Governance of Ports: Alternative Models

The theme of the governance model of the Portuguese ports won a special mention in 2012 for three reasons: (a) TROIKA - The Troika that the Government intends to improve the governance system of ports (paragraph 5.25), (b) EXPORTS - with crisis care industry boost exports, being necessary to make the ports more competitive, (c) MAR - people, politicians and companies understand that must be seized most of the resource and endogenous Sea ports are a key pillar of the policy of the Sea On this subject I have four preliminary issues: (a) ports must serve the economy, exports and their clients and not themselves, (b) it is essential to autonomy, the proximity and regional intelligence in action at the ports, and companies in international competition, which differ in a REFER or a Road of Portugal, (c) what is at issue is the increasing collaboration and coordination among port authorities, ie, think globally and act locally, (d) is understandable fear of centralism. Ports have been greatly improve operation in recent decades, largely due to concessions made, with positive results in the movement of cargo and in financial terms, but are still far behind the major Spanish and European hubs. Sines is one potential exception, still crawling, but very quickly. But they could not leverage over the economy? The governance model should be linked to the objectives of the port. And what should those goals be? The geographical level: (a) LOCAL and REGIONAL - they are centers of industrial development and logistics, attracting national and international investment, (b) NATIONAL - export support and value creation and employment in the country, and to leverage the competitive economy; ( c) INTERNATIONAL - as centers for international distribution, transit and transhipment to Spain intermediate between continents and northern Europe. The level of port: (a) Efficiency - efficient when compared with other ports, while maintaining financial sustainability, (b) PRODUCTIVITY - effective in meeting customers' cargo and vessel, (c) Integration - total focus on land and sea logistics networks overall, and Modernity - have modern and adequate infrastructure, accessibility, land and sea and maritime services (services, lines and ships). The level of the port authority: (a) COMPETITIVENESS - reduce the cost per ton and lower revenue per tonne (lowest price and competitive), (b) SUSTAINABILITY - tender for the balance of the medium and long term financial return and invest balanced, (c) OPERATING - increasing the movement of freight, sales volume and value of cargo, (d) STAFF - reduce the weight of personnel costs, increase movement in tons per employee and increasing the load per employee . The concept of port has evolved greatly in recent years, and past the Portuguese ports of ports with hinterland limited in years 70 and 80 for extensive hinterlands and intertwine, moving the focus of the ports also extend to the hinterland Spain, to supply chains, logistics platforms and

accessibility, as well as the foreland, the shipping routes and markets in other countries and continents. In the future, tend to increase this mingling of Hinterlands and strategies, with greater coordination of actions between ports in logistics, in particular the deepening trade partnerships in the countries of the CPLP, the capture of shipping lines and the creation of links and logistics platforms to capture the Spanish market. Analyzed the cargo handled, it appears that the Portuguese ports can be divided into two major regions north and south port, whose port together cover all loads and needs of the respective regions they serve, sometimes competing, sometimes complementing each other. Indeed, collaboration between ports has increased on every continent, even having been written a book devoted to this theme: "Ports in proximity" by various authors from America, Europe and Asia, but coordinated by Notteboom, a famous specialist in ports. In this book point to four major types of cooperation between ports: (a) PROJECTS ALONE - as is the case of JUP and relations with ports in Portugal and the CPLP several other projects around the world: San Pedro Bay Ports, Algeciras / Tangier Med, Liguria Ports in marketing and infrastructure, NY / NJ PA PA in multimodal and Albany, New Orleans and the Lower Mississippi Ports Marketing, Shanghai and the Yangtze ports and Port of Stockholm, Sodertalje and Malarhamnar the joint strategy, (b ) AUTONOMOUS BODIES - creation of autonomous bodies with limited functions, as was the case in France HAROPA, marketing and development, which has its own staff, or the Flemish Ports Commission, the Malta Maritime Authority, Ports BremenPorts Campania and marketing, finance, logistics and infrastructure, (c) - AP NATIONAL / REGIONAL - creation of national or regional port authorities such as the Port Corporation of Queensland in Australia, or cases in India, South Africa and the ports of Lower Saxony where includes Emden, Georgia and South Carolina in the U.S. BP, Associated British Ports and PD Ports, the UK private authorities and even the case study in Belgium junction of ports on a single port authority, (d) FUSION - fusion of nearby ports , such as Malmo and Copenhagen, New York, New Jersey, Vancouver Fraser and several others. Moreover, 38% of European port authorities manage two or more ports together, as the ESPO as a result of the investigation that made lately. In this book still point to four types of reasons for increased collaboration between ports: (a) CRITICAL MASS - achieving administrative economies of scale, synergies and sharing of common resources, (b) COMPETITION - join forces against common competitors, enter hinterlands in the competition, attracting regular lines and share markets, (c) MATCHING - harmonize procedures, rules and information systems, (d) STRATEGY - Coordinate strategies, obtaining financing, joint accessibility plan, specialized resources and development and joint marketing. Now the possible reasons for increased collaboration between the Portuguese ports are precisely these: (a) CRITICAL MASS - administrative economies of scale, synergies and sharing of common resources, (b) COMPETITION - join forces to penetrate into Spain, from the ports of CPLP and attract intercontinental lines and large vessels, (c) MATCHING - harmonize procedures

