Topicsasian it hub balaramapuram beach resort in thiruvananthapuram beach resort in trivandrum city road improvement project cultural life in thiruvananthapuram cultural life in trivandrum Hay festival Hay Festival Kerala hotels in trivandrum improved roads india Indian IT hub indian literature it hub it hub of kerala jobs in India jobs in kerala jobs in technopark jobs in thiruvananthapuram jobs in trivandrum karamana kazhakkoottam kerala Kovalam monorail monorail in india monorail in kerala monorail in thiruvananthapuram monorail in trivandrum national transportation planning and research centre NATPAC neyyattinkara Onam padmanabhaswamytemple poovar road development in thiruvananthapuram road development in trivandrum road infrastructure in thiruvananthapuram road infrastructure in trivandrum road widening sports in trivandrum Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple tcrip technocity technopark technopark thiruvananthapuram technopark trivandrum thampanoor Thiruvananthapuram thiruvananthapuram city roads improvement project thiruvananthapuram international airport Thiruvananthapuram IT hub thiruvananthapuram monorail thiruvananthapuram road development company ltd Thiruvananthapuram Technopark tourism in trivandrum transportation in thiruvananthapuram transportation in trivandrum Travancore trdcl Trivandrum trivandrum international airport trivandrum it hub trivandrum monorail Trivandurum life trv visl vizhinjam vizhinjam international container terminal vizhinjam international seaport vizhinjam international seaport ltd vizhinjam port vizhinjamport world class roads
- Business (126)
- Education, Science and Technology (93)
- Food (20)
- Hotels and Resorts (80)
- Infrastructure (222)
- Job Openings (47)
- Leisure and Recreation (134)
- Life (239)
- Links (1)
- Media (43)
- Miscellaneous (152)
- News (392)
- Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple (26)
- Technocity (20)
- Technopark (82)
- Travel and Tourism (57)
- 787,805 hits
arteria-2015, one of the largest public art projects of India, conceived by the District Tourism Promotion Council, Thiruvananthapuram has concepted its first stride. Supported by Department of Tourism, Govt. of Kerala; this mega art, curated by Dr. G Ajith Kumar, in the first phase has rendered the encircling wall of the University Stadium at Palayam with the creative murals composed by artists including Shri. Kanayi Kunjiraman, Shri. Kattoor Narayana Pillai, Shri. B.D Dethan, Shri. N.N Rimzon, Shri. Tensing Joseph, Shri. Nemom Pushparaj, Shri. Pradeep Puthoor, Shri. Prasanna Kumar, Shri. Chandran T.V, Shri. Sreelal S, Shri. Sreenandanan, Shri. Sunil Kovalam, Shri. Jayachandran.V, Shri. Vijayan Neyyattinkara, Shri. Robert Lopez, Shri. Mohanan Nedumangadu, Shri. Shibu Chand, Charutha Reghunath, Shri. Saj R Swamy, Rachana Vijith and Shri. Vijith.
By re-directing the public eye to those artistic expressions, this larger canvas unfolds immense possibility for everyone to become part of a new visual culture that Thiruvananthapuram City is lacking. The project with this dimension seems to have no resemblance with any part of the world, except a few sporadic instances. Its distinction will definitely lead the city to carve out a significant place in the cultural landscape of the world.
Snapshots from the venue
Even as the Vizhinjam project achieved a historic milestone, with the signing of the Concession Agreement between Adani Ports and the Government of Kerala, a lot of clamor is still being raised against the project by a few vested interests. However a review of the facts, including state-of-the-art satellite information about marine traffic off the coast of Trivandrum, reveals the fallacies in the arguments being raised against the Vizhinjam project.
As the Vizhinjam deep-water port project seems to be gathering steam, to borrow an appropriately nautical expression, with the Kerala Cabinet clearing the bid submitted by Adani Ports, India’s largest port operator, a storm still seems to swirl around the project in the media and in the perception of the general public. A storm of deliberate misinformation generated by a plethora of vested interests operating against the project and against the interests of Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala and India. These range from uneducated politicians, to malicious pseudo-environmentalists to unemployed lawyers. Unfortunately, this miasma has been getting so widespread, that’s long overdue that we call out and dispel the allegations raised by these hostile forces.
Q: If Vallarpadam, which has 14 meters of draft and is close to the international shipping channel has been an abject failure even after the exemption from the restrictive Cabotage Law, then how can Vizhinjam succeed?
