CPB

The Container Port of
Buenos Aires in the
Mega-Ship Era
Discussion Paper

169
Olaf Merk
International Transport Forum

Roundtable

Corporate Partnership
Board

CPB

The Container Port of
Buenos Aires in the
Mega-Ship Era
Discussion Paper

169
Olaf Merk
International Transport Forum

Roundtable

Corporate Partnership
Board

The International Transport ForumThe International Transport Forum is an intergovernmental organisation with 59 member countries. It
acts as a think tank for transport policy and organises the Annual Summit of transport ministers. ITF is
the only global body that covers all transport modes. The ITF is politically autonomous andadministratively integrated with the OECD.
The ITF works for transport policies that improve peoples’ lives. Our mission is to foster a deeper
understanding of the role of transport in economic growth, environmental sustainability and social
inclusion and to raise the public profile of transport policy.
The ITF organises global dialogue for better transport. We act as a platform for discussion and prenegotiation of policy issues across all transport modes. We analyse trends, share knowledge andpromote exchange among transport decision-makers and civil society. The ITF’s Annual Summit is theworld’s largest gathering of transport ministers and the leading global platform for dialogue on transport
policy.
The Members of the Forum are: Albania, Armenia, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Croatia, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and theUnited States.

International Transport Forum
2 rue André Pascal
F-75775 Paris Cedex 16
contact@itf-oecd.org
www.itf-oecd.org

ITF Discussion Papers
ITF Discussion Papers make economic research, commissioned or carried out in-house at ITF, available toresearchers and practitioners. They describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s)and are published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on which the ITF works. Any
findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the International Transport Forum or the OECD. Neither the OECD, ITF
nor the authors guarantee the accuracy of any data or other information contained in this publication
and accept no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of their use. This document and any map
included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to thedelimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Comments on Discussion Papers are welcome.
Cite this work as: Merk, O. (2018), “The container port of Buenos Aires in the mega-ship era”, Discussion
Paper, International Transport Forum, Paris.

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

Acknowledgements
This paper is written by Olaf Merk. It draws on contributions by Julie Lannou. Valuable comments on a draft versionof this paper were provided by Stephen Perkins, Trevor Heaver, Dario Gonzalez, Andreas Meyer and Antonio
Zuidwijk. The paper also benefits from discussions at the ITF Roundtable on Container Port Strategy, organised in
Buenos Aires (Argentina) in April 2017: https://www.itf-oecd.org/container-port-strategy-roundtable.

.

© OECD/ITF 20183

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

Table of contents
Performance of the container port of Buenos Aires .............................................................................. 5
Outlook of the container port of Buenos Aires ................................................................................. 5
Performance of the port of Buenos Aires ....................................................................................... 10
Future requirements for container ports ............................................................................................. 14
Future trade projections .................................................................................................................. 14
Container ship size ........................................................................................................................... 15
Industry consolidation and alliances ............................................................................................... 19
Regional port competition ............................................................................................................... 19
Policies to adapt to future requirements ............................................................................................. 21
Current policies ................................................................................................................................ 21
How well are policies adapted to future requirements? ................................................................ 23
Suggestions for policy ...................................................................................................................... 25
Notes .................................................................................................................................................... 26
References ........................................................................................................................................... 27

4© OECD/ITF 2018

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

Performance of the container port of Buenos Aires
The port of Buenos Aires is the main container port of the country, handling 85% of the nation’scontainers. The port is the main cargo entry point for the province of Buenos Aires, where most ofArgentina’s population, economic activity and manufacturing activity is concentrated. The province alone
accounts for 37% of the national exports, but the port plays a role for the whole country, withhinterlands that extend to many other parts of Argentina. This paper answers three questions: What are
the characteristics of this port? How does it perform, and what are its main challenges?

Outlook of the container port of Buenos Aires
The port of Buenos Aires is very urban. It is located on the River Plate surrounded by the agglomerationof Buenos Aires, home to around 14 million people. Buenos Aires accounts for one-third of Argentina’s
population, with a density of 5 000 people per km2. Since the port reforms in the 1990s, the port of
Buenos Aires consists of two parts: Puerto Nuevo and Dock Sud, which have separate locations andinstitutional structures.1 Puerto Nuevo is inserted in the north-east of a very central urban area, at theheart of the city, the core of offices, government and financial institutions. Further south is Dock Sud,
located outside the boundaries of the city of Buenos Aires, and more industrial in character, but still partof the larger agglomeration of Buenos Aires (Figure 1).
The port is located upstream in the River Plate (Rio de la Plata) estuary. It is a shallow estuary withdepths that mostly range from 3 to 5 metres. In order to access it, ships need to navigate in a 239 kmlong access channel, which is limited in depth and width, to a greater or lesser extent depending on thespecific part of the channel (Figure 2). The last few kilometres of the channel, the Canal Norte leading toPorto Nuevo and Canal Sur leading to Dock Sud, are the most constrained parts of the channel, witharound 60-80 metres width and 9.75 metres depth. The access channels in the River Plate needdredging, which is carried out by the company Hidrovia S.A. that dredges the main channels (Emilio
Mitre, Acceso, Intermedio and Punta Indio), which is covered by tolls from the passing cargo ships. The
North and South channels are subject to tenders by each port (Puerto Nuevo and Dock Sud) and there isno direct toll on them. The constraint of depth and related dredging costs distinguishes the port of
Buenos Aires from the Uruguayan port of Montevideo that is located further downstream and inparticular from the Brazilian port of Santos that has deep sea access.

© OECD/ITF 20185

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

Figure 1. Buenos Aires and its two ports

Figure 2. The River Plate Estuary and its ports

Note: Access channel indicated by the black lines in the river estuary. The access channel to La Plata is notincluded in this picture.

6© OECD/ITF 2018

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSUION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

The port of Buenos Aires handled 1.4 million TEUs in 2015, which represents 85% of the nation’s
maritime container traffic. This market share of Buenos Aires has declined over the last decade from 95%
in 2006. Total container volume in Argentina has fluctuated somewhat over the last decade, but its levelin 2015 was slightly below the 2006 level, which was 1.7 million TEU (Figure 3). The second container
port in Argentina is the river port Zarate, upstream from Buenos Aires, that handled 0.1 million TEUs in
2015. A new Argentinian container port, La Plata, was opened in 2015, but it has for the moment not
managed to attract significant container traffic; this port is operated by ICTSI, the global terminal
operator headquartered in the Philippines.
The port of Buenos Aires has witnessed a decline of container volumes over the last decade, falling 12%,from 1.6 million in 2006 to 1.4 million in 2015 (Figure 3). This volume makes Buenos Aires theeight-largest container port in Latin America, and the only large container port in the region withdeclining growth rates.
Figure 3. Container port development in Argentina 2006-15
2.5

TEU volume (millions)

2.0
Rosario

1.5

Bahia Blanca
Ushuaia

1.0

ZarateBuenos Aires

0.5

0.0
2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: ITF elaboration based on data from Lloyds Intelligence Unit.

