<br />
235.429,4<br />
100<br />
Source: Corporate System / ANTAQ<br />
Updated on 09/18/2009<br />
79
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Grant<br />
By the end of August 2009, the amount of<br />
companies regulated by ANTAQ in provision<br />
of transport services in maritime and<br />
support navigation was 232 Brazilian shipping<br />
companies.<br />
Albeit partial, this result is an increase of<br />
0.9% compared to 2008.<br />
The following chart shows the evolution of the<br />
number of companies regulated by the Agency:<br />
Brazilian Shipping Companies<br />
Source: Corporate System/ANTAQ<br />
230<br />
232<br />
Amount<br />
205<br />
2007<br />
2008 2009 (until August)<br />
The reason for the small changes between<br />
2008 and 2009 (until August) is the large number<br />
of extinctions of licenses for dredging companies,<br />
as a result of the entry into force of Law<br />
11,610/07 (National Program of Port and <strong>Waterway</strong><br />
Dredging) and Administrative Rule 3 of<br />
January 6, 2009, by the Ministry of Transport,<br />
which repealed Administrative Order 461, of<br />
December 15 1999, which fell within the execution<br />
of dredging services as port support<br />
navigation.<br />
It is noteworthy that the amount of regulated<br />
companies is not necessarily the total amount<br />
of authorization grants issued by ANTAQ, as<br />
the same shipping company may provide waterway<br />
transportation services in more than<br />
one type of navigation.<br />
Thus, the graphs below illustrate the total<br />
number of authorization grants existing at the<br />
end of each financial year and their distribution<br />
by type of navigation:<br />
Total Grants<br />
Source: Corporate System/ANTAQ<br />
305<br />
299<br />
Amount<br />
285<br />
2007<br />
2008 2009 (until August)<br />
80
LONG HAUL GRANTS<br />
CABOTAGE GRANTS<br />
Source: Corporate System/ANTAQ<br />
Amount<br />
Amount<br />
34<br />
33<br />
22<br />
19 19<br />
31<br />
2007<br />
2008<br />
2009<br />
(until August)<br />
2007<br />
2008<br />
2009<br />
(until August)<br />
MARITIME SUPPORT GRANTS<br />
PORT SUPPORT GRANTS<br />
150<br />
165<br />
161<br />
Amount<br />
Amount<br />
79<br />
84<br />
92<br />
2007<br />
2008<br />
2009<br />
(until August)<br />
2007<br />
2008<br />
2009<br />
(until August)<br />
The year 2007 represented a significant leap<br />
in the number of grants issued annually, reflecting<br />
a phase of seeking settlement with the<br />
Agency, due to the start of the implementation of<br />
the Annual Inspection Plan – PAF.<br />
In 2008, growth was driven by the entry of<br />
shipping port support navigation companies. Analyzing<br />
the grants of 2009, we note that the exit<br />
of port support navigation dredging companies<br />
from the scope of action of ANTAQ activities was<br />
offset by maintaining the pace of growth in the<br />
number of maritime support navigation companies<br />
in relation to the previous year.<br />
The outlook for the coming years is as follows:<br />
a) growing trend for cabotage, as the market’s<br />
bet on the success of the growth acceleration<br />
program (PAC) in the reduction of costs in<br />
the sector with improved efficiency in logistics<br />
and government actions to relieve the sector and<br />
attract investments;<br />
b) increase of the number of companies interested<br />
in maritime support, which may be explained<br />
by the prospect of high heating of the<br />
maritime support market and expectations of exploitation<br />
of large reserves of oil in the pre-salt<br />
layer;<br />
c) growing trend for port support companies<br />
and fleet renewal, driven by the leverage of maritime<br />
support and cabotage.<br />
81
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Vessel Chartering<br />
The regulation of ANTAQ for the chartering<br />
of vessel for the provision of existing maritime<br />
and support navigation transport<br />
services is performed through registration or<br />
authorization.<br />
Registered chartering occurs for Brazilian<br />
flag vessels, foreign vessels, when the provisions<br />
of Decree-Law 666/69 for long-haul navigation<br />
(which addresses the mandatory transport<br />
in Brazilian flag vessels for prescribed<br />
cargo) does not apply, or even foreign vessels<br />
under bareboat charter, suspended flag, for<br />
cabotage, support maritime, according to certain<br />
limitations of deadweight tonnage.<br />
Authorized chartering occurs in the foreign<br />
vessels by time or trip, cabotage or maritime and<br />
port support navigations, as well as bareboat in<br />
port support navigation, or even long-haul shipping<br />
in the case of suspension of the mandatory<br />
cargo transport under the Brazilian flag.<br />
Chartering is further subdivided by m,<br />
namely: bareboat, time, and trip. The latter receives<br />
specific names (for control purposes),<br />
i.e., by space, for the chartering of part of a<br />
vessel for a trip.<br />
Through its rules, ANTAQ establishes chartering<br />
procedures and criteria to be followed,<br />
depending on the type of navigation.<br />
The monitoring of boat chartering authorizations/records,<br />
as well as the release of transport<br />
of cargo under the Brazilian flag in foreign<br />
vessels, belonging to foreign shipping companies,<br />
allows for the assessment of the level of<br />
competitiveness of Brazil in the political/economic<br />
scenario of international maritime transportation.<br />
Despite the need for chartering, motivated<br />
by the lack of Brazilian flag vessels, such expenses<br />
allow for the exchange remittance to<br />
foreign countries.<br />
Balancing the development of a national<br />
merchant marine, while attracting foreign investment,<br />
albeit through the participation of<br />
foreign companies in the capital of Brazilian<br />
shipping companies, is the challenge to be<br />
faced while regulating the sector. However, for<br />
such success, it is essential to establish public<br />
policies for the sector to encourage the consolidation<br />
of existing regulatory frameworks of<br />
waterway transportation.<br />
The following charts show the behavior of<br />
chartering performed over the past three years.<br />
82
Evolution of the amount of charters<br />
(Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GAM)<br />
2.561<br />
2.510<br />
2.466<br />
Amount<br />
2.004<br />
1.855<br />
1.952<br />
557<br />
655<br />
514<br />
2006<br />
2007 2008<br />
l Authorization l Registration l Total<br />
Evolution of the amount of authorized charters by type of navigation<br />
1.418<br />
456<br />
1.259<br />
449<br />
1.291<br />
526<br />
Amount<br />
105<br />
171 126<br />
25<br />
24<br />
9<br />
2006<br />
2007 2008<br />
l Cabotage l Long Haul l Maritime Support l Port Support<br />
Evolution of the amount of registered charters by type of navigation<br />
432<br />
998<br />
432<br />
90<br />
68<br />
Amount<br />
34<br />
33<br />
19<br />
14<br />
1<br />
6<br />
0<br />
2006<br />
2007 2008<br />
l Long Haul l Cabotage l Maritime Support l Port Support<br />
83
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Evolution of chartering expenses<br />
(Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GAM)<br />
3.039.759.052<br />
2.302.924.701<br />
2.280.385.696<br />
1.963.874.363<br />
US$<br />
1.395.077.586<br />
1.492.640.902<br />
1.075.884.688<br />
907.847.114<br />
787.744.794<br />
2006<br />
2007 2008<br />
l Authorization l Registration l Total<br />
Evolution of authorized chartering expenses by type of navigation<br />
1.339.548<br />
991.619<br />
988.633<br />
480.761<br />
US$ x 1000<br />
295.907<br />
73.743<br />
335.485<br />
94.466<br />
126.554<br />
36.795<br />
71.071<br />
17.012<br />
2006<br />
2007 2008<br />
l Cabotage l Long Haul l Maritime Support l Port Support<br />
Evolution of registered chartering expenses by type of navigation<br />
780.596.913<br />
798.491.924 573.671.948<br />
284.494.837<br />
207.547.937<br />
US$ x 1000<br />
103.645.182<br />
5.526.008<br />
3.690.888<br />
9.235.443<br />
184.000<br />
3.581.650<br />
1.557.496<br />
2006<br />
2007 2008<br />
l Long Haul l Maritime Support l Cabotage l Port Support<br />
84
Evolution of Authorized + Registered cabotage chartering expenses<br />
(by type)<br />
59.351<br />
36.704<br />
87.326<br />
(Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GAM)<br />
US$ x 1000<br />
29.499<br />
20.428<br />
18.378<br />
13.065<br />
0 0<br />
26.621<br />
21.252<br />
590<br />
2006<br />
2007 2008<br />
l By time l By trip l By space l Bareboat<br />
100%<br />
Distribution of cabotage chartering expenses<br />
by type of storage<br />
90%<br />
80%<br />
23,70%<br />
42,27%<br />
33,41%<br />
70%<br />