A: The only truth in this statement is that Vallarpadam has became an abject failure, resulting in the loss of almost Rs 3,000 Crores of public funds, that were spent on its extravagant rail and road connectivity and on over a decade of futile dredging.
What’s not true is that the Ernakulam port has ever had 14 m of draft. At best it achieved something between 10 and 12 meters, and that too sparingly as illustrated by the difficulties in bringing the container terminal’s cranes into the port, the later difficulties bringing LNG tankers to Puthuvypeen and most recently the delays in undocking INS Vikrant from its drydock because of the siltation that prevented the dock’s gate from being opened. Hence, Vallarpadam has never had the required depth to bring in mainline container vessels of 8,000 TEUs or more, far less today’s behemoths of over 18,000 TEU which need over 16 m of water depth.
Legacy labor issues and tariff constraints on account of TAMP requirements have also afflicted Vallarpadam. None of these are applicable to Vizhinjam, which has a natural depth of 18-24 m, is a greenfield port with high levels of automation and being a State port is outside the purview of TAMP restrictions.
Q: Won’t the need to establish breakwaters at Vizhinjam will make its cost prohibitive and make it unviable?
A: Vizhinjam is located right on the coast and hence does not need a channel like an estuarine port such as Ernakulam. Deep water ports, that typically are located on the coast and make use of breakwaters have now taken over from older, shallower, estuarine ports like Kolkata, Shanghai, or London.
The incremental cost for the breakwater – approx. Rs 1,500 Cr – is equivalent to just under 10 years worth of annual dredging cost at Vallarpadam but the breakwaters create a harbor basin that can be up to 24 m deep, compared to the 10-12 m achieved at best at Vallarpadam. Hence, it makes great economic sense.
Q: Won’t the maintenance dredging and breakwater construction cause destructive coastal erosion and siltation at Vizhinjam?
A: Vizhinjam will not need any maintenance dredging because the natural depth within 1 Nm of the shore is over 25 m. The developer will carry out detailed engineering studies of the breakwater to minimize or eliminate any erosion or siltation issues. Any minor issues that do still arise with sediment transport due to the breakwater construction can be easily overcome with a sediment bypass system that pumps sediment from one side of the port to the other to prevent differential erosion and deposition if it does arise.
Q: Isn’t this project located in a densely populated, environmentally sensitive area?
A: The region has not been demarcated as a critical area under any MoEF study. The chosen site is not densely populated as highlighted by the fact that only a few hundred people had to be relocated for it. The Vizhinjam project completed a full year-long, multi-season EIA, and a protracted EC process with MoEF at the end of which it was granted clearance by the Ministry.
The only reason that the project’s final environmental clearance is being delayed is on account of legal action launched by vested interests, including entities that seem to have hidden links with resort owners who themselves have been guilty of illegal construction on the coast as well as widespread pollution of the land and sea. Some of the litigants are apparently ordinary citizens, whose ability to bear the massive costs of such litigation seems suspicious.
Q: Isn’t the reason behind poor investor interest in Vizhinjam its inherent lack of viability?
A: The Vizhinjam project has received bids from national and international developers in multiple rounds of bidding in the last 10 years however those were lost either due to legal action filed by vested interests or Government intransigence. A transshipment project can only be operated by a handful of operators around the world, most of whom already have facilities in the Indian Ocean region and hence were competitors. The current bidder has tied up with MSC, which has no terminal to compete with Vizhinjam and such an alliance takes time to evolve. The very fact that India’s largest port operator has chosen to take on the risk of a greenfield, transshipment terminal at Vizhinjam is itself the best endorsement of its viability.
Q: Didn’t the International Finance Corporation’s report find the project to be unviable?
A: The IFC study looks at Vzm in isolation (it does not look into the possibility of Vizhinjam attracting gateway cargo from less competitive ports like Vallarpadam, Tuticorin and Mangalore) and makes very conservative assumptions. Even under those, the project can generate up to 15% IRR given the right mix of public and private investment. Like any investment in transportation infrastructure, where a monopoly is not at play like an airport or the only road between two cities, immediate returns from the project itself are low. But a port of this nature produces multiplier effects for the regional and national economies that have to be factors into the cost-benefit analysis.
Q: Did the Government of India mandate that the port or its operations should not be leased out to a private entity?
