A vacuum at the wharf?

From April 2026, the South African Association of Freight Forwarders (SAAFF) plans to move expertise from South Africa’s ports to a centralised executive. NICK PORÉE asks, is this the right path to choose?

While this centralisation of capacity and decision-making aligns with current dirigiste government strategic planning by the National Logistics Crisis Committee (NLCC) and the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC), it does pose potential challenges. The decision will leave a vacuum of representation and support for the many port and border users, cargo owners and transporters, who have historically relied on the association to resolve a myriad of local glitches with its complex import-export procedures.

With as many as 10 government agencies at borders, and innumerable users with varying knowledge of the trade, there is considerable potential for confusion, obstruction and delays in resolving problems. It also raises questions about the relationships between on-site South African Revenue Services (SARS) representatives and SA Customs at each port and border post.

There is concern that well-established regional interventions with customs officials could now be in jeopardy because, since the local excos will be disbanded, regular meetings have been cancelled. The local port committees will be disbanded and replaced by a headquarters help desk staffed by interns, which may result in extensive delays in resolving problems that require on-site discussions and actions. Knowledge, experience and the capacity to interpret the extensive literature and legislation of import-export trade are capabilities acquired over many years of engagement at a senior level; they are no task for interns or trainees.

The association will maintain its role of high-level advocacy at government interface levels and continue to assume its somewhat questionable role as the voice of transport and logistics. It is not anticipated that the association will be adding to the limited expertise and capacity in road, rail, air and other transport modes.

The association’s training role and the Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) programme support South Africa’s customs programmes, but aspirations in the field of road transport do not lend support to effective organisation of the inter-state road freight industry, as has been done so effectively in developed regions. The association is port-focused and not active in the inland trade and relationships with the many border posts in the region.

For port users gridlocked by complex problems, there may be some relief provided by independent experts similar to the Transist Bureau, which rescues operators on the regional road freight corridors and borders. Or, perhaps, a new population of ports experts will emerge, similar to the “Permitologists” (the legislation and procedural experts) who managed the repeated confrontations with the Road Transport Act in the final decades of the 20^th century.

One would hope that the vacuum will be resolved speedily, as the development will add to the complexity of import-export trade by reducing local practicality and immediate assistance to users. It will also add potential delays to the handling of cargo for both local and remote inland clients.

PORTS IN TRANSITION

These developments coincide with the stated intentions of reforming port management into efficient and competitive commercial structures, through the implementation of the long-overdue terms of the National Ports Act (2005).

The recent introduction of a “private sector terminal operator” in Durban and the request for qualifications (RFQs) for terminal operators in Richards Bay and Ngqura support the neglected objectives of the Act. These include the intentions to enhance transparency in the management of ports and strengthen the state’s capacity to:

(i) separate operations from the landlord function within ports;

(ii) encourage employee participation, to motivate management; and

(iii) facilitate the development of technology, information systems and managerial expertise through private sector involvement and participation.

For each port, the managerial coordination aims to include representation from municipalities, provinces, roads, traffic, labour, state-owned enterprises and industries. The extensive ports user base includes shipping, forwarding, road and rail transport, depots, terminal operators and cargo owners.

The successful disaggregation and commercialisation of the currently integrated national ports management, together with the promotion of competition and improved coordination with local authorities and industries, will require private-sector institutional entities to replace the restricted Ports Consultative Committees, with all action reliant on Transnet National Ports Authority.

Effective Port Users Associations are needed at each port, with adequate resources, capacity, expertise and mandates to engage with the revised ports administration and the many authorities that manage functions outside the ports.

THE ROAD TO MODERNISATION

After a 20-year hiatus in port development, restructuring must include digitalisation, communications, materials handling equipment, systems integration, improved landside access and a focus on efficiency in order to modernise South Africa’s ports to international standards.  In Durban, the implementation of Terminal A (currently Pier 1, including the Island) as an automated, “gentrified” terminal (such as Australia’s Victoria International Container Terminal, managed by ICTSI, in Melbourne) should be followed by coordinated development of Terminal B (currently the Durban Gate Terminal) and later Terminal C (planned at Bayhead in 2012) to the same modern standards. These significant investments will require careful integration and replanning of existing depots, landside access and transport systems.

The structural reforms underway at South Africa’s ports are long overdue and welcome – but reform without adequate representation, expertise and local engagement risks trading one set of problems for another.