Content uploaded by Adam Kaliszewski
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Adam Kaliszewski on Apr 13, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Adam Kaliszewski
FIFTH AND SIXTH GENERATION PORTS (5GP, 6GP)
– EVOLUTION OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ROLES
OF PORTS
Summary: Fifth generation ports created in result of a dynamic development of containeriza-
tion are characterised by a different approach to the transport, environmental, and city-
forming function. The article presents the concepts of seaport development and defining their
generation with the use of detailed criteria and meters. It also showcases the proposals for
a prospective sixth generation port handling ships of 50 thousand TEU capacity.
Keywords: maritime ports, port generations, fifth generation port, 5GP, sixth generation port
6GP, 50,000 TEU vessel
Quote: A. Kaliszewski, Fifth and sixth generation ports (5GP, 6GP) – evolution of economic
and social roles of ports, translated from Polish: “Porty piątej oraz szóstej generacji (5GP,
6GP)-ewolucja ekonomicznej i społecznej roli portów”, „Studia i Materiały Instytutu
Transportu i Handlu Morskiego” (ISSN 2080-6302), 2017, no. 14, DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26881/sim.2017.4.06
Introduction
The evolution of seaports particularly those handling containerized loads, leads to the cre-
ation of an ever more complicated system of connections between the participants in the port
services market both from the supply and the demand side. The importance of seaports may
be expressed by categorising them to a given port generation. In accordance with the
UNCTAD concept, ports of the first, second, third and fourth generation can be distinguished.
In 2011, M. Flynn introduced a proposition of including two groups of stakeholders: the port
users (customers) and the local community, as the trait of the fifth generation port
1
. The goal
of the study is to present the characteristics of fifth generation seaports taking account of the
1
M. Flynn, P. Lee, The next step on the port generations ladder: customer centric and community ports, (in:)
T. Notteboom, Current Issues in Shipping, Ports and Logistics, University Press Antwerp, Brussels 2011, p. 497-
510.
2
idea of classifying seaport generations presented by P. Lee and J. Lam in 2015
2
and to pro-
pose criteria for distinguishing sixth generation ports handling ships with a capacity of
50 thousand TEU.
1. Current Seaport Generations
Literature on the subject differentiates seaports by their capacity and throughput results as
well as other parameters such as the management system, the port’s effectiveness as the sup-
ply centre for creating added value and innovativeness
3
. The services package offered by sea-
ports changes over time with the development of their capacity to handle various ship types
and the cargo transported thereby (including unitized), means of land transport, as well as
with the development of the computer link networks and the automation of the processes exe-
cuted therein. The more the differentiation of the functions performed by the port, the more
advanced its supply centre
4
.
Due to the non-linear nature of seaport development caused by the changeability of the
management conditions throughout the years, it would seem that we cannot discuss the “lad-
der” nature of the development path of all ports. Not every seaport can ascend up the devel-
opment ladder due to specific development barriers, geographical location, or the economic
and political situation of its hinterland. In 1990, the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNTACD) proposed a theoretical model of seaport classification, taking ac-
count of the port development strategy, the range of provided port services, and the level of IT
integration of entities functioning as part of the port services market
5
. This was an attempt to
summarise the development of seaports in the period prior to the 1960s, after the introduction
of containerization on a wider scale in the 1970s and their development starting from the
1980s thanks to the use of modern, highly efficient devices and equipment, computer technol-
ogies and intermodal operations. In accordance with the UNTACD classification which in-
cludes three port generations, only the largest seaports in the world located at the junction of
key navigation routes, are able to function as part of the most advanced global logistic plat-
2
P. Lee, J. Lam, Container Port Competition and Competitiveness Analysis: Asian Major Ports, (in:) C. Lee,
Q. Meng, Handbook of Ocean Container Transport Logistics – Making Global Supply Chain Effective, Interna-
tional Series in Operations Research & Management Science, Springer, New York, p. 97-136.
3
A. Grzelakowski, M. Matczak, Współczesne porty morskie, funkcjonowanie i rozwój, Wydawnictwo Akademii
Morskiej w Gdyni, Gdynia 2012, p. 31.
4
More on the transport function: H. Klimek, R. Rolbiecki, Funkcja transportowa największych polskich portów
morskich, „Zeszyty Naukowe Wydziału Ekonomicznego Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego” 2017, no. 63, p. 79-90.
5
Ad hoc Intergovernmental Group of Port Experts, UNCTAD, Geneva 1990, Port marketing and the third gen-
eration port, TD/B C.4/AC.7/14, UNCTAD, Geneva 1991.
3
forms which concentrate a large part of the unit cargo streams. The UNCTAD developed
model of seaport generations is shown in table 1.
Table 1. Specification of seaport generations according to UNCTAD
Port characteris-
tics
1st generation
2nd generation
3rd generation
Development
period
prior to 1960
1960-1980
after 1980
Main cargo
Semi-bulk cargo
Dry semi-bulk cargo and
liquid bulk cargo
Bulk, general, and
containerized cargo
Attitude
and strategy of port
development
Conservative,
means of transport
change point
Expansive, transport,
industrial, and commer-
cial centre
Commercial, logistic-
distribution centre for
international trade
Scope of opera-
tions
[1] Loading, unload-
ing, storage, naviga-
tion services
1 + [2] Cargo processing,
industrial and commer-
cial services - territorial
expansion
1 + 2 + [3] Cargo and
information distribu-
tion, logistic opera-
tions
Organisational
features
Independent opera-
tions within the port,
informal connections
between the port and
its users
Closer ties between the
port and its users. No
connections between
different types of opera-
tions within the port,
provisional ties between
the port and the city
Unified port communi-
ty. Port integration
with the transport-
commercial chain.
Close connections
between the port and
the city. Extensive port
organisation.
Specific production
features
Cargo flow, simple,
single services.
No/low added value
Cargo flow,
cargo processing. Vari-
ous services, higher
added value
Cargo and information
flow. Cargo and in-
formation distribution.
Wide package of vari-
ous services. High
added value
Deciding factors
Work/capital
Capital
Technology, know-
how
Source: Port marketing and the challenge of the third generation port, UNCTAD, TD/B/C.4/AC.7/14,
Geneva 1991, p. 23.
4
The main feature of the first generation seaport according to UNTCTAD is the uncompli-
cated operational activities consisting of stevedoring cargo between land and sea-based means
of transport. The seaport operates in isolation from transport and the commercial function.
Taking advantage of the strong position on the local market and often having monopoly, it
does not have to endeavour to satisfy the needs of the users
6
. The information, document, and
statistical system of the first generation port operates separately from the port users. The rela-
tions between the seaport and the port city are loose enough so that both entities need not co-
ordinate spatial development plans. The operations of various entities within the port regions
are also uncoordinated. Decisions were made independently from one another, as prior to con-
tainerization the stevedoring rate was not high and the cargo displacement was slow. An ex-
ception to this were seaports located near places where natural resources were being extracted
which serviced liquid and bulk cargoes and where intermodal displacement of the cargo onto
ships, either by pipeline or conveyor, was carried out
7
.
The first generation ports operate in the area of uncontested hinterland which due to
economic or political (country borders) factors can handle cargoes without competition. This
category should include raw material ports as well as seaports from the “B” and “C” group
8
.
Small seaports, constituting fishing ports or marinas, do not require costly information sys-
tems, significant storage areas, nor planning activity coordination. Even now, we cannot dis-
miss their importance, both in the economic development of underdeveloped countries, and in
the functioning of the local community in developed countries.
The second generation ports, according to UNCTAD, integrate with their surroundings
via their transport, industrial, and commercial function. Within the port areas, industrial parks
are created which receive imported raw materials delivered by sea such as iron ore, steel,
crude oil, aluminium, paper pulp, artificial fertilizers, sugar, flour, and other agricultural car-
goes. In the 1960s, sea transport started to make use of huge tankers and bulk carriers, which
required the ports do increase the depth of their water areas
9
. Expanding the scope of port
6
Port marketing and the third generation port, TD/B C.4/AC.7/14, UNCTAD, Geneva 1992, p. 13.