A: The very move to restructure the project model to include a PPP model was to receive viability gap funding and there’s no restriction on leasing out land to the operator as is the case here. The port and the land always remains in Government ownership. In this regard, the port continues to be Landlord mode, except that instead of an individual terminal being leased out to a developer, the entire port is leased out at one go. This is followed in the case of almost every PPP project, typically for periods ranging from 30 to 90 years.
Q: Isn’t the single bid received from Adani Ports not sustainable as at least 3 bids are needed for the process to be legal?
A: There’s no requirement for 3 or bids under CVC guidelines as long as a clear and transparent bid process is carried, as was the case in Vizhinjam. There are clear guidelines in the case of receipt of only a single, viable bid as is the case in many project. Often there are very few qualified bidders possible for very specialized projects such as container transshipment projects or nuclear power plants.
Q: Why did the Government increase the tenure of the lease/operation period, if not to favor Adani Ports?
A: The time taken to stabilize traffic volumes and hence recoup the initial investment varies with the type of project. A first-of-its-kind, greenfield, transshipment terminal will take longer to stabilize, requires more investment and involves more risk than developing a new terminal at an established port. Hence the developer/operator needs a longer lease in order to turn a profit that rewards the project risk and needs the landlord to demand less cash up front. The landlord’s motivation is to facilitate infrastructure development and to facilitate socioeconomic growth, not to turn a profit from year 1.
Q: Won’t Adani Ports just pledge its stake in the port to avail bank loans from public sector banks and avoid spending any of its own capital to finance the construction of the project?
A: A minimum knowledge of project financing and/or common sense tells one that no bank will finance a project of any kind without the proponent investing its own equity in it. The amount of debt will also depend on the project cash flows that the banks accept. A project generally can get 60% or so debt funding but this is true of any project or any developer.
Q: Is Adani Ports truly capable of developing and operating a project like Vizhinjam? They don’t have any container terminal development and operations experience, do they? Are they present anywhere outside India?
A: Adani Ports is India’s largest port operator with over 200 Million tons of cargo volumes in 2014, which is 6-7 times that of Vallarpadam port for example. They also have major developments in Australia where they are developing one of the world’s largest bulk cargo ports. Adani Ports’ Mundra port has four container terminals, is India’s fastest growing container port and will soon overtake JNPT as the biggest one. Adani Ports has relationships with MSC and CMA CGM, both of which operate terminals at Mundra, and are the world’s second and third largest container shipping lines, after APM Maersk. Hence, Adani is best placed to bring mainline ships to Vizhinjam.
Q: Isn’t Adani Ports only commiting to invest Rs 2,500 Crores in the port project only to grab the land associated with it for real estate development purposes?
A: The total land acquired for the Vizhinjam project is comparable to that acquired for “Smart” City and far less than for Nedumbasserry airport. Only a small fraction of this would be available for “real estate” development, hardly enough to justify investing Rs 2,500 Cr to get access to it. Adani could buy a significant chunk of the Bandra-Kurla complex in Mumbai with that sum of money.
Q: Why should the Government of Kerala invest public funds in a project with no immediate financial returns, when there are so many other worth causes that need resources?
A: Govt.of Kerala has invested over Rs 2,200 Cr into the Kochi Metro which has no direct economic benefit to the State and has also invested several hundred Crores each into the Nedumbaserry and Kannur airports, yet no one dares to questions those decisions. Vizhinjam has definite multiplier effects for the Kerala economy and can generate tens of thousands of indirect jobs by promoting industrial development across Kerala by making it the most attractive location in India with respect to logistical access to the rest of the world. This has the potential in the medium and long term to significantly enhance Kerala’s economy and generate tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs.
The Vallarpadam project involved the loss of over Rs 2,700 Cr of tax payer money by choosing an inherently infeasible site for a transshipment terminal. The site’s disadvantages were self evident yet there was no move by anyone crying foul over Vizhinjam to oppose the squandering of so much public funds there. Indeed, the money spent at Vallarpadam should have been spent at Vizhinjam then and it’d have an a leading global transshipment hub today like Algericas, Tanjung Pelapas or Tangiers, all of which were developed in the same time period. Vallarpadam should be immediately shut down to save the hundreds of Crores spent on dredging ever year and the Central Government should instead invest more in Vizhinjam.
