MV X-Press Pearl: lack of preparedness fanned the flames

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

There have been many sentiments expressed on social media that Sri Lanka did not have luck in the recent past. Adverse weather, a third wave of Covid-19, and the sinking ship are just the most recent incidents from a much longer list. I was reminded of the meaning of luck when I was watching a documentary on Hollywood star Will Smith. Smith recalled his father’s advice on his successful career from his humble beginnings. “There is nothing called luck. Even if there is anything called ‘luck’ it is where opportunity meets preparedness.” Smith recalled how his father used to call him at 3 a.m. after seeing his box office numbers.

When I think about Sri Lanka; it is true we really haven’t had any luck for the last decade, but I believe it is simply because we haven’t been prepared. So when the opportunity comes or even when a crisis occurs, we are not prepared. The delay in preparing our policies costs us each time.

Reforms in the shipping and maritime industry is one such area of policy reform that we have postponed for too long. With the X-Press Pearl sinking near the “Pearl of the Indian Ocean” in our territorial waters, it is clear that the economics and our policy of a maritime hub have to be re-evaluated.

One may be surprised at the connection I am implying between a fire in a feeder vessel and the country’s shipping and marine policy, and one may even wonder what economics has to do with it. Whilst it is true that there is no recipe or economic model to douse a fire, economic policy can create an economic ecosystem where we have many firefighters, technology, and partners capable of dismantling an emergency of this scale or even at a bigger scale. If we did have such a policy, it could have presented may options, which in turn could have helped us avoid such a catastrophe for the economy, our invaluable marine environment, and our pristine beaches. 

How good policy could have helped

An incident like an emergency fire and an event of this scale and the ability to avoid it will undoubtedly have numerous variables. It is a rare incident. There are thousands of feeder vessels and mainliners passing our Colombo Harbour and Sri Lanka ranks 24th on the list of “Best Container Terminals” in the world, so how is it that we did not have a system in place to fight a fire? This is a question we have to ask ourselves as a nation aspiring to become the centre of the Silk Route.

The adverse monsoonal weather and the Indian fire brigade vessels taking about two to three days to arrive, have fuelled discussions surrounding “luck”. However, something that should be explored immediately is why Sri Lanka did not have sufficient auxiliary services such as maritime fire brigade services, especially in a backdrop where the Port of Colombo is a regional transhipment hub.  

It is not a question of our commitment to overcome this particular emergency but about the absence of policy to bring in technology and international businesses to arrest the situation. Undoubtedly, it is one out of many alternatives. There are incidents where even with superior technology, ships have been sunk into deep depths.

The economic argument brings in the question of what alternatives could have been available to us to control the fire and avoid damage to marine life. The Sri Lanka Port Authority Fire Brigade and Sri Lanka Air Force did their best to stop the fire at its initial stages. In one reel of footage it was clear the officer in a helicopter was throwing some chemicals from bags to douse the fire. While their efforts are appreciated, in the modern world, there are more advanced helicopters, aircraft, and vessels for fire-fighting, and our Air Force helicopters or Navy vessels are not crafted to fight a fire of that scale. In the industry of shipping there are more and more companies that provide such facilities. The shipping industry is an ecosystem and container transhipment is just a one tiny part of it. 

It is easy to point fingers at the Government and ask why it can’t have such high-tech vessels and aircraft to combat fires at sea. The answer is simply that it is not the Government’s responsibility to douse fires nor does our Government have the money to make such massive investments. But it is the policymakers’ responsibility to create a business environment in the shipping industry where such supportive services can be established within our country. 

There are many reasons why such companies do not establish their businesses in Sri Lanka. One main reason is that there is no reason for smaller, supportive businesses to enter the Sri Lankan market when none of the bigger shipping companies or principals are based in Sri Lanka. Then, we have to ask the question why the main shipping companies or giant players are not entering the Sri Lankan market. The reason is there is a law that 51% of the ownership of the company has to be kept with a local agency. There is no reason for a globally reputed big shipping company to enter Sri Lanka by offering 51% of the ownership to a local company where there are many better options available in the region and globally.

