1 / 31

TRANSPORT AND CONNECTIVITY: PROBLEMS FACED BY SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES

TRANSPORT AND CONNECTIVITY: PROBLEMS FACED BY SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES. Robert J. McCalla, Department of Geography, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Canada B3H 3C3 robert.mccalla@smu.ca. PURPOSE.

jorryn
Télécharger la présentation

TRANSPORT AND CONNECTIVITY: PROBLEMS FACED BY SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TRANSPORT AND CONNECTIVITY: PROBLEMS FACED BY SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES Robert J. McCalla, Department of Geography, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Canada B3H 3C3 robert.mccalla@smu.ca

  2. PURPOSE • The purpose of this paper is to show how the connectiveness of Caribbean island ports impacts on their throughput, and to discuss how other shipping logistics characteristics may or may not be just as important to explain throughput. • Being ‘connected’ may not be enough! UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  3. PRELIMINARY REMARKS • containerization is a necessary condition for increasing trade in developing countries (UNCTAD Secretariat 2003, 9). • Moreover, containerization has played the main role in the development of multimodal transport and logistic services. • Two key players in the seamless operation of logistics services are ports and shipping lines connecting them. UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  4. In order for ports to prosper they must be well connected. • Four ways to measure ‘connectiveness’ of a port: • the number of shipping services it has, • the number of port partners in its services’ network, • the number of linkages provided by the shipping lines to these port partners. • the connectivity index of the port determined by dividing linkages by port partners. • To show how well these measures relate to selected Caribbean port’s throughput is the purpose of this paper. UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  5. DATA AND METHODOLOGY TO CREATE NETWORKS • Data were drawn for two years: 1994 and 2002, from the Containerisation International Yearbook. • All shipping services operating in the Caribbean basin in those two years were recorded. For every service listed the shipping company, the ships assigned to the service, their capacity, the frequency of the service and the Caribbean ports of call of that service were recorded. By knowing the ports of call service networks could be constructed. UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  6. For each service a line was drawn connecting nearest neighbour ports but the line was not closed. For example, if a route included the ports of New Orleans, Houston, Veracruz and Kingston a line was drawn joining those ports in that order. Kingston and New Orleans were not joined. • A GIS was used to record the ports and the service routes. • The complete networks for 1994 and 2002 are shown in Figures 1 and 2. • Table 1 shows the connectiveness characteristics of these two networks. UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  7. Figure 1: 1994 Network Ports = 90 Linkages = 677 Connectivity = 7.36 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  8. Figure 2: 2002 Network Ports = 89 Linkages = 584 Connectivity = 6.56 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  9. Links (l) Ports (p) Connect-ivity (l/p) 1994 677 90 7.36 2002 584 89 6.56 Table 1: 1994 and 2002 Networks Compared UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  10. In the 8 year period the network has actually become simpler in structure. There are fewer linkages, fewer ports (marginally) and a lower connectivity index. What is remarkable about this simplification is the fact that the actual number of containers handled in Caribbean basin ports has more than doubled from around 5.5 million in 1994 to close to 13 million in 2002. • Table 2 shows the most connected ports in 1994 and 2002. UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  11. Table 2A: Ports with the Most Port Partners, 1994 vs. 2002First Ten Ports Continued… UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  12. Table 2B: Ports with the Most Port Partners, 1994 vs. 2002Second Ten Ports UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  13. The highlighted ports (excluding Basseterre) from Table 2 form the focus of the rest of the paper. The ports are: Rio Haina, Port of Spain, Kingston, San Juan, Bridgetown, Pointe-a-Pitre, Willemstad, Port-au-Prince, Fort-de-France, Port Castries and Oranjestad. • Connectivity networks were drawn for each of these ports for 1994 and 2002. • As examples, Figure 3 and 4 are shown for Kingston and Bridgetown respectively. • Table 3 is a summary of the connectiveness characteristics of these ports for 2002. UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  14. Figure 3: Kingston Connectivity Networks, 1994 and 2002 Ports = 35 Linkages = 93 Connectivity = 2.66 Ports = 44 Linkages = 118 Connectivity = 2.68 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  15. Figure 4: