1

DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE IN AFRICA Ms. Maryam Mohamed Kidere Kenya Ports Authority, P.O.Box 95009, 80i04. Mombasa, Kenya. Abstract. The port of Mombasa has over the years seen increasing traffic but has had little upgrade of its infrastructure. The recent trend of containerization has led to the congestion of its container yard, which has a capacity of 250,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) against the 800,000 TEUs that it is currently handling. Costly delays in clearing of goods for Kenya and other landlocked African countries such as Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, South Sudan and parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo which use the port have become the norm. Globally, containerization of cargo has increased rapidly. There is therefore an urgent need to construct a second container terminal at the port to overcome these challenges. It was in this regard that the Government of Kenya approached the Government of Japan to support the construction of the second container terminal. The Government of Japan, through JICA, signed an agreement to finance the construction under Japan’s ODA Loan program to the tune of JPY 26.711 billion (approx. Ksh. 27 billion). The project began in March, 2012 and is scheduled to end in March, 2016. It was noted that with an additional space for 1.2 million containers, the second container terminal will accommodate the current volumes and be well positioned to cater for the projected container increase in excess of 960,000 TEUs by 2015. Alongside the development of a second container terminal was the planned construction of Dongo Kundu bypass to connect Mombasa-Nairobi road with Mombasa-Lunga Lunga road. The project is expected to have a great positive impact not only for Kenya but will also boost trade in the larger Eastern African region and beyond, and contribute to the achievement of Kenya’s Vision 2030. Acknowledgements: The author thank the KENYA PORTS AUTHORITY and some of ENGINEERS whom I worked with for their contribution to infrastructure research which is drawn upon extensively in this paper, as well as a number of others who offered advice and comments. Responsibility for the content of the paper is the authors’ alone. Appendices: Table Photographs Graphs drawings Acronyms: TEUs- Twenty Foot Equivalent Units DWT-Dead Weight Tonnage JICA-Japan International Co-Orperation Agency JBIC-Japan Bank For International Co-Orperation KPA -Kenya Ports Authority MDGs- Millennium Development Goals GDPs –Gross Domestic Products SSG s–Ship To Shore Gantry Cranes RTGs –Rubber Tyres Gantry Cranes EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment EIRR- Economic Internal Rate of Return SAPROF- Special Assistance for Project Formulation PPI- Private Participation In Infrastructure

2

Background Mombasa is fully functioning as the gateway of East Africa and the starting point of logistics along the Northern Economic Corridor leading to the landlocked countries, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and South Sudan. The center of the City of Mombasa is located in the small island and currently expanding outward to the mainland according to increase of population and demand of larger function. Subsequently, traffic capacity becomes a big bottleneck especially at the connecting points between the island and mainland. The ferry service crossing Likoni channel is one and only transport to the southern coast and overwhelmed by huge traffic demand as causes its users to be idle for a long time. In addition, it is expected that completion of ―Mombasa Port Development Project‖ will enhance the logistics furthermore. INTRODUCTION. Infrastructure is essential for increasing economic progress and reducing poverty. The choices made in the type and scale of infrastructure investment also have major implications for environmental sustainability. To date, however, limited progress has been made in expanding infrastructure access in the vast majority of developing countries. Moreover, infrastructure expansion often has come at the expense of the local environment, as well as complicating responses to the longer-term challenge of climate change. These observations underscore the difficulty in planning, building, and maintaining infrastructure for both socio-economic progress and environmental sustainability. Several factors explain why there has been such limited progress in addressing the economic and environmental challenges of infrastructure service provision. Economically, infrastructure is expensive, requires substantial upfront capital for benefits that are spread over time, and is plagued with difficulties with cost-recovery. For many countries, especially the poorer ones, the amount of investments needed is staggering. Moreover, like many others services dominated by the public sector, infrastructure has often been mismanaged. And since the consequences of under-investment are only felt with a lag, infrastructure has often borne the brunt of fiscal adjustments. Compounding this problem is the fact that data on infrastructure availability and infrastructure spending is very limited. What does not get measured often does not get done. As to environmental sustainability, in many cases it is not that well integrated into countries’ general strategies for development. Incorporation of the environment into public sector infrastructure expenditures may give way to concerns about investment costs and more immediately pressing needs. Price signals and enforceable regulatory standards also may fall short of what is necessary to adequately incorporate environmental concerns in private sector infrastructure investment. Private participation has an important role to play in infrastructure expansion. Indeed flows of capital associated with private participation in infrastructure (PPI) amount to about 1.2% of developing countries GDP today. PPI is also generally associated with fairly substantial increases in efficiency. However, historically PPI has been most relevant for telecom and, to a lesser extent, energy, with a limited role in water, sanitation and transport. Even under the most favorable of conditions, moreover, PPI has represented only about one sixth of needed investments in infrastructure. So while PPI is important, and is likely to continue increasing, it is by no means a magic bullet.

