The Maritime Economist Magazine - Fall 2015

1

ME

Mag

THEMARITIME EconomistConnecting Academia and Professionals

Fall 2015 | Issue 3

I N T E R N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N O F M A R I T I M E E C O N O M I S T S

Find Us at www.mar-economists.org

INPLAINPort Adaptation to the Impacts Posed by Climate Change: How Can Scholars, Policymakers and Industrial Professionals Contribute? Adolf K. Ng & Austin Becker

FreshMINDSSafety vs Efficiency: Maritime Stakeholder Analysis. Faisal Fiaz

Editorial: Tyranny of Small Decisions

Profession & PracticeEuropean Environmental Laws: Some Considerations for Mediterranean Cruise Ports. Valeria Mangiarotti

CHALLENGEChallenges of Port Public Policies in Latin American and Caribbean Countries: Design and Implementation of Port Logistics Communities. Luis M. Ascencio Rosa Guadalupe Gonzalez Ramirez

Challenges on Maritime Security AssessmentZaili Yang

MemoriesInterview: Ernst Frankel, President of International Association of Maritime Economists 2002-2006 . Mary R. Brooks

IAME 2000 Conference: The Maritime Industry into the Millennium: The Interaction of Theory and Practice. Valeria Catanese

IAME 2015 Kuala Lumpur

ISSN 2408-0683

2

ME

Mag

IAME

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATIONof

MARITIME ECONOMISTSThe leading society on

Maritime Economics and Business Management

JOIN US TODAY!The International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) is an

international forum for the exchange of research and information among those interested in maritime and maritime-related issues.

For membership

www.mar-economists.org/membership

3

ME

Mag

CONTENTSFall 2015 | Issue 3

President’s Message Jan Hoffmann, President of IAME 4Editorial: Tyranny of Small Decisions Okan Duru, Editor-in-chief 6Editorial Board & Owner Declaration

InPlainPort Adaptation to the Impacts Posed by Climate Change: How Can Scholars, Policymakers and Industrial Professionals Adolf K. NgContribute? Austin Becker 8

Profession & PracticeEuropean Environmental Laws: Some Considerations for Mediterranean Cruise Ports. Valeria Mangiarotti 16

FreshMINDSSafety vs Efficiency: Maritime Stakeholder Analysis. Faisal Fiaz 22

ChallengeChallenges of Port Public Policies in Latin American and Caribbean Countries: Design and Implementation of Port Logistics Luis M. AscencioCommunities. Rosa Guadalupe Gonzalez Ramirez 30

Challenges on Maritime SecurityAssessment Zaili Yang 34

MemoriesInterview: Ernst Frankel, President of International Association of Maritime Economists 2002-2006 Mary R. Brooks 38

IAME 2000 Conference: The Maritime Industry into the Millennium: The Interaction of Theory and Practice Valeria Catanese 42

IAME 2015 Kuala Lumpur Ioannis N. Lagoudis 46

Editorial Board Updates 52

Submission Guidelines 54

References 57

Cover Design & Photo: Okan Duru

4

ME

Mag

Holding in our hands (or screen, or tablet…) the 3rd issue of ME-Mag – The Maritime Economist – it is fair to say that our magazine is now well established as one of the many products of IAME, the International Association of Maritime Economists. The possibility to contribute to The Maritime Economist is one of several benefits we gain from IAME membership.

Further benefits are manifold. First of all, there is continuous networking, learning about calls-for-papers, conferences, jobs and more through our social networks, the IAME-News newsletter, e-mail updates and conferences. Then there are our two associated journals, MEL and MPM, we all receive in hard and soft-copy as part of our membership. We also benefit from special discounts for selected books and other publications, such as the Handbook of Maritime Economics and Business, which was written by renowned fellow-IAME members. There are regional conferences with discount rates for IAME members, and last but not least, there is our main annual conference, for IAME-members only. Many good reasons for those readers who are not yet members to join our thriving Association. Please check http://www.mar-economists.org/membership for further info, and then simply write to our Secretariat to join ([email protected])

The latest IAME conference in Kuala Lumpur was again a great success, as can be seen by the conference report shared with you in this issue. Readers should book their agenda for our next gathering: Hamburg, 23-26 August 2016. Hoping to meet you in the Hansestadt, I wish you a pleasant and interesting reading of our third ME-Mag.

President’s Message

Jan Hoffmann, [email protected]

THEMARITIME Economist

5

ME

Mag

∑

SUPPORT ME & DONATE MEA FREE MAGAZINE to create more knowledge

Gold SponsorSilver Sponsor

Bronze Sponsor

ME Mag now welcomes sponsors to support our efforts on developing stronger connection between maritime industry and academia.

GOLD SponsorTwo full page advertisement space per yearHome page ad for the period of a full yearAcknowledgement at Gold Sponsors List

SILVER Sponsor

One full page advertisement space per yearHome page ad for the period of a full year

BRONZE Sponsor

One full page advertisement space per yearHome page ad (second tier) for the period of

a full year

For sponsorship inquiries: [email protected]

ADVERTISE WITH ME

IAME

IAME

6

ME

Mag

When we focus on the economics of an individual, we also focus on a lifetime of an individual accordingly. For an average lifetime, that may refer to roughly 75 years (with a good health). As an individual, that may seem a very long time while it is almost negligible for the age of earth. However, our actions in this very short period may have huge impact for centuries at the end of the day. If you are really curious and entrepreneurial, that short period may ignite the rise of new civilizations (i.e., geographical discoveries of 15th century). On the other hand, deforestation to make room for modern desires may cause irrevocable loss of natural treasures. Small decisions in a short period can make perplexing impacts like the butterfly effect. Our small world is more than our own, and it is not very private to enjoy freely in the long run. Alfred E. Kahn first coined the term, Tyranny of Small Decisions, in 1966. It is the situation in which our small choices and desires result in an undesired outcome for our society and mankind. When we focus on the short-term, we skip critical aspects and sustainability in the long term. Environmental degradation is one of unique examples of such tyranny. Since we do not experience the long term results or devastating stages of outcome in our short lifetime, we may simply undervalue and ignore for the sake of prosperity and abundance in our time.

In the business life, there are similar exchanges of long-term gains and short-term gains. Many shareholders are very impatient to see long-term financial results, and they are very much interested in short-term returns of investments. Firms may achieve astonishing short-term results (e.g. dividends per share) while ignoring long-term opportunities. The state of executives is really complex. Incentive scheme is designed to overvalue short-term progress including traditional discounting math (e.g. DCF), the mood of bull-bear markets, among others. Dealing with short-termism and incentives behind it is an emerging topic of the century. In the first three issues of ME Mag, several articles have emphasized environmental debate from variety of perspectives. The major economic debate is how we exchange short-term gains with long-term gains, and finally how we can fix and restore the natural impairment. Therefore, our interest has been on social and institutional economics (also environmental economics) of maritime in the first year of our journey.

Editorial

Okan Duru, [email protected]

Tyranny of Small DecisionsShort-termism and Environmental Degradation Debate


I would like to express our sincere thanks to organizers of IAME 2015 Conference, particularly Dr. Ioannis N. Lagoudis, chair of the conference. It was one of the great IAME conferences. Sessions were very fruitful and insightful. You will find a special section on IAME 2015 Conference in this issue. IAME 2015 raised the bar even further. IAME 2016 will be organized in Hamburg on 23-26 August 2016. I suggest setting your agenda for IAME 2016.

7

ME

Mag

President of IAME Jan Hoffmann

Editor-in-Chief Okan Duru Associate Editor Adolf K.Y. Ng

INPLAIN Venus Lun (SE) Adolf K.Y. Ng (SAE) Joan P. Mileski (SAE) Lorena García Alonso (SAE) Profession & Practice Thomas Vitsounis (SE) Pierre Cariou (SAE) Adrian Beharry (SAE) Assunta Di Vaio (SAE) Larissa M. van der Lugt (SAE)

FreshMINDS Alessio Tei (SE) Emrah Bulut (SAE) Vicky Kaselimi (SAE)

CHALLENGE Jasmine Siu Lee Lam (SE) Okan Duru (SAE) Rosa Guadalupe Gonzalez Ramirez (SAE)


EDITORIAL BOARD

MEMAGConnecting Academia and Professionals

Case StoriesPaul S. Szwed (SE)Ergun Gunes (SAE)Marcella Croes (SAE)Metin U. Aytekin (SAE)

Memories Paul Tae Woo Lee (SE) Zaili Yang (SAE)

SOCIETY NEWS Michele Acciaro (IAME Newsletter Editor) Verena Flitsch (IAME Newsletter Co-Editor) Indika Sigera (SAE)

BOOK REVIEWS Michele Acciaro (SE) Indika Sigera (SAE)

PR & MEDIA DIRECTOR Vicky Kaselimi

ART & DESIGN DIRECTORMariikka Whiteman

— OWNER & PUBLISHER —

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION of MARITIME ECONOMISTS

President Jan Hoffmann Vice President Pierre CariouSecretary Thanos Pallis Emeritus President Theo Notteboom

Council MembersMichele AcciaroStephen CahoonPierre CariouAna Cristina Paixao Casaca

Ioannis LagoudisJasmine Siu Lee LamAdolf K.Y. NgTheo Notteboom

Francesco ParolaJean-Paul RodrigueDong-Wook SongGordon Wilmsmeier

Treasurer Maria Lekakou Webmaster Ioannis N. Lagoudis

8

ME

Mag


Port Adaptation to the Impacts Posed by Climate Change: How Can Scholars, Policymakers and Industrial Professionals Contribute? Adolf K.Y. Ng and Austin Becker

INPLAIN

9

ME

Mag

Fall 2015 | Issue 3

As key nodes linking transportation and supply chains, climate change impacts to ports (e.g., seaports, river ports, inland ports, etc.) have broad implications on global economy and human welfare. However, the impacts of climate change vary significantly across countries, both positively and negatively. Decision-makers need quality theoretical analysis, innovative assessment methodologies, and insightful empirical experiences so as to identify the best practices, planning, and appropriate policies to effectively adapt to, develop resilience, and benefit from, the impacts posed by climate change on transportation and supply chains. This article outlines the contributions that scholars, policymakers and industrial professionals can make to this dialogue through an overview of our recent volume on this topic, Climate Change and Adaptation for Ports (details available at www.routledge.com/books/details/9781138797901/, hereinafter called ‘our book’).

scholarly knowledge in plain language

Considerable research has focused on reducing CO2 emissions to slow down or stop climate change. Adaptation research, and the development of effective solutions to

deal with the impacts posed by climate change, remains scarce.During the United Nations

Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)’s Ad Hoc

Expert Meeting on climate changeand port adaptation (held in

2011), participants agreed that: ‘Substantial input and the sharing of both global and local experiences are required so as to better understand the issue of adaptation to climate change. Furthermore, reliable data, information and experiences on this issue is seriously inadequate, if not unavailable altogether.’ (UNCTAD 2012b)

This topic has generated substantial interests. Nevertheless, it is still in its embryonic stage, and needs collaborative research and the sharing of global experiences, from both developed and developing countries. In this context, adaptation must not simply be addressed to ‘avert the negative effects’ and ‘minimize costs’, but also create new economic, business and social opportunities, thus improving the well being for this and future generations. An example is the recent warming of the Arctic, where Judicious adaptation could generate opportunities for northern ports and maritime transportation. However, the chance to transform risk into opportunity iminishes with a ‘business as usual’ approach, or mainstreaming’ identified risks into existing economic, planning, and institutional frameworks. New, innovative approaches should be developed that reduce uncertainties and clarify priorities, while catalyzing

10

ME

Mag


INPLAIN

a transformative adaptation process (Moser and Boykoff, 2013a). Threatened uses (e.g., ports and port infrastructures) should develop plans and actions that can be applied into a normative, historically contingent and economically sensible context, and enhance capacities and long-term resilience to (diversified) climate change impacts.