As a result of Sri Lanka not transforming to a maritime hub because it is sticking to its archaic laws, none of the advanced technologies or support services that exist in the industry will enter Sri Lanka, and we will have the same discussion even in five years unless the reforms are made. 

Our snail’s pace movement in a dynamic industry has driven Sri Lanka away from becoming a maritime hub and we have become just a port with high container transhipment volumes – which is also now coming to a saturation with delays in operationalising the East and West Container Terminals. The lobbying against reforming these laws is very high, as there are many beneficiaries in the current system. Policymakers who attempted to do the reforms have failed or are set to fail. 

There has been another discussion on getting a reasonable insurance claim for the damages caused to our marine environment through this recent incident. Some policymakers even mentioned that the claim will be supported to overcome national financial difficulties. However, we have to re-evaluate whether our policymakers have enacted the supporting legislations on global conventions under the International Maritime Organisation, in our Parliament. Since the ship is still within our territorial waters, it is the domestic legal framework that the shipping company has to abide by. But without the necessary legal framework in place to become a maritime hub, facing such incidents in Sri Lanka with the big insurance companies and their experienced lawyers will be challenging. They will always find legal reasons to escape from paying compensation, the same as our motor insurance companies. Ultimately, poor Sri Lankan taxpayers have to bear the entire loss that will be caused to our pristine beaches, marine environment, fisheries sector, tourism sector, and all industries and livelihoods connected to the incident.

Many Sri Lankans are of the view that during the incident, luck was not on our side. If Will Smith’s father was right, it is true that Sri Lankans did not have the luck of combating the fire; it was that the opportunity in the form of the fire met our lack of preparedness for decades in the shipping and maritime industry. The rest is history.

The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute.

The East Container Terminal incentive

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

I generally buy my toothbrush from a neighbouring grocery store. I usually gravitate towards one particular brand, but the shopkeeper convinced me to buy a different brand. The way in which he convinced me was so appealing, and to date I can recall the brand of toothbrush he recommended.

“Sir, there is a new brand in the market, which is the best. The thickness of the bristols are better and the handle has a special shape which can easily reach the teeth in your lower jaw.” He further explained the impact on my gums, how this model helps with oral hygiene and fights tooth cavities, etc. For a second, I thought to myself, this storekeeper must be a part-time dentist.

Later on, when I worked at a market research agency, I did a study on toothbrushes and I analysed the margins provided for retailers. Here I realised the particular brand my neighbouring storekeeper promoted provides a significantly higher margin than the rest of the brands for the retailer. So the business model is designed to influence the buyer by providing a better incentive. For any business, understanding and setting up the right business model will determine the success of that business in a competitive industry.

Sri Lanka’s debate on the East Container Terminal (ECT) has come into play in this context.

Sri Lanka doesn’t have a bright history of creating sustainable business models. The shipping business is a networking business. There are many stakeholders and decision-makers who could bring the businesses into the port at many levels based on the incentive structure. Our strategic location of the port is one advantage, but in modern days, a strategic location will not be sufficient to bring in the expected benefits in a broader economic context.

The Colombo Port is mainly a hub for transhipment business. According to Shippers Academy Colombo CEO Mr. Rohan Masakorala, transhipment is a very sensitive business as the business can move from one port to the other based on developments, if we fail to attract the right business partners. He has further provided an example of how Singapore learnt a lesson by removing a major shipping alliance from a partnership and the transhipment business moved to Malaysia. As a result, Singapore had to reverse the decision.

According to Mr. Masakorala, the lack of knowledge and willingness to take an outward-oriented approach on economics has resulted in Sri Lanka not reaching the benefits from ports as we should have. About 80% of ports and terminals in the world are managed by private-public partnerships (PPPs) and only 20% is managed by governments. In the case of the Colombo Port, through the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA), the government has a stake in all terminals whilst also playing the role of the regulator. It is the same as becoming the umpire of the game while contesting in the same game.

Usually, it is the ship owners who decide which port or terminal that has to be used. That decision is taken after considering the efficiency of the port/terminal and their business interest and the terminals in their network, in addition to the location. Shipping is a very cost-competitive industry and profits are based on volumes.

