Deliverable!7.1 … · EFIP The European Federation of Inland Ports ESPO European Sea Ports Organisation GRI Global Reporting Initiative ISO International Organization for

1

2 3

7th Framework Programme SST.2013.6-‐2. Towards a competitive and resource efficient port transport system Collaborative Project Grant Agreement no. 605176

Deliverable 7.1

KPIs for inland ports (Pre-‐selection)

DOCUMENT ID PORTOPIA|D|7.1|DT|2014.10.29|V|F DUE DATE OF DELIVERABLE 2015-‐02-‐28 ACTUAL SUBMISSION DATE 02/11/15 DISSEMINATION LEVEL

PU (Public)

Deliverable 7.1 KPIs for inland ports (Pre-‐selection)

2

DELIVERABLE 7.1 KPIs for inland ports (Pre-‐selection)

AUTHORSHIP

Author(s) Klukas, A; Kirsch, D; Darbra, RM; Dooms, M; De Schepper, S

Beneficiary Partner FHG IML, UPC, VUP, EFIP

Issue Date 2015-‐11-‐06

Revision M. Langenus

Status Final

Contributors Klukas, A; Kirsch, D; Darbra, RM; Dooms, M; De Schepper, S

Pages 75

Figures 2

Tables 4

Annexes 2

SIGNATURES

Author(s) A. Klukas

Coordinator M. Dooms

Disclaimer The information contained in this report is subject to change without notice and should not be construed as a commitment by any members of the PORTOPIA Consortium or the authors. In the event of any software or algorithms being described in this report, the PORTOPIA Consortium assumes no responsibility for the use or inability to use any of its software or algorithms. The information is provided without any warranty of any kind and the PORTOPIA Consortium expressly disclaims all implied warranties, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use. (c) COPYRIGHT 2013 The PORTOPIA Consortium This document may be copied and reproduced without written permission from the PORTOPIA Consortium. Acknowledgement of the authors of the document shall be clearly referenced. All rights reserved.


3


REVISION

Revision Date Reviewer Name Reviewer Signature

2015-‐11-‐06 M. Langenus M. Langenus

HISTORY

Version Date Version Id Status Comment

2014-‐10-‐29 V0.0 [DRAFT] Structure and Responsibilities

2015-‐03-‐20 V0.0 [DRAFT] Draft Version

2015-‐11-‐02 V1.0 [FINISH] Final Version


4


CONTENT 1

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 8 1

FUNDAMENTALS ............................................................................................................. 9 2

2.1 Intended Benefits und Usability for inland ports ................................................................ 9

2.2 Ground Rules ....................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Inland port definition ........................................................................................................ 10

2.4 Inland ports situation ........................................................................................................ 11

2.4.1 Inland ports in Europe ............................................................................................ 11

2.4.2 Other inland ports .................................................................................................. 12

2.4.3 Initiatives in inland ports ........................................................................................ 13

AS-‐IS ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 15 3

3.1 Measurement systems for seaports .................................................................................. 15

3.2 Measurement systems and organizations of inland ports ................................................ 20

3.2.1 Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine .................................................. 20

3.2.2 via donau ................................................................................................................ 20

3.2.3 InlandLinks .............................................................................................................. 21

3.2.4 National Association of Public Inland Ports ............................................................ 21

3.2.5 Association Française des Ports Intérieurs ............................................................. 22

3.3 Publications of Inland Ports ............................................................................................... 22

3.4 Specify important key performance indicators ................................................................. 27

3.5 Obstacles and barriers ....................................................................................................... 29

3.6 Categorising system of inland ports .................................................................................. 29

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM OF INLAND PORTS ......................................... 31 4

4.1 Market trends and structure ............................................................................................. 31

4.1.1 Waterside handling ................................................................................................ 31

4.1.2 Railside handling ..................................................................................................... 32

4.1.3 Container handling ................................................................................................. 33

4.1.4 Liquid bulk handling ............................................................................................... 34

4.1.5 Dry bulk handling .................................................................................................... 35

4.1.6 General cargo ......................................................................................................... 36

4.1.7 Container dependency ........................................................................................... 37

4.1.8 Measurement of transhipments ............................................................................. 38

4.1.9 Main commercial activities ..................................................................................... 39


5

4.2 Socio-‐economic indicators ................................................................................................ 40

4.2.1 Direct employment ................................................................................................. 40

4.2.2 Indirect Employment .............................................................................................. 41

4.3 Environment ...................................................................................................................... 43

4.3.1 Environmental management .................................................................................. 43

4.3.2 Environmental monitoring ..................................................................................... 44

4.3.3 Environmental priorities ......................................................................................... 45

4.3.4 Green actions ......................................................................................................... 46

4.4 Logistic chain and operational performance ..................................................................... 47

4.4.1 Intermodal connectivity ......................................................................................... 47

4.4.2 Seaport connectivity ............................................................................................... 49

4.4.3 Logistics services ..................................................................................................... 50

4.4.4 Throughput per quay meter ................................................................................... 51

4.4.5 Area usage .............................................................................................................. 52

4.4.6 Spatial productivity ................................................................................................. 53

4.5 Governance ....................................................................................................................... 54

ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS ............................................................................. 57 5

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 58 6

Appendix ....................................................................................................................... 59 7

Appendix 1: Sources for Port data in table 4 .............................................................................. 59

Appendix 2: Questionnaire ......................................................................................................... 62


6


List of Tables

Table 1: Top 10 priorities of environmental issues .................................................................................... 17 Table 2: EcoPorts’ Environmental Performance Indicators ........................................................................ 17 Table 3: PPRISM’s Environmental Performance Indicators ........................................................................ 19 Table 4: Exemplary key indicators used by inland ports ............................................................................ 23

List of Figures

Figure 1: Example of a port profile for a seaport – part 1 .......................................................................... 56 Figure 2: Example of a port profile for a seaport – part 2 .......................................................................... 56


7


List of Abbreviations

AFPI Association Française des Ports Intérieurs

CCR Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine

DoRIS Danube River Information Services

EFIP The European Federation of Inland Ports

ESPO European Sea Ports Organisation

GRI Global Reporting Initiative

ISO International Organization for Standardization

KPI Key performance indicator

LNG Liquefied natural gas

NST Nomenclature uniforme des marchandises pour les statistiques de transport

PEARL Port EnvironmentAl infoRmation colLector

PERS Port Environmental Review System

PPRISM Port Performance Indicators Selection and Measurement

SDM Self Diagnosis Method


8

INTRODUCTION 1

Deliverable D7.1 comprises a structured overview of the results of Task 7.1, which is the first step of Work package 7.

In a nutshell, WP 7 serves to extend the idea of a port observatory to the domain of inland ports. Therefore, a key list of suitable indicators, covering PORTOPIA’s relevant categories, has to be set up and validated by reviewing it with the relevant stakeholders.

Taking the first step here means:

• To identify existing performance measurement systems of inland ports (as well as present data capturing mechanisms),

• To specify important key performance indicators (KPIs) (the results of PPRISM will be discussed with the stakeholders),

• To identify obstacles and barriers related to the implementation of the indicators, as well as possible remedies, and

• To develop a system for categorising inland ports wherein the specifics of the inland port market structure will be taken into account (possibilities for long-term data capture will be identified)

This will produce an initial pre-selection of KPIs listed in this document, Deliverable D7.1.


9

FUNDAMENTALS 2

2.1 Intended Benefits und Usability for inland ports

Currently, inland port authorities only employ a few employees, but face numerous challenges. These originate from different stakeholders: government agencies, industrial associations and the general public. They approach the ports with a variety of requests and aspirations. A prominent example for the requirements set by a supra-national agency is the obligation to deliver statistical data to Eurostat. Whilst port authorities are bound to fulfil those requests, data acquisition, processing, and transfer cause a lot of work, which comes on top of the daily operations. In addition, providing facts and figures answering the general publics’ questions require time and extra work. Apart from those demands, there is a strong need for port authorities to provide high quality industry information to pave the way for well-founded management decisions. At the present no benchmarking system, which could help inland port authorities to paint a clear picture of their own competitive position and to better understand the causes and effects of managerial decisions in the industry, exists.

PORTOPIA …

…provides a platform addressing both types of needs, which will ease the efforts of data acquisition, structuring and decision taking for inland ports.

…collects and evaluates data from the inland ports.

…automatically delivers the data to different government agencies.

…creates documents, reports and figures on demand that help port authorities to answer stakeholders’ requests, as well as to prepare well-founded management decisions.

…provides insides to the inland ports best practice solutions and examples presenting major added value for port authorities when it comes to strategic management.

…gives inland ports the possibility to gather insights into their users’ perspective.

…is a work simplification tool for inland ports.

2.2 Ground Rules

Data security and workload are important points for inland port authorities. Based on discussions with EFIP and inland port authorities some fundamental / main rules were developed:

• Individual port data stays confidential • Data collection (annually) with minimum effort for the ports in a secured,

individual space • A port authority may only see detailed data it provided itself (ownership of data

remains with the port) • No benchmark will ever disclose details of a port authority to third parties • Use of clear, meaningful and coherent indicators to establish comparability • No ‘bureaucratic behemoth’ • Tool to support European ports in their daily business


10

2.3 Inland port definition

The concept of inland ports is not easy to define since it is included in a broader term called Inland node that could be defined in general terms as1:

“An inland location where a trade activity is conducted (regardless its scale)”.

Although the breadth of the definition of these type of nodes, all of them gather the following three characteristics2:

• An intermodal terminal, either a rail or barge that have been built or expanded.

• A connection with a port terminal through rail, barge or truck services, often through a high capacity corridor.

• An array of logistical activities that support and organize the freight transited, often collocated with the intermodal terminal.

These inland nodes are usually known by different terms depending on the shape, governance, functions, stakeholders and networks they have. These are: dry ports, inland terminals, inland hubs, inland logistics centres, inland freight villages and inland ports.

When focusing on inland ports, one general and accepted definition is the one by Rodrigue & Notteboom (2013).

“A rail or a barge terminal that is linked to a maritime terminal with regular inland transport services”. According to this definition, an inland port has a level of integration with the maritime terminal and supports a more efficient access to the inland market both for inbound and outbound traffic. This implies an array of related logistical activities linked to the terminal, such as distribution centres, depots for containers and chassis, warehouses and logistical service providers.

Once again, the inland port definition is still very broad and can be interpreted differently. Therefore it is necessary to clarify that the present document focuses on:

“Inland ports including at least a ship or barge terminal and with a connection with other ports (maritime terminal or inland port) before they reach the oceanic or sea trade”.

In addition, this kind of inland ports are normally located at important and strategic rivers. A good example for this type of ports in EU would be:

• The port of Brussels (Belgium), established in the Brussels-Scheldt canal and with an important connection with the port of Antwerp (seaport terminal).

• The ports of Meissen and Dresden (Germany), settled in the Elba River and with previous connections to other inland ports before reaching the sea.

This type of inland port has been gaining importance in the last years due to the improvement of different weak points that the conventional inland freight transport

1 Hofstra, 2014 2 Rodrigue & Nettebom, 2013


11

had in the past. As a consequence, the growth of inland ports has supposedly the following advantages:

• Increasing land value: inland ports transfer parts of the seaports activity to the hinterland to unburden the territory surrounding the seaports.