7
UNCTAD gives the example of the ports in Saudi Arabia (crude oil exports) and Australia (bulk cargo ex-
ports). Ibidem, p. 13.
8
Within the EU, the category “A” seaport being an element of the TEN-T transport network is a facility with
annual volume capacity of at least 1.5 million tonnes or handling 200 thousand passengers. Other ports, where
cargo volumes do not meet the above criteria, constitute medium and small ports, i.e. category “B” and “C”
accordingly. They are of regional or local importance.
9
S. Szwankowski, Funkcjonowanie i rozwój portów morskich, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego,
Gdańsk 2000, p. 39.
5
operations with the industrial and commercial function created the conditions for an increase
of the added value created in ports
10
. The development of the industrial function is connected
with access to land, efficient land transport, as well as worker and utility (power and water)
availability. The intensification of industrial production had negative consequences for the
natural environment. From the operational perspective, efficient functioning of the port sup-
ply centre requires a degree of coordination of activities with the port city and region. Due to
the increasing volumes, the significance of cooperation between the various service providers
within the seaport in order to handle cargo efficiently also increases
11
.
Despite the attempt to go beyond the prevailing operational isolation, second generation
ports cooperated with their immediate surroundings, the transport sector and municipal au-
thorities, in a rather narrow capacity. Actually, seaport activity was limited to the narrowly
defined micro-surroundings
12
. Also, the information exchange process with the surroundings
in the 1960s and 1970s did not take account of electronic data exchange systems
13
.
The third generation seaports first appeared in the 1980s in the period of accelerated de-
velopment of containerized cargo volumes, the creation of an intermodal connections net-
work, and increasing requirements resulting from the development of international transport.
They are characterised by higher activity than the previous generations, in connection with
searching for cargoes by implementing the strategy of development which fosters the creation
of integrated logistics centres and even logistics platforms supporting international trade
14
. In
the operational area, third generation ports are characterised by a much larger scope of ser-
vices which includes four areas of business operations
15
. The first includes stevedoring, stor-
age, and navigation services with the use of modern technologies, organisation and manage-
ment. A significant role in this generation is played by skills (know-how), electronic data pro-
cessing and exchange. The second area comprises the expansion of the industrial function of
the second generation ports with environmental functions pertaining to operating ships and
devices necessary for environmental protection. There are industrial zones (so-called export
processing zones) being created around the ports, where imported cargoes are refined and
shipped out via the seaport. The third area includes an effective administrative-commercial
10
R. Marek, Przemiany w portach morskich Unii Europejskiej na przełomie XX I XXI wieku, „Logistyka” 2012,
no. 2, p. 890.
11
Port Marketing and the Third Generation Port, TD/B C.4/AC.7/14, UNCTAD, Geneva 1992, p. 14.
12
R. Marek, Przemiany w portach morskich Unii Europejskiej…, p. 890.
13
IBM PCs were not implemented until the 1980s.
14
Port marketing and the third generation port…, p. 15.
15
K. Misztal, S. Szwankowski, Organizacja i eksploatacja portów morskich, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdań-
skiego, Gdańsk 1999, p. 58.
6
handling of cargo information, the necessary bank, insurance and legal services for the port.
UNCTAD points out that excessive document-related and regulatory requirements, and the
uncoordinated work schedule of port services may contribute to the increase of non-tariff bar-
riers in trade
16
. The fourth area focuses on the new logistic-distribution function which results
from including seaports in the integrated concept of the land-sea transport chain. The distribu-
tion service at the third generation seaport consists of effective management of the cargo
stream and information pertaining thereto in order to enable deliveries under the “just in time”
system. Faster container rotation within the seaport as well as fast intermodal connections
prevent “adding value” to the cargoes therein. Port distribution centres may supplement the
package of port services, enable LCL (less than container load) cargo deconsolidation, and
organise cargo distribution via land transport, as well as contribute to the return of empty con-
tainers to the port.
Third generation ports are unable to continue the development policy and not cooperate
with the authorities of port cities and regions, as well as the national government. The high
volume of containerized cargoes handled at ports requires good quality road connections, rail
connections with facilities, modern warehouses and distribution parks, as well as a full sym-
biosis between the port and the city for the purpose of rational use of resources and joint spa-
tial planning
17
.
A certain weakness of the third generation port is the functioning of the port supply centre
as an entity separate from the distribution chain. This may lead to making commercial deci-
sions which are favourable for the port, however without sufficient stakeholder participation.
The stevedoring capacity is not a developmental determinant for seaports in the UNCTAD
classification. Small ports may have difficulty with ensuring high quality ship handling even
with a small cargo volume which in underdeveloped countries may prove insufficient to justi-
fy the costly investments, including in IT. Another criterion for UNCTAD classification is an
active role of port decision-makers in the search for modern cargo handling solutions, intro-
ducing organisational and informational improvements
18
. The development of computer sci-
ences since the 1980s has been so fast that the EDI data exchange systems developed in this
period seem inadequate in the 21st century for two reasons. First, they did not allow the use of
the Internet which became a common, global medium functioning as support for international
16
Port marketing and the third generation port…, p. 16.
17
Ibidem, p. 21.
18
Ibidem, p. 22.
7
trade and finances
19
. Secondly, the systems and procedures connected with online information
security require modernisation, ensuring resilience of port turnover participants to hacker at-
tacks which may put the port at risk of temporary or complete shutdown of stevedoring activi-
ties
20
.
Due to the changes occurring in the vicinity of ports in the 1990s connected with the
introduction of the “just in time” concept, seaports started to mimic the changes occurring in
maritime transport chains, improving the process of cargo and information flow in a manner
aimed at eliminating wastefulness of resources and energy, as well as limiting downtimes
21
.
In 1999, the UNCTAD defined the notion of a fourth generation port. The following criteria
have been considered: quality of port services, IT usage, developing the port community, the
presence of the port cluster and logistic centre, quality of connections with the hinterland on
the land side and the foreland on the sea side
22
. In contrast to the third generation ports, the
fourth generation ones play a super-regional role creating a hub, i.e. the main regional port
wherefrom cargo is transported by sea to smaller outlying ports. Port authorities may be inter-
connected by a common administration (such as in the case of ports in Copenhagen and
Malmo) or a common operator of the container terminal. UNCTAD emphasises that invest-
ments in port-hubs are usually implemented by the private sector and in particular by strong
international organisations specialised in operating port terminals (mainly container termi-
nals). It would seem that an appropriate involvement of private capital under a public-private
partnership allows to create modern third, fourth, or fifth generation ports from scratch by
constructing modern container terminals employing cutting-edge stevedoring technologies
and IT solutions, as well as a modern approach to steering economic processes in the port
market circle.
In connection with the above trend of direct engagement of the private sector with
seaports, UNCTAD proposes that port authorities shift their attention from seaport operations
to more long-term forms of shaping their future. These include fulfilling ownership and stra-
19
A. Kaliszewski, Perspektywy rozwoju usług finansowych w Internecie, „Zeszyty Naukowe Instytutu Badań
nad Gospodarką Rynkową”, Gdańsk 1999, no. 102.
20
After a weeklong interruption due to a successful cybernetic attack, the automatic container terminal APMT
Maasvlakte 2 commenced operations. J. Baker, APM Terminals resumes Rotterdam operations, Lloyds List,
6 July 2017, https://lloydslist.maritimeintelligence.informa.com/LL109017/APM-Terminals-resumes-
Rotterdam-operations (last access: 8 July 2017).
21
A. Paixão, P. Marlow, Fourth generation ports – a question of agility?, „International Journal of Physical Dis-
tribution and Logistics Management” 2003, No. 33, p. 356-357.
22
The fourth generation port, UNCTAD Ports Newsletter, 1999, No. 19, p. 10, http://unctad.org/en/
Docs/posdtetibm15.en.pdf (last access: 25 November 2017).