At the same time, the investment is front-loaded, which means you have to do a significant investment even before you start the operation. The higher the investment, the higher the risk and liability. In a dynamic business environment, a minor disruption in operations can cause significant losses and result in the loss of competitive advantage in this industry. This is the nature of this business.

The Port of Singapore is a classic example of the importance of entering into joint ventures.

Identifying the correct business model when managing ports and their terminals is of paramount importance. The business works in such a way that you opt for joint ventures and network with other stakeholders with the objective of attracting as many volumes as possible, while keeping  productivity and efficiency at a maximum. In a joint venture, it is not only the investment, but also the knowledge, knowhow, and the use of better management that are going to reap the real benefits.

If such a joint venture that reaps such benefits is implemented, then the country gets economic benefits across other sectors. As a country, we have to look at the broader economy and not a single industry, because at a broader level, all industries are connected with main factors of production – land, labour, capital, and entrepreneurship.

On the other hand, over the years, consecutive governments made the ECT project very complicated by signing Memorandums of Corporation (MoCs) and calling bids for operators and cancelling it multiple times. As a result, we have delayed this process for years. Our reputation  has been irreparably damaged by such prolonged delays, especially when taking into account the losses due to delays and the impact on investor confidence.

As this writer highlighted in this column before the general election, it could have been an opportunity for the then interim government and president to reflect not only the transparency, but also the importance of having a competitive business model. Following such a competitive focused model with partners across main shipping alliances and getting the ECT networked for more businesses would have reaped significant benefits by now.

Similar to the business model created by the toothbrush manufacturer with the retailer, we had the opportunity to arrive at a win-win business model, creating synergies and respecting local businesses as well as other stakeholders. From a geopolitics angle, if a transparent bidding process was followed with clear guidelines, then such external influences could have been completely avoided, as transparency and competitive bidding are the standard global good practice principle.

If the SLPA was to invest in the ECT in full, then the question arises as to why we wasted so many years without investing in the first place. It raises questions as to why we wasted time and who is responsible for the opportunity we missed for making profits. Therefore, the fundamental  business principle of ownership of risk must be considered with foresight. When private investors are brought into the business and when they risk their money, they are responsible to make matters efficient and productive. That doesn’t happen when governments invest taxpayer money. Many Sri Lankans fail to understand the basic role of incentives in economics and tend to only look at the ownership angle without realising the synergies of business models.

The second question is that the Sri Lankan rupee is under pressure. The recent Sri Lanka development bonds issuance has been undersubscribed by 25%, so the foreign exchange needed to invest in the ECT remains an enigma. All equipment and machinery has to be imported to keep it at a world-class level. We cannot afford to spend our valuable foreign reserves on this matter at this juncture. So are we going to delay the ETC further?

As always, only time will tell us whether Sri Lanka created the correct business model similar to the incentives given by the shopkeeper, or whether we opt to keep postponing this for a few more years and forget the opportunity to make profits from the port for business and the people of Sri Lanka.

The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute.

Can the ECT buoy the Colombo Port?

In this weekly column on The Sunday Morning Business titled “The Coordination Problem”, the scholars and fellows associated with Advocata attempt to explore issues around economics, public policy, the institutions that govern them and their impact on our lives and society.

Originally appeared on The Morning

---

Sri Lanka’s location at the midpoint of international trade routes, positioned at the centre of the Indian Ocean, is a fact that we probably know by heart. But what’s important is the question whether we are exploiting this position. Our ports and good policy decisions are the tools that allow us to change geography into tangible benefits. The performance of the Colombo Port has been exemplary. It recently handled its seven millionth container and was ranked the fastest-growing port in 2018. However, with the Colombo Port operating at approximately an 80% capacity, this growth and the benefits it brings have an expiration date.

What is the ideal role of the government in the shipping industry?
The government should most definitely not be both a player and a regulator. Right now, the Government plays both roles, and the potential for a conflict of interest is enormous. It also means that it is increasingly difficult for competitive neutrality to be maintained. However, the government should not be completely removed from the industry. The role of the government lies solely in being a landlord and regulator, for if the Colombo Port is to grow while remaining efficient and profitable, regulation is required to address anti-competitive practices, monitor performance, and enforce standards. Of course, when advocating for government regulation, one wants to steer clear of the miles of red tape that the government is fond of. A caveat of this argument is that a balance be struck, so that regulation does not stifle innovation or investment.