• Reducing costs: inland ports reduce the costs of the ports since the hinterland land value is normally lower than coastal one.

• Decreasing congestion: building inland ports is a proved strategy for decreasing the congestion generated in the big sea ports terminals due to the truck transport.

• Improving hinterland access: this kind of facilities certainly stimulates the transportation of the goods to hinterlands, as well as the exportation of key products from local markets.

• Managing the supply chain: the inland port is not only a strategy to improve the capacity and the accessibility of the hinterland transport it is also a location that plays a key role in the supply chain management. Nowadays, inland ports are considered logistical centres where a good can be stored or even transformed before reaching other destinations. In addition, an inland port can also act as a buffer depot if necessary (capacity management).

When taking the advantages provided by inland ports into account, it is easy to understand that this kind of facilities are currently of high relevance in the developed regions and countries such as EU and USA (see next section). In addition, they are also becoming increasingly important in the development of transportation systems of emerging economies like India or China.

2.4 Inland ports situation

As aforementioned, inland ports are already very important in developed countries. In fact, the interaction of these inland ports with the local and regional markets defines not only the characteristics of the inland port but also the commercial issues of the region. In the present section, the situation of inland ports in Europe as well as in other regions of the world (USA and Asia) is presented.

2.4.1 Inland ports in Europe

In Europe, it is in the North West where a recognised approach to the hinterland trade exists. In fact, the aforementioned region is one of the biggest marine commercial gateways in the world and one of the most advanced in terms of inland ports terminals and their connection with seaports through rail shuttles and barge services.

The tradition of the hinterland trade in the aforementioned region has a long history. It started with the transport between ports such as Rotterdam and Antwerp in the Rhine Basin and later on it substantially expanded towards Benelux and northern France. The inland port system then importantly grew all along Europe. An example of this could be the inland port of Mantua located in the Po River (North Italy).


12

The consolidation of this tradition is present in current European projects, such as Connecting Citizen Ports3, the DaHaR project4, the WANDA project5 and the on-going PORTOPIA project. The first one aims at fostering connectivity and sustainable transport among inland ports from Belgium, France, Germany and Switzerland (Paris, Brussels, Basel, etc.). In a similar approach, DaHaR and WANDA projects also have the goal to enhance the sustainability of the inland port transport but they are focused on the Danube Region. Finally, the purpose of PORTOPIA, regarding inland ports, is to select a list of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) presenting the EU inland ports needs and characteristics and integrate them into the project database (ports observatory dataset).

Other evidence for the inland ports relevance in Europe is the existence of the European Federation of Inland Ports (EFIP), an organisation devoted to ensure the good performance of the European Inland ports in terms of socioeconomics, safety & security and environment. Nowadays, the EFIP represents around 200 inland ports from 18 different countries in EU6.

It seems interesting to highlight that due to the geographical condition of Europe, Inland ports are not located at a long distance to other inland or sea ports. As a consequence, the inland ports in EU assume the key role of decongesting port operations as well as improving the hinterland transportation.

2.4.2 Other inland ports

In the US a wide range of inland port typologies exists. Two types can be recognised as the most common: On one hand, the most extensive type is the one related to the ocean trade; in this case the inland ports act as an extension of a seaport terminals (e.g. Chicago). On the other hand an important group of inland ports that have been built with a clear orientation to promote the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) trade (e.g. Kansas City) exists. This implies to enhance interior connections between USA and Mexico or Canada and USA. It is important to highlight that in USA, the number of inland ports including shipment or barge terminal is not as extended as in Europe, being the most common mean of transport the rail. Furthermore, it is a fact that the distance between inland ports and a seaport terminal in USA is bigger than in Europe. The reason for this lies in the dimension and geography of the USA territory, where two main areas of marine transport (Atlantic and Pacific oceans) exist and its seaport terminals need to be connected to very deep hinterlands.

Another interesting part of the world regarding the inland ports is Asia. Although there is no long tradition concerning these types of facilities, the growth of them is increasing due to the intensive level of development of this area.

It is still not clear whether the European or the USA model fits better in this region. However, it is believed that a combination of both models could be the solution for a proper construction of the Asian inland port system. Therefore, a hypothetic approach could be the followed: a European inland model in South East Asia region along the river Mekong, where the countries are close one to each other, whereas the USA model could be adapted in the Chinese coast where good transportation into the deep hinterland is required.

3 CCP21, 2010 4 DaHaR, 2011 5 WANDA, 2012 6 EFIP, 2014


13

2.4.3 Initiatives in inland ports

In order to carry out the selection of the indicators, a revision of the current situation in inland ports has been done. To do that, the list of the inland ports of EFIP has been taken as a basis and information on each of the ports has been researched from different sources: reports, websites, projects, field (port) visits, personal interviews, etc.

By doing this screening, it has been observed that, although almost each inland port registered as a member of the EFIP has its own website, not many of them offer specific information regarding their performance. However, it is important to highlight that some of the ports do include interesting documents such as annual reports (Ports of Brussels, Paris and Switzerland) and policies or newsletters (EFIP newsletters) that prove the commitment of these entities with the examined indicators, e.g. in the environment section.

Initiatives in inland ports mainly take place in the logistics chain and operational performance, environmental and the governance sector.

In the logistic chain and operational performance sector there are a lot of cooperations between ports, on horizontal and as well vertical level. For instance, there are bilateral initiatives between inland and seaports on administrative level, one example is the cooperation between the seaport of Hamburg and the inland port of Dortmund.7

Furthermore, one concept that has been found after doing the present review is the willingness of several inland ports to perform a sustainable management. Proof for this are the aforementioned projects: DaHaR, WANDA and CCP21. When this concept turns into environmental terms, it can be translated in any means used by the inland port to save energy consumption and reduce pollution and waste production. Since each inland port acts in a different situation depending on the needs and resources of the surrounding area, the way to enhance sustainable management often presents a wide range of possibilities. Focusing on the environment, different options have been observed in order to improve the sustainable management of the inland ports:

• Biofuel production • Eolic energy • Solar plants • Onshore Power Supply (OPS) • Electric vessels • Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) powered vessels • Waste treatment • Environmentally differentiated port fees

Furthermore, regarding governance, the cooperation between inland ports comes more into the focus with the aim to strengthen their position on the market. As example could be mentioned the CCP21 project8 or the cooperation between the ports of Neuss-Düsseldorf, Krefeld and Cologne9. The next step is the merging of different port to one unit as it happens at the lower Rhine. The three ports around Wesel and Emmelsum merge to one port.10

7 DVZ, 2014 8 CCP21, 2010 9 Neuss Düsseldorfer Häfen, 2012 10 Standort Niederrhein, 2012


14

In the dimension of socio-economic indicators there are not often initiatives be taken by inland ports. The reason is the complexity and work to do to gather the information about direct and indirect employment and the socio-economic added value, generated by individual inland ports and the entire port sector.


15

AS-‐IS ANALYSIS 3

The as-is analysis is used to gain an overview of the current situation in the area of inland ports and existing measurement systems. Therefore the current situation was described by a literature review and all relevant information were gathered and analysed. In addition, the measurement systems for seaports were investigated for relevant indicators for inland ports. The aim was to check which indicators for seaports are applicable to inland ports and are also useful for them. This research formed the basis for the selection of indicators for inland ports in chapter 4. This course of action for selection and elaboration of indicators for inland ports is described afterwards in chapter 3.4. Furthermore, obstacles and barriers hindering the implementation of the indicators were identified and a system for categorising inland ports was developed.

3.1 Measurement systems for seaports

In the area of seaports there are five established performance measurement systems. Each of them focuses on a different topic:

• ESPO Fact-Finding Report is an enquiry over the current governance of European seaports

• ESPO Rapid Exchange System provides a possibility to exchange transport statistics on a confidential basis between participating seaports

• ESPO EcoPorts Port Environmental Review focusses on the environmental aspects of seaports

• PPRISM was an EU funded project that identified a shortlist of indicators which form the basis of a future European Port Observatory and delivers a version of the first European Port Performance Dashboard

• Port EnvironmentAl infoRmation colLector (PEARL) concentrates on the improvement of the understanding of environmental monitoring needs of European ports

ESPO Fact-‐Finding Report

The Fact-Finding report was published in 2011 after a major survey from April to July 2010 by ESPO. It builds up on the tradition of the original reports, but is based on a new concept and more information. The aim was to benchmark different port authorities in the field of governance, which includes the institutional framework of ports, the functional profile of port authorities and the financial aspects. Therefore 116 port authorities from 26 countries filled out the survey developed by ESPO. It gives a total overview of about 216 ports.

The survey was divided into the three following main chapters:

• Objectives and functions • Institutional framework • Financial capability

The chapter about objectives and functions consists of indicators like landlord functions, type of contractual arrangements and operations of port community IT systems. The second part about institutional framework covers indicators like number of ports for which the port authority is responsible, legal form of port authorities and average composition of the supervisory / governing body, in number of people. The last


16

chapter, financial capability, includes indicators like average operating income profile, legal nature of income charges and basis of port charges.

ESPO Rapid Exchange System

The Rapid Exchange System originated on the initiative of ESPO in 2000. The idea was to provide a system for exchanging transport statistics on a confidential basis between participating seaports. Another aim was to provide the actual information rapidly. DGITM, a department of the French Transport Ministry, coordinates the electronic data collection and analysis of traffic and transport data through a standard table in Excel format which can be downloaded on the ESPO website. Approximately 50 ports participate in this data exchange at the moment.

The Rapid Exchange System includes data on the following indicators:11

• Total tonnage (tons) (tonnage of goods carried, including packaging and the tare weight of containers or ro-ro units)

• Total liquid bulk (tons) • Total dry bulk (tons) • Total general cargo (tons) • Containers (tons, TEU) • Passengers

Statistics are released quarterly 10 weeks after the end of each quarter. In addition to this report there is a yearly special edition containing an in-depth analysis of the provided data.

ESPO EcoPorts Network

The EcoPorts Network started on the initiative of ESPO in 1994. The aim was to generate a network for exchanging knowledge and experience in the field of port environmental management. Currently nearly 80 ports are a part of this network.12 By now there are two established EcoPorts tools. On the one hand the Self Diagnosis Method (SDM) and on the other hand the Port Environmental Review System (PERS). Both of them are mainly based on R&D projects, like the Eco-Information (1997) and the EcoPorts (2002-2005).13

Any port inheriting the ESPO membership can become a member of the EcoPort Network by completing the Self Diagnosis Method. The checklist includes questions about the performance of the ports environmental management programme and furthermore provides the possibility to benchmark other environmental port performances. The second tool, the Port Environmental Review System (PERS), is known as the only port-sector specific environmental management standard. PERS contains the main generic requirements of recognised environmental management standards (e.g. ISO 14001) and was developed in order to assist the port authorities. This certification can be implemented independently.