60%<br />
50%<br />
40%<br />
30%<br />
20%<br />
10%<br />
0%<br />
100%<br />
85%<br />
70%<br />
43,83%<br />
45,31%<br />
26,72%<br />
7,13%<br />
5,71% 5,29%<br />
45,38%<br />
6,09%<br />
15,11%<br />
2006 2007 2008<br />
l Automotive l Bulk solids l Bulk liquids l Container l General Cargo<br />
Distribution of cabotage chartering expenses<br />
by type of vessel<br />
15,95% 16,40% 14,47%<br />
24,63%<br />
6,94%<br />
9,26%<br />
(Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GAM)<br />
6,03%<br />
13,07%<br />
60%<br />
50%<br />
7,14%<br />
11,29%<br />
21,91%<br />
15,07%<br />
40%<br />
30%<br />
19,15%<br />
14,28%<br />
24,33%<br />
20%<br />
21,85%<br />
31,20%<br />
27,04%<br />
0%<br />
2006 2007 2008<br />
l Bulk Carrier l Tanker l Chemical l Multi-Purpose l Container Carrier l Other<br />
85
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Evolution of Authorized + Registered long-haul chartering<br />
(by type)<br />
1.225.286<br />
1.090.941<br />
1.173.530<br />
US$ x 1000<br />
369.162<br />
156.241<br />
380.318<br />
51.649<br />
836.809<br />
62.458<br />
36.437<br />
42.383<br />
47.348<br />
2006<br />
2007 2008<br />
l By time l By trip l By space l Bareboat<br />
Distribution of long-haul chartering by type of storage<br />
100%<br />
4,00%<br />
6,00%<br />
5,00%<br />
95%<br />
90%<br />
60%<br />
79,00%<br />
75,00%<br />
81,00%<br />
50%<br />
10%<br />
5%<br />
16,00%<br />
17,00%<br />
12,00%<br />
0%<br />
1,00% 1,00%<br />
2,00%<br />
2006 2007 2008<br />
l Automotive l Bulk solids l Bulk liquids l Container l General Cargo<br />
Distribution of long-haul chartering expenses by type of vessel<br />
100%<br />
90%<br />
80%<br />
2,35%<br />
4,36%<br />
6,17%<br />
8,68%<br />
3,03%<br />
5,28%<br />
7,40%<br />
4,41%<br />
5,52%<br />
4,40%<br />
5,15%<br />
5,34%<br />
70%<br />
14,96%<br />
16,58%<br />
11,04%<br />
60%<br />
30%<br />
63,70%<br />
63,30%<br />
68,55%<br />
86<br />
0%<br />
2006 2007 2008<br />
l Tanker l Container Carrier l Chemical l Gas Tanker l Bulk Carrier l Other
Issue of certificates of prescribed cargo release (CLCP)<br />
l Imports l Exports l Total<br />
(Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GAM)<br />
1797<br />
1694<br />
Amount<br />
312<br />
203<br />
515<br />
673<br />
828<br />
155<br />
103<br />
2006<br />
2007 2008<br />
Evolution of Authorized + Registered maritime support<br />
chartering expenses (by type)<br />
US$ x 1000<br />
392.356.758<br />
7.195.602<br />
531.827.428 714.344.953<br />
11.205.618<br />
50.911.042<br />
2006<br />
2007 2008<br />
l By time l Bareboat<br />
100%<br />
95%<br />
90%<br />
80%<br />
70%<br />
60%<br />
50%<br />
40%<br />
Distribution of maritime support chartering expenses<br />
23%<br />
2%<br />
4%<br />
8%<br />
6%<br />
6%<br />
10%<br />
17%<br />
2%<br />
4%<br />
6%<br />
10%<br />
6%<br />
12%<br />
15%<br />
14%<br />
3%<br />
3%<br />
4%<br />
6%<br />
6%<br />
9%<br />
11%<br />
13%<br />
30%<br />
20%<br />
10%<br />
0%<br />
16%<br />
9%<br />
7%<br />
8%<br />
10%<br />
10%<br />
10%<br />
2006 2007 2008<br />
l AHTS 18000 l PSV l PSV 3000 l AHTS 12000 l AHTS 15000 l PSV 1500<br />
l AHTS l AHTS 7000 l PSV 1000 l RSV l Other<br />
15%<br />
15%<br />
87
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Evolution of Authorized + Registered port support chartering expenses<br />
33.581,25 68.749,96<br />
US$ x 1000<br />
5.902,76<br />
13.937,79<br />
4.631,80<br />
3.397,25<br />
2006<br />
2007 2008<br />
l By time l Bareboat<br />
Distribution of port support chartering expenses by type of vessel<br />
100%<br />
95%<br />
90%<br />
85%<br />
80%<br />
70%<br />
9,79%<br />
5,28%<br />
1,98%<br />
82,95%<br />
(Source: ANTAQ/SNM/GAM)<br />
1,22% 3,86%<br />
4,59% 4,10%<br />
3,67%<br />
3,00%<br />
8,40%<br />
9,21%<br />
22,56%<br />
19,98%<br />
60%<br />
50%<br />
40%<br />
30%<br />
64,96%<br />
54,46%<br />
20%<br />
10%<br />
0%<br />
2006 2007 2008<br />
l Dredge l Non-propelled ferry l Derrick/Crane l Tug l UT 250 l Other<br />
88
Chartering expenses<br />
Cabotage<br />
Petrobras was the company that spent the<br />
most in cabotage chartering in 2008, more<br />
than US$39 million (an increase of 88.7%<br />
over 2007) or 29.2% of the total amount of<br />
US$135.78 million spent on charters in 2008.<br />
Companhia de Navegação Norsul had the second<br />
biggest expenses, with little more than<br />
US$30 million (an increase of 4.3% over 2007)<br />
or 22.3% of the total amount. The two companies<br />
accounted for more than half of cabotage<br />
chartering expenses, together.<br />
The significant participation of Petrobras in<br />
cabotage chartering expenses is also reflected<br />
on the distribution of expenses by vessel: the<br />
chartering of chemical, oil, and gas tankers<br />
was US$61.3 million (an increase of 37.4%<br />
over 2007) or 45 % of the total amount.<br />
The biggest expense with chartering by type<br />
of storage occurred in the transport of bulk liquids<br />
(oil and derivatives), which was $61.6 million<br />
(increase of 38.5% over 2007) or 45.4% of<br />
the total amount. Expenses for chartering bulk<br />
solid transport occupied the second position<br />
with US$45.3 million (increase of 9.3% over<br />
2007) or 33.4% of overall expenses in cabotage<br />
in 2007.<br />
As for modality, the biggest expense occurred<br />
with charters per trip, which totaled US$87.3<br />
million (an increase of 47.1%) or 64.3% of the<br />
total amount. The secondly position was occupied<br />
by chartering by time, which totaled<br />
US$26.6 million (an increase of 44.8%) or<br />
19.6% of the total amount.<br />
Companies<br />
2006<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2007<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2008<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
Agemar Transp e Empreendimentos<br />
37.026,00<br />
37.332,00<br />
35.190,00<br />
Aliança Navegação e Logística<br />
16.662.545,00<br />
2.486.400,00<br />
4.737.720,00<br />
Chaval Navegação Ltda.<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
706.964,16<br />
Cia. Navegação da Amazônia<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
4.463.055,00<br />
Comercial Marítima Oceânica<br />
1.827.525,00<br />
4.359.823,72<br />
265.000,00<br />
Companhia de Navegação Norsul<br />
11.969.811,73<br />
29.111.535,89<br />
30.378.900,00<br />
Companhia Libra de Navegação<br />
3.681.565,00<br />
1.710.780,00<br />
1.476.910,00<br />
Empresa de Navegação Elcano<br />
3.285.084,85<br />
9.914.546,10<br />
5.829.129,14<br />
FLUMAR - Transportes de Químicos e Gases<br />
8.777.027,65<br />
4.257.980,32<br />
12.061.812,56<br />
Frota Oceânica e Amazônica<br />
0,00<br />
4.344.944,40<br />
0,00<br />
Global Transporte Oceânico<br />
912.235,20<br />
10.339.424,87<br />
3.378.043,54<br />
Granéis do Brasil Marítima<br />
0,00<br />
174.273,18<br />
1.319.100,05<br />
H. Dantas - Comércio, Navegação e Indústria<br />
7.172.694,25<br />
7.691.355,00<br />
15.349.625,00<br />
Mercosul Line Navegação e Logística<br />
217.935,00<br />
667.615,00<br />
723.155,00<br />
Metalnave S/A - Comércio e Navegação<br />
1.267.020,35<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
Narval Serviços de Transportes<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
12.950,00<br />
Navegação Guarita<br />
0,00<br />
860.400,00<br />
568.750,00<br />
Nav. São Miguel<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
3.570.000,00<br />
Pancoast Navegação<br />
0,00<br />
1.176.000,00<br />
11.235.573,03<br />
Petróleo Brasileiro S/A - Petrobras<br />
23.458.117,69<br />
21.024.698,30<br />
39.677.068,63<br />
TOTAL<br />
79.268.587,72<br />
98.157.108,78<br />
135.788.946,11<br />
89
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Type of vessel<br />
2006<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2007<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2008<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
Propelled Barge<br />
2.774.000,00<br />
463.600,00<br />
0,00<br />
Freighter<br />
1.890.509,60<br />
6.908.309,49<br />
8.113.260,47<br />
Gas Tanker<br />
7.808.554,54<br />
8.451.927,57<br />
7.805.195,10<br />
Bulk Carrier<br />
17.317.096,38<br />
30.621.798,28<br />
36.718.795,65<br />
Heavy-Lift<br />
0,00<br />
97.500,00<br />
3.570.000,00<br />
Multi-Purpose<br />
5.658.035,85<br />
9.093.099,44<br />
17.746.228,89<br />
Oil Tanker<br />
15.176.940,13<br />
14.016.273,93<br />
33.031.055,90<br />
Container Carrier<br />
19.521.526,11<br />
6.814.278,87<br />
8.188.726,12<br />
Chemical Tanker<br />
8.948.639,56<br />
21.509.621,19<br />
20.459.833,98<br />
Ro-Ro<br />
173.286,06<br />
180.700,00<br />
155.850,00<br />
TOTAL<br />
79.268.588,23<br />
98.157.108,77<br />
135.788.946,11<br />
BY STORAGE<br />
Type of Charter<br />