What makes economic sense?
Establishing the hard and soft infrastructure a port requires is a capital and time-intensive task. There also needs to be strong commitment, which the Government lacks. Colombo International Container Terminal (CICT), which is a joint venture between China Merchants Port Holdings Company Ltd. and the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA), signed a BOT agreement in 2011. The terminal was operational by 2013. In comparison, the construction of the breakwater for the Jaya Container Terminal (JCT) run by the SLPA took four years, from 2008 to 2012. CICT developed an entire terminal in less time than it took the SLPA to construct the breakwater for its existing terminal.

Lack of direction and consensus from decision makers in government have resulted in the East Container Terminal (ECT) – a strategically important terminal remaining unused and idle. It is clear that the Government needs to step aside and allow the private sector to come in. This is evidenced by the performance of the South Asia Gateway Terminal (SAGT), which is operated on a BOT basis with the Government of Sri Lanka and a consortium of local and international establishments, which was awarded the “Best Terminal in the Indian Subcontinent Region” for the third consecutive year in 2019 and won the “Best Transhipment Hub Port Terminal of the year” at the Global Ports Forum.

Percentage change in TEU handling from 2016 to 2017 (Source: Ministry of Ports and Shipping, Performance Report (2017), compiled by the Advocata Institute)

When comparing the success of the different terminals, the same conclusion can be drawn. Looking at the comparison of the number of Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEUs) handled by the terminals from 2016 to 2017, the CICT is the best performer. Interestingly, while both SAGT and CICT have enjoyed an increase of 10.9% and 19.3% in TEU for 2017, JCT has witnessed a 4.3% drop. The privately-operated terminals outperforming the SLPA Jaya Terminal speaks volumes.

“Seaports are interfaces between several modes of transport, and thus they are centers for combined transport … they are multi-functional markets and industrial areas where goods are not only in transit, but they are also sorted, manufactured and distributed. As a matter of fact, seaports are multi-dimensional systems, which must be integrated within logistic chains to fulfill properly their functions.”

— United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

Ripple effects of private ownership

This definition by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development succinctly describes the importance of ports and port infrastructure, and accurately shows how ports cannot work in silos. They are an integral component in a wider network of business, infrastructure, supply chains and employment. If we want profitable and efficient ports, we need similarly performing ancillary services.

Ancillary services and ports enjoy a symbiotic relationship. On one hand, ancillary services are series of economic activities which provide services and create employment; which are dependent on the port. On the other hand, the port benefits from efficient ancillary services as they make the port and its terminals more attractive to clients and boosts its own performance.

Ancillary services include logistics, bunkering, marine lubricants, freshwater supply, off shore supplies and ship chandelling, warehousing and many more. These services, and their ability to grow is affected by the general functioning of the port, and therefore is affected by the ownership of the terminals.

For a port to survive, ancillary services need to constantly innovate and remain productive. There is no need for this article to expound on how the government is not the place to go to when in search of innovation. This is clearly the forte of the private sector. This is backed up by the fact that so far, private ownership of terminals and profitability go hand in hand. In short, if profitable and productive terminal creates a well-functioning port, allowing ancillary services to grow; then we should be looking to the private sector for investment and not the government.

What is happening with the ECT?

As mentioned above, the Colombo Port is fast growing. However, if you were to look at the Colombo Port from one of the many high rises in the Fort area, spotting the East Container Terminal would not be difficult – it’s the only terminal with nothing happening. No cranes, no ships, no activity.

The East Container Terminal is not significant simply for its disuse. Compared to the West Terminal, it is situated in the middle of the new port and the old port of Colombo. This gives it an advantage as it is closer to all other terminals and moves inter-terminal cargo a smaller distance. This gives it an important edge as inter-terminal cargo is an important component of transshipment. The depth of the ECT, at 18m allows it to handle container shipments, adding to its value. In short, the ECT has a clear operational advantage.