8
tegic functions in five areas: planning port policy, regulatory towards port service providers
(licensing) and supervisory in the area of ensuring fair competitive conditions (risk of exces-
sive tariffs of private operators) and ensuring a minimum level of quality of services offered
at the port (security), monitoring the port’s vicinity and promoting the port outside, as well as
training the staff necessary for operations of the port service providers
23
.
The fourth generation port model is not without methodological defects, mainly connected
with the previous categories, due to the difficulties with a clear delimitation between each of
the port generations. In 1999, UNCTAD outlined the possibility of creating such ports, how-
ever failed to present specific meters which could help in classifying ports into the 4th genera-
tion. Due to the rapid development of IT technologies, the Internet, smartphones, or social
networks at the outset of the 21st century, we can expect the UNCTAD port classification to
undergo another change.
The division of seaports into generations by UNTCAD has been criticised in literature on
the subject due to gross oversimplifications. A. Beresford points out the abstract UNCTAD
classification due to a need of a definitive transition of a port between the categories over
time, which makes the port classification inaccurate, fuzzy, and not reflective of the realities
of the functioning of e.g. European ports
24
. Port generations according to the UNCTAD mod-
el ignore factors which are vital according to A. Beresford and determine the level of devel-
opment of commercial facilities, such as the size of the port, its geographical location, and the
degree of engagement of the public and/or private sector in providing port services
25
. A. Ber-
esford notes that the benefits resulting from the port’s location influence previous stages of its
development as well as plans for its development, market strategies, and the scope of port
services offered. In that way, the port is less technologically advanced, however, its advanta-
geous location in respect of the hinterland may make it proper for handling the existing cargo
stream while preserving the economical cost level
26
. Therefore, constructing ports of the new-
est generation to substitute existing ones does not seem necessary in every location.
In 1998-1999, the EU financed the WORKPORT research project which, in contrast to the
1990 UNCTAD model, showed changes occurring in seaports
27
. The development of Europe-
an ports since the 1960s was evolutionary in nature, which means that ports, and more pre-
23
Ibidem.
24
A. Beresford, B. Gardner, S. Pettit, A. Naniopoulos, C. F. Wooldridge, The UNCTAD and WORKPORT
models of port development: evolution or revolution?, „Maritime Policy and Management” 2004, No. 2, p. 97.
25
Ibidem, p. 94.
26
Ibidem, p. 97.
27
Ibidem, p. 94.
9
cisely, container terminals of various generations (distinguished in accordance with the
UNCTAD concept), coexisted in later years (in regards to terminals, this pertained to individ-
ual supply centres in ports
28
. UNCTAD models disregarded the criteria of port distinction,
significant from the perspective of European port development, concerning the changing con-
ditions of handling larger vessels, organisation culture, occupational safety and health, and
environmental protection which has been showcased in table 2. The ever-growing scope of
European integration enabled the introduction of common legal regulations on the work con-
ditions in seaports and environmental protection. The increasing degree of mechanisation,
automation, and computerisation of ports requires adjusting the scope of worker skill, carry-
ing out training programmes, and taking care to improve organisational culture. The WORK-
PORT project emphasises the human side of organisational progress by a team-based work
organisation with a significant degree of decision-making autonomy which enables the provi-
sion of port services in a flexible manner and making use of the multi-skilling aspect of its
participants (multi skilled teams).
It would seem that in contrast to the UNCTAD port generation model, WORKPORT, in-
troduced in March 2000, takes into consideration a substantially larger number of criteria as
well as their mutual relations (e.g. influence of organisational changes in ports on work safety
and hygiene, the natural environment, new technologies). The WORKPORT model seems to
be anthropocentric due to emphasis on the role of port staff in the port evolution process (both
on the managerial and execution level). The project also included aspects of work quality in
the scope of constant improvement of port service quality (studies focused on the use of: kai-
zen, TQM, learning organisation systems in ports).
28
An example of a combination of fourth and first generation ports is Dubai. Next to the modern Jebel Ali con-
tainer terminal, a first generation port is still in operation in the old part of the city, where packages and sacks are
transshipped from small vessels in a traditional manner, like they were dozens of years ago.
10
Table 2. The change processes in European ports according to WORKPORT
Port
division criteria
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
1
2
3
4
5
6
Property
Infrastructure is commonly pub lic property (exception -
Great Britain). Superstructure and operational activities
- both private and public, depending on the country
and/or seaport.
The increasing involvement of the private sector in the
provision of port services with the use of the superstruc-
ture.
The increasing involvement of the private sector
1980s Seaport privatisation in Great Britain. Ownership concentration in British ports.Increase of commercialisation
of seaport managements.Ports become more focused on users.Furthe r privatisation of Great Britain seaport.
1990s Increasing ownership concentration of container terminals due to their partial acquisition by international
terminal corporations.
Forms of cargo
Conventional cargo. Commencement of the phase of
replacing semi-bulk cargo with unitised cargo. Conven-
tional cargo has been divided into: container, ro-ro,
palletised, LASH, neo-bulk, semi-bulk. Small changes
in the form of bulk cargoes Small changes in the form of
liquid cargo.
Replacement of semi-bulk cargo with unitised cargo
1980s Ships are increasingly bigger
2000s Unification of conventional cargoes is nearly finished
Cargo manipula-
tion process
Conventional cargo
Dry bulk cargo High level of mechanisation
Liquid bulk cargo High level of mechanisation
and automation
Increasing automation
and mechanisation.
Subject to mechanisa-
tion
and automation along
with
cargo unification.
Specialised terminals
for handling dry bulk
cargoes
Specialised terminals
for handling liquid bulk
cargoes
Increasing automation of dry
bulk volume
Full automation of liquid
bulk volume
Full automation of operational activity on quays and in
storage operations in certain container terminals (robot-
ics).
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
Processes support-
ing load-
ing/unloading op-
erations, including
information pro-
cesses
Conventional methods of information and document
exchange
Data on paper, entered by hand.
Dissemination of non-conventional methods of information processing and
transfer
Increasing use of information technologies and the increasing complexity of the communication network
Post, phone, telex, fax.
Post, phone, telex, fax,
EDI.
Post, phone, telex, fax,
EDI, Internet, Intranet.
Information standardisa-
tion.
Email, EDI, Internet,
Intranet, phone (mobile),
radio, post. Information
standardisation.
Work culture
ü Labour resources
ü Work organisa-
tion
ü Work environ-
ment
ü Employment
conditions
ü Work relations
Semi-bulk cargoes - highly labour-intensive operations
(requiring physical labour), handling other cargoes
(bulk), capital-intensive. Lon gshoremen labour protected
by strong labour unions. Hierarchical organisational
structure.
Decreasing worker numbers
Loading operations become capital-intensive and less labour-intensive
Unitisation of stevedor-
ing of conventional cargo
gave rise to replacing
physical labour with that
of mechanical devices. A
decrease in worker
numbers (despite the
increase of the cargo
volume).
Multi-skilling requirement.
Organisational structure
levelling.Increase of
demand for IT skills
24-hour work time has
become common-
place.Substituting con-
tract workers with season-
al workers.
An increased emphasis on
the quality of provided
services.
Resignation from employ-
ing seasonal workers
Decreased participation of workers (longshoremen) being
members of labour unions.
Port functions and
port development
processes
The port as the point of changing the means of transport
from land to sea and vice-versa.
Focusin g on the cargo with supplementary activities
conducted in a minor scope (within and without the
seaport), e.g. crude oil refining.
Informal connections between the port and its users.
Increasing diversity of port operations
Increasing industrialisa-
tion via MIDAS (Mari-
time Industrial Develop-
ment Area). Expanding
the port area. Closer
relations between the port
and its users.
Diversification of port
companies (towards
logistics and services
creating added value).
Creation of duty-free
zones and distribution
centres. Unified port
community.
Port community globalisation.
12
Source: Final Report, Workport WA -97-S.C.-2213, (in:) A. Naniopoulos, June 2000, https://trimis.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/project/documents/workport.pdf (last access:
9 December 2017).
1
2
3
4
5
6
Work environment
health and safety
aspects
Work in a port is dangerous due to the high share of
physical labour. Improper legal regulations
and insufficient training.