Given the likely irreversible trend of climate change, its increasingly serious impacts on different parts of the world, and the international and local nature of adaptation and resilience, publication outlets need to offer a forum for discourse to different ports, now and in the near future. With impacts posed by climate change ranging from hurricanes on the port of New York/New Jersey to the dropping water level along the port of Montreal and the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes navigation system, publications such as our

book and The Maritime Economist offer forums for theoretical and methodological innovation, and the sharing of real-world case studies from the developed and developing worlds.

Scholars, policymakers and industrial professionals can contribute effectively to port’s adaptation to impacts posed by climate change in three target areas. First, they can help to define the problem, i.e., enhance understanding of ports adapting to climate change risks, both theoretically and through empirical evidence. Second, they can identify the best strategies and practices. Third, they can facilitate the establishment of stakeholder networks and partnerships that build resilient ports in facing climate change challenge, especially in their dynamic relationship with transportation and supply chains. The following sections will further discuss the adaptation

11

ME

Mag

Fall 2015 | Issue 3


Fig. 1. The process of adaptation to climate change impacts (after Moser and Ekstrom 2010)

consequences that result. For ports, it is most easily addressed through reducing damage consequences or vulnerable social conditions. Here, vulnerability is defined as:

The propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected…including the characteristics of a person or group and their situation that influences their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover form the adverse affects of physical events.’ (IPCC 2012)

Though the process is iterative, problem and solution identification takes place early on. For ports, this process has recently begun (McEvoy et al., 2013, Stenek et al., 2011), but a clearer definition of the anticipated issues and solutions for ports is still needed (Becker et al., 2013; EPA 2008). Across the

framework and the three targets. It is noted that much of the contents of this article is based on our book. With contributions from reputable researchers, inter-governmental organizations and senior professionals in transportation and supply chains, our book investigates climate change, adaptation strategies and planning of ports from different angles. It is an ideal companion to anyone interested in understanding climate change, its impacts and risks on ports and port infrastructures, effective ways to adapt to such impacts, and how human welfare may benefit from such opportunities. Readers are strongly encouraged to refer to our book for further details and elaboration.

1. An adaptation framework

Our book applies a framework for adaptation, defined here as:

‘Any adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities.’ (IPCC 2007)

Though it follows a geographical framing that explores adaptation issues acrossthe continents, when taken as a whole the volume may be thought of as an indication of ‘the pulse’ of the global port community on this matter. It tracks to an iterative approach to adaptation along five broadly defined steps (Figure 1), all of which require a strong stakeholder engagement component (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010).

2. Defining the problem

The process of adaptation begins with identifying the problem, i.e., understanding impacts, risks, opportunities, and vulnerabilities (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010). This involves much research in the emerging area of climate adaptation (Bierbaum et al., 2013) and is the main focus of our book, which contributes to a better understanding of the nature of the climate change problem for ports and port communities. ‘Risk’ is the probability of an event and the damage

12

ME

Mag


INPLAIN

globe, scholars, policymakers, industrial practitioners grapple with the complexity of uncertainties in climate projections, high upfront costs, and unquantifiable benefits of action. As yet, there are no generally applied methods for gathering and assessing these data, and thus we see a wide variety of approaches being explored. For example, quantifying in monetary terms on the potential impacts from future storm(s) or the rise in sea level remains very difficult. While less satisfying than a precise monetary calculation of potential damages, understanding the perceptions of experts directly involved with port planning serves as a foundational step toward ultimately choosing and implementing the best (new) practices.

3. Identifying and selecting the best strategies and practices

With a firmer sense of the nature of the challenge faced by port stakeholders, the adaptation process can move to identifying solutions (Kates et al., 2012) and implementing strategies towards adaptation. In our book, several chapters address this shift. This can be particularly vexing, as many strategies would require

significant investments today and payoffs that may not be realized for decades. Ports around the world are only at the beginning stages of understanding the full range of potential solutions to the climate change challenge (Becker et al., 2012). Once identified, the arduous phase of weighing costs and benefits, securing necessary funding, design selection, environmental permitting, actual construction and facilitation (of drafting new policies and plans or other ‘softer’ solutions) can begin. Most ports have yet reached this phase.

Most adaptation measures result in winners and losers, as decision-makers invest resources now even when the benefits may not be realized for decades. Thus, examples of strategy implementation, monitoring, and revision remain few and far between (Moser and Boykoff, 2013b). For now, many ‘lessons learned’ consist of successful methods and/or investments to help ports and port communities to understand the nature of the problem and the range of solutions, as opposed to examples of not-so- successful ones. In the coming decades, more port communities will invest to implement these strategies

Photo Credit: Austin Becker

13

ME

Mag

Fall 2015 | Issue 3


to cope with rising seas, draughts, and changing storm patterns. As adaptation planning and implementation evolve, the port communities can benefit from continuous dissemination of progress, lessons learned, and methods to evaluate the effectiveness of various alternatives.

4. Stakeholder networks and partnership approach

Our book highlights the importance of including perspectives of stakeholders from multiple sectors throughout the adaptation process. On every scale, from specific organizations (Berkhout et al., 2006) to nations as a whole (USGCRP 2013), adaptation involves multiple actors, policies, and practices, and requires communication and public engagement to ensure success (Moser and Boykoff, 2013b). A partnership approach creates an integrated knowledge base and management system, and adds value to port stakeholders’ efforts and building the capacity to address climate change impacts. Also, it brings together scholars, policymakers, industrial practitioners, interest groups and other stakeholders to achieve common objectives, i.e., enhancing the understanding and reducing the uncertainties of adaptation to climate change. Forming partnerships can serve as the pioneer step towards transnational collaborative networks between port stakeholders around the globe that encourage mutual trust between different sectors, countries and regions. In addition, it facilitates knowedge and information flows and establishes ‘common stories’ that lead to the

development of best practices – a necessity to effectively address a growing global problem, with strong local perspectives and interests. Information exchange through partnerships allows scholars, policymakers and industrial professionals to compare local approaches to international practices. For example, assessment tools can demonstrate to the broader port, transportation, logistical and supply chain communities how well particular elements are functioning. Finally, partnerships can lead to unified data collection, alleviating the burden of filling in the same data for diversified purposes.

5. Concluding remarks

Climate Change and Adaptation for Ports provides case studies from around the world which, taken together, indicate that many ports have begun the adaptation process through initial analysis of the challenges and opportunities posed by climate change. It provides examples of ports that have identified possible alternatives to reduce their vulnerability and/or take advantage of new opportunities. Few, however, have yet successfully implemented strategies specifically designed to address climate change.

During the UNCTAD’s Ad Hoc Expert Meeting, participants highlighted the importance of obtaining reliable information that provides clear insight on how climate change risks would impact port facilities and operations, and thus the quality of a port’s strategic planning (UNCTAD 2012a). Policymakers and practitioners need knowledge, innovative tools, ideas and solutions to deal with the climate change challenges for ports. For various reasons, individual scholars often found it difficult to access appropriate personnel for data and information collection. Innovative partnerships between different sectors can help overcome these barriers. Throughout this article and our book, we call on scholars, policymakers and industrial practitioners to collaborate so as to address the risks that climate

“ The chance to transform risk into opportunity diminishes with a ‘business as usual’ approach, or ‘mainstreaming’ identified risks into existing economic, planning, and institutional frameworks. New, innovative approaches should be developed that reduce uncertainties and clarify priorities, while catalyzing a transformative adaptation process.

14

ME

Mag


INPLAIN

Austin BeckerDepartment of Marine Affairs and Landscape Architecture, University of Rhode Island, RI, USA

Dr. Austin Becker is Assistant Professor of Coastal Planning, Policy, and Design. As an interdisciplinary scientist, he works across the fields of planning, policy, design and engineering. His re-search contributes to untangling com-plex problems involving uncertainty, consequences of large-scale shifts in climate over time horizons, and the resulting challenges in policy and planning. He teaches courses in coastal climate adaptation, maritime transportation sys-tems and ports, planning/policy/design for coastal communities. Austin’s work is rec-ognized globally and he is a regularly invited speaker at expert meetings of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the United Nations Econom-ic Commission for Europe (UNECE), and the Joint Research Center of the Euro-pean Commission, as well as numerous conferences in the United States. He also served as a contributing author to the National Climate Assess-ment and to the American Society of Civil Engineers Manual on Sea Level Rise Considerations for Ma-rine Civil Works. Austin earned his PhD in Stanford University’s Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources.

Adolf K.Y. NgAsper School of Business, University of Manitoba, MB, Canada

Adolf K.Y. Ng is Professor of Transportation and Supply Chain Management at the Asper School of Business of the University of Manitoba, (Canada). He obtained DPhil from the University of Oxford (UK), and excels in the research and teaching of port management, transport geography, climate change and transportation infrastructure planning, port-focal logistics and global supply chains. He has (co-)authored three scholarly books and more than 40 journal papers, and has received numerous accolades worldwide. He is currently a council member of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), the co-editor of Journal of Transport Literature, and associate editor of The Maritime Economist.

change will bring to their facilities and operations. A partnership approach addresses these obstacles and challenges, and adds value to effective adaptation to climate change risks to ports. We invite individuals and organizations from different corners around the world to engage intellectual leadership toward the creation and dissemination of knowledge.

References are given on page 57.

Cite this art ic le: Ng, A.K.Y and Becker, A. (2015). Port Adaptation to the Impacts Posed by Climate Change: How Can Scholars, Policymakers and Industrial Professionals Contribute? The Maritime Economist Magazine, Vol. 3 (October), pp. 8–14.