It is evident that the country has lost out in this scenario. In a port that is as fast growing as the Colombo port, the decision makers of this country have, for a variety of reasons, not developed the ECT. The Sri Lankan government has taken many stances over the years. It both invited expressions of interest and business proposals for the development of the ECT and cancelled tenders, insistent that the ECT will be run by the Sri Lanka Ports Authority – sending mixed signals to interested parties, and effectively ensuring that investors are reticent, and development of the port has stalled.

Politics have dictated the government’s decisions on the ECT, and the result is that the country has lost out. In shipping the government has an important role to play in regulation and ensuring standards are adhered to, but it cannot be both a player and a regulator. The performance of the JCT in comparison to the private terminals makes it clear that government is not as effective as the private sector, it should limit itself to the task of regulation. In conclusion, the ECT should be opened for private ownership as soon as possible, following the precedent set by the BOT models of the CICT and SAGT.

---

Aneetha Warusavitarana is a Research Analyst at the Advocata Institute. Advocata is an independent policy think tank based in Colombo, Sri Lanka. They conduct research, provide commentary, and hold events to promote sound policy ideas compatible with a free society in Sri Lanka. She can be contacted at aneetha@advocata.org or @AneethaW on twitter .

Liberalising shipping agencies the first step to transform Colombo into a maritime hub

The article was published on - FT, Daily Mirror, Ceylon Today, The Island & Daily News

Last week’s budget contained important proposals around the liberalization of the shipping sector.

The port played a significant role in the development of  maritimes hubs such as Singapore, helping the country become a first world economy in a generation. With the right reforms, Sri Lanka’s ports could do the same.

Singapore’s domestic market is small-but its trade volumes massive: trade value is 3.5 times its GDP. Transshipments make up 85% of Singapore’s port’s volumes. Sri Lanka has 750 local shipping, freight forwarding and clearing agents but Singapore open market has over 5000.

The availability of frequent and reliable connections via sea and air (thanks to liberalisation) encourages companies across the logistics chain to operate from Singapore. High-frequency connections sometimes allow goods to reach their destination faster via Singapore than they would through direct shipments.

A foreigner-friendly regulatory environment has attracted investors to Singapore.  Around 20 of the world’s top 25 logistics companies have based their global or regional operations in Singapore. The presence of these big firms drives local companies to emulate international standards

The Colombo port starts with a number of advantages; well situated on the trade routes, it has a deep enough draught to accommodate post-panamex ships.

With a limited internal market Sri Lanka, like Singapore, cannot depend on traffic from its hinterland to develop its port. It must depend on transshipment traffic. Colombo already handles a significant amount of transshipment – 75% of volume; but mostly to India. The expansion of Indian ports poses a threat to this business, but to truly become a hub Colombo needs to look beyond our largest neighbor.

Transshipment is a service that does not add any value to cargo. To grow this service lower business costs and productivity are critical. Fast turnaround times and competitive rates are needed but Sri Lanka’s restrictive ownership rules and fixed fee structures result in higher costs.

Unlike other major ports where cargo handling rates are determined by market conditions, Sri Lanka’s are set by the Central Bank which decides on agency and transshipment tariffs to local agents. The current fee structure is complicated, encourages malpractice, is determined arbitrarily and adversely affects port and logistics industry competitiveness.

To shipping lines working with very thin margins this fixed fee structure represents a significant additional cost. This limits transshipment volumes to the essential-those that flow naturally due to location. Shipping lines have little incentive to route cargo from further afield.

The budget proposes to lift restrictions on foreign ownership of shipping agencies and the creation of a port regulator. This is the first step towards attracting the interest of  large global shipping lines.

Sri Lanka will not  become a logistics hub without significant participation of global players. Substantial investments and presence of global firms active on ground is essential toward making the hub ambitions a reality.  

With the right reforms in place,  Sri Lanka could look to attract attract Maersk or another leading shipper to establish its South Asia hub in Colombo. That would go well beyond its limited activity with its present JV arrangement with a local agent.  Sri Lanka can use this anchor investment, to  attract other leading shippers to do the same, thereby creating critical mass.  This would result in a larger industry, more jobs and more opportunities for the industry as a whole.  