Since 1996 ESPO has defined a top 10 list of priority environmental issues. The questionnaire, which aims at finding out the situation and progress of the ports regarding their environmental performance, is filled in by the ESPO port members

11 ESPO, 2014a 12 EcoPorts, 2014a 13 EcoPorts, 2014b


17

every four years. The results of the top 10 priorities defined by the ports can be found on the ESPO website and are illustrated in Table 1. These priorities for example deal with noise, dust, air quality and port development (land).14

Table 1: Top 10 priorities of environmental issues

Source: ESPO

Environmental Performance Indicators (EPI)

EPI consists in a collection of environmental indicators (125) used in inland ports. This list of indicator may be really helpful to these ports authorities that want carry out a proper monitoring and assessment of their environmental aspects. The aforementioned indicators are classified in three main categories:

1. Operational 2. Management 3. Condition

In the following table, a few examples of the environmental indicators included in each categories are presented.

Table 2: EcoPorts’ Environmental Performance Indicators

Operational Indicators Management indicators Condition indicators • Dredging • Noise • Waste • hazardous materials • dredged material • pulse • risk

• Reports • Certifications • Compliance with

legislation • Information exchange • Complaints • Environmental training

• Pollution to air • Pollution to water • Pollution to soil

14 ESPO, 2014b


18

Self-Diagnosis method (SDM)

This method for environmental self-Diagnosis was designed to help the environmental managers of the ports to assess continuously the management of their environmental performance. By applying the proposed methodology the ports could identify relevant environmental issues as well as to develop a strategy to enhance their situation.

The Self-Diagnosis Method is an environmental questionnaire based on the requirements, structure and vocabulary of the International Standard ISO 14001. The foresaid environmental questionnaire takes into account the following categories:

A. Environmental Policy document B. Management Organisation & Personnel C. Environmental Awareness and Training D. Communication E. Operational Management F. Emergency Planning G. Environmental issues and Monitoring H. Review and audit

PPRISM – Port Performance Indicators Selection and Measurement

The Port Performance Indicators Selection and Measurement (PPRISM) project was finished in January 2012. One aim of the 6 partners (University of Antwerp, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Cardiff University, University of the Aegean, Technical University of Eindhoven and ESPO as the coordinator) was to identify relevant, feasible and sustainable port performance indicators for seaports. In this way a set of key indicators, which are accepted by the port authorities and stakeholders and are suitability for an implementation on EU level, was to be created. The idea was to develop a method to measure and benchmark seaports in all three fields of society, environment and economy. Another aim was to create a dashboard including the most important indicators.

During the selection process the number of indicators regarded as suitable for the Port Performance Dashboard was narrowed down from an initial 158 to 37 in a first assessment.15 All indicators are subdivided into the following five major categories:

• Market trends and structure • Socio-economic impact • Environmental performance • Logistics chain and operational performance • Governance

PPRISM set up five criteria in order to, firstly, ensure meeting a decent quality of the indicators selected and, secondly, keeping a manageable number of indicators.16 These requirements can be summarised as followed:

• An indicator must be usable to monitor the key outcomes of strategies, policies, and legislation and measure progress towards policy goals. (“Policy relevance”)

• An indicator must supply relevant information with respect to the ports activities. (“Informative”)

15 PPRISM, 2012, pp. 46ff 16 PPRISM, 2012, pp. 48f


19

• An indicator must be directly available, or at a sound cost-benefit ratio. Furthermore, a frequent data acquisition using reliable procedures must be possible. (“Measurable”)

• An indicator must deliver clear information, be simple to interpret, and finally publicly appealing. (“Representative”)

• An indicator must be built upon existing information wherever possible. All figures used must be simple to monitor. (“Feasible/Practical”)

The indicators were classified into the performance indicator categories:

1. Management Performance Indicators (MPIs): Provide information about the management efforts that influence the environmental performance of the port.

2. Operational Performance Indicators (OPIs): Provide information about the environmental performance of the port’s operations.

3. Environmental Condition Indicators (ECIs): Provide information about the condition of the environment.

It seems important to highlight that the final result of PPRISM project was a short list of 12 Environmental performance indicators consistent on 9 management performance indicators and 3 operational performance indicators. The proposed list is presents below:

Table 3: PPRISM’s Environmental Performance Indicators

Management indicators Operational Indicators • Environmental Management System • Environmental monitoring programme • Inventory of significant environmental aspects • Environmental policy • ESPO Code of Practice • Inventory of environmental legislation • Objectives and targets • Environmental training • Environmental Report

• Carbon Footprint • Waste Management • Water Consumption

Source: PPRISM

Port Environmental Information Collector (PEARL)

In the framework of the Port EnvironmentAl infoRmation collector (PEARL) project different environmental monitoring were identified ranking them and obtaining a top 10 as final result. The top ten environmental monitoring needs extracted from PEARL was:

1. Marine related issues 2. Water quality 3. Meteorological parameters 4. Turbidity and sediments 5. Oil spill 6. Air quality 7. Ballast water monitoring 8. Noise monitoring 9. Dust dispersion 10. Soil quality


20

3.2 Measurement systems and organizations of inland ports

There are no existing or established measurement systems in the area of inland ports, but there are some organizations which focus on inland shipping and inland ports, like CCR for the river Rhine, ‘via donau’ for the Danube River, the National Association of Public Inland Ports in Germany or the Association Française des Ports Intérieurs in France. These organizations were analysed for their services, responsibilities and the published information on their websites.

3.2.1 Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine

The Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine (CCR) was founded in 1815 (legal foundation 1868) and represents the oldest international organization in modern history. It essentially deals with all issues concerning inland navigation and cooperates with other international organizations and institutions working in the field of inland navigation. This includes all activities that promote safety and smooth navigation on the Rhine.

The central tasks of the Commission are the development of the law of inland navigation and regulations for the navigation on the Rhine, maintenance and improvement of good conditions for navigation on the Rhine, promotion of ecological inland navigation and economic issues. The activities and initiatives aims to create an appropriate economic framework by increasing the competitiveness of the inland waterway and the holistic integration of the Rhine navigation in the European transport system. At the same time, sustainable processes and safe working conditions should be ensured.

On the website of the Central Commission the focus is directed to information and facts about the Commission itself, the organization, the history, activities, meetings and events, etc. Furthermore, the website informs about the waterway Rhine, including navigation channel clearances and existing air draughts of bridges. For daily information, e.g. conditions of navigable channels and current water levels, the website provides links to other websites. The information is available in four languages: English, German, French and Dutch.

Additionally, the CCR provides the “Observatory of European Inland Navigation”, a platform which contains information about the inland navigation in Europe. The platform includes information about the important waterways, e.g. type of carried goods and the availability of a LNG supply along the waterway, as well as information about the transport market, e.g. cargo vessels capacity for different goods. Concerning the inland ports, the platform provides an approximate indication of the annual handling performance and the type of specialization.

3.2.2 via donau

via donau (Österreichische Wasserstraßen-Gesellschaft mbH) was founded by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology in 2005. The main objective is to maintain and develop the Danube waterway. In this context, via donau is responsible for infrastructure management, traffic management, development of inland waterway transport and flood control.


21

via donau offers different services. The website provides information about the Danube waterway, including competence and legislation, current projects and hydrographical and hydrological data. via donau Navigation informs about basic data of the Danube waterway, as well as general themes of the inland water way transport and its characteristics. Danube River Information Services (DoRIS) deals with all issues concerning the navigation on the Danube waterway and provides information and services for inland waterway transport operators, e.g. actual information on the status of the Austrian locks and water levels. Danube Ports Online represents another service: the website provides profiles for inland ports along the Danube waterway, including information in the following fields: overall port operator, port information, handling facilities and devices, storage facilities, terminal operators, storage companies, additional services, customs office, ship yard, maintenance and disposal facilities, handling statistics and port development plans 2012 beyond. The data concerning the inland ports cover a part of the data, which will be used to create the port profiles in PORTOPIA. The different areas (via donau, via donau Navigation, DoRIS, Danube Ports Online etc.) have their own websites, which are available in the languages English and German.

3.2.3 InlandLinks

InlandLinks was developed by the initiative of the Port of Rotterdam Authority, in collaboration with the Association of Inland Terminal Operators. The InlandLinks website is a platform on which inland container terminals and container depots present themselves to the market, whereby a certification for the InlandLinks quality mark, which is performed by an independent agency, is required.

The information for each terminal comprises data about the accessibility, e.g. vessel classes and length of rail track, inland shipping connections and rail connections to the port of Rotterdam, available services, safety and security and sustainability, e.g. total CO2-emission. In addition, InlandLinks offers a unique tool, which provides sustainable and transparent connections for the logistics sector.

The target group of the project InlandLinks.eu includes shippers and logistics service providers as well as anyone who wants to get an overview of the possibilities of sustainable transportation and the options offered by container logistics. All information on the website is presented in German, English and Dutch.

3.2.4 National Association of Public Inland Ports

The German National Association of Public Inland Ports (Bundesverband öffentlicher Binnenhäfen) is composed of different institutions, committees and consortia dealing with all issues concerning inland ports.

On its website the association informs for example about the industrial sector of inland ports, including various action fields. These comprise, among others, the integration of logistics processes, combination of transport modes, connection to the markets and cooperation with suppliers and service providers. On the other hand, the association on a higher level elaborates themes such as transport policy, infrastructure and environment, about which it provides information as well. Furthermore, the website offers position papers of different fields concerning inland ports, inland navigation and a list of links to institutions, which are active in these fields. All information is presented only in German.


22

3.2.5 Association Française des Ports Intérieurs

AFPI (Association Française des Ports Intérieurs) was founded in 1994 and represents 20 inland ports in France. The members are: Aproport, Port fluvial d’Arles, Port d’Avignon Le Pontet, Port de Châlons-en-Champagne, Port Rhénan de Colmar Centre-Alsace, Plate-forme Delta 3 Dourges, DPHP, Port d’Elbeuf, Port de Givet, Ports de Lille, Lyon Termina, Ports de Mulhouse Rhin, Pagny Terminal, Port de Paris, Port de Reims, Ports de Moselle, Port de Strasbourg, Port de Valence, Port de Vienne Sud, Port de Villefrance-sur-Sâone. The association focuses on environmental and economic factors.

AFPI offers various services for the costumer. It executes all business and customer services related to the business deals. The information given on the website also provides details about the environmental activities of AFPI. It provides an interactive map on which the participating ports and their location, as well as links to their websites, can be found. The website focuses on presenting the association and describing its structures and benefits. The information is available only in French.

3.3 Publications of Inland Ports

In order to identify the existing KPIs provided by the inland ports, an analysis of the publication of their homepages, business reports, statistics and press releases was executed. A total of 30 inland ports, from 11 countries, were taken into account. They are used as a representative example. The ports were chosen due to their geographical position and size. The key indicators of the inland ports are summarized in a tabular overview, which provides information on the uniformity of the key figures in publications (see Table 4). All indicators found were found without further request by the port. The sources for the collected information on the ports KPI’s can be found at Appendix 1: Sources for Port data in table 4.


