Introduction
The port governance concept
Cases analysis
Analysis of the mechanisms involved in governance reforms
Argentina | Brazil | Chile | Colombia | France | Italy | Portugal | Spain | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1991 | Col-91 | |||||||
1992 | Spa-92 | |||||||
1993 | Arg-93 | Bra-93 | ||||||
1994 | Ita-94 | |||||||
---- | ||||||||
1997 | Arg-97 | Chi-97 | ||||||
1998 | Por-98 | |||||||
---- | ||||||||
2001 | Bra-01 | |||||||
2002 | Por-02 | |||||||
2003 | Spa-03 | |||||||
2004 | Fra-04 | |||||||
2005 | Chi-05 | |||||||
2006 | ||||||||
2007 | Bra-07 | Por-07 | ||||||
2008 | Bra-08 | Fra-08 | ||||||
2009 | ||||||||
2010 | Spa-10 | |||||||
2011 | Spa-11 | |||||||
2012 | Arg-12 | Por-12 | ||||||
2013 | Arg-13 | Bra-13 | ||||||
2014 | Arg-14 | Ita-14 | Por-14 | |||||
2015 | ||||||||
2016 | Arg-16 | Ita-16 |
ARGENTINA | BRAZIL | CHILE | COLOMBIA | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Governance model | ||||
Property | State. | State. | State. | State. |
Private ports, by concession of water areas, and private-owned land areas. | Private ports, by concession of water areas, and private-owned land areas. | Private ports, by maritime concession and private-owned land areas. | Private ports, by concession of water areas, and private-owned land areas. | |
Status P.A. | Own legal entities/private law bodies. Ports are classified as federal, provincial and municipal. None is legally defined as “public service”, all of them must provide open and non-discriminatory port services. | Ports are classified as federal, provincial (States) and municipal. Private ports (TUPs) are now authorised to handle third party cargoes. Originally, TUPs could only handle their own cargo. | State entities (companies) for public ports. Private ports, according to business corporations’ law. State companies cannot directly provide services like stevedoring and others. | Acting under the Corporate Law, private companies (regulated by law) sign a contract of port concession with the State (ANIa and Cormagdalenab.) |
Ports governance | Decentralisation. Main port system is made up of 1 federal port (Buenos Aires), 34 provincial and municipal ports, and 39 private ports. | Partial decentralisation. After 2007, a partial process of re-centralisation (Creation of Ministry of Ports; SEP in Portuguese.) Some features remain with provincial and municipal governmental bodies. Main port system is made up of Federal ports: 21; Provincial and Municipal: 14. 23 ports are administrated by the “dock companies”, which are shared private and public companies (Federal government is the major stockholder, and therefore are directly linked to SEP.) There are 128 TUPs. | Partial decentralisation. Eleven state ports that offer open and non-discriminatory port services, administered by ten state-owned companies. Twenty five private ports. | Partial decentralisation. five terminals that offer open and non-discriminatory port services. Private ports: 31 terminals that offer open and non-discriminatory port services and 19 that offer restricted services. |
Decision-making bodies | The Authorities depend on the corresponding government, be it federal, provincial or local. Some provincial ports are managed by a “Consortium”, a non-state public body responsible for the administration and operation of the port, and authorised to act as Landlord. Each consortium is made up of government representatives, trade unions and the private sector. Private ports, subject to Corporate Law. | The Authorities depend on the corresponding government, be it federal, provincial or local. Private ports, subject to Corporate Law. Main bodies are the following: SEP for planning and concession rights; ANTAQ for regulation; CAPc (Port Authority Council.) Other bodies: National Council of Port Authorities, Port Administrative Councils and Port Fiscal Councils. OGMOd (labour associations) is a special feature: all port operators are required to hire OGMO workers. | A Directory of five or three members, according to the Company, designated by the national government (Public Corporations System.) Ministry of Transport is the law application body. Private ports, subject to Corporate Law. | Those corresponding to a Limited Company, i.e. Assembly of Shareholders, Board of Directors, and executives in charge (e.g. CEO, etc.) |
Partnership | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Autonomy | Budget approved by the relevant authorities. | Authorities are in charge of ensuring that tariffs and prices applied in the sector are accessible and transparent. | Own budget, approved by the Ministry of Finance. Autonomous in the setting of tariffs on offered services. Private ports: free rate fixing. | Directing bodies are fully autonomous, following the statutes of each Limited Company |
