For the past few months, fierce battles have been raging around the Yuzhniy Sea Trade Port SE, the essence of which can be reduced to a banal dispute: which of the directors is better, the former or the present. But in reality, the problem is much deeper and it demonstrates the whole essence of the management crisis of state-owned enterprises. The publication writes about it "Ukrrudprom".
The chair under port director Serhiy Kovshar, appointed only in August of last year, began to shake actively at the beginning of May this year.
At that time, he worked in his position for less than 8 months. Already at the end of May, the Ministry of Infrastructure will fire Kovshar without any particular explanations and clear facts as to what the official is guilty of. What planned tasks did he not complete, what assignments were failed?
This decision becomes one of the first for the new minister Kubrakov, who had only worked for a few days at the time of Kovshar's dismissal and was hardly able to immerse himself in all the nuances of that story.
The release was preceded by a large-scale media attack on the port's management about alleged "blackmail" of ore shippers and collusion with a competitor — cargo operator TIS, which shares the water area with the state port.
But at the same time, "ore shippers" should mean one person — Rinat Akhmetov, whose business accounts for 90% of Yuzhny's ore transshipment work in 2021.
Former director Oleksandr Oliynyk, who headed the port before the appointment of the dismissed director in 2019-2020, returned to Kovshar's place.
The information field around the Yuzhnyi port actually split into diametrically opposite contexts, but identical in meaning: one of the directors is good, and the other is bad.
Moreover, information from different camps does not correspond to each other so much that at first glance it is even difficult to understand who is telling a lie and why.
Kovshar's critics base their position on the fact that at the end of May, Yuzhnyi port allegedly almost stopped its work due to the fact that the director of the port demanded an "unreasonable" increase of 30% in the tariff for transshipment of ore. This was allegedly done in the interests of the competitor "Yuzhny" of the private company TIS.
In addition, "Yuzhnyi" and TIS allegedly agreed on a 50% distribution of cargo between them (officially, SE MTP "Yuzhnyi" denied this information at the request of the "Antitrust League").
Kovshar's defenders say that it was his predecessor Oleksandr Oliynyk, who was returned to the chair, who brought the company to too low tariffs and the port was beyond the break-even point. And Kovshar simply could not fix this situation.
Since the beginning of the year, 55 million tons of cargo have been sent through the ports of Ukraine. Almost 40% of all cargo is sent through the Yuzhny port.
That is why it is much more interesting than the rest of the ports of Ukraine. About ten state and private companies operate in the water area of the port, but the main ones are SE MTP "Yuzhny" and the terminals of the private company TIS ("TransInvestService").
TIS co-owner Andriy Stavnitser openly stated at one time that it was Akhmetov's people who controlled the state port and influenced decisions regarding its possible concession.
For the TIS group, the main competitor in the fight for customers is Yuzhny MTP. It is difficult to say how much the state and private operators are "fighting" with each other. But so far, the total cargo turnover of TIS is about 2 times greater than that of the Yuzhny state enterprise.
And it is obvious that TIS is interested in further separation, or at least in maintaining this status.
If we look at the results of SE Yuzhny Sea Trade Port in particular, two negative trends occurred in 2021: a decrease in transportation volumes and a loss-making result for the 2020st quarter — after almost half a billion in profit in XNUMX.
In 5 months of 2021, the state port handled 2,8 million tons less than during this time in 2020. And this is minus 32% of the volume of work.
And this indicator significantly exceeds the general dynamics among the ports of Ukraine, which is minus 18% in relation to 2020.
At the same time, 80-85% of all cargo that passes through the Yuzhniy MTP SE is ore. And its main senders were always Akhmetov and Zhevago.
However, since this year, Zhevago has actually given up transporting ore to the EU by sea and switched to rail transportation.
Therefore, about 1,5 million tons went to the EU countries by wagons, and Akhmetov's share among Yuzhny's customers reached 90% for ore and almost 80% for all cargo.
The explanation for this is quite simple - for Zhevago's "Poltava GZK" the tariff of the "Yuzhny" port for some reason became 2020% higher in 25 than for Akhmetov's "Metinvest-Shipping". More precisely, it was for Akhmetov that the rate was lowered, but not for Zhevago.
Since the tariffs of the "Yuzhny" port are set by the management of the state enterprise, the questions begin here.
Why did "Yuzhny" reduce the rate for "Metinvest-Shipping" and not for other major shippers in the same period?
Why was the rate for "Metinvest-Shipping" lower than other shippers by 4% at first, and then became lower by a quarter?
Only in the last six months, this difference resulted in a loss of about UAH 120 million for the state-owned enterprise.