This would make Sri Lanka fertile ground for the top freight forwarders.  It might persuade DHL or others to look at Sri lanka sa a regional hub and  large e-commerce companies such as Amazon  to use Colombo for warehousing.

This is why the liberalization is needed.  To develop, the logistics sector should be open to foreign participation and restrictions (eg Sri Lanka Ports Authority monopoly on destuffing local loose cargo), regulations on terminal handling charges etc. should be removed. Foreigners should be permitted to invest in freight forwarding and the minimum investment thresholds and export revenue requirements imposed to be eligible to invest in declared free ports should be eliminated.

Warehousing space available within the port is limited and outdated. To support the growth of the logistics business, private investment should be permitted within the port; to build and operate new, upgraded warehouses. Alternatively, there should be zoning of a warehousing district outside the port but in close proximity to it (like Singapore).

Other investments include creating logistic networks between producer and consumer areas, markets and transport nodes that connect to the Colombo port, industrial zones and Inland Container Depots (ICD) that speed port access and support a modern logistics corridor.

The presence of global third party logistics firms in Sri Lanka will enhance the confidence of multinational manufacturers who will be more willing to use Colombo as a destination for value added logistics functions (e.g. packaging, labeling, quality checking, simple assembly) etc.

These firms will bring new technology, new knowledge about logistics and supply chain management and are experienced in managing highly sophisticated and complex supply chains for their clients. It is the trust the global firms have in their logistics companies that make them outsource key logistics and supply chain functions and their presence firms will be a huge value add to the location advantage of Sri Lanka.

These firms will also help market Sri Lanka as a destination for logistics- which is needed to get business. This is far easier for such firms with their global presence and networks, than for local businesses.

This would form the core of a maritime-cum-logistics hub as these anchor investments create an ecosystem of supporting services -- financial, legal and other professional services. A maritime-cum-logistics hub would be a boon to competitive local companies with relevant service-support skills, and allow some of the bigger competitive companies to go global.

The Colombo International Financial Centre, a financial hub between Dubai and Singapore, is underway within the Port City. Along with the proposed National Logistics Policy for Shipping and Air Transportation, and the Telecommunication Connectivity Policy it will establish Sri Lanka as the hub of the Indian Ocean.

Production and service standards would improve massively from their present woeful state, with more transparency and less corruption.

This aligns with the Port City, linking up the port and airport, a hub around the airport as part of bigger Vision 2025 plans and would be the beginning of Sri Lanka's insertion into global value chains beyond garments. The big prizes are in services, not manufacturing, especially with the "servicification" of Global Value Chain.

The lower cargo handling costs and greater efficiency will create spillover benefits to local exporters who will increase their competitiveness, further driving volumes.

Opening up the agency business does not necessarily mean the end of the local agents; Singapore has over 5000 agents and sub agents working for ship owners/operators in numerous support businesses.

The shipping and logistics business is continuously evolving and new competition is emerging. An ADB working paper opined that “Slow implementation of the Colombo outer harbor development plan has already caused significant damage to Colombo as a transshipment hub. This damage may be repaired but it is unlikely. Further threats to its current role exist, not least the further development of ports in India”

Sri Lanka has been lucky for a long time, because we still retain our advantage in terms of serving the Indian Sub-Continent cargo but it is naive to imagine that this will last. Sri Lanka is operating far below its potential, especially in terms of logistics. Therefore, it is important to remove all constraints which prevent us from reaching our potential.

The budget proposals are a good start but full reform package of port, shipping and warehousing services is needed. This presents much greater opportunities for existing players in the long term and they should seize the challenge. Unless reforms take place we may well find ourselves stagnating while traffic moves to competitors.

The Colombo Port City: dealing with unsolicited proposals

By Ravi Ratnasabapathy

The Colombo Port City has generated a storm of criticism, the latest from the Friday Forum, which has called for systematic reviews of large state infrastructure projects. The Chinese Government is now reportedly weighing in on the side of the developer, The China Harbour Engineering Corporation.

Unsolicited proposals such as the Port City are controversial. How should a government deal with them? What should be done with the Port City project itself?

