OECD Workshop: Green growth potential of port-cities · 2020. 5. 13. · OECD Workshop: Green growth potential of port-cities Improving your green port positioning Paris, 13th of

OECD Workshop: Green growth potential of port-cities Improving your green port positioning

Paris, 13th of June 2011 Elvira Haezendonck Associate Professor Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) and Solvay Business School [email protected]

CONTENT

1.  Positioning tool with socio-economic dimensions;

2.  Methodological issues; 3.  Green port positioning in the context of

networks/clusters; 4.  Strategic actions for a better green

positioning.

1. Positioning tool with socio-econ dimensions (1)

Principal seaport objectives: Administrative heritage: 1. Continental tradition: general economic

welfare (growth and direct impacts); 2. Anglo-Saxon tradition: micro-economic

return (market share and growth);

New requirements: 3. Contribution to sustainable value added

(direct, but also indirect, regional impacts); 4. Contribution to (low) environmental impact.


  BCG-matrix for port competition analysis: ü  relative market share ü  average annual growth rate ü  weighted analysis (value tons) ü  green impact of core business è relative and dynamic analysis; total, unloaded, discharged traffic; one to five traffic categories.


Portfolio Analysis - Total TrafficContainers vs port traffic - weighted - period 1985-2004

-3%-2%-1%0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%10%11%12%13%

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Average share in port traffic

Ave

rage

ann

ual g

row

th

rate

A

GZ

R

M

H

BLD


Liquid bulk Dry bulk Containers Ro-ro Conventional cargo

Sub-categories Crude Other Cereal Ores Fertilizers Other Containers

Cars & Other Forest Fruit Coils & Other

oil liquid bulk & coal dry bulk vehicles ro-ro products ferro conv. cargo

Representative companies in port of Antwerp

22 230 86 97 140 103 150 680 360 360 1040 298 642 VA/TON

Average of considered companies (X i)

Assumption: VA/ton = port independent

47 5 12 11 8 1 0 7 Coefficient 1.5 3 3 1 3.5 1.6

(= reference divided by X i;

12.67% 64.31% 2.84% 20.18% 100 % based on volumes 40% 60% 12.77% 13.44% 47.83% 25.95% in sub-category

in range

47 5 10.84 7 Aggregation 2.40 2.61(Y i)

Yi divided by reference (= 2.40)

18 2 5 3 1 1


0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

unweighted Bremen rule Rotterdam rule Range rule

Weighing rules

Tons

Antwerp

Ghent

Zeebrugge

Rotterdam

Amsterdam

Hamburg

Bremen

Le Havre

Dunkirk


Introduction of ecological dimension:

§  environmental performance of seaports: development of ‘green’ port portfolio analysis

§  measurement of environmental impact: external costs related to mix of road transport, rail and inland navigation used for incoming and outgoing port traffic

§  calculation of potential benefits of shifting cargo to more environment-friendly modes

1. Positioning tool with socio-econ dimensions (5) 1. Positioning tool with socio-econ dimensions (6)

Environmental incentives for ports

Port incentives:

§  Kyoto-agreements §  EC green and white papers:

§  guidelines of EU common transport policy §  potential liabilities

§  National/local regulations: e.g. concession conditions §  stakeholder preferences/pressures:e.g. supply chain

responsibilities of shippers §  competitive pressures

§  corporate environmentalism ≠ reduced competitiveness §  Port collaboration in cluster or network


5. Presentation tool The ‘green’ port portfolio analysis based on 2000 data


0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00

a v e r a g e m a r k e t s h a r e

B

AnHLH

R

Z

DG

Am

  1. Positioning tool with socio-econ dimensions (2) 1. Positioning tool with socio-econ

dimensions (9)

2. Methodological issues (1)

Ø Application to inland ports as well: Ø Different analysis/interpretation for industrial

versus metropolitan inland ports. Ø Application to port clusters: effects of

strategy of one port is related to potential outcome for “clustered” port;

Ø Changing nature of port range concept; Ø Strategic value:

Ø Prescriptive value can increase when analysis is linked to in-depth SWOT analysis;

Ø Importance of “inherited factor conditions” when interpreting PPA.

