1. travel
2. tourist destinations
3. france

Transport Policy, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 251-265, 1997
PII: SO967-070X(97)00020-6
o 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain
0967-070X/97 $17.00 + 0.00
Political issues in inland waterways
port development: prospects for
regionalization
Claude Comtois
Departement de geographic, Centre de recherche sur les transports,
Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 357, Canada
Universite de Montreal,
C.P. 6128, succursale
Brian Slack
Department of Geography, Center for Research on Transportation,
West, Montreal, Quebec H3G lM8, Canada
Concordia University, 1455 De Maisonneuve
and
Gunnar K. Sletmo
Departement de Marketing, J&ole des Hautes l?tudes Commerciales,
Montreal, Quebec H3T 2A7, Canada
3000 Chemin de la Cote Sainte-Catherine,
In the vast scientific literature on maritime transport, one theme appears neglected: the juridicopolitical framework in port development. We first examine how the jurisdictional control influences
the allocation of resources and financial responsibilities. Second, we carefully evaluate conventional
theoretical explanations of the process of port development as it generates important consequences
on port policy formulation. We suggest that the concept of the port transition needs to be
positioned within a new paradigm of the regional economy. Third, by focusing on three case studies
namely France, China and Canada, we provide an understanding of institutional structure and how
they reflect tendencies in port development. We then investigate regional flows, particularly the
role of offshore, inshore and coastal traffic. Fourth, we present policy options for regionalization of
ports. Fifth, we explore the regional elements of the port transition and provide an appreciation of
the new role of the State in port development policies. The paper concludes on the adoption of new
paradigm in port development strategies. @ 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Keywords: maritime transport,
ports, jurisdictions,
regions
Premises
Most scenarios on the future growth of world trade
accept ports as a fundamental
element of exchanges. In
Europe, major works are planned for an optimal use of
major water arteries such as the Rhine and the Danube
(ECIS,
1994). In North
America,
recent
studies
demonstrate
a changing emphasis in the strategies of
maritime
companies
to influence or fulfil the political
agendas of government
for the integration
of South
America into NAFTA (Slack et al., 1995). In East and
Southeast Asia, a restructuring
of maritime routes can
be observed
within
a new political
geography
of
transportation
(Rimmer and Comtois, 1996). Evidently,
these
modifications
to maritime
geography
raise
predictable
fears concerning
port development
policies
that will be needed to accommodate
this growth on the
one hand, and on the other hand, the problems raised
by the creation of new infrastructures.
These predictions
of changes in the structure of the
water transport
industry
are largely based within the
framework
of the existing port typology. Indeed, the
new commercial
horizon is a function of growth rates
reflecting the performance
of the previous decade that,
when projected,
suggest an increase
in inequalities
between big ports and secondary ports. This condition
reflects the preponderance
of ports having substantial
comparative
advantages,
reinforced by their position at
the summit of a hierarchy of jurisdictions.
Without denying that port development
must operate
in a commercial context, the objective of this paper is to
suggest that the working out of port policies requires a
careful re-evaluation
of the juridico-political
framework,
which in this investigation
involves in part the discarding
257
Political issues in inland waterways port development:
C Comtois et al.
of the mental baggage of concepts and ideas that are part
of a set of port theories that has grown out of the
principles and experiences of the market economy.
Port policies
Following
an approach
used by Vigarit (1987) and
McGee
(1994), three main factors
of this market
economy
experience
are apparent.
Firstly, there is a
fundamental
divide between big ports and secondary
ports (Mayer,
1973). This dichotomy
is portrayed
spatially
by their relative position
along the major
maritime routes (Hoyle and Hilling, 1984), sectorally in
terms of containerization
and non-containerization
(Chilcote,
1988), politically
in jurisdictional
control
(Ircha, 1993; Goss, 1979, 1990), and even from an
ideological point of view in the formulation
of policies
related to the different categories of ports. Secondly,
the search for scale economies,
in which a majority of
port activities
will be undertaken
in big ports is
unilinear and inevitable. Thirdly, the advantages
of the
process of accumulation
are a necessary condition
of
the process of economic growth. A few conventional
theoretical
explanations
of this process
of port
development
even postulate that the distinction
between
big ports on the one hand and, on the other hand, small
and medium size ports will be reduced as the latter will
progressively
disappear with the emergence of transactional world centers. There is no need to reiterate the
arguments
that are used to support
this theoretical
position, for there exists a vast scientific literature on
the subject. But there is a need to underline
that this
body of theory and its assumptions
are the major
explanatory
tools applied to maritime
geography
in
Europe,
in East and Southeast
Asia and in North
America and consequently
dominate
the perspectives
on port development.
In view of this we would like to
suggest that a careful evaluation
of this body of theory
on ports
is required
as it generates
important
consequences
on port policy formulation.
Indeed, the
conditions
that preside over the implementation
of
contemporary
port development
projects are radically
different from those in which they were conceived.
More precisely, the inevitable transition towards major
harbour
infrastructures
resulting
from agglomeration
economies
and comparative
advantages
is put into
question in three respects. Firstly, it is too narrow in its
widely accepted presumption
that the divide between big
ports and secondary
ports will persist with maritime
traffic growth. There will indeed be a considerable growth
in maritime traffic resulting from the application of WTO
accords, from the concrete shaping of the European
Union,
from the development
of NAFTA
and the
increasing
partnership
of ASEAN. Ports will have to
support a heavier burden. But ports are hard compressed
by increasing deficits, by the need to rationalize resources
and by severe environmental
legislations
concerning
coastal zones (Wessel and Hershman, 1988).
