You are on page 1of 14

Transport Reviews, Vol. 25, No.

1, 117–130, January 2005

Transformation of Port Terminal Operations: From the


Local to the Global

BRIAN SLACK* AND ANTOINE FRÉMONT**


*Department of Geography, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada; **Department of
Geography, University of Le Havre, Le Havre, France

(Received 23 May 2003; revised 3 November 2003; accepted 15 December 2003)

ABSTRACT The bases for the internationalization of the port terminal industry are
explored. While the industry is being transformed by the penetration of transnational
companies, there are important regional differences between Europe and North America.
In Europe, the lead actors are companies that have arisen out of the industry itself,
whereas in North America, most of the new actors are shipping lines. The consequences
of this differentiation are substantial, since they represent fundamentally different types of
organization, one being a product of horizontal integration based on multi-user berth
operations, the other being an outcome of vertical integration and oriented towards
dedicated berth use. The dissimilarities are explained in terms of governance, competition
and capacity. Intraregional differences are also examined through the case of France, where
an unwillingness to open French ports to global operators has affected the performance of
those ports. The paper concludes by discussing some of the implications of the findings,
including the issue of monopoly control of ports and the potential for conflict between the
two models of contemporary cargo handling.

Introduction
Despite there having been a variety of institutional arrangements governing ports
in the past 50 years (Adams, 1973; Goss, 1990; Stevens, 1999), two models typified
container terminal management up to the very end of the 20th century. Some port
authorities provided cargo-handling services themselves, investing in and
operating terminal equipment, and directly employing dock labour. A second
model involved contracting terminal and stevedoring operations to third parties.
Examples of each model could be found in ports across the spectrum from state-
owned facilities to those under different forms of control. Whether there was
direct or leased management of container terminals, operations tended to have a
local character, since in the leased model the firms tended to be locally based, and
in the direct port ownership model operations were inevitably local (Martin and
Thomas, 2001). This pattern held sway for much of the 20th century up to the last

Correspondence Address: Brian Slack, Department of Geography, Concordia University, 1455 boul. de
Maisonneuve W., Montreal, Canada H3G 1M8. Email: slack@vax2.concordia.ca

0144-1647 Print/1464-5327 Online/05/010117-14 © 2005 Taylor & Francis Ltd


DOI: 10.1080/0144164042000206051
118 B. Slack and A. Frémont

decade. Thus, in the case of Europe’s leading port, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, a
number of firms operated the terminals on lease from the municipally owned port
authority (Doe and Schoenmakers, 1998), while in London, it was the port
authority itself that ran the container terminals (Adams, 1973). Similarly, in the
USA, the Virginia Ports Authority operated the facilities at Norfolk (Marcus,
1976), while in the port of New York–New Jersey, facilities were leased to local
stevedoring firms (Warf, 1988). This simple distinction did not apply in every
case, and there were examples where the two systems operated in parallel in the
same port. An important feature of both models was the use of terminals for
multiple shipping line clients. Each terminal had its own collection of shipping
line customers for which container-handling services were provided on a
contractual basis.
Terminal operations have been caught up in a maelstrom of change over the last
decade. The former organizational and ownership structures have evolved in
very significant ways. Most notable has been the involvement of global actors in
terminal operations. There are two main types. Over the last few years, many
ports around the world have ceded container handling to a small number of
transnational terminal operating companies (TTOs). The result has been that
whereas in 1991 TTOs (including those identified as hybrids below) controlled
20% of container handling world wide, their share had grown to 35% by 2001
(Fossey, 2002). At the same time, international shipping lines have also extended
their interests in terminal operations by securing long-term leases over dedicated
berths. In 1991, the shipping lines controlled 11% of world container port
handling, and by 2001, their share had risen to 19%. Thus, at the start of the 21st
century, international companies controlled over half the world’s container-
handling business. Both developments resulted in the disappearance of inde-
pendent local terminal management firms. However, the differences, both
practical and theoretical, are very substantial. The TTOs pursue operations still
based upon the multi-user model. On the other hand, the shipping lines manage
dedicated terminals to work their own ships and those of other lines that are
members of the same strategic alliance. These differences also reflect a
fundamental organizational distinction. For the TTOs, their control over facilities
around the world is the outcome of an expansion horizontally. For the shipping
lines, control over terminal operations is a product of vertical integration. In the
terminal operating industry, therefore, two fundamentally different processes are
taking place with contrasting modes of operation.
The goal of the present paper is to provide an understanding of a process of
change that is manifesting itself in different ways and for different reasons. It
begins by examining why in less than 10 years there has been such a radical
restructuring of the port terminal industry. The literature on the subject suggests
that the restructuring has come about due to a number factors, including
globalization, economic restructuring, deregulation and privatization (Musso et
al., 2001; Notteboom and Winkelmans, 2001; Heaver, 2002). While the process of
restructuring is seen to have arisen out of forces that are global in scope, attention
is drawn to the fact that the transformation is uneven and that important regional
differences are evident. In the ports of the USA, dedicated terminals are far more
evident than in Europe where the TTOs hold greater sway, while in East and
North Asia a greater balance between TTOs and shipping line managed terminals
is evident. Europe and the USA appear to be at different ends of the spectrum and
therefore provide a useful set for comparative analysis.
Transformation of Port Terminal Operations 119

