Spaces:
Runtime error
Runtime error
| Chapter 18. Ports | |
| Group of Experts: Alan Simcock (Lead member) | |
| 1. Introduction | |
| Ports are the nodes of the world’s maritime transport system. Every voyage of a shi must begin and end at a port. Their size and distribution will therefore both reflec and contribute to the pattern of maritime transport described in Chapter 1 (Shipping). Since the maritime transport system is part of a much larger globa transport system, including road, rail, river and canal transport and the interchange between all the modes, the factors that determine the location and growth (an decline) of ports are manifold, and go well beyond an assessment of the marin environment. These non-marine factors (such as land and river transpor connections, location of population and industry and size of domestic markets) wil determine, to a large extent, the development of ports and, therefore, the way i which they affect the marine environment. Nodes, however, can becom bottlenecks, restricting the free flow of trade. Before the economic crisis of 2008 there were fears that port capacity could limit the development of world trad (UNCTAD, 2008). That problem has receded with the widespread economic slow down, but could easily re-appear. This would lead to increased pressure for ne port developments. | |
| Just as containerization has transformed general cargo shipping from the mid-20 century onwards, so it has also transformed the nature of the ports that containe ships use. In the past, ports relied on large numbers of relatively unskille dockworkers to do the physical work of loading and unloading general cargo, ofte on a basis of casual labour, with no security of regular work. Containerization an parallel improvements in the handling of bulk cargoes have transformed thi situation. Ports now require smaller numbers of much more skilled workers, an even more investment in handling equipment. | |
| 2. Scale and magnitude of port activity | |
| Ports can be classified in several different ways. Some ports are dedicated to single function (such as the handling of oil). Others are general, handling a variety o trades. Some are private, used for the traffic of one trader (or a small number o traders). Others are general, open to shipping in general. Some are designed fo bulk traffic, both dry and liquid. Others are for general cargo, which today usuall implies containers. And some ports are a mix of these various categories. (Thi chapter does not deal with marinas and other harbours for recreational vessels those are covered in Chapter 27 (Tourism and recreation)). | |
| © 2016 United Nations | |
| Dry bulk traffic covers the five major bulk trades (iron ore, coal, grain bauxite/alumina and phosphate rock), together amounting to 2,786 million tons i 2013, and the minor bulk trades (soymeal, oilseed/meal, rice, fertilizers, metals minerals, steel andforest products), together amounting to 2,300 million tons in 2013 The main tanker bulk traffic (crude oil, petroleum products, and liquefied natural gas amounted to 2,904 million tons. There is also a much smaller market in bulk tanke carriage of chemicals (UNCTAD, 2013). | |
| The location of ports for handling bulk traffic is usually determined by the location o their sources of supply and demand. A new oil field may well demand the creatio of a completely new port, as happened with the creation of Sullom Voe in th Shetland Islands in the United Kingdom in the 1970s at the beginning of th exploitation of North Sea oil and gas (Zetland, 1974). A large iron and steel work may be linked to the creation of new port facilities to receive imports of iron ore, a is happening at Zhanjiang in China (Baosteel, 2008). As a result of geographical o historical factors, some ports for bulk traffic can have awkward conjunctions in thei location. For example, in Australia, the coal mines in Queensland need more por outlets, but the likely locations for ports are near the Great Barrier Reef, which give rise to difficult decisions (Saturday Paper, 2014). In the United Kingdom, the Milfor Haven oil terminal grew up gradually over many years in the safe natural harbour o Milford Haven. It is currently the United Kingdom’s largest oil port, with throughput of hydrocarbons in bulk of 40 million tons a year. However, the Unite Kingdom’s first marine nature reserve, Skomer Island, is near the mouth of th harbour (Donaldson, 1994; DfT, 2014). | |