23

Table 4: Exemplary key indicators used by inland ports

Net

herl

ands

Swit

zerl

and

Slow

akia

Hun

gary

Czec

h R

epub

lic

Spai

n

Ital

y

port area and infrastructure

Bru

xell

es

Ghe

nt

Lieg

e

Ven

lo

Swit

zerl

and

Linz

Vie

nna

Bay

erha

fen

Colo

gne

Del

taPo

rt

Dor

tmun

d

Dui

sbur

g

Fran

kfur

t

Han

nove

r

Ludw

igsh

afen

Mag

debu

rg

Man

nhei

m

Neu

ss-

Düs

seld

orf

Osn

abrü

ck

Säch

sisc

he

Bin

nenh

äfen

Bra

tisl

ava

Bud

apes

t

Prag

ue

Sevi

lla

Man

tua

Lill

e

Lyon

Met

z

Pari

s

Stra

sbou

rg

tota

l

port area x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 23water area x x x x x x x x x 9quay length x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 14shore length x x x x x x x x 8track length x x x x x x x x x x x x 12number of port basins x x x x x x x x 8industrial area x x x x x x 6size of storage area x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 17type of storage areas x x x x x x 6

suprastructurenumber of handling equipment x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 14type of handling equipment x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 14number of crane equipment x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 14type of crane equipment x x x x x x x x x 9capacity of crane equipment x x x x x x x x 8capacity of container cranes x x 2capacity of pipe lines x 1

Bel

gium

Aus

tria

Ger

man

y

Fran

ce


24

Net

herl

ands

Swit

zerl

and

Slow

akia

Hun

gary

Czec

h R

epub

lic

Spai

n

Ital

y

cargo handling

Bru

xell

es

Ghe

nt

Lieg

e

Ven

lo

Swit

zerl

and

Linz

Vie

nna

Bay

erha

fen

Colo

gne

Del

taPo

rt

Dor

tmun

d

Dui

sbur

g

Fran

kfur

t

Han

nove

r

Ludw

igsh

afen

Mag

debu

rg

Man

nhei

m

Neu

ss-

Düs

seld

orf

Osn

abrü

ck

Säch

sisc

he

Bin

nenh

äfen

Bra

tisl

ava

Bud

apes

t

Prag

ue

Sevi

lla

Man

tua

Lill

e

Lyon

Met

z

Pari

s

Stra

sbou

rg

tota

l

total cargo handling of the port x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 22total cargo handling by type of good x x x x x x x x x x x 11total cargo handling by mode of transport 0- water handling x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 15- rail handling x x x x x x x x x x x 11- road handling x x x x x x x 7total handling per destination and origin transport, as well as transit transport x x 2incoming and outgoing ships by nationality 0car terminal handling x 1container handling 0- total x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 14- by mode of transport x 1- by type of good x 1total handling by sectors x x x x 4total handling combined transport x x 2share cargo handling by regionalcargo handling 0

financial indicatorsearnings x x x 3spendings x x x 3profit x x x x 4expense x x 2turnover x x x x x x x x x x x 11corporate performance x x x 3investments x x x x x x x x 8annual results x x x 3cash flow x x x x 4liquidity x 1earnings of pierage x 1personnel expenses x x x x x 5material costs x x x 3depreciation x 1equity capital x x x 3balance sheet total x x x x x x 6tangible assets x x 2

Fran

ce

Ger

man

y

Aus

tria

Bel

gium


25

Net

herl

ands

Swit

zerl

and

Slow

akia

Hun

gary

Czec

h R

epub

lic

Spai

n

Ital

y

premises

Bru

xell

es

Ghe

nt

Lieg

e

Ven

lo

Swit

zerl

and

Linz

Vie

nna

Bay

erha

fen

Colo

gne

Del

taPo

rt

Dor

tmun

d

Dui

sbur

g

Fran

kfur

t

Han

nove

r

Ludw

igsh

afen

Mag

debu

rg

Man

nhei

m

Neu

ss-

Düs

seld

orf

Osn

abrü

ck

Säch

sisc

he

Bin

nenh

äfen

Bra

tisl

ava

Bud

apes

t

Prag

ue

Sevi

lla

Man

tua

Lill

e

Lyon

Met

z

Pari

s

Stra

sbou

rg

tota

l

utilization of the total area x x x 3available premises x x x x 4occupation of the port area by sectors x 1renting utilization of the total port area x x 2renting utilization of warehouses x 1port area with direct port connection x 1- total size x 1- occupation by sectors x 1

transport linksnumber of ships p.a. x x x x x x x x x 9number of trains p.w. x 1number of container-rail-shuttles p.w. x 1

enterprises and employeesnumber of enterprises x x x x x x x x 8number of direct employees x x x x x x x x x x x x x 13number of indirect employees x x x x x x 6

environmental indicatorsWater consumption x 1Electricity consumption x x 2Air quality 0Carbon footprint 0Water quality 0Soil /sediment quality 0Waste generation 0Follow-up of environmental complaints 0Environmental incidents 0

Port HomepageOther HomepageAnnual Report

Bel

gium

Aus

tria

Ger

man

y

Fran

ce


26

The inland ports give a lot of different indicators in different ways in their publication. Whilst nearly every port gives information about its port area size, the size of only 9 can be found. Port facilities – such as quay or track length – are described by roughly one third of the considered ports. The industrial areas are also not published by most ports, and if they are they are not presented in similar ways.

The equipment used by the ports is often not described in detail. Yet 14 ports give information about their handling equipment. The ports limit the information on the type and number of terminals. The capacity of the container terminal is only given by the Port of Dortmund and the Port of Lyon.

The total transhipment is specified by most ports, a breaking down by the type of goods is only provided by 11 ports. The presentation of the type of goods is not uniform and can even vary within a port, depending on the considered mode of transport.

The presentation of the financial indicators of inland port distinguishes from port to port. Inland ports publish their financial statements in the annual reports, but do not go into detail. On basis of the financial statements, many indicators can be read or calculated. Large German corporations are required by law to publish their annual report in electronic form17. Depending on the ports organizational form, the data has to be provided by the port. Only 11 ports gave information about their turnover and most ports do not present their financial situation.

The financial revenue of inland ports in the reporting year is presented in different ways. These are revenue, income, and earnings. These indicators were also given by only less than one third of the ports.

Information about the land and its utilization are given by five ports. The Port of Linz describes the area usage and the utilization of rent and storage area. Bayern ports provide an overview of the port area. The Port of Dortmund describes the area and the utilization in detail. In addition to the information on utilization and not used area, the port describes the configuration of the port areas after branches. Delta Ports provides information about the total usage of the area, as well as available premises and the renting utilizations.

The logistic connections of the ports are described by some ports by the number of ships per year (nine ports), and the number of trains per week or the number of container rail shuttles per week. The trains or Container rail shuttles per week are only described by the Viennese port and the port of Duisburg.

Information on the number of companies in the port area, as well as the direct and indirect employees is not similarly described. A total of thirteen ports give information about the number of companies or the number of direct employees, while the number of indirect employees is mentioned only six times.

Environmental indicators are only provided by the Port of Cologne and the Port of Mannheim. Those two present their electricity consumption and the Port of Cologne additionally provides data about its water consumption. Information on environmental factors is not public and not given by the main part of the ports.

The considered inland ports publish in the local language mainly. The Port of Lille for example gives the opportunity to choose between French and English, but both options only contain information in French. The website of the Port of Venlo on the other hand can be translated in four different languages (French, Netherlands, German and 17 § 325 HGB i.dF. v. 12/22/11, para. 1


27

Chinese). While homepages in some cases use at least one other language to present the information, annual reports are published exclusively in local language. The amount of information on the websites also differs depending on the selected language. The homepage of the Port de Brussels for example, has a representation in three languages, but the information and timeliness are strongly different. A representation of the ports in multiple languages provides a basis to position itself internationally and to make information available faster. It also strengthens the cooperation between inland ports to each other.

It can be concluded that nearly all ports provide some information about their activities and key performance indicators, but these information differ. Not all ports have a homepage, the Port of Prague for example does not have a homepage at all, and the given information is not comparable. It can be seen that the environmental factors are not presented and that information on this topic is hard to be found.

3.4 Specify important key performance indicators

The aim is the development of a performance measurement system for inland ports. To do so, the selection and elaboration of indicators for inland ports was carried out in the following steps:

• Desk research of existing indicators for inland ports and seaports to generate a list of potential key performance indicators

• Verification of portability of these indicators for seaports to inland ports • Pre-selection and classification of indicators • Presentation and discussion in meetings with EFIP • Reduction and modification of indicators • Detailed description of indicators • Questionnaire for feedback on the chosen indicators • Final selection of indicators for inland ports

In a first step a desk research about established measurement systems for inland ports has shown that there are no existing systems in this area. Not only because of that, the established European measurement systems for seaports, mentioned in 3.1, were analysed as well. The researched indicators were checked for their portability and relevance for inland ports and generated the first pre-selection. Following the major categories of PPRISM the indicators were divided into the following analogous categories:

• Market trends and structure • Socio-economic indicators • Environment and safety • Logistic chain and operational performance • Governance • User perceptions

Based on this pre-selection discussions and meetings with EFIP, port professionals and organizations have been carried out. In addition, presentations were held on meetings with the project partners and the members of EFIP. The number of indicators was also reduced and some new indicators were generated. The recommended indicators for inland ports are described in detail in chapter 4.

• Market trends and structure o Waterside handling


28

o Railside handling o Container handling o Liquid bulk handling o Dry bulk handling o General cargo o Container dependency o Measurement of transhipments o Main commercial activities

• Socio-economic indicators o Direct employment o Indirect Employment

• Environment o Questionnaire about environmental management, environmental

monitoring, top 10 environmental priorities and green actions • Logistic chain and operational performance

o Intermodal connectivity o Seaport connectivity o Logistics services o Throughput per quay meter o Area Usage o Spatial productivity

• Governance o Questionnaire

The indicators of the first classification market trends and structure are mainly based on the indicators of this field in PPRISM and Rapid Exchange System. The field of socio-economic indicators rests upon an elaboration of Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Erasmus School of Economics relating to investigation of port employees. The Polytechnic University of Catalonia provides the background for the environment and safety indicators. In the field of logistic chain and operational performance the elaboration is also based on PPRISM. The indicators in the field of governance were influenced by the Fact Finding Report, PPRISM and the activities of EFIP.

The next step was to validate these recommended indicators by port professionals, port authorities and stakeholders. Therefor a questionnaire was designed to inquire feedback related to each indicator. Hereby, quality, acceptability and relevance should be clarified.

As an example, the validation of the environmental indicators took place with four pilot ports. In order to validate this developed survey, the first version has been circulated among 4 ‘pilot’ inland ports in order to gather their feedback according the complexity, understanding and the format of the aforementioned survey. The proposed ports, selected according EFIP criteria and their willingness to collaborate, are: German Association of Inland Ports (BöB), Port of Strasbourg (France), Port of Brussels (Belgium) and Port of Lille (France). It seems important to highlight that not only the comments made by the ‘pilot’ ports have been taken into account to amend the preliminary survey but also the EFIP suggestions in order to enhance the survey. In general terms, the gathered feedback has resulted to be very positive from all the institutions that accepted to comment on the preliminary survey. Nevertheless, different points have been identified as possible improvements to conduct on the first survey version.


29

3.5 Obstacles and barriers

During the analyses of the publications of inland ports and discussions with inland ports authorities’ three main barriers were identified:

• Personnel capacity

Inland port authorities are small and have a small number of personal capacities. They are focusing on the daily business and do not have the time and capacity for a comprehensive data collection.