The question of why the distinctions between terminal operations should be


regionally based is explored by examining the differences between Europe and
the USA and also by taking the case of France, one of the few major markets in
the world where locally based terminal operators have persisted. By undertaking
this regional comparison and a local case study, it is hoped to understand more
fully how processes that are global in scope are modified by local circumstances.
This approach places the present study at the heart of a very large body of
research in the Social Sciences that is exploring the multifaceted and complex
spatial forms of global change (Hannerz, 1996; Gertler, 1997; Youssef et al., 2001).
The paper concludes by exploring several practical and research questions that
arise out of the internationalization of the port terminal industry. It raises
questions about the seeming loss of local control and the growing concentration
of power in the industry. It also speculates on the possible future conflicts
between the TTOs and the shipping lines as they seek to control still larger shares
of container handling.

New Terminal Management Systems


The global control of container terminal management has come about in part by
the appearance on the scene of several specialized international companies (i.e.
TTOs). These stevedoring and terminal management firms have expanded from
their former local spheres of operations and now control container docks in many
parts of the world. Examples include Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong Kong-based
company formerly exclusively focussed on Kwai Chung terminal in Hong Kong
(Airriess, 2001). Its competitor in Kwai Chung, Modern Terminals, has been a
more recent entrant on the global stage. The Port of Singapore Authority has also
aggressively expanded into many world port regions. The German operators of
container facilities in Hamburg and Bremerhaven have joined to form Eurogate,
a terminal management company of facilities in several other ports. SSA is a
privately owned US stevedoring firm that has expanded its operations from
several US ports into other market areas (Table 1).
These global players have arisen directly out of the industry itself. Their growth
is an example of horizontal integration, and the literature has suggested several
factors behind their burgeoning expansion (Musso et al., 2001). Most important is
the ability of horizontal expansion to allow firms to broaden their scale and scope.
Their original operations were limited, and the opportunities for internal growth
and greater profitability were becoming increasingly constrained (Notteboom and
Winklemans, 2001). Expansion allowed the companies to use their highly refined
and efficient management and operating practices in new situations, thereby
reaping greater profits than the previous managers had been capable of
producing (Bascombe, 1998). This has proved to be a very successful strategy, and
these global terminal operators have realized much higher profit levels than most
other sectors of the industry (Brennan, 2002).
The growth is also seen as an outcome of privatization and liberalization in the
ports industry (Bascombe, 1998; Musso et al., 2001). Privatization of the ports
sector has been a policy response in many countries to improve efficiency and
reduce the burden on public finances (Cullinane and Song, 2002). New
opportunities have been created, therefore, for terminal operators to enter new
markets and apply their management and operational expertise. These firms have
seized opportunities to acquire entire ports (Felixstowe, UK, in 1991) and major
120 B. Slack and A. Frémont

Table 1. Terminal operations of the terminal operating companies and shipping


lines

Terminal operating
companies Europe North America East and North Asia

HPH Felixestowe, Hong Kong, Shanghai,


Rotterdam, Yantian, Juizhou,
Thamesport, Harwich Nanhai, Shantou,
Jiangmen, Gaolan,
Xiamen, Ningbo
PSA Antwerp, Zeebrugge, Singapore, Dalian,
Genoa, Venice, Sines Nantong, Fuzhou,
Tiacang
Eurogate Bremen, Hamburg, La
Spezia, Giaio Tauro,
Lisbon
SSA Los Angeles, Long
Beach, New Orleans,
Oakland, Portland,
Seattle
Hybrids
P&O Ports Antwerp, Baltimore, New York, Shekou, Qingdao
Southampton, Tilbury, Portland, Norfolk,
Cagliari Miami, Gulfport, New
Orleans, Lake Charles,
Houston, Galveston,
Freeport
APM Rotterdam, Bremen, Tacoma, Oakland, Los
Giaio Tauro, Algeciras, Angeles, New York,
Aarhus Baltimore, Portsmouth,
Charleston,
Jacksonville, Port
Everglades, Miami,
New Orleans, Houston
Shipping lines
Evergreen Taranto, Sines Los Angeles, Tacoma Osaka, Busan,
Kaohsiung, Taichung
Hanjin Hamburg Long Beach, Oakland, Busan, Gwangyang,
Seattle Kaohsiung, Tokyo
MSC Antwerp, Leghorn New York, Los
Angeles
CP Ships Antwerp Montreal
K-Line Long Beach, Oakland, Tokyo, Yokohama,
Tacoma Kobe, Osaka,
Kaohsiung
OOCL Vancouver, Long Kaohsiung
Beach, New York,
Montreal
NYK Tacoma, Long Beach, Tokyo, Yokohama,
Oakland Oasaka, Kaohsiung
MOL Seattle, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Yokohama,
Oakland Kobe, Osaka,
Kaohsiung
APL Los Angeles, Oakland, Kobe, Yokohama,
Seattle Osaka, Kaohsiung
Transformation of Port Terminal Operations 121