Containerships represent a third of ship calls to the port of Buenos Aires, which is only 10% for the
average port in Argentina. The share of tankers in Buenos Aires (almost half of all cargo ship calls) is also
higher than the average in Argentinian ports (40%) (Figure 4). Most of the tankers call at Dock Sud thathas specialised liquid bulk terminals. Puerto Nuevo is predominantly a container port. Bulk carriers
represent the largest category of ships coming to Argentina (almost half), but there are hardly any bulk
carriers calling Buenos Aires. One of the major dry bulk ports in Argentina is Rosario. Cruise shipping is an
emerging activity, with 102 cruise calls in Puerto Nuevo in the cruise season 2015/16 carrying
313 640 passengers (AGP, 2016).
Major containerised exports from Puerto Nuevo (by weight) include manufactured products (56%), meat(14%), fruits (13%) and chemical products (8%). Main containerised import goods are manufactured
goods (40%) and oil products (36%). The loading and unloading of containers are almost perfectly inbalance in Puerto Nuevo, with 440 000 TEUs inbound and 441 900 TEUs outbound in 2016. Yet, there is a

© OECD/ITF 20187

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

striking difference with regards to full and empty containers: 10% of the import containers in 2016 were
empty, whereas 48% of export containers were empty (AGP, 2016).
Container port operations are carried out by private operators with Buenos Aires’ port characterised by ahigh degree of intra-port competition. There are four different container terminals, competing for thesame cargo, each of them controlled by one of the four largest global terminal operators, sometimes injoint ventures with local actors. The terminal operators Hutchison, DP World and APMT operate in
Puerto Nuevo, whereas PSA operates in Dock Sud (Exolgan) (Table 1). This system of private port
operations has been in place since the beginning of the 1990s, when the Argentinian port framework
was substantially reformed.
Figure 4. Port calls per ship type in Buenos Aires and Argentina
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

General cargo

50%

Tankers

40%

Bulk carriers

30%

Containerships

20%
10%
0%
Buenos Aires

Argentina

Source: ITF elaboration based on data from Lloyds Intelligence Unit.

Table 1. Container terminals in Buenos Aires and their operators
Terminal

Place

Terminal operator

Rio de la Plata

Puerto Nuevo

DP World (55.62%)

Buenos Aires Container Terminal Services (BACTSSA)

Puerto Nuevo

Hutchison Port Holdings (100%)

Terminal 4

Puerto Nuevo

APMT (100%)

ExolganDock Sud

PSA (50%) and TIL/MSC (50%)

Source: ITF elaboration based on data from Drewry.

The two largest container terminals in Buenos Aires are Rio de la Plata and Exolgan (Dock Sud), both ofwhich represent around a third of total container port volume in Buenos Aires. The other two container
terminals, BACTSSA and Terminal 4, together represent the remaining third of the container volume. The
market shares of the two largest terminals have remained fairly constant since 2008, but there havebeen some changes with respect to the market shares of the smaller terminals, with Terminal 4
increasing from 13% in 2008 to 19% in 2015 and BACTSSA declining from 23% to 12% (Figure 5).

8© OECD/ITF 2018

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSUION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

The largest container lines calling Buenos Aires all have their preferred terminals. Not surprisingly this isrelated to the vertical links of shipping lines and their terminal subsidiaries. So, Maersk uses Terminal 4,
the terminal in the hands of its terminal operator APM Terminals. MSC uses Exolgan, in which its
terminal operator TIL has a 50% share. Hamburg Süd, second largest carrier in East Coast South America,
mainly uses the Rio de la Plata-terminal. Yet, most carriers spread their calls over different terminals: so
Maersk also uses Exolgan and Hamburg Süd also uses APM Terminals. The merger of Hamburg Süd andMaersk in 2018 has resulted in a shift of calls to the APM Terminal.
Figure 5. Volumes at Buenos Aires container terminals 2008-15

TEU volume (millions)

2.5
2.0
Rio de la Plata

1.5

BACTSSA
Terminal 4

1.0

Dock Sud
0.5
0.0
2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: ITF elaboration based on data from Drewry.

Figure 6. The layout of Puerto Nuevo

Note: TRP is also covering the area indicated as “Terminal de Cruzeros”; container vessels are also operated there
Source: AGP.

© OECD/ITF 20189

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

The lay-out of Puerto Nuevo is characterised by finger piers, with seven port basins (Figure 6). This
design, originating from traditional cargo ports, is considered less adapted for modern containerships, as
it means that there are no linear quay lines and there is limited space for stacking containers. Dock Sud
has linear quays.

Performance of the port of Buenos AiresPort performance can be schematically broken down into three parts: maritime connectivity, port
operations and hinterland connectivity. How does Buenos Aires perform on these indicators?
Maritime connections

The port of Buenos Aires is relatively well connected with other ports. It has direct connections witharound fifty non-Latin American ports worldwide via a number of weekly services provided by container
lines. Most of these connections are with ports in North America (13), Asia (10), North Europe (10) and
Mediterranean (8). There are 21 container lines that offer regular services that include the port of
Buenos Aires. Many of these services are shared between container lines, so are identical. If corrected
for this, six weekly services to Asia were identified in 2015, 5.1 weekly services to North America, 4.5
weekly services to North Europe and four weekly services to the Mediterranean (Table 2). As such, theport of Buenos Aires is one of the best-connected container ports at the East Coast of South America.
Only the Brazilian ports of Santos and Paranagua have more direct port connections.
Table 2. Main maritime connections of the port of Buenos Aires in 2015
RegionNumber ofweekly services

Ports connected

Far East

6

Busan, Qingdao, Shanghai, Ningbo, Chiwan, Shekou, Yantian, Hong Kong, Singapore,
Port Klang

North Europe

4.5

Rotterdam, Hamburg, Bremerhaven, Tilbury, Antwerp, Le Havre, Vigo, Bilbao, Lisbon,
Sines

Mediterranean

4

Tangier-Med, Valencia, Gioia Tauro, Livorno, Genoa, Marseille, Algeciras, Barcelona

North America

5.1

New York, Philadelphia, Norfolk, Baltimore, Charleston, Jacksonville, Port Everglades,
Houston, New Orleans, Savannah, Altamira, Tampico, Veracruz

Source: ITF elaboration based on data from container shipping lines.

A challenge to the maritime connectivity of the port of Buenos Aires is the draft limitation in the port andaccess channel in the River Plate. Current maximum depth at Puerto Nuevo is 36 feet, which roughly
allows 10.36 metres depth for navigation. As larger containerships generally have drafts that are deeper
than this, these ships have difficulties calling the port of Buenos Aires. There are two ways in whichshipping lines have managed to adapt to these constraints. First, some of the largest container shipping
companies calling in South America, in particular Hamburg Süd and Maersk, have deployed ships thatwere tailor-made for South America trades, which compensate for shallow draft by being broader (andwith high reefer plug capacity needed for fresh food products). Maersk even deploys a series of shipsthat are aptly called South America Maximum (SamMax) ships. A second way in which shipping lines
currently deal with the draft limitations is via the structure of the ports network. The trick is to call twiceat the port of Santos, first to unload the import cargo, so that the ships are much less full, which means

10© OECD/ITF 2018

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSUION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

that they ride higher in the water and are able to continue with calls to ports like Buenos Aires where
they unload import cargo and load export cargo. After such calls to Buenos Aires and Montevideo, ships
call again at Santos to take on Brazilian export cargo.
Port operations