• Missing data collections for instance by Eurostat

In contrast to the seaports, there is no need to collect data for the federal and European statistical offices. This results in different data availabilities and in different data collection methodologies. Some ports, for example collect the data based on the NST 2007 code and others on categories of goods like break bulk, container, and liquid bulk.

• Lack of data availability

Because of the small amount of personal capacity and the missing data collection for statistical offices there is no comprehensive data available for data analysis. These results in data gaps and weaknesses, therefore optimisation potentials could not be identify. Also best practice examples of other ports could not be set in the right relation to the port and there is no validated statement about the usability.

3.6 Categorising system of inland ports

The idea of a categorising system for inland ports is based on the demand of a possibility for a port benchmarking wherein the specifics of the inland port market structure will be taken into account. Each port should have the opportunity to compare itself to other inland ports in the same category. This is necessary in order to receive optimum results and exclude the possibility to compare completely different port types. However, the idea of Portopia is not to label the ports by specific parameters, but to give them a possibility to categorize themselves.

Therefore a definition of different dimensions or rather parameters, like land size, most imported or rather exported goods, or use of different transport modes, is useful. The parameters have to be simple to determine and have to give a clear description of the port. Additionally it should give an interesting possibility for benchmarking on this type.

To meet these requirements, the annual reports of ten European inland ports were analysed to identify possible parameters that are published by all. This is necessary to avoid any categorization, where the data is unknown or the inland ports have no interest in publication. Therefore the following five parameters were chosen:

• Total cargo handled • Type of most important import/export goods • Land size • Region or rather geographical location • Use of transport modes (modal split)


30

Total cargo handling gives a good assessment for a comparison of inland ports about their size. It describes the annually total handled goods at the port area. Another possibility to benchmark ports with similar parameters is by their most important import or rather export goods, for example container, bulk like coal or grain or liquid bulk. Land size describes the total size of the port area. It could be a big difference between ports in metropolitan areas, industry areas or rural areas. Because of that the land size is an important parameter to benchmark ports with similar parameters. Therefore also the region or respectively the geographical location could be interesting for a comparison between inland ports, for example at the Rhine corridor, the Danube corridor, in Eastern Europe or in the hinterland of the Mediterranean Sea. Another alternative for benchmarking is to compare inland ports with a similar modal split. This means, for example, to compare only inland ports with a high percentage of rail transports.


31

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM OF INLAND PORTS 4

The following chapter presents and describes the KPIs developed for the performance measurement of the inland port system. The KPIs are displayed in tabular format, structured according to the five major categories market trends and structure, socio-economic indicators, environment and safety, logistic chain and operational performance and governance. A questionnaire for the data collection is presented in Appendix 2.

4.1 Market trends and structure

The indicators in this category aim at analysing the general economic context, including market trends and structures. Therefore, different handling types and methods as well as the economic relevance of various inland port activities are recognized.

4.1.1 Waterside handling

Name of the indicator Waterside handling Definition of the indicator

Total cargo handled annually at the water interface of a port, using of NST 2007 coding

Short description and general purpose

The aim is to analyse the total cargo handled annually at the water interface of a port and how this is evolving in time. As the inland water way is the most efficient and environmentally friendly method of transportation, this indicator can be used as measurement for a sustainable development in the transport sector.

Type of indicator Quantitative Formula Waterside handling = ∑tons handled waterside ways Unit(s) of measurement • Tons, # of TEUs Data source • Port Authorities Frequency of data capture

• Annually

Who acts on the data • Port Authorities • Terminal Operators

Use of the indicator • Communication • Calculation • Benchmarking • Transparency • Comparability


32

4.1.2 Railside handling

Name of the indicator Railside handling Definition of the indicator

Total cargo handled annually at the rail interface of a port , using of NST 2007 coding


The aim is to analyse the total cargo handled annually at the rail interface of a port and how this is evolving in time. Although the rail is not as ecologically beneficial as the inland water way, it is more environmentally friendly than road transport. Thus, the indicator can also be used as measurement for a sustainable development in the transport sector.

Type of indicator Quantitative Formula Railside handling = ∑tons handled railside ways Unit(s) of measurement • Tons, # of TEUs Data source • Port Authorities Frequency of data capture

• Annually




33

4.1.3 Container handling

Name of the indicator Container handling Definition of the indicator

Total Container handled annually at the water and rail interface


The aim is to analyse the total container amount handled annually at the water and rail interface and how this is evolving in time. The containerized transport reveals an increasing tendency for many years. International movements of goods are executed essentially with containers, so that the container handling in ports indicates the development of global trading. Therefore the indicator allows conclusions about the trend in global economic activities. Also the development for each transport mode could be evaluated and in comparison with the types of good further analysis could be made, e.g. the focus of continental transport of containers mainly by rail and road or the seaport related chains mainly using IWW.

Type of indicator Quantitative Formula Container Handling = ∑tons handled by containers Unit(s) of measurement • Tons, # of TEUs Data source • Port Authorities Frequency of data capture

• Annually




34

4.1.4 Liquid bulk handling

Name of the indicator Liquid bulk handling Definition of the indicator

Liquid bulk handled annually at the port area


The aim is to analyse the liquid bulk handled annually at the port area and how this is evolving in time.

Type of indicator Quantitative Formula Liquid bulk handling = ∑tons handled with liquid bulks Unit(s) of measurement • Tons Data source • Port Authorities Frequency of data capture

• Annually




35

4.1.5 Dry bulk handling

Name of the indicator Dry bulk handling Definition of the indicator

Dry bulk handled annually at the port area


The aim is to analyse the dry bulk handled annually at the port area and how this is evolving in time.

Type of indicator Quantitative Formula Dry bulk handling = ∑tons handled by dry bulks Unit(s) of measurement • Tons Data source • Port Authorities Frequency of data capture

• Annually




36

4.1.6 General cargo

Name of the indicator General cargo Definition of the indicator

Total cargo handled annually at the port area


The aim is to analyse the total cargo handled annually at the port area and how this is evolving in time.

Type of indicator Quantitative Formula General cargo = ∑ tons handled at port area Unit(s) of measurement • Tons Data source • Port Authorities Frequency of data capture

• Annually




37

4.1.7 Container dependency

Name of the indicator Container Dependency Definition of the indicator

Ratio between containerized cargo and total cargo served annually at a port


Aims at studying how strongly an inland port has embraced containerization and how this is evolving in time by showing the share of containers of total port cargo.

Type of indicator Quantitative Formula

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 =𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 (𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠)

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 (𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠)

Unit(s) of measurement

• Dimensionless/percentage

Data source • Port Authorities Frequency of data capture

• Annually




38

4.1.8 Measurement of transhipments

Name of the indicator Measurement of transhipments Definition of the indicator

The method used to collect transhipment data, e.g. movement is counted once, movement is counted twice


The indicator shows the methods which are used to collect transhipment data in an inland port. The general purpose is to unify the different methods in order to produce a consistent data base and to create comparability.

Type of indicator Qualitative Formula Unit(s) of measurement



• Annually

Who acts on the data • Policy makers • Port Authorities • Terminal Operators • Shippers • Terminal service providers

Use of the indicator • Benchmarking


39

4.1.9 Main commercial activities

Name of the indicator Main commercial activities Definition of the indicator

Type of main activities in the port area, e.g. logistics function, general manufacturing, chemical industry, ship building & repair, refrigerated cargo


The indicator provides an overview of the activities and industries, which are responsible for the majority of sales in the port area. The general purpose is to analyse and compare the industries of different ports and to identify individual commercial activities that are important for economic success of a port.

Type of indicator Qualitative Formula Unit(s) of measurement



• Annually

Who acts on the data • Port Authorities • All kind of companies in a port

Use of the indicator • Communication • Economic evaluation • Benchmarking • Transparency • Comparability


40

4.2 Socio-‐economic indicators

The socio-economic indicators investigate the socio-economic added value, generated by individual inland ports and the entire port sector. Central to this is the employment of a port, which is categorized in direct and indirect employment.

4.2.1 Direct employment

Name of the indicator Direct Employment Definition of the indicator

The amount of employment directly sustained and/or created by port activities at a given moment or over a given period, within a given geographical area. Jobs or employment is a measure of the number of jobs required to produce a given volume of sales/production or added value.


Describes the direct contribution of port activities to the creation of employment within a certain region or country. Can be unbundled on a sector level (e.g. maritime versus non-maritime; cargo handling, shipping, logistics,…).

Type of indicator Quantitative Formula Based on annual accounts (if they contain a social balance

sheet) or surveys: Direct employment = sum of the employment generated in each company making part of the sample

Unit(s) of measurement • FTE

Data source • Annual accounts of companies active in the port area (if they contain a social balance sheet)

• Surveys • Studies (e.g. Economic Effect Analyses)

Frequency of data capture

• Annually (e.g. Belgium) • Ad-hoc (e.g. in function of specific projects)

Who acts on the data • National Banks and/or other governmental agencies • Research institutes and consultancy firms • Port authorities and branch organizations

Use of the indicator • Socio-economic evaluation of port infrastructure investments / projects (calculations within Economic Effect Analysis)

• Communication to the general public to improve awareness of the socio-economic significance of port activities

• Benchmarking by port authorities (strategic positioning analysis)

• Government: justify decisions on public investments in / funding of port projects

• Port authorities: justify decisions on investments in port projects

• Port users: communication to local communities and government about the socio-economic significance of their activities

• Local communities: benchmarking between ports to oppose investments in port projects


41

4.2.2 Indirect Employment

Name of the indicator Indirect Employment Definition of the indicator

The amount of employment indirectly sustained and/or created by port activities at a given moment or over a given period, within a given geographical area. Jobs or employment is a measure of the number of jobs required to produce a given volume of sales/production or added value.


Describes the indirect contribution of port activities to the creation of employment within a certain region or country. Can be unbundled on a sector level (e.g. maritime versus non-maritime; cargo handling, shipping, logistics,…). Several applications exist: • Upstream economic activities (sectors supplying port

activities): mostly referred to as indirect employment • Downstream economic activities, mostly referred to as

induced employment (mainly linked to consumer spending of wages of port workers)

• Strategic or catalytic effects: linked to the attraction of specific economic activities due to the presence of the port

Type of indicator Quantitative

Formula • For indirect impacts: based on input-output matrices, or supply and use tables (which quantify the economic linkages in terms of intersectional supply and use in a region or country’s economy), it is quantified how much employment is generated in the upstream economic chain. In most cases a multiplier is defined which quantifies the relationship between direct and indirect employment.

• For induced impacts: based on spending patterns of wages, it is quantified how much employment is generated in the downstream economic chain. In most cases a multiplier is defined which quantifies the relationship between direct and induced employment. Sometimes other, complementary approaches are used, e.g. to determine the employment impact of truck driver spending and/or (cruise) passenger spending.

• For strategic and catalytic impacts, a wide variety of methods exist. In most cases, a multiplier is defined which quantifies the relationship between direct and strategic/catalytic employment.

