PORTS AND PORT MANAGEMENT IN NORTH WESTERN EUROPE: ACTUAL TRENDS
A.M.J. Kreukels,
Utrecht University, The Netherlands
International Port Management Seminar, WAVE, Waterfront Vitalization and Environment Research Centre, Tokyo, Japan, December, the 17th, 1999
1. INTRODUCTION
In this contribution I present to you a general overview of the challenges and the exigences of ports nowadays in Western Europe. Subsequently, I'll explore the necessary adaptations of ports and port management. This is done especially within the broader setting of relationships with other ports and with other relevant units of transport and distribution in the European Hinterland. In this part I will give also an indication of the involvement of the institutions of the European Union in the exploitation and development of ports. Finally, in the conclusions, I'll introduce to you the private sector approach and the international regime theory as a promising framework to understand more adequately the issues related to seatransport and ports in a deregelutated and open market situation.
2. OVERSEA AND HINTERLAND CONNECTIONS: ACTUAL TRENDS
First of all with regard to actual trends in general one can notice that nowadays an increased competition and marketregime of seatransport, forwarded by the container transport from the sixties onwards, is decisive and has an important impact on ports all over the world.
The following characteristics can be noted:
(1) Containerization introduced the competition among different modes of maritime transport and favoured the more efficient multimodal ports;
(2) Containerization opened the door to multimodal transport operators (ship, rail and truck);
(3) Containerization and multimodalism caused the emergence of fewer and larger shipping and multimodal firms and transportation consortia;
(4) Containerization has eliminated basically the difference in the quality of service offered by independent lines and conference lines;
(5) Containerization and the weakening of the conference lines did result in the increase of Asian shipping firms, especially those of Taiwan (Evergreen), South Korea, Hong Kong and thc People's Republique of China (Zacher, Sutton, 1996).
At the one hand, the formation of overarching alliances of the main shipping lines can be considered as a step to guarantee an enlasting position in this extreme competitive setting. At the other hand, ports are under pressure to strenghten or to maintain at least their position and their share (and competing especially for that with a small group of alliances of main shipping lines)among ports and other nodes of distribution and transport.
In North Western Europe the group of ports, which compete with each other and which have an overlapping Hinterland are the ports of the so called Hamburg - Le Havre Range, are the ports of Le Havre, Dunkerque, Zeebrugge, Ghent, Antwerp, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Bremen and Hamburg. Three phenomena are at the basis for characterising these ports:
1. The share of each port in this range is over a long period quite stable. The ports of the Hamburg - LeHavre form - even with a continuous and increased comeptition - a pattern that appears as robust.
2. The difference between the most important ports especially with regard to intercontinental connections, the so called mainports: Rotterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg and other ports in the Hamburg- Le Havre range has become estalbished over a longer period. It shows a "hub and spoke" pattern of the ports in North Western Europe in the same way as this is manifest in the sector of airports in North America and Europe.
3. The ports become characterized increasingly by a particular balance between the primary function: the transshipment, transport and distribution and the secondary function: (industrial)production. In contrast with the past, the secondary function is not anymore bounded to ports. Often the production relocates at other locations, often at great distance of the sea and far in the Hinterland, because of the better accessibility in the modern system of transport and distribution. However, those ports which are successful to maintain a combination of transshipment, distribution in relation to "value added" activities and even (industrial)activities are more robust than ports that are not so successful in this and have a lesser balanced profile with regard to the primary and secondary fucntions. For instance, Antwerp is until now more robust than Roterdam with regard to the combination of transshipment and value added activities than Rotterdam, while Rotterdam could maintain the biggest complex of oil refinery in the port area.