| The containerization of general cargo, the consequent reduction of trans-shipmen costs and the use of ever larger ships has changed the nature of the demand fo general cargo ports over the past half century. Instead of relatively small ship moving directly from the origin to the destination of the cargo, thus minimising th then expensive trans-shipment costs, there is now a hierarchy of ports, with cargoe passing through entrepdts where they are trans-shipped. Rotterdam, in th Netherlands, is a good example of such an entrepdt, with many other North Se ports receiving the trans-shipped goods. (Haralambides, 2002). The proportion o worldwide total container movements that involve trans-shipment is graduall increasing (25 per cent in 2000: 28 per cent in 2012 (Notteboom et al., 2014)). Th nature of this hierarchy shows that there is a major equatorial shipping route linkin major ports, with supporting north-south and transoceanic routes. The “trans shipment markets” identified are the zones within which ports are competing wit each other for the long-haul business, which will be trans-shipped for delivery to it final destination by ship, road or rail (Rodrigue, 2010, figure 13). Containerize general cargo amounted to 1.6 billion tons in 2012 — an estimated 52 per cent o global seaborne trade in terms of value (UNCTAD, 2013). The imbalances i containerized exports and imports, the liberalization of trade regulation and transi facilitation are resulting in a growth of containerization of trades previously handle as bulk. Since more containerized imports arrive in some ports than there ar exports from those ports to fill the containers, the shipping costs for the return o onward journey using the surplus containers are low. This acts as a form of subsid on the use of such containers, and thus attracts business from the bulk trades. For | |
| © 2016 United Nations | |
| example, between 2008, when grain trading was deregulated in Australia, and 2013 the country’s containerized wheat export shipments increased tenfold (UNCTAD 2013). | |
| The world’s busiest container port is Shanghai in China, with 33.62 million TE movements in 2013. Table 1 sets out the numbers of container movements for eac of the further five container ports with the heaviest traffic. Outside these areas there are of course other very large and busy ports — for example (with millions o TEU movements in 2013): Los Angeles, California, USA (7.87), Long Beach, California USA (6.73) and New York/New Jersey, USA (5.47). In total, the world’s 50 busies container ports in 2013 were spread as follows: | |
| (a) Twenty-four in the west Pacific (ten in China; three in Japan; two each i Indonesia and Malaysia; and one each in Hong Kong, China, th Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Taiwan Province of China Thailand and Viet Nam); | |
| (b) Four in the eastern Pacific (two in the United States of America and on each in Canada and Panama); | |
| (c) Seven in the Indian Ocean (two in the United Arab Emirates and one eac in India, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and South Africa); | |
| (d) Eleven in the eastern Atlantic and adjacent seas (two each in German and Spain and one each in Belgium, Egypt, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands Turkey and the United Kingdom); and | |
| (e) Four in the western Atlantic (two in the United States and one each i Brazil and Panama) (WSC, 2014). | |
| Table 1. The world’s busiest container ports in the five major transhipment markets — 2013. | |
| PorT COUNTRY TEU MOVEMENT 2013 | |
| (MILLIONS) | |
| World’s busiest container port | |
| Shanghai China 33.62 | |
| North-East Asia | |
| Busan Republic of Korea 17.6 Qingdao China 15.5 Tianjin China 13.0 Dalian China 10.8 Keihin ports (Kawasaki, Tokyo, Yokohama) Japan 8.3 Central East Asia | |
| Hong Kong China 22.3 Ningbo-Zhoushan China 17.33 | |
| © 2016 United Nations 3 | |
| Port CouNTRY TEU MOVEMENT 201 (MILLIONS Guangzhou China 15.3 Kaohsiung Taiwan Province of 9.9 Chin Xiamen (formerly known as Amoy) China 8.0 South-East Asi Singapore Singapore 32.6 Port Kelang Malaysia 10.3 Tanjung Pelepas Malaysia 7.6 Tanjung Priok Indonesia 6.5 Laem Chang Thailand 6.0 Middle East and Indian Sub-Continen Jebel Ali, Dubai United Arab Emirates 13.6 Jeddah Saudi Arabia 4.5 Colombo Sri Lanka 4.3 Jawaharlal Nehru Port (near Mumbai) India 4.1 Sharjah United Arab Emirates 4.1 Mediterranea Algeciras Bay Spain 4.5 Valencia Spain 4.3 Ambarli (near Istanbul) Turkey 3.3 Port Said Egypt 3.1 Marsaxlokk Malta 2.7 North-West Europ Rotterdam Netherlands 11.6 Hamburg Germany 9.3 Antwerp Belgium 8.5 Bremen and Bremerhaven Germany 5.8 Felixstowe United Kingdom 3.7 South-East USA and Central Americ Colon Panama 3.3 Balboa Panama 3.1 Georgia Ports (Savannah, Brunswick) United States 3.03 | |
| © 2016 United Nations | |
| Port COUNTRY TEU MOVEMENT 201 (MILLIONS Hampton Roads (Newport News, Norfolk, United States 2.2 Virginia Beach) Houston* United States 1.47 | |
| * Not among the world’s 50 busiest container ports. | |
| Source: WSC, 2014: http://www.worldshipping.org/about-the-industry/global-trade/top-50-world container-ports. | |
| 3. Socioeconomic aspects of ports | |
| The arrival of containerization of general cargo and the increased mechanization o the handling of bulk cargoes has transformed employment in the dock industry. I has reduced the amount of human physical effort, increased the amount of wor done by machinery and reduced substantially the risks of death and injury t dockworkers. As a result, it has also decreased substantially the number o dockworkers required. Negotiations over the change have therefore often bee difficult, particularly in the early years of the introduction of containerization. Th change has now spread worldwide, and few ports still rely on the handling of genera cargo parcel by parcel. However, statistics at global level on the effects of th change are not available (ILO, 2002). | |