15

ME

Mag



19

ME

Mag

16

ME

Mag


European Environmental Laws: Some Considerations for Mediterranean Cruise PortsValeria Mangiarotti

Profession & Practice

In recent years, European directives concerning the environment have attracted the attention both of academics and operators in the sector. In particular, Directives 2009/28/EC and 2012/33/EU have dealt, increasingly, with the maritime industry.

European Directive 2009/28/EC concerning renewable energy establishes that by the year 2020, 20% of the total energy of each member state of the European Community shall be renewable. This directive is relevant for the member states when they

17

ME

Mag

voice of professionals

appraise the different solutions for reducing emissions in both land and sea transport. Directive 2012/33/EU, which modifies a previous Directive (1999/32/EU), requires European countries, including Italy, to reduce the sulphur content in marine fuels in the area of territorial seas. With reference to the marine fuels used, the maximum sulphur content is to be 3.5% starting from June 2014. On 1st January 2020, this limit will be lowered to 0.5%. The innovations introduced by the aforementioned measures also concern some new obligations for governments. These consist of informing the Commission about the availability of relevant marine fuels. This information shall be supplied every year by the state ministries responsible for the environment, after receiving reports from their harbour offices and by port authorities responsible for keeping registers of suppliers of marine fuels. Besides, there is the obligation to forward reports of cases in which a ship cannot find fuel conforming to regulations during its voyages. Finally, all member states have to ensure the availability of regulation marine fuels on their territory. This directive introduces an important novelty consisting of the requirement for an inquest for operators who, despite using due diligence, were unable to refuel with regulation marine fuel during their voyages.

Regarding the Italian situation, the Legislative Decree no. 112 of 16th July 2014, which implements Directive 2012/33/EU, states that in cases in which there is a violation of rules concerning the sulphur content of marine fuels, the ship owner or master can present to the competent authorities at the port of destination a report on all measures adopted before and during the voyage in order to obtain regulation fuel for their sailing plan and, if such fuel was unavailable in the foreseen port of call, the actions taken to obtain the fuel from other sources (Legislative Decree 112/2014 Article 10.4). The

report has to demonstrate that such actions were performed with the utmost diligence possible, but they do not include the obligation to change the planned course or delay the voyage to obtain the required fuel.

Another important factor is the time between presentation of the report and access to zones under the national jurisdiction of the authorities competent for controls. If the report is presented at least 48 hours prior to entering the aforementioned zone, the authorities who assesses the diligence of the responsible person can decide not to perform an inspection thanks to the presence of a cause exempting from the violation.

In addition, a further Directive of interest for the ports is the Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency. In this case, the European Commission expressly requires member states to develop and adopt within two years entry into force of the directive a “National Planning Policy Framework” for the development of alternative fuels in the transport sector and the construction of the infrastructures. In this direction, the recent Directive 2014/94/EU of 22nd October 2014 deals with the creation of infrastructures for alternative fuels so as to reduce to a minimum the dependence on oil-producing countries and thus attenuate environmental impact in the transport sector. At point 42 of the preamble of the directive, the European legislator urges operators in the maritime sector to use LNG defined as an “attractive fuel” to allow ships to meet the requirement to reduce the sulphur content in marine fuels, as required by the aforementioned Directive 2012 /33/EU. The modalities for the supplying of natural gas for transport are defined in Article 6. It establishes that as concerns LNG for maritime purposes, member states shall ensure, within the frame of the national strategy, that seaports shall be equipped with an appropriate

Fall 2015 | Issue 3

18

ME

Mag



number of LNG refuelling points to allow vessels (whether for sea transport or transport on inland waters) that use LNG to circulate through the central TEN-T network by 31st December 2025.

Finally, the adoption of the regulations should be based on a cost/benefit analysis including environmental benefits. The Port Authorities should use all the tools at their disposal providing the competencies and adequate infrastructures in order to promote the development of the LNG supply chain.

The main effect of environmental directives on mediterranean ports for cruise ships

Concerning Directive 2012/33/EU, all ports have to meet its obligations. More specifically, port authorities will have to keep a register of marine fuel suppliers pursuant to Article 295, paragraph 12 of Legislative Decree 152/2006, which contains the list of fuel suppliers for maritime use in the areas for which they are competent, with the indication of the fuels supplied and their maximum relative sulphur content. Moreover, if present, the port authority will have to draw up annual reports concerning the availability of marine fuels conforming to the limits set and shall produce a report to be sent to the ministry for the environment by 31st March of each year. The only observation here is that the port authorities will have to hire more people to ensure that these obligations are respected and to avoid possible sanctions.

Regarding the directives dealing with renewable energy and energy efficiency required in the maritime transport sector, it is important to verify concretely what a small port, and thus its port authority, can do to reduce the emissions of ships calling.

The new regulation considers that, up to today, the reduction of ships’ emissions can be implemented with two systems: cold ironing or shore power, that is, the system of electrified berths, or the use of LNG.Concerning shore power, installations remain quite costly: it is estimated that a single connection on a quay may cost the port authority about eight million euros, while a dual connection can cost about ten

million euros. Furthermore, annual upkeep costs of these connections cannot be neglected, nor can be the cost of converting ships already circulating and those under construction so that they can berth at shore power quays. In small cruise ports, after the initial enthusiasm generated by the possible implementation of cold ironing, many of them backed up due to problems of cost and limitations on the space available in port. Another issue is coming from the directive on energy consumption (2009/28/EU), which requires member states to cover 20% of the energy they consume with renewable energy sources by 2020. This means that all energy systems for the reduction of emissions planned for ports must take this limit into consideration.

Consequently, the main questions are: how is it possible for cruise ports to construct berths with shore power systems in order to reduce the emissions of gigantic cruise ships carrying 3000 passengers, that can be compared to floating towns?; What energy source could possibly be powerful enough to allow this? And, in any case, could this alternative energy source be renewable?

The implementation of cold ironing systems requires not only a space dedicated to cruise ship berths, but connection to an energy source which, depending on the ports, must be medium or large. In small ports, that do not receive many cruise ships, it may be easier to plan this, but there is an additional economic aspect to be considered. In times of budget constraints many cruise ports, such as Cagliari in Italy and others in the Mediterranean region, have been discouraged from implementing cold ironing systems.

“ The new regulation considers that, up to today, the reduction of ships’ emissions can be implemented with two systems: cold ironing or shore power, that is, the system of elec-trified berths, or the use of LNG.

19

ME

Mag

voice of professionals

Fall 2015 | Issue 3

As concerns the second system for reducing ships’ emissions, through the use of LNG, it actually brings a series of questions. On the economic side, as building a site for LNG distribution for medium-sized ships inside a port may cost about 2.7 million euros and construction times are about 18 months. A recent study carried out by the Ministry of transport infrastructure in Italy on the use of LNG instead of +diesel to power the auxiliary engines of cruise ships underlines interesting prospects on the positive impact in terms of emissions during calls in some ports (for example Genoa and Naples).

According to a recent study on the Italian cruise ports in relation to use the LNG in ports, the two main ports in the Tyrrhenian sea to the supply of cruise ships for which data are available for this place, Genoa and Naples, have provided this type of ships about 17,000 tons of fuel oil equivalent to almost 15,000 tons of LNG. The presence of gas stations in these two ports could allow not only the gradual replacement of consumption from oil to natural gas liquid but also attract additional demand in the cruise sector. (National strategic plan on the use of LNG in Italy).

Table 1. Estimates of the demand in LNG for Italian seaports.

LNG Estimated by area

- low scenario- high scenarioGulf of NaplesPorts of Genoa, Savona, La SpeziaStretto di MessinaCruises: Naples and Genoa

Tonnage LNG min.(2018 – 2020)

62,00082,0009,000

36,0001,5001,500

Tonnage LNG max.(no earlier than 10 years)

760,0001,000,000140,000500,00017,00015,000

Source: National strategic plan on the use of LNG in Italy, 2015.

The document below summarizes previous results. The minimum values correspond to a demand that is likely initial LNG will come out no earlier than three years, subject to the possibility (if not necessary) to bring forward the project of an initiative for demonstration. The maximum values take into account the process of replacement of engines ship (by replacing or refitting of existing vessels) and infrastructure on the ground, which cannot be achieved before a decade.

The table no. 1 shows the minimum demand and maximum demand of LNG for the next five years related to some Italian seaports (e.g. Genoa, Savona, La Spezia, and Naples). The data highlight a relevant value for the demand of LNG by cruise ports.

20

ME

Mag



Valeria Mangiarotti Marketing Manager, Port Authority of Cagliari

Attorney-at-Law and a graduate of the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore of Milan (Italy), she received a Master’s Degree in Common Law from the London School of Economics. She is now the marketing executive for Cagliari’s Port Authority. From 2005 to 2008 she was the vice president of Medcruise (the association of Mediterranean cruise ports). From 2008 to 2011 she was the director of the association’s environmental committee. Since 2013 she is the representative of Assoporti (the association of Italian Ports) and of ESPO’s Passenger Committee in Brussels. At present she is the representative member of the new president of Medcruise charged with working with the new committee and the association at the European level concerning the environment. She is a member of the Board of Directors of the Bank of Italy.

Some final considerations

In the light of the foregoing discussion and of my executive experience at Cagliari’s Port Authority and at Medcruise, as Medcruise’s proxy for the environment, as well as contacts over the years with the principal Mediterranean cruise ports, I see a scenario that is not precisely positive, at least in the short run.

Cold ironing is a system for reducing ships’ emissions that is still extremely difficult to implement, firstly and mostly due to economic reasons. In a time of crisis that Italy’s ports are now undergoing, it is difficult for a port authority to invest millions of euros in the construction of electrified berths. Secondly, Italian ports are suffering from enormous bureaucratic problems, with concerns regarding the ministerial and environmental authorizations for implementing projects such as electrified berths.

I do recommend the use of the LNG system which, for the reasons outlined above, is a simpler and “more affordable” system for a small and large ports, as for port authorities, the required investment is more limited and the planning simpler. This can also be implemented for Italian’s minor ports. However, as in every case, the support of the institutions is essential which, unfortunately in Italy, has been so far lacking.

Cite this art ic le: Mangiarotti, V. (2015). European Environmental laws: Some Considerations for Mediterranean Cruise Ports. The Maritime Economist Magazine, Vol. 3 (October), pp. 16–20.

21

ME

Mag

22

ME

Mag

Safety vs Efficiency: Maritime Stakeholder Analysis Faisal Fiaz

FreshMINDS

Introduction

In the performance of a commercial voyage, a vessel master has to perform different vessel activities. He takes orders, advice and information from different parties and is under the influence of various expectations. These different parties, known as stakeholders, have their own objectives and interests in connection with the voyage. Among a number of different stakeholders’ interests in vessel operations “safety and efficiency” are of significant importance.