3

The threat of future climate change adds to challenge of increasing infrastructure services while addressing more local environmental concerns. Substantial inertia in both the natural climate system and the built environment means that today’s infrastructure investment decisions heavily influence both future climatic conditions and the cost of deeply cutting global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Layered on top of these factors is an international system for establishing long-term GHG mitigation objectives that currently places the locus of responsibility within already developed countries. This leaves open questions regarding how climate change threats can and should affect investment decisions in developing countries, and what already developed 1.1 Kenya’s Vision 2030 Kenya Vision 2030 is the country's development programme covering the period 2008 to 2030. It was launched on 10 June 2008 by President Mwai Kibaki. Its objective is to help transform Kenya into a "newly industrializing, middle-income (income exceeding World's average currently at US$10000) country providing a high quality of life to all its citizens by 2030 in a clean and secure environment." Developed through "an all-inclusive and participatory stakeholder consultative process, involving Kenyans from all parts of the country," The Vision is based around three "pillars": Economic, Social, and Political. The Vision's adoption comes after the country’s GDP growth, from 0.6% in 2002 to 6.1% in 2006, under Kibaki's Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation (ERS). The Kenya Vision 2030 is to be implemented in successive five-year medium-term plans, with the first such plan covering the period 2008–2012 (with the next covering the period 2012–2017, and so until 2030). Under the Vision, Kenya expects to meet its Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by the deadline in 2015, with some of them already met. Vision The Vision 2030 development process was launched by President Mwai Kibaki on 30 October 2006 when he instructed the National Vision Steering Committee to produce a medium-term plan with full details on the development programmes that would be implemented in the first five years after the ERS expires on 31 December2007. A consultative approach was undertaken through workshops with stakeholders from all levels of the public service, the private sector, civil society, the media and NGOs while in rural areas, provincial consultative forums were also held throughout the country. The objective of all these consultations was to provide an in-depth understanding of the country’s development problems and the necessary strategies to achieve the 2030 goals. Experts used the input from the above stakeholders and their own economic analysis to identify sectors with the most promising potential in driving Kenya’s economic growth up to 2030. This approach involved an assessment of two critical components: the potential of the different sectors to make a wide economic impact the feasibility of unlocking that potential for the benefits of economic growth, employment and poverty reduction. A similar process and methodology was followed in identifying projects and priorities in the social and political pillars. Detailed analysis was carried out under a consultative process in order to come up with strategies capable of resolving the social and political problems that Kenyans face today. To arrive at workable solutions, the team of experts learned as much as