258
Secondly, it is inadequate
in its assumptions
that the
transition
towards important
port industrial complexes
will be inevitable, following operations of scale economies
and comparative advantages, that pretend to facilitate the
concentration
of maritime traffic in ports located along
major maritime routes. The vast majority of ports are not
like Hong Kong, New York or Rotterdam. The conventional
theoretical
explanations
appear
generally
inadequate
to explain
the growth
and mostly
the
persistence of small and medium size ports (Comtois et
al., 1993). The disappearance
of these ports has not been
demonstrated
empirically
(Hilling,
1988).
The
development
of modem transport technology has greatly
facilitated
the
internationalization
of
exchanges.
Historical
factors, the most important
of which is
certainly economic grouping, has created various spatial
and functional organizations
of maritime networks that
structure international
exchanges.
Thirdly, the paradigm of the process of port transition
draws its rationale from the historical experience as it has
occurred in Europe, in North America and in East and
Southeast Asia in the late 1980s which is clearly not
transferable
within
the port context
of the third
millennium.
We have previously
argued
that the
integration
of East and Southeast Asia into the areas of
influence of Western European colonial powers from the
sixteenth century onwards has imposed a new transactional network, thus forcing the marine merchants
to
adapt to the new network or to marginalize their activities
(Comtois, 1993). Geopolitical
events resulting from the
cold war also imposed a new direction to the traditional
transactional
maritime
network
of these regions by
dividing the world in two major political and ideological
spheres of influence. This has further been supported by
the recent work of Fremont (1996). In a similar manner,
the doctrinal
position
of Eastern Europe concerning
foreign trade has for a long time confined the maritime
economy to a marginal role (Vigarie, 1987). These selfsufficient and continentalist
tendencies
were gradually
softened to eventually allow a participation
in maritime
world trade generally at the same rhythm as its growth
rate. But the delays resulting from this slow conversion,
parallel
to the considerable
geopolitical
changes in
Eastern Europe, meant that the shipping and port sectors
of these countries have emerged as very fragile, with very
high waterborne trade demands and very low port assets.
Finally,
the planetary
strategy of the United States
required a logistical system of such magnitude that much
of the transport
responsibilities
were contracted
to the
private maritime
sector. Therefore,
for almost half a
century, the productivity
and efficiency of a substantial
part of the shipping industry was artificially maintained.
With the profound mutations occurring across the world,
following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the
United States has to engage in a new political and
The
prospects
for
maritime
economic
agenda.
development
are enormous
and intermodal
transportation will affect the complete
restructuring
of the
Political issues in inland waterways port development:
American transport industry. While many of the details
still remain
to be worked out, an element appears
indisputable:
the costs involved in such an endeavour
require the practice of a continental
solidarity.
Given these inadequacies,
it is suggested that the
concept of the port transition
needs to be positioned
within a new paradigm
of the regional economy
of
ports. This would include:
(1) an understanding
of
institutional
structure and how they reflect tendencies
in port development;
(2) an investigation
of regional
flows, particularly
the role of offshore,
inshore and
coastal traffic; (3) a sensitivity to the regional elements
of the port transition;
and (4) an appreciation
of the
role of the State
in port
development
policies.
Essentially,
such an approach
attempts
to present
political options for port development
within specific
countries.
Regionalizing port development
The issues raised above are central to an understanding
of the limits to port development.
The major question
must be whether
ports can experience
a structural
transformation
in their juridico-political
framework
that is associated with a new form of regionalization
and the successful realignment
of their strategies into
regional economies during this transition.
One way in
which to make these processes clearer is to illustrate
them through case studies.
We wish to understand
port policies in three major
areas, namely Europe, East Asia and North America
because we want to document and analyze the limits to
port development
under radically different conditions.
The countries that are at the core of our research efforts
are France, China and Canada. They have been selected
because they do not share the same conditions
or
processes.
Indeed,
the major
coastal
and
inland
waterways
of France are underused,
while secondary
ports continue
to persist. Besides, France has a long
history
of State intervention
in local and regional
planning that has integrated the economic and physical
needs of ports and their relative impact (Marcadon,
1988). China, on the other hand, is a country with very
high demographic
density where most maritime trade is
handled by large ports, but where small and medium
size ports fulfil very specific functions.
Furthermore,
in
China,
administrative
and
economic
changes
are
influencing
very strongly the functioning
integrity
of
the port system (Vigarie,
1992). Finally,
Canada
is
characterized
by a vast territory with a low population
density where maritime
trade is essentially
resource
based. But, more interestingly,
Canadian
ports are
administratively
fragmented
by a considerable
variety
of jurisdictions
(McCalla, 1994).
France
The waterways of France have been highly influenced
by a rigid model of bureaucratic
State centrality
that
C Comtob et al.
confers high regard to the development
of a depersonalized control
through
public laws (Strohl,
1990).
Ideological or political factors have had little influence
upon this process. Centralized
sectoral management
and governmental
direction, characteristic
of the French
public
policy
system planned
the country’s
water
transport
network and infrastructures.
The State Plan
provides the principal water transport policy directives.