and share information systems, (d) STRATEGY - Coordinate and investment strategies in the hinterland and to avoid duplication, obtain financing, joint accessibility plan and joint development and marketing. But after that alternative models of governance of Portuguese ports are there? Which model to choose? How to choose? What criteria? How they compare? Firstly it is noted that the governance model of the Portuguese ports must be an instrument of the strategy for ports and each port. The criteria in my opinion should be as follows: (a) PROXIMITY - nearness to the local community, concern for the port and the region's needs, and proximity to local authorities, monitoring site and take advantage of the regional intelligence and avoid risk of centralism; (b) AGILITY - Local flexibility and agility, fast local response, flexibility and commercial rates to encourage innovation and initiative, (c) Autonomy - for investing and financial autonomy, autonomy to decide matters of operational autonomy to decide matters of trade and differentiation ports and its brands, (d) MINIMIZE THE COST OF CHANGE - reduce any costs of change and respective effects on productivity and activity phasing of change and facilitate change, (e) - Co-opetition competition between terminals and chains logistics, competition and cooperation between ports, (f) - CRITICAL MASS - not negotiating weight and fragmentation, economies of scale, reducing costs, sharing of common resources and synergies between Port Administrations, (g) MATCHING harmonization of standards, rules and procedures and sharing of common information systems, (h) COMMON STRATEGY - coordination of public investment policies, to avoid duplication of public investment, definition and respect for national priorities, strategy development and joint marketing. Are essentially four alternative models that I evaluated based on these criteria: (A) CURRENT - model with seven port authorities (V. Castle and Leixes with the same CA, F. Foz and Aveiro with the same CA, Lisbon, Setubal and Sines), with IMPTM / IMP as a regulator and coordinator. This model responds well to the criteria of autonomy, responsiveness and proximity, but hardly the criteria of critical mass, coordination and harmonization. There is the possibility of further collaboration and coordination in this model: i) joining V Castle with Leixoes and Aveiro F. Foz; ii) place the same president for the northern ports and even in Central and southern ports; iii) increase cooperation in ad hoc projects; iv) deepen the concept of the Association of Ports of Portugal, bringing it closer to a HAROPA, a company with 50 people from the port authorities of Le Havre, Rouen and Paris, who are responsible for marketing and joint development of ports; v) enhancing the role of IPTM / IMT approaching the concept of Puertos del Estado, with means, strength and knowledge to effectively coordinate national policy and cooperation between ports. (B) FUSION - fusion of two or three ports in national port authorities: (a) North and Central, Lisbon and Setbal, and South (b) North and Central, and South This solution allows greater coordination between ports that are close and

share hinterlands, providing critical mass and harmonization, without creating great distance, centralization, nor hurt the agility and autonomy so intense. An alternative is to have five port authorities in the five largest ports in the same board in the ports of North and Central and the same three ports in South (C) HOLDING - creation of a holding Ports of Portugal, by keeping down the five port authorities or by joining two or three regional port authorities. This solution would create conditions for there to be nationally critical mass management, coordination and harmonization of strategies, although it could be at risk of greater centralization, weakening a little autonomy, agility and close depending on the degree of centralization decisions. (D) AP ONLY - creation of a single Port Authority (PA) National Ports of Portugal which would have general directions in the five ports and three general directions: North and Central, Lisbon and Setbal, and South This solution is the most centralized enabling a high level of critical mass and administrative savings, a greater coordination of strategies and policies and full harmonization, but putting at risk the autonomy, flexibility and proximity to ports management, as necessary for its proper functioning and development. That is the central coordination can be accomplished in various ways more or less centralized: (a) SINGLE or AP or APs HOLDING REGIONAL - to coordinate (m) up and down the ports, public works, human resources development, marketing, information systems and financial and legal services, (b) PUERTOS DEL STATE - type entity Puertos del Estado (IPTM or IMP) to conduct coordination and central government strong general studies and strategy, regulating, but must be stronger than has been the IPTM (c) HAROPA - Haropa type structure, created from the bottom up, to coordinate the marketing and development with personal affection for the port authorities, under the control of the ports, (d) SHARED SERVICES - hoc cooperation or formalized through the Ports Association of Portugal or protocols for the sharing of common resources in information systems, human resources and marketing. Basically, one has to consider is whether there should be greater cooperation and coordination, and if so, the solution is to increase cooperation and coordination between the Portuguese ports goes through deepening the current model of governance or goes through an evolution over or less radical and more or less centralized model of governance. The Government has to decide, but it is up to all think and reflect on how to improve the country Finally I leave still some ideas of international scholars on the subject: (A) The port policy should pay special attention to the balance between organizational integration and other dimensions of proximity (place). The port authorities have advantages related to proximity cognitive and social face to face with the actors of the ports (Peter Hall and Wouter Jacobs, in "Ports in Proximity", 2009). (B) In Japan (and face competition in Asia), the ports is better than seeking to create integrated logistics networks in extended regions, which make competing investments and fight for cargo. Who are the competitors? (Masato Shinohara, in "Ports in Proximity", 2009). (C) The port of Korea policy should shift from "two hub ports" to a strategy of

"two regions / ports integrated systems" (Sung-Woo Lee and Kim Geun-Sub in "Ports in Proximity" 2009). (D) To have an "open and dynamic society," should be used if the "subsidiarity" principle that allows each to be given the greatest possible power on its own initiative, to have the positive effect of contagion wider than we know together "(AM, University of Porto, March 16, 2012).