4

they could from countries that have achieved rapid growth and also improved the lives of their people greatly in a span of 20–30 years, with particular reference to the South East Asian newly industrializing countries. The standards achieved by those countries are ones Kenya should aim for, bearing in mind her own history and culture. The team made extensive use of information available from the government, Kenya’s private sector, civil society and universities. 1.2. PROJECTS OBJECTIVES The objective of these projects are to enhance container handling capacity by constructing a new container terminal and providing new handling facilities at the Port of Mombasa, with a larger goal of facilitating trade and economic development in Kenya and neighboring countries in East Africa. The objectives of the projects are also in line with Kenya Vision 2030, ―economic and social infrastructure development that benefits wide areas that stretch across national boundaries‖ which is one of prioritized areas for support in Sub-Saharan African countries. Thus, JBIC’s support of this project is highly necessary and relevant. 1.3 RECENT PORT INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENTS. 1.3.1. History Development of the modern port of Mombasa began in 1926 with the completion of two deep water berths namely berth 1 & 2 with transit sheds alongside on the Kilindini side of the Harbors. This was followed later by construction of berth no 3 4 & 5 which were completed on 1931. Berth 7& 8 and 9 & 10 were completed between 1955 and 1958 respectively. Along the Mainland popularly known as the Kipevu side, berth 11 and 12 were constructed and completed in 1961 whereas berth 13 and 14 were completed in 1967. With the advent of the Container age, berth 16, 17 and 18 were constructed between 1975 and 1980. The later 3 berths were designed as container handling berths later to form a container terminal with a capacity of 250,000 TEUs. With increased traffic, The Authority did set two inland container handling facilities at Nairobi and Kisumu both of which were opened in 1984 and 1994 respectively. 1.3.2. Recent Trends The cargo throughput of the port of Mombasa has been increasing since 1990s. Container and transit cargoes recorded significant increase from 2001. It therefore became apparently that the capacity of the port, specifically in container handling, needed expansion. Inform of tonnage, the port specifically handled 13.3 million tons of cargo in 2005. The transit cargo takes about 20% of the total cargoes, 76% of which are to and from the republic of Uganda. The proportion of containers in cargo throughput at the Port has also increased since 2000 and reached a 238,597 mark by the end of 2004. It is very well understood that the overall capacity of the Mombasa port as at 2011 under the present conditions of hardware and software systems is approximately 400,000 to 450,000 TEUs/Year whereas the design capacity originally was 250 TEUs in a single year. 2.0. POLICY FORMULATION Under the investment programs of 2003-2007, the following reform measures undertaken to improve the performance;

5

Conversion of the conventional cargo berths no 11 to 14 into container facilities, Integration of information technology, Dredging of the port, Construction of new access road to the current container terminal and Development of cruise ship facility. 2.1. CURRENT CHALLENGES Some of the challenges to be overcome so as to realize the vision 2030 are: Narrow, sharp and shallow channel, Limited routes of access to the container terminal, Limitations of 1m gauge railway system, Limitations of space in current container terminal, Rapid carrion of berthing facilities, Topographic limitations, Long dwell time and Equipment troubles. 2.3. PAST PROJECTS Ranging from the year 2002 the port has carried out numerous major projects namely: Installation of Infrastructural works for the Computer Network, Construction of an ultra- modern control tower, Rehabilitation of berth 7, 8,9 and 10, Conversion of former Shed spaces and the adjacent areas into stacking yards, Rehabilitation of Kipevu bridge, Port power modernization, extension of crane bean and associated civil work to accommodate the current SSGs with a span of 27.45m. The earlier one had 15.0m span.

Extension of crane beam project in 2005 for the new Ship to Shore gantry Crane 2.4. ONGOING PROJECTS The Authority is currently undertaking various projects while a number of projects are in pipeline. Some are part of Vision 2030 Flagship projects to be implemented during the first Medium Term Plan 2008 – 2012 while others are in line with KPA’s master plan besides the need arising from increased cargo throughput trends of the recent times: Development of a 2nd Container Terminal Dredging of Mombasa Port

6

Construction of Berth 19 Corrosion protection to berth 16-18 and Rehabilitation of berth 18 Expansion of yards: Paving of Port Yards opposite berth 11-14 Expansion of yards: Repairs to Container terminal Yards Extension of Mbaraki Wharf 2.5. Development of a 2nd Container Terminal 2.5.1 Introduction.