We hope that the above Q & A series will help shed clarity amidst all the negative propaganda swirling around the Vizhinjam project. Vizhinjam is closer now than at any point in the past to coming to fruition. Let’s see past the falsehoods and fallacies of those who wish ill for the project and for us, and help keep up the pressure on the Government to see this one through!
The comments made by Shri M.A. Baby in his Facebook page regarding the Vizhinjam project seem to be based on incomplete facts. All these “concerns” and relevant facts were made available to the public by VISL through their website at respective occasions and this open response is based on publically available information pertaining to various State and Central Govt norms for PPP projects. The concerned issues were also addressed during the EIA Public hearing in May 2013 and project model was made public during the tender process, road show presentations and through media. The fact is that this level of transparency was only visible during this tender / attempt (since 2012) and never before during the course of this project since its inception. Hence, we citizens of Thiruvananthapuram, urge Shri M.A. Baby, other respective leaders and media to comprehend the facts regarding the most prestigious project of Kerala/South India. The responses to the concerns raised are addressed below and the chart aside may be referred:
1. Project Cost, Payments and Returns
Detailed comparison/breakup of project cost is appended in the chart.
The current model gives guaranteed returns from Year 16 for Port Related Activities (including all phases of the project) and from Year 10 for Port Estate related activities. The notion that the returns (profits) to GoK shall only come after Year 60 is misinterpreted. Capacity augmentation, additional infrastructure creation etc are bound to be solely under the investment of the private developer with approvals from the State. In contrast, as per the earlier model, Govt.of Kerala has NIL returns and held liability for recurring investment for capacity augmentation, maintenance dredging.
Payments to Developer – The payments to the developer, including cost of breakwater & VGF, are not initially paid to the developer, rather will be made only in stages after completion of respective stages of the project. 30% of the VGF shall be disbursed after all the equity contribution (30% of total private investment of Rs.2454 Crores) is being spent on the project by the developer. This is also further restricted to 150% of the actual equity spent. All payments are made as debt repayments to the banks and further payments shall be made during the Operations stage after commissioning of the project. This shall be audited by an Independent Engineer appointed by Vizhinjam International Seaport Limited (VISL). The cost of breakwater shall also be disbursed only in stages after completion of respective stage. All payments and cash flow will be managed through an escrow agreement and account to which Govt.of Kerala and the lead financing bank is a party.
2. Regarding conditions in bid
No additional conditions can be sought as per the tender norms (This is typical for any public tenders and the bid has to be unconditional). Imposing any conditions will make the bid unresponsive. The bid parameter in this case being the VGF grant (Rs. 1635 Crores). All Conditions for implementation of the project are as per the Concession Agreement and RFP Document drafted by VISL as per the norms of Planning Commission of India. This is common to all bidders.
3. Regarding Maintenance Dredging
One should not forget the fact that maintainence dedging is not required in Vizhinjam, which is one among the advantage of this project. Evenif it is required, the responsibility of maintenance dredging lies with the developer. Not only this, but any other capacity augmentation shall be under the investment of the private developer. There are no recurring investments for State. Cost escalation is also not bound to be covered by Govt.of Kerala and these are absolute payments even if the construction is delayed by the developer.
4. Regarding Port Estate Development
It is understood that 220 acres of land shall be given to the bidder under a “license agreement” for the duration of concession period. 30% of this land can be used for port estate development activities. 10% of revenue generated from this activity has to be shared with Govt.of Kerala from Year 7. Govt.of Kerala is not bound to acquire any further land (even in the future).
5. Regarding CIAL Model of Development
A similar model of CIAL was what that was attempted in 2010, where the State had committed to undertake the “Port Construction” and the “Port Operations” left to a private operator. This was already a market tested model and failed, leaving the State in huge losses compared to the currently attempted model. Now, the only better option ahead is to undertake the “Port Operations” also under State. Container Terminal Operations is a much specialised domain and is monopolistically held within few players globally today. In India, only very few players has attempted it and Adani is currently the largest Indian player with more than 75% market share among Indian players. PSA Singapore, APM (Maersk) and DP World being the other international players with presence in India. Thus, VISL or in that matter any public sector undertaking in India would find it difficult to break into the domain of container terminal operations, especially in specialised transhipment focussed port like Vizhinjam. The lack of gateway cargo and yet-to-be-organised business framework in India adds the complexity of the matter. The industry expertise, business network and specialization required to run a deep water transhipment port, competing with Colombo, Singapore, Salalah or Dubai makes this a “Herculean” task.