The purpose of this paper is to seek how vessel operations are influenced by different stakeholders. The results of the research are shown by a graphical model (Figure 2) that helps to study stakeholders influence concerning the factors of safety and efficiency.

23

ME

Mag

Fall 2015 | Issue 3

voice of young generation

Marit ime Stakeholders

The concept of stakeholder is widely used in various disciplines playing a key role in the life cycle of any business. However, literature on maritime sector lacks stakeholders’ examination.

The term of stakeholder in the maritime sector can be defined as any group or individual who can directly or indirectly “affect or is affected by” the vessel operations.

Marit ime Stakeholder Model

Stakeholder environment does not exist in a vacuum, it consist of relations, interactions and interdependencies among each other. The model developed, as a result of research, has its roots in the freeman stakeholder model (Freeman, 1999) and (Rowely, 1997) “A network theory of stakeholder influence”. Moreover, social network theory helps to determine the relationship among the stakeholders, their interest and how they influence the issues of safety and efficiency.

To get deep insight information about the expected stakeholders, their interests and influence semi structured in-depth interviews have been conducted with Master, Charterers, Ship owners, and HESQ Managers along with the study of secondary research resources.

Safety vs Eff ic iency

Maritime safety, generally, implies the safety of life, vessel, cargo and marine environment. The same principles of maritime safety guide the vessel operations. Vessel operational safety is safety of life, crew, cargo, marine environment, port infrastructure and other vessels while performing the vessel

operations. The vessel operational safety can be influenced by a number of stakeholders e.g. vessel owner, charterer, port authorities, VTS, pilot etc.

On the other hand, efficiency means minimum utilization of the resources for the achievement of the objectives. The determinants of efficiency can be many but those associated with efficiency of a voyage can be cost, fuel, speed, time and distance. Our aim here is to consider the economic efficiency only that is the objective of any commercial. A voyage can be regarded as efficient if it consumes less fuel, savings in distance and time by incurring less expense which leads to greater profitability.

The level of efficiency is a function of various factors and can vary if the circumstances change like a different voyage, shipping sector or ship type. However, one of the most important considerations is the involvement of stakeholders that can affect the efficiency related factors.

Safety and efficiency are both at the heart of vessel operations. Every operation should be performed in efficient manner without scarifying the standard of safety. In reality, the vessel operations are surrounded by multiple parties having their own stake affecting safety and efficiency. The objectives of different stakeholders try to influence the vessel master to make trade-off between safety and efficiency whereas a master is responsible for the safety of his crew, vessel, cargo, marine environment, with compliance of rules and regulations. Above all, he is under pressure to consider the interests of many parties in relationship i.e. charterer, shipowners, cargo owners etc.

Trade-off between safety and efficiency is not new. Shipping history is full of incidents where commercial pressure influences the vessel master to take such

24

ME

Mag

decisions which he would not have taken otherwise. One of such accident is of M/V Lena, a dry cargo vessel, on 08/06/79, started journey from Glasgow and was heading to Rouen/France. The weather conditions were not favourable and visibility was near to zero due to fog. The master should have reduced the speed due to bad weather but he did not do so and collided with a fishing boat. The master was under pressure by the office instructions “urgent arrival at Rouen, immediate loading and departure” (Goulielmos & Gatzoli, 2012, p.75). These orders influenced captain not to reduce the speed in bad weather and to fulfil the office instructions.

Safety-Eff ic iency trade off curve

In a commercial voyage, various stakeholders interact and work in collaboration with each other, often giving rise to conflict of interest while considering the safety and efficiency issues. For example, the stakeholders who are regulatory bodies, IMO or port authorities, have their interest in the safety issues like safeguard of the environment, life, vessel, port etc. On the other hand, the ship operators including ship management/ vessel owner/charterer etc. are more concerned in achieving high profit on each voyage.


FreshMINDS

Figure 1: Safety and Efficiency Trade-off

Efficiency

S0 S+S-

E-

E+

E0Balance Point

Moving up will increase the efficiency but decrease the safety

Moving down will increase the safety but decrease the efficiency

Safety

Source: Fiaz, F. (2014). Stakeholders influence on vessel operational safety and efficency.

In shipping, safety and efficiency trade off can be seen to move along the tradeoff curve (Figure 1) which has been developed based on the law of diminishing returns. As we move along the curve the combination of efficiency parameters will be compromised over the safety parameters and vice versa. There can be a balance point between safety and efficiency where the combination of efficiency parameters is not affecting the safety parameters.

Marit ime stakeholder inf luence analysis

The analysis of stakeholder will identify the stakeholders and the way they influence - directly or indirectly - the movement of the ship: Who, when, why and how.

The analysis follows a three stage process identification, interest and objective description and influence assessment of the stakeholders. The result of analysis leads to develop a conceptual model of a stakeholders’ network, which provides a framework to understand the safety and efficiency influential behavior of the actors making up the vessel operational environment (figure 2). The entire

25

ME

Mag

Fall 2015 | Issue 3

voice of young generation

Figure 2. Stakeholder’s influential patterns

Source: Fiaz, F. (2014). Stakeholders influence on vessel operational safety and efficency

voyage is divided into four stages; voyage planning, navigation, port operations and cargo handling. The stakeholders interact with each other and summing up all these stages provides a complete voyage environment (Figure 2).

The model details out all the stakeholders who have association with the vessel operations and have impact on safety or efficiency. It is denoted that vessel operational stakeholders have three kinds of relationships based on direct or indirect influence

26

ME

Mag

conventions, policies, recommendations are based on enhancing the safety of maritime sector.

The above explanation of the model gives an impression of the stakeholders conflicting interests and the way they influence the results in the direction of their desires. A trend has been found that when efficiency increases it has negative effect on safety and vice versa. In practice, it is also found that safety comes at a cost; if the charterers want to follow the highest or increased standards of safety they lose time, incur extra expense which will reduce the profitability. For example IMO, flag states and port authorities’ objective is safety and their interest in safety will decrease the efficiency. However, it is not their aim to decrease efficiency. For example, recent regulations regarding ballast water treatment requirement and SOx, NOx and PM emission levels regulation are the positive safety measure which directly affects economic efficiency because meeting these requirements puts huge financial burden. Moreover, the chain of connection between the stakeholders where each has its own interest, produce a resultant net influence. This will either lead to more safety and less efficiency effect or vice versa.

Stakeholder’s influence is determined by aggressive achievement of the interests. A stakeholder can be considered as a safety influencer or efficiency influencer, depending on the stake.

In safety-efficiency tradeoff, contractual type also plays an important role. The external stakeholders have the same role regardless of the contractual type but operational role mostly changes between ship owner and charterer. This contractual environment found to be affecting the influential patterns based on the terms of the contract. Considering the voyage charter party, ship-owners desire a voyage which takes less time with shortest possible distance to save fuel and increase


and interactions primary, secondary and external. The model also depicts that most of the stakeholders have safety oriented approach than efficiency. For the sake of this paper, it is not possible to explain every stakeholder but it outlines the core stakeholders and their influential patterns.

The master is a core person in the vessel operations who has to perform all duties and responsibilities as well as take care of the interests of the involved parties. In spite of his absolute authority over all the activities, he is under day-to-day commercial pressure which bounds his authority.

The model depicts a time charter party where charterer hires the vessel from the owner for a specific period of time. This gives charterer authority to commercially deploy the vessel to have maximum profitabilty and efficiency. So he also induces his influence on the other stakeholders i.e. Port agent and Master, which in result produce a net efficiency oriented effect as presented in the model. Contrary to that, ship owner desires safety for his vessel, environment and crew because he is liable for any damages.

When the vessel enters into the port, the port authorities play their role. The port authorities desire safe entry and departure without damaging environment, port infrastructure, and other vessels etc. They also induce this safety oriented influence through Pilot, VTS and Terminal operators.

The external stakeholders are mostly legislative, administrative and legal authorities (such as IMO, flag state, classification societies) that work to enhance safety issues. These stakeholders have no direct or indirect relationship but influence significantly the vessel operations. IMO’s interest is to enhance the safety through governing legislative authorities i.e. flag state and port state authorities. All the IMO

FreshMINDS

27

ME

Mag

profitability. This makes ship-owner as the focal stakeholder who influences the master in vessel operations and responsible for commercial as well as technical management of the vessel and found to be more efficiency conscious.

In comparison, the time charter party and bareboat charter party empowers the charterer to give commercial orders to the master. So, the charterer is in the same position as the ship-owner in voyage charter and influence in the same way as efficiency conscious. The ship owner in these contracts has secured the income and more focuses on the safety issues. The exception exists in the bareboat char-ter party, having less power and no control over the vessel operations or master.

Apart from these contractual terms, market conditions also play a significant role in influencing safety and efficiency. Economic changes have a number of implications on vessel operations. Commercial pressure on vessel operator increases due to the economic ups and downs. Economic

crisis decreases trade volume as well as freight and chartering rates and characterizes a market condition having over tonnage with many vessels being laid up. To remain profitable and competitive in the market place the only option available for the vessel operators is to cut costs. Besides many other costs, ship operators try to reduce the operating cost of the vessel up to the minimum level. The ship operator reduces vessel crew or hires cheap and unskilled crew; reduces maintenance, spare and stores; change the class of vessel and adopt other such policies to be profitable. This kind of drastic operating cost reduction will likely have devastating impact on the safety of the vessel and different operations; and probably change the stakeholders towards a more efficiency oriented approach.

Concluding remarks

In summary, this research found that stakeholders of the vessel operations have varied level of influence and relationships related to safety and efficiency which are dependent on the vessel operational stage and contract type. The more control a stakeholder has, the more he is influential and more the importance a stakeholder has, more he is able to induce the influence. Commercial pressure i.e. the deployment of the vessel is found to be a critical factor affecting safety and efficiency. Both shipowners and charterers, when having the responsibility of commercial management of vessel, have negative influence on the vessel operational safety. Safety and efficiency was always a trade-off and will remain in future but efforts should be to achieve the balance point.

Fall 2015 | Issue 3

“ A trend has been found that when efficiency increases it has negative effect on safety and vice versa. In practice, it is also found that safety comes at a cost; if the charterers want to follow the highest or increased standards of safety they lose time, incur extra expense which will reduce the

profitability.

28

ME

Mag


FreshMINDS

Reference

Freeman, R. E. (1999). Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 233- 236.Fiaz, F. (2014). Stakeholders influence on vessel operational safety and efficency, unpublished manuscript [Figure 1 & 2].Goulielmos, A. M., & Gatzoli, A. (2012). The role of ship master in theory and practice: lessons from marine accidents. Journal of Critical Incident Analysis.Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Meview, 22(4).Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887- 910.