The average container ship turnaround time in Buenos Aires was 1.8 days in 2015. This is considerably
longer than in other main container ports in the region, for which the average ship-turnaround times are
below one day (Figure 7). According to the AGP (2011-16), the port authority of Buenos Aires, theaverage number of ship moves per hour in Puerto Nuevo was 59 in 2015, up from 52 in 2014, although it
is not entirely clear what definition of ship moves per hour was used to arrive at these numbers. On thesame indicator, a few differences between terminals were noticeable, with Terminal 4 scoring
consistently higher scores than Terminals 1-3 and Terminal 5 scoring the highest monthly score, namely
80 container moves per hour in November 2015. Such indicators are not available in the public domain
for the Exolgan terminal.
In addition, many ships calling the port of Buenos Aires face waiting times before entering the port. Our
numbers over 2015 show that approximately half of the vessels calling the port of Buenos Aires wait at
the La Plata anchorage point; the average waiting time for these ships is 0.5 day. Delays in maritime
access to the port are related to one-way traffic in parts of the access channel; some of these delays are
related to priority for passenger ships, such as cruise ships, priority for LNG vessels and slow speeds
when Panamax bulkers come down from Rosario of San Lorenzo.

Average ship turn around time (days)

Figure 7. Ship turn-around times in Buenos Aires and other ports (2015)
2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Source: ITF elaboration based on data from Lloyds Intelligence Unit.

Dwell times in container ports do not seem to be structurally measured, at least, we have not comeacross specific container dwell time data in Puerto Nuevo; this could be a serious concern if it indicatesthat such numbers do not exist, because it would be difficult to manage if unmeasured. Some indicative
observations could be drawn from World Bank’s Logistics Performance Indicators for Argentina. Its 2016
data indicate an average export lead time in port or airport supply chain of two days, and four days for© OECD/ITF 201811

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

imports. A considerable share of this lead time seems related to inspections: clearance time without
inspections is on average one day, but four days in case of physical inspections. Physical inspections takeplace in 28% of the imported shipments. One of the scores on sub-items in the LPI in which Argentina
scores well below the average of peer countries is on customs (World Bank, 2016). This observation is
confirmed in other studies: almost 30% of Argentinian firms in manufacturing perceive customs andtrade regulation as a major constraint for doing business, the worst score found among Latin Americancountries (OECD/UN-ECLAC/CAF, 2013).
The costs of container transport via Buenos Aires are relatively high. The average cost of import (via port
or airport) in 2014 was USD 1 670 in Argentina; this was USD 1 015 for Brazil (World Bank, 2014). Part ofthe difference in price might be related to relatively high port costs in Buenos Aires. According toFiladoro and Sanchez (2016), 23% of the costs of a container vessel calling Buenos Aires are related tothe toll for the access channel and 14% for pilotage services needed to navigate on the access channel.
These costs translate in USD 49 per TEU and USD 30 per TEU respectively.
Hinterland connectivity

Considering the port’s central role in the national port system, hinterland connectivity is a crucial
element. Its hinterland is extensive: it not only includes the province of Buenos Aires, main centre of
population and economic activity, but also various other regions of Argentina, in particular the northern
provinces of Cordoba and Santa Fe. Considering that a high share of Argentina’s exports (more than 65%)
is time sensitive (OECD/UN-ECLAC/CAF, 2013), smooth connections with the hinterland are all the more
relevant.
Road transport is the dominant hinterland transport mode. Although there are no official statistics on
this, it is estimated that 93% of the containers handled in Puerto Nuevo are transported by truck, 6% bytrain and 1% by barge. Although such shares are not unusual in South America – and indeed globally – itis also clear that various ports have managed to achieve a more balanced modal share. In the case ofArgentina, this would be perfectly possible considering an extensive network of railways and navigable
waterways that were used in the past.
The high modal share of trucks, in combination with the location of the port, results in high interferenceof port truck traffic with regular urban road traffic. Port traffic uses main central city road axes, such as
the Madero-Huergo axis that links Puerto Nuevo and Dock Sud and that carries 10 000 truck movements
per day (Figure 8). This situation is exacerbated by the lack of truck waiting areas, which means that
waiting times at the port gate translate to congestion of the urban road network.
Argentina has an extensive railway network, but it has suffered from poor maintenance in the past. Of
the 37 000 kilometres of railway network, only 18 000 kilometres are operational (CNRT, 2015) A largepart of the railway network is in mediocre shape and does not support heavy loads, even at low speeds(Martínez, 2014). The system is operated by four different operators, three of them private
concessionaires operating since the 1990s. The inter-operability of the whole network is challenging as
there are three different rail gauges. One of the challenges for the port of Buenos Aires is the linkage tothe railway network. Urban rail traffic gets preference, therefore container trains use night hours for
operation. Most of Argentina’s railway branch lines have traditionally served its inland waterway andmost of the maritime ports, yet most ports have gradually lost their railway links. Puerto Nuevo has rail
access to the north and south of the port, but both connections are somewhat complicated by illegal
land occupancy and informal settlements.

12© OECD/ITF 2018

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSUION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

Figure 8. Road congestion in the city of Buenos Aires

Note: This figure indicates the level of road congestion in Buenos Aires. The yellow numbers indicate the daily
amount of cars passing through the respective points. The blue indicates the hourly number of cars in peak hours
at the respective places.
Source: http://www.clarin.com/ciudades/atascos-calle-crecen-tiempos-viaje_0_955704555.html.

The River Plate estuary is strategically located at the mouth of the Paraguay-Paraná river complex. This isa huge navigable river-system connected to Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, providing
potential for freight transport. Current use is fairly modest: in 2010 around 14 million tonnes of freight
were transported on it. According to World Bank (2010), Argentina makes use of the river in four
different ways:
1. to move domestic dry bulk from the northern regions to the transfer area in the River Plateestuary
2. to receive cargo from upstream countries, such as soy and iron ore, for processing in its
manufacturing plants
3. to transfer freight to ocean-going vessels
4. to facilitate imports to Paraguay and Bolivia, such as fuel and wheat.
The principal river container traffic flow of Buenos Aires is with Asunción; smaller flows connect Buenos
Aires with Zarate; and there is an incipient flow from Rosario to Montevideo. It should also be noted that
Uruguayan port of Nueva Palmira is a major transfer port for the inland waterway transport.
There are various infrastructure constraints on the Paraguay-Paraná river-system, related to limited
depth, signalling, maintenance, high costs and union working conditions. No less than two dozen studies
since 1962 have suggested recommendations to improve the navigability of the river system but
progress has been slow, basically related to a lack of international co-operation. Co-operation between
the five countries of the river-system is needed as the costs and benefits of improvements are unevenly
distributed. Argentina has the most to gain from improvements of the river-system, whereas most of the© OECD/ITF 201813

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

costs would be incurred in Bolivia and Paraguay. In such a context, national or bilateral measures can atbest only partially resolve the challenges.
Consequently, the costs of hinterland transport are high in Argentina. The average land transport costsof importing a 40-feet container in 2014 were USD 2 943 in Argentina and USD 1 191 in Brazil; thesenumbers are USD 1 842 and USD 1 000 for exporting via land transport. Data by CEDOL show that thelogistics costs over 2016 have risen with 32%. This undermines the competitiveness of Argentina’s
exporting sectors, such as the soybean cluster (Gauthier et al., 2016).
Planning for the whole freight transport chain is complicated by the division of responsibilities overdifferent government levels. The AGP is a federal body that acts as the port authority of Puerto Nuevo,
the only port that has not been decentralised to provinces. In contrast, Dock Sud, the other port in themetropolitan region, is administered by the province of Buenos Aires. An additional layer of complexity is
generated through the geographical proximity of the port to the city, which means that the city of
Buenos Aires – not a stakeholder in the AGP – has limited incentives to accommodate demands of theport – and might indeed be more focused on using parts of the port land for urban development. The
division of responsibilities over different government tiers also complicates planning and governancewith regards to connection of the port to the hinterland.