Unit(s) of measurement • FTE

Data source • Annual accounts of companies active in the port area (if they contain a social balance sheet)

• Input/Output matrices or Supply and Use tables • Multipliers • Surveys


42

• Studies (Economic Effect Analyses) Frequency of data capture

• Annually (e.g. Belgium) • Ad-hoc (e.g. in function of specific projects)

Who acts on the data • National Banks and/or other governmental agencies • Research institutes and consultancy firms • Port authorities and branch organizations

Use of the indicator • Socio-economic evaluation of port infrastructure investments / projects (calculations within Economic Effect Analysis)

• Communication to the general public to improve awareness of the socio-economic significance of port activities

• Benchmarking by port authorities (strategic positioning analysis)

• Government: justify decisions on public investments in / funding of port projects

• Port authorities: justify decisions on investments in port projects

• Port users: communication to local communities and government about the socio-economic significance of their activities

• Local communities: benchmarking between ports to oppose investments in port projects


43

4.3 Environment

The following questionnaire is divided into four parts covering the different aspects of environmental indicators: environmental management, environmental monitoring, top 10 environmental priorities and green actions of an inland port. It is used to develop an overview on environmental actions in a port. Therefore, it has been observed that generally in inland ports there is not a register of KPI because the reporting culture is not as extended as in seaports. For this reason, it is believed that the best approach for this initial step of promoting the reporting culture among inland ports would be the development of a straightforward survey for inland ports like shown in this chapter. The following tables present exemplary questions regarding environmental aspects of the inland ports. A full questionnaire is provided in Appendix 2.

4.3.1 Environmental management

Question Answering possibilities Does the port have an Environmental Management System (EMS)?

• Yes/no (ISO 14001/EMAS/ PERS)

Does the port have an Environmental Policy? • Yes/no Does the port have an inventory of relevant environmental legislation? • Yes/no

Does the port have an inventory of Significant Environmental Aspects for the port area? • Yes/no

Does the port have a proper definition of objectives and targets for environmental improvement?

• Yes/no

Does the port promote environmental awareness and training among employees? • Yes/no

Does the port have a designated responsible person for managing environmental issues? • Yes/no

Does the port publish a publicly available environmental report? • Yes/no

Does the port have a specific budget for environmental management? • Yes/no

Does the port have an emergency and contingency plan? • Yes/no


44

4.3.2 Environmental monitoring

Activity involving repeated observation, according to a pre-determined schedule, of one or more elements of the environment, to detect their characteristics (status and trends) (ISO 14001, 2004). As example, measuring the concentration of pollutants released to the air (e.g. NOx, SOx, CO, etc.).

Question Answering possibilities Does the port have an environmental monitoring program? • Yes/no

If yes, please could you indicate which of the following issues are included?

• Air quality • Water quality • Soil quality • Sediment quality • Noise • Energy consumption • Water consumption • Carbon Footprint • Waste • Biodiversity • Other


45

4.3.3 Environmental priorities

Question Answering possibilities

Considered priority for the port (Top 10)?

• Air quality • Dust • Odours • Cargo Spillage (handling) • Light pollution • Conservation areas • Energy Consumption • Noise • Water quality • Antifouling paints • Ship discharges to water • Bunkering • Dredging: operations • Dredging: disposal • Sediment contamination • Soil contamination • Garbage/ Port waste • Ship waste • Port expansion (land related) • Port expansion (water related) • Hazardous cargo

(handling/storage) • Climate change • Relationship with local

community • Other


46

4.3.4 Green actions

Question Answering possibilities Does the port apply initiatives to implement green actions? • Yes/no

If yes, is any of the following carried out?

• On-shore power supply • Biofuel production for port self-

supply or bunkering • Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

bunkering • Incentives for companies that

treat their waste • Incentive to reduce vessel speed

according to a virtual arrival • Discounts for ships using bunker

oils with low sulphur content • Discounts for ships using

particle filters that reduce emissions of NOx

• Discounts for companies that use the inland waterway (i.e.ships) for the freight distribution

• Other


47

4.4 Logistic chain and operational performance

The category logistic chain and operational performance includes indicators that measure the infrastructural conditions of an inland port on the one hand as well as the usage of the existence port structure (area, quay wall) on the other hand. In addition to the connectivity of a port to other inland ports, seaports and the hinterland, the presence of logistic services is recognized.

4.4.1 Intermodal connectivity

Name of the indicator Intermodal connectivity Definition of the indicator

The connectivity of an inland port with intermodal services to seaports or continental destinations based on relations and competing terminal operating companies (Inland waterway, rail, short sea shipping), divided by transport good (container, dry bulk, liquid bulk)


This indicator expresses the quantity of intermodal connections. The general purpose is to provide an overview of the evolution of intermodal connectivity of European ports individually and the port system as a whole.

Type of indicator Quantitative Formula • Intermodal connectivity index:

1) 𝐼𝐶! =!"!

!"!!"#"

• Number of rail and barge terminals that serve directly and weekly

2) 𝐼𝑇! = 𝛼𝑅𝑇! + 𝛽𝐵𝑇! , where 𝐼𝐶! – index of intermodal connectivity for port i in current year, 𝐼𝐶!!"#" – value of intermodal connectivity for port i in base year, 𝐼𝑇! – number of barge and rail terminals that serve port i (directly and on weekly basis), 𝑅𝑇! – number of rail terminals that serve port i (directly and on weekly basis), 𝐵𝑇! – number of barge terminals that serve i (directly and on weekly basis), 𝛼 = 𝛽 = 0,5 values of parameters. Calculation: The base year for calculation of index of intermodal connectivity is 2010. Further on, the values for and arbitrary port will be compared to its base year value according to formula 1). An average number of barge and rail terminals that serve port i can be calculated as in 2).

Unit(s) of measurement • Index Data source • Port authorities

• Transport operators • Terminal service providers


• Annually

Who acts on the data • Policy makers, • Port authorities,


48

• Shippers, • Terminal service providers

Use of the indicator • Communication • Benchmarking


49

4.4.2 Seaport connectivity

Name of the indicator Seaport connectivity Definition of the indicator

The connectivity of an inland port with intermodal services to seaport destinations based on relations and competing terminal operating companies (Inland waterway, rail, short sea shipping), divided by transport good (container, dry bulk, liquid bulk)


This indicator expresses the quantity of intermodal connections to seaports. The general purpose is to provide an overview of the evolution of intermodal connectivity of European inland ports to seaports.

Type of indicator Quantitative Formula • Seaport connectivity index:

1) 𝑆𝐶! =!"!

!"!!"#"

• Number of rail and barge terminals that serve directly and weekly

2) 𝐼𝑇! = 𝛼𝑅𝑇! + 𝛽𝐵𝑇! , where 𝑆𝐶! – index of seaport connectivity for port i in current year, 𝑆𝐶!!"#" – value of seaport connectivity for port i in base year, 𝐼𝑇! – number of barge and rail terminals that serve port i (directly and on weekly basis), 𝑅𝑇! – number of rail terminals that serve port i (directly and on weekly basis), 𝐵𝑇! – number of barge terminals that serve i (directly and on weekly basis), 𝛼 = 𝛽 = 0,5 values of parameters. Calculation: The base year for calculation of index of seaport connectivity is 2010. Further on, the values for and arbitrary port will be compared to its base year value according to formula 1). An average number of barge and rail terminals that serve port i can be calculated as in 2).

Unit(s) of measurement • Index Data source • Port authorities

• Transport operators • Terminal service providers


• Annually

Who acts on the data • Policy makers, • Port authorities, • Shippers, • Terminal service providers

Use of the indicator • Communication • Benchmarking


50

4.4.3 Logistics services

Name of the indicator Logistic services Definition of the indicator

Logistics services which are available in the port, either from the port authority or port residents, e.g. container repair service, heavy cargo handling


This qualitative indicator provides an overview of the existing industries and services in a port. The aim is to investigate the industrial environment of a port in order to develop a best practice corporate structure and to figure out which industries and services are essential for efficient working processes. Furthermore new companies which intend to settle in a port, immediately get a general idea of the services, which are already provided and which are required. This simplifies the choice of location.

Type of indicator Qualitative Formula Unit(s) of measurement • Dimensionless/percentage Data source • Questionnaire

• Port authorities Frequency of data capture

• Annually

Who acts on the data • Port authorities, • Shippers, • Terminal service providers

Use of the indicator • Creation of transparency • Communication • Benchmarking


51

4.4.4 Throughput per quay meter

Name of the indicator Throughput per quay meter Definition of the indicator

Ratio between the general cargo handled in a port and the total length of quay meters in a port


This indicator expresses the total cargo handled in a port in relation to the total length of the quay wall. The aim is to analyse the utilization of the quay meters. The indicator shows the efficiency of the waterside handling and supports the disclosure of weaknesses in the working processes.

Type of indicator Quantitative Formula

𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑦 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 =𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 (𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠)

𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑦 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟


• Tons per quay meter

Data source • Port authorities Frequency of data capture

• Annually


Use of the indicator • Measure of efficiency • Communication • Benchmarking


52

4.4.5 Area usage

Name of the indicator Area usage Definition of the indicator

Ratio between area in use and total area available for companies in a port


The indicator shows how efficiently the existing port area is exploited. The general purpose is to make the area utilization transparent and to get an overview of the size of the unused area. Based on this indicator, it is possible to advertise systematically the unused area, in order to settle new companies, thereby securing and enhancing the value of the port area for existing companies.

Type of indicator Quantitative Formula 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 =

𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑖𝑛 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡



Data source • Port authorities Frequency of data capture

• Annually

Who acts on the data • Port authorities Use of the indicator • Creation of transparency

• Measure of efficiency • Communication • Benchmarking


53

4.4.6 Spatial productivity

Name of the indicator Spatial productivity Definition of the indicator

Spatial exploitation of port


The indicator shows how the area is used regarding waterside and railway handling. The general purpose is to provide an overview over the productivity of the area (only areas with a waterside or railway connection are counted).

Type of indicator Quantitative Formula 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑚² Unit(s) of measurement • Tons per square meter Data source • Port authorities Frequency of data capture

• Annually

Who acts on the data • Port authorities Use of the indicator • Creation of transparency

• Measure of efficiency • Communication • Benchmarking


54

4.5 Governance

The following questions are used to develop and evaluate the port profile, which will include detailed information on the governance of a port. This information expresses the type of activities, the functions and institutional framework of the port authority.