Cite this art ic le: Fiaz Faisal (2015). Safety vs Efficiency: Maritime Stakeholder Analysis. The Maritime Economist Magazine, Vol. 3 (October), pp. 22–28.

Faisal Fiaz

Faisal holds a Master degree in Business Admin-istration (MBA) from Punjab University (2012). In 2014, he has completed his MSc degree in Maritime Management at Buskerud and Vestfold University College, Norway. In his career, he has worked as vessel operator and in freight forward-ing positions. His research focus areas are safety issues in maritime industry.For contact: [email protected]

29

ME

Mag

39

ME

Mag

30

ME

Mag

Challenges of Port Public Policies in Latin American and Caribbean Countries: Design and Implementation of Port Logistics Communities

Luis M. Ascencio and Rosa G. González-Ramírez

CHALLENGE


31

ME

Mag

Fall 2015 | Issue 3

Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) ports handled in 2014 approximately 47 million of TEUs (Twenty feet Equivalent Units), presenting 1.3% of growth with respect to previous year. Although LAC ports have increased their participation in worldwide international trade, there are structural problems in terms of the logistics performance of LAC countries in comparison to OECD and other emerging countries. It is possible to observe in the last report of Doing Business 2015 that the countries in the region are not competitive in terms of the number of documents and the time required to export and import a product. In addition, the average logistics performance index of LAC countries is worse than the world average index (LPI 2014). In order to address these issues, it is required to align the national strategies of transport and infrastructure with the strategic port development plans.

Traditionally, ports are an intermodal infrastructure for cargo transferring, but current trends in international trade and the evolution of global supply chains position ports as a strategic node in the global logistics chains. In addition, there are a huge number of private and public stakeholders participating in the export and import processes. This situation makes it very hard to coordinate the different echelons of the port logistic chain if there are no institutional mechanisms that foster collaboration and integration at ports.

The Latin American and Caribbean Economic System (SELA) and CAF-development bank of Latin American are developing a Technical Cooperation Agreement initiated in November 2013, whose purpose was the creation of the Latin American and Caribbean Network of Digital and Collaborative Ports (NDCP). The first stage of this program included nine ports:

skeptic & heterodox

Manzanillo and Veracruz in Mexico; Buenaventura and Cartagena in Colombia; Callao in Peru; San Antonio and Valparaiso in Chile, and Balboa and Colon in Panama. This article provides some highlights as result of the report of the first phase of the program and provides some recommendations for port public policies1. The NDCP includes the port authorities of each port, national port authorities and other authorities and ministries, as well as research centers or universities. International organizations such as the Economic Commission of Latin American- United Nations (ECLAC), the Inter-American Commission of Ports (CIP) and the Central-American Commission of Maritime Transport (COCATRAM) are currently collaborating with SELA in this program. An exploratory study was developed during the first stage of the program, based on in-depth interviews and focus groups with representative stakeholders of each port. In addition, as a benchmark study, the case of the port of Valencia as a reference for best practices as a seaport cluster2 was considered and best practices for landside operations of Australian ports were also analyzed (e.g. Port Botany Landside Improvement Strategy, PBLIS and Truck Productivity Studies at the port of Fremantle).

In general, it was observed little or no formal communication mechanisms among the stakeholders of each port participating in the program. Only four port logistics communities are currently established (from a total of nine). Three of them have a strategic plan and one of them, (the Port Logistics Community of San Antonio, COLSA in Chile) is a legally constituted association. Five of the nine ports have a local port authority and the rest only a national port authority. One of the general challenges in the region based on the

1 http://www.sela.org/attach/258/default/Puertos_Digitales_en_Latinoamerica_Caribe_Situacion_Perspectiva.pdfhttp://www.sela.org/attach/258/default/1-DocumentoInformeFinal-VD.pdf2 Seaport Cluster Research Programme 2007-2011, Global Maritime Logistics Council, Global Institute of Logistics.

32

ME

Mag


CHALLENGE

“ Traditionally, ports are an intermodal infrastructure for cargo transferring, but current trends in international trade and the evolution of global supply chains position ports as a strategic node in the global logistics chains.

results of the exploratory study, is that although there exists National Plans on Logistics or Transport, there is no inclusion of all the stakeholders in their definition, and these plans do not address the need of new logistic processes and information technologies at ports. In addition, national single windows that are currently developed or implemented at some economies, lack of an operational connection with the port logistic processes. Another important challenge observed in the ports under study is the lack of coordination at landside operations, generating congestion at the gates of port terminals, and externalities to the port city. As it is highlighted by Sánchez and Pinto (2015)3, a new governance (governance 2.0) is required for the ports and their institutions in LAC countries to deal with the current and coming challenges imposed by the increasing volumes of international trade and the increasing size of ships, demanding more infrastructure and lower shipping service times to the ports.

Accordingly, the implementation of port public policies based on the new paradigm of a public and private governance is required. For the port sector, this approach may provide the mechanisms to

3 Sánchez, R., Pinto F. 2015. The great challenge for ports: the time has come to consider a new port governance. Bulletin FAL, ECLAC-UN, 337(1).

address the complex challenges related to the efficiency at the landside operations of ports and technological innovation. Previous issues require a bottom-up and top-down perspective.

The bottom-up perspective of the port public policy may support the development of port logistics communities as the new public and private governance models, as well as the design and implementation of new logistics models for the landside interface, based on the principles of Supply

33

ME

Mag

Fall 2015 | Issue 3

Rosa Guadalupe Gonzalez RamirezProfessor, Universidad de Los Andes, Chile

Rosa Guadalupe Gonzalez Ramirez is a profes-sor and researcher of the Faculty of Engineering and Basic Sciences in the University Los Andes in Chile. She holds a PhD in Engineering Sciences from Monterrey Tech in Mexico and a Master in Industrial Engineering from Arizona State Univer-sity. She is participating as researcher in the Pro-gram Latin American and Caribbean Network of Digital and Collaborative Ports (NDCP) promoted by SELA. Her research areas are related to port logistics and maritime shipping, supply chain man-agement and optimization with an emphasis on metaheuristics.

skeptic & heterodox

Luis M. AscencioInternational Consultant, SELA

Luis M. Ascencio is an international consultant of the Latin American and Caribbean Economic Sys-tem (SELA) and is currently the Director of the Program Latin American and Caribbean Network of Digital and Collaborative Ports (NDCP). He holds a Master in Operations Management from the University of Chile and is currently studying a Specialization in Transport Public Policies at the National University of San Martin in Argentina. His research lines are related to transport public policies, port logistics, supply chain management and trade facilitation.

Chain Management (SCM): collaboration, information sharing, alignment of the strategic objectives and coordination. In addition, this perspective promotes service standards for landside operations of ports and the incorporation of new technology service providers to implement value added services in the port logistics chain.

Top-down perspective of the port public policy boosted by the public institutions such as the Ministries of Transport, Customs and the National Port Authorities require developing a National Plan of Ports and Intermodal Transport. Also, it is required to design and implement a Logistics Observatory to monitor and control port productivity performance indexes. Furthermore, facilitating the implementation of port single windows that may interoperate with the national single windows (NSW) is another important challenge in the region.

Finally, it is important to mention as a challenge in the region, the need of a closer collaboration between the academy and the public and private port sector.

Cite this art ic le: Ascencio, L.M., González-Ramírez, R.G. (2015). Challenges of port public policies in Latin American and Caribbean countries: design and implementation of port logistics communities. The Maritime Economist Magazine, Vol. 3 (October), pp.30 –33.

34

ME

Mag

Challenges on Maritime Security AssessmentZaili Yang

CHALLENGE


The major challenges on maritime security assessment, particularly the issues associated with its inherent quantitative risk analysis part, include uncertainties in risk data, dependencies among risk factors, and relation between component risk levels and system risk control cost. Addressing such challenges is very crucial in order to rationally allocate security resources. It will help implement quantitative risk analysis in maritime security management and provide security analysts and practitioners with a guide on future development of maritime security assessment.

The maritime industry at large has experienced uncertainties as a result of terrorism threats and

increasing amount of pirate activities since the start of the current century. These uncertainties create risks for global seaborne trade and stimulate the research and development of maritime security. Academics and practitioners have widely realised the need of systematic methodologies and analytical tools for addressing the security risk concerns. Nevertheless, there are a number of challenges to overcome before a valid and robust security assessment framework can be developed and applied to practical systems.

First, a large number of maritime security control measures have been proposed via various regulations. Among the most significant ones is the

35

ME

Mag

Fall 2015 | Issue 3

skeptic & heterodox

implementation of the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code proposed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Although such measures have greatly enhanced maritime security performance, their effectiveness is still criticized. For instance, it has been argued that the ISPS does not prescribe a generally accepted methodology to carry out quantitative security assessment (Yang et al., 2014). If security measures cannot be assessed quantitatively, industrial companies/local authorities may not have much motivation to take them, possibly because their effects are not visible in a state-of-the-art risk assessment.

Secondly, with the nearly infinite number of attack scenarios and the persistent nature of terrorist threats, previous research on risk assessment in counter- terrorism security management mainly focused on critical system analysis. It has been tackled using various uncertainty methods including simulation (Monte Carlo), fuzzy logic, analytical hierarchy process, artificial neural networks, evidential reasoning and Bayesian networks, etc. The methods, enabling to tackle one kind of uncertainty, often ignore the others when being developed under a specified scenario with a strong assumption involved. It will be necessary and beneficial to make use of advantages of the individual uncertainty methods to develop a holistic powerful risk-based security management tool capable of dealing with maritime terrorism security assessment under high uncertainties.

Thirdly, security risk estimation and accident prevention of a component is regular routine performed to ensure the system is in a good and secured condition. However, when deciding which component needs to be investigated and which security risk control measure needs to be employed, it becomes very challenging given the dependency among the components. In other words, the failure of one component may affect the security of the

others, which depend on it. Consequently, the security analysis of components relies on not only the high risk nature but also their risk impacts on other items and even the system. It is urgently needed to know how to rationally combine the two, the components’ own (internal) risks and their (external) impacts to the system in order to best present their criticality in complex maritime transport systems.

Fourthly, security dependency also affects the development of cost effective risk control measures. The risk information will normally be treated confidentially at a local component level in maritime transport systems. It leads to the lack of visibility to monitor the security performance of a whole system. It is often the case that one member of a maritime supply chain has no detailed knowledge of what goes on in other parts of the chain. Because there is no visibility of upstream and downstream flows and stocks, confidence declines and the risk of making ineffective security decisions becomes an inevitable consequence. The interesting challenges are therefore that i) How to accurately estimate

“ The risks and uncertainties from the safety and security domains share common characteristics (e.g. lack of risk data and interdependency among risk factors) in principle and the methods/models capable of dealing with one kind of risk un-certainty in an area will be of great value for analysing the similar type of uncertainty in another field.