| The economic effects on port operations have been no less thoroughgoing. Thre main strands of change have been noticeable: | |
| (a) As the economics of ship operation have created pressures for eve larger ships, both for bulk carriage of cargoes and for containers (se Chapter 17 — Shipping), so pressures have developed on ports to creat the facilities to handle these larger ships. These pressures have require ports to invest in deeper-water facilities, bigger cranes and navigationa improvements in order to accommodate the larger ships. These have al required substantial investment; | |
| (b) The general liberalization of the terms of world trade and consequen growth in shipping have led to ports being placed more and more i competition with each other. Coupled with the development o hierarchies among ports in container traffic, where large ships are use for long voyages between hubs, and the containers are then re distributed in smaller ships on shorter voyages, this has led to the nee for ports to work together to offer shipping lines and (through them shippers a comprehensive service. At the same time, in many parts o the world there has been a substantial transfer of the operation of port (and, in some cases, the ownership of the land and equipment of th ports) from the public sector to the private sector. The combined effec of these various trends has been the creation of large commercial | |
| © 2016 United Nations 5 | |
| groupings of ports around the world. Some of these groupings hav sprung from a successful operator of a specific port: the Port o Singapore Authority is the leading example of this type of development with interests in 25 terminals around the world. Others have sprun from major shipping lines: APM Terminals is controlled by the majo Danish maritime shipping enterprise A P Mgller Mzersk, and has interest in 71 ports around the world. Another starting point for assembling chain of ports has been sovereign wealth funds: for example, Dubai Port World has interests in more than 65 terminals around the world. Th final major type of port grouping is represented by Hutchison Por Holdings, part of the Hutchison Whampoa group, which developed fro a dock-operating company in Hong Kong; it has interests in 52 ports These four groups alone therefore have major interests in over 200 port worldwide. There are a number of smaller similar chains, largely with regional focus: these include SSA Marine in North America and Eurogat in Europe (privately-owned companies), Hanjin and Evergreen (linked t ocean carriers) and Ports America (owned by financial holdin companies) (Rodrigue, 2010). In many countries, however, ports remai under the control of government agencies or chambers of commerce, o are independent public agencies; | |
| (c) The larger sizes of ships have intensified the pressures to handle them i port in the shortest possible time. Ship owners want their capital to b earning money on voyages as much as possible, and therefore dislike th ships being tied up in port — or, even more, waiting at sea until they ca get into a port berth. This, coupled with the more stringen requirements arising from growing trade volumes, global value chains increasingly time-sensitive trade and lean supply chains, has led t increased competition between ports, intensified the pressure on port to service ships and handle their cargo the shortest possible time an produced an intense focus on the efficiency of ports. | |
| One important aspect of the economics of port operation is security against thef and disruption. In 2002, the International Maritime Organization adopted a ne chapter in the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) an promulgated the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code to improv ship and port security. This is supported by the joint IMO/International Labou Organization code of practice on security in ports. These instruments provide consistent baseline worldwide, by clarifying the desirable division of responsibilitie for issues such as access control, cargo and ship stores control, and facilit monitoring to prevent unauthorized persons and materials from gaining access t the port. The ISPS Code came into force in 2004. Gaps still remain in some areas t implement these arrangements (IMO, 2015). | |
| 3.1 Efficiency | |
| In 2012, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD published a study on port efficiency that it had commissioned (Merk and Dang, | |
| © 2016 United Nations | |
