Anaklia and Georgia`s Unified Port System

2026-09-21

Merab Chachava — Doctor of Technical Sciences, port management specialist, co-founder of "Maritime Agency Admiral" LLC.

Although the Anaklia port project has entered an intensive construction phase and the dredging of the water area is proceeding according to plan, a prevailing view suggests that once the Anaklia deep-water port becomes operational, it will compete with the ports of Poti and Batumi, leading to a shift of certain cargo flows from those ports to Anaklia. Consequently, there is a potential risk that some personnel employed in the sector could face unemployment.

Amidst military conflict in the region and the blocking of Black Sea transport routes, the Anaklia port’s appeal is significantly enhanced by its deep-water capabilities.

If we visualize a scenario where a fully loaded "mother vessel" with a deep draft enters the straits, its unloading destination can be predicted in advance. There are two options: the ship must choose either deep-water ports located to the west of the Black Sea—in Turkey, Bulgaria, or Romania—or those to the east, such as Georgia (hypothetically, Anaklia) or the ports of Russia and Ukraine.

Currently, all deep-water ports in our neighbors Ukraine and Russia are either blocked or damaged. For instance, in Russia, Novorossiysk has a depth of 19 meters; Taman—partially, depending on the specific berth—has a depth of 20 meters; and Tuapse has a depth of 14 meters. In Ukraine, Odesa has a depth of 14–15 meters.

Effectively, regarding the eastern Black Sea region, we are not discussing "feeder" vessels that would enter through the straits. If Georgia possessed a deep-water port today, such a vessel would be oriented toward Anaklia. Naturally, one must also consider specific types of cargo exported from Russian ports—namely oil, coal, and grain. While these cargoes naturally fall within the catchment area of ​​Russian ports, it is entirely feasible for container flows to be routed to Anaklia without needing to be broken down at intermediate ports. Consequently, given current wartime conditions, Anaklia stands unrivaled in its ability to accommodate large-tonnage vessels.

The strategic objective for developing Georgia’s maritime infrastructure should be to establish a port system wherein each of the country’s ports performs a distinct yet complementary role regarding cargo flows.

It is in this context that the significance of Anaklia must be viewed. Above all, a deep-water port creates an opportunity that the country’s existing ports—constrained by natural and infrastructural limitations—cannot realize: the ability to service vessels with deep drafts and high cargo capacities. This does not imply that other ports will lose their purpose; rather, it means that Georgia’s unified port system will gain new capabilities for connectivity and the capacity to handle new types of cargo.

The functions of Poti, Batumi, Kulevi, Supsa, and Anaklia must be considered not in isolation, but within the framework of a unified national logistics system. A seaport is far more than just a place for berthing and cargo handling. A multi-layered economic ecosystem forms around it, encompassing port operations, pilotage, towage, agency services, ship supply, technical maintenance, freight forwarding, customs and warehousing, transport services, repairs, and dozens of other directly or indirectly related activities.

To what extent will the volume of cargo moving through Georgia increase, and how much will the economic activity involved in servicing that flow expand?

This is precisely where the significance of the "Middle Corridor" becomes evident. If Georgia truly establishes itself as a key transport link connecting China, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Europe, the question should no longer be framed as "Which port will capture the other's cargo flow?" A more pertinent question would be: how effectively can the various ports within Georgia’s maritime sector collectively handle the increased cargo volumes generated by the development of the Middle Corridor? A model could be established wherein one port focuses primarily on container operations, another on handling feeder and ferry vessels, and a third on petroleum products, chemical cargoes, or other specialized freight; crucially, these ports would complement one another’s cargo flows and be interconnected via road and rail networks, functioning as part of a unified supply chain.

Moreover, the launch of a new port generates new jobs, services, logistics companies, and transport operations, as well as technical and engineering activities and an increased demand for maritime personnel.

In this context, Georgian seafarers and maritime specialists play a particularly important role.

Assessing the development of Georgia’s maritime sector should not be limited solely to the number of people employed at the ports. Port expansion generates demand for professional skills related not only to direct vessel servicing but also to the entire maritime operational ecosystem surrounding them.

As ports grow, so does the demand for services such as pilotage, towage, ship agency, navigational and technical support, maritime safety, terminal operations, vessel maintenance, marine engineering, logistics, and other specialized fields.

Therefore, a key outcome of port development should be the creation of new professional development opportunities within Georgia for Georgian seafarers and maritime specialists.

If the Middle Corridor undergoes intensive development, Georgia may face a challenge far more significant than a choice between "Anaklia or Poti" or "Anaklia or Batumi": the task of ensuring that all Georgian ports operate in concert to transform the country's geographic location into a tangible economic advantage. The ultimate outcome should be evaluated not by the tonnage of cargo handled by any specific port, but by the extent to which Georgia’s overall economic potential as a maritime nation has expanded.

Georgia needs not ports that merely substitute for one another, but a unified port system in which each port has its own function, its own market, and its own distinct role within the framework of a shared national economic goal.

The system’s ultimate objective should be to generate increased cargo volumes, expanded maritime operations, greater value added, and enhanced professional opportunities—creating more roles for Georgian seafarers and maritime specialists within the country's maritime economy.

Only in this way will Anaklia mark not the end for other Georgian ports, but the beginning of a new chapter in Georgia’s maritime economy.

Source: transcor.ge