And of course, "Yuzhny" would not have ended the first quarter with a loss if it had not made constant "discounts" for Akhmetov's logistics company.
As for the culprits in the situation, the parties do not agree. After all, Kovshar's supporters accuse the new and old director of Oliynyk, who handed over the management of "Yuzhny" in August 2020, for lowering the tariffs for Akhmetov.
But according to the official response of the state enterprise, the main "collapse" of rates took place already in December 2020, when the price reached a minimum of $3,4 per ton.
After his return, Oliynyk immediately agreed with Metinvest-Shipping not only to increase the rate to $5,3 per ton, but also to guarantee a shipment volume of 1,2 million tons per month. This is about 20% more than "Metinvest" sent in January-April.
It will be recalled that Kovshar was officially accused of blocking the operation of the port, demanding an "unsustainable" rate increase of 30%.
What was unreasonable and "blocked work" a few months ago turned out to be quite acceptable. That is, it turned out that "Metinvest" is ready to pay more, but not with the previous director.
It is obvious that the principle of the issue was precisely Metinvest's reluctance to see Kovshar as a director and an effort to get another director of the state-owned enterprise.
This desire was not only realized by the relevant ministry, but also realized in an extremely short time.
Most likely, such a reaction from Akhmetov's side was not so much due to the desire to raise the rate on the part of the State MTP "Yuzhny", but rather due to the consistency of actions with the TIS (at least this was actively stated).
With two shipping routes in the waters of the South Port, in the event that one side began to ask for an increase, it would always be possible to divert the main flow to the other terminal. Thus explaining that the terminal can get a promotion, but get rid of the job.
But when both competitors ask for a raise at the same time, the shipper loses control of the situation.
And the language most likely is not in the price of $5,3 per ton, but in the fact that this price can become $6-8. After all, it is clear that Akhmetov will not stop sending ore at the time of record prices for raw materials.
Thus, Akhmetov agreed to pay a little more and give Yuzhniy SOE a little more work, but protect himself from further rate increases.
And here it is worth returning to the problem of management of state-owned companies, because until we understand how and why the management of enterprises whose nominal owner is the people of Ukraine changes, we are still outside the process.
Crazy intrigues that are blown up in the media have little in common with real events. And sometimes they do not correspond to reality at all.
Thus, Kovshar's hysterical accusations of blocking work and causing billions in damages turned out to be nothing more than manipulation.
But there are more than enough white spots in the position of the ex-director: who actually set the rate at $3,4 per ton at the record price of ore on the market, and why did they start trying to increase it only after losses in the first quarter, that is, after four months?
We did not receive a report from the Ministry that would confirm that the problem was under control (and the Ministry does not learn about problems from the newspapers) and that the reaction of the Ministry corresponded to the real circumstances and interests of the state.
That is, the Government still does not respect its controller (on whose behalf it disposes of state property) so much that it does not even try to explain the logic of its actions.
But the most important lesson we have to learn is the following: Ukraine is one of the largest importers of iron ore in the world. Since the beginning of 2020, the value of ore on the world market has doubled. At the same time, the cost of mining this ore in Ukraine has almost not changed. That is, it means billions of profits.
But instead of the whole country making money from the rise in ore prices, mostly only one person — Rinat Akhmetov — will make money from it.
After all, the Government has not been able to resolve the issue of raising tariffs of Ukrzaliznytsia and canceling "preferential" rates for ore shippers.
The issue of tying the rent for ore mining to world prices is also "sliding" in government offices and the final price remains a subject of "bargaining" for now.
Akhmetov's business empire can easily fire any head of a state-owned company if he suddenly ceases to be controlled.
Everything that Rinat Akhmetov has to do with works either in his interests or not. That is why Akhmetov's companies have crazy discounts on railway transportation, which would easily cover Ukrzaliznytsia's losses of UAH 12 billion last year.
That is why the Government has been debating for years any step that is clear and correct, but contradicts Akhmetov's interests.
That is why the Government can introduce extremely beneficial industrial "green tariffs" for Akhmetov and at the same time do nothing about the environmental disaster of pollution of Akhmetov's metal plants.
That is why the wealth of the oligarch is growing, and the state companies that serve his business are drifting in credit waters and receiving billions in losses.
In this paradigm, every billion in state losses is an additional profit for the oligarch. And the main recipient of "subsidies" in Ukraine is still the oligarch Akhmetov.
Against the background of this conversation, the transfer of the Yuzhnyi port (one of the few profitable state-owned enterprises) to a private investor as a concession may end with the state losing its already shaky control over the port. Will lose it in someone's interests.
Volodymyr DATSENKO, expert of the "Antitrust League"