Construction of a new terminal The construction of a $366 million terminal at the port of Mombasa continues ahead of schedule as the race for supremacy among East African ports heats up. Work on the three-berth terminal, involves extensive land reclamation. So far, contractors — Japanese Port Consultants — have scooped 20 million tonnes of sand and 400 tonnes of stones from the deep sea to create dry land along the Indian Ocean to create space for Kenya’s second container terminal. The facility signals the country’s ambition to maintain its status as the regional sea transport hub. The first phase of the terminal is expected to be completed by March 2016. The second and third phases will be ready by 2017 and 2020 respectively.

7

The terminal project is funded by Japan International Cooperation Agency (Jica) for $300 million. The Kenya government will raise $66 million for the construction of the first phase only while financing for subsequent phases will be raised. The first phase of the second container terminal, will give the port additional capacity of 450,000 TEU. The second and the third phases will add capacity of 750,000 TEU. Effectively, the second terminal will handle 1.2 million TEU, slightly above the current capacity of the port, which is 900,000 TEU. This means that the entire Port of Mombasa will have capacity of 2.1 million TEUs by 2020. The expansion of the Mombasa port is part of a regional race to expand port infrastructure, partly to improve regional competitiveness and also to gain dominance as preferred sea transport hubs for geopolitical benefits. 2.5.2. The scope The project consists of reclamation of the sea to the west of Kipevu Oil Terminal for construction of a new container terminal comprising of 3 berths with depths of 15 metres, 12 metres and 11 meters including the following salient features: Construction of apron, container yard and yard roads/ rail tracks behind the berths, Construction of inner roads at the back of terminal, Construction of main buildings in the terminal, Construction of the access road from the road no c110 to the new terminal and parking areas, Construction of utilities for supply of electricity, communication, sewage, security fences, Procurement of equipment ( 2 SSG, RTGs etc.) and Construction of a road and railway link extension to the existing terminal with the new.

Site of the proposed new container Terminal West of Kipevu.

8

Site of the proposed new container Terminal West of Kipevu. Note some of the structures likely to pave way for construction in the background. 2.5.3. The Status The first phase which involves the construction of two berths for Post-Panamax and Panamax container ships of 60,000 DWT and 20,000 DWT respectively is expected to be completed by 2015. The project is funded by a Japanese loan of JY 26.7 million (Kshs. 16.1 billion) and will have a capacity to handle 1.2 million TEUs per annum once completed to phase 3. The current loan agreement only covers phase 1 (43 hectares 2.5.4. Projects Description 2.5.4.1. Projects Outline:

Construction of a container terminal (depth: 15m and 11m; berth �.2) Procurement of cargo handling equipment (SSG cranes and RTG cranes) Construction of an access road (approx. 1.6km) Dredging works (dredging volume: approx. 3 million cubic meters) Consulting services (detailed design, bidding assistance, construction supervision and assistance for selection of terminal operators, etc.)

2.5.4.2. Schedule

November 2007-November 2015 (97 months). Implementation Structure Borrower: Kenya Ports Authority (KPA) Executing Agency: Same as (a) Guarantor: The Government of the Republic of Kenya Operation and Maintenance System: Same as (a). Concession of terminal operation to private terminal operators is under consideration. Environmental and Social Considerations Environmental Effects/ Land Acquisition and Resident Relocation