2006<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2007<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2008<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
Automotive<br />
31.500,00<br />
0,00<br />
8.500,00<br />
General Cargo<br />
4.526.007,04<br />
5.190.712,23<br />
20.521.000,00<br />
Container<br />
21.177.196,11<br />
6.994.893,95<br />
8.265.576,12<br />
Bulk Liquids<br />
34.745.160,23<br />
44.478.754,69<br />
61.625.307,75<br />
Bulk Solids<br />
18.788.724,85<br />
41.492.747,90<br />
45.368.562,24<br />
TOTAL<br />
79.268.588,23<br />
98.157.108,77<br />
135.788.946,11<br />
BY MODEL OF CHARTER<br />
Type of Charter<br />
2006<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2007<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2008<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
By time<br />
13.065.440,00<br />
18.378.146,69<br />
26.620.774,72<br />
By trip<br />
36.703.962,75<br />
59.350.611,72<br />
87.326.195,86<br />
By space<br />
29.499.185,48<br />
20.428.350,36<br />
21.252.182,98<br />
Bareboat<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
589.792,55<br />
TOTAL<br />
79.268.588,23<br />
98.157.108,77<br />
135.788.946,11<br />
90
Chartering expenses<br />
Long Haul<br />
Petrobras spent US$1.63 billion with charters<br />
in long-haul navigation (an increase of<br />
50.1% over 2007) or 76.8% of US$2.1 billion<br />
spent in the long-haul shipping in 2008.<br />
Companies Aliança Navegação e Logística,<br />
Companhia Libra de Navegação, H. Dantas<br />
and Elcano spent together US$374.4 million<br />
(17.6% of the total amount). Other companies<br />
accounted 5.6% of expenses on long-haul chartering<br />
in 2008.<br />
The main long-haul chartering expenses by<br />
type of storage was liquid bulk (oil and byproduct,<br />
mainly), which totaled US$1.7 billion in<br />
2008 (an increase of 45.3% over 2007) or 81%<br />
of the total amount. The second position was occupied<br />
by containers, with US$252.7 million<br />
(with a decrease of 7.4% compared to 2007) or<br />
12% of the total amount.<br />
The expense of Petrobras is responsible for<br />
most of the costs relating to oil tanker chartering<br />
(US$1.45 billion) and gas tankers (US$109.2<br />
million), with an increase of 40.9% over 2007,<br />
when both costs totaled $1.1 billion, together.<br />
Other highlights were chartering expenses with<br />
container carriers, which reached US$233.9 million,<br />
with a decrease of 9.7% compared to the<br />
previous year.<br />
Chartering by time accounted for US$1.17<br />
billion spent in long haul chartering, or 55% of<br />
the total amount in 2008, with a decrease of<br />
7.3% compared to 2007. The second position<br />
was occupied by chartering by trip, which totaled<br />
US$ 836.8 million, with an increase of 120%<br />
over 2007 and 39.5% of the total amount.<br />
Companies<br />
2006<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2007<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2008<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
Aliança Navegação e Logística<br />
157.779.345,11<br />
161.289.400,00<br />
155.102.370,00<br />
Chaval Navegação<br />
1.145.000,00<br />
5.080.069,50<br />
18.120.950,00<br />
Comercial Marítima Oceânica<br />
14.525.125,62<br />
21.923.142,73<br />
10.894.261,55<br />
Companhia de Navegação Norsul<br />
8.562.300,00<br />
11.704.250,00<br />
9.463.500,00<br />
Companhia Libra de Navegação<br />
149.207.283,90<br />
138.922.658,18<br />
107.663.819,59<br />
DANDY Overseas<br />
0,00<br />
7.387.928,50<br />
0,00<br />
Empresa de Navegação Elcano<br />
27.082.239,55<br />
39.746.271,39<br />
44.126.471,29<br />
Flumar Transporte de Químicos e Gases<br />
125.362.637,46<br />
14.106.729,86<br />
12.464.533,35<br />
Global Transporte Oceânico<br />
3.194.236,41<br />
400.730,08<br />
11.246.797,32<br />
Granéis do Brasil Marítima<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
1.648.761,62<br />
H. Dantas - Comércio Navegação e Indústria<br />
49.979.950,00<br />
45.101.290,00<br />
67.545.500,00<br />
Log-ln<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
7.410.544,94<br />
Metalnave S/A - Comércio e Indústria<br />
2.355.816,00<br />
661.500,00<br />
0,00<br />
Navegação Guarita<br />
3.253.644,00<br />
7.578.350,00<br />
7.863.350,00<br />
Pancoast Navegação<br />
0,00<br />
2.872.000,00<br />
4.399.000,00<br />
Petrobras Transporte S/A - Transpetro<br />
23.041.720,00<br />
23.041.720,00<br />
23.104.848,00<br />
Petróleo Brasileiro S/A - Petrobras<br />
1.221.635.951,79<br />
1.085.474.409,95<br />
1.629.949.333,41<br />
Transnave<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
9.140.478,80<br />
TOTAL<br />
1.787.125.249,84<br />
1.565.290.450,19<br />
2.120.144.519,87<br />
91
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Type of vessel<br />
2006<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2007<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2008<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
Freighter<br />
5.262.800,00<br />
4.586.000,00<br />
14.467.552,00<br />
Gas Tanker<br />
110.006.407,38<br />
115.821.497,42<br />
109.248.837,78<br />
Bulk Carrier<br />
77.726.596,11<br />
82.664.340,00<br />
93.328.432,96<br />
Heavy-Lift<br />
190.000,00<br />
400.000,00<br />
82.500,00<br />
Multi-Purpose<br />
17.147.246,84<br />
27.708.974,76<br />
46.467.983,12<br />
Ore-Oil<br />
4.097.077,55<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
Tanker<br />
1.135.802.754,10<br />
990.819.138,65<br />
1.453.328.793,23<br />
Container Carrier<br />
266.812.332,90<br />
259.468.971,34<br />
233.973.971,83<br />
Chemical Tanker<br />
154.814.522,37<br />
69.061.097,86<br />
113.266.003,08<br />
Tug<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
Ro-Ro<br />
15.265.512,59<br />
14.760.430,16<br />
15.893.110,71<br />
GNL Tanker<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
40.087.335,16<br />
TOTAL<br />
1.787.125.249,84<br />
1.565.290.450,19<br />
2.120.144.519,87<br />
Type of storage<br />
2006<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2007<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2008<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
Automotive<br />
3.201.525,59<br />
2.374.095,00<br />
2.669.872,88<br />
General Cargo<br />
22.722.440,00<br />
23.164.074,02<br />
45.064.267,13<br />
Container<br />
277.173.076,74<br />
273.109.387,74<br />
252.734.335,65<br />
Bulk Liquids<br />
1.405.268.761,41<br />
1.175.701.733,93<br />
1.717.615.982,00<br />
Bulk Solids<br />
78.759.446,11<br />
90.941.159,50<br />
102.060.061,62<br />
TOTAL<br />
1.787.125.249,85<br />
1.565.290.450,19<br />
2.120.144.519,28<br />
92
Chartering expenses<br />
Maritime support<br />
Maritime support chartering expenses were<br />
attributed to Petrobras, which spent<br />
US$618.5 million (increase of 34.3%) in<br />
2008, or 80.7% of the total amount of US$<br />
765.2 million.<br />
The amount is almost the total of US$660<br />
million (increase of 42.8% over 2007) spent in<br />
2008 for different types of AHTS (Anchor Handling<br />
Tug Supply) vessels, the function of which is<br />
to install and maintain oil platforms and PSVs<br />
(Platform Support Vessel), which provides support<br />
services to the platforms. Another 24 companies<br />
accounted for the remaining US$146.7 million.<br />
As for the type of charter, most maritime support<br />
expenses were allocated to chartering by<br />
time, reaching a value of US$714.3 million (an<br />
increase of 34.3% over 2007) or 93.3% of the total<br />
amount. The remaining 6.7% or US$50.9<br />
million (an increase of 362% over 2007) were<br />
paid in the bareboat charters.<br />
Companies<br />
2006<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2007<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2008<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
Alfanave Transportes marítimos<br />
1.480.000,00<br />
1.314.975,00<br />
1.786.950,00<br />
Astromaríma Navegação<br />
400.000,00<br />
18.825.680,52<br />
12.258.154,27<br />
BOS Navegação<br />
0,00<br />
4.328.100,00<br />
6.954.398,00<br />
Bram Offshore Transportes Marítimos<br />
0,00<br />
1.911.275,50<br />
18.965.351,75<br />
Camorim Serviços Marítimos<br />
0,00<br />
1.122.750,00<br />
2.182.750,00<br />
Delba Marítima Navegação<br />
234.900,00<br />
540.000,00<br />
0,00<br />
DOF Navegação<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
663.780,00<br />
Galáxia Marítima<br />
6.119.945,82<br />
11.499.000,00<br />
8.166.900,00<br />
Gulf Marine (Ser. Mar.) do Brasil<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
9.662.997,07<br />
Luanova Serviços Marítimos<br />
0,00<br />
8.060,00<br />
168.588,81<br />
Maersk Brasil (Brasmar)<br />
1.943.913,00<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
Maré Alta do Brasil Navegação<br />