Public procurement, especially for infrastructure is a complex process. The general procedure is that a project, once identified and screened by the relevant line Ministry (in regard to the economic and financial viability), should be submitted to the Ministry of Finance for preliminary clearance. If Finance Ministry Clearance is obtained it must be submitted to the Cabinet for approval in principle. If this is obtained, the Finance Ministry will appoint a Project Committee to develop a detailed Request for Proposal (RFP).

The RFP is very important, since it is the foundation of the project. It spells out the project needs clearly and sets the framework within which competing bids can be evaluated. The RFP would include the following:

1. Criteria of assessment of technical and financial viability of the project.

2.  Details of specifications

3. Models of relevant Agreements as decided on a case by case basis.

4. Environmental data and information.

5. Any other relevant information.

An unsolicited proposal bypasses this process of vetting, which means a bad project can get through. Therefore, traditionally unsolicited proposals were viewed with disfavour. The United Kingdom for example does not permit unsolicited projects.

Many of the world’s most controversial private infrastructure projects originated as unsolicited proposals, such as the Dabhol Power Plant in India and many independent power generation plants in Indonesia. In some countries private companies submitting unsolicited proposals often did so in an attempt to avoid a competitive process to determine the project developer. If successful, they were then able to finalise project details with the government through exclusive negotiations behind closed doors, which is also the case in Sri Lanka.

Should Sri Lanka bar unsolicited proposals?

There are positive aspects of unsolicited proposals. Sometimes such proposals are based on innovative ideas and it is useful to obtain external input in conceptualising, designing, and developing projects.

The difficulty is in getting the right balance between obtaining innovative project ideas without losing the transparency and efficiency of a competitive tender process.

Therefore a proper written policy is essential. At a minimum, the principle should be that all unsolicited proposals are channeled into a transparent, competitive process where challengers have a fair chance of winning the tender.  

There are two main approaches that have been developed to deal with unsolicited proposals. These are:

1. In a formal bidding process, a predetermined bonus point is awarded to the original proponent of the project. Chile and the Republic of Korea have such a system. Problems may arise with definition of appropriate bonuses which is subjective and potentially open to manipulation.

2. The Swiss challenge system in which other parties are invited to make better offers than the original proponent within a specified time period. If a better offer is received, the original proponent has the right to counter match any such better offer. This system is practiced in the Philippines, South Africa and Gujarat in India. This is the preferred option since it does not require further analysis or subjective decision making.

Either of the above approaches can work with proposals that are still on the drawing board. How do we deal with a project where work has already commenced such as the Colombo Port City where the developer has already spent a substantial amount of funds? It cannot simply be cancelled, despite various contradictory claims emanating from the sections of the Government, nor can be easily be opened to tender.

A Developers fee approach – where the project is opened to tender but development costs to date are reimbursed, either by the government or the winning bidder, could be a solution. There will be difficulties in assessing the costs and it is not certain whether either the Government or another developer would be willing to take it on, but at least opening up for tender will give us an idea of the alternatives available.

The project will initially need to be subjected to an independent technical review to ensure that concerns in areas such as water supply, sewage disposal and power have been addressed. The city of Colombo is already overloaded in all these respects, adding the strain of the port city to the crumbling infrastructure of the capital could take it to bursting point.

The environmental issues are another can of worms, from the supply to sand, to the damage to corals, impact on marine life to altering of tidal patterns that may cause coastal erosion elsewhere. A full independent review is needed.

If both areas of concern can be addressed then it may proceed, after being opened to tender as discussed above.  If the project cannot proceed there is another headache as to what to do with the partially built site-a separate study on the best alternate use is needed.

What is tragic is that all these problems could have been avoided. There were processes and institutions in place to ensure proper procurement, but they were abolished in 2007.

The National Procurement Agency (NPA) of Sri Lanka provided the general framework for handling unsolicited proposals. Written guidelines on unsolicited proposals were in place. All unsolicited proposals were to be dealt with through the Swiss Challenge system.

 Set up in 2004 by then president Chandrika Kumaratunga the NPA was shut down in December 2007. All the more reason that the proposals in hand should be channeled into a transparent, competitive process.