9

Category: A Reason for Categorization: This project falls into the port sector, has characteristics that are likely to exert an impact, and is located in a sensitive areas under the ―Japan Bank for International Cooperation Guidelines for Confirmation of Environmental and Social Considerations‖ (established in April 2002). Thus, this project is categorized as Category A. Environmental Permit: The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report for the project has been approved by the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) of Kenya on May 28, 2007. Anti-Pollution Measures: The quality of the water discharged from vessels port will be released into the sea in line with the country’s effluent standards, and no significant Adverse impact is foreseen from the effluent. Natural Environment: The project will entail deforestation of approximately 200 Mangrove trees. KPA is planning to reforest 2.5 hectares of mangrove forest near the Project site. Furthermore, marine disposal of dredged soil will be conducted where the Disposal will not exert a significant influence on coral reefs or other fragile organisms. Social Environment: The project will require the resettlement of 15 households and an orphanage (22 people), which will be implemented in accordance with the Resettlement Action Plans by KPA. In addition, the fishermen (64 people) whose livelihoods will be affected by the project will obtain compensation through the provision of motorboats etc. Other/ Monitoring: Environmental impacts regarding such items as air quality, water quality and resettlement will be monitored by the executing agency. b) Promotion of Poverty Reduction c) Promotion of Social Development (e.g. Gender Perspective, countermeasures for infectious diseases such as AIDS, participatory development, consideration for disabled persons, etc.): The rate of adult HIV infection is 6.1% in Kenya overall (2005) and 12.3% in the target area for this project (2004), and construction work of the project is expected to increase HIV infection. The consulting service under the project includes implementation of the HIV prevention program by KPA for targeting stakeholders such as construction workers, KPA staff and local residents 2.5.4.2. Outcome Targets (1) Evaluation Indicators (Operation and Effect Indicator)

Indicator Baseline �Recorded in 2006�

Target (2017) (2 years after completion�

Container volume 480,000TEU 990,000 TEU

Total tonnage of vessels entering port

9millionGT 15.43million GT

Annual containerization 62% 73%

Containership average waiting time

1.49days/ship 1.0days/ship

10

(2) Internal Rate of Return (Financial and Economic Internal Rate of Return) Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR): 8.5% (a) EIRR Cost: Project costs (tax excluded), operation and maintenance expense Benefit: Decrease in marine costs through enlargement of ship size, reduction in transportation costs through shortening berthing times and reduction in relevant costs through shortening dwell times. Project Life: 30 years from the start of construction Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR): 12.2%. Cost: Project costs, operation and maintenance expenses Benefit: Income from port usage charges Project Life: 30 years from the start of construction 2.5.4.3. External Risk Factors Reduction of cargo volume due to economic stagnation in Kenya, neighboring countries and trading partners. 2.5.4.4. Lessons Learned from Findings of Similar Projects Undertaken in the Past The operation and management of the terminal constructed by the project will be commissioned to organizations (private terminal operators) other than the executing agency. By taking into consideration the lesson learned from the evaluation of past port projects, namely that ―it is important for JBIC to positively support the survey and planning contributing to improvement of the operational efficiency, such as reviewing the operation scheme of the port terminals, etc.,‖ the consulting service of the project includes assistance for selecting terminal operators. 2.6. Plans for Future Evaluation Indicators for Future Evaluation same as in the above table. Timing of Next Evaluation: Two years after project completion 3.0. Dredging of Mombasa Port 3.1. Introduction The port of Mombasa has historically required maintenance dredging once every 5 years to restore the design depths alongside all berths. Originally, this was scheduled to be undertaken during the financial year 2004/2005 hence it had become long overdue. Besides this maintenance dredging and following the SAPROF (Special Assistance for Project Formulation) study for the second container terminal project, it became evident that there was need to dredge the access channel to widen and deepen it in order to: Take care of the increased volume of port traffic, Increase the efficiency of Mombasa port following the competition from other ports such as Dar-Es Salaam and Durban and Worldwide trends towards the use of larger post-Panamax ships

11

3.2. Scope The project involves capital and maintenance dredging of Navigation Channel turning basins, along existing berths and ancillary works such as installation of Aids to Navigation, Tide Gauge and acquisition of Tide Prediction Software. The project will be carried out in two phases. Phase 1 will cover the navigational channel, turning basin, the proposed new berths 20 – 23 at the second container terminal and the ancillary works. Phase 2 is to cover the anchorage area up to the channel to the proposed coal jetty. 3.3. Status As of October 2011, the dredging to a depth of 12.2 below the chart datum was 75% complete. Currently dredging is taking place along the site of the proposed second container terminal.

