Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Port Development in Europe Challenges and Prospects, Norfolk VA – 17 February 2012


Published on

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

Port Development in Europe Challenges and Prospects, Norfolk VA – 17 February 2012

  1. 1. Port Development in Europe Challenges and Prospects Patrick Verhoeven Norfolk VA – 17 February 2012 1
  2. 2. Summary1. Introduction to the European port system2. Operational dimension3. Spatial dimension4. Societal dimension5. Governance implications6. EU policy context7. Conclusions 2
  3. 3. 1. Introduction to the European port system 3
  4. 4. 7
  5. 5. 250000020000001500000 Total Liquid bulk Solid bulk1000000 Containers Breakbulk500000 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 Evolution traffic selected EU ports in 1000 metric tonnes: 2008 – 2011 Source: ESPO / Rapid Exchange System 8
  6. 6. 2. Operational dimension 9
  7. 7. Photo: Autoridad Portuaria de la Bahía de Algeciras 10
  8. 8. Photo: ECT 11
  9. 9. Photo: Antwerp Port Authority 12
  10. 10. Photo: Port of Rotterdam 13
  11. 11. Dimension Sub-dimension Key featuresOperational Ship-shore Core port services: cargo-handling, operations technical-nautical and ancillary services. Strong focus on containers Value-added logistics Shift from core to non-core port activities (various paths possible). Industrial activities Shift from traditional to sustainable industries (e.g. LNG, biofuel) 14
  12. 12. 3. Spatial dimension 15
  13. 13. Source: Theo Notteboom / ITMMA (2007) 16
  14. 14. Photo: Maersk 17
  15. 15. Source: Port of Rotterdam
  16. 16. Photo: Andreas Gress 20
  17. 17. Source: North Adriatic Ports Association 21
  18. 18. Dimension Sub-dimension Key featuresSpatial Terminalisation Multinational operators develop networks of terminals under corporate logic. Competitive emphasis shifts to terminal level, extending into the supply chain. Port-city separation Loosening of spatial relationship combined with weakening of economic and societal ties (but first signs of re-integration appear). Regionalisation Network development beyond the port perimeter, involves co-operation with inland ports, dry ports and (neighbouring) seaports. 22
  19. 19. 4. Societal dimension 23
  20. 20. Photo: Hamburg Port Authority
  21. 21. Photo: Patrick Verhoeven
  22. 22. Photo: Port of Helsinki
  23. 23. Photo: Patrick Verhoeven
  24. 24. Dimension Sub-dimension Key featuresSocietal Ecosystems Seaport is part of a wider (coastal) ecosystem where it has a variety of environmental interactions with the outside. Human factor Sustainable co-habitation with local communities, focus on avoiding negative (pollution, congestion, etc.) and stimulating positive externalities (soft values). 28
  25. 25. Conclusions so far• Ports are elements in value-driven logistics chain• Port competitiveness depends largely on factors external to the port• Bargaining power of market players shifted due to horizontal and vertical integration• Post-modern society does no longer value the significance of ports• Result: ports function in a highly uncertain and complex environment 29
  26. 26. 5. Governance implications 30
  27. 27. • Multiple pressure on port authorities: – Pressure of market players – Pressure of government – Pressure of societal stakeholders• Existential options (Heaver et al. 2000): – Be full-fledged partners in the logistics chain – Play a supporting role – Disappear 31
  28. 28. 32
  29. 29. A renaissance of port authorities? Sandro Botticelli – Nascita di Venere (Galleria degli Uffizi, Firenze) 33
  30. 30. Hypothetical typology Conservator Facilitator EntrepreneurLandlord Passive real estate Active real estate “broker” Active real estate “developer” “manager” Mediator in B2B relations Direct commercial B2B Strategic partnerships beyond port negotiations perimeter Direct investments beyond port perimeterRegulator Passive application and Active application and enforcement Idem facilitator enforcement Other + own rules Idem facilitator + commercialising Rules set by others Provide assistance in compliance expertise and tools outside port Financial revenue on Tariffs + differential charging options Financial revenue on commercial “tariff” basis to promote sustainability basisOperator Mechanistic concession Dynamic concession policy Dynamic concession policy policy “Leader in dissatisfaction” Shareholder in private service Provide public services / specialised providers services Provide commercial and public servicesCommunity Not actively developed Solve economic bottlenecks Idem facilitator but more directmanager Provide public goods commercial involvement Solve conflicting interests Promote positive externalities Local Local + Regional Local + Regional + Global Source: Patrick Verhoeven (2010)
  31. 31. Facts: functional profile• Cargo handling services are mostly privatised / liberalised• The landlord function has become the primary function• Increased attention for negative externalities of port operations has reinforced the regulator function• The ‘community manager’ function is well-established• So far few port authorities expand their activities beyond their own port perimeter, but this is evolving• Conclusion: most European port authorities converge towards the ‘facilitator’ type
  32. 32. Facts: legal and statutory framework• Most port authorities in Europe are publicly owned – North Europe: mainly cities – South Europe: mainly central government – Multipurpose private ports only exist in the UK• Most European port authorities have their own legal personality• There is a growing trend of corporatisation• But political influence remains present almost everywhere
  33. 33. Facts: financial capabilities• European port authorities bear considerable financial responsibilities for capital assets that constitute a port• Maritime and land access in several EU countries funded by the public purse• Port dues form the main source of income of port authorities, followed by land lease and services• Port dues are generally of public nature (taxes or retributions)• Financial autonomy of port authorities varies a lot and is generally more restricted in southern Europe
  34. 34. 6. EU policy context 38
  35. 35. 39
  36. 36. Common EU ports policy• A long and difficult process given diversity of sector• Two attempts to open up market access for port services failed in 2003 and 2006 (so-called ‘port packages’)• New start in 2007: Ports Policy Communication• Revival policy in 2011: – Infrastructure: ports integrated in Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) – Administrative simplification – Financing (use of public funding – State aid) – Concessions (application of internal market rules – transparency) – Port services (dock labour, technical-nautical services)• 2012 consultation period – 2013 new proposals (?)
  37. 37. 7. Conclusions 41
  38. 38. • European port system dynamic and generally competitive• Challenges EU ports not fundamentally different from those of US ports• Operational, spatial and societal changes put strong pressure on role port authorities• Many port authorities have ‘renaissance’ ambitions, converging to ‘facilitator’ role• Governance factors play major enabling / inhibiting role• Governance diversity mainly determined regionally• Common EU ports policy has the potential of creating a more level playing field 42
  39. 39. Thank you for your attention Patrick Verhoeven – Secretary General European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) Treurenberg 6 – B-1000 Brussel / Bruxelles Tel + 32 2 736 34 63 – Fax + 32 2 736 63 25 Email: –