Basically it is a planning document that represents a set
of priorities for financing
and realisation.
Through
a
large and complex
body of administrative
laws, it
provides
oversight,
technical
and policy formulation
for France’s inland waterways
and ports. In view of
this, the steps engaged towards decentralization
that
have taken place in France since the mid-fifties must be
interpreted
as a process to formalize the mechanics of
the Plan in the region through the regional transport
master plan together
with the possibility
for some
subsidy from a commission
for land use and regional
action: the Delegation
a 1’AmCnagement
du Territoire
et a 1’Action Regionale
(DATAR)
rather than a true
decentralization
of autonomy
and
responsibilities.
There are essentially two types of ports in France: the
autonomous
ports - a status granted in 1965 to six
ports, namely Dunkerque,
Le Havre, Rouen, Nantes,
Bordeaux, and Marseille, where the State assumes 70%
of infrastructural
investments;
and ports of national
interest
jointly
managed
by local
Chambers
of
Commerce and Departments
of Equipment,
where the
State assumes 40% of investments
in infrastructures.
The administration
of the waterways infrastructures
is
under the authority of the Ministry of Transport.
Since
1991, the application
of regulations
concerning
the
commercial
exploitation
of navigable
waterways
is
under the jurisdiction
of the Voies Navigables de France
(VNF). VNF is responsible
for the exploitation,
the
maintenance,
the modernization
and the extension
of
the network as well as the management
of the public
fluvial domain.
With a total length of 8568 km, the French interior
navigable waterway system has been able to profit from
the most important inland waterway systems of Europe.
But it is marked by five major characteristics.
Firstly,
60% of the navigable waterways are located north of a
line linking Le Havre to Mulhouse. This area accounts
for one of the most urbanized
and economically
prosperous regions of France. Secondly, the network is
of unequal capacity. Many of France’s rivers and canals
are commercially
exploitable.
But very few are of
European
scale class (over 3000 tons) and can thus be
considered as having long-term prospects of commercial
viability. Only the Dunkerquevalenciennes
canals, the
Moselle, the Rhine, the Seine, the Rhone rivers and the
estuaries of the Loire and the Garonne are of European
scale class. As a result, the European scale class carries
90% of the waterways traffic volume (tons) and 95% of
the waterways traffic turnover (ton km). Thirdly, of these
large-scale
inland
waterways,
only the Dunkerque259
Political issues in inland waterwaysport
development:
C Comtois et al.
Valenciennes canals, the Moselle and the Rhine rivers are
connected
to other European
waterway systems. As a
result, these waterways serve a transit function. Figures
demonstrate
that 30% of the exchange traffic tonnage
with Germany is undertaken
by waterways. This figure
increases to 44% with Belgium and the Netherlands
(Strohl, 1990). Fourthly,
many river ports such as Le
Havre, Rouen and Paris along the Seine, Dunkerque
and Valenciennes
in the north, Strasbourg
along the
Rhine, Lyon along the Rhone are directly accessible by
fluvio-maritime
ships from other European countries or
even North Africa. But many of these waterways are
either isolated or linked to one another through small
scale canals. Inter-basin
traffic is not preponderant.
As a
result, France’s commercial waterway traffic is essentially
single basin oriented. Studies and government
reports
published in the late 1980s underline the need to create
inter-basin
linkages of European
scale class (Boussuge,
1990). Therefore, the localized traffic density of canals
of European gauge, coupled with service fragmentation,
has led to a reduction
in inland water traffic. The
implementation
of policy decisions to improve the role
and the share of inland waterways
in the country’s
commercial
activities thus becomes very complicated.
Fifthly, another important
factor is that the waterway
fleet of France is largely composed of separate business
enterprises
operating
single barges. It is the owneroperators that own the majority of self-propelled boats.
French politics have protected the owner-operator
of
the individual boat from competition
not only with the
fleet owners that are usually more capital intensive, but
also from other owner-operators.
This strategy however
will need to be carefully re-examined.
The abolition of
international
boundaries
will not only reduce national
administrative
protection,
but
will introduce
the
prospects of having part of the traffic being diverted to
eastern waterway vessels that could be highly competitive
on a commercial basis.
In 1995, acknowledging
that the port and water
transport
geographic
reality was marked by organizathe
French
authorities
have
tional
deficiencies,
mandated
VNF to link four major fluvial arteries: (1)
the Northern
Seine linking the Seine, the Oise and the
Northern
canal; (2) the Rhine-Rhone
between Niffer
and Saint-Jean-de-Losne;
(3) the Eastern Seine between
the Seine and the Moselle; and (4) the Moselle-Saone
permitting
to integrate the network (Marcadon,
1996).
One of the first impacts of this public initiative has been
the emergence
of regional
port alliances.
Hence the
ports of Lille and Paris are carrying
out a uniform
program
of development,
while the ports of ChPionsur-Saone,
Macon,
Villefranche
and Vienne
have
merged with a view to create a regional port authority:
Aproport.
China
China is officially a centrally
is formulated
by the Chinese
260
planned economy. Policy
Communist
Party and the
Central
Committee
through
five-year
plans,
that
embody
the socio-economic
development
of the
country. The country is now in the first phase of its
ninth five-year plan (19962000).
Water transport
is
under the responsibility
of the Ministry of Communications.