| 2012). This study sought to compare the efficiency of ports around the world, in th different fields of containers, grain, iron ore and oil, looking at proxies for the input of each type of port to the handling of cargoes and the throughput achieved measured in terms of the dead-weight tonnage (dwt) passing through the port. Fo container ports, the study concluded that, with the exception of Rotterdam in th Netherlands, the most efficient ports were mostly located in Asia. |The mos efficient container ports were not necessarily the largest ports. Among most efficien ports are some of the largest global container ports (for example, Hong Kong, China Singapore; and Shenzhen and Shanghai in China) (handling from 20 to 60 million dw per port per month), but also medium to small size ports. For bulk oil ports, i concluded that, with the exception of Galveston, Texas, in the United States an (again) Rotterdam in the Netherlands, the most efficient oil ports are mostly locate in the ROPME/RECOFI area’, but not all ports in that region are operating efficiently In this case, size does matter: the most efficient terminals are largely those with th largest throughput. In the case of bulk coal ports, the study concluded that a grou of coal ports in Australia and China were clearly more efficient than nearly all th rest of the sample, although Velsen/IJmuiden in the Netherlands, Banjamarsin i India and Puerto Bolivar in Colombia were equally good. In the case of iron-ore an grain ports, the study concluded that, in both cases, larger ports were more efficient It also concluded that, for grain ports, the least efficient terminals tend to be foun in developed OECD countries. It should be noted, however, that the methodology o the study inevitably tends to rate a port as less efficient if, for historical reasons, it past investment has provided more facilities than is required for current levels o traffic. | |
| It is instructive to compare the results of this study with the ranking published by th World Bank of the quality of the infrastructure of ports in different countries. This i based on a questionnaire to members of the World Economic Forum, which ha been running for some 30 years. Recent rounds of the survey have included aroun 13,000 respondents from around 130 countries. Although subjective, the view expressed are likely to influence trade and investment decisions. The classificatio runs from 7 (efficient by international standards) to 1 (extremely underdeveloped) In 2012, the best-regarded ports were those in the Netherlands and Singapore, bot being ranked at 6.8. Table 2 shows the countries whose ports are regarded as bein in categories 6 and 5. | |
| , Regional Organization for the Protection of the Marine Environment (ROPME) Members: Bahrain Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates Regional Commission for Fisheries (RECOFI) Members: Bahrain, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Kuwait Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates. | |
| © 2016 United Nations | |
| Table 2. Quality of Port Infrastructure | |
| Category6: Bahrain, Belgium, Finland VY, Germany VY, Hong Kong, China V, Iceland, Netherlands*\ Panama‘, Singapore, United Arab Emirates‘\. | |
| Category5: Australia7\, Barbados, Canada‘, Chile V, Cyprus VY, Denmark YW, Estonia, France VY, Ireland, | |
| Jamaica V, Japan, Lithuania, Malaysia, Maltat’, Namibia, New Zealand, Norway V, Oman’ Portugal, Qatar‘4s, Republic of Korea”, Saudi Arabia‘, Seychelles, Slovenia, Spaints, Suriname’S Sweden, United Kingdom’, United States of Americav. | |
| Those countries marked “fs had a higher ranking, and those marked WV a lower ranking, in 2012 than in 2009. | |
| Source: World Bank, 2012. | |
| The message from both these sources is that well-equipped and well-managed port can be found in all parts of the world — as can less well-equipped and less well managed ports. Given the importance of port effectiveness for world trade improving capacities both in the planning and construction of ports and in thei management could have beneficial effects. The facilities for the provision o accurate and timely navigational information to ships using ports is an importan element of the equipment for the efficiency and effectiveness of ports, particularl in view of the adverse impacts on the marine environment from ships’ casualties. | |
| 3.2. Charging | |
| Charges for the use of ports raise some important issues. First, there is how t charge for services rendered. The normal recommendation of economists is tha charges should only be levied if a service is delivered: economic theory argue against cross-subsidization between services. In the case of ports, however, there i a strong argument that ships’ operators should not normally be able to opt out o paying for port waste-reception facilities. If they can opt out, they have an economi incentive not to pay for the disposal of their waste and to retain it on board unti they can throw it into the sea, thereby aggravating the problem of marine debris The European Union has adopted legislation requiring its ports generally to apply th rule of no separate charge for waste-reception facilities (EU, 2000). Whatever for a charge takes, it is important that the money is applied towards th environmentally sustainable disposal of the waste (see Chapter 17). | |
| Secondly, there is the question of how far the port operator should be expected t cover the costs of providing the port. This applies both landward and seaward. I the landward direction, it is important that ports have adequate road, rail or inland waterway connections to the port’s hinterland. Otherwise, any efficiency gains i the port are cancelled out by the inefficiencies of transport into the hinterland. Thi can be very important for the economic viability of the port, since competitors ma be able to offer a better deal overall. There is then the question of how far the cost of such adequate connections should be financed from the port charges rather tha from government revenues or charges on the users of the connections. Decisions o this can only be taken for each port in the light of the policies of its possibl competitors. | |