terminals in ports (Rotterdam in 2001, Antwerp in 2002, both the Netherlands), or


to obtain joint venture participation with other actors, such as municipalities
(Shanghai, P. R. of China, in 1998).
The other source of global management of terminals has come from the
shipping industry (Heaver, 2002). It is widely recognized that many shipping
lines have sought to expand their operations into other sectors. Vertical
integration is seen as giving these lines control of more links of transport chains
(Musso et al., 2001; Notteboom, 2002). This provides economies of scope and
enables the carriers to control global door-to-door services more effectively.
Terminal operations have been a particularly attractive sector for several major
carriers. It is in the terminal where up to 50% of all costs involved in container
transport are generated (Fossey, 2002). Internalizing these costs through direct
management of terminals is seen as allowing the carriers greater control over
operations.
The major distinction between the carriers and the TTOs is that the former seek
to control only the berths used, while the latter manage multi-user facilities.
However, there are growing differences in the ways the container shipping lines
approach terminal management. Several of the largest liner companies have set
up separate terminal operating divisions that, operationally at least, stand apart
from the shipping sector. P&O Ports is a stand-alone division of a business group
that includes a major shipping line. It operates terminals on a multi-user basis.
More recently, Maersk, the largest shipping line, has established a separate
terminal management company, APM. Because of a wide range of ownership
relations, from joint ventures to total control, APM manages some facilities that
are dedicated and others that are multi-user. In the discussions that follow, these
firms are referred to as ‘hybrids’. More typical are the carriers that have obtained
leases to operate berths in ports dedicated to their own services. Thus, Hanjin
operates its own berths in Long Beach, CA, USA, and Evergreen has a terminal in
Taranto, Italy (Table 1).
The cases where the shipping lines manage their own facilities arise in
situations where the companies have sought to control ship and cargo handling
more closely (Turner, 2000). This is also the case for the separate terminal-
handling divisions of conglomerates that include major shipping interests.
Another justification proposed in the literature is the potential of adding further
value and of exploiting the greater levels of profitability that have been realized
in the port terminal industry as compared with shipping (Evangelista et al., 2001;
Notteboom and Winklemans, 2001; Brennan, 2002; Heaver, 2002).

Impacts: Changes at the Local Level


The effects of these developments have been profound. Port operations have
become less locally differentiated. Whether owned or managed by the TTOs or
leased or owned by shipping lines, port terminals have seen a decline in local
participation in the port community (Martin and Thomas, 2001). This is most
apparent in the role of the local port authorities themselves. In many cases, they
have ceded management and operational control of berths to the international
tenants, and their ability to control their own destinies has been reduced. This
state of affairs has already received much academic attention (Evangelista et al.,
2001; Heaver et al., 2001; Notteboom and Winkelmans, 2001). Port authorities are
seen as pawns in a global system that is imposing new organizational structures
122 B. Slack and A. Frémont

(Slack, 1993). For the new actors, individual ports are but one node in networks
that span the oceans and the world.
Former local stevedoring companies have also undergone a transformation,
with outright purchases or significant intervention from the new global players
(Ferrari and Benacchio, 2000). The need to install expensive information
technology systems, the pressures to replace equipment and to operate berths at
ever higher levels of throughput have imposed pressure on the traditional
terminal operating firms that many were unable to meet. The international
players offer such services, and hence have made rapid and extensive inroads in
ports around the world (Notteboom, 2002).
While the changes have resulted in a global internationalization of the port
industry, a distinct difference is emerging at the operational level in the degree
to which berths are operated for a single user or are managed for a number of
shipping line clients. The two models are very different. The multiple user
model is the traditional management and operational system. Here, the terminal
manager provides a range of equipment and manpower to handle vessels from
a number of client shipping lines. In this way, berths can be occupied more
fully, and the equipment theoretically can be used to its maximum efficiency in
which the idle time is minimized (Haralambedes et al., 2002). This is the system
that port authorities and terminal management companies prefer because it is
seen to use resources more effectively and because higher berth occupancy
results in higher revenues. Turner (2000) has estimated that if the Port of Seattle,
WA, USA, were to adopt multiple users at all its terminals, its capacity could
increase by 17% with no increase in terminal space. The dedicated terminal
model is one preferred by shipping lines in some circumstances, since it gives
them absolute control over operations (Haralambedes et al., 2002). Waiting time
for berths is minimized, and the particular needs of the traffic or the stacking
sequences can be planned to the complete satisfaction of the carrier (Heaver,
2002). The shipping lines’ interest in dedicated terminals is traffic dependent. If
the volume of traffic at the port is not great, the costs of managing a dedicated
terminal would make it uneconomic (Brennan, 2002). The tendency of the major
shipping lines to operate their mainline services out of a few hub ports has
resulted in a strong traffic concentration, a trend accentuated by the merging of
lines and the formation of strategic alliances. This has given the impetus for
carriers to seek dedicated terminals. On the other hand, many port authorities
have been reluctant to cede leases for dedicated facilities because of a potential
loss of revenue because of fewer ship calls and lower berth throughputs
(Haralambedes et al., 2002).