Future requirements for container ports
Future requirements for container ports are shaped by future demand for containerised transport
services and probably even more important: the way these containers will be transported. Importantelements in this respect are the size of containerships and consolidation of the industry, which will
determine port network structures.

Future trade projections
The long-term trade prospects for Argentina – and the Buenos Aires region - are favourable. This can beconcluded from the prognoses of the ITF Freight model, which projects the flows of 18 different cargo
types between 226 places in 84 different countries (Martinez et al., 2014).2 For the Buenos Aires region
the model foresees trade volumes in 2050 to be five times the volumes of 2010. This would be driven bystrong growth in exports of manufactured goods and food. The question is how such trade growth mighttranslate into growth of containerised transport. Some of Argentina’s major exports, grain and soy, arecurrently mostly transported as bulk goods, not in containers. Yet, it would be possible to transport thesein containers – as long as oil prices are low - since similar products are transported thusly with low
container freight rates. Focusing on high value added export products might be a way to avoid thecurrent empty backhaul containers from Buenos Aires, which represents almost half of all outgoing
containers at the moment. Depending on assumptions of containerisation rates, demand forcontainerised transport to the Buenos Aires region could rise with a factor of three to four by 2050.

14© OECD/ITF 2018

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSUION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

Container ship size
Container ship size has quadrupled over the last two decades (ITF, 2015). The average global container
ship capacity in 2016 was around 4 000 TEU, with the largest container ships able to carry 19 200
containers. The increase in container ship size is driven by the quest for economies of scale, in particularon the Far East-Europe trade line where the largest ships are deployed. This deployment has effects on
all maritime trade lanes, via cascading of vessel types: due to the new larger ships, the ships that wereused previously on Far East-Europe trade lanes will become superfluous and will be used on other tradelanes, such as Transpacific routes; the ships previously used on this trade lane may then be used in othertrade lanes, and so on. These cascading effects also touch the East Coast of South America.
Table 3. Dimensions of container ships
VesselTEU capacity

Length (m)Width (m)Draught (m)MSC Oscar

19 200

399

60

16.0

CMA CGM Tigris

10 600

300

48

14.8

Hamburg Süd Cap San Nicolas

10 500

333

48

14.0

Hamburg Süd Santa Clara

7 100

299

43

13.5

Source: ITF elaboration based on data from Dynamar and SeaIntel.

Figure 9. Vessel size on selected East Coast South America trade routes in 2016

Average size container ship (TEU capacity)

8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
ECSA-Far EastECSA-North Europe

ECSA-North America

Source: ITF elaboration based on data from Dynamar and SeaIntelThe ECSA trade route in which the largest containerships are used is with the Far East. The average ship
capacity on this route was 7 600 TEUs in 2016, slightly larger than the capacity of the Santa-class ships ofHamburg Süd. The average ship capacity is lower on trade lanes with North Europe and North America,
namely 6 000 TEUs (Figure 9). The largest container ships that has called the port of Buenos Aires is the
CMA CGM Tigris that has a capacity of around 10 600 TEUs. A more or less similar carrying capacity is© OECD/ITF 201815

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

reached with the “Cap”-class ships deployed by Hamburg Süd, an example of the tailor-made ships forSouth America, with shallower draft compensated by length. These ships are considerably smaller thanthe largest container ship, the MSC “Oscar”-class deployed on Far East-Europe routes (Table 3).
The average container ship size calling Buenos Aires has grown substantially over the last years. This ispart of a global phenomenon reflecting what happens on other trade lanes. Nevertheless, there areindications that the increase since 2012 has been particularly fast for the East Coast of South America(Figure 10). The average container ship size on the trade lane with the US East Coast has over 2012-16
increased with 50%, 46% on the trade lane with the Far East and 40% on the trade lane with North
Europe.
Figure 10. Increases in vessel size on selected trade routes 2012-16
16000

Average vessel size (TEU)

14000
12000
10000
8000

2012

6000

2016

4000
2000
0
Asia - N
Eur

Asia Med

Asia ECSA

Asia USWC

Asia USEC

N Eur - USEC - N Eur ECSA
ECSA
USEC

Source: ITF elaboration based on data from Dynamar and SeaIntel.

This trend of larger container ship sizes is going to continue over the next years. According to ISL’s
Container Fleet Forecast, the share of ships with more than 18 000 TEU will increase from 0.7 % in 2016
to 6.8 % in 2025, their number will increase from 35 to around 350 (Figure 11). Especially the large
number of new orders for ships with 400 metres length and 59 metres beam will fuel the crowding-out
of smaller units from the Europe-Far East trades. Within a short time, ships of 18 000 TEU and more will
be standard on the major North Europe-Far East routes, while operators will continue to use smaller
ships on the minor Europe-Far East routes such as Mediterranean-Southeast Asia. According to thecascade model, which estimates how ships will move from one trade area to another based on scaleeconomies, the pressure to use much larger ships on the Transpacific trade (i.e. the “smaller” 18 000 TEU
units crowded out of Europe-Far East) is imminent and ships of 18 000 TEU may be crossing the Pacificsoon – even if the current 21 000 TEU ship design remains the largest until 2025.

16© OECD/ITF 2018

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSUION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

Figure 11. Container fleet forecast 2016-25 by size classes

Share in the total fleet based on number

100%
90%
80%

18 000 - 22 000 TEU

70%

14 000 - 17 999 TEU

60%

10 000 - 13 999 TEU

50%

6 000 - 9 999 TEU

40%

4 000 - 5 999 TEU
2 000 - 3 999 TEU

30%

1 000 - 1 999 TEU

20%

up to 999 TEU

10%
0%
2016

2020

2025

Source: ITF (2016).