Question Answering possibilities

Part of TEN-T • Yes • No

Type of land ownership • Full ownership • Ownership restricted • No ownership

Ability to sell port land out to third parties

• Able to sell • Ability to sell restricted • Not able to sell

Ability to contract land out to third parties

• Able to contract • Ability to contract restricted • Not able to contract

Existence of… • Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policies (yes/no) • Port development master plan (yes/no)

Initiatives that improve the societal integration of the port

• Initiatives to make the general public experience and understand the port (yes/no)

• Initiatives to establish good co-habitation with local communities in and around the port area (yes/no)

• Other societal integration initiatives (yes/no) If yes: For example…

Number of ports for which the port authority is responsible

• 1, 2, 3, …

Ownership of port authorities

• State • Region • Province • Municipality • Private (industry) • Private (logistics) • Private (finance) • Other

Legal form of port authorities

• The port authority is an administrative department of local, regional or national government

• The port authority forms a separate legal entity from local, regional or national government, but has no share capital

• The port authority forms a separate legal entity from local, regional or national government and has share capital which is owned in part or in full by that government

• The port authority is a privately owned corporation • Other

Number of members of which the supervisory / governing body exist

• 1, 2, 3, …

Composition of the supervisory / governing body (background and

• Politicians (1,2, 3,…) • Government administration (1,2, 3,…)


55

number) • Private companies active in port (1,2, 3,…) • Private companies not active in port (1,2, 3,…) • Private port community associations (1,2, 3,…) • Port authority employees (1,2, 3,…) • Other employee organizations (1,2, 3,…) • Other (1,2, 3,…)

Legal nature of income charges (tax, retribution, price)

• General port dues • Land lease or similar charges • Wharfage charges • Cargo handling service charges • Ancillary / other service charges

Differentiation in port charges for “greener” vessels

• Yes/no

Financial autonomy of port authorities

• Port authority decides autonomously on new investments in capital assets

• Port authority sets wages, terms and conditions of service of its own staff

• Port authority decides autonomously how to allocate annual financial result

• Port authority does not have to meet certain financial targets

Ability to set own charges

• Free to set own charges • Free to set own charges restricted • Not free to set own charges

Background of the port director

• Politicians • Government administration • Private companies active in port • Private companies not active in port • Private port community associations • Port authority employees • Other employee organizations • Other

Type of land usage

• Cargo handling • Industry • Warehousing • Other

Long-term development of port

• Does a forecast exist? (yes/no) • Does a port strategy exist? (yes/no)

Education and training • Yes/No

The following illustrations show examples of a port profile from a seaport, which will be developed for inland ports analogously.


56

Figure 1: Example of a port profile for a seaport – part 1

Figure 2: Example of a port profile for a seaport – part 2


57

ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS 5

The revision of the present task: “Development of a performance measurement system for inland ports”, lead to the main conclusion that the reporting culture of inland ports is still at an early stage compared to seaports. Due to the fact that the resources of inland ports are normally limited, they are not sufficient to cover the required standards. Thus, inland ports are often not able or not reluctant to record important data and to share information about their performance.

Currently, very limited data are freely available, mostly from port homepages and annual reports, or the recorded data are not published. To create a single database within the European inland port sector, it is necessary to develop uniform standards for data collection. These standards are intended to simplify the data collection, particularly with regard to smaller ports, and to motivate the inland ports to share data with other ports and further involved participants of the port sector. Thus, it is essential to minimise the expenditure for the port authorities.

Different discussions and exchanges with experts for inland ports and port authorities have shown their interest in such a dashboard for inland ports. All indicators were discussed in various events to receive this final recommendation.

The developed recommendation includes a list of indicators and questionnaires, divided into five different areas: market trends and structure, socio-economic, environment, logistic chain and operational performance and governance. The initial data collection is to be supported by a questionnaire, provided to the ports.


58

REFERENCES 6

CCP21, 2010. Connecting Citizen Ports 21, Brochure. Retrieved September 2014 from: www.citizenports.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Download-the-CCP21-brochure.pdf

DaHAR, 2011. Danube inland Harbour development, English Brochure. Retrieved September 2014 from: www.romanian-ports.ro/DAHAR/Dahar_English_Brossura_ 2014_APDM.pdf

DVZ, 2014. Dortmund schnuppert Seeluft. Retrieved January 2014 from: www.dvz.de/rubriken/binnenschifffahrt/single-view/nachricht/dortmund-schnuppert-seeluft.html

EcoPorts, 2014a. EcoPorts network map. Retrieved November 2014 from: www.ecoports.com/map

EcoPorts, 2014b. About ESPO and EcoPorts. Retrieved November 2014 from: www.ecoports.com/about

EFIP, 2014. European Federation of Inland Ports, website. Retrieved September 2014 from: www.inlandports.eu/

European Commission (EC), 2012. Guidance document on sustainable inland waterway development and management in the context of the EU Birds and Habitats Directives.

European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO), 2014a. Statistics. Rapid Exchange System. Retrieved November 2014 from: www.espo.be/index.php?option=com_content&view= article&id=95&Itemid=90

European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO), 2014b. ESPO / EcoPorts Port Environmental Review 2009. European Sea Ports Organisation’s Review of Environmental Benchmark Performance in collaboration with the EcoPorts Foundation (EPF). Retrieved November 2014 from: http://www.espo.be/images/stories/Publications/studies_ reports_surveys/ESPOEcoPortsPortEnvironmentalReview2009.pdf

Hofstra 2014. Some terms used to define inland nodes. Hofstra University. Retrieved September 2014 from: https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch4en/appl4en/ table_definitionsinlandports.html

Neuss Düsseldorfer Häfen, 2012. Regionale Kooperation im Rheinland am Beispiel der Häfen: Neuss-Düsseldorf-Krefeld-Köln. Presentation. Regionalrat 13/12/2012. Retrieved January 2014 from: www.brd.nrw.de/regionalrat/sitzungen/2012/50RR_TOP4_Vortrag.pdf

PPRISM, 2012. Report on PPRISM Project-Work Package 1

Rodrigue, J.P. and Notteboom, T., 2013. The Geography of Transport Systems, Chapter 4, application4, Inland ports / Dry ports.

Standort Niederrhein, 2012. Kreis Wesel, Stadt Wesel und Stadt Voerde bringen Häfenkooperation auf den Weg - Hafengesellschaft heißt: DeltaPort. Retrieved January 2014 from: www.invest-in-niederrhein.de/de/aktuelle_meldungen/items/106.html

WANDA, 2012. Waste management for inland navigation on the Danube, Brochure. www.wandaproject.eu/fileadmin/content/Downloads/Folder/EN_WANDAfolder.pdf


59

APPENDIX 7

Appendix 1: Sources for Port data in table 4

Belgium Bruxelles http://www.portdebruxelles.be/en/ Ghent http://en.havengent.be/ http://www.portofghent.be/Annual%20reports Liege http://www.portdeliege.be/de/ Netherlands Venlo http://www.ect.nl/nl/content/tct-venlo Switzerland Switzerland http://www.port-of-switzerland.ch/de/index.php http://www.port-of-switzerland.ch/de/news-wissenswertes/jahresbericht.php Austria Linz http://www.linzag.at/portal/portal/linzag/businesskunden/logistiktransport/hafen_1/centerWindow;jsessionid=E0F92FAD9B73717C93DCFE56E2D1D1E7.node2?plaginit=1&action=1 Vienna http://www.hafen-wien.com/de/home/unternehmen/zahlen-daten Germany Cologne http://www.hgk.de/ http://www.hgk.de/images/downloads/HGK-NHB-2007-2009.pdf http://www.hgk.de/service/download/nachhaltigkeitsberichte

DeltaPort http://www.deltaport.de/ https://www.kreis-wesel.de/www/kreistag/sitzungsdienst14-19.nsf/HTML/872338F6CF6736F1C1257D31003CEAC4/$FILE/BETEILIGUNGSBERICHT%202013%20-%202014_1.pdf Dortmund http://www.dortmunder-hafen.de/ Duisburg http://www.duisport.de/ http://presse.duisport.de/publikationen/geschaeftsberichte.html


60

Frankfurt http://www.hfm-frankfurt.de/hafen.html Hannover http://www.hannover.de/Wirtschaft-Wissenschaft/Wirtschaftsf%C3%B6rderung/Standort/Logistikstandort-Hannover/Logistische-Knoten/Hafen-Hannover Ludwigshafen http://www.haefen-rlp.de/ http://www.upper-rhine-ports.eu/de/die-partnerhafen/le-port-de-ludwigshafen.html Magdeburg http://www.magdeburg-hafen.de/de/home.html http://wsv.de/wsd-o/service/Downloads/index.html Mannheim http://www.hafen-mannheim.de/de/startseite.html Neuss-Düsseldorf http://www.nd-haefen.de/ http://de.statista.com/unternehmen/321807/neuss-duesseldorfer-haefen-gmbh-co-kg Osnabrück https://www.stadtwerke-osnabrueck.de/geschaeftskunden/eisenbahn-hafen/hafen-osnabrueck.html Sächsische Binnenhäfen http://www.binnenhafen-sachsen.de/ Slowakia Bratislava http://www.spap.sk/de http://www.danubeports.info/index.php?id=1295 Hungary Budapest http://www.bszl.hu/index.php/en/ http://www.danubeports.info/index.php?id=1287 Spain Sevilla http://portal.apsevilla.com/wps/portal/puerto_en/terminalesInstalaciones_en?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/EN/puertosevilla/logistica/terminalesinstalaciones/terminalesinstalaciones_terminales/TI-TerminalesPortuarias http://www.worldportsource.com/ports/portCall/ESP_Port_of_Seville_1206.php Italy Mantua http://www.alot.it/en/porto-di-mantova/porto-di-mantova


61

France Lille http://www.citizenports.eu/de/658-2/628-2/ Lyon http://www.portdelyon.fr/ Metz http://www.portsdemoselle.eu/nouveau-port-de-metz/ Paris http://www.haropaports.com/fr/paris Strasbourg http://www.strasbourg.port.fr/ http://www.strasbourg.port.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=65


62

Appendix 2: Questionnaire

Introduction

Inland ports are multimodal hubs. Integrated in transports processes and supply chains, inland ports are vital to the European economy. The reporting culture of inland ports is still at an early stage compared to seaports. Currently, very limited data are freely available, mostly from port homepages and annual reports, or the recorded data are not published. To create a single database within the European inland port sector, it is necessary to develop uniform standards for data collection. These standards are intended to simplify the data collection, particularly with regard to smaller ports, and to motivate the inland ports to share data with other ports and further involved participants of the port sector. Thus, it is essential to minimize the expenditure for the port authorities.

The E.C. Project PORTOPIA (www.portopia.eu) aims at creating an integrated database of relevant information to enhance the sustainability and competitiveness of the European port sector. For this purpose PORTOPIA collects and evaluates data from the inland ports and supports inland ports by providing a platform and tools, e.g. for data analysis and benchmarking. Port authorities are invited to make a direct contribution to the aims and objectives PORTOPIA. Thus, this document contains a questionnaire to collect information concerning the port performance.

The questionnaire is provided into five different areas: market trends and structure, socio-‐economic, environment, logistic chain and operational performance and governance. By participating in the initial data collection, inland ports have the possibility to provide feedback and participate at the results of PORTOPIA. As the questionnaire provides a user-‐friendly checklist of various management options, the participation in the survey is a useful exercise for inland port authorities as well.

The involvement of the European Federation of Inland Ports (EFIP) shows that the organization responsible for representing 200 ports in 18 countries is well-‐placed to influence the design components of the observatory and to benefit from access to the database of responses including benchmark performance of the whole European port sector.

The survey questions are quite simple to answer and therefore also suitable for ports with low resources. Some of the questions require only a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ response, some provide a choice of possible answers.

All responses will be treated as being strictly confidential and anonymous – no individual results will be made publicly available. This sort of agreement has been in place with ESPO for fifteen years in the case of seaports (i.e. ECOPORTS tools).