MV Volvos delta (The dredger) at work along the Kilindini Channel navigating past the ferry crossing 4.0. Construction of Berth 19 4.1. Introduction It was found a common problem at berth 18 that most vessels using the berth were too long for the berth and many a times one end of the ships would usually overhang at the berth. This necessitated turning around of the vessels to work the end that is inaccessible. As a result greatly increased the ship turnaround time, and thereby increasing the cost of shipping. In order to address these problems, and in line with the master plan study recommendations, it was decided that the berth 18 be extended by 160m to create a new berth with full complement of a stacking.

12

Site of the proposed extension of berth 18 to form berth 19. On the background is the end of existing berth 18 elevations. Notice the SSG in operation. 4.2. Scope The scope of this work comprise: Construction of a quay structure at a water depth of 12.2 at chart datum equipped with 100 tones bollards, fenders, safety ladders and fresh water hydrants, Reclaiming of 5 ha to create an extra stacking yard and Construction of a new crane beam to support new SSGs. 4.3. Benefits It is anticipated that following its completion, the stacking yard will increase by creating an extra space that can accommodate an extra 19000 containers (TEUs). That the increased stacking yard will accelerate and reduce turnaround time of working of vessels as the RTGs will be at a nearer a distance. 4.4. Status As at the time of reporting, M/s China road and Bridge who are the main contractors on the ground are carrying out works on the dredging to deepen the berthing area to a depth of 13.5m below chart datum. Simultaneously the reclamation works to provide the adjacent stacking yard is ongoing. 5.0. Corrosion protection to berth 16-18 and Rehabilitation of berth 18 5.1. Introduction Construction work on berth 18 was completed in 1980. The construction of the new landward crane beam along the entire berth 18 was completed in 2005. During this construction, and on exposure of some of the slabs soffit of berth 18, it was found that the slab concrete had cracked and spalled, the degree of corrosion of the reinforcement was far more extensive Condition surveys were done to quantify the amount of deterioration, propose and carry out the required rehabilitation. The nature and extent of the corrosion was however found to be so

13

extensive that if nothing is done, then the useful life of berth 18 will drastically be compromised, with the attendant risks to life, property and container operations. 5.2. The scope The Works in connection with the rehabilitation of Berths 16-18 comprise, inter alia: Installation of sacrificial anodes on steel bearing piles at Berth 16 and 17; Installation of sacrificial anodes on steel fender piles and rehabilitation of fenders at Berth 16 to 18; Rehabilitation of transition between piles and concrete superstructure at Berths 16 and 17, where necessary; Repair of concrete pile tops at Berth 18; Installation of corrosion protection of reinforcement (impressed current) and repair of the soffit by shot Crete technique (sprayed concrete); Rehabilitation of the pavement at the quay apron at Berth 16 and 18. Various other concrete works (pavement and walls).

Section through the soffits of berth 18. Notice the extensive corrosion of reinforcement compromising the strength capacity of the berth as a whole

14

Section through the soffits of berth 18. Notice the net forming part of corrosion protection work using method of impressed current system 5.3. Benefits Once the rehabilitation works are complete, it is expected that the berths will gain an additional 15 to 20 years life span. 6.0. Paving of Yards 6.1. Expansion of yards: Paving of Port Yards opposite berth 11-14 6.1.1 Introduction The above unpaved yard area was created by the demolition of sheds 12-14. It was part of larger project proposed by the Japanese Government project for the expanded container terminal. This area is currently used for staking containers. These areas had to be redesigned to carry loads of TEU in nature, since was formerly used to accommodate loose cargo. A progressive deterioration of the yards result had in a very environmentally unfriendly situation with an adverse effect on health of port users besides economic implications to vehicular traffic and container handling machinery.