Regional Differences: European and North American Contrasts


The internationalization of container terminal operations cannot hide significant
regional and local differences. Several researchers have already noticed this
differentiation (Ryoo and Thanopoulou, 1999; Airriess, 2001; Musso et al., 2001;
Haralambedes et al., 2002). The TTOs have arisen from a small set of ports of
origin and their operations have diffused in different directions. Thus, SSA and
Eurogate have hardly expanded beyond their continents of origin; Hutchison
expanded strongly initially from Hong Kong to China and thence into Europe
(Airriess, 2001); PSA expanded from Singapore into Italy and then China and
finally into North West Europe.
Transformation of Port Terminal Operations 123

The net effect of these developments, however, is that Europe has seen much
greater involvement by the terminal operating firms than North America (Table
1). Three of the TTOs account for nearly 20 million TEU (twenty-foot equivalent
unit) of Europe’s container traffic. With the exception of the US-based SSA, none
of the major global ‘pure’ terminal operating companies has penetrated the North
American market.
Globalization in the North America industry has come from the shipping sector.
Two hybrids, P&O Ports and APM, have entered the terminal industry in the
USA, the former through its purchase in 1999 of ITO, a stevedoring firm that
operated on the East and Gulf coasts, the latter through inheriting Maersk and
SeaLand facilities. There is also a growing list of shipping lines involved in the
provision and operation of dedicated terminals (Table 1).
Several factors account for the regional differences. First is the degree of
liberalization that has occurred in the governance of ports in Europe. In the UK,
there has been a complete privatization of the ports industry (Thomas, 1994),
which has allowed interested parties to secure equity interest in ports. In Italy,
Spain and Portugal, port reform has opened management and control to the
private sector that has represented a fundamental transformation of the port
industry. It is significant that the greatest involvement of the international
terminal operators has been in these countries. In the Benelux (Belgium, the
Netherlands and Luxembourg) countries, the municipal port authorities have
responded only recently to the developments taking place elsewhere in Europe by
looking with favour on mergers between local terminal operators and the
involvement of foreign capital.
In the USA, equivalent port reform or liberalization has been absent. There,
municipal or state governments control ports and in many cases continue to
provide port services themselves. While not inamicable to private capital, the lack
of change in governance has not provided the catalyst for change that took place
in Europe. More important for the situation in the USA is the manpower situation.
US dock-workers are some of the most militant and restrictive of any in the world:
witness the container terminal strike on the West Coast in the Fall of 2002. Their
unwillingness to adjust to technological change and their insistence of maintain-
ing acquired rights has not been attractive to the TTOs, for whom modification of
labour practices is an essential step for greater efficiency and profitability. In
Europe, reforms in the UK and Italy essentially destroyed the power of the
unions, creating circumstances that encouraged the participation of TTOs.
Yet, why should the shipping lines be more prevalent in North American ports?
Again, it is suggested that governance provides a partial answer. However, there
is also the issue of a spatial strategy. US port authorities, particularly on the West
Coast, have been amenable to sacrificing potential higher utilization rates (and
hence higher revenues, possibly) for commitments to long-term leases and capital
investment by the lines. From their perspective, there is intense competition for
business, with neighbouring ports that are in a position to lure clients away. Los
Angeles, CA, faces immediate competition from Long Beach, and Seattle, Tacoma,
both WA, and Vancouver, BC, Canada, are keen local competitors. From the port
authority’s view, it is more important to secure commitments from the carriers to
continue to provide services than maximizing berth utilization rates. At the same
time, the lines have exerted strong pressure on the ports to obtain dedicated
facilities, because from their perspective there are few potential alternatives on the
West Coast. There may be six or seven major ports on the range, but they are
124 B. Slack and A. Frémont