The Ministry
manages
directly
15 major
seaports,
two coastal
shipping
lines, China Ocean
Shipping Company
(COSCO) and the main stream of
the major waterways.
But it must be underlined
that
even at the height of the centrally planned economy,
neither the individual’s
choice of means of transportation nor the desired amount of water transport within
the country were restricted by the State. While decision
making
in rail, pipeline and air transport
is highly
centralized,
all levels of government
have a role to play
in the decision making process related to the water
transport sector (Yenny, 1990). The central government
concentrates
on major infrastructural
projects, while the
local and provincial
governments
are responsible
for
inland waterways. Most of the extensive water transport
systems, including
infrastructure
and equipment
and
their operations,
are managed by provincial
and local
authorities.
But recently,
more flexibility
has been
introduced
into the very rigid and bureaucratic
system.
A decentralization
process is taking place in China
where more autonomy
and responsibilities
are being
granted
to major seaports
and shipping
companies.
Besides, the reforms have allowed villages, household
or private owners to operate on a free market basis.
This process however is much more conjectural
than
structural
as it fails to consider the meso network of
Chinese inland waterway ports. China has a long water
transport history and the detailed analysis of the growth
of the country’s
waterway
network
and shipping
industry has been well studied (Leung, 1981; Comtois,
1990; Comtois et al., 1990; Song, 1990; Sletmo and
Boyd, 1993). These authors have demonstrated
how
the development
of marine infrastructures
is conducive
to participation
into the world economic market. Two
points
appear
neglected
however.
Firstly,
the 1983
administrative
reform
undertaken
by the central
government
changed
the
traditional
province
prefecturecounty
hierarchy to that of province-citycounty hierarchy. As a result, there are now four types
of administrative
division
conditions
occurring
in
China: (1) a strong leading city surrounded
by poor
counties; (2) weak or poor city and counties; (3) strong
city and counties;
and (4) a weak leading
city
surrounded
by strong or wealthy counties. In the first
case, the reform could have a positive impact since the
city assumes the role of growth pole. The second case
does not represent much of a change from the prereform era. The administrative
entities still rest their
development
on self autonomy.
In the third and fourth
the
reform
has
brought
severe
cases
however,
competition
between
the city and its surrounding
counties.
The city leading
county
system has had
negative impact on port development.
Indeed, in the
Political issues in inland waterways port development:
third case, since the economic
structure
of city and
county are very similar, monopoly
policies are being
promoted
or even implemented.
As a result,
the
catchment
areas are very small. These administrative
units will distribute much, but over a small territory. In
the fourth case, since cities are developing
at a slower
rate then their surrounding
counties,
they have their
own incentive
for economic
growth. Cities will often
prefer to develop their own administrative
area to the
detriment of the counties under their jurisdiction.
As a
result, many developments
that could or should have
occurred in the counties are now occurring in the cities.
This is particularly
verifiable
with regard to ports.
Indeed, if a city has a facade on the Yangzi river, it will
attempt to develop its own port. This has even led to the
development
of unnecessary
port infrastructures.
There
is thus a very intensive competition
between small and
medium
size ports on the Yangzi river. These were
traditionally
national
or provincial
ports
but the
tendency is towards city-based ports. This system will
not only have an impact on urban development
but will
hinder the comprehensive
development
of the Chinese
port system (Comtois and Foggin, 1996).
Secondly,
Chinese ports are classified under four
categories:
inland waterways
ports, the Yangzi river
ports, the coastal ports and the ocean oriented ports.
Inland ports can be planned by local administration,
while the Yangzi river ports are designed by the Yangzi
River Water Transport
Bureau and the Ministry
of
Communication.
But this classification
is somehow
simplistic
as some inland
ports also handle
ocean
shipping. More importantly,
the recent changes in the
port management
system are not uniformly applied. Of
all the 15 ports under the responsibility
of the Ministry
of Communication,
only the port of Qinghuangdao
is
totally run by the central government.
All the others
are jointly supervised by the central and the provincial
governments
or between the provincial
and the local
governments.
The small ports are managed by the local
governments.
Moreover,
in many cases, rights and
responsibilities
have been transferred
to the port
authority.
The port authority
thus possesses the port
assets and has considerable
power over the organization
of distribution
of berths and over the establishment
of
handling companies as subsidiaries.
The port authority
can thus fix its own agenda and development
plans that
are not coordinated
either with the city plans or those of
the Communication
Ministry.
The apparent
jurisdictional hierarchy
is therefore blurred by the fact that
there is still a clear division between entrepreneurial
and political management.
The problem is exacerbated
by the fact that each administrative
unit has its own
freight station and shipping company. Many ports have
their own transport
company.
On the Yangzi River,
there are presently more than 800 shipping companies.
Besides, private ports are being implemented.
But all
the ports on the Yangzi river are feeder ports for
Shanghai. It would be impossible for any one of them
C Comtois et al.
.
to become a major port. All this points to a water
transport
organization
that responds
in an anarchic
way to the sudden increase in demand. This leads to:
(1) a modification
of port distribution,
(2) a redistribution of catchment areas for ports, (3) an overcapacity
on waterways, and (4) a surplus in handling capacity for
water
transport.
Given
the increasing
growth
of
container
movement,
there is an urgent and mutual
need for ports to consider the strength of linkages and
promote the development
of a regional network.
Canada
Public responsibility
for the management
of inland
water transportation
in Canada is extremely complex.