Through the cascade effect, this ship size increase will also affect South America trades. On the Latin
America-Asia trade lane, we may soon see the first 18 000 TEU vessels trickling down from the major
East-West trades. After further ordering of 20 000+ TEU from 2017/18 onwards (delivered after 2020),
we may even spot first 20 000 TEU vessels on this route by 2025. The average ship size on these trades
will grow substantially from 7 700 TEU in 2016 to 12 100 TEU in 2025. A rather surprising result of themodel is the rather modest ship size growth until 2020 despite the Panama Canal opening, that canaccommodate vessels with capacity up to 14 000 TEU. First, the services between Europe on the one
hand and the Caribbean and the South American East Coast on the other hand are not affected as
post-Panamax vessels are already used on this link. Second, despite the massive withdrawal of Panamax
vessels from the fleet, there will still be many Panamax units looking for employment in the not-so-far
future. Due to the age structure of the fleet, scrapping of Panamax vessels will accelerate after 2020 andlead to an acceleration of the cascade effect in the medium size classes, possibly moderated by thepossibility of new SamMax vessels. Therefore, the average size on the Latin America-Europe services will
increase markedly until 2025 (Figure 12). At the same time, many of the “old” 18 000 TEU vessels – today
still the state-of-the-art for the major East-West trades – will be looking for employment elsewhere andmay also be spotted between Latin America and Europe.
The average capacity of containerships calling the port of Buenos Aires could be around 12 000 TEUs forthe trade lane with the Far East and 6 500 TEUs for the trade lanes with North Europe and North America
in 2025. Disregarding draft limitations for a moment, the largest container vessel calling Buenos Aires by2020 could have a capacity of around 14 000 TEUs and 18 000 TEU by 2025. The essential question is if
the port of Buenos Aires – but also the other ports in ECSA - would be able to handle such a situation?
And related to that, will the two mechanisms highlighted earlier, namely tailor-made ships and double
dipping in Santos, still work in such a situation?
It is likely that the share of tailor-made ships for the South American market will decrease. Already now asignificant share of the large ships operating in South America have cascaded from other trade lanes© OECD/ITF 201817

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

where these ships started their operations. The current situation of huge overcapacity and uncertainty
over the future of trade – and with it the future deployment of ships – makes ship owners wary ofordering additional ships for one specific trade. This means that future container ship size will
predominantly be determined by cascading effects, at least for the next decade.
Figure 12. Forecast of ships deployed on major intercontinental routes up to 2025
25,000Latin America-Asia

Latin America-Europe

20,00015,00010,0005,000

0Minimum

2016

2020

2025

2016

2020

2025

4,250

4,896

5,610

1,608

1,645

1,808

Average

7,659

9,773

12,114

4,202

5,189

6,477

Maximum

13,63018,27020,000

9,669

10,10018,000Source: ITF (2016).

Larger ships mean larger call sizes, so a larger amount of containers per ship. For Buenos Aires, located at
the end of a string of ports in South America, this means that ships approaching the port of Buenos Aires
will generally have deeper drafts than is currently the case. The average call size in Buenos Aires was
2 220 TEUs per ocean going vessel in 2015, 20% higher than the year before (AGP, 2015). These call sizes
will of course be different according to the trade lane. The reason of the double dipping in Santos is that
this is more beneficial for shipping companies than using Santos as a hub and adding feedering services
from Santos to the other ECSA ports. This might change if the ships become too large to call the other
ECSA ports effectively, so if the relative call size needs to decline to make calls still possible. This is
influenced by conditions in Brazilian trade and ports, i.e. conditions on the whole port range. Cargovolumes from the Plate estuary are considerably smaller than the ones generated by Brazil, so thequestion is: why would Brazilian exporters prefer to have a very large ship around to Argentina morethan 70% before they can use it for their exports?
Another consequence of larger ships and the related larger call sizes is more intense peaks to handle
within the terminal. If cargo flows are less spread out over the week but come all at once, the container
yard risks becoming quickly congested. So, larger ships increase the need for low dwell times andadditional buffer capacity. The ports that are visited by larger ships also have larger terminal space to beable to handle the peaks in the yard.
It cannot be excluded that at some point in the 2020s there will be even larger ships than currently
ordered. Studies show that 25 000 TEU and even 30 000 TEU ships would be technically feasible, to be
deployed on Asia-Europe routes. Whatever one might think about the desirability or economic logic of
this, the fact is that some ports have already prepared for 25 000 TEU ships, in terms of depth, quay
length and yard capacity, so availability of suitable ports is probably not going to be a constraining factor
for shipping companies. The result of such a development could be the emergence of ships larger than
18 000 TEU at the East Coast of South America.

18© OECD/ITF 2018

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSUION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

Industry consolidation and alliances
Recent years have been characterised by increasing consolidation in container shipping. Various mergers
have led to a much more concentrated industry; when all the currently announced mergers areoperational in 2018, the top seven carriers will have a global market share of 77%. In parallel, thecoverage of alliances has increased and since April 2017 the number of alliances has been reduced fromfour to three. These developments playing out at a global scale have clear impacts on the ports systemon the East Coast of South America.
The container shipping industry active in East Coast South America will in turn become highly
concentrated: we estimate that the two dominant firms will have around 62% of the market share in
2018, when all of the currently announced mergers are operational. In 2018, the top four carriers might
have a market share of 82%; this was 67% in 2010, already an indication of high concentration (Figure13). The recent merger between Hapag Lloyd and CSAV, made Hapag Lloyd the third carrier in ECSA in
2015. The merger that had the biggest impact is Hamburg Süd-Maersk, respectively the second andfourth carrier active in ECSA. Competition authorities have approved that merger only under thecondition that the merged entity gives up some of its combined network in South America.
Figure 13. Potential concentration rates of carriers active in ECSA in 201840%
Share of capacity

35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

Source: ITF elaboration based on data from Dynamar and SeaIntel.

The global developments with regards to alliances will have less impact. In contrast to the East-West
container trades, vessel sharing agreements on the ECSA are more flexible and do not follow the general
pattern for the major East-West trades. We would expect that competition authorities would prohibit
2M (Maersk-MSC) joint services to ECSA, considering their projected market share of 62%.

Regional port competition
Increasing ship size and alliances could give rise to concentration of port systems. With stable cargoflows, the combination of bigger ships and industry consolidation leads to less service frequency and less

© OECD/ITF 201819

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

direct port-to-port connections. This is happening in many world regions, including in East Coast SouthAmerica. For example, the number of weekly ECSA-Far East container services has declined from sevenin 2013 to three services in 2016 (Figure 14). Similar reductions in service frequency have taken place onother major ECSA trade lanes: with North Europe, the Mediterranean and North America. This meansincreased peak concentration in the ports used in these services. The reduction of the number ofdifferent ECSA ports visited is not yet taking place on all trade lanes, but has been observed on the
ECSA-Med trade lane (from 16 ECSA ports in 2013 to 13 in 2015) and the ECSA-North America trade lane(from 17 ECSA ports in to 15 in 2015) (Dynamar, 2015). We already mentioned that bigger ships have led
to larger absolute port call sizes, which means requirements for deeper drafts. The additional effect ofalliances is a reduction of the number of ports called at, so larger relative call sizes for some of the larger
ports. Some of the smaller ports in the string of ports will be left out of the loops, increasing the sharethat the remaining ports will handle. In terms of consumer markets, Buenos Aires would be well placed
to increase market share; the challenge is how to accommodate larger call sizes, considering draft
limitations and peak effects. If no convincing answer is found to these challenges, it is likely that otherports will take market share from Buenos Aires. There is port competition in the region that makes this areal possibility.
Figure 14. Weekly ECSA-Far East container services 2012-16
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Source: ITF elaboration based on data from Dynamar and SeaIntel.