Decreasing rate of work-related accidents and absences
Decrease of the rate of
accidents and a reduction
of absences due to health
issues.
Fewer work-related
accidents. Worker health
problems due to a reduc-
tion of simple physical
labour (other accidents
having much more severe
results).
Port cranes become more
ergonomic and adapted to
the needs of the workers
handling them.
An increase in the number of training sessions in the
scope of occupational health and safety.
Formal policy in the scope of occupational health and
safety.
EU directive on working time. Rigorous inspection of the
workstation surroundings.
Natural
environment
Overall low level of
awareness in the scope of
the need to protect the
environment.
Increasing awareness of the surroundings
Reactive answer to events
EU environmental assess-
ment. Specific legislation.
Local ad hoc initiatives.
An increasingly proactive
system of environmental
management.
Directive on bird breeding
sites.
Ecological code of the
ESPO
(European Sea Ports Or-
ganization).
Quality of environmental
protection ensured by the
environmental manage-
ment system. Conform-
ance with environmental
protection law and re-
sponsibility for the state
of nature as an element of
regular business planning
Production means
Intensive human labour
Human labour replaced
with capital-intensive
investments in devices
used for port load-
ing/unloading operations
- introduction of new
technologies.
Increasing technological
advancement and basing
port economy on
knowledge (know-how).
Information and communi-
cation technologies.
Integration of economical
interests of the entire port
community
13
In Polish literature on the subject, a new port classification was proposed by J. Semenov
who in 2003 pointed out the problem of transforming ports from “a port as a cargo stevedor-
ing system” to “a port as a logistic centre”
29
. He distinguished five categories of modern ports
and their prehistory, which is shown in table 3.
Table 3. Port classification and basic characteristics according to J. Semenov
Port generation
Characteristics
Port prehistory
There was technically no such thing as a port. Boats carrying passengers and
goods entered a gulf. These gulfs functioned as ports by connecting water and land
routes.
1st generation ports
Ports functioned as commercial centres.
2nd generation ports
Points of ship handling within the bimodal transport system: e.g. maritime
transport - rail transport; maritime transport - road transport etc.
3rd generation ports
Port - industrial centre. Between 1940 and 1945, ports played a logistic function
for the purposes of supplying the military.
4th generation ports
Port - logistic centre as a node for handling multimodal transports.
5th generation ports
An analysis of the 4.5 thousand years of port history leads to a conclusion that
ports of this generation should combine the following functions:
- wholesale centres which will cut the time of cargo delivery;
- points of joining of water and land passenger streams;
- industrial centres with comprehensive intermodal transport handling;
- logistic centres as connecting points for multimodal cargo transport.
Source: J. Semenov, Kierunki strategiczne podwyższenia konkurencyjności polskich portów na tle wymogów
UE, pr. zbior. pod red. K. Chwesiuk, Konkurencyjność polskich portów morskich w świetle integracji z Unią
Europejską, III Konferencja Naukowa Porty Morskie, Szczecin, 2003, p. 6.
In the development of the fourth generation ports, J. Semenov saw the need to change the
attitude of the port staff towards the scope of duties, from passively conducting stevedoring
operations, to seeing them as a part of the global economic process. Raising the requirements
for 4th generation ports also includes safety requirements in regards to the functioning of the
ports and port logistic centres
30
. An important factor to raise the competitiveness of Polish
29
J. Semenov, Kierunki strategiczne podwyższenia konkurencyjności polskich portów na tle wymogów UE,
(in:). K. Chwesiuk, Konkurencyjność polskich portów morskich w świetle integracji z Unią Europejską, Szcze-
cin, Wydawnictwo Kreos, Szczecin 2003, p. 6.
30
Polish ports implemented the abovementioned assumptions by implementing the ISPS code in 2004.
http://www.portgdansk.pl/wydarzenia/isps-code (last access: 9 December 2017). In December 2017, works were
14
ports is the port’s perception as a uniform system, combining infrastructure, superstructure
and information technologies in order to maximise convenience for port users. J. Semenov
adds two criteria distinguishing a fourth generation port: adapting to new types of operations,
including the creation of added value (which results in increasing the port’s profitability) and
playing the role of logistic hubs. A role model in this respect are container ports such as Hong
Kong, Singapore, or Rotterdam.
J. Semenov’s port classification does not include a criterion of port navigation capacity for
handling the largest vessels, including container ships. Limitations of the depth of the port
approach, turning basin, and quay basins in important European container ports such as
Gothenburg and Hamburg
31
effectively prevent the possibility of handling the largest contain-
er ships. Such a seaport must account for being excluded from participating in the navigation
services from Asia to Europe (e.g. Hamburg which has for years been fighting for the possi-
bility to dredge the Elbe river from 14.5 m to 15.5 m) or the lack of possibility to fully load
a ship (Gothenburg having quays where the maximum ship draught is 13.2 metres is unable to
handle a fully loaded ship)
32
.
In 2012, A. Grzelakowski and M. Matczak proposed an original characteristic of the
fourth generation port taking account of the following criteria
33
:
• containerization of the main cargo stream,
• port development strategy based on advanced automation and IT technologies,
• scope of services including full integration of the port with the transport, forwarding, and
logistics industries, intermodal transport and information standardisation,
• the nature of the management system focusing on the globalisation of port operations and
orientation towards SCM (supply chain management) and controlling the state of the natu-
ral environment,
conducted in the Gdynia port consisting of building gates to detect radiation
http://www.gospodarkamorska.pl/Porty,Transport/terminale-portowe-lepiej-chronione-przed-materialami-
nuklearnymi.html (last access: 9 December 2017).
31
M. Hollmann, Volume decline costs Hamburg No. 2 spot in Europe, JOC news, 10 February 2016,
https://www.joc.com/port-news/european-ports/port-hamburg/volume-decline-costs-hamburg-no-2-spot-
europe_20160210.html (last access: 9 December 2017).
32
The Impact of Mega-Ships: The Case of Gothenburg, Report of the International Transport Forum, OECD,
11 January 2017, https://www.itf-oecd.org/impact-mega-ships-gothenburg (last access: 9 December 2017).
33
A. Grzelakowski, M. Matczak, Współczesne porty morskie, funkcjonowanie i rozwój, Wydawnictwo Akade-
mii Morskiej w Gdyni, Gdynia 2012, p. 30-32.
15
• providing port services with the use of tools such as TQM (total quality management),
HRM (human resources management) approach, process management and service process
automation,
• basic development factors are innovation, technologies, and information.
According to A. Grzelakowski and M. Matczak, the distinguishing criteria of a fourth
generation port correspond to the essence of a modern container port which is integrated with
global supply chains via a computer network. However, similarly to the classification intro-
duced by J. Semenov, they do not touch on the issue of the depth of port basins. Consequent-
ly, this classification cannot be used to explain the causes of the significant increase of con-
tainer turnover in newly constructed ports (beginning of the 21st century) such as Wilhelms-
haven in Germany, or the DCT in Gdańsk, Poland. They were constructed due to an insuffi-
cient depth of the other container ports in Hamburg, Gdynia, or Gothenburg.
2. Seaport classification in respect of creating added value
The gradual increase of containerized cargo volume transported by sea in subsequent
years of the 21st century contributed to the achievement of the highest level of port volumes in
history – TEUs 699.7m in 2016
34
. The only year when maritime container transports were
down being 2009, when the economic crisis was especially noticeable. Simultaneously, tech-
nical progress enabled construction of container ships of an increasingly larger capacity which
in turn enable more cost-efficient cargo transports due the scale effect. In 2003, the 8063 TEU
OOCL megaship was launched and in 2017, the largest container ship in the world was com-
missioned, also for the OOCL ship owner, having a capacity of 21 thousand TEU
35
. During its
first voyage from Asia to Europe, the vessel, the only one to exceed 21 thousand TEU capaci-
ty, entered the DCT in Gdansk
36
. Along with an increase in the size of the constructed ships,
this period saw significant developments in IT technologies which are not only applied by the
34
UNCTAD forecasts indicated a 3% increase of port volumes in comparison to 2016. Review of Maritime
Transport, UNCTAD, 5 October 2017, http://unctad.org/en/Publications Library/rmt2017_en.pdf (last access: 9
December 2017).