8.217.400,00<br />
9.558.321,95<br />
11.325.137,25<br />
Navegção São Miguel<br />
209.000,00<br />
12.830.000,00<br />
10.958.000,00<br />
Navemar Transp Comércio Marítimo<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
325.116,33<br />
Norskan Offshore<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
11.781.000,00<br />
Petróelo Brasileiro S/A – Petrobras<br />
338.591.879,43<br />
460.570.040,44<br />
618.522.694,26<br />
R&P Transportes Marítimos<br />
0,00<br />
22.116,60<br />
81.764,40<br />
Seabulk Offshore do Brasil<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
5.088.787,71<br />
Subsea 7 do Brasil Serviços<br />
41.543.000,00<br />
19.488.400,00<br />
9.048.800,00<br />
Trico Serviços Marítimos<br />
812.322,00<br />
1.014.326,90<br />
350.251,95<br />
Acergy do Brasil S/A<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
25.353.050,00<br />
Fugro Brasil – Serv Subm e Levantamentos<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
388.742,93<br />
Maersk Supply Service – Ap Marítimo Ltda<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
9.884.889,22<br />
Acamim navegação e Serviços Portuarios<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
1.035.632,38<br />
Serviços Marítimox Dialcar<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
243.660,00<br />
Technip Brasil Eng Instal e Apoio Marítimo<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
58.598,80<br />
TOTAL<br />
399.552.360,25<br />
543.033.046,91<br />
765.255.995,13<br />
93
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Type of vessel<br />
2006<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2007<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2008<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
AHTS 12000<br />
63.991.985,00<br />
80.887.885,00<br />
86.220.094,64<br />
AHTS15000<br />
41.567.850,00<br />
62.929.225,00<br />
71.806.000,00<br />
PSV<br />
28.715.485,76<br />
56.839.946,57<br />
111.004.830,23<br />
PSV 3000<br />
34.152.701,07<br />
53.424.315,32<br />
100.469.808,74<br />
AHTS<br />
24.396.068,00<br />
53.363.875,52<br />
45.452.909,64<br />
AHTS18000<br />
31.707.620,00<br />
52.393.900,00<br />
112.979.213,00<br />
AHTS 7000<br />
32.921.060,00<br />
31.361.169,03<br />
32.068.802,29<br />
PSV 1500<br />
25.813.504,95<br />
31.116.658,91<br />
48.781.414,63<br />
PSV 1000<br />
14.904.683,60<br />
20.304.363,20<br />
25.855.860,91<br />
AHTS 10000<br />
12.521.190,00<br />
14.141.192,25<br />
18.024.041,72<br />
UT 4000<br />
8.803.575,00<br />
11.882.797,00<br />
13.183.394,02<br />
RSV<br />
9.063.000,00<br />
9.804.400,00<br />
20.829.800,00<br />
PSLV<br />
31.360.000,00<br />
9.684.000,00<br />
0,00<br />
LH 1 200<br />
2.242.732,00<br />
7.417.048,00<br />
8.273.006,54<br />
UT 750<br />
4.127.368,82<br />
5.937.809,22<br />
4.732.154,08<br />
Passenger Boat<br />
4.500.340,90<br />
5.626.607,24<br />
7.122.280,22<br />
AHTS 5000<br />
5.051.700,00<br />
5.152.880,00<br />
4.649.622,00<br />
SV1000<br />
1.278.774,00<br />
5.029.380,20<br />
2.471.733,56<br />
Multi-Purpose<br />
1.110.000,00<br />
4.230.000,00<br />
1.890.000,00<br />
SV300<br />
2.274.010,00<br />
3.563.029,39<br />
7.786.882,91<br />
TS 10000<br />
0,00<br />
3.321.500,00<br />
3.789.937,26<br />
PSV 2000<br />
1.226.700,00<br />
3.079.800,00<br />
3.184.200,00<br />
UT 2500<br />
1.633.875,00<br />
2.062.250,00<br />
4.552.801,12<br />
Seismic Ship Support<br />
612.000,00<br />
1.878.000,00<br />
2.525.375,31<br />
TS 7000<br />
3.400.700,00<br />
1.643.700,00<br />
1.494.990,00<br />
Line Handling<br />
1.371.943,75<br />
1.432.349,05<br />
1.465.573,80<br />
Cargo Ferry<br />
8.580.032,40<br />
1.370.005,60<br />
394.111,20<br />
Tug<br />
36.500,00<br />
936.500,00<br />
4.083.142,77<br />
LH 1 800<br />
605.710,00<br />
878.335,70<br />
1.299.082,56<br />
AHSV<br />
0,00<br />
549.000,00<br />
0,00<br />
LH300<br />
0,00<br />
271.324,50<br />
662.031,78<br />
Mixed Boat<br />
0,00<br />
234.978,83<br />
2.713.396,86<br />
AHT<br />
0,00<br />
183.000,00<br />
9.295.210,00<br />
Flotel<br />
0,00<br />
55.850,00<br />
880.680,00<br />
Support Boat<br />
0,00<br />
45.971,38<br />
0,00<br />
Hovercraft<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
867.920,76<br />
MSV<br />
1.120.000,00<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
TS 3000<br />
461.250,00<br />
0,00<br />
3.528.247,50<br />
TS<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
58.598,80<br />
P2<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
858.546,28<br />
TOTAL<br />
399.552.360,25<br />
543.033.046,91<br />
765.255.695,13<br />
94
By type of charter<br />
2006<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2007<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2008<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
By time<br />
392.356.758,25<br />
531.827.428,46<br />
714.344.952,98<br />
Bareboat<br />
7.195.602,00<br />
11.205.618,45<br />
50.911.042,15<br />
TOTAL<br />
399.552.360,25<br />
543.033.046,91<br />
765.255.995,13<br />
Chartering expenses<br />
Port support<br />
Thyssekrupp CSA Companhia Siderúrgica accounted<br />
for US$11.94 million or 64.3% of the<br />
US$18.56 million spent on port support navigation<br />
chartering in 2008, with a decrease of<br />
75.2% over the previous year. Somar, Superpesa,<br />
and Deme, totaled US$5.24 million or 28.2% of<br />
the total amount, together.<br />
More than half the of port support chartering expenses<br />
were allocated to dredgers: US$10.1 million<br />
or 54.4% of the total amount. The second position<br />
was occupied by non-propelled ferries, with<br />
US$3.7 million. As for models, an amount of<br />
US$13.9 million (a decrease of 79.7%) was spent<br />
on chartering by time – 75% of the overall port support<br />
expenses – and US$4.6 million in bareboat<br />
charters (a decrease of 21.5%).<br />
Companies<br />
2006<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2007<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2008<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
Bandeirantes Dragagem e Construção<br />
184.000,00<br />
365.000,00<br />
172.000,00<br />
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce<br />
0,00<br />
239.200,00<br />
193.600,00<br />
Construção e Comércio Camargo Correia<br />
16.764.249,60<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
Delba Marítima Navegação<br />
731.000,00<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
Deme Brazil Serviços de Dragagem<br />
0,00<br />
2.619.034,28<br />
1.191.895,84<br />
Enterpa Engenharia<br />
255.231,00<br />
166.738,50<br />
0,00<br />
Navegação São Miguel<br />
549.000,00<br />
543.000,00<br />
544.500,00<br />
Ne N navegação e Logística<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
81.900,00<br />
Saveiros Camuyrano – Serviços Marítimos<br />
0,00<br />
358.416,00<br />
0,00<br />
Serviços de Operações Marítimas – SOMAR<br />
16.542.521,57<br />
8.215.805,45<br />
2.421.639,00<br />
Superpesa – Cia de Transp. Esp. e Intermodais<br />
1.952.500,00<br />
2.241.500,00<br />
1.628.000,00<br />
Thyssenkrupp CSA Companhia Siderúrgica<br />
0,00<br />
59.904.025,50<br />
11.944.055,59<br />
Tug Brasil<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
392.000,00<br />
TOTAL<br />
36.978.502,17<br />
74.652.719,73<br />
18.569.590,43<br />
95
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Type of vessel<br />
2006<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2007<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2008<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
Non-propelled ferry<br />
731.000,00<br />
16.839.228,74<br />
3.709.665,00<br />
Support vessel<br />
2.887.257,60<br />
0,00<br />
0,00<br />
Derrick/Crane<br />
1.952.500,00<br />
2.241.500,00<br />
1.709.900,00<br />
Bulk Lighter<br />
184.000,00<br />
365.000,00<br />
172.000,00<br />
Lighter<br />
30.674.744,57<br />
48.497.972,57<br />
10.113.633,47<br />
Oil Tanker<br />
549.000,00<br />
543.000,00<br />
544.500,00<br />
Tug<br />
0,00<br />
2.737.263,42<br />
1.559.331,76<br />
UT 250<br />
0,00<br />
3.428.755,00<br />
760.560,20<br />
TOTAL<br />
36.978.502,17<br />
74.652.719,73<br />
18.569.590,43<br />
By type of charter<br />
2006<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2007<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
2008<br />
Amount (US$)<br />
By time<br />
33.581.248,67<br />
68.749.955,87<br />
13.937.787,35<br />
Bareboat<br />
3.397.253,50<br />
5.902.763,86<br />
4.631.803,08<br />
TOTAL<br />
36.978.502,17<br />
74.652.719,73<br />
18.569.590,43<br />
96
INLAND NAVIGATION<br />
Completion of Tucuruí Locks<br />
Rivers cross the Center-West and Amazon<br />
regions, forming the largest drainage area<br />
entirely within the national territory, coupled<br />
with their strategic role with great potential<br />