clustered, and from a line’s point of view there are only three entry points: the
Pacific North West, Central California and San Pedro Bay. The need to secure
space at one or more of these entry points has been critical, and hence they are
driven to assure themselves of berths that they can manage and operate according
to their own needs.
The volume of business handled by the major carriers on the trans-Pacific trade
routes is a further factor. The lines have been more willing to agree to long-term
leases because the traffic justifies their operation of dedicated facilities, and the
port authorities have been ready to acquiesce because of port competition.
In Europe, on the other hand, the TTOs have secured a dominant position. They
have acquired ownership of terminals in some cases, and even where they are
leasing facilities, the port authorities see them as more preferable tenants because
of their high levels of expertise and promises of efficiencies. When in place, the
TTOs are even more reluctant than port authorities to consider offering carriers
dedicated berths because of perceived lower berth throughputs. An indication of
this is the recent opposition of HPH in Shanghai to proposals to invite
participation of the carriers in the development of the new deep-water terminal at
Yangshan. As the main terminal operator of the existing container facilities in
Shanghai, its manager claimed that ‘common user facilities are a better allocation
of resources, they assure greater neutrality and offer the highest productivity’
(Bangsberg, 2003).
The deterrent of US longshoremen for TTOs does not appear to be as serious a
consideration for the shipping lines. The explanation proposed here is speculative
and requires verification, but the difficulty of coming to an agreement with the
stevedores for working a berth is less of a problem than dealing with an entire
terminal involving many berths, several clients and a great range of terminal
operational demands.

French Ports: An Atypical European Case


In Europe, the case of the French ports constitutes a major exception. None of the
large international handling operators has established itself there, and at present
no shipping lines have made a French port their main hub in Europe. As a result,
the two largest French ports, Le Havre on the English Channel and Marseilles on
the Mediterranean, have suffered a decline in market share. In the North
European range, Le Havre’s market share fell from 9.0% in 1990 to 7.4% in 2000,
while that of Marseilles dropped from 12.1 to 5.2%. The very particular
organization of handling operations plays an essential role in explaining the
relative decline in the French ports. The example of France demonstrates the
importance of local conditions in attracting and locationally fixing intermodal
transport operators.
Compared with their European competitors, the French terminal-handling
companies are differentiated by their small scale and low levels of activity. In Le
Havre, three handling operators, GMP, CNMP and the Terminaux de Normandie,
share traffic of 1.7 million TEU/year, of which the leading handling operator, the
Terminaux de Normandie, accounts for only 40%. In Marseilles, two operators,
MGM-Eurofos and Seayard, combined handle 0.7 million TEU/year. With such
low traffic volumes, none of the companies can match the economies of scale
realized by the large handling operators elsewhere in Europe. French handling
operators also have limited financial backing. CNMP is a medium-sized company
Transformation of Port Terminal Operations 125

with a family capital. The Perrigault group, a major investor in the Terminaux de
Normandie, is a financial holding whose interest in cargo handling activity is
limited. GMP and MGM-Eurofos depend on public companies, some of which,
such as Féron de Clebsattel, a subsidiary of the French national railway company
SNCF, are themselves struggling with serious financial difficulties.
In contrast to their European competitors, French terminal companies are not
entirely responsible for running the container terminals they operate. They share
operations with the port authority, which causes extremely muddled relations,
which vary from port to port. In terms of equipment, the straddle carriers are
bought, run and maintained by the handling companies, while the gantry cranes
are bought, run and maintained by the port authorities. The gantry cranes are
then leased to the handling companies. In terms of the workforce, the dockers
have been salaried and employed by the terminal companies directly since the
reform of 1992, while the gantry crane operators and maintenance staff are
employees of the port authority. This extremely confusing system has led to the
dissipation of responsibilities between the different actors and has produced
inflexibility. Conflicts arise over the maintenance of the equipment, with the port
authority on the one side wishing to respect maintenance and safety require-
ments, while on the other side, the terminal operations companies seek to
maximize the use of equipment. The distinction between the gantry crane
operators and the dockers, who are responsible for all other activities within the
confines of the terminals, including the operations of the other lifting gear, has led
to strict working practices. According to the activity on the terminal, a gantry
crane operator can only drive a gantry crane and not a straddle carrier. The gantry
crane operators work for 2 hours at a time, which causes interruptions in
handling operations. French container ports remain at the level of a traditional
breakbulk port community (Martin and Thomas, 2001) characterized by a
fragmented system between the different actors who remain ignorant of one
another.
These difficulties result in low French container terminal productivity com-
pared with their European competitors. In Antwerp, Belgium, a container gantry
crane is used about 4000 hours/year compared with only 2600 hours in Le Havre.
Gantry cranes on average handle 30–35 containers/hour in Antwerp compared
with 20–25 in Le Havre. While Le Havre still possesses a locational advantage as
the first or last port of call on the Northern range, the low productivity of the
French terminals encourages neither a growth in traffic nor expansion, thus
restraining any modernization.
Why have French ports been unable to extricate themselves from the vicious
circle in which they are trapped? The dockers are an easy scapegoat. They are
affiliated with the large CGT trade union that is vehemently trying to preserve its
monopoly in the entire port sector. For example, a shipping line calling on a
private haulier to transport a container to a terminal requires the agreement from
the dockers’ union. The recruitment system is principally from father to son, from
one generation to the next. The reform of 1992 has allowed the dockers to be paid
on a monthly basis and to become ordinary salaried staff, but this has led to
numerous strikes that have tarnished the long-term reputation of French ports.
The reform has also put a financial strain on the already financially stretched port
authorities and handling companies because they have had to take on a large part
of the costs of the redundancy schemes that have drastically reduced manning
levels.
126 B. Slack and A. Frémont