35
S. Saxon, M. Stone, Container shipping: the next 50 years, “Travel, Transport and Logistics” October 2017,
McKinsey, https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel-transport-and-logistics/our-insights/how-container-
shipping-could -reinvent-itself-for-the-digital-age (last access: 9 December 2017).
36
Zawinięcie w dniu 28 czerwca 2017 roku, http://www.portalmorski.pl/porty-logistyka/36100-najwiekszy-
kontenerowiec-swiata-dzisiaj-w-gdansku (last access: 9 December 2017).
16
largest container ports in the world such as Shanghai, Singapore, or Hong Kong, but are also
implemented by an increasing number of ports of continental or regional importance.
M. Flynn, P. Lee and T. Notteboom proposed supplementing the port generation classifi-
cation adopted by UNCTAD with a fifth level of seaport development. The most significant
differences in functioning between fourth and fifth generation ports according to M. Flynn are
shown in table 4.
In 2016, P. Lee and J. Lam ordered the stages of seaport development based on two crite-
ria: creation of an economic added value, and the complexity of the port supply centre. They
distinguished
37
:
• level one – simple loading/unloading operations ports,
• level two - logistic ports providing various services including warehousing,
• level three - ports being a part of the supply chain, making use of bilateral electronic da-
ta exchange, i.e. exchanging data with the customers,
• level four - global e-ports transferring information on a global scale, having global
standards of cargo handling,
• level five - ports focused on customers and the local community offering deep IT inte-
gration with various stakeholders.
The fifth generation port is characterised with an increased complexity and better possibili-
ties for creating added value than the ports of the previous generations which is shown in
Fig. 1.
37
P. Lee, J. Lam, Developing the Fifth Generation Ports Model, (in:) Dynamic Shipping and Port Development
in the Globalized Economy, ed. P. Lee, K. Cullinane, Palgrave Macmillan, London 2016, p. 188.
17
Figure 1. Evolution path of generation five ports according to P. Lee and J. Lam
Source: own elaboration based on P. Lee, J. Lam, Developing the Fifth Generation Ports Model…,
p. 188.
Bearing in mind the increasing expectations of the main port stakeholders, i.e. ship own-
ers, loaders, and local communities, it would seem that an unprecedented scale of coordina-
tion of activities at the mesoeconomic level. Generation five seaports must actively cooperate
with municipal, regional, and national authorities in order to address conflicts and set priori-
ties enabling an undisturbed exchange of cargo between the port and its hinterland, and ensure
a high level of security, cost rationality, and generate progressively smaller external effects on
the environment. It is important for a 5GP to shape its strategy and solve problems of the local
community in a manner ensuring sustainable development.
18
Table 4. Comparison of UNCTAD fourth generation ports and M. Flynn, T. Notteboom
and P. Lee generation five ports.
Criteria
4th generation port
5th generation port
Quality of pro-
vided services
compliance with regulatory require-
ments and general standards
exceeding the standard of services expected by
port stakeholders
Application of IT
solutions
limited to customs clearance and
tracking the cargoes in the port
focusing on the level of quality of services,
security, and increasingly better efficiency.
Application of computer technology for the
provision of port services and to predict events
and measure results
Influence on port
stakeholders
(environment)
limited to compliance with planning
procedures and environmental plan-
ning procedures
active approach towards stakeholders in order to
coordinate planning and the process of mutual
decision-making
Port cluster
operated under procedures of port area
development
port services fully integrated with the port’s
mission and vision. The port authority plays the
role of a “cluster leader”, contributing to the
increase of added value in the port
Maritime cluster
examined independently of port func-
tions
functionally still outside the port cluster, how-
ever, by establishing creative financial incen-
tives, it draws new ship owners and loaders,
creating new jobs and added value
Logistic hub
development of the logistic function,
as an expansion of port functions, as
well as creating duty-free zones and
logistic parks near the ports
logistics is a part of a maritime supply chain, air
transport for valuable cargo and cargo requiring
fast delivery. Advanced duty-free zones, as well
as logistic parks near ports
Land connection
(hinterland)
development of land connections in
result of natural evolution
ports develop strategies of connections with the
hinterland by their pricing policy and construct-
ing a system of economical incentives aimed at
securing loaders against such a development of
the connection network which would harm the
customers’ interests
Source: M. Flynn, P. Lee, T. Notteboom, The next step on the port generations ladder: customer-centric and
community ports, (in:) T. Notteboom, Current Issues in Shipping, Ports and Logistics, University Press Antwerp,
Brussels 2011, p. 503.
In 2015, P. Lee and J. Lam developed the first adjustment of the criteria of recognising
ports as category five. It was a result of a very general description of the indicators which
19
made it harder to empirically compare the largest container ports in the world such as Shang-
hai, Singapore, Hong Kong, or Busan, in regards to meeting 5GP requirements. For this rea-
son, the need arose to increase the level of detail of the criteria
38
:
• the task of 5GP IT systems is efficient handling of port users via a “single window” system,
as well as to inform the port stakeholders about technical-operational indicators which may
be important thereto, as well as about environmental indicators concerning e.g. current level
of emissions,
• the task of a constructive dialogue between 5GP with port stakeholders should be to plan
terminal capacity including in particular, planning the development of port quays and mak-
ing use of a financial incentive system for ship owners to operate ships in an ecological
manner,
• the role of a 5GP within the port cluster should active enough, so that through the port ac-
tivities (those of the port authorities) the quality of logistic services increases (so-called lo-
gistic hub) as does the added value generated in the port,
• the role of the port within the maritime cluster is to create financial incentives in order to
draw ship owners, forwarders, and shipping agents,
• the role of the 5GP as a logistic hub is to improve relations with stakeholders from the
port’s hinterland to create synergy,
• the task of the 5GP in the area of land connections is to apply a favourable pricing policy as
well as a system of financial incentives for customers in order to improve cooperation, es-
pecially with intermodal operators and carriers in order to decrease the total costs of cargo
transports,
• the task of a 5GP in the area of maritime connections is to take over containerized transit
cargoes by participating in international supply chains in order to change the nature of the
port from the port of destination (gateway), to a port which is competitive in the area of
transit cargoes (transshipment centre).
Considering these modifiable criteria, according to P. Lee and J. Lam, the closest port
to meet the conditions allowing it to be recognised as generation five is Singapore
39
. The con-
38
P. Lee, J. Lam, Developing the fifth generation ports model, (in:) P. Lee, Dynamic shipping and port devel-
opment in the globalized economy, Palgrave Macmillan, London 2016, p. 191-192.
39
P. Lee, J. Lam, Container Port Competition and Competitiveness Analysis: Asian Major Ports, (in:) C. Lee, Q.
Meng, Handbook of Ocean Container Transport Logistics – Making Global Supply Chain Effective, “Interna-
tional Series in Operations Research & Management Science” 2015, Vol. 220, p. 97-136.
20
tainer terminals operating there provide maritime container stevedoring services of the highest
quality in the world. The port has an efficient “single window” access to the system, also with
the use of mobile devices (smartphones). The Singapore port plays an active role as a port
cluster developer. The cluster includes bunkering services (the volume of fuel sold is one of
the largest in the world), and the Singapore ship registry is in the top 10 largest in the world.
The Singapore government promotes ecological solutions by lowering the initial registration
fee by 50% and the annual fee by 20% for ships with less impact on the environment. In 2013,
the Singapore government encouraged even more ecological (more costly for ship-owners)
solutions for reducing emissions (installing so-called scrubbers), reducing the initial registra-
tion fee by 75% and the annual fee by 50%. The Singapore maritime cluster handles the port
as a global container hub and a global hub for international traffic of all types of ships, not
only container vessels. The Singapore port diverts special funds towards promoting ecological
technical solutions (2011 investment programmes: Green Ship, Green Port and Green Tech-
nology cost SGD 100 million). A separate fund is intended to improve the productivity of the
maritime cluster by targeted subsidies aimed at significantly improving the skills of workers
in enterprises indirectly connected with the port (entities providing ship insurance, repairs,
charters, or legal services)
40
. According to P. Lee and J. Lam, the active role of the port in
Singapore makes it a fifth generation port. Additionally, the customs clearance procedures
and short delivery times place it at the top spot according to 2012 World Bank estimates
41
.
