Snags in making Pangaon ICT operational

More than three months ago when the Pangaon inland container terminal (ICT) was inaugurated, there were reasons to feel good that finally a viable option was available for movement of merchandise to, and from, the Chittagong port. But since then, there has not been any significant move to operationalise the terminal, built at a cost of Tk 1.54 billion. The Chittagong Post Authority (CPA) and the Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Authority (BIWTA) jointly built the terminal with a capacity of 3,500 TEUs (20-foot equivalent units) at a time, and annual container handling capacity of 116,000 TEUs. The capacity is to be gradually raised to 160,000 TEUs.
Faced with the vehicle-choked Dhaka-Chittagong highway and unforeseen transportation deadlocks as a result of blockades, this container terminal is potentially capable of diverting sizable export and import cargo from roadways to waterways, that too at a reduced cost. The only initiative in sight since its inauguration in early last November was the arrival of a lone vessel from Chittagong. But it was a half-hearted move in that out of the 76 containers carried by the vessel, only 20 were loaded while the rest were empty. The rationale that the empty containers were meant for catering outbound merchandise failed to justify itself as the exporters are not showing interest to have their goods dispatched to Chittagong port using the much sought-after ICT.  
In such a situation, the respite that the Pangaon ICT could have brought to the traders, especially the garment exporters, has not yet materialised. The situation is equally worrisome for both the inbound and outbound cargoes. This newspaper, quoting Chittagong Port Authority (CPA) sources, has reported that although some 800 rail-bound containers are stuck at the port, none of these are being diverted through river routes to Pangaon. Understandably, there are procedural complications cumbersome enough to discourage exporters and importers alike. Enlistment of freight forwarders has also not progressed at the desired level. Besides, the security aspect must also not be ruled out.
Lately, it has emerged that one of the snags impeding the ICT becoming functional is the lack of protection and indemnity (P&I) coverage of the carriers procured to ply on the Pangaon-Chittagong route. Report, published in this newspaper, states that P&I coverage is a form of marine insurance provided by a P&I club. A P&I club is a mutual insurance association that provides coverage to its members - ship-owners and-operators. It is different from marine insurance. Marine insurers provide cover for known quantifiable risks, mainly hull and machinery insurance for ship-owners, and cargo insurance for cargo owners.
By contrast, P&I coverage provides insurance for broader, indeterminate risks, such as third party liabilities that marine insurers usually do not cover. Third party risks include a carrier's liability to a cargo-owner for damage to cargoes, a ship-owner's liability after a collision, environmental pollution and war risks. The concerned quarters are of the view that the authorities should have been aware that P&I coverage is vital for attracting the marine operators to use a new route, and they should have acted accordingly. Though belated, they need to do the needful early.