The outcome of the Aliağa-2 tender, which resulted in a 72.5% public share, has once again brought to the forefront the structural problem that the sector has long been voicing. While the public sector operates in its own areas with a 20% public share under the same tariffs, the private sector is condemned to carry loads three to four times greater, putting sustainability on a knife's edge.

The same group won the second tender as well, but the real debate lies elsewhere.

The Aliağa-2 Regional Service Area Tugboat Services Tender, conducted by the General Directorate of Maritime Affairs of the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure in Ankara, was completed in front of the eyes of the maritime sector. The Yakamoz Joint Venture Group, formed by Med Marine and Marin Tug, won the tender with a 72.5% public share offer, while Arpaş Tugboat Services secured second place with a 72% share. It has been reported that the temporary guarantee was set at 18 million 868 thousand TL, and the contract will be concluded for twenty years, covering the ten ports in the Aliağa basin.

The same joint venture had undertaken the Aliağa-1 tender, which concluded in April, with a similar ratio. Thus, both of Aliağa's major tugboat tenders have been consolidated under the same roof. However, the issue that the sector is discussing is not who won the tender, but how this work will be carried out with these ratios.

The method is the same, and the result is always the same: public share is soaring, profits are eroding.

The system designed by the Regulation on Pilotage and Tugboat Services is simple yet highly controversial: the company that commits to the highest public share wins the tender. And there is no upper limit to this ratio. Throughout the duration of the contract, this burden, which is calculated based on gross revenue, effectively gnaws at the profit margin of the service provider; it compresses investment, personnel, and safety expenses.

It is clear from the administration's decisions that they are aware of this situation. The tenders for Ambarlı and Kocaeli-1 were canceled by the Ministry on the grounds that the proposed public share ratios 'do not cover minimum expenses,' 'do not seem feasible for the sustainability of the service,' and 'pose risks in terms of navigation, life, property, and environmental safety.' Thus, the issue of the absence of an upper limit has been officially acknowledged in the Ministry's justifications.

The essence of the contradiction: public sector 20%, private sector 90%.

The most controversial part of the issue begins here. The General Directorate of Coastal Safety allocates a fixed public share of approximately 20% from its gross income while providing pilotage and tugboat services directly in its own areas; that is, under the same tariff schedule, to the same ships, and with the same standards. In other words, the legislator has deemed the ratio it considers 'reasonable for public enterprises' to be 20%.

In contrast, for the same service, under the same tariffs, with the same safety standards, private enterprises are being asked for a public share ranging from 70% to 90%, while they are also required to make investments out of their own pockets. The same setup, the same customer, the same price; but for one side, the burden is 20%, while for the other side, it is nearly five times that.

From the perspective of equality and proportionality principles, the economic justification for increasing a financial burden deemed reasonable at 20% for public operators to three to four times that for the private sector is the fundamental question the sector seeks to answer. This gap between the principle of tariff unity and the differing financial burdens from enterprise to enterprise creates the main resonance this news has stirred in the sector.

Düzgit's reminders: 'Safety cannot be a bargaining chip under cost pressure.'

Recep Düzgit, Vice President of the İMEAK Chamber of Shipping, President of the TOBB Turkey Maritime Council, and President of the Shipowners’ Agents Association, has drawn attention to similar issues with his recent statements.

The point Düzgit emphasizes is clear: a public share competition without defined upper limits reduces the profitability of the enterprises providing the service; this indirectly negatively affects service quality and the rights of employees. Companies that want to propose a higher public share at a lower cost may cut back on mandatory investments, avoid employing qualified personnel, or find themselves providing services before the necessary technical infrastructure is completed. In Düzgit's words, 'services provided under cost pressure jeopardize navigation safety and maritime security.'

Another critical issue Düzgit highlights is the inadequacy of technical qualification criteria. In the current system, a company that has never provided this service before is not barred from participating in the tender; merely a declaration that it will employ a certain number of pilot captains is deemed sufficient. This gap in a field that requires expertise like maritime directly translates to a safety deficit.

Düzgit also clearly shares the thresholds the sector considers reasonable: a maximum of 45% of gross revenue for pilotage services and 35% for tugboat services. Exceeding these ratios risks both sustainability and safety.

Another striking reminder concerns investment costs: the cost of a modern ASD tugboat with a pulling power of 60 tons, double-screw, and high maneuverability is currently around 7 million Euros. Companies that undertake twenty-year licenses with very high public share ratios will face serious difficulties in renewing their aging fleets. Thus, the issue is not only the operational cost of today but also the quality of tomorrow's tugboat fleet.

Düzgit emphasizes one more point of importance: in 2017, the organization he represents made a comprehensive written application to the Ministry; concrete proposals regarding increasing the public share or determining the operating right transfer fee, along with their technical justifications, were submitted at that time. Therefore, the warning about 'unsustainably high public share' has been a persistent agenda for the sector from yesterday to today; it is not a conjunctural objection.

The Competition Authority is also at the table.

The discussion is not limited to individual tenders. The investigation initiated by the Competition Authority regarding enterprises operating in the maritime pilotage and tugboat sector indicates that the current situation concerns the entire regulatory framework. The view that the experience gained from the implementation of the new regulation necessitates a review by the legislator is increasingly being voiced in the sector.

In this context, the proposed structural measures are clear: specifying the financial and technical qualifications required for participation, setting a maximum limit for the public share ratio, and determining the operating right transfer fee through transparent and competitive methods.

Source: SeaNews Türkiye