Domestic maritime transport
activities in Canada are
defined as marine cargo traffic between Canadian ports.
These activities are divided into five sectors: the inland
waterways which comprise the Saint Lawrence-Great
Lakes system and all the shipping activities occurring
in the rivers and lakes located in Canada; the coastal
activities of the Atlantic,
the Pacific and the Arctic
ocean and the MackenzieGreat
Slave Lake systems.
Two important
features
of Canada
influence
the
country’s
water transport
policy. Firstly, the federal
character of Canada, where the basic organizations
of
government
levels can possess a considerable
degree of
autonomy,
and secondly, the size of the country which
constitutes
a primary
obstacle
to the country’s
integration.
These two facets account not only for the
basic characteristics
of water transportation
policy but
also for many problems faced in other policy areas.
Several administrative
reforms have been adopted
and vigorously
implemented
since the founding of the
confederation
in 1867. Despite many modifications
to
the port system of the country,
the problem
has
remained the same: organizational
linkages tend to be
horizontal,
across jurisdictions,
rather than vertical.
Within
the dual federal and provincial
hierarchical
system,
there is no unified
central
administrative
bureaucracy
ultimately
responsible
for the inland
waterway system. Policy making is exercised by several
technically
oriented
agencies.
This fragmentation
is
further compounded
by Canadian
federalism
which
reproduces many counterpart
agencies at the provincial
level. As a result, water transport
policy is scattered
among
very diverse administrative
units that each
exhibit particular legal, financial and operational
norms
and procedures
that are not fully coordinated
by a
single political actor. On the Saint Lawrence system
alone, there exist six different types of administrative
agencies, corporations,
commissions
or ministries
that
perform
maritime
or port activities.
Funding
and
operation
of ports are divided among the levels of
governments
and the private sector. Therefore,
port
infrastructure
investments
are not necessarily complementary
to the national
system. Small ports finances
have been adversely affected by a politically motivated
investment
policies.
The public
corporations
with
Political issues in inland waterways port development:
C Comtois et al.
government
capital participation
and oversight
have
added to the politization
of ports. The special status
given to some ports proves to be problematic.
Some
ports
have a special
responsibility
for providing
transportation
services to the general public. But this
situation
leads to demands of services and investment
without any thought given to the ports’ financial health.
There is thus a lack of balance within the Canadian port
structure because each port administration
and agency
has evolved as a function
of their own politicaladministrative
dynamics.
Many policy decisions have
been aimed at correcting
this imbalance.
But coordination
requires
major
initiatives
coupled
with a
maintenance
of funding. With large internal debt contributing
to a serious economic
crisis, the Canadian
government
has not been able to sustain such a system.
Throughout
most of its history, transportation
in
Canada evolved as a function of the economic exploitation of the land’s potential.
The points of origin of
the most important
cargos, the raw material hinterland
in Alberta, Saskatchewan
and Manitoba
for instance,
have fostered the development
of transport
corridors.
Many port investment
projects were thus driven by the
country’s mineral export policies. Furthermore,
given
the sporadic ecumene of large areas of Canada and the
need to integrate
the whole country,
the national
government
was forced to subsidize many of the ports
and water transport in remote areas.
In 1996, the federal transport ministry presented a bill
to modify
the government
operational
role in the
maritime sector by proposing
to withdraw from direct
exploitation
while
maintaining
commitments
with
regards to transport
safety, environment
and services
to remote communities.
Under the proposed legislation,
of the former 607 ports accounted in Canada, only 60
will remain under the jurisdiction
of the Ministry
of
Transport,
245 will be turned over to local and regional
authorities,
eight major ports will be established as local
commissions,
59 will be transfered
to the fishery
department,
200 will be declassified and the remaining
35 will be under
private,
municipal
or provincial
jurisdiction.
These
changes
in the administrative
structure of the Canadian
port network are the result
of thorough analysis in inland waterways trade flows.
Despite the magnitude
of the country’s
extensive
water network, over half of the domestic marine cargo
was handled within Canadian
inland waters, essentially
on the Saint Lawrence-Great
Lakes system. Of these
inland areas, the national government
concentrated
on
the construction
or modernization
of ports along the
Saint Lawrence. These new ports have been designed
for specific products and have been equipped with the
But
these
fluvial
navigation
latest
technology.
improvements
were following rather than leading other
economic activities. On the Saint Lawrence river system,
freight volume accounted for 110 million tons in 1995.
The traffic of international
marine cargo reached 72%
during the same period.
262
Recent discussions
and policy options presented to
the national
government
suggest major transfers
of
water transportation
responsibilities
to the provinces
and municipalities,
the privatization
of the marine
services and the adoption
of the principle
user pay.
Because of the geographical
situation of the waterways,
this decentralization
and deconcentration
processes will
not change the performance
of the water transport
sector
unless
Canada
adopts
the
principle
of
subsidiarity
by identifying
services
to the water
transportation
industry that the local organizations
can
perform
more effectively
in terms of responsibility,
capacity
and efficiency
than the dominant
central
organization.
Policy options for regionalization
of ports
There is a vast scientific literature
demonstrating
the
positive
aspects of inland
waterways.
Very briefly,
waterway systems consume the least amount of energy
per ton- km as compared
with the other modes of
transport,
and the ton- km cost for waterway transportation is very low. As a result, waterways are most apt
to be used for bulk commodities,
some agricultural
products
and construction
materials.