| © 2016 United Nations 8 | |
| A parallel situation arises in the seaward direction, where there is often a need fo dredging to maintain the access channels. In some countries, port operators hav pressed governments to fund all or part of the costs of deepening and widenin navigation channels, since they find themselves faced with competition fro neighbouring ports which have natural deep-water harbours. | |
| 3.3 Landlocked countries | |
| Because of the large proportion of international trade that is transported by sea (se Chapter 17 — Shipping), landlocked countries have particular difficulties from thei lack of seaports. The 31 landlocked developing countries (LLDCs), 16 of which ar among the least-developed countries (LDCs), face serious challenges to their growt and development, derived in substantial part from their problems in accessin maritime transport. In general, LLDCs face a 45 per cent higher ratio of freigh charges to total value of exports and imports than the average of the developin countries through which their exports and imports must transit (LLDCs, 2011). Thi is a further aspect of capacity-building gaps to improve the efficiency of ports in th transit countries. | |
| 4. Impacts on the marine environment from port operations | |
| The direct impacts on the marine ecosystem from ports take three main forms: first the concentration of shipping, secondly, the demand for coastal space and, thirdly the need for deep water. Chapter 26 (Land/sea interaction) considers other impact that result from the transformations caused to the shoreline by the creation of port and harbours. | |
| 4.1. Concentration of shipping | |
| The concentration of shipping is generally an inevitable result of a successful port Where a port takes part in a general market for port services, the more successfu the port is, the greater are the size and number of the ships that it will serve. Thi means that discharges and emissions from the ships will be higher and have a mor concentrated effect on the marine environment around the port. Even if eac individual ship maintains the best practicable level of control over its impact increasing levels of shipping to and from a port will result in increasing overal impacts, unless the best practicable means of control can be improved. Chapter 1 (Shipping) discusses the impacts from ships, particularly chronic oil discharges garbage, sewage, anti-fouling treatments, air pollution and noise. All these can b controlled, but that control is more in the hands of the ships’ masters and owner than in the hands of the port authority. Port authorities and governments can however, influence these aspects through their charging policies and thei enforcement of international standards. Because many ports have competition fro their neighbours, effective action is likely to require agreement at a regional level. | |
| © 2016 United Nations | |
| For this reason, the regional memorandums of understanding on port-state contro have an important role in managing the impact of ports on the marine environment Other effects, such as the turbidity caused by ships’ propellers disturbing sediments are more site-specific, and can to some extent be controlled by port navigation rules Nevertheless, such turbidity (and the subsequent re-settlement of sediment) ca have adverse impacts on sensitive habitats, such as corals and sea-grass beds (Jones 2011). | |
| In all these cases, port authorities and port operators have some important roles t play in managing the impacts of ships. Adequate waste-reception (and especially fo cruise ships) sewage-reception facilities are important for preventing marine debri and eutrophication problems. Likewise, adequate land-based electricity supplie (“cold ironing”) for ships that need to run equipment while in port (especiall refrigerator ships) are essential to reduce air pollution, since otherwise they mus run the ships’ generators while they are in port. | |
| The IMO has set up a system whereby ships’ operators can report inadequacies i port reception facilities. This can be found a https://gisis.imo.org/Public/PRF/ReportedCases.aspx. It enables ships to report th problems that they have encountered and port authorities to offer (if they wish explanations for such shortcomings and information on steps that are being taken t resolve them. Since the beginning of 2005, 279 inadequacies have been reported States have responded in only 76 cases (although there are several where the por State had not been notified). | |
| 4.2 Coastal space | |
| The demand for coastal space in ports is tied up with the growth in container traffic Space is needed next to the berths for the containers to be off-loaded. In step wit the development of container traffic, there has therefore been a substantial growt in the land needed for container ports. Rodrigue (2010, in figure 3) shows th current scale of coastal space occupied by container ports. These are particularl demanding of coastal space because they have to have level space to hold th containers until they can be forwarded into the hinterland: bulk cargoes ar normally transferred directly to less space-demanding storage. | |