36

ME

Mag


CHALLENGE

components’ risk and predict system security in a dynamic environment; and ii) How to introduce control measures to ensure the system security at an acceptable level in a cost effective manner from a global perspective?

Yang et al., (2013b) indicates that the risks and uncertainties from the safety and security domains share common characteristics (e.g. lack of risk data and interdependency among risk factors) in principle and the methods/models capable of dealing with one kind of risk uncertainty in an area will be of great value for analysing the similar type of uncertainty in another field. The risk knowledge exchange from safety research, to security science is therefore crucial. A few piecemeal studies on quantitative security assessment based on safety analysis techniques such as risk matrix and analytical hierarchy process (Yang et al., 2013a), fuzzy rule based inference (Yang et al, 2009b), Bayesian probabilistic networks (Yang et al., 2009a), evidential reasoning (Yang et al., 2014) and systematic dynamics (Yeo et al., 2013) provide supportive evidence. Furthermore, it is also significant-ly beneficial to develop research networks (ENRICH, 2013) to initiate novel methodologies (e.g. Yang et al., 2013b) and powerful tools which enables the risk knowledge communication across different segments of maritime transport, thus enhancing the significance of the methodology in applied science.

ReferencesFreeman, R. E. (1999). Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 233- 236.1. ENRICH (2013), EU-China Research Network for Integrated Supply Chains, http://cordis.europa. eu/project/rcn/109386_en.html, accessed on 10 August 2015.2. Yang, Z.L., Bonsall, S. and Wang, J., (2009a), “Use of hybrid multiple uncertain attribute decision making techniques in safety management”, Expert System with Applications, Vol. 36, pp. 1569-1586.3. Yang, Z.L., Bonsall, S. and Wang, J., (2009b), “Use of fuzzy evidential reasoning in maritime security assessment”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 29, pp. 95-120.4. Yang Z.L., Ng A. and Wang J. (2013a), “Prioritizing

security vulnerabilities in ports”, International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, Vol. 5, pp. 622-636.5. Yang Z.L., Ng A.K.Y. and Wang J. (2014), “Incorporating quantitative risk analysis in port facility security assessment”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 59, pp. 72-90.6. Yang Z.L., Wang J. and Li K. (2013b), “Maritime safety analysis in retrospect”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 261-277.7. Yeo, G.T., Pak, J.Y. and Yang, Z.L., (2013), “Analysis of dynamic effects on seaport adopting port security.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 5, pp. 622-636.

Cite this art ic le: Yang, Z. (2015). Challenges on Maritime Security Assesment. The Maritime Economist Magazine, Vol. 3 (October), pp.34 –36.

Zaili YangLiverpool John Moores University

Dr Zaili Yang is Professor of Maritime Transport at Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU), UK. Prof Yang’s research interests are system safety, security and risk based decision making modelling, especially their applications in marine and supply chain systems. He has received more than £2m external grants (£1m as the PI) from the EU, UK EPSRC and UK DTI to support his research. Prof Yang has successfully completed 4 postdoctoral and 11 PhD projects. He currently has 11 PhD students under his supervision in the research areas of maritime safety, logistics operation and port optimization. His research findings have been published in 130 technical papers in risk and supply chain areas, including 50 refereed journal papers.

37

ME

Mag

Fall 2015 | Issue 3

38

ME

Mag


Interview:Ernst Frankel, President of International Association of Maritime Economists 2002-2006July 9, 2015 by Mary R. Brooks

Memories

Mary R. Brooks interviewed Ernst Frankel by telephone at his home in Brookline MA, USA as part of the “Our History” project of IAME. Ernst Frankel was President of IAME from 2002-2006 and recipient of the Onassis Prize in Shipping in 2012 along with Richard Goss (IAME’s first President) and Arnljot Strømme Svendsen. In his Onassis prize lecture, “The arctic - the new economic frontier and the challenges for shipping”, he told the audience that the polar region may “trigger a new gold rush in human and economic terms”. Today, he remains just as sharp and ready to enjoy his vacation on Cape Cod.

Mary R. Brooks (MRB): Ernst, do you recall when you joined IAME?

Ernst Frankel (EF): I was not at the original meeting in Lyon but attended the first conference in Korea.

MRB: I remember attending the Boston conference in December 1995. It was memorable because there was a freak snowstorm the opening evening and I trooped to the conference location without boots but along the charming Charles River. I arrived to find that many people coming from the U.K were stranded in Bangor en route to Boston because of the storm, but they all arrived in time to give their presentations.

39

ME

Mag

the story of IAME

What are your recollections of the conference?

EF: We held the conference at MIT in the Endicott Center, a conference center with good meeting facilities and accommodation included and with a Holiday Inn and a Howard Johnson nearby. I estimate we had 30-40 people attend, and two days of presentations, all in plenary. The hall we used seats about 100 and it was about half full. For our reception and dinner, we had a clambake on the veranda of Endicott House, and served oysters on the half-shell, lobsters and clams.

MRB: How did you come to run for President?

EF: I went to Singapore 2-3 times a year for meetings with Neptune Orient Line/American President Lines and Sophia Everett approached me to run for President. I was able to get funding from Neptune Orient Lines to support the Melbourne conference.

MRB: During your Presidency, who were your key supporters and how did they help?

EF: Sophia Everett and people in Singapore, in particular Cedric Foo (who rejoined Neptune Orient Lines in May 2005 to head corporate planning and became Group Deputy President shortly after (he got his Ph.D. from MIT).

Fall 2015 | Issue 3

40

ME

Mag


54

ME

Mag

MRB: What was your vision for IAME?

EF: I wanted to get Maritime Administrators more in tune to the economics of shipping, shipbuilding and ports. I focused my efforts on acquiring corporate membership from organizations like American President Lines, the Panama Canal, and Hyundai as they were the world’s largest shipbuilders at the time.

MRB: What were the most challenging aspects of your time as President?

EF: Trying to get Maritime Economics seen as a science and a profession. You don’t just manage ships on profit and loss and financial decision-making. The industry is a much broader field of endeavor. You need professional input. Not everyone can be an Aristotle Onassis, a very lucky Greek investor; he gambled on ships and he was lucky to buy cheap at the end of

Memories

World War 2. He picked up a number of old Liberty vessels built by the Americans for the war effort, and started a shipping company for essentially the scrap value of the ships. Businesses today need a disciplined approach to the field. I hope the trend of considering Maritime Economics as a real profession and a science continues, and IAME develops the professionalism needed to have a major impact on the industry and its success.

MRB: What do you think is your legacy today?

EF: I am proud I was able to bring practitioners and industry leaders to the association. Technology and science in the industry are important; it is not just about profits, but about making the shipping and ports industry more professional.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of Guldem Cerit, IAME 2004 Izmir

41

ME

Mag

Summer 2015 | Issue2

51

ME

Mag

42

ME

Mag


IAME 2000 Conference:

The Maritime Industry into the Millennium: The Interaction of Theory and PracticeValeria Catanese

Memories

The 2000 International Association of Maritime Economists Conference (IAME 2000), which was held at Istituto Universitario Navale in Naples on 13-15 September 2000, provided a unique opportunity to present and discuss critical issues, trends, challenges and possible solutions to be adopted under the theme of “The Maritime Industry into the Millennium: The Interaction of Theory and Practice”.

The main objective of the Conference was to strengthen the relationship and the dialogue between

industry and academia, thus bridging business practice and theory, with the aim of promoting and increasing the competitiveness of the Maritime Industry in the next future. The meeting served as a catalyst for a lively debate on diverse strategic topics in the maritime field and related activities such as Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Finance and Investment, Trade, Technology, Markets, Policy, Safety and Environment.

43

ME

Mag

the story of IAME

The enthusiasm of the Organising Committee was essential for the success of this international event. Its members worked incessantly to carry out such a demanding task in the best possible way. Alfonso Morvillo and Pietro Evangelista from IRAT-CNR, Prof. James McConville and Dr. Heather Leggate from London Guidhall University, Prof. Hilde Meersmaan and Prof. Eddy Van de Voorde from Antwerp University devoted the main part of their time and energies to realize this memorable conference.

The kick-off meeting took place in the evocative setting of the little court theatre of the Royal Palace of Naples, where Prof. Gennaro Ferrara, Dean of the Istituto Universitario Navale and Conference Chairman, and Prof. James McConville, Director of the Centre for International Transport Management of the London Guidhall University, thanked all the speakers and authors for their excellent contributions,

Fall 2015 | Issue 3

1 The names of these Institutions have changed in last 15 years: IRAT is currently the Institute for Research on Innovation and Services for Development (IRISS-CNR); London Guidhall University is the London Metropolitan University; and finally UFSIA is the University of Antwerp.

The Conference was jointly organized by the Research Institute on Service Activities (IRAT) of the Italian National Research Council (CNR) and the Centre for International Transport Management of the London Guidhall University, in collaboration with University Faculties Saint Ignatius Antwerp (UFSIA) of the Antwerp University1. It attracted 150 renowned delegates and high-profile speakers coming from 16 countries and three continents, fostering the international debate on future challenges of the maritime industry into the millennium.

68 full papers were accepted after the review process, while 48 papers were presented during the three-days colloquium, A special session was dedicated to the International Maritime Statistics Forum (IMSF). More detailed information on papers’ subjects, authors’ nationalities and geographical distribution appears in Appendix 1.

44

ME

Mag


Memories

wishing all participants a successful conference and a fruitful discussion.

The first plenary session, chaired by Umberto Masucci, Chairman of the European Community Association of Ship Brokers and Agents (ECASBA), benefitted from the outstanding presentations of three luminary keynote speakers: Manuel Grimaldi, Vice-President of Confitarma, who outlined the evolving picture of SSS in the European context; Hisashi Yamamoto, Professor at Istanbul Technical University, who discussed the significant role played by Japan and Europe in control of the World Fleet and stressed the importance of high-quality education and training and, last but not least, Magnus T. Addico, Chairman of the Maritime Organisation for West and Central Africa, who laid claim to the acknowledgment of Africa as integral part of international shipping as well as its involvement in world-wide policy making.

The second day of the Conference was opened by the plenary session dedicated to Logistics and Supply Chain Management, chaired by Prof. Pietro Genco (University of Genoa), where Knud Pontoppidan, President of the European Council Shipowners’ Association (ECSA), and Chris Welsh, General Secretary of the European Shipper Council (ESC), debated the integration of transoceanic supply chain from both the carrier and shipper perspectives.