for hydropower, agriculture, mining, navigation,<br />
and power generation. The basin includes<br />
the states of Pará, Tocantins, Goiás, Mato<br />
Grosso and Maranhão, in addition of the Federal<br />
District.<br />
This area is distinguished by high production<br />
of maize, rice, soybeans and sugar cane, among<br />
other products, with great potential for increased<br />
production. The basin formed by the rivers gathers<br />
grain producing areas and includes the livestock<br />
and mineral sectors, with extensive production<br />
of aluminum, asbestos, bauxite,<br />
limestone, copper, iron ore, and nickel. The agricultural<br />
potential of the waterway joins the multimodal<br />
network, where the waterways are part of<br />
the Carajás and North-South railways, bringing<br />
goods to the Port of Itaqui in Maranhão, and Vila<br />
do Conde, in Pará, and maritime transport.<br />
The construction of Tucuruí locks was initiated<br />
in 1981 and halted in 1989. Resumed in September<br />
1998, the works were again interrupted<br />
in December 2002. The last of the work was resumed<br />
in July 2004. In 2007, the project was included<br />
in the Growth Acceleration Plan – PAC,<br />
with the allocation of R$815 million between<br />
2007 and 2010 for the completion of works.<br />
To bridge the gap of 39 meters from the lake<br />
formed by the busbar and the river, 6.5km below,<br />
the Tucuruí presents a general arrangement<br />
of structures with two locks connected by an intermediate<br />
channel which allows for the crossing<br />
and maneuvering of vessels, thus enabling<br />
the fully independent operation of the locks.<br />
This set bridges the gap on site and is developed<br />
on the left bank of the Tocantins River,<br />
starting in the reservoir with Lock 1, embedded<br />
in the earth dam by concrete walls and ending<br />
on Lock 2 and the downstream approach channel<br />
on the Tocantins River, located near the city<br />
of Tucuruí.<br />
97
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
The chamber of Lock 1 is 210 meters long<br />
and 33 meters wide and has a gap of 36 meters.<br />
Filling time is 13 minutes.<br />
Lock 2 has the same dimensions, but it has<br />
a difference of 33 meters and a shorter filling<br />
time.<br />
To illustrate the enormity of the project, the<br />
chambers of the locks of the Panamá Canal are<br />
304.8 meters long and 33.5 meters wide, requiring<br />
a set of 3 locks in series to bridge the<br />
gap of 26 meters.<br />
The intermediary channel is 6km long. It consists<br />
of a main dock, located on the right of the<br />
system, from upstream to downstream, and a<br />
shorter dock, which closes the intermediate canal<br />
downstream, on the left of the axis, next to<br />
Lock 2.<br />
The elements described above also include<br />
others that may be summarized as follows: floating<br />
guide wall to be installed upstream of Lock<br />
1, guide walls downstream of Lock 1 and upstream<br />
and downstream of Lock 2, and spill way<br />
to the intermediary canal.<br />
The dimensions of the chambers of the locks<br />
should allow for the passage of trains consisting<br />
of four 85x16m lighters and a 30m-long tug,<br />
being 32 meters wide and 200 meters long in<br />
total.<br />
Operationally, the draft of vessels is 4.50m.<br />
The absolute minimum water table is 5m at Lock<br />
1 and the intermediate canal, and 3.50 meters<br />
at Lock 2 and the downstream canal, in the most<br />
critic water levels (AHIMOR) – see figure below.<br />
To illustrate it, carrying the same cargo requires<br />
9.1 hopper trains with 273 wagons with<br />
capacity for 70 tonnes. In the case of highway<br />
transport, the equivalence is increased to 543 B-<br />
train wagons of 35 tonnes, or 764 trucks of 25<br />
tonnes.<br />
According to data by the Ministry of Transport,<br />
from September 2009, 95% of Lock,<br />
1.78% of Lock 2 and 88% of the intermediary<br />
channel have been completed, with a total percentage<br />
of execution of 88% of the system. After<br />
all tests, start-up is expected to occur in<br />
June 2010.<br />
98
III International Seminar on<br />
<strong>Waterway</strong>s – Brazil / Netherlands<br />
In March 4 and 5, The International Seminar on<br />
<strong>Waterway</strong>s – Brazil/Netherlands, sponsored by<br />
ANTAQ in partnership with the Dutch Embassy in<br />
Brazil, was held at the headquarters of the National<br />
Confederation of Transport (CNT), in Brasilia.<br />
The speakers of the seminar were representatives<br />
of ANTAQ, the Ministry of Transport, the<br />
National Department of Transport Infrastructure –<br />
DNIT, National Water Agenda – ANA, by the<br />
Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water<br />
Management of the Netherlands and the Port<br />
Rotterdam.<br />
The main purpose of the event was the exchange<br />
of experiences and information on inland<br />
navigation between authorities and Brazilian and<br />
Dutch experts.<br />
The topics presented were:<br />
1. The <strong>Waterway</strong> Transportation System in<br />
Brazil;<br />
2. The Role of River Transportation in the<br />
Netherlands and Europe;<br />
3. Strategies and Policies for the Development<br />
of Sustainable Inland <strong>Waterway</strong> Transportation:<br />
institutional and organizational aspects in inland<br />
navigation;<br />
4. River Transport Infrastructure: ports, waterways,<br />
and vessels; and<br />
5. Safety and Environment: Support systems<br />
for a safe, efficient and clean inland navigation<br />
(River Information Services, VTMS, Cargo Transportation<br />
and Handling).<br />
There was also the end of the event, a business<br />
roundtable to allow the integration between Dutch<br />
and Brazilian businessmen.<br />
The end of the event also included a business<br />
roundtable to allow for the integration among<br />
Dutch and Brazilian businessmen.<br />
One result of the business roundtable held at<br />
the seminar was the understanding that is being<br />
reached between Companhia Docas do Pará<br />
(CDP) and the Dutch consultancy NEA, with the<br />
mediation of the Dutch Embassy in Brazil. Also in<br />
2009, an agreement should be signed between<br />
the parties with the aim of studying for the promotion<br />
of water transportation, port and intermodal<br />
development in the state of Pará. Similar<br />
work is being done for the development of inland<br />
waterway transportation in Rio Grande do Sul.<br />
99
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Seminar on the Parnaíba <strong>Waterway</strong><br />
In May 6, 2009, in Teresina, ANTAQ and the<br />
State of Piauí promoted the Seminar on the<br />
Parnaíba <strong>Waterway</strong>.<br />
With an approximate length of 1,600km and<br />
located in the Drainage Basin of the Northeast,<br />
the Parnaíba <strong>Waterway</strong> comprises the rivers Parnaíba<br />
and das Balsas and is administered by the<br />
Administration of <strong>Waterway</strong>s of the Northeast –<br />
AHINOR. It is currently used to transport cargoes<br />
of regional interest, but it has potential for the<br />
flow of grains produced in the agricultural frontiers<br />
in southern Piauí, southeastern Maranhão,<br />
and northwestern Bahia.<br />
Completion of the lock system in the area of<br />
the dam of Boa Esperança, the works of which<br />
were interrupted in 1982, with 90% of installations<br />
completed, is considered a priority for the<br />
viability of the waterway, as other works necessary<br />
for correction of natural the bed of the river,<br />
such as dredging, have an easier implementation<br />
and lower cost.<br />
The speakers presented their views on the<br />
waterway, emphasized its importance to logistics<br />
in agribusiness in Brazil, and gave examples of<br />
actions that could contribute to its implementation,<br />
including the Public Private Partnerships –<br />
PPP, appointed by Banco do Nordeste – BND,<br />
highlighting the benefits for the public sector,<br />
such as: reduced need for direct investment,<br />
maximization of public services without bonds<br />
that are typical of the public sector, and payment<br />
after the start of the provision of services.<br />
The Administration of <strong>Waterway</strong>s of the<br />
Northeast, AHINOR, highlights that, with the<br />
coming into operation of Parnaíba, the economic<br />
and social consequences shall be the<br />
raising of the income level of the population of<br />
the regions under the influence of the river and<br />
the possibility of introducing more advanced<br />
agricultural practices; among others; and the<br />
need to restore the river’s course, in the process<br />
general silting due to the lack of protection.<br />
The Government of Piauí defended waterway<br />