Regional port competition takes different forms. For the gateway traffic from and to the larger Buenos
Aires region, Puerto Nuevo and Exolgan continue to be the most logical choices, but TecPlata could be analternative provided that it improves its hinterland connections. If maritime accessibility and spatialconstraints in Puerto Nuevo do not improve, shipping companies might reach a point where leaving
Buenos Aires out of their direct intercontinental connections is beneficial. Traffic to and from Buenos
Aires could in that case be assured via feedering services with ports like Montevideo, Paranagua or
Santos. With regards to transhipment cargo, it should be noted that Buenos Aires is the dominantcontainer port in Argentina, but in fact not used as the main hub for other Argentinian ports. A large
share of Argentina’s grain exports is transported via the port of Rosario to deep sea ports like Santos
where it is transhipped to larger ships before continuing. Similarly, much of the cargoes coming from thesouth of Argentina use ports like Bahia Blanca, Ushaia, Puerto Deseado, Puerto Madryn and Mar del20© OECD/ITF 2018

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSUION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

Plata to go to Montevideo or South Brazil where the cargoes are transhipped to larger ships. Using theport of Buenos Aires is not an option as it adds cost and travel time considering its location more than
200 kilometres upstream on the River Plate. Although enough cargo flows are generated in Argentina tojustify an Argentinian container port hub, the upstream location does not make Buenos Aires suited tosuch a role.

Policies to adapt to future requirements
Bigger ships, industry consolidation and increased trade will pose numerous challenges for the port of
Buenos Aires, already constrained by modest performance. Policies have been adopted to improve thissituation; these are reviewed in this section and additional potential measures are discussed.

Current policies
Improving trade and infrastructure is central to the agenda of the Macri government that took office
December 2015. Its medium-term strategic framework focuses on four critical priorities: poverty
eradication, economic reforms to boost longer-term productivity growth, improved governance andglobal integration. As part of its economic reforms it intends to facilitate international trade and invest in
infrastructure, including in ports, railways, roads and waterways. As part of its priority of global
integration, the government wants to engage in trade talks on various fronts. Since it took office, thegovernment has brought import licenses in line with WTO procedures and lifted or reduced export
taxes.3 These trade-friendly measures will facilitate the maritime trade of Argentina and growth in cargohandling at Argentinian ports.
The government’s transport agenda for 2016-19 contains many elements that should improve freighttransport and maritime trade in Argentina. It is based on three strategic pillars (infrastructure
investment; connectivity and safety; quality and sustainability), covering all modes and providing an
investment envelope of USD 30 billion. While most of these funds are reserved for roads, a substantial
part is also to be invested in freight rail and ports (Figure 15), in particular the port of Buenos Aires(USD 1.5 billion). Goals to be achieved in 2019 include an increase of rail freight transport of 50% andfaster and more reliable water transport.
The question is how government policy addresses the main challenges related to the port of Buenos
Aires, as identified in previous sections. This will be treated below, by assessing policies on container
terminal capacity, port-city interfaces, hinterland connectivity and governance.

© OECD/ITF 201821

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

Figure 15. Planned government investments in transport 2016-19
14Billion US dollars

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Roads

Urban
mobility

Freight rail

Ports andwaterways

Air

Source: ITF elaboration based on data from Argentina government.

Container terminal capacity

The immediate concern is to secure container handling capacity, considering the imminent expiration ofconcessions of the three container terminals at Puerto Nuevo. The concessions of all three container
terminals will expire in the course of 2019. Expiration in 2019 was intended at the granting of theconcessions for Rio de la Plata and Terminal 4. The concession for Terminal 5 officially expired in October
2012, was then temporarily extended and then granted an additional extension of five years in 2015
(Table 4). Although AGP, the port authority of Buenos Aires, did not intend to grant extensions of theconcessions or renegotiate contracts for existing concessions, it will extend existing concessions to 2020.
Table 4. Expiration of container terminal concessions at Puerto Nuevo
Terminal

Concession-holder

Expiry dateTerminal 1-2-3

Rio de la Plata

November 2019

Terminal 4

APM Terminals

February 2019

Terminal 5

BACTSSA

October 2019

Source: ITF elaboration.

AGP has formulated a plan to make the port ready for the largest container vessels. This plan essentiallyconsists of land reclamation in the current port, which will transform some of the current finger piers
into linear quays. This new port layout would make it possible to accommodate 14 000 TEU ships with alength of 365.5 metres and beam of 51.2 metres. A crucial element of the plan is to move from three to
one container terminal, which would increase terminal size. The needed investments are stated to be
USD 1.2 billion, half of which would be paid by the Argentinean government and the other half by the
new terminal operator. The duration of the new concession is said to be 50 years or 35 years with apossible 15 years extension.

22© OECD/ITF 2018

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSUION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

Hinterland connectivity

The government has announced major infrastructure investments that should improve the freighttransport system connecting the ports to their hinterlands. In particular this is the case for theinvestments in road infrastructure and freight railways, specifically aimed at better connecting NorthWest Argentina. We have not come across a strategic analysis by the government identifying the largest
bottlenecks, the main current and potential freight flows and where it would make most sense toimprove networks. So, at this point it is difficult to assess how current infrastructure investments might
improve the freight transport network.
Government policy with respect to hinterland connectivity of the port of Buenos Aires might have mixed
results. An important project in this respect is the Paseo del Bajo project that will connect the Buenos
Aires-La Plata and Illia highways, whilst creating new green spaces in the El Bajo area of Buenos Aires. Its
aim is to relieve congestion in the city and improve the North-South connections with 12 new lanes over
six kilometres, including a semi-underground road of four lanes intended for heavy vehicles. This newaccess will allow freight traffic to exit the Buenos Aires-La Plata highway, cross the centre without traffic
lights and to enter the port directly, which could improve travel times. Yet, as part of the works
associated with the Paseo del Bajo project, the national government is putting some key port land up forsale: the railway sidings at Empalme Norte (Retiro) and practically all of the customs warehouses
adjacent to the container handling facilities in Puerto Nuevo. This might complicate railway access anddetract from value added logistics services in the port: it takes rear space away from the port necessary
to keep the port operational.

How well are policies adapted to future requirements?
The AGP proposal foresees deepening of the access channels in the River Plate to 11 metres. Earlier weshowed that the arrival of 14 000 TEU ships in Buenos Aires by 2020 and 18 000 TEU ships could be theoutcome of cascading effects from current and future ship orders of mega containerships up to 2020 and
2025. Considering that most of these ships are not tailor-made for South America, a depth limit of
11 metres would impose limits on the extent to which these ships could be loaded when calling Buenos
Aires. None of the generic containerships would be able to call Buenos Aires half loaded or more; ships
up to 10 000 TEU could only call at the port if loaded at 25% of capacity (Table 5). Ships with a capacity
larger than 10 000 TEU would only be able to call Buenos Aires if loaded less than 25%. Dredging theRiver Plate to 12.8 metres is generally considered to be the maximum feasible, considering geology andother characteristics of the river. Dredging to that depth would make it possible to have calls from ships
with capacity up to 20 000 TEUs as long as these are not loaded beyond 25% capacity.
The proposal for restructuring of the container terminals would increase yard space, but only fairly
modestly. The current container yard space of the three terminals together is 77 hectares; in the
proposal this would increase to 91 hectares. One could wonder if this will provide the appropriate buffer
capacity needed for handling larger ships. It is well-known that the number of unproductive yard moves(reshuffling) increases exponentially when yard utilisation rates exceed 80%. The high call sizes of larger
ships create peaks during which these critical thresholds are exceeded – unless considerable changes inprocedures are considered. In order to avoid this, some buffer capacity is needed. It has been shown that
doubling average ship size calling at a terminal requires around a third more yard capacity, if terminal
congestion needs to be at similar levels (Drewry, 2016). Ship size is increasing quickly; in ECSA average
ship size increased 40-50% between 2012 and 2016 and is expected to rise at similar pace in the coming
years. This suggests that the buffer capacity created by the additional yard space is fairly limited. This