However, this explanation is too simple. Other factors contribute to the


problem. Before 1992, the terminal companies did not have to attend to personnel
matters and, until recently, did not have to invest heavily in equipment. They
restricted themselves to realizing income from the container handling essentially
bound for the Paris market. They could count on the strong support of the port
authority to ensure a competitive rate compared with Antwerp or Rotterdam,
which was made possible by the low rental costs for port equipment, a cross-
subsidy from the revenues generated by the captive petroleum traffic. In case of
financial difficulties, they were even allowed to default on payments to the port
authorities so as not to tarnish the image of the ports. Why would the terminal-
handling companies be interested in changing a system that permitted them to
profit without making investments? As for the port authority, the weakness of the
handling operating companies allowed them to control port activity and to
develop new docks by using up space in order to offset low terminal
productivity.
Thus, it was in nobody’s interest locally to change such a system. It was
absolutely essential for the terminal operators to avoid the arrival of a powerful
outsider capable of disturbing such a lucrative established order. For the port
authority, its control over port activity justifies its own importance. For the union,
the size of its membership justifies its desire to maintain the status quo. The
dockers are an excuse, which through fear of social disorder allows the union, the
port authority and the terminal operators to resist any restructuring of the system.
All take advantage of exploiting the French market while remaining safe from
foreign competition. Even if the traffic of the ports of Le Havre and Marseilles
declines relative to the ports’ European competitors, it continues to increase in
absolute numbers of containers.
This system is in the process of disappearing. Change is coming from many
quarters. The first push came from the secondary ports, notably Nantes/St-
Nazaire on the North West Atlantic coast, and Dunkirk, on the Channel at the
Franco-Belgium border, where the need for reform was recognized in the early
1990s. Local dock union leaders played a considerable role in changing habits and
attitudes, and separated themselves from the militant Ports & Docks Federation.
The most spectacular advance was the setting up of a single command structure
at the heart of the port terminals under the responsibility of the terminal
operators. They are now entirely in charge of technical and commercial
operations. These advances were confirmed by a national decree in July 2000, thus
giving rise to the possibility that this innovation could spread to other French
ports.
The port of Le Havre recognizes that handling operations are the key to the
success of its ambitious expansion plans, Port 2000. Its proposals are based on
three principles. First, that partnership agreements between the shipping lines
and the local terminal operating companies be fostered with the creation of joint
ventures modelled on that between MSC and the Terminaux de Normandie.
Agreements have to guarantee performance criteria, long-term traffic and ensure
private investment in terminal superstructures to establish the loyalty of the
shipping lines. For the local handling operators, these alliances with the shipping
lines no doubt signify the end of their total independence, but guarantee their
survival. The second principle is not to exclude the arrival of a new international
operator that could guarantee economic performance. This appears to have been
fulfilled with the recent announcement that P&O Ports, along with CMA-CGM,
Transformation of Port Terminal Operations 127

have formed a joint venture to acquire an 80% interest in EGIS. Negotiations have
also taken place with the Hutchinson Group. However, there is a fear of the port
falling under the control of a powerful actor that nobody locally can control. The
third principle, therefore, is to guarantee the presence of public investment at the
heart of one of the present terminal operators, GMP.
The problem of managing terminal workers has still to be solved. Single
command implies the transfer of the port authority gantry crane operators and
maintenance staff to the private terminal operators. This transfer means a huge
redefinition in the role of the port authority, refocusing its role as a ‘facilitator’ of
projects between the different port actors. Change brings fear. In Marseilles, the
simple proposition of creating a new container terminal in Fos nearby, Fos 2XL,
under the new regulations, led to a 3-week strike in December 2000.
How these changes play out still remains to be seen. It is unlikely that the
French Government will get further involved, since it has more pressing social
and economic issues to address. The success of projects such as Port 2000 lies
essentially in the capacity of the local actors to find negotiated and innovative
solutions to competitive pressures that are at a global scale.

