River ports ? in the broadest sense of the term, i.e. ranging from major industrial ports such as Duisburg, to simple quays or networks of piers ?naturally play an important role in the organisation and efficiency of river transport and shipping.
rnSome of them are situated close to urban areas, which have grown and encircled them, and exerted increasing pressure. Where they have not been simply discontinued, in addition to their logistical and port activities, they increasingly play an important role in the lives and leisure environment of surrounding populations.rn
rnIn terms of governance, these river ports are immensely varied.
rnIn the light of the concern shown by businesses, the public authorities and riverside residents for the proper use of inland waterways for transport, leisure and improvement of surroundings, and in the light of the changes of today and challenges of tomorrow, what constitutes good governance of river ports?
rnAnswering this question may bring into play political, economic, planning legal, historical, and perhaps even cultural, approaches.
rnThe aim of the Working Group held by the PIANC (The World Association for waterborne transport infrastructure) was to make a contribution to the issue in question, based on an analysis and outline description ?clearly subjective ? of the organisations of governance of a sample group of European and North American ports.
rnThe Working Group set itself a series of questions when comparing these organisations:rn
rn
- What are the explanatory factors for these differences in method of governance?
- Are they simply connected to history, national or local culture, the size of traffic or the local environment?rn
- Are there well-run and badly-run organisations?rn
- What are the current developments?rn
- And finally, what initial lessons can be drawn from these comparisons?
rnThe work mainly revolved around meetings with the managers of a sample group of ports and, of course, developed by the specific knowledge of each Working Group member, relating to the particular organisation in which the member worked and the governance issues for other ports, which were not directly included in the sample group selected.
rnThe aim of this report is not to present a piece of comprehensive legal work on the various forms of organisation, whether existing or potential; nor is its aim to contain all economic or commercial information gathered by the Working Group in the course of visits and meetings with managers.
rnIt is presented as follows:
- rnIn the first part, the report contains a summarised description of each port in the selected sample group (Basel, Mertert, Vienna, Krems, Duisburg, Liège, Meerhout, Pittsburgh, Jeffersonville, Memphis, London and Paris).rn
- Each description brings together economic information, and above all, some parameters which were revealed to be features of the method of governance and which were useful in contributing to overall ideas.rn
- In the second part, several of these characteristic parameters of organisation and management are analysed cross-functionally (for all the sample group).rn
- Finally, the last part contains, in the form of a conclusion, a summary of the issues which emerged as the most significant for the Working Group.rn
rnMETHOD
rnAny comparative analysis first raises the question of defining the outline of information to be compared. As shall be seen further in this report, this classic question can be defined in this case in many ways. Often, the idea that employees have of the scope or outline of â??theirâ?? port differs radically from one country or location to another, and also differs according to the relative position of these employees within the organisation. The aims of the Terms of Reference are to consider, in each case, the port system in its entirety; this means that the preferred scale is not ? insofar as possible ? just that of the usual legal or commercial definition in each case, but that of the relationship system between those concerned which is at the heart of governance issues.rn
rnWithin this port system, what we call the Managing Body (MB), is at the centre and upstream of all legal and commercial relations which make up the port system. It shall be seen that in certain cases, this managing body does not have the same geographical or legal scope as the port system being examined.rn
rnEach port system will be presented in five parts?:
rn
- Physical and geographical data.rn
- Traffic â?? general logistics.rn
- Main features of available services (machinery, rail tracks, etc.)rn
- Typical features of the managing body.rn
- Principal operators at the port.rn
rn