Barbara Fletcher, Director of the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers, took a lecture on education for shipping businesses. In the evening, the delegates took part in the gala dinner, hosted at Villa Jubea, the ancient city’s acropolis, from which they could enjoy the stunning view of the bay of Naples. This beautiful event could have never been realized without the financial support of gracious sponsors among which the Port Authority and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Naples, Maritime Policy & Management, Confitarma, Banco di Napoli S.p.A, the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers.

The Conference ended with a panel debate focused on the crucial topic of safety as an important challenge that the maritime industry has to face with in the new millennium. There was heated debate and differences of opinions sometimes divided the audience. This special session highlighted the themes of the environmental sustainability of the shipping industry, business ethics and social responsibility. A round table with the representatives of the sector pointed out the need of balancing environmental concerns with economic growth, productivity and competitiveness of shipping at international level, which was perceived as a top priority by everyone. This issue, which seemed to be crucial to the industry, gave rise to new research paths able to identify specific strategies, actual policies and actions for facilitating the sustainable development of the maritime industry.

Cite this art ic le: Catanese, V. (2015). IAME 2000 Conference: The Maritime Industry into the Millennium: The Interaction of Theory and Practice The Maritime Economist Magazine, Vol. 3 (October), pp. 42–45.

45

ME

Mag

Fall 2015 | Issue 3

the story of IAME

46

ME

Mag


IAME 2015 conference

“Maritime 2025:The role of Maritime Clusters

and Innovationin shaping future Global Trade

www.IAME2015.org

IAME Conference: Maritime 2025: The role of Maritime Clusters and Innovation in shaping future Global TrendsIoannis N. Lagoudis

The IAME 2105 Conference took place for the first time in Malaysia and South East Asia between 23rd & 27th August. The conference was held in the state of the art facility at the Bank of Malaysia in central Kuala Lumpur. The venue was superb with a multitude of break out rooms, and other facilities such as a restaurant, cafeteria, museum and art gallery, which all participants enjoyed.

The conference theme “Maritime 2025: The role of Maritime Clusters and Innovation in shaping future Global Trade” aimed at understanding the future trends and practices in the different sectors of the maritime industry. Around 200 participants from over 50 countries from academia and industry attended the event where they had the chance to actively participate in two panel sessions and listen to 144 research papers covering a range of disciplines and industry sectors among the many being maritime logistics, clusters, maritime strategy, port management, port operations, maritime safety, environmental management, maritime policy, intermodal transportation, finance, maritime geography and more. We strongly believe that the conference has been a great place to network with like-minded colleagues and enabling them to expand their knowledge and connections in their field of expertise.

47

ME

Mag

Fall 2015 | Issue 3


Opening Ceremony

It was an honour and pleasure to have as Keynote Speaker the CEO of InvestKL, Datuk Zainal Amanshah. Datuk Zainal shared his experience with the delegates on the Malaysian cluster example and how he foresees the future of trade in SE Asia and globally the role that transportation will have to play.

Panel Sessions

We were fortunate this year to have strong industry participation with two panel session discussions. On day 1 the panel session composed of industry and policy stakeholders:• Luc Vandebon (Ambassador and Head of

Delegation – European Union to Malaysia)• Argyris Stasinakis (Board Member – Marine

Traffic)• Mahmoud Rezk (Board Member and Director of

Planning and Research Department – Suez Canal Authority)

• Thomas Brandt (General Manager – Malaysian German Chamber of Commerce and Industry)

• Luca Silipo (Chief Research Officer – Geodis)

On Day 2 the panel session composed of industry and policy stakeholders:• Olaf Merk (Administrator Ports and Shipping –

OECD)• Dan Lauritzen (Manging Director – Maersk Line)• Thanos Pallis (Secretary General – MedCruise)• Muhammad Razif Ahmad (General Manager –

Johor Port Authority)• Michael Schoer (Director of Regional Supply

Chain – CHR Hansen)

The moderator of the session was the MIT – CTL Deputy Directory Jim Rice who coordinated the discussion under the topic “Risk Management and Resilience in the Maritime Industry”.

Datuk Zainal Amanshah

Jan Hoffmann

The moderator of the session was the IAME President Jan Hoffmann who coordinated the discussion under the topic “The role of Maritime Clusters and Innovation in shaping future Global Trade”.

Jim Rice

48

ME

Mag



Awards

This year there were five awards. We would like to take this opportunity and thank all the sponsors for supporting and assisting in the continuation of the tradition. The winners of the awards are as follows:

Best Conference Paper Award

Sponsored by: “Palgrave-Macmillan”The award comes with a prize of £250 (GBP)The paper entitled: Does fuel efficiency pay? Empirical evidence from the dry bulk timecharter market revisitedAuthors: Roar ADLAND, Harrison ALGER and Justina BANYTEAffiliation: Norwegian School of Economics (Norway)

Best Student Research Award

Sponsored by: “Department of Shipping, Trade and Transport from the University of the Aegean”The award comes with a prize of €1,000(Euro) The paper entitled: Spectral Dynamics of Dry Cargo Shipping Markets Theory of Long Waves – Fact or Artifact?Authors: Jason Angelopoulos, University of Piraeus (Greece)Okan Duru, Texas A&M University at Galveston (USA) & Kobe University (Japan)Constantinos Chlomoudis, University of Piraeus (Greece)

Most Innovative Idea Award

Sponsored by: “Malaysia Institute for Supply Chain Innovation”The award comes with a prize of $1,000 (USD)The paper entitled: A Container Transport Network Analysis Study on the Offshore Port System Case of West North America Coast Authors: Ismail Kurt, Murat Aymelek, Evangelos Boulougouris, Osman Turan University of Strathclyde (United Kingdom)

49

ME

Mag

Fall 2015 | Issue 3


Best reviewer award

Prof. Paul Tae-Woo LeeSoochow University, Taiwan

The Best Marit ime Policy and Management Manuscript for 2014

Sponsored by: “Maritime Policy & Management”

Gala Dinner

The Gala Dinner took place in the famous Kuala Lumpur Tower located in the heart of the city. Its construction was completed on 1 March 1995. It is used for communication purposes and features an antenna that reaches 421 meters (1,381 feet) and is the 7th tallest freestanding tower in the world. The delegates had the chance to enjoy the view to Kuala Lumpur taste the local and international cuisine and more…

50

ME

Mag



PPRN

As every year the PPRN group members had the opportunity to meet the day before the official opening of the conference. Very interesting presentations were made on port related issues and research initiatives by colleagues from around the globe.

Industry Visit

On the last day of the event we had the opportuni-ty to visit the Westport container terminal. The ter-minal belongs to the top 20 terminals of the world. The participants had the chance to be briefed on the operators and challenges operators face in the this part of the world.

Conference Organizers

The conference has been organized and hosted by the Malaysia Institute for Supply Chain Innovation (MISI) part of MIT Global SCALE network .

MISI is a collaboration between the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics (MIT CTL) and the Government of Malaysia. MISI is an independent degree-granting institute that focus’s on supply chain management. It is the newest member of the MIT Global Supply Chain And Logistics Excellence (SCALE) network that spans four continents, with plans to expand into other regions of the world. Currently, the SCALE network has four locations that include MIT CTL, USA; ZLC, Spain, CLI, Colombia and MISI, Malaysia.

At MISI we consider ourselves very fortunate to have worked with so many amazing people who helped to pull the conference together to be such a phenomenal success. The list of people is endless from the panelists, the IAME president, the IAME steering committee, the MISI board of governors and all MISI staff together with the MIT Global SCALE network, Bank Negara, UiTM and Yayasan Sime Darby. This conference has given me the opportunity to meet and liaise with people such as you, allowing us to join together in realising and driving the IAME vision to steer the maritime theme on a global basis, and for this I am forever grateful.

The conference photos gallery can be viewed on the MISI website: http://gallery.iame2015.org/index.html

51

ME

Mag

Fall 2015 | Issue 3


Malaysia Institute for Supply Chain Innovation (MISI)

IAME2016 Conference

As a final note we would like to wish the best of luck to the 2015 organizers in Hamburg! We are confident that they will to a fantastic job and offer a truly unique experience to the delegates. Michele and Orestis we all look forward to seeing you next year!

Dr. Ioannis N. LagoudisIAME2015 Co-Chair

Chair of the International Scientific Steering CommitteeMalaysia Institute for Supply Chain InnovationDirector of Executive Education

52

ME

Mag

Editorial board

Editorial Board 2015–2016 (Updates)


Dr Pierre Cariou is Full Professor at Kedge Business School in Bordeaux, France. He is visiting professor at the Shanghai Maritime University and at the World Maritime University in Malmö, Sweden. Prior to this, he held the French Chair in Maritime Affairs at the World Maritime University. From 2001 to 2004, he was Associate Professor in Economics at the Faculty of Economics of Nantes (France). He completed his PhD in 2000 on liner shipping strategies and has since then contributed to several reports for private companies (Natixis Bank, Casino Group), the French Parliament (Commissariat General du Plan), and for the Port Authority of Nantes and Marseille. His main research interests are shipping/port

economics and maritime safety. He is since 2014, Vice President of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME).

Pierre Cariou, Section Associate Editor

Dr Thomas Vitsounis is the project leader of “Total Port Logistics” at National ICT Australia (NICTA) since July 2013. From August 2011 until April 2012, he acted as an advisor of the Secretary General for Ports and Ports Policy, Ministry of Competitiveness, Development and Shipping, Greece. Thomas had a key role in the “Port Performance Indicators: Selection and Measurement – PPRISM” project, undertaken by the European Seaports Organization (ESPO), the European Commission (EC) and researchers from several European Universities (2010-2011). From 2012 until 2013, Thomas has been a regular contributor to the EC (DG Mare). Thomas has been a PENED Research Fellow at the Department of

Shipping, Trade and Transport (STT), School of Business, University of the Aegean, and completed his PhD entitled “Balanced Port Performance Analysis: Port Users and Service providers Interactions, Generation of Relationships, and Measurement of Perceived Value” in 2011. He has also been a Research Fellow (Jean Monnet in European Port Policy) at the same Department (2010-2011) and contributed (2006-2011) as a Teaching Assistant in the following courses: Maritime Economics, International Maritime Policy, Port Planning & Policy, Port Management and European Port Policy. Thomas has a track record of more than 30 research papers published in various academic journals, books and presented in international conferences, and 10 port and shipping related projects. He is a founding member of Porteconomics.eu, a web-based initiative advancing knowledge exchange on port economics, management & policies.