Issues and Trends


The present paper indicates that differences in port terminal management
systems are regionally based. The USA and Europe exhibit different models of
port terminal management, despite strong centralizing forces as a result of
globalization. At the same time, differences persist at the local level: between
France and the rest of the European Union, and between the West and East Coasts
of the USA. The present study has demonstrated that the uniqueness of France
has significant consequences for the performance levels and competitiveness of its
ports. This suggests that while there are significant economic and operational
consequences for one mode of global management system over another, these
differences are nuanced by other factors embedded in regionally grounded
institutional processes. There is a need to explore more fully the spatial
dimensions of the differences. The explanations for the distinctions between the
East and West Coasts of the USA require further analysis, for example, and it is
evident that there are differences between the ports of Northern Europe and the
Mediterranean. At the same time, an important question about whether these
distinctions are temporary needs to be addressed. Will globalization impose
standardization on the industry in the long run?
One of the major concerns arising out of the developments in terminal
management is the growing concentration of ownership in the terminal
management sector. In many European ports, the leading terminal company
accounts for between 50 and 100% of the total traffic (Notteboom, 2002). In
Europe, the three leading TTOs, HPH, PSA and Eurogate, control 72% of the total
market. This concentration is taking place in parallel with the growing
concentration of ownership in the world’s container shipping industry. The
market share of the top 20 carriers has increased from 35% in 1989 to 62% in 2002.
This is giving rise to concerns about ports becoming private monopolies.
Liberalization may have released many ports from national monopoly control,
but in its place have emerged private oligopolies (Notteboom, 2002).
The issue of monopoly concentration is of particular significance in the context
of the European Commission’s attempts to integrate ports into the Trans
128 B. Slack and A. Frémont

European Networks. Its directive aimed at opening access to ports and promoting
internal port competition appears to be at odds with the actual power of the
TTOs. Competition within and between ports appears to be marked increasingly
by competition between the different terminal networks of the TTOs. How can
European ports retain their independence of strategic choices when the interests
of the TTOs are pre-eminent? In seeking to promote port efficiency, are European
policy-makers indirectly favouring monopolies that will limit the abilities of local
public interests to intervene in planning European transport networks?
The two major types of port terminal operations, the multi-user terminal
management company and the dedicated berth managed by a shipping line,
represent outcomes of different economic processes. The TTOs are creations of
horizontal integration. The shipping lines’ interest in berth management is a
manifestation of vertical integration. The contemporary growth of both models
appears set to place them on a trajectory that may lead to future conflicts. With
increasingly more major ports ceding operations to TTOs, the lines are likely to
extract dedicated terminal space from the TTOs, something they have largely
resisted so far. Which model will prevail? Financially, the terminal industry
appears to be in much better shape than the shipping industry, but the shipping
lines are generally much larger companies, with greater capitalization. The lines
are customers of the TTOs and have the ability to shift from one to the other, and
so may have advantages in future competition. On the other hand, it may be that
in future the two will find it better to cooperate, either in loose strategic alliances
or in formal mergers. The ‘hybrids’ may be the direction in which the industry is
heading. As companies that manage terminals, they are affiliated with shipping
line groups and have grown in part by taking over former terminal operators,
such as ITO in the case of P&O Ports. The purchase in 2002 of CERES, a regional
North American terminal operator that had expanded into the Netherlands, by
NYK, a major Japanese carrier, may be seen as a strengthening of this trend.

Conclusion
Whatever its future, it is evident that port terminal management has undergone
a major transformation very recently. The changes have important theoretical and
practical implications. At the heart of the developments is the fundamental
contrast between the TTOs, which operate terminals for multiple clients, and the
dedicated terminals controlled by one shipping line. This distinction is differ-
entiated regionally, with Europe tending to a much greater degree towards the
TTO model and North America tending to a dedicated berth operation. This
finding is yet another example of the limits to globalization. The container
shipping lines and TTOs may be operating on a world scale, but their penetration
of markets is differentiated regionally. It is suggested that even regional
differences may mask more localized distinctions, between France and the rest of
the European Union, between the East and West Coasts of the USA for example.
Thus, it is observed that while local control in terminal handling can be ceded to
international actors, the scope and form of operations may be shaped by locally
determined governance issues.
Important questions arise out of the transformation of terminal management.
The economic efficiency of dedicated terminals versus common user facilities is a
basic research question. The evidence is unclear. Some research suggests that
multi-user facilities achieve higher levels of performance (Turner, 2000), while
Transformation of Port Terminal Operations 129

other studies claim higher throughputs for dedicated facilities (Carriou, 2003).
Research in this area is necessary to determine which model is best suited to what
particular type of port. However, the present study suggests that cost differentials
are not the only determinant, and that governance, institutional relationships and
spatial competition, factors that are regionally differentiated, are additional
considerations. An important question, therefore, is whether or not these forces of
regional differentiation diminish or grow. Finally, the question is raised of
whether public authorities may be forced to act to curb growing threats of
monopoly power in ports. So far, the academic evidence suggests a negative
(Notteboom, 2002), but with the continued expansion of both TTOs and shipping
lines in terminal operations in many regions, the ability to exert power over local
and regional supply chains is enhanced, and the interests of local port
communities is diminished. These are important questions, the answers to which
will help in the understanding of the nature of globalization and maritime
transport.