Model | Landlord, since 1992. | Landlord, since 1993. | Landlord, since 1997. | Landlord, since 1991. |
Governance modalities in management operation | ||||
Property and control | State. Private ports, controlled by private companies. | State. Private ports, controlled by private companies. | State. Private ports, controlled by private companies. | State. Private ports, controlled by private companies. |
Nautical-technical services | Private and public ports: free access, under obligation to heed the regulations of the maritime authority. Influence from trade unions | Private and public ports: free access, under obligation to heed the regulations of the maritime authority. Influence from trade unions | Private and public ports: free access, under obligation to heed the regulations of the maritime authority | Free access, under obligation to heed the regulations of the maritime authority |
Fees | Partially regulated by the authorities. No regulations in private ports. | Partially regulated by the authorities. No regulations in private ports. | Autonomy. No regulations in private ports. | Partially regulated by the authorities. No regulations in private ports. |
Challenges | ||||
Infrastructure investments | State (federal mainly, but provincial too.) Private ports, depend on investors. | State (federal mainly, but provincial too.) Private ports, depend on investors. | At Terminals (berthing facilities) only through concession to private entities. Common service works, accesses, depend on each State Company | APP- Concession Contract, supervised by National Infrastructure Agency, Comptroller General of the Republice
|
Planning | Each entity | SEP is responsible for planning and for formulating the policies and promoting the execution of measures, programs and projects to support infrastructure development in maritime ports. | Each port company required to have a 20-year Master Plan and 5-year Investments Calendar. Private ports, subject to private law. | State produces Port Expansion Plan, as the framework paper. Each P.A. then produces a Master Plan of Port Development, following the contract. |
Major challenges | Expansion, financing. Dredging plan. Environmental issues. Private ports: private profitability objectives and dredging plan for inland waterways. | Expansion, for private and public ports (159 terminal areas located within the statutory ports were mapped as possible facilities to be leased to the private sector.) Modernization and efficiency plan. Dredging plan. Environmental licensing. | Financial autonomy and social profitability in its projects. Private ports: private profitability objectives | Port Efficiency and competitiveness of COMEX.f Financial autonomy and private investors’ own profitability goals. Private ports: private profitability objectives |
Main laws and other legal documents | Law 24093, 1992, for both public and private ports. Rules SSPyVNg 02/97 and SSDS 04/97 (environmental licensing) | Law 8630, 1993: new regulatory framework. Law 10233, 2001: creation of a new regulatory body (ANTAQ). Law 11.518, 2007. Creation of Ministry of Ports. Law 12.815, 2013. New Ports Law. | Law 19542, 1997 y Supreme Decree for Master Plans, Concessions and others, Usage of Berthing Facilities and Coordination Normative. Private ports: Rules from the Maritime Concessions Regime: DS No. 2, 2005. | Law 1, 1991: Ports law. Regulatory Decrees: Ministry of Transport; Cormagdalena; SuperTransporteh; CCTR.i Ports law apply to both public and private ports. |
FRANCE | ITALY | PORTUGAL | SPAIN | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Governance model | ||||
Property | Autonomous under supervision of Ministry of Transport | State | State | State |
Status P.A. | Own legal personality entity | Own legal entity | Own legal entity | Legal personality entity. Private-law body |
Ports governance | Two major groups: Grands Ports Maritimes (7) and Regional Interest ports (17). | Commercial ports (24) + ports of regional interest. Proposal to establish eight regional ports | The system is made up by five primary P.As. and four secondary P.As. The former are autonomous, the latter depend on National Organisms such as the Institute for Ports and Maritime Transport. | Forty-six general interest ports, grouped into 28 P.As. Coordination is done by Puertos del Estado [Ports of the State] |
Decision-making bodies | Port Directory, formed by users, dependent on Chambers of Commerce. President appointed by the Government. | Port committee, formed by representatives of local and Regional communities; users and workers. President appointed by Ministry. | Administration Council, formed by institutional representatives and representatives from the local community. President appointed by Ministry | Administration Council, where regional and local communities, users and workers participate. President appointed by Regional Government. |