transportation as an alternative to the flow<br />
of production. It reported that the average cost<br />
of deployment of the waterway is approximately<br />
US$34,000 per kilometer. In the case of the<br />
highway, this figure rises to US$440,000.<br />
Companhia de Desenvolvimento dos Vales<br />
do São Francisco e do Parnaíba – CODEVASF<br />
presented the São Francisco River Basin Revitalization<br />
Program (PRSF). The program is divided<br />
into five lines of actions:<br />
1. Management and Monitoring;<br />
2. Socio-Environmental Agenda;<br />
3. Protection and sustainable use of natural<br />
resources;<br />
4. Quality of environmental sanitation; and<br />
5. Sustainable Economies.<br />
The ongoing activities consist of basic sanitation<br />
works (solid waste, sewage), flood gullies<br />
and erosion control, improved navigability, and<br />
recovery of riparian areas. According to<br />
CODEVASF, the program should be applied in<br />
the Parnaíba River after adjustments.<br />
ANTAQ presented data from the Study of Estimated<br />
Cargo Demand for the Parnaíba <strong>Waterway</strong>,<br />
which projects a volume of 7.5 million<br />
tonnes of grain produced in the catchment area<br />
of the waterway up to the year 2012 and justifies<br />
the completion of the locks of Boa Esperança,<br />
and investments in dredging and clearing<br />
to make <strong>Waterway</strong> Parnaíba fully navigable.<br />
Estimated Cargo Demand<br />
The Region of Influence considered comprised<br />
the states of Piauí, Maranhão, Tocantins,<br />
and Bahia, which may use the Parnaíba River as<br />
the preferred route for the transportation of local<br />
produce, taking into account the lower efficiency<br />
and absence of other transport means.<br />
In this work, the waterway is considered only<br />
in its navigable stretch between the cities of<br />
Santa Filomena (PI) and Teresina (PI), taking<br />
into account the reservoirs formed by the hydroelectric<br />
plants of Uruçuí, Ribeiro Gonçalves,<br />
Cachoeira, Castelhano, and Estreito, and the<br />
completion of the locks of the HPP Boa Esperança.<br />
The maximum distance in a straight line<br />
between the cities considered and the Parnaiba<br />
River was 375km.<br />
The figure on the next page shows the selected<br />
municipalities and the area of influence<br />
considered in this work.<br />
100
Current and Potential Cargo<br />
In Brazil, the waterway model is designed to<br />
handle large volumes of cargo of low value added.<br />
Thus, for the area in question, local agricultural<br />
production shall be the cargo to be transported<br />
on the waterway.<br />
To determine the cargo potential, grain production<br />
was investigated in each of the 128 municipalities<br />
in the area of influence. The data were<br />
obtained from the IBGE and refer to the year<br />
2007.<br />
The following table shows the growth of grain<br />
production in the four states with municipalities in<br />
the area of influence between the years 2006<br />
and 2007:<br />
State Grain production growth between 2006 and 2007 (%)<br />
PIAUÍ<br />
MARANHÃO<br />
TOCANTINS<br />
BAHIA<br />
* Grain production growth between 2005 and 2007<br />
Table: Grain production growth (CONAB)<br />
34,07*<br />
8,7<br />
23,44<br />
17,76<br />
101
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
The state of Piauí faced adverse weather conditions<br />
in 2006, which caused a sharp drop in<br />
production that year. The year 2007 was considered<br />
normal, and as a result of what happened<br />
in 2006, the rate of production growth between<br />
the two years was 77.07% and may be considered<br />
an atypical value. When using 2005 data,<br />
the rate of growth between 2005 and 2007 is<br />
34.07%.<br />
Analyzing the values above considering them<br />
as a limit, the projection of production for the<br />
following years was made by adopting a conservative<br />
growth rate for grain production in the<br />
states of Piauí, Tocantins and Bahia de 15%,<br />
and 8.70% for the production of Maranhão.<br />
Thus, the projection for the production of the region<br />
of influence in the four states is presented<br />
in the table below:<br />
Grain production growth<br />
Region<br />
2007 (t)<br />
Growth rate<br />
(% a.a)<br />
2008 (t) 2009 (t) 2010 (t) 2011 (t) 2012 (t)<br />
BA<br />
2.170.612,00<br />
15,00<br />
2.496.203,80<br />
2.870.634,40<br />
3.301.229,50<br />
3.796.414,00<br />
4.365.876,10<br />
MA<br />
991.099,00<br />
8,70<br />
1.077.324,60<br />
1.171.051,90<br />
1.272.933,40<br />
1.383.678,60<br />
1.504.058,60<br />
PI<br />
605.798,00<br />
15,00<br />
696.667,70<br />
801.167,86<br />
921.343,03<br />
1.059.544,49<br />
1.218.476,16<br />
TO<br />
233.031,00<br />
15,00<br />
267.985,70<br />
308.183,50<br />
354.411,00<br />
407.572,70<br />
468.708,60<br />
TOTAL<br />
4.000.540,00<br />
4.538.181,80<br />
5.151.037,66<br />
5.849.916,93<br />
6.647.209,79<br />
7.557.119,46<br />
Number of trips<br />
To determine the number of trips required for<br />
the outflow of the estimated production from the<br />
area of influence of the waterway, a convoy<br />
was used, compatible with the template given by<br />
the Ministry of Transport for the establishment of<br />
the dimensions of the locks to be built alongside<br />
the new hydroelectric developments of the Parnaíba<br />
River. The dimensions are as follows:<br />
• draft: 3m;<br />
• breadth: 24m; and<br />
• length: 200m.<br />
While making an analogy with the convoys<br />
used on in the Tietê-Paraná <strong>Waterway</strong>, it is possible<br />
to obtain, in a conservative way, a load capacity<br />
of 9,000 tonnes per convey. Thus, the<br />
number of trips required to transport the estimated<br />
grain production in the region for 2012<br />
is presented in the table on the next page. We<br />
also calculated the number of trips required to<br />
handle the production, considering that only<br />
part of that flows on the waterway. Thus, the values<br />
used were 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90%<br />
of the production.<br />
The equivalence with the number of vehicles<br />
of highway and railway models is shown in tables<br />
on the following page. According to the<br />
data shown, moving 100% of the Region’s production<br />
on the waterway would withdraw<br />
279,893 trucks or 209,920 B-trains from highways.<br />
Conclusion: To flow the production by<br />
rail would require 75,571 railcars.<br />
102
Percentage of Production of the<br />
Area of Influence – 2012(f)<br />
Total (t) Convoy Capacity (t) Number of Trips<br />
100%<br />
7.557.119<br />
9.000<br />
840<br />
90%<br />
6.801.407<br />
9.000<br />
756<br />
80%<br />
6.045.696<br />
9.000<br />
672<br />
70%<br />
5.289.984<br />
9.000<br />
588<br />
60%<br />
4.534.272<br />
9.000<br />
504<br />
50%<br />
3.778.560<br />
9.000<br />
420<br />
Table: Number of trips by the convoy to flow the produce<br />
Cargo Carried (t)<br />
Number of Convoys<br />
Number of Trucks<br />
(27 t)<br />
Number of B-Trains<br />
(36 t)<br />
Number of<br />
Wagons(100 t)<br />
7.557.119<br />
840<br />
279.893<br />
209.920<br />
75.571<br />
6.801.407<br />
756<br />
251.904<br />
188.928<br />
68.014<br />
6.045.696<br />
672<br />
223.915<br />
167.936<br />
60.457<br />
5.289.984<br />
588<br />
195.925<br />
146.944<br />
52.900<br />
4.534.272<br />
504<br />
167.936<br />
125.952<br />
45.343<br />
3.778.560<br />
420<br />
139.947<br />
104.960<br />
37.786<br />
Table: Equivalence of the waterway model with other models<br />
Emission and Shipping Cost Reduction<br />
To compare the reduction of emissions of pollutants<br />
by choosing to waterway model for the<br />
transporting large volumes, we did a case study<br />
considering moving all production of the area of<br />
influence being flowed from the municipality of<br />
Uruçuí (PI) to the Port of Itaqui in São Luís (MA).<br />
From Uruçuí, there are two paths for the transport<br />
of production:<br />
1. the section called Highway Model: 400km<br />
by the highway model to the city of Porto Franco<br />
(MA), where the cargo is then transported by rail<br />
through North-South and Carajás railways to the<br />
port of Itaqui for 713km;<br />
2. the section called the <strong>Waterway</strong> Model:<br />
470km by the Parnaíba <strong>Waterway</strong> to Teresina (PI),<br />
where the cargo is then transported by the railway<br />
of Companhia Ferroviária Nordeste – CFN, for<br />
453km.<br />
Both modes considered an average distance of<br />
150km relating to the need to shift production of<br />
other municipalities in the area of influence to<br />
Uruçuí. We considered carbon monoxide emissions,<br />
and the results are presented in the table<br />
