Bangladesh Hands Over Laldia Terminal To Foreign Operator: Smart Move Or Strategic Risk? – OpEd
Chattogram Port Authority (CPA) of Bangladesh signed a 30-year concession agreement with APM Terminals (part of AP Moller–Maersk) to design, finance, build and operate the new Laldia Container Terminal (LCT) on the Karnaphuli estuary.
The logistical potential of Laldia Terminal, which is situated close to the Karnaphuli River estuary, is enormous. It is located in a high-potential area where the ability to handle bulk cargo and containers may be quickly increased with the correct investment. Due to financing constraints, complicated regulations, and land disputes, the terminal area remained undeveloped for many years. The urge to use this good property has increased as Bangladesh’s export-import volume rises and Chattogram Port is congested.
Therefore, concession agreements with foreign operators generated intense discussion among economists, policymakers, and port-sector specialists. Some contend that renting the terminal to a seasoned foreign operator will increase productivity, capital, and global shipping connectivity, while others worry that doing so might jeopardize national control over important maritime resources.
The international precedent
Major ports around the world are owned by both the government and long-term commercial concessions. In Dubai, Singapore, Rotterdam, and other locations, international terminal operators like DP World, PSA, and APM Terminals operate sizable, highly automated terminals under concession or lease structures.
These operators provide funding, state-of-the-art dock cranes, automated systems, digital gate/booking platforms, and global liner links—elements that national administrations occasionally find difficult to fund or execute independently. Examples include APM’s Maasvlakte II facility in Rotterdam, PSA’s integrated Singapore terminals (as well as its global network), and DP World’s Jebel Ali operations, all of which are managed through a combination of extended concession agreements and private investment.
Those examples show the upside: faster vessel turnaround, greater productivity, climate-friendly investments (electrification/automation), better integration with global shipping lines and, often, spillover benefits to hinterland logistics. In summary, well-designed PPP/concession arrangements can upgrade ports without requiring the government to bear all of the initial expenses.
The Laldia deal – potential gains
The $550 million investment by APM Terminals, the biggest European private equity investment in Bangladesh’s maritime infrastructure, is among the most immediate advantages. Strong international trust in Bangladesh’s economic trajectory is indicated by such a large FDI influx, which may open the door for additional foreign investors.
APM will introduce top-notch terminal management. Laldia is expected to handle 800,000+ TEUs per year, representing around a 44% increase in capacity compared to current Chattogram Port levels. Larger vessels — nearly twice the size of the ones currently docking at New Mooring Terminal — will be able to berth at Laldia. This capacity expansion is more than just numbers: it means faster turnaround, less congestion, and more efficient movement of goods.
Through revenue-sharing model, Bangladesh is set to benefit financially from the terminal’s operations. APM Terminals will pay US$ 21 per TEU handled, rising to US$ 23 for volumes beyond 900,000 TEUs. This steady inflow represents a stable source of foreign-currency earnings for the Chittagong Port Authority (CPA) and, by extension, the government.
500–700 direct jobs will also be created during the terminal’s operation phase. Even more numerous will be indirect jobs across related sectors: trucking, warehousing, freight forwarding, and small and medium enterprises are all likely to benefit.
The risks and legitimate concerns
Along with potential benefits, the move carries real risks and trade-offs. Ports are critical national infrastructure. Long foreign concessions may limit a government’s operational flexibility and raise geopolitical questions about control over supply chains.
The Laldia (and associated Pangaon/NCT) agreements, according to a number of groups, including prominent residents and port users, were hasty and did not adequately disclose contract provisions (revenue share, tariffs, dispute resolution procedures) to the public. Openness breeds distrust and hinders stakeholders’ ability to assess whether the state obtained just long-term value.
Short-term investment may result from a badly designed concession, but the state may be locked into disadvantageous revenue, tariff, or indexation formulas. While many such terminals have been successful worldwide, there have also been instances of acrimonious fights, early exits, or re-negotiations when contracts failed to account for future changes.
The transfer of Laldia to a well-known international terminal operator, however, is not intrinsically flawed because it adheres to a worldwide strategy that has improved ports from Singapore to Rotterdam and Dubai. Investment, capacity, decreased transshipment, and more environmentally friendly operations are all possible benefits for Bangladesh. However, the specifics of the contract, the strength of the control, and the way the government handles the social and commercial effects will determine if the choice is best for Bangladesh.
The government should publish the concession agreement and clarify revenue-sharing, tariffs, indexation, and termination conditions in order to foster transparency and public trust. The CPA (or an impartial regulator) should have unambiguous authority to monitor service standards, rates, and social and environmental commitments. Additionally, the government ought to maintain its jurisdiction over regular performance evaluations and renegotiation triggers. Only then, the agreement can be considered as a game-changer for Bangladesh.
Like what you read?
Please consider supporting Eurasia Review. Thank you for your consideration!