3. Green port positioning in the context of port networks/clusters (1)

Potential trade-off of ecological performance between ports in same network? Explanatory concept: Port regionalization extends hinterland of ports (lower labour costs etc.);

§  May lead to lower inland access costs; §  In line with Extended Gateway concept (VIL,

2006); § Port related corridors (concentration) in the

hinterland with multimodal infrastructures and inland terminals.

Port regionalization (Notteboom and Rodriguez, 2006) 3. Green port positioning in the context of port networks/clusters (2)

Notteboom and Rodriguez, 2006.

Important issues: Ø  Logistics integration: awareness of network

orientation §  Offshore hinterland locations (active nodes;

extended gates); §  Distribution capabilities.

Ø  Port competition focuses on hinterland connections; Ø  Port network definition:

§  Based on strategies (e.g. of shipping companies) and on catchments area of ports;

§  Shipper or client determines network; §  Different types of networks can be considered (O/

D, hub-and-spoke, etc.).

15


More findings and methodological issues

Pending issues:

1.  What about separate inland terminals? What is the definition of an inland port?

2.  Some ports at least “belong” to more than one port network (e.g. Duisburg in Antwerp Intermodal Network and in Rotterdam network).

3.  Only conclusions for network, not for individual ports in the network?

4.  Huge differences in port network functions (and their ‘components’).


Implementation issues

5. What is the correct interpretation of green port network portfolio analyses? (linear growth of pollution units with growth in traffic and share?) 6. Environmental complexity of network is greater than the difficulties of its constituting parts 7. What should be the correction factor for natural or created factor conditions?

Examples: –  Coastal and river ports; –  Historical and natural design of the port area

(ex. national or regional borders); –  Natural conditions such as mountains;

8. Only benchmarking with corresponding reach (radius) from their gateway (which also eliminates differences in scale of gateway port)



Market share CMP (in Sweden and Denmark)

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Market share CMP

However… under some conditions, port clusters can improve their competitive position.

4. Strategic actions for a better green positioning (1)

  Three distinct types of (green) stakeholder management for ports (Dooms and Verbeke, 2007): – Type 1: Stakeholder management for ‘managing’

the port (day-to-day port operations e.g. EMS, etc.);

– Type 2: Stakeholder management for ‘developing’ the port (implementing port development projects);

– Type 3: Stakeholder management for ‘managing the development’ of the port (integration of stakeholder objectives in processes and analysis for long-term development).

  Type 1 : – Portland (USA) and Stockholm (Sweden)

  Type 2 : – Port 2000 (Le Havre), Antwerp Intermodal

Network (AIN – Antwerp) and Brussels. Type 3 :

– Strategic planning in Antwerp, Zeebrugge and Ghent as well as Rotterdam


  Port of Portland: –  Emphasizing continuous improvement of environmental

performance. –  Two guiding principles:

– Measurable environmental objective within strategic and operational control of port.

– Report in an objective way to internal and external stakeholders.

  Port of Stockholm: –  Environmental program based upon voluntary agreements

and incentive schemes; –  System of environmentally differentiated port dues.


  Port of Le Havre (infrastructure) –  Intense cooperation between developers and environmental

actors in port construction project led to a more continuous cooperation.

  Port of Antwerp (non-infrastructure) –  Expanding and promoting short to very short-distance

multimodal transport network: Antwerp Intermodal Network;

–  Shift transport from road to rail and barge by introducting new services and expanding existing ones;

–  Completely relies on stakeholders that are involved in developing transport services (barge and rail operators). Port authority is coordinating activities.

–  Extension into Antwerp Intermodal Solutions - project. –  BASF investing in sustainable energy producer in port area.


  Port of Brussels (master planning):   - Ro-ro (second hand cars) project;   - cruise terminal project (unusual CSR for industrial/

metropolitan port)   - concession requirements;   - attracting ecocentric leaders (Lemaire and Reibel).


  Strategic planning in the Flemish seaports: –  Means driven approach; –  Multicriteria analysis: spatially oriented but economic

elements are basis for strategic planning: – Confront future economic development of ports with

other functions such as safety of neighbourhood, nature preservation, mobility, etc.

–  Different relevant stakeholders intensively and proactively involved in the process (bottom up approach with active involvement): – Social legitimacy: better integrate during the process

rather than confront players at the end of the process!


 Thank you.

Documents

OECD Workshop: Green growth potential of port-cities · 2020. 5. 13. · OECD Workshop: Green growth potential of port-cities Improving your green port positioning Paris, 13th of