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION

63

Questionnaire for inland ports

1. Market trends and structure Waterside handling (KPI 1.1), railside handling (KPI 1.2) or rather container handling (KPI 1.3) Total cargo handled annually at the water interface or/and the rail interface of a port, using of NST 2007 coding or rather total Container handled annually at the water and rail interface.

1.1-‐1.3 Amount Waterside handling, railside handling, container handling Please fill in your annually handling amount (t) for each KPI

• Waterside handling • Railside handling • Container handling

Liquid bulk handling (KPI 1.4), dry bulk handling (KPI 1.5) and general cargo (KPI 1.6) Liquid bulk or dry bulk and total cargo handled annually at the port area.

1.4-‐1.6 Amount Liquid bulk handling, dry bulk handling, general cargo Please fill in your annually handling amount (t) for each KPI

• Liquid bulk • Dry bulk • General cargo

Container dependency (KPI 1.7) Ratio between containerized cargo and total cargo served annually at a port. This KPI is calculated based on the ratio between KPI 1.3 and 1.6 Measurement of transshipments (KPI 1.8)

64

The method used to collect transshipment data, e.g. movement is counted once, movement is counted twice. What method does your port use to collect transshipment data? 1.8 YES NO Do you collect transshipment data? If yes, please select your collection method

• Movement counted once

• Movement counted twice

• Other

Main commercial activities (KPI 1.9) Type of main activities in the port area, e.g. logistics function, general manufacturing, chemical industry, ship building & repair, refrigerated cargo. 1.9 YES NO Does your port invest in commercial activities? If yes, please select your fields of commercial activity

• Logistics function

• General manufacturing

• Chemical industry

• Ship building and repair

• Refrigerated cargo

• Other:

65

2. Socio-‐economic indicators

Direct employment (KPI 2.1) The amount of employment directly sustained and/or created by port activities at a given moment or over a given period, within a given geographical area. Jobs or employment is a measure of the number of jobs required to produce a given volume of sales/production or added value.

2.1 Number Direct employees Please fill in the number of your direct employees

Indirect Employment (KPI 2.2) The amount of employment indirectly sustained and/or created by port activities at a given moment or over a given period, within a given geographical area. Jobs or employment is a measure of the number of jobs required to produce a given volume of sales/production or added value.

2.2 Number Indirect employees Please fill in the number of your indirect employees

66

3. Environmental performance indicators

Questionnaire about the main environmental indicators considered in inland ports, It is divided into four parts covering the different aspects of environmental indicators: environmental management, environmental monitoring, top 10 environmental priorities and green actions of an inland port.

Environmental management Topics YES NO

1

Does the port have an Environmental Management System1 (EMS)? If yes, indicate type:

• ISO 14001 • EMAS • PERS

2 Does the port have an Environmental Policy2?

3 Does the port have an inventory of relevant environmental legislation?

4 Does the port have an inventory of Significant Environmental Aspects3 for the port area?

5 Does the port have a proper definition of objectives and targets4 for environmental improvement?

6 Does the port promote environmental awareness and training among employees?

7 Does the port have a designated responsible person for managing environmental issues?

8 Does the port publish a publicly available environmental report5?

9 Does the port have a specific budget for environmental management?

10 Does the port have an emergency and contingency plan6? Comments:

Environmental monitoring Activity involving repeated observation, according to a pre-‐determined schedule, of one or more elements of the environment, to detect their characteristics (status and trends) (ISO 14001, 2004). As example, measuring the concentration of pollutants released to the air (e.g. NOx, SOx, CO, etc.) Questions YES NO

11 Does the port have an environmental monitoring program?

If yes, please could you indicate which of the following issues are included?

• Air quality

67

• Water quality

• Soil quality

• Sediment quality

• Noise

• Energy consumption

• Water consumption

• Carbon Footprint7

• Waste

• Biodiversity

• Other:

Top 10 Environmental priorities From the following list, please identify the issues that you consider a priority for your port. Please, rank them according to their relevance (e.g. Top 3, Top 5 or Top 10) being 1 the most important:

Issue Rank Air quality Dust Odours Cargo Spillage (handling) Light pollution Conservation areas Energy Consumption Noise Water quality Antifouling paints Ship discharges to water8 Bunkering Dredging: operations Dredging: disposal Sediment contamination Soil contamination Garbage/ Port waste Ship waste Port expansion (land related) Port expansion (water related) Hazardous cargo (handling/storage) Climate change Relationship with local community Other:

68

Green actions

Questions YES NO

13 Does the port apply initiatives to implement green actions? If yes, is any of the following carried out?(Please tick)

• On-‐shore power supply • Biofuel production for port self-‐supply or bunkering • Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) bunkering • Incentives for companies that treat their waste • Incentive to reduce vessel speed according to a virtual arrival9 • Discounts for ships using bunker oils with low sulphur content

• Discounts for ships using particle filters that reduce emissions of NOx

• Discounts for companies that use the inland waterway (i.e.ships) for the freight distribution

• Other:

1 Environmental Management System (EMS): Part of the overall management system used to develop and implement its environmental policy, and manage its environmental aspects (ISO 14001, 2004). In the port sector, the main standards to achieve an EMS are the ISO 14001, EMAS and PERS.

2 Environmental Policy: Overall intentions and direction of an organisation, related to its environmental performance as formally expressed by top management. The environmental policy provides a framework for action and for setting of environmental objectives and environmental targets (ISO 14001, 2004).

3 Significant Environmental Aspect (SEA): An environmental aspect is an element of an organisation’s activities, products or services that can interact with the environment. A Significant Environmental Aspect is an aspect that has or can have a significant environmental impact (ISO 14001, 2004). An example of SEA may be the emissions of combustion gases or the discharges of wastewaters.

4 Environmental objective and target: An objective is an overall environmental goal, consistent with the environmental policy, that an organisation sets itself to achieve (ISO 14001, 2004). An environmental target is a detailed performance requirement, applicable to the organisation or parts thereof, that arises from the environmental objectives and that needs to be set and met in order to achieve those objectives (ISO 14001, 2004). For instance, an objective could be ‘reduction of gas emissions to legal limits’, and a target ‘to reduce the global gas emission by 10% by 2015’.

5 Environmental report: An environmental report provides information about the environmental activities, achievements and results that a Port Authority has carried out throughout the preceding year.

69

6 Emergency and contingency plan: It is a document that aims at preparing an organization to respond well to an emergency situation (e.g. fire, explosion, toxic release, etc.).

7 Carbon Footprint: It is a measure of the total amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that is directly and indirectly caused by an activity. A Carbon Footprint accounts for all six Kyoto GHG emissions: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) (Carbon Trust, 2010).

8 Ship discharges to water: Possible water discharges from ships are bilge water (water collected in the bilge of the ship and that may contain oils and hydrocarbons), ballast water (water used to give stability to a vessel and that may contain invasive aquatic species), sewage, chemical substances, lubricants, fuels, oily wastes and garbage.

9 Virtual arrival: A process that involves an agreement to reduce a vessel's speed on voyage to meet a Required Time of Arrival when there is a known delay at the discharge port.

70

4. Logistic chain and operational performance

Intermodal connectivity (KPI 4.1) and seaport connectivity (KPI 4.2) The connectivity of an inland port with intermodal services to seaports or continental destinations based on relations and competing terminal operating companies (Inland waterway, rail, short sea shipping), divided by transport good (container, dry bulk, liquid bulk).

4.1-‐4.2 Amount Intermodal and seaport connectivity Number of barge and rail terminals

• Barge terminals serving port • Rail terminals serving port

Logistics services (KPI 4.3) Survey of logistics services which are available in the port, either from the port authority or port residents, e.g. container repair service, heavy cargo handling.

4.3 YES NO Does your port offer logistics services? If yes, please select your ports services

• Container repair service

• Heavy cargo handling

• Stuffing / Stripping

• Handling and storage of dangerous goods

• Port tours within the port by rail or truck

• Locomotive rental

• Shunting

• Facility Management

• Other

Throughput per quay meter (KPI 4.4) and area usage (KPI 4.5)

71

Ratio between the general cargo handled in a port and the total length of quay meters in a port or rather ratio between area in use and total area available for companies in a port. How long is the total length of quay meters in your port, how much area can be used and how much of it is occupied momentarily ?

4.4-‐4.5 Amount Throughput per quay meter and area usage Please fill in your data

• Total lengths of quay meter (m) • Usable area for companies (m²) • Occupied area (m²)

Spatial productivity (KPI 4.6) Spatial exploitation of port. This indicator is calculated based on the tons per square meter.

72

5. Governance

Questionnaire to develop and evaluate the port profile, which will include detailed information on the governance of a port like described in chapter 5. 5 YES NO Is your port part of TEN-‐T

Type of land ownership Please select your type of landownership

• Full ownership

• Ownership restricted

• No ownership

Ability to sell port land out to third parties Please select the fitting answer

• Able to sell

• Ablility to sell restricted

• Not able to sell

Ability to contract land out to third parties Please select the fitting answer

• Able to contract

• Ability to contract restricted

• Not able to contract

Existence of… Please select the fitting answer

• Corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies

• Port development master plan

Initiatives that improve social integration of the port Please select the fitting answer

• Initiatives to make the general public experience and

understand the port • Initiatives to establish co-‐habitation with local communities in

and around the port area • Other societal integration initiatives

if yes: which?

Number of Ports for which the port authority is responsible Please fill in a number on the right

73

Ownership of port authorities Please select the ownership of the port authority

• State

• Region

• Province

• Municipality

• Private (industry)

• Private (logistics)

• Private (finance)

• Other

Legal form of port Please select the legal form of the port

• Port authority is an administrative department of local,

regional or national government

• Port authority forms a separate legal entity from local, regional or national government

• Port authority forms a separate legal entity from local, regional or national government and has share capital which is owned in part or full by government

• Port authority is privately owned corporation

• Other

Number of members of supervisory / governing body Please fill in a number on the right

Composition of the supervisory / governing body Please select an answer, and fill in a number

• Politicans: • Government administration: • Private companies active in port : • Private companies not active in port: • Private port community associations: • Port authority employees: • Other employee organizations: • Other: Legal nature of income charges (tax, retribution, price)

• General port dues

• Land lease or similar charges

• Cargo handling service charges

74

• Wharfage charges

• Ancillary / other service charges

Differentiation in port charges for “greener vessels”

Financial autonomy of port authorities Please select one of the following answers

• Port authority decides autonomously on new investments in

capital assets

• Port authority sets wages, terms and conditions of service of its own staff

• Port authority decides autonomously how to allocate annual financial result

• Port authority does not have to meet certain financial targets

Ability to set own charges Please select the fitting answer

• Free to set own charges

• Free to set own charges restricted

• Not free to set own charges

Background of port director Please select the fitting answer

• Politician

• Government administration

• Private companies active in port

• Private companies not active in port

• Private port community association

• Port authority employee

• Other employee organization

• Other

Type of land usage Please select the fitting answer

75

• Cargo handling

• Industry

• Warehousing

• Other

Long term development of port Please select the fitting answer

• Does a forecast exist?

• Does a port strategy exist?

Education and training?

Documents

Deliverable!7.1 … · EFIP The European Federation of Inland Ports ESPO European Sea Ports Organisation GRI Global Reporting Initiative ISO International Organization for