| Further growth in port throughput will inevitably result in further demand fo container storage space at ports. This demand is rarely going to be able to be me from land that is not part of the coast, because around most ports this land i already committed to other forms of development (such as housing or industry which are also essential for the growth of the port. As discussed in Chapter 2 (Land/sea physical interaction), this demand has therefore often been met by lan reclamation — often from mangroves or salt marshes (for the pressures on which se Chapters 48 (Mangroves) and 49 (Salt marshes). These pressures are likely t continue. There is therefore a need for further investigation on how ports ca handle increasing numbers of containers without increasing their demands fo coastal space. | |
| © 2016 United Nations 1 | |
| 4.3 Deep water | |
| The third pressure generated by ports is for deep water access channels. Thi normally means that dredging is used to deepen and widen the channels throug sedimentary deposits, although in some cases it can involve blasting a channe through rock or (in rare cases) through coral reefs. Lack of available dredging service may constrain what can be done to provide deep-water access, and thus affect port’s competitiveness. Dredging can also affect the hydrodynamics of an estuar with consequences for adjacent beaches and seabed stability over broad area (Pattiaratchi and Harris, 2002). Where dredging is used on areas not previousl dredged, the impact on the bottom-dwelling flora and fauna may have to b balanced against the advantages of the improved access for ships. Where blasting i the only method available for providing the necessary deep-water access, th judgement is even more difficult, because it may mean the destruction o ecosystems based on a rocky or coral reef substrate. The quantities of material to b lifted by dredging can be immense (see Chapter 24 — Disposal of solid waste) an difficult judgements may have to be made about where the disposal should tak place (Brodie, 2014). Where the dredging has to be done in the estuary of a rive with a history of heavy industrial development, even more difficult judgements ma have to be made about whether the dredged material should be re-introduced to th sea at all, given the risk of remobilising hazardous substances that have bee sequestered in the sediments (see again Chapter 24 — Disposal of solid waste). Th effects of elevated turbidity from dredging operations can have negative impacts o seagrasses (Erftemeijer and Lewis, 2006) and other benthic communities (Newell e al., 1998). | |
| 5. Integrating environmental, social and economic aspects | |
| Port development is a special case of the issues raised by integrated coastal-zon management. Economically, it is always of high importance for the coastal Stat (and for the landlocked States that depend on transit through the coastal State). Th pressures from ports will grow in step with the growth in international trad between coastal States, except to the extent that it is possible to improve th performance of ships and port installations. Port development also focuses togethe a large bundle of difficult trade-offs: increased benefits from trade, increase impacts from shipping, increased demand for coastal space and increased deman for creating or maintaining access channels. The growth in port throughput wil therefore nearly always be accompanied by increased pressures on th environment. Social effects will be less pressing, because the changes needed as result of the changeover to containerization are now largely in the past, and th social adjustments have been made. They will, however, need to be taken int consideration for those ports that have not yet joined the global consensus o containerization. A careful review of the different interests will therefore always b essential if port development is to be sustainable. | |
| © 2016 United Nations 1 | |
| 6. Information and capacity-building gaps | |
| 6.1 Knowledge gaps | |
| Since ports constitute a significant economic sector, much information is availabl about them and their operations. What seems to be lacking is systemati information bringing together worldwide the operational aspects of ports and thei impacts on the local marine environment, and their contribution to economi activity. | |
| 6.2 Capacity-building | |
| Since the operation of a port can significantly affect both the successful operation o ships and the economic performance of the countries it serves, some ports nee capacity-building in the operational skills needed for successful port operation. Thi is particularly important for ports that are serving as transit ports for landlocke countries, since the landlocked countries rely on the quality of port management i the transit country or countries, and are not in a position to insist on improvements. | |