© OECD/ITF 201823

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

means that congestion of the container yard can only be avoided by increasing the quay sideproductivity, decreasing dwell time in yards and improving port gate policies.
Table 5. Draft requirements of container ships according to size and utilisation rate
Draft requirements with utilisation rates of:
Ship capacity

100%

75%

50%

25%

> 20 000 TEU

18.0

16.2

14.4

12.6

≤20 000 TEU

16.5

14.9

13.2

11.6

≤15 000 TEU

16.0

14.4

12.8

11.2

≤10 000 TEU

15.5

14.0

12.4

10.9

≤5 000 TEU

14.0

12.6

11.2

9.8

≤3 000 TEU

13.9

12.5

11.1

9.7

Note: This table reflects generic designs of containerships, not tailor-made SamMax ships.
Source: ITF elaboration based on data from Palsson et al.

If container volumes grow by a factor of three to four as predicted by our freight model, there will be a
moment in the next three decades when demand will exceed projected container terminal capacity. In
the short term there certainly is not a lack of container port capacity – although most of this capacity
might not be suitable for the ship sizes that will soon come to the East Coast of South America. Currently
available capacity (almost 3 million TEU handling capacity in the Buenos Aires region) is around double
the volume handled. If all of the possible extensions and announced plans would be realised, thiscapacity would even rise to almost 4 million TEU.
Table 6. Maximum capacity of main ECSA container terminals
Terminal

Current capacity (mln TEU)

Max. future capacity (mln TEU)

Dock Sud (Buenos Aires)

0.9

1.1

TecPlata

1.0

1.0

TCP (Montevideo)

0.9

1.9

Tecon Rio Grande

1.1

2.0

Tecon Paranaguá

1.5

2.5

Brasil Terminal Portuario (Santos)

1.5

2.2

Embraport (Santos)

1.2

2.5

Tecon Santos

2.0

2.4

Source: ITF elaboration based on data from Dynamar, Drewry, terminal operators and port authorities.

24© OECD/ITF 2018

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSUION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

Table 7. Projected capacity of Buenos Aires container ports
Port

Volume 2015

Capacity 2015

Max. planned capacity

Puerto Nuevo

1.0

1.5

1.8

Dock Sud

0.5

0.9

1.1

TecPlata

0.0

0.5

1.0

Total

1.5

2.9

3.9

Source: ITF elaboration based on data from Dynamar, Drewry, terminal operators and port authorities.

Suggestions for policy
The government can be commended for its willingness to solve challenges related to the freighttransport system. Infrastructure investments might solve bottlenecks and the focus on improving theport of Buenos Aires could reduce transport costs and thus facilitate Argentina’s trade. The government
has made a principled choice to open a public tender with competitive bids. The AGP has come up with aproposal based on the assumption that the port of Buenos Aires is only viable in the future if it has fewer
but larger terminals with linear quays. Although these ideas are correct, one can wonder if the proposal
in its current form will appeal to potential bidders.
The proposal for Puerto Nuevo is framed as a solution for the long term, but it is most likely only asolution for the short – and possibly medium – term. The rapid increase of container ship size,
consolidation of the container shipping sector and rationalisation of port networks means fewer but
much larger call sizes. The container port of the future needs to be deep and large with a fast
turnaround. The port of Buenos Aires is at this moment none of the above. The AGP proposal will only
solve these challenges partially. It envisages the deepening of the access channel, but to a depth that will
only be sufficient for a few years, so dredging would need to be guaranteed constantly for the next 35-50
years. In addition, it is not very clear how current bottlenecks – such as waiting time in the accesschannel, high ship turnaround times, long container dwell times and expensive hinterland transport – will
be solved with the proposed changes. Moreover, the plan has a considerable price tag, to be covered bybidders for the two concessions. Future concessionaires would want to recover their investment costs,
which means that the concession duration would need to be relatively long, e.g. 20-25 years.
Buenos Aires is an interesting market for a global terminal operator, but not against all odds. It is thegateway to Argentina, second largest economy in South America, with huge potential for growth. Not
surprisingly, Buenos Aires is one of the few places on earth where all four large global terminal operators
have a terminal. However, this is not a guarantee for future interest. The place of Buenos Aires within
the port system of the East Coast of South America is under pressure. If other ports in the regions – withdeep sea access and larger terminals – would become more attractive, shipping companies might decideto cut Buenos Aires out some of their loops if they have cheaper alternatives available, e.g. in the form of
hub-and-spoke networks. So the interest of potential bidders cannot be taken for granted. This meansthat the task for AGP is delicate: it has a vision on what Puerto Nuevo could look like, but could end up
with a lack of interest in the tender.
This is not an issue for Buenos Aires alone. The question at stake is: what is the most effective futurecontainer transport system for Argentina as a whole? This requires careful analysis of current andpotential future trade flows and transport costs. The trade competitiveness of Argentina would benefit
from the lowest possible transport costs for its exporters. This might be achieved in different ways;© OECD/ITF 201825

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

options could include using Buenos Aires, but also other ports that might not yet exist. More frequentand faster feedering connections could also be a way to provide value added to Argentinian shippers,
avoiding some of the negative impacts of ever larger ships to a port that is highly constrained by its
urban context. The expiration of the terminal concessions provides the opportunity to discuss such
solutions. The risk is to create a lock-in of existing systems that look sub-optimal consideringdevelopments in ship size and the maritime industry. Ideally such a strategic examination might beundertaken before launching a public tender procedure for new container terminal concessions at
Puerto Nuevo.
In case the government considers that the tender procedure needs to go ahead quickly, AGP might needto build in some safeguards for potential bidders. A safeguard would be needed with regard to possible
future port development – in addition to Puerto Nuevo - that might be better suited to future
requirements of shipping companies, and thus more attractive to terminal operators. Potential bidders
for a new Puerto Nuevo terminal might want to be reassured that they would not be excluded frombidding or be disadvantaged in case there would be a future public tender in a few years for a newcontainer port in Argentina. Even if the public tender procedure at Buenos Aires Puerto Nuevo would goahead quickly, there is still a need to initiate a strategic discussion on how the container transportsystem of Argentina could develop in the future.
At a more strategic level, the evolution of a strategic vision on gateway performance in a competitive
global economy raises questions about the role of local competition in a global economy. At some point
micro competition can lead to fragmentation and time delays that are harmful in adjusting to the realcompetition which is global or continental. Local competition strategies, like those at the origin of theArgentina port reform of the 1990s, seem less appropriate for the Argentine economy in 2017. There are
new policy options that seem better suited to efficient gateway performance and policy in the coming
decades. Elements of such a policy could include: road investments; support for rail investments as longas industry is reorganised; port administration reform; dredging to selected ports, possibly with port
corporate reorganisation; research and support for information technology to facilitate more efficient
integration of port, inland transport and warehouse operations, based on a holistic view of freighttransport flows in Argentina.