below.<br />
Cargo (t)<br />
Projection<br />
2012<br />
Highway<br />
(km)<br />
Highway Model <strong>Waterway</strong> Model Emission Reduction<br />
Railway<br />
(kg)<br />
CO Emission(kg)<br />
Highway<br />
(km)<br />
<strong>Waterway</strong><br />
(km)<br />
Railway<br />
(km)<br />
CO Emission<br />
(kg)<br />
kg %<br />
7.557.119 550 713 1.470.630,6 150 470 453 867.119,0 603.512 41<br />
Reduction of CO emissions from gases when using the waterway<br />
103
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Considering the data from the previous table,<br />
and the two previous cases, the reduction in<br />
shipping costs when using the waterway model is<br />
shown in Table 6. For the calculations, we used<br />
the following shipping values for the models:<br />
R$0.113/t.km in the highway model; R$<br />
0.070/t.km the railway model; and<br />
R$0.046/t.km the waterway model. As seen in<br />
the results, the reduction in shipping costs is<br />
high, reaching 37.3%.<br />
Highway Model<br />
<strong>Waterway</strong> Model<br />
Cost Reduction<br />
Cargo (t)<br />
Projection<br />
2012<br />
Highway<br />
(km)<br />
Railway<br />
(kg)<br />
Shipping<br />
Cost (R$)<br />
Highway<br />
(km)<br />
<strong>Waterway</strong><br />
(km)<br />
Railway<br />
(km)<br />
Shipping<br />
Cost (R$)<br />
R$ %<br />
1 (unit)<br />
550<br />
713<br />
112,1<br />
150<br />
470<br />
453<br />
72,3<br />
39,8<br />
37,3<br />
7.557.119<br />
550<br />
713<br />
846.850.79<br />
150<br />
470<br />
453<br />
531.114.35<br />
315.736.43<br />
37,3<br />
Reduction of shipping costs when using the waterway<br />
104
Rule edit<br />
ANTAQ is seeking to adapt rules to the reality<br />
of inland Brazil through the Inland Navigation<br />
Superintendence, SNI, simplifying<br />
the process of regularization of shipping companies<br />
and protecting the rights of users of waterway<br />
transportation.<br />
During this period, we note the publication of<br />
the proposed adjustment of the rule for granting<br />
authorizations for cargo transportation services in<br />
inland navigation of interstate longitudinal and<br />
international routes (Resolution 1,291-ANTAQ),<br />
which was submitted to online and on-site public<br />
hearings (São Paulo, Porto Alegre, Corumbá,<br />
Porto Velho, Manaus, and Belém), under rapporteurship<br />
for final approval. Another highlight<br />
is the development of the rule for the chartering<br />
of foreign vessels in inland navigation, which is<br />
also under rapporteurship.<br />
The SNI collaborates with the drafting of rules<br />
for the regulation of the Cargo Transport Station<br />
– ETC and Small-Sized Public Port Facility - IP4,<br />
created by Law 11,518, of 2007, introducing the<br />
peculiarities of the inland waterway sector.<br />
Paraná-Tietê River Basin Workgroup<br />
G5+1 is the group formed by the five federal<br />
states located in the area of influence<br />
of the Paraná-Tietê River Basin, consisting<br />
of Paraná, Mato Grosso do Sul, Goiás,<br />
Minas Gerais, and São Paulo and the Federal<br />
Government, represented by ANTAQ, the Ministry<br />
of Transport – MT and the National Department<br />
of Transport Infrastructure – DNIT. This<br />
group is formalized by the National Council of<br />
Secretaries of Transport – CONSETRANS, which<br />
has given legitimacy to the development of the<br />
work and representation to the group.<br />
The work of the G5+1 has started with the<br />
drafting of an agenda for improvements to be<br />
implemented in the Paraná-Tietê River Basin, focusing<br />
on the removal of bottlenecks, increase in<br />
length, port terminals for handling, and intermodal<br />
services. The construction of locks at the<br />
dams of the Paranaíba River (São Simão, Cachoeira<br />
Dourada, and Itumbiara), overcoming<br />
gaps of 72.90m, 30.98m and 81.87m, respectively,<br />
would increase the length of the waterway<br />
in 350km and flow the major soybean production<br />
on the waterway to the ports of Paranaguá<br />
and Santos. In Paranapanema Grande Rivers,<br />
the possibility of overcoming the dams Rosana,<br />
Taquaruçu, Capivara and Água Vermelha, with<br />
gaps of 17m, 28.90m, 52.40m, and 57m, respectively,<br />
is studied and would provide a gain of<br />
400km in length to the waterway. These investments<br />
are essential to handle the grain production<br />
from producing areas of São Paulo, such as<br />
São Simão and Itumbiara and as multimodal link<br />
to transfer the production in Mato Grosso and<br />
the Center-West Region of Brazil.<br />
In the Ivaí and Ivinhema Rivers, located in<br />
Paraná and Mato Grosso do Sul, respectively, it<br />
is estimated that specific interventions could provide<br />
gains in length of 137km in the Ivaí River<br />
37km and 185km in the Ivinhema River, allowed<br />
for the flow of the grain production in a waterway/railway<br />
multimodal link, with the ports of<br />
Paranaguá and Santos. Finally, it would allow for<br />
an extensive waterway network with full inter-<br />
105
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
modality. The map below shows the increase in<br />
length of the waterway.<br />
In the state of São Paulo, the extension of the<br />
Tietê River to Salto and Artemis is currently being<br />
studied. Such expansion would comprise over<br />
130km in length, in connection with the railway<br />
to the flow of the production to the Port of Santos<br />
for export.<br />
The increased extension of the Paraná-Tietê<br />
could provide the integration of the production<br />
chain with a more competitive model, creating<br />
more development for the municipalities of the<br />
coverage area of the Paraná-Tietê <strong>Waterway</strong>, a<br />
larger number of municipalities served in Goiás<br />
and Minas Gerais, services to the mining areas of<br />
Catalão, open space for the transport of general<br />
cargo (containers), bulk liquids (alcohol and<br />
biodiesel), fertilizers, and connection with BR-153.<br />
A series of seminars in the member states of<br />
the G5 are happening successively. The first seminar<br />
was held in Curitiba (PR), on March 19,<br />
2009 in the auditorium of the Federation of Industries<br />
of the State of Paraná – FIEPR, with representatives<br />
from ANTAQ, the <strong>Waterway</strong> Department<br />
<strong>Waterway</strong> of the State of São Paulo, the<br />
Secretariat of Transportation of the State of<br />
Paraná, the Ministry of Agriculture, and experts in<br />
the implementation of Itaipu. This seminar was<br />
attended by the DNIT and the State Government<br />
of Paraná.<br />
The second meeting was held in Campo<br />
Grande, on May 15, 2009 in the auditorium of<br />
the Federation of Industries of the State of Mato<br />
Grosso do Sul – FIEMS, and lectures were presented<br />
by ANTAQ, the <strong>Waterway</strong> Department of<br />
the State São Paulo, the Secretariat of Transport<br />
of Mato Grosso do Sul, counting on the presence<br />
of the DNIT and the State Government of Mato<br />
Grosso do Sul<br />
The third event was held in Belo Horizonte on<br />
June 5, 2009, with representatives of the National<br />
Water Agency.<br />
On August 7, 2009, Goiânia hosted the meeting<br />
of the G5+1, at the Federation of Industries<br />
of the State of Goiás. The lectures were conducted<br />
by ANTAQ, DH/São Paulo, the Department<br />
of Infrastructure of the State of Goiás, the<br />
company Caramuru, and the DNIT. At the occasion,<br />
the DNIT remarked that it authorized the<br />
drafting of studies for the construction of locks in<br />
São Simão, Cachoeira Dourada, and Itumbiara,<br />
which shall offer big gains in extension in the<br />
state of Goiás, of about 350km, and the flow of<br />
the grain production in these regions, known as<br />
producing areas in Brazil.<br />
The waterway is the solution to release the immense<br />
production in Brazil. It is the outlet that<br />
Brazil needs, as it is the model that emits fewer<br />
pollutants, providing less degradation of nature,<br />
less use of lubricating oils, and the non-use of<br />
tires. Moreover, it is possible to consider the<br />
country’s economic gain when using the waterways,<br />
which have costs well below highway and<br />
railway models, with accident rates near zero,<br />
being more economical to the implementation,<br />
maintenance, reliability and security.<br />
106
Inspections<br />
The inspections programmed in inland navigation<br />
for the 1st half of 2009, according to<br />
the Annual Inspection Plan – PAF, sought to<br />
assess the provision of inland transport services<br />
in longitudinal (cargo, passenger, and mixed)<br />
and transverse routes (crossings), as well as the<br />
regularization of companies, based on the legal<br />