Thomas Vitsounis, Section Editor

53

ME

Mag

54

ME

Mag

Submission Guidelines


The Maritime Economist (henceforth ME Mag) is a magazine edited by the International Association of Maritime Economists. The aim of ME Mag is to combine both theoretical and practical knowledge and promote collaborations among scholars and professionals in the maritime industry. ME Mag is interested in the following topics with maritime focus:• Economics of maritime transportation (theory,

models, practical controversies, etc.);• Port governance, port competition, port

utilization and other port related issues;• Finance, asset management and investments;• Management and leadership in the shipping

business;• Operations research, optimization and industrial

engineering for maritime problems;• Maritime policy and governance;• Maritime business strategy;• Maritime geography and spatial analysis;• Behavioral science and human factor;• Marketing;• Cruise and ferry industries;• Short sea shipping;• Environmental issues and sustainability;• Risk management;• Intermodal transport;• Other related topics.ME Mag has a particular focus on Maritime Economics and Business while covering many related fields.

ME Mag has five fundamental functions:1. Encouraging scholars to present their research

in plain language for wider audiences of themaritime industry;

2. Promoting and encouraging R&D partnershipswith non-academic institutions (firms, governmentaloffices, among others) of the maritime industry;

3. Encouraging young scholars to conduct research inmaritime topics;

4. Encouraging provocative and critical research;5. Support collaboration among academia and

professionals.Authors should keep in mind that, ME Mag is NOT only published for scholars, but it is also circulat-ed to large society of the maritime industry and policy

makers. Readers of ME Mag may not have a background on the presented topic, and authors are responsible for presenting the content of their article in a language that is clear to business and policy makers. ME Mag does not publish articles with many mathematical functions, long theoretical discussions and/or lack of practical value. Authors should always consider the perspective of professionals, business practitioners and policy makers and any other people who have general knowledge of maritime while have limited knowledge on the intended specific topic. ME Mag encourages narrative style, story-telling, metaphorical expressions and other methods of non-fiction authorship. On the other hand, each article should ensure at least one of the following dimensions:• Presenting a new topic, method, theory,

perspective or model;• Presenting an existing academic research (already

published in a scholarly-refereed journal);• Analyzing data, models, systems or a market with

novel interpretations;• Criticizing an existing approach, system or thought;• Challenging the conventional wisdom on a

particular topic of maritime;• Presenting a knowledge created in the business/

industry practice;• Introducing an innovative solution to a common

problem;• Presenting a policy or strategy;• Sharing information about available data and tools of

interest to maritime professionals.

Four major sections are established to perform some of functions of ME Mag, and each has its own concept. Authors should first review the concept of sections below and define which section fits for their (proposed) article.Note: Authors who are not sure about the selection of proper section may send an e-mail to either a section editor which is thought to be closer to the topic and purpose of article or Editor-in-Chief for consultation.

Contribute to The Maritime Economist

55

ME

Mag

Fall 2015 | Issue 3


Section Specif ic Notes

Section 1: INPLAIN

InPlain section is dedicated to academic research performed by both scholars and professionals in the maritime economics and business research. Scholars can briefly present a research which will be published shortly in an academic journal or an already published one. In such case, author should refrain using same text and should rewrite in ME Mag’s concept of easy-to-read and concise style. Therefore, it should be a kind of executive summary of the upcoming/published academic paper.

Articles in this section should be written in plain language excluding jargons and using limited number of technical terms with brief and simple descriptions.Technical requirements on articles for submitting to this section are as follows:• Article should not exceed 2000 words plus a number

of figures or tables;• A bionote of 80 to maximum 100 words length should

be inserted at the end of the article.Each article submitted to InPlain will be reviewed in terms of its intellectual value, writing style and accordance with the policy and concept of ME Mag by the section editors.

A proposal for consideration can be sent to editors instead of full article. Proposals should address briefly the objective, motivation and background, main idea and major results.

Please submit your full article or a proposal electronically to [email protected]

Section 2: PROFESSION & PRACTICE

Profession and Practice section is dedicated to industry professionals for presenting innovative solutions, created knowledge and R&D results in the practice. Authors should refrain from telling success stories and focus on the drivers and requirements for successful results. This section promotes research activities at non-academic institutions and encourages to present research achievements as well as core concepts and created knowledge. Authors should present some evidences for supporting arguments.

Articles in this section should be written in plain language excluding jargons and using limited number of technical terms with brief and simple descriptions.

Technical requirements on articles for submitting to this section are as follows:• Article should not exceed 2000 words plus a number


be inserted at the end of the article;• Author’s affiliation (e.g. name of company) will

normally be indicated in bionote. However, using brand names and/or company logo in the article may cause an advertisement conflict. In such case, author will be contacted about using these components by sales office if the article is accepted for publication.

Each article submitted to Profession & Practice will be reviewed in terms of its intellectual value, writing style and accordance with the policy and concept of ME Mag by sec-tion editors.



Section 3: FRESHMINDS

FreshMINDS section is dedicated to young scholars and professionals (early in their [research] career) for presenting their research results, novel concepts and innovative findings or thoughts. This section promotes young scholars and professionals to express their opinions and/or criticism about the conventional concepts with proper theoretical and/or practical evidences to support their arguments.




be inserted at the end of the article;Each article submitted to FreshMINDS will be reviewed in terms of its intellectual value, writing style and accordance with the policy and concept of ME Mag by section editors.

56

ME

Mag





Section 4: CHALLENGE

CHALLENGE section is dedicated to draw attention to critical problems in the maritime industry as well as academic research. Both scholars and professionals can submit a short article dealing with the problem and draw attention of readers to that challenging topic.




be inserted at the end of the article;Each article submitted to CHALLENGE will be reviewed in terms of its intellectual value, writing style and accordance with the policy and concept of ME Mag by section editors.



Section 5: CASE STORIES

CASE STORIES section is dedicated to both maritime professionals and practice-oriented scholars for presenting case stories that draw readers’ attention to real world challenges and thought provoking situations and ideas. What is a case story? Without overly-specifying the content or the format, a good case story usually:• addresses a relevant topic that arouses the readers’

interest, • is about an actual event or situation that has recently

happened, • includes real characters, quotations, dilemmas, and

decisions, and• can be generalized to most organizations or

individuals, helping to learn from others experiences

Case stories should be written in plain language excluding jargon and using a limited number of technical terms with brief and simple descriptions.

Technical requirements on case stories for submitting to this section are as follows:• Case stories should not exceed 2000 words plus

illustrative images;• A bionote for each author of 80 to maximum 100

words length should be inserted at the end of the case story.

If the case story focuses on specific organizations or individuals, the names may be disguised to maintain anonymity. However, any information and quotations should be factually accurate and permission should be granted to the authors for using information that is not publically available.

Each article submitted to CASE STORY will be reviewed in terms of its practical value, storytelling effectiveness, writing style, and accordance with the policy and concept of ME Mag by the section editors.

A proposal for consideration can be sent to editors instead of full article. Proposals should address briefly the objective, motivation and background, main idea, and the story line.

Please submit your full article or a proposal electronically to: [email protected]

BOOK REVIEWS

ME Mag will review recently published books and article collections related broadly to maritime transport, maritime economics, ports, logistics and shipping that can appeal not only to an academic audience but also to industry.

If you would like a book to be considered for review in the magazine, please send two copies to:Michele Acciaro, Grosser Grassbrook 17, 20459 Hamburg, Germany.

For further information, please do not hesitate to write to [email protected]

57

ME

Mag

Fall 2015 | Issue 3

References

References for the art icle: Port Adaptation to the Impacts Posed by Climate Change: How Can Scholars, Pol icymakers and Industrial Professionals Contribute?

Becker, A., Acciaro, M., Asariotis, R., Carera, E., Cretegny, L., Crist, P., Esteban, M., Mather, A., Messner, S., Naruse, S., NG, A.K.Y., Rahmstorf, S., Savonis, M., Song, D., Stenek, V. & Velegrakis, A.F. 2013. A Note on Climate change adaptation for seaports: A challenge for global ports, a challenge for global society. Climatic Change, 120, 683-695.Becker, A., Inoue, S., Fischer, M. & Schwegler, B. 2012. Climate change impacts on international seaports: knowledge, perceptions, and planning efforts among port administrators. Climatic Change, 110, 5-29.Berkhout, F., Hertin, J. & Gann, D. M. 2006. Learning to adapt: organisational adaptation to climate change impacts. Climatic Change, 78, 135-156.Bierbaum, R., Smith, J. B., Lee, A., Blair, M., Carter, L., Chapin III, F. S., Fleming, P., Ruffo, S., Stults, M. & McNeeley, S. 2013. A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in the United States: more than before, but less than needed. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18, 361- 406.EPA 2008. Planning for Climate Change Impacts at U.S. Ports. White Paper prepared by ICF International for the USEPA.IPCC 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Cambridge, UK.IPCC 2012. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Dokken, D.J., Ebi, K.L., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Plattner, G.K.,

Allen, S.K., Tignor, M. & Midgley, P.M. (eds.) SREX. Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.Kates, R.W., Travis, W.R. & Wilbanks, T.J. 2012. Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 7156-7161.McDevoy, D., Mullett, J., Millin, S., Scott, H. & Trundle, A. 2013. Understanding future risks to ports in Australia, Gold Coast, Australia National Climate Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast, Australia.Moser, S. & Ekstrom, J. 2010. A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 22026.Moser, S.C. & Boykoff, M.T. 2013a. Climate change and adaptation success. In: Moser, S. C. & Boykoff, M. T. (eds.) Successful adaptation to climate change: Linking science and policy in a rapidly changing world. Abingdon Routledge.Moser, S.C. & Boykoff, M.T. 2013b. Successful adaptation to climate change: Linking science and policy in a rapidly changing world, Routledge.NG, A.K.Y., Becker, A., Cahoon, S., Chen, S.L., Earl, P. & Yang, Z. (Eds.) 2015. Climate Change and Adaptation Planning for Ports. Routledge, London.Stenek, V., J.C. Amado, R., Connell, O., Palin, S., Wright, B., Pope, J., Hunter, J., McGregor, W., Morgan, B., Stanley, R., Washington, D., Liverman, H., Sherwin, P., Kapelus, C., Andrade, J. & Pabon, D. 2011. Climate Risk and Business: Ports. International Finance Corporation.UNCTAD 2012a. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: A Challenge for Global Ports, Ad Hoc Expert Meeting (September 2011).UNCTAD 2012b. Main Outcomes and Summary of Discussions Geneva, Switzwerland, UNCTAD, Geneva, Switzerland USGCRP 2013. National Climate Assessment [Online]. Available: http://ncadac.globalchange. gov/ [Accessed July 1 2013].

58

ME

Mag

MEMAG

Your Intellectual guidefor maritime knowledge

What do you like with ME?How can we improve it?

Any Suggestions...

Write [email protected]

FEEDBACK ME

International Association of Maritime Economists The Leading Society of Maritime Economics

The Maritime Economist Magazine - Fall 2015

Documents

Transcript of The Maritime Economist Magazine - Fall 2015