15

Section showing the contrast between a paved and unpaved section at berth 14 6.1.2 Status The paving of the part yard west of shed 11 was completed in 2008 together with the part yard 14. Currently the part yard 11 is on progress is expected to be completed in the second quarter of 2011/2012 financial year. At least 50,000 square metres of yard paving has been achieved. This has created additional space for cargo handling and storage. 6.1.3. Benefits The paving of this area has had a multiple benefits to the Authority, inter alia:- Drastic reduction of equipment downtime, with the resultant monetary benefits. Increased stacking yard area Cleaner, safer working environment Enhanced traffic movement 6.2. Expansion of yards: Repairs to Container terminal Yards 6.2.1 Introduction The Container Terminal pavement at the Port of Mombasa was re- constructed in 1983. The understanding at that time was that rubber tyred Container handling Gantry cranes would only operate along specially constructed concrete runways provided at specific sections and corridors in the yard. However due to low availability of the gantry cranes and increased traffic growth, operations department has resorted to the use of top loaders for container handling in the stacking yard area. It may be noted that the stacking yard was not designed to carry such a high concentrated wheel loads of the front loaders, forklifts and the trucks.

16

Section showing crumbled and failed paving blocks type pavement of existing container terminal 6.2.2. Status Consequently over the period of years that the terminal has been on use, several depressions have occurred on the surface. They have made the surface area of operation irregular, some of the areas retaining ingress water that cause further damage to the foundations besides increasing the cost of production due to increased rate of replacement of machinery spare parts 6.2.3. Benefits The paving of this area has had a multiple benefits to the Authority, inter alia:- Drastic reduction of equipment downtime, with the resultant monetary benefits. Aesthetically appealing stacking yard area Cleaner, safer working environment Enhanced traffic movement 7.0. Extension of Mbaraki Wharf 7.1. Introduction The Wharf is 330m long by 7m wide quay platform supported on 190 principal piles 540mm diameter and 15m to 25m long, accessed by five 22m x 4m bridges and supported on eight similar piles. Quay piles capped with substantial concrete beams and decking, the sea side fitted with hanging cantilevered concrete beams which originally had timber and 380mm diameter rubber fenders. The new fender panel system consists of two MCn-500HG1.0 rubber cone fenders.

17

7.2. History For dry bulks and general cargo there is currently a surplus of around 800m of berth length on Mbaraki Wharf together with Berth 1-10. However the Mbaraki Wharf does not have enough capacity to handle all of the dirty bulks traffic, hence the use of Berth 1-10. The capacity is enough up to 2022. The construction of new access bridges to Mbaraki wharf would allow ships to discharge bulk imports directly into the trucks taking them inland. 7.3. Current status At present, the wharf is only accessible to trucks of up to 7 tons, requiring the cargo to be dumped and reloaded into larger trucks nearby. The avoidance of double handling would result in an economic rate of return (EIRR) of between 8-13%. The current berth occupancy is way above 75% with the following companies using the berth. Bamburi Portland Company- for coal and Clinker, Mbaraki terminal Limited- for petroleum products Tecaflex- petroleum products Boss freight terminal- imported vehicles East African Storage- oil products Kenya Fluorspar- Fluorspar export Other vessels such as cruise ships, specialized ships etc., either dock or are planned to cock at Mbaraki wharf when main port is full Extension of Mbaraki wharf to handle well such purposes as stated above will make the wharf more flexible. 7.4. The scope of works The design of the new access bridges construction of new access bridges The deepening of the berth to 12.5m CD.

18

Site of proposed extention of Mbaraki wharf

Services along the proposed site for extension of Mbaraki Wharf 8.0. FUTURE PROJECTIONS It is anticipated that after completion of the above projects, the port will be able to reduce the dwelling time to only 3 days from the current time of 8 days while the congestion will have been made a thing of past and the annual throughput capacity will have increased to 1.8 Million TEUs

19

Pile Driving

Anode Installation Concrete Block Placing

Anode Installation

20

Framework for Superstructure SCHEDULE OF PROGRESS

21

General Arrangement of Post-Panamax Type SSG for Berth No. 21

22

General Arrangement of RTG

REFERENCES: http://www.planning.go.ke/index.php?option=doc_download&gid=Itemid=69 http://www.vision2030.go.ke www.kpa.co.ke http//www.theeastafrican.co.ke/business/competition-ignites-multibillion-dollar-port-project photographs taken on site projects drawings