Notes

1

Prior to these reforms the port authority was the port of Buenos Aires and South Dock. The 1990s port law delegatedports to provinces, which meant that the South Dock became a port of the province of Buenos Aires.
The model takes into account changes in location, changes in value/weight ratio for products over time and reduction in“fixed costs” with distance. This work is part of the ITF Transport Outlook prepared by the International Transport Forumat the OECD. The projections are based on a global freight network model, using actual routes and related real distances,that converts trade in value into freight volumes in tonne-kilometres. These growth rates for specific cargo flows havebeen translated into growth projections of port calls of the corresponding ship types.
Export taxes on agricultural goods (including beef, wheat and corn) were eliminated. The tax on soybeans was reduced by
5 percentage points. Export taxes on almost all manufactured goods, including cars, textiles and chemicals, were lifted.

2

3

26

© OECD/ITF 2018

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSUION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

References
AGP (2016), “Buenos Aires Port Modernizing Project – Preliminary Version”, Puerto Buenos Aires,
Administración General de Puertos S.E. – Engineering Management.
AGP (2011-2016), Informe Estadístico. Puerto Buenos Aires.
Aversa, R., R. Botter, H. Haralambides and H. Yoshizaki (2005), “A Mixed Integer Programming Model on
the Location of a Hub Port in the East Coast of South America”, Maritime Economics & Logistics, Vol 7,
pp. 1-18.
CEPAL (2016), Perfil Marítimo y Logístico de América Latina y el Caribe, mayo 2016. http://bit.ly/1IL0R.
Ciudad Autónoma: Unidad de coordinación de planes Estratégicos (2013), “Visiones estratégicas sobre el
Puerto de Buenos Aires”. 1st Ed. p. 128.
CNRT (2015), “Informe Estadístico 2015. Red Ferroviaria Argentina – Red de Cargas”. Comisión Nacionalde Regulación de Transporte.
Drewry (2016), “Global Container Terminal Operators; Annual Review and Forecast; Annual Report
2016”, Drewry Maritime Research, London.
Dynamar (2015), “East Coast South America Container Trades (2015)”, Dynamar, Alkmaar.
Estache, A., J. Carbajo and G. De Rus (1999), Argentina's transport privatization and re-regulation: Ups
and downs of a daring decade-long experience (Vol. 2249). World Bank Publications.
Filadoro, A., Sánchez, J. (2016), “Identificación y estimación del costo para una operación de comercio
exterior en el Puerto de Buenos Aires”
Gauthier, G. et al. (2015), “La logística en Argentina : Mirando hacia el futuro”, in World Bank (2015),
Argentina; Notas de políticas públicas para el desarrollo.
Gauthier, G., R. Carruthers and F. Millán Placci (2016), “Logistica de la soja; Argentina, Paraguay,
Uruguay”, World Bank Group.
ITF (2016), “Ports Policy Review of Chile”, Case-Specific Policy Analysis, International Transport Forum,
Paris.
ITF (2015), “The Impact of Mega-Ships”, Case-Specific Policy Analysis, International Transport Forum,
Paris.
Martínez, J.P. (2014), “¿Tiene futuro en la Argentina la carga por ferrocarril?”, Revista de la Bolsa deComercio de Rosario. Año CIII – 1524 I Diciembre de 2014. ISSN: 5124367.
Martinez, L., Kauppila, Castaing, M. (2014), International freight and related CO2 emissions by 2050: a
new modelling tool, ITF Discussion Papers 21/2014, International Transport Forum, Paris© OECD/ITF 201827

THE CONTAINER PORT OF BUENOS AIRES IN THE MEGA-SHIP ERA | DISCUSSION PAPER | ITF ROUNDTABLE 169

Meade, B. et al. (2016), “Corn and Soybean Production Costs and Export Competitiveness in Argentina,
Brazil, and the United States”, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Information Bulletin
154.
OECD/UN-ECLAC/CAF (2013), “Latin American Economic Outlook 2014”, OECD, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/leo-2014-en.
Palsson, C. et al. (n.d.), “Atgärdvalsstudie för kapacitetshöjning av farleden in, till och i Göteborgs Hamn”,
Maritime Insight.
Sánchez, R.J. and G. Wilmsmeier (2006), “The river plate basin–A comparison of port devolution
processes on the East Coast of South America”, in Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 17, pp.
185-205.
Sánchez, R.J. et al. (2015), “Transporte marítimo y puertos: desafíos y oportunidades en busca de undesarrollo sostenible en América Latina y el Caribe”. CEPAL. Naciones Unidas. Serie Recursos Naturales e
Infraestructura. ISSN 1680-9017.
SeaIntel (2016-2017), SeaIntel Sunday Spotlight, Various issues.
Serebrisky, T. and L. Trujillo (2005), “An assessment of port reform in Argentina: outcomes andchallenges ahead”, in Maritime Policy & Management, Vol. 32/3, pp. 191-207, DOI:
10.1080/03088830500136659
Wilmsmeier, G., I. Martinez-Zarzoso and N. Fiess (n.d.), Regional hub port development – the case ofMontevideo, Uruguay”.
Wilmsmeier, G., J. Monios and G. Pérez-Salas (2014), “Port system evolution – the case of Latin America
and Caribbean”, Journal of Transport Geography, pp. 208-221.
World Bank (2016), “Connecting to Compete: Trade Logistics in a Global Economy”, World Bank,
Washington DC.
World Bank (2015), “Argentina; Notas de políticas públicas para el desarrollo”, World Bank, Regional
Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, Buenos Aires.
World Bank (2010a), “Southern Cone Inland Waterways Transportation Study: the Paraguay-Paraná
Hidrovía: Its Role in the Regional Economy and Impact on Climate Change”, Report No. 54900-LAC.
World Bank (2010b), “Logistics in Argentina: Analysis, Options and Strategies to Overcome Emerging
Restrictions”, Report No. 54342-AR, Buenos Aires.
World Bank (2010c), “Argentina: Economic Memorandum for the Province of Buenos Aires: Key Public
Policy Issues”, Report No. 52601-AR, Buenos Aires.
World Bank (2006), “Argentina: The Challenge of Reducing Logistics Costs”, World Bank, Report No.
36606-AR.
Zuidwijk, A.J. (2001), “Contenedores, buques y puertos: partes de un sistema de transporte”, Actualidad
Producciones.

28© OECD/ITF 2018

The Container Port of Buenos Airesin the Mega-Ship Era

International Transport Forum
2 rue André Pascal
F-75775 Paris Cedex 16+33 (0)1 45 24 97 10
contact@itf-oecd.org
www.itf-oecd.org

2018-09/Photo credit: Puerto Buenos Aires

Can the container port of Buenos Aires be adapted to the demands ofthe mega-ship era? Ever-larger ships and the cargo peaks they cause
imply new requirements for container ports. This paper examines
strategies for Argentina’s largest port, whose three container terminal
concessions will expire in 2020.