Acknowledgements
This paper is a much modified version of a presentation made at a seminar
organized by the Working Group on Globalisation E-Economy and Trade of
STELLA, Brussels, April 2003. The authors gratefully acknowledge the perceptive
and very helpful comments and suggestions from two anonymous referees.

References
Adams, G. (1973) Organisation of the British Transport Industry (London: National Ports Council).
Airriess, C. A. (2001) The reorganisation of Hutchison Port Holdings in Mainland China, Journal of
Transport Geography, 9(4), pp. 267–278.
Bangsberg, P. T. (2003) Hutchison, with new terminal, queries China model, Journal of Commerce, 3
March.
Bascombe, A. (1998) Battle stations, Containerisation International, May, pp. 39–43.
Brennan, J. R. (2002) Brave new world, Containerisation International, December, pp. 39–41.
Carriou, P. (2003) Dedicated terminals in container ports: a cost–benefit analysis. Paper presented at
the International Seminar: Maritime Transport, Globalisation and Regional Integration, Le Havre,
June.
Cullinane, K. and Song, D. W. (2002) Port privatisation: policy and practice, Transport Reviews, 22(1),
pp. 55–75.
Doe, A. V. and Schoenmakers, V. J. (1998) Port of Rotterdam: from landlord to mainport manager, in:
T. Kreukels and E. Wever (Eds) North Sea Ports in Transition, pp. 33–43 (Assen: Van Gorcum).
Evangelista, P., Heaver, T. and Morvillo, A. (2001) Liner shipping strategies for supply chain
management. Paper presented at the WCTR Conference, Seoul.
Ferrari, C. and Benacchio, M. (2000) Market structure in container terminal operations. Paper
presented at the IAME Conference, Naples.
Fossey, J. (2002) Global outlook of future trends in container shipping and port development. Paper
presented at the Ports and Logistics Conference, Johor Bahru, September.
Gertler, M. (1997) Spatial limits to production capital, in: K. Cox (Ed.) Spaces of Globalisation, pp. 45–63
(New York: Guildford).
Goss, R. (1990) Economic policies and seaports: 2. The diversity of port policies, Maritime Policy and
Management, 17, pp. 221–234.
Hannerz, U. (1996) Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places (London: Routledge).
Haralambedes, H., Cariou, P. and Benacchio, M. (2002) Costs, benefits and pricing of dedicated
container terminals, International Journal of Maritime Economics, 4(1), pp. 21–34.
Heaver, T. (2002) The evolving role of shipping lines in international logistics, International Journal of
Maritime Economics, 4(3), pp. 210–230.
130 B. Slack and A. Frémont

Heaver, T., Meersman, H. and Van der Voorde, E. (2001) Co-operation and competition in international
container transport: strategies for ports, Maritime Policy and Management, 28(3), pp. 293–305.
Martin, J. and Thomas, B. J. (2001) The container port community, Maritime Policy and Management,
28(3), pp. 279–292.
Musso, E., Ferrari, C. and Benacchio, M. (2001) Co-operation in maritime and port industry and its
effects on markets structure. Paper presented at the WCTR Conference, Seoul.
Notteboom, T. (2002) Consolidation and contestability in the European container handling industry,
Maritime Policy and Management, 29(3), pp. 257–269.
Notteboom, T. and Winkelmans, W. (2001) Structural changes in logistics: how will port authorities
face the challenge?, Maritime Policy and Management, 28(1), pp. 71–89.
Ryoo, D. K. and Thanopoulou, H. A. (1999) Liner alliances in the globalisation era: a strategic tool for
Asian container carriers, Maritime Policy and Management, 26(4), p. 349–365.
Slack, B. (1993) Pawns in the game: ports in a global transport system, Growth and Change, 24, pp.
579–588.
Stevens, H. (1999) The Institutional Position of Seaports: An International Comparison (Dordrecht:
Kluwer).
Thomas, B. T. (1994) Privatization of U.K. seaports, Maritime Policy and Management, 21, pp.
136–148.
Turner, H. S. (2000) Evaluating seaport policy alternatives: a simulation study of terminal leasing
policy and system performance, Maritime Policy and Management, 27(3), pp. 283–301
Warf, B. (1988) The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Professional Geographer, 40, pp.
288–297.
Youssef, S., Evenett, S. and Wu, W. (Eds) (2001) Facets of Globalisation: International and Local Dimensions
of Development. Discussion Paper 415 (New York: World Bank).

You might also like