framework and rules in force, ensuring the provision<br />
of appropriate services and curbing malpractice.<br />
Depending on the different types of services,<br />
the purposes were:<br />
1. Longitudinal cargo transport – intensive<br />
actions to promote the settlement of operators<br />
still not in compliance with Resolution 356/2004<br />
and curb the illegal provision of serviced, especially<br />
on routes that include operators already<br />
authorized by ANTAQ;<br />
2. Crossing transport – registration of operators<br />
not covered by the PAF-2008 and intensive,<br />
educational actions to promote the regularization<br />
of service providers according to the provisions of<br />
Resolution 1,274/2009; and<br />
3. Longitudinal passenger and mixed transport<br />
in the Amazon Basin – intensive actions to<br />
promote the regularization of service providers,<br />
according to Resolution 912/2007, curbing the<br />
irregular provision of services, especially on lines<br />
with operators already authorized by ANTAQ.<br />
To achieve the goals and purposes of the PAF,<br />
the inspection procedures were performed as<br />
follows:<br />
4. Prevention/Correction – inspection activities<br />
alongside service providers with appropriate authorization<br />
to the specific rules of ANTAQ to monitor<br />
compliance, primarily taking into account<br />
technical and operational aspects;<br />
5. Education – inspection actions alongside<br />
service providers not authorized or with authorizations<br />
not appropriate to the new rules of AN-<br />
TAQ;<br />
6. Restraint – inspection actions to restrain<br />
the provision of services without authorization<br />
by ANTAQ, following, in each case, the guidance<br />
of the Inland Navigation Superintendence – SNI.<br />
From July 2008 to June 2009, ANTAQ supervised,<br />
through the Inland Navigation Superintendence,<br />
SNI, 218 companies, comprising 82<br />
crossing transport companies, 72 longitudinal<br />
passenger and mixed route companies, and 64<br />
cargo companies, distributed into 266 inspection<br />
procedures, with 204 PAF inspections and 62 extraordinary<br />
inspections, namely:<br />
Programmed Inspections / PAF – July 2008 to June 2009<br />
Type of Transport<br />
No. of procedures<br />
expected<br />
No. of procedures<br />
carried out<br />
%<br />
Crossings<br />
Longitudinal Passenger and Mixed<br />
Longitudinal Cargo<br />
TOTAL<br />
132<br />
42<br />
63<br />
237<br />
89<br />
44<br />
71<br />
204<br />
67%<br />
105%<br />
113%<br />
86%<br />
107
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Extraordinary Inspections – July 2008 to June 2009<br />
Type of Transport No. of procedures %<br />
Crossings<br />
Longitudinal Passenger and Mixed<br />
Longitudinal Cargo<br />
TOTAL<br />
11<br />
41<br />
10<br />
62<br />
PAF and Extraordinary Inspection Procedures carried out<br />
(by type of transport) – Inspection Procedures – July 2008 to June 2009<br />
Type of Transport<br />
Crossings<br />
Longitudinal<br />
Passenger and Mixed<br />
Longitudinal<br />
Cargo<br />
July/08<br />
21<br />
3<br />
10<br />
August/08<br />
8<br />
-<br />
16<br />
September/08<br />
6<br />
4<br />
7<br />
October/08<br />
2<br />
1<br />
5<br />
November/08<br />
-<br />
3<br />
12<br />
December/08<br />
-<br />
-<br />
5<br />
January/09<br />
25<br />
-<br />
4<br />
February/09<br />
1<br />
19<br />
6<br />
March/09<br />
7<br />
12<br />
5<br />
April/09<br />
15<br />
7<br />
5<br />
May/09<br />
14<br />
12<br />
3<br />
June/09<br />
1<br />
24<br />
3<br />
TOTAL<br />
100<br />
85<br />
81<br />
108
Company regularization<br />
The inspection actions carried out by ANTAQ<br />
sought to regularize waterway transportation<br />
services, to attract entrepreneurs to legality, by<br />
being regularized at the Agency and therefore providing<br />
good quality services to society.<br />
To this end, during the companies’ period to<br />
adapt to the rules issued, ANTAQ carried out educational<br />
inspections, guiding entrepreneurs on procedures<br />
regarding legal requirements, gradually<br />
increasing the number of regularized operators.<br />
Brazilian navigation companies<br />
Authorization Grants<br />
Companies operating in inland navigation in<br />
longitudinal cargo, passenger and crossing transport,<br />
in interstate and international routes, or those<br />
required to charter foreign vessels in these operations,<br />
are subject to the granting of authorization<br />
by ANTAQ.<br />
ANTAQ provides, on its website (www.antaq.gov.br),<br />
the information necessary for obtaining<br />
authorization grants for each type of transport.<br />
Simply access the link:<br />
http://www.antaq.gov.br/Portal/autorizainteriorobter.asp<br />
Of the 600 companies authorized to operate<br />
in inland navigation with respect to the competence<br />
of the Federal Government, 182 grants<br />
were issued by the agency between 2002 and<br />
2009, as shown in the following page. In the<br />
same period, 105 foreign vessel chartering grants<br />
were recorded.<br />
109
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
Authorization Grants Issued<br />
Source: SNI/ANTAQ<br />
* last updated on 08/31/2009<br />
Foreign vessel chartering<br />
Sources: SNI/ANTAQ<br />
* last updated on 08/31/2009<br />
** Certificate of Inland Chartering Authorization<br />
Source: SNI/ANTAQ<br />
110
Fleet of authorized companies<br />
The fleet of companies authorized by AN-<br />
TAQ to operate in inland navigation consists of<br />
1,248 private vessels. Overall, the total transport<br />
capacity of these vessels is 939,404.95 deadweight<br />
tonnes by (DWT). The average age is up<br />
to 15 years.<br />
Predominant vessels are ferries, barges, and<br />
lighters, which make up a fleet of 690 units, with<br />
792,504.76 DWT and average age of 16 years,<br />
followed by tugs/thrusters, with 428 vessels, totaling<br />
14,092.05 tonnes with 21 years of age,<br />
on average.<br />
Authorized Companies – Fleet – Private Vessels<br />
Type Amount* % DWT % Average age<br />
Ferry/Barge/Lighter<br />
690<br />
55,3<br />
792.504,76<br />
84,4<br />
16,4<br />
Freighter<br />
2<br />
0,2<br />
168,30<br />
0,0<br />
21,0<br />
Mixed Catamaran<br />
2<br />
0,2<br />
224,00<br />
0,0<br />
9,0<br />
Passenger Catamaran<br />
1<br />
0,1<br />
1,00<br />
0,0<br />
1,0<br />
Ferry Boat<br />
2<br />
0,2<br />
196,90<br />
0,0<br />
5,0<br />
Liquefied Gas<br />
1<br />
0,1<br />
1.023,50<br />
0,1<br />
39,0<br />
Bulk Carrier<br />
28<br />
2,2<br />
66.223,27<br />
7,1<br />
16,0<br />
Boat<br />
44<br />
3,5<br />
753,40<br />
0,1<br />
24,0<br />
Other Vessels<br />
5<br />
0,4<br />
4,00<br />
0,0<br />
18,0<br />
Other Bulk Liquids<br />
27<br />
2,2<br />
59.042,75<br />
6,3<br />
2,0<br />
Passenger/General cargo<br />
14<br />
1,1<br />
4.914,72<br />
0,5<br />
16,0<br />
Passenger<br />
2<br />
0,2<br />
236,90<br />
0,0<br />
2,0<br />
Research<br />
2<br />
0,2<br />
19,40<br />
0,0<br />
12,0<br />
Tug/Thruster<br />
428<br />
34,3<br />
14.092,05<br />
1,5<br />
21,0<br />
TOTAL<br />
1.248<br />
100,0<br />
939.404,95<br />
100,0<br />
15,0<br />
* last updated on 08/31/2009 - Source: SNI/ANTAQ<br />
111
l <strong>Waterway</strong> <strong>Panorama</strong><br />
ANTAQ Units<br />
BRASÍLIA<br />
Address: SEPN, Qd. 514, Cj E<br />
CEP: 70760-545 - Brasília – DF<br />
Telephones: (55 61) 3447-1035<br />
RIO DE JANEIRO<br />
Address: Rua Rodrigo Silva, nº 26 - 1 1º andar- Centro<br />
CEP: 20011-040 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ<br />
Telephones: (55 21) 2101-2501<br />
SÃO PAULO<br />
Address: Rua Sampaio Viana, 277 – 4º andar,<br />
Edifico Albatroz – Bairro Paraíso<br />
CEP: 04004-000 - São Paulo - SP<br />
Telephones: (55 11) 3559-8345 / (55 11) 3885-2478<br />
FAX: (55 11) 3559-8345<br />
FLORIANÓPOLIS<br />
Address: Avenida Rio Branco, 691,<br />
Centro Executivo Atlantis, rooms 101 and 102 - Centro<br />
CEP: 88015-203 – Florianópolis – SC<br />
Telephones: (55 48) 3225-1410 / 3225-1685<br />
BELÉM<br />
Address: Avenida Conselheiro Furtado, nº 2865<br />
Edifício Síntese 21 Inteligente Business Tower, Sobreloja<br />
São Braz. CEP: 66063-060 - Belém - PA<br />
Telephones: (55 91) 3229-6334 / 3229-8900 / 3229-0684<br />
PORTO VELHO<br />
Address: Rua Carlos Gomes, 513 - Centro<br />
CEP: 78900-030 – Porto Velho – RO<br />
Telephones: (55 69) 3229-5563<br />
RECIFE<br />
Address: Avenida Lins Petit, 320, Salas 901/902 - Boa Vista<br />
CEP: 50070 - 230 - Recife – PE<br />
Telephones: (55 81) 3221-5447 / 3221-8720<br />
MANAUS<br />
Address: Avenida Eduardo Ribeiro, 520<br />
Rooms 1504 to 1507,<br />
Edifício Manaus Shopping Center- Centro<br />
CEP: 69010-901 – Manaus – AM<br />
Telephones: (55 92) 3234-9057 / (55 92) 3234-9764<br />
112