In some areas,
waterway
services are absolutely
required
for the
continued
economic
health of many outlying
areas.
Moreover,
waterway
traffic is environmentally
more
favourable
than
competing
modes.
Finally,
ever
increasing
freight traffic on highways that results in
congestion
lends support to a renewal of waterways.
Besides, it must be remembered
that some highways
continue to operate at a deficit, with the likelihood that
shortfalls will become proportionally
large over time
because of the increased maintenance
costs.
The above highlights the important
role played by
national
government
in the development
of inland
waterways and the port system of France, China and
Canada. In these countries, there is a commitment
to a
mode of transport
that only contributes
marginally
to
the economy. But the inland waterways sector with its
considerable
economic
implications
and ramifications
reveals itself consistently
across the case studies, as a
weak point in the transportation
structure
of each
country. This is the more surprising since the opportunities for the State to influence supply and demand in
that sector have been considerably
broadened
with
increasing trade opportunities.
We have also shown the
limits of national
policy responses to the demands of
changes
and
and
technological
the
economic
imperatives
of ports. Policies have been initiated
in
response to expressed needs to improve upon an existing
policy or to improve upon the operation
of the service
that the existing
policy provided
always
upon
a
background
of changes and rising expectations.
The
results of this situation are that the general scarcity of
investment
resources has stood in the way of a speedy,
uninterrupted
and comprehensive
modernization
and
Political issues in inland waterwaysport development: C Comtois et al.
expansion
of traffic and fleets of the water transportation systems. Much points to the fact that planning
for port as well as commitment
of investment
resources
for the past years has been oriented towards short-range
development.
If inland shipping and ports are to achieve greater
significance,
then new canals must be built, networks in
industrial
areas must be expanded, shipping fleets must
be modernized
and inland ports favoured.
The main
question is what will it cost and who will pay for it?
Faced
with increasing
pressures
to provide
fresh
investments,
national authorities
have responded either
by massive privatization
or by strengthening
public
ownership. We suggest that a significant increase in the
capacity and efficiency of the water transport
system
can be realized through
another
alternative
in port
planning, namely regionalization.
Traditionally,
maritime
transport
has helped the
construction
of regional territories, and in turn, regional
territories have been at the source of maritime demand.
Much research has been undertaken
on the relationship
between
maritimization,
the process
of developing
maritime
trade, as coined by Guillaume
(1996) and
regionalization.
But the standardization
of freight
handling,
the geographical
discontinuity
of different
elements, notably the tertiary service sector in maritime
transport
and the limits in port complex in polarizing
economic activities both sectorally and spatially have
considerably
altered the mutual fertilization
of regions
and maritime trade. We therefore propose three issues
to animate the relationship
between ports and regions.
Firstly, port regionalization
will be successful if it is
included
within
a market
economy
framework
of
competition.
Regionalization
must become a means for
increasing responsibility
of regions. It is thus within this
context of responsibility
that regionalization
must be
evaluated. The responsibility
for the functioning
of each
port or group of ports operations must be assigned to a
region that would be responsible
to animate its port
system within the whole country. The carriers and the
forwarders
of commodities
are often located outside
the port area. But by adopting
a regionalization
approach,
the functions
of ports
would
then be
modified
so as to consider
the environment
within
which they operate.
This would
firstly permit
to
internalize
within the region the externalities
generated
by the ports; secondly, reduce the cost of transactions
through complementarities
generated within the region;
and thirdly
increase
the exchange
of information
between forwarders and carriers within the region thus
rendering
the ports more competitive.
The realization
of an optimal port system is discouraged
by frequently
changing
orientations
and guidelines
which
alter,
abolish or reverse previous ones, hence confirming
the
need for the creation
of regional markets.
The new
structure reflects the importance
of developing comprehensive and efficient policies in the areas of international and regional
local transportation
and freight
distribution.
The reorganization
of various levels of
transportation
administration
into regional
transportation bureaus emphasizes
policies based on a more
objective assessment
of needs rather than the vertical
or individual
systems which have led either to an
inefficient and uncontrolled
use of public resources or
to unnecessary
duplication
of investments
for the
development
and
expansion
of ports
and
water
transportation
systems.
Secondly,
the size of the region must allow the
regional
authority
to have the capacity
to solve
problems. There is no ideal size of region, but the size
must be small rather than large and must rest on spatial
proximity.
This will play an important
role related to
maritime dynamics notably as a base for information
exchanges,
agreement
on common
objectives
and
collective process of learning
between ports. Indeed,
certain ports are more dynamic
then others. But all
ports located within a region could observe the secret
of success, reduce the rate of decline or assist in the
elaboration
of initiatives
of the other ports. More
importantly,
the size of the regions must be defined or
composed of several types of ports so as to enhance the
necessary competition
required for successful accountability. The region’s port system must be sufficiently
pluralistic so as to permit the participation
of all types
of ports. Indeed, a sectoral approach based on type of
traffic for instance
would not be appropriate
for
regionalization.
There are very few sectors where scale
economies can be achieved. Levels of expenses per port
tend to increase rather then diminish with the size of
regions. Revenue in turn is difficult to evaluate with
the size of regions but recent work demonstrates
that
cost-benefit analysis exhibits certain weaknesses because
the compatibility
of results between different regions is
not always available (Slack et al., 1993). A grouping of
ports could lead to the separation
of economically
viable
and non-viable
services
and thus increase
pressure
to eliminate
the latter.
