The National Agency of Ports and Navigation (ANPyN), in its capacity as the national technical body and governing authority of Argentine port policy, conducted a survey of the Port of Ushuaia which revealed administrative and financial deviations, and a lack of regulatory adequacy that, in the agency’s words, compromise operational efficiency and even the safety standards required by the national port system.
The 62-page report is also the first comprehensive audit carried out by the ANPyN since it assumed the functions of national port authority and is part of the new federal program for the control and inspection of public and private port facilities.
In the case of Ushuaia, on the other hand, the inspection originated from a complaint filed by the Unión Superior del Personal Ferroviario union, which was later joined by other port and maritime actors, due to a controversial provincial law that stipulated that the financial surplus of the Provincial Ports Directorate (DPP) be used to finance the Specific Fund for the Payment of the Debt of the Obra Social del Estado Fueguino.
That is, a regulation that ordered the redirection of port funds to the province’s pension funding.
Agreements and Deviations
It is worth remembering that for years the former General Ports Administration (AGP) acted as an advisory body, following the signing of active agreements, for the port of Ushuaia for the transfer of technology and knowledge in order to modernize the southern terminal which is, together with the Port of Buenos Aires, the main cruise port in Argentina.
Following the complaint, an ANPyN investigative commission inspected the destination and application of the DPP funds to the Obra Social del Estado Fueguino (OSEF), the compatibility of said provincial regulation with the ongoing port investment commitments and the degree of progress of the works agreed with the Nation based on the signed agreements.
The technical team noted a lack of documentation on billing, credit and debit notes, purchase orders and investments, which prevents precisely determining the origin and destination of the funds.
The port recorded as of September 30 financial holdings of $9,926 million and unearned commitments of $2,449 million, although bank reconciliations show unidentified differences of over $1,400 million.
Personnel expenses amounted to $7,595 million, equivalent to 55% of total expenditure, while port works represented only 1.3% of the executed budget.
Compromised Capacity
Two analyzed agreements—one with the Ministry of Health and another for reimbursable financial assistance for $4,000 million—present relevant observations: the use of financial surpluses “outside of the main functions” and the lack of comprehensive documentation on assets, liabilities and projections.
The technicians warn that the volume of these loans “can compromise resources of the Provincial Ports Directorate (DPP) and
reduce its capacity for infrastructure investment”
Likewise, the document details deficiencies in the areas of infrastructure, dredging management, and dock maintenance, as well as in occupational safety, access control, and environmental compliance.
In general terms, it points out that the port operates without an updated master plan or a scheduled maintenance scheme, and has physical limitations that restrict its competitiveness.
Aging Infrastructure and Reactive Maintenance
The inspection, which was purely technical in nature, identified deterioration that is also visible in the commercial and fishing docks, as well as structural cracks in fenders and sheet piles, and a deficient drainage system that aggravates corrosion from salinity.
For example, in the main dock —where cruise ships, fishing vessels, and general cargo operate— areas with slab deformations and leaks in expansion joints were found.
The mooring equipment, bollards and bitts show “variable levels of obsolescence” and lack a certified periodic inspection program.
ANPyN technicians warned that the current maintenance policy is “reactive”, focused on emergency repairs rather than planned interventions, which “reduces operational availability and increases the risks during docking maneuvers.”
Compounding this is the absence of a digital port management system, which hinders critical tasks of the maritime-port activity such as cargo traceability and anchorage planning.
Environmental management and safety under review
Another critical point raised by the auditors concerns the handling of port waste and effluents. The terminal does not have a formalized circuit for the collection and treatment of MARPOL waste, and ship effluents are discharged through obsolete connection systems, without leak checks or systematic pollutant monitoring.
Regarding safety and prevention, the ANPyN highlighted the lack of emergency plans integrated with the Naval Prefecture and the provincial Civil Defense. The lighting and maritime signaling systems do not meet the redundancy parameters recommended by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and the port lacks an updated response protocol for incidents involving fuels or hazardous substances.
In the area of port facility security (ISPS Code), the audit detected “partial levels of compliance”, with outdated documentation, discontinuous training, and shortcomings in the procedures for controlling access to the restricted area.
A key hub without strategic planning
In turn, from a logistical point of view, the port maintains constant activity—particularly during the Antarctic cruise season and fishing product exports—but operates at the limit of its capacity. The customs area has storage limitations, and the internal road accesses have geometric incompatibility with the maneuvering of large trucks.
The report highlights the lack of a master plan that articulates the planned expansion works with the urban development of Ushuaia. “The expansion of the commercial wharf and the future cruise terminal require a comprehensive redesign that considers land connectivity, service capacity and environmental mitigation,” the document states.
A simple reading of this first audit by the national technical agency, which took over the functions and professionals of the former Undersecretariat of Ports and Navigable Waterways and the former General Ports Administration, suggests that the Ushuaia case is “representative of the challenges of the Argentine port system”: aging infrastructure, institutional fragmentation and low logistical integration.
Institutional and political implications
From an institutional perspective, the inspection is part of the process of federalization of port control promoted by the ANPN following the dissolution of the Undersecretariat of Ports.
The organization seeks to reestablish a national technical audit scheme, with uniform criteria for authorization, oversight, and environmental certification, taking back responsibilities that had become dispersed among provincial and local authorities.
This paradigm shift aims to restore a “national port control authority,” capable of guaranteeing homogeneous standards without interfering with provincial autonomy. However, the Ushuaia case reopens the debate on the financing and governance of public ports under decentralized administration, especially when structural investments—such as dredging or dock reconstruction—exceed local budgetary capacity.
The diagnosis in context
The survey results will serve as a basis and precedent for future oversight procedures in other ports across the country, so that not only the authorization criteria are unified, but the registries of ports that predate Law 24.093 are also updated.
In this context, Ushuaia emerges as a critical point not only because of its strategic location on the Antarctic corridor, but also because of its role in the southern supply chain and the logistics of fishing and tourism.