This has a favourable effect on attracting supranational corporations which establish their
distribution centres at the port. The only important deviation from the 5GP requirements is the
very limited hinterland comprised of the city of Singapore, a part of the Malaysian Johor-
Mekka region and the Indonesian Riau Archipelago. Singapore’s access to the foreland
through a network of 200 ship-owner companies which have ships entering 600 ports in 120
countries, as well through a network of container terminals (both dedicated and public) en-
sures its place as a fifth generation port. In 2016, P. Lee and J. Lam indicated new elements
justifying placing the port of Singapore in the 5GP category. These included attracting an
40
Subsidies for short professional training are 90% and the subsidy for establishing a business connected with
the widely understood maritime cluster is 70%. In 2016, the Singapore port dedicated a grant of SGD 12 million
for recruiting new workers into maritime economy (from amongst the population of the Republic of Singapore
and persons with a permanent right of residence). http://www.mpa.gov.sg/web/portal/home/maritime-
companies/setting-up-in-singapore/developing-manpower/maritime- cluster-fund-mcf (last access: 9 December
2017).
41
Ibidem.
21
international community of maritime ship-owners by way of tax cuts and exemptions
42
. The
distinguishing factors of a fifth generation port have not been sufficiently specified in earlier
publications, therefore, in 2016, P. Lee and J. Lam proposed measurable distinguishing fea-
tures which are shown in table 5
43
.
Table 5. Criteria for defining a fifth generation port in accordance with the second amend-
ment to the model by P. Lee and J. Lam of 2016
Area
Feature
Criteria
Criteria explanation
1
2
3
4
Port
service
Service quality
(A1) Reliability
Port services provided to the port’s
customers are efficient, reliable, and
high quality. These services minimise
the level of customer uncertainty in
regards to the services package provid-
ed at the seaport
Port
service
Service quality
(A2) Port system flexibil-
ity
Port operators have at their disposal
not only a flexible system (i.e. port
supply centre) reacting to risks and
accidents (including natural disasters),
but also showing activity towards im-
proving customer service standards
Application
of IT solu-
tions
Communications
system
(B1) Single window sys-
tem
Development of the single window
system which integrates the port’s IT
systems and the logistic EDI system,
with the use of IT tools, nanotechnolo-
gy, and biotechnology
42
P. Lee, J. Lam, Developing the Fifth Generation Ports Model, (in:) P. Lee, Dynamic Shipping and Port Devel-
opment in the Globalized Economy, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2016, p. 197.
43
Ibidem.
22
1
2
3
4
Application
of IT solu-
tions
IT
(B2) RFID system or
similar IT solutions
The use of RFID or other systems such
as SWS (smart wearable systems) for
container management at the port
Sustainable
development
Port and city symbio-
sis
(C1) Port and city devel-
opment coordination
Port and city authorities coordinate
spatial plans in order to achieve sus-
tainable development
Sustainable
development
Ecological develop-
ment
(C2) Integrated develop-
ment
Integrated development of technical
systems in order to decrease emissions
and air pollution through financial
incentives
Sustainable
development
Ecological develop-
ment
(C3) Developing an eco-
logical (green) port
A friendly environment which means
that sustainable development measures
will benefit the port city
Cluster
Cluster creation
(D1) Port cluster man-
agement
Port cluster supported by both port and
government policies
Cluster
Cluster creation
(D2) Maritime cluster
management
Creative financial incentives and social
infrastructure in order to draw owners
of ships and cargoes by creating jobs
and added value within the port and the
cities clustered around it
Hub port
Global hub
connections
(E1) Port infrastructure
and superstructure
Capacity to handle megaships without
technical restrictions in order to im-
prove port service production efficien-
cy
Hub port
Global hub
connections
(E2) Maritime connec-
tions
Connections with other ports along
with feeder connections for the largest
ship-owner companies
Hub port
Logistic hub
(E3) Land connections
and added value function
Logistic chain for creating high added
value in connection with free trade
areas and logistic parks
Source: own elaboration based on P. Lee, J. Lam, Developing the Fifth Generation Ports Model, (in:)
P. Lee, Dynamic Shipping and Port Development in the Globalized Economy, Palgrave Macmillan, London
2016, p. 200-201.
3. New 6GP concept
The current classification of seaports explains the changes which have already oc-
curred in ports around the world. Literature lacks results of predictive research which would
allow to anticipate the classification of future seaports based on current criteria for a fourth or
23
fifth generation port. Quick changes in the vicinity of seaports, such as implementing new IT
technologies, social network development, new methods of team and company management,
are ahead of the development of the port supply centre. In result, seaport generation models
are created as a reaction to changes in the global economy. Therefore, there is a need for up-
dating the criteria of port assessment under the INCTAD or WORKPORT projects of the EU.
While comparing WORKPORT and UNCTAD, A. Beresford drew attention to the fact that
certain criteria could not have been taken into account (they were never before present in the
port’s reality). The current criteria of classifying ports into generations are not stable which
makes both comparisons between ports and comparisons over time quite difficult. It would
seem that criteria should be developed, of yet another port generation which will be connected
with their functioning in the next 50 years.
T. Notteboom and J. Rodrigue propose a look on the current and future port development
tendencies. They take account of the trends on the containerized cargo transport market on
land on sea, limitations of logistic system effectiveness as well as that of the global supply
chains
44
. A key issue is the conflict between the evermore effective container transport by sea
using megaships and the atomised land transport which in many cases is not capable of han-
dling the cargo volume without external costs such as congestions in ports, on roads leading
thereto, and an inefficient rail transport. T. Notteboom and J. Rodrigue claim that subsequent
seaports will be limited by the scale of development of the land transport system. It would
seem that this criterion may be helpful with specifying the determinants of a sixth generation
port. T. Notteboom poses a question about the nature of containerized cargo transports in
2056 (the hundredth anniversary of containerization) and proceeds to analyse the influence of
the bargaining power of three groups of factors: economic, technological, and logistic.
A possibility is also envisaged, of shortening supply chains in the event the economic powers
decided on a regional nature of production
45
.
The future of seaports is also the object of interests of economic practitioners for whom in
1967 in the UK, the McKinsey company prepared a report on the future of containerization. It
correctly predicted the popularisation of container transports, container standardisation, the
creation of a hub and feeder port system, ship-owner company expansion causing an oversup-
44
T. Notteboom, J. Rodrigue, The future of containerization: perspectives from maritime and inland freight
distribution, „Geojournal” 2009, vol. 74, No. 1, p. 7-22.
45
Ibidem, p. 18.
24
ply of transport services and even handling ships of over 10 thousand TEU capacity
46
.
S. Saxon and M. Stone make the global containerization development conditional on macroe-
conomic indicators such as GDP increase. By 2066, they predict (at minimum) an annual in-
crease of the volume of containers transported by sea by ca. 1.9% (at maximum, by 3.2% an-
nually). Unlike T. Notteboom and J. Rodrigue, they do not assume the risk of saturating the
market with containers in this period (the peak of demand for containerized transport).