But a thoughtful
regionalization
process
could
permit
cross-subsidy.
Profit making ports or routes could make up for losses
in another port, services or routes. The main problem
has and will be the lack of investment
capital. The
over-riding
strategy
should
then be to determine
funding level according to the level of traffic.
Thirdly, what is needed is a total systems approach to
transportation,
one considering traffic demand in terms
of regions, commodities
and corridors, not just port by
port, thus stimulating
balanced
regional growth. Of
particular
concern is the need to coordinate
the water
transportation
improvements
in big ports with secondary
ports in the surrounding
region. Many small ports bring
a considerable support to the regional and local economy
while not being located along the major liners route. The
task of regionalization
is to lower the level of subsidies
and to achieve the greatest economic yield. Obviously,
this process would influence the supply side of the market
through incentives for market restructuring.
To avoid
263
Political issues in inland waterways port development:
C Comtois et al.
chronic overcapacity in ports, a regionalization
approach
could reduce the number of ports. This could be achieved
through
a flexibility in the maintenance
of a stable
number of ports, a number that would initially be tied
to demand. Given that performance
is not measured by
distance, but by density and volume, there is a need to
emphasize high volume transportation
improvements
or
quick turnover if small ships serving regional needs can
prove to have comparative
advantages
over big ships.
As a result, the remaining infrastructures
would exhibit
a high degree of modernity.
The goal of capacity
equilibrium
at the regional level would be achieved. The
regionalization
approach would increase the coherence
and reduce the cost of water transportation
administration
and through
tight solidarity
would increase
opportunities
for profit by increasing
accountability.
Opportunities
thus abound for the cabotage sector to
continue to play a major role in shaping the direction of
economic development.
A new role for the state
One must always remember that the proprietor
of the
transportation
infrastructure,
namely the waterways,
still remains the national government.
But the adoption
of a regionalization
of the port system raises interesting
avenues in port policy decisions for the State.
Given some regions’ low levels of competence
in the
areas of planning and development,
the first task of the
national
government
would be to provide training in
port and water transportation
planning with a view to
facilitate
the process of regionalization.
This should
include public relations and communication
techniques,
quality control methods,
qualitative
and quantitative
data interpretation
analysis and project management
administration.
We believe that such training
would
enhance investment planning processes.
Secondly, given the major technological
changes, the
varied strategies of enterprises,
the implementation
of
free trade agreements,
it becomes necessary to develop
networks,
partnership,
alliances and even acquisitions
with carriers and forwarders located outside the region,
acknowledging
that economic
integration
does not
respect political
boundaries.
Therefore,
to avoid a
fragmentation
of countries
into multiple disconnected
regional territories,
the State has to assume a second
task, namely
to reinforce
complementarity
relations
between
regions
through
reductions
of investment
barriers,
free movement
of transport
services across
regions and unification
of rules, standards
and certilications. This would foster the integration
of regional
port planning across national borders.
A third task would be for the State to concentrate
on
investing
massively
and without
hesitation
on the
development
of containerization
and on the information
highway. Combined transport offers operational
as well
as managerial
advantages,
while information
flow
generates transport which in turn brings traffic.
264
A final task would be for the State to increase its
responsibilities
in developing
economic,
social and
cultural
exchanges,
to assist in favourable
foreign
exchange position
and to enhance the image of the
country abroad.
Concluding remarks
The waterway transport and port policies are exhibiting
the appearances
of undergoing
fundamental
changes.
The highly centralized model is no longer thought to meet
the values and needs of the system, neither is the privatization approach. There is thus a need for a shift in the
present institutional
and jurisdictional
structures of port
systems. The option suggested here rests on the need to
consider port regionalization
in future water transportation policies. This approach
however must not be
interpreted
as a panacea for all difficulties facing port
systems. Some ports will have to be closed down while
other berths will have to be built. It is not immediately
apparent whether the regionalization
of ports mentioned
above will lead to further growth of the world trade.
Two scenarios are imaginable.
In one scenario port
regionalization
progresses
in such a way as to
complement
the globalization
of business activities. In
another scenario part regionalization
stratifies the global
trade system. It is expected that maritime countries in
Europe, East and Southeast Asia and in North America
will discuss the conditions
and procedures
required to
adapt their port system in relation to the maintenance
and improvement
of world trade. In this context, it is
imperative
for these countries to understand
that the
purpose of port regionalization
resides in the qualitative
improvement
and quantitative
expansion
of the port
system at home. In view of this, the paradigm of regionalization certainly deserves to be closely examined.
This research
was undertaken
with the financial
support of les Fonds pour la Formation
des Chercheurs
et 1’Aide a la Recherche,
programme
soutien
aux
equipes de recherche, Quebec and the Social Sciences
and Humanities
Research Council of Canada.
References
Boussuge, A. (1990) Le transport fi’uvial en Prance. Office national de
la navigation,
Paris.
Chilcote, P. (1988) The containerization
story. In Urban Ports and
Harbor Management, ed. M. Hershman.
Taylor and Francis, New
York, pp. 125-145.
Comtois, C. (1990) Transport
and territorial
development
in China,
1949-1985. Modern Asian Studies, 24(4), 777-818.