| It is important to develop (and then maintain) the capacities of port States both t implement the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code and relate instruments and to carry out port-State inspections of ships, so as to enforce th internationally agreed standards for ships. Capacities to provide ships with good real-time information on local navigational issues are also important. | |
| Since the delivery to shore of garbage from ships in general is an important elemen of combating marine debris problems, ports which do not have adequate and easil used port waste-reception facilities need to have their capacities in this fiel improved. The same applies to sewage-reception facilities for cruise ships in relatio to eutrophication problems. | |
| Where ports which need dredging to maintain or improve navigation adjoin bays rivers or estuaries with a history of industrial discharges, there is a need for them t have the capacity to examine the dredged material to decide whether it can safel be re-deposited in the sea. | |
| © 2016 United Nations 1 | |
| References | |
| Baosteel (2008). Baostee! Bought Shares of Zhanjiang Port Group http://www. baosteel.com/group_en/contents/2863/38876.html (accessed 1 June 2014). | |
| Brodie, J. (2014). Dredging the Great Barrier Reef: Use and misuse of science Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 142. | |
| DfT (United Kingdom Department for Transport) (2014). UK Port Freight Statistic 2013 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ ile/347745/port-freight-statistics-2013.pdf (accessed 20 October 2014). | |
| Donaldson of Lymington, Lord (1994). Cleaner Seas, Safer Ships: Report of Lor Donaldson's Inquiry into the Prevention of Pollution from Merchant Shipping Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London (ISBN 978-0101256025). | |
| Erftemeijer, P.L.A., Lewis Ill, R.R.R. (2006). Environmental impacts of dredging o seagrasses: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52. | |
| EU (European Union) (2000). Directive on port reception facilities (Directiv 2000/59/EC). | |
| Haralambides, H.E. (2002). Competition, Excess Capacity, and the Pricing of Por Infrastructure, International Journal of Maritime Economics, Vol. 4 (4). | |
| ILO (International Labour Organization) (2002). General Survey of the report concerning the Dock Work Convention (No. 137) and Recommendation (No 145), 1973. (ISBN 92-2-112420-7). | |
| IMO (International Maritime Organization) (2015). The International Ship and Por Facility Security Code (ISPS Code (http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Security/Instruments/Pages/ISPSCode.asp accessed 20 April 2015). | |
| Jones, R.J. (2011). Environmental Effects of the Cruise Tourism Boom: Sedimen Resuspension from Cruise Ships and the Possible Effects of Increased Turbidit and Sediment Deposition on Corals (Bermuda). Bulletin of Marine Science Volume 87, Number 3, 2011. | |
| LLDCs (Group of Landlocked developing Countries) (2011). Position Paper on th draft outcome document for UNCTAD XIII, Geneva (UNCTAD Documen TD/450). | |
| Merk, O., Dang, T.T. (2012). Efficiency of World Ports in Container and Bulk Cargo | |
| (oil, coal, ores and grain), OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2012/09, OECD Publishing, Paris. | |
| Newell, R.C., Seiderer, L.J., Hitchcock, D.R., (1998). The impact of dredging works i coastal waters: a review of the sensitivity to disturbance and subsequen recovery of biological resources on the sea bed. Oceanography and Marin Biology Annual Review 36. | |
| © 2016 United Nations 1 | |
| Notteboom, T., Parola, F. and Satta, G. (2014). Progress Report on EU Researc Project: Synthesis of the information regarding the container transshipmen volumes (http://www.portopia.eu/wp content/uploads/2015/01/Transshipment.pdf accessed on 20 April 2015). | |
| Pattiaratchi, C.B., Harris, P.T. (2002). Hydrodynamic and sand transport controls o en echelon sandbank formation: an example from Moreton Bay, easter Australia. Journal of Marine Research 53. | |
| Rodrigue, J. (2010). Maritime Transportation: Drivers for the Shipping and Por Industries, in International Transport Forum 2010 “Transport and Innovation Unleashing the Potential” http://www. internationaltransportforum.org/Proceedings/Genoa2010/Rodrig e.pdf (accessed 29 November 2013). | |
| Saturday Paper (2014). Great Barrier Reef dredging goes to federal court, 29 March http://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/environment/2014/03/29/great barrier-reef-dredging-goes-federal-court/1396011600 (accessed 3 Decembe 2014). | |
| UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) (2008). Outcom of the meeting “Globalization of port logistics: opportunities and challenges fo developing countries” (UNCTAD document TD/419). | |
| UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) (2013). Review o Maritime Transport, Geneva (ISBN 978-92-1-112872-7). | |
| World Bank (2012). Quality of Port Infrastructure http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IQ.WEF.PORT.XQ (accessed 14 Januar 2014). | |
| WSC (World Shipping Council) (2014). Top 50 World Container Ports http://www.worldshipping.org/about-the-industry/global-trade/top-50-world container-ports (accessed 20 October 2014). | |
| Zetland (1974). Zetland County Council Act (1974 c. viii). | |
| © 2016 United Nations 1 | |