S. Saxon refers to the market of crude oil transports by sea as a reference level for the size of
container ships. He notes that despite the lower unit cost for container transports with a large
container ship, ship-owners can simultaneously order an excessive number of vessels and
once again lead to a significant oversupply of tonnage. This causes economic pressure on
lowering the prices of transport and deepens the business cycle in this industry. S. Saxon
warns that economic advantages of the scale resulting from an increase of a ship’s capacity
from 20 thousand TEU to 40 thousand TEU are significantly lower than those connected with
increasing a ship’s capacity from 10 thousand TEU to 20 thousand TEU. When increasing the
ship’s capacity, it can be lengthened, widened, or deepened which causes specific technical
and economic effects. In 2017, megaships operated by container ship-owners did not exceed
400 metres in length due the size of port quays, difficulties in manoeuvring such a vessel, and
the ports’ custom to charge fees per every 100 metres of a ship’s length. It would seem that in
the future, only the simultaneous widening and increasing draught will allow to increase
a ship’s capacity. However, S. Saxon notes that a natural limitation of a ship’s draught will be
the depth of the Sues Canal which, after the recent modernisation, reached 24 metres. The
depth of the Strait of Malacca is 25 metres which currently limits the size of the vessels sail-
ing on that route, transporting crude oil (VLCC - very large crude carriers). The draught of
Malaccamax type of vessels is 20 metres
47
. An alternative for megaships is to cross the Lom-
bok Strait (near the Indonesian island of Java) located 1734 km south-east of Singapore which
is 250 metres deep
48
. Container ships built in the future (post-Malaccamax) would have to
significantly alter their routes, adding thousands of kilometres and thereby, by-pass certain
seaports. The maximum depth of the Panama Canal, after dredging in June 2016, is only
46
S. Saxon, M. Stone, Container shipping: the next 50 years, “Travel, Transport and Logistics” October 2017,
McKinsey, https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel-transport-and-logistics/our-insights/how-container-
shipping-could-reinvent-itself-for-the-digital-age (last access: 9 December 2017).
47
What are Malaccamax Vessels?, Marine Insight, 22 lipca 2016, https://www.marineinsight.com/types-of-
ships/what-are-malaccamax-vessels/ (last access: 10 December 2017).
48
Own calculations on the basis of data taken from the wolframapha website,
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=distance+ from+Lombok+Strait+to+singapore (last access: 10 Decem-
ber 2017).
25
13.11 metres which allows passage of vessels up to the Neopanamax type, of a capacity of
13 thousand TEU, thus limiting the possibility of operating the newly designed megaships
49
.
Bearing in mind the limitations concerning the maximum ship draught, recorded in the
McKinsey report and the remarks of T. Notteboom and J. Rodrigue concerning land connec-
tions with the hinterland, it would seem that the new, sixth generation ports (6GP) should
have the three following characteristics:
1. ability to handle container ships of a 50 thousand TEU capacity, with a maximum
draught of 20 metres,
2. full automation of the container terminal due to the significant volume of load-
ing/unloading operations in a short time as well as significant progress of information
technology over the last 50 years. The constant pace of development of new technolo-
gies such as the Internet of Things, or big data analysis, form a basis for maintaining
the rate of IT and information technology development over the next 50 years,
3. handling intermodal connections with the hinterland which allow the transport of con-
tainerized cargoes with low external costs (e.g. connected without congestion).
Assuming a small number of high-level criteria seems to be a chance to make the criteria
for a sixth generation port stable over time and simultaneously will allow a delimitation of the
largest ports of the world over the next 50 years. In order to achieve the level of development
characteristic for the 6GP, a port needs first to become a fifth generation supply centre. This
will allow the sixth generation port classification to omit the four criteria for fifth generation
ports proposed by P. Lee and J. Lam in 2016 concerning: information technologies, substan-
tial development, the port cluster, and the hub port. As of 2017, no port in the world meets the
6GP criteria.
Seaports which meet the criteria of the fourth or fifth generation have a container ste-
vedoring capacity allowing them to handle 22 thousand TEU ships (working with 22 - 24
rows gantry cranes). Ships of this size were already ordered by CMA/CGM and MSC and are
scheduled for delivery in 2019. This means it would be necessary to withdraw a certain num-
ber of MSC ships of a capacity of 13 and 14 thousand TEU
50
. The ratio of ship size increase,
calculated as a fraction of 50/22 (2.27 times) is much smaller than its equivalent from 2000 to
49
Data on the basis of the P&I Club, Great Britain, Bulletin 1102, 2 June 2016,
https://www.ukpandi.com/knowledge-publications/article/1102-06-16-update-panama-canal-draft-restrictions-
panama-135271/ (last access: 10 December 2017).
50
G. Knowler, MSC latest carrier to order 22,000-TEU vessels, https://www.joc.com/maritime-news/second-
carrier-places-order-giant-22000-teu-vessels_20170921.html (last access: 10 December 2017).
26
2017 (2.6 times). Handling 50 thousand TEU ships would require a larger water overreach of
the gantry cranes which poses a challenge for port engineers and designers due to the increas-
ing dimensions of such a ship, which is shown in fig. 2.
Figure 2. Size comparison of 10, 18, and 50 thousand TEU ships according to T. Bebbington.
Source: T. Bebbington, 50,000 TEU... the Future or Not?, Maritime Executive, 9 November 2017,
https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/50000-teu-the-future-or-not (last access: 15 December 2017).
Megaship handling at a quay requires the latter to be of appropriate length and spa-
cious storage yards. T. Bebbington calculates that a 50 thousand TEU ship will be ca. 470-500
metres long, wide enough to accommodate 32 container rows (ca. 93 metres), and with
a draught of 20 metres. Such parameters require the ports to ensure sufficiently long quays
which is shown in fig. 3. The sixth generation port would require an even larger storage yard
area than those of the fifth generation which could be achieved with the use of innovative
container storage and management at port yards.
Figure 3. The visualisation of a call of a 50 thousand TEU vessel at a quay handling 18 thou-
sand TEU ships according to T. Bebbington
Source: T. Bebbington, 50,000 TEU... the Future or Not?, Maritime Executive, 9 November 2017,
https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/50000-teu-the-future-or-not (last access: 15 December 2017).
27
Stevedoring containers will be a technical challenge for ports which would be han-
dling 50 thousand TEU ships, as the current largest quay gantry cranes (24-row) are unable to
handle even half the containers transported thereby (fig. 4). The laws of physics dictate that
the longer the overreach of the gantry arm towards the sea, the smaller the mass it can lift.
The required length of nearly a hundred metres means that the crane structure would have to
be stronger which in turn would entail making it wider, adding additional wheels and con-
structing crane rails which would transfer a significantly larger pressure to the quay structure
than is presently the case. Widening the gantry crane has a negative impact on its operational
parameters including the ability of accessing adjacent holds on the ships. T. Bebbington states
that the current quay gantry crane construction technology does not allow for such a long arm
over the sea, because then the entire crane would collapse under its own weight.
Figure 4. Limited capacity of 23/24 row cranes to handle a 50 thousand TEU ship according
to T. Bebbington
Source: T. Bebbington, 50,000 TEU... the Future or Not?, Maritime Executive, 9 November 2017,
https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/50000-teu-the-future-or-not (last access: 15 December 2017).
Considering the technical limitations of quay gantry cranes, T. Bebbington proposes
placing one on each side of the ship which would require the terminal to be configured along
the lines of the Ceres Container Terminal in Amsterdam. However, the abovementioned port
was unable to cope with the increasing ship size, having a “U” shaped quay with 23-row
cranes on each side
51
. The visualisation of handling a megaship from both sides is shown in
51
The Ceres Terminal has been purchased by Hutchinson Port Holding (HPH) in 2008. Due to declining com-
petitiveness, HPH decided to close the terminal in 2012. The Amsterdam port is difficult to access via channels
from the seaside and limited in regards to the size of the ships it can handle. The two gantry cranes which were
28
fig. 5. Placing quay gantry cranes on both sides of a ship would require building two container
terminals next to each other and their effective connection. T. Bebbingtion suggests that such
a terminal can be constructed as a floating island, which may prove to be costly with the cur-
rent level of technology, both in construction and in operation. The possible increase of ship
capacity beyond 50 thousand TEU may cause the terminal area to be widened which is not
possible in the case of a two side Ceres-type terminal. The floating island seems to be a feasi-
ble alternative only after mastering low-cost large space storage yards, their stabilising in
space (by way of GPS, Baidou, or Galileo satellite positioning with high accuracy in relation
to the ship), as well as accounting for the tides. Another issue is considering the mode of op-
erations for such a terminal - fully or semi-automatic. Gantry cranes in automatic 4GP which
are currently under construction perform ca. 26 movements per hour, while traditional ports,
based on human labour at container terminals, reach an effectiveness of 30 movements per
hour. The cost of automating the Middle Harbour in Long Beach, California, which has
a capacity of 3 million TEU, is USD 1.5 billion which will offset in 40 years (the problem is
the short term of licenses which is only 20 years)
52
.