Bridgetown Connectivity Networks, 1994 and 2002 Ports = 33 Linkages = 99 Connectivity = 3.00 Ports = 32 Linkages = 71 Connectivity = 2.22 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  16. Table 3: Connectiveness Characteristics of Selected Ports, 2002 * Source: Containerization International Yearbook, 2002. Values are for 2000, the latest year available. UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  17. ANALYSIS • The results of simple linear regression anlysis between throughput (dependent variable) and individual port connectiveness variables from Table 3 are shown in Table 4 and graphically in Figure 5. Table 4: R2 values for Simple Linear Regression Analysis between Port Throughput (TEUs) and Connectiveness Measures UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  18. Figure 5: Relationships between TEUs and Port Connectiveness Measures San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  19. The results are disappointing. • A close appraisal of the graphs shows that one point, San Juan, is very far removed from the trend lines. Because of its special status with the US it could be considered an anomaly to the ports under study. Removing it from consideration improves the relationships between TEUs and the independent variables. Table 5 shows the new R2 values. UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  20. Table 5: R2 values for Simple Linear Regression Analysis between Port Throughput (TEUs) and Connectiveness Measures - WITHOUT San Juan These results are much more encouraging. UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  21. DISCUSSION • The conclusion to draw from the analysis is that port connectiveness is important to port throughput, an assumption made at the start of this paper, but now shown to have validity. • BUT since 1994 some of the ports have been losing services, port partners, linkages and connectivity index values. UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  22. Table 5: Changes in Port Connectiveness Measures, 1994-2002 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  23. Bridgetown, Willemstad, Port-au-Prince and Oranjestad show negative values under all four variables. Only Kingston has positive change values in all four variables. • It might be expected that with the decline in connectiveness values that ports would experience declines in throughput, but this is not the case. • Why? UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  24. Other factors at work: • Ship size • Frequency of service • Hub connections • Table 7 shows that in all ports average vessel size (exception is Port-au-Prince) and frequency of service increased between the two years. UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  25. Table 7: Changes in Vessel Size and Frequency of Service, 1994-2002 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  26. Hub connections may also be important in explaining throughput. Smaller ports depend on transshipment points, or hubs, as major conduits through which their goods must pass. • Caribbean hubs include: NORTH: Houston, Miami and Freeport, Bahamas. CENTRE: Kingston, Rio Haina, San Juan SOUTH: Port of Spain, Puerto Cabello, Cartagena and the terminals at Colon (Puerto Manzanillo, Colon and Cristobal) • Table 8 shows changes to hub connections for seven non-hub Caribbean ports UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  27. Table 8: Hub* Connections of Non-Hub Island Ports * Hub ports are: Houston (H), Freeport (F), Kingston (K), Rio Haina (RH), San Juan (SJ), Port of Spain (SP), Puerto Cabello (PC), Cartagena (C), Colon including Cristobal and Puerto Manzanillo (Co). UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  28. Oranjestad (-11), Bridgetown (-5), Port-au-Prince(-5) and Willemstad (-3) have all experienced net losses in hub connections. • Note the importance of Port of Spain as a hub. • Houston is the big loser as a transshipment center for four of the ports. • Kingston,Cartagena and Rio Haina have become more important. UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  29. CONCLUSION • Ports do need to be connected to prosper. • The analysis shows this to be true to a varying degree depending on how connectiveness is measured. • But connectiveness is not everything in explaining port throughput. UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  30. Variables such as vessels size, frequency of service and hub connections are also important in influencing throughput. • Although there is no doubt that containerization is a necessary condition for increasing trade in developing countries, its very presence is not a guarantee that such improvement will occur. The actual dimensions of the shipping networks by which the country through its ports is connected are important factors in bringing about positive change. UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

  31. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. • Dr. Brian Slack, Concordia University and Dr. Claude Comtois, Université de Montréal. UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003

More Related