Partnership | Under a regional belonging scheme, where the criterion used is geographical proximity | Within a port system included in a corporate and territorial scheme. | Solidarity through the Port Solidarity Fund | |
Autonomy | Grand Ports are autonomous in function, budget and fees: no autonomy in national ports | Limited budgetary autonomy. | Budgetary and rate fixing autonomy | |
Model | Landlord | Turned from a public, centralized model into Landlord, in 1994 | Landlord, since 1998; previously, Tool Port | Landlord, since 1992 |
Governance modalities in management operation | ||||
Property and control | National government | National government | State; through the Institute for Ports and Maritime Transport and the P.As. | State: through Puertos del Estado
|
Nautical-technical services | Private, controlled by P.A. | Private, controlled by P.A. | Provided by P.As. through concessions to privates (maximum duration 30 years) | Concessions to private bodies (35 years); except terminals, where concessions could go up to 50 years given special conditions (RDL 8/2014) |
Fees | Autonomous | Autonomous, though only 15% goes to P.A., the rest goes to State | Regulated by Government, specifying services and port operations | Total autonomy, coordinated at a state level |
Challenges | ||||
Infrastructure investments | P.A., with compensation from State | State | Dependent on the Ministry of Public Works | P.As, through company plans approved by the national government. |
Planning | Operational level: State | Operational level: State; Company level: the P.A., under supervision of the State, is in charge of regulating, coordinating, promoting and planning port activities. The private sector handles operations through public concessions (which save for exceptions cannot exceed the length of 30 years) | Ministry of Public Works and Institute for Ports, that develop strategic planning and supervise and monitor the port sector. | Ministry of Public Works and Transport; jointly with and Port Authorities |
Major challenges | Linked to economic development and territorial planning | Aim: to reduce the number of P.As; include logistics hinterland into P.A. management; increased economic autonomy. | To reach a higher competitiveness and increased efficiency. To achieve financing, since public funds are not available | To achieve profitability of P.As. (set on yearly 2.5%); promotion of intermodality; improvement of environmental policies. |
Main laws and other legal documents | Law 496/92; Law 809/2004; Law 660/2008. | Law 84/94 | Decree-law 298/1993; Law 1998, Law 2012 | Law 30/2011 and RDL 2/2011 |
Discussion
-
The interaction of ever-advancing trade and globalization with technological change, as this produces feedback that can push traditional ports to the edge of their expansion capacity.
-
Partial attainment of the original objectives, which can prompt the consideration of what new goals might be needed, taking advantage of lessons learned and new instruments that were not part of the original design.
-
Changes in the market (and in technology), lack or excess of competition and shifts in bargaining power between actors within the market that can result in monopsonies or oligopsonies (the original objectives included the prevention of monopolies but not of monopsonies).
Conclusions
-
As opposed to their European counterparts, traditional concepts of ports continue to form the basis of port governance in Latin America, and their adaptability to change has proved to be lower than in the case of Europe.
-
There has been increased action in the European cases than in the Latin American cases to adapt ports (and, consequently, their governance) to the needs of an enhanced logistics chain.
-
An unequal rhythm of port governance adaptation to contextual changes requires that the reform be considered an ongoing process.
-
A profound revision of port governance would be advisable, particularly in South America, in order to adapt to changes and new challenges.
-
It is essential to elaborate a common definition of port governance. It is also essential to develop further studies on the extent of the term ‘landlord’, taking into consideration how it is merely the initial definition of public property and private exploitation that are common to the analysed cases, while there exists a large variety in the remaining components of governance and the relationship between State and individuals in port activity.