Figure 5. The visualisation of handling a 50 thousand TEU ship with the use of 23/24 row
cranes according to T. Bebbington
Source: T. Bebbington, 50,000 TEU... the Future or Not?, Maritime Executive, 9 November 2017,
https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/50000-teu-the-future-or-not (last access 15 December 2017).
originally used therein, have been displaced to a sister container terminal within the HPH group - the GCT in
Gdynia. https://theloadstar.co.uk/amsterdams-white-elephant-is-put-out-of-its-misery/ (dostęp: 15 grudnia 2017
r.).
52
US ports in no rush to follow Shanghai on automation path, JOC News, 11 December 2017,
https://www.joc.com/port-news/terminal-operators/shanghai-international-port-group/us-ports-no-rush-follow-
shanghai-automation-path_20171211.html (last access: 15 December 2017).
29
Sixth generation ports may be criticised due to the significant asymmetry between the
costs and benefits arising from their impact on port stakeholders. Ship owner companies
would achieve a lower level of unit costs thanks to distributing the costs of maritime transport
among a larger number of containers. T. Bebbington notes the increasing demands of ship
owners with regards to infrastructure and superstructure of container terminals able to handle
50 thousand TEU megaships. With current technology this is extremely costly. Container
terminal operators (both public and private) would have to incur significant costs of port
modernisation or constructing a floating port and bridges connecting it to the mainland. Ship
owner companies often change navigation alliances as well as the ports on which their ships
call. A loss of such an alliance would cause the port to quickly lose all its cargoes which in-
creases the investment risk. Because of that, the need arises to change the model of contract-
ing services between ports and ship owners, in order to ensure long-term financing for such
a large investment. External costs may also be generated by limitations resulting from the
atomisation of land transport which is mentioned by T. Notteboom and J. Rodrigue and in-
cludes pollution, congestion in result of the megaship call cycle on ports, as well as conges-
tion on road and railroad routes in the region. The need arises for technical and organisational
innovations which will make the sixth generation port a reality not only in technical terms, but
also in the scope of economic and social feasibility and taking account of environmental re-
quirements.
Conclusion
Between the 1960s and early 2000s, seaports went through four generations in their de-
velopment (according to the UNCTAD model). Due to the evolutionary (and not abrupt) pro-
cess of developing these transport points, the WORKPORT model (financed by the EU) as-
sumes the co-existence of ports and terminals of varying generations (even within a single
port supply centre). Technical, organisational, and IT innovations allowed to broaden the
package of services provided by fifth generation seaports as well as the scope and degree of
cooperation between the ports and the stakeholder group. A 5GP is not only the main point of
global sea transport connections, but also has a positive impact on the social environment and
plays a role in nature protection. The rate of IT system and innovative transport technology
development in regards to 50 thousand TEU megaships which will be maintained in the fu-
ture, will probably cause a shift of cargoes between ports towards those able to handle large
vessels, and a significantly larger cargo traffic on the landside. The article proposes to distin-
30
guish (by way of the indicated criteria) sixth generation ports (6GP) which will be able to
efficiently handle vessels more than twice as large as those operated currently.
References
1. T. Bebbington, 50,000 TEU... the Future or Not?, Maritime Executive, 9 November 2017,
https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/50000-teu-the-future-or-not
2. A. Beresford, B. Gardner , S. Pettit , A. Naniopoulos, C. F. Wooldridge, The UNCTAD and
WORKPORT models of port development: evolution or revolution?, “Maritime Poli-
cy&Management” 2004, No. 31
3. A. Grzelakowski, M. Matczak, Współczesne porty morskie, funkcjonowanie i rozwój, Wydawnic-
two Akademii Morskiej w Gdyni, Gdynia 2012
4. M. Flynn, P. Lee, T. Notteboom, The next step on the port generations ladder: customer-centric
and community ports, (in:) T. Notteboom, Current Issues in Shipping, Ports and Logistics, Univer-
sity Press Antwerp, Brussels 2011
5. P. Lee, J. Lam, Container Port Competition and Competitiveness Analysis: Asian Major Ports,
(in:) C. Lee oraz Q. Meng, Handbook of Ocean Container Transport Logistics – Making Global
Supply Chain Effective, International Series in Operations Research & Management Science,
Springer, New York
6. P. Lee, J. Lam, Developing the Fifth Generation Ports Model, (in:) P. Lee, Dynamic Shipping and
Port Development in the Globalized Economy, Palgrave Macmillan, London 2016
7. H. Klimek, R. Rolbiecki, Funkcja transportowa największych polskich portów morskich, „Zeszyty
Naukowe Wydziału Ekonomicznego Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego” 2017, no. 63
8. A. Paixão, P. Marlow, Fourth generation ports – a question of agility?, „International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management” 2003, No. 33
9. T. Notteboom, J. Rodrigue, The future of containerization: perspectives from maritime and inland
freight distribution, „Geojournal” 2009, vol. 74, No. 1
10. R. Zahorski, Potężna baza kontenerowa - nie w Świnoujściu!, Głos Szczeciński, 4 March 2017,
http://www.gs24.pl/wiadomosci/swinoujscie/a/potezna-baza-kontenerowa-nie-w-
swinoujsciu,11848131/
11. S. Saxon, M. Stone, Container shipping: the next 50 years, “Travel, Transport and Logistics” Oc-
tober 2017,
12. http://www.gospodarkamorska.pl/Stocznie,Offshore/krezel:-polski-port-community-system-
finansowany-prawdopodobnie-ze-srodkow-rpo.html
13. Transhipment-port-investment-is-risky-says-HPH-Trust,
https://lloydslist.maritimeintelligence.informa.com/LL110502/Transhipment-port-investment-is-
risky-says-HPH-Trust
14. The fourth generation port, UNCTAD Ports Newsletter, No. 19, http://unctad.org/
en/Docs/posdtetibm15.en.pdf
31
15. Ad hoc Intergovernmental Group of Port Experts, UNCTAD, Geneva 1990; Port Marketing and
the Third Generation Port, TD/B C.4/AC.7/14, UNCTAD, Geneva 1992
FIFTH AND SIXTH GENERATION PORTS (5GP, 6GP)
– EVOLUTION OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ROLES
OF PORTS
(Abstract)
Keywords: maritime ports, port generations, fifth generation port, 5GP, sixth generation port 6GP,
50,000 TEU vessel
This paper examines the way that maritime ports have evolved since 1960s, reaching con-
ceptual port development stages (generations) from the first to the fifth generation (P. Lee and
J. Lam, 5GP 2016). Based on 5GP criteria an example of Singapore port has been critically
discussed. This method is applied to the situation in Poland, as the country has overpassed
Singapore in one category (24 hrs customs and admin clearance), yet needs further improve-
ments in others. This article is of value to port managers in view of measures that can contrib-
ute towards closing the above gap (leading towards 5GP). Also, this paper addresses an un-
der-researched theme in the extant literature on predictive ability of port generations. Future
container vessel growth predictions, proposed by T. Notteboom and J. Rodrigue 2009 as well
as 2017 McKinsey container industry research, require a matching port generation concept.
Thus, a new sixth generation port (6GP) conceptual framework has been proposed. The crite-
ria for 6GP include: port’s ability to serve 50,000 TEU vessels of 20 meters depth; semi or
full automation of a container terminal and strong hinterland transport links minimising nega-
tive externalities. As in 2017 none of existing ports fulfils criteria for 6GP, T. Bebbington’s
working paper has been critically analysed to elaborate on both technical and economic chal-
lenges to port strategy, planning decisions, as well as construction and operation of such a
port in future.
Affiliation
Doctoral student at the Economics Faculty of the University of Gdańsk