F. and Rodrigue,
J. P. (1990) The
Comtois
and , C., Soulard,
Canadian
foreland of Chinese ports. Journal of Oriental Studies,
28(2), 167-187.
Comtois, C. (1993) The restructuration of transportation in China: the
emergence of a new transactional environment. Publication
No. 946,
Centre de recherche
sur les transports,
Universite
de Montreal,
Montreal, 25 pp.
Comtois, C., Slack, B., Lagimoniere,
L. and Vallec, D. (1993) Role
et la fonction
des ports de petite et moyenne
taille dans le
systeme Saint-Laurent.
Les Cahiers de geographie du Quebec,
37(100), 17-33.
Political issues in inland waterwaysport
Comtois,
C. and Foggin, P. (1996) La transformation
des ports
secondaires dans le delta du Yangzi. Cahiers Nantais, 46,99-l 15.
ECIS (1994) Proposal for a Council and European Parliament decision
on community guidelines for the development of the tram-European
transport network. European
Centre for Infrastructure
Studies,
Bruxelles.
Fremont,
A. (1996) L’espace
maritime
et marchand:
pour une
problematique.
L’espace geographique, 3, 203-213.
Goss, R. 0. (1979) Comparative Study of Seaport Management and
Administration. Government
Economic Service, London.
Goss,
R. 0. (1990) Economic
policies
and seaports:
are port
authorities
necessary?.
Maritime Policy and Management,
17(4),
257-271.
Guillaume,
J. (1996) Quelques re!exions
sur les relations entre
regionalisation et maritimisation par les transports. Seminaire
de
I’URA 904: Transports
maritimes et ports de commerce, Universite
de Nantes, Nantes, pp. 14-15.
Hilling, D. (1988) Maritime transport
technology
and the revival of
B&in’s
small ports. In Transport Technology-and Spatial Changes,
ed. R. S. Tooley. Transportation
Geography
Study Group, Stokeon-Trent, pp. 79-107.
Hoyle, B. S. and Hilling, D. (1984) Spatial approaches
to port
development.
In Seaport Systems and Spatial Change, eds B. S.
Hoyle and D. Hilling. Wiley, Chichester, pp. l-20.
Ircha,
M. C. (1993) Institutional
structure
of Canadian
ports.
Maritime Policy and Management, 20(l), 5166.
Leung, C. (1981) Shipping and port development
for modernization.
In Development and Change in China, eds E. K. Y. Chen and S. S.
K. Chin. Center of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong, Hong
Kong, pp. 127-143.
Mayer, H. M. (1973) Some geographic aspects of technological
change
in maritime transport.
Economic Geography, 49, 145155.
Marcadon,
J. (1988) L’avant-pays des ports franpais. Masson, Paris,
208 pp.
Marcadon,
J. (1996) Lesportsfluviaux
et les voies d’eau de France, etat
des lieux et perspectives
d’avenir. Institut
de geographie
de
l’universite
de Nantes, Nantes, 10 pp.
development:
C Comtois et al.
McCalla, R. S. (1994) Water Transport in Canada. Format,
Halifax,
259 pp.
McGee, T. G. (1994) Labour
force change and mobility
in the
extended metropolitan
regions of Asia. In Mega-City Growth and
the Future, eds R. J. Fuchs et al.. United Nations University Press,
Tokyo, pp. 62-102.
Rimmer, P. J. and Comtois, C. (1996) Transforming the Asia-Pacific’s
Strategic Architecture:
Transport and Communications Platforms,
Corridors and Organisations. Department
of Geography,
Research
School
of Pacific
Studies,
Australian
National
University,
Canberra, 25 pp.
Slack. B.. Comtois. C. Laaimoniire.
L. and Vallee. D. (1993) The
econom>c impact of small and medium size ports. Publication
No.
890, Centre
de recherche
sur les transports,
Universitt
de
Montreal, Montreal, 23 pp.
Slack, B., Comtois, C. and Sletmo, G. K. (1995) Shipping lines as
agents of change
in the port industry.
Maritime
Policy and
Management, X3(3), 289300.
Sletmo,
G. K. and
Boyd,
G. (eds) (1993)
Pacific
Service
Enterprises
and Pacific Cooperation.
Westview
Press, Boulder,
CO, 274 pp.
Song, Y. (1990) Shipping and shipbuilding
policies in the People’s
Republic of China. Marine Policv. 1. 53-70.
Strohl,
M. P. (1990)
France.. In’ International
Handbook
of
Transportation Policy, ed. S. Akaha. Greenwood
Press, New York,
pp. 93-124.
Vigarib, A. (1987) .&changes et Transport Znternationaux. Sirey, Paris,
206 pp.
Vigarie, A. (1992) La longue marche de I’Asie orientale vers la mer. In
Le Quart Nord-Ouest du Pacifigue, ed. J. Beaujeu-Garnier.
Sedes,
Paris, pp. 97-171.
Wessel, A. E. and Hershman,
M. J. (1988) Mitigation:
compensating
the environment
for unavoidable
harm. In Urban Ports and Harbor
Management, ed. M. Hershman.
Taylor and Francis, New York,
pp. 253-287.
Yenny, J. (1990) China. In International Handbook of Transportation
Policy, ed. S. Akaha. Greenwood
Press, New York, pp. 41-62.
I
,
I
265