Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

TRANSPORT AND CONNECTIVITY: PROBLEMS FACED BY SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES Robert J. McCalla, Department of Geography, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "TRANSPORT AND CONNECTIVITY: PROBLEMS FACED BY SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES Robert J. McCalla, Department of Geography, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax,"— Presentation transcript:

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

2 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 20032 PURPOSE The purpose of this paper is to show how the connectiveness of Caribbean island ports impacts on their throughput, and to discuss how other shipping logistics characteristics may or may not be just as important to explain throughput. Being ‘connected’ may not be enough!

3 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 20033 PRELIMINARY REMARKS containerization is a necessary condition for increasing trade in developing countries (UNCTAD Secretariat 2003, 9). Moreover, containerization has played the main role in the development of multimodal transport and logistic services. Two key players in the seamless operation of logistics services are ports and shipping lines connecting them.

4 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 20034 In order for ports to prosper they must be well connected. Four ways to measure ‘connectiveness’ of a port: 1.the number of shipping services it has, 2.the number of port partners in its services’ network, 3.the number of linkages provided by the shipping lines to these port partners. 4.the connectivity index of the port determined by dividing linkages by port partners. To show how well these measures relate to selected Caribbean port’s throughput is the purpose of this paper.

5 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 20035 DATA AND METHODOLOGY TO CREATE NETWORKS Data were drawn for two years: 1994 and 2002, from the Containerisation International Yearbook. All shipping services operating in the Caribbean basin in those two years were recorded. For every service listed the shipping company, the ships assigned to the service, their capacity, the frequency of the service and the Caribbean ports of call of that service were recorded. By knowing the ports of call service networks could be constructed.

6 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 20036 For each service a line was drawn connecting nearest neighbour ports but the line was not closed. For example, if a route included the ports of New Orleans, Houston, Veracruz and Kingston a line was drawn joining those ports in that order. Kingston and New Orleans were not joined. A GIS was used to record the ports and the service routes. The complete networks for 1994 and 2002 are shown in Figures 1 and 2. Table 1 shows the connectiveness characteristics of these two networks.

7 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 20037 Figure 1: 1994 Network Ports = 90 Linkages = 677 Connectivity = 7.36

8 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 20038 Figure 2: 2002 Network Ports = 89 Linkages = 584 Connectivity = 6.56

9 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 20039 Table 1: 1994 and 2002 Networks Compared Links (l)Ports (p)Connect- ivity (l/p) 1994677907.36 2002584896.56

10 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200310 In the 8 year period the network has actually become simpler in structure. There are fewer linkages, fewer ports (marginally) and a lower connectivity index. What is remarkable about this simplification is the fact that the actual number of containers handled in Caribbean basin ports has more than doubled from around 5.5 million in 1994 to close to 13 million in 2002. Table 2 shows the most connected ports in 1994 and 2002.

11 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200311 Table 2A: Ports with the Most Port Partners, 1994 vs. 2002 First Ten Ports 1994Port Part- ners Rank2002Port Part- ners RankChange in Rank 1994 to 2002 Houston511Rio Haina491+9 New Orleans492Port of Spain462+2 San Juan463Kingston443+7 La Guaira454Puerto Cabello434+2 Port of Spain454La Guaira425 Puerto Cabello446Houston376-5 Maracaibo427San Juan357-4 Oranjestad388Cartagena357+6 Willemstad379New Orleans329-7 Kingston3510Puerto Limon329+1 Continued…

12 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200312 Table 2B: Ports with the Most Port Partners, 1994 vs. 2002 Second Ten Ports 1994Port Part- ners Rank2002Port Part- ners RankChange in Rank 1994 to 2002 Puerto Limon3510Bridgetown329+8 Rio Haina3510Pointe-a-Pitre329+11 Cartagena3413Willemstad3290 Guanta3314Port-au-Prince3014+3 Mobile3215Fort-de-France3014+19 S. Tom. de Castilla3215Veracruz2916+14 Bridgetown3117Port Castries2817+17 Port-au-Prince3117Puerto Cortes2718 Puerto Cortes3117Basseterre2718+7 Santa Marta3020Puerto Manzanillo (Not ranked in 1994) 2718n/a

13 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200313 The highlighted ports (excluding Basseterre) from Table 2 form the focus of the rest of the paper. The ports are: Rio Haina, Port of Spain, Kingston, San Juan, Bridgetown, Pointe-a-Pitre, Willemstad, Port-au-Prince, Fort-de-France, Port Castries and Oranjestad. Connectivity networks were drawn for each of these ports for 1994 and 2002. As examples, Figure 3 and 4 are shown for Kingston and Bridgetown respectively. Table 3 is a summary of the connectiveness characteristics of these ports for 2002.

14 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200314 Figure 3: Kingston Connectivity Networks, 1994 and 2002 Ports = 35 Linkages = 93 Connectivity = 2.66Ports = 44 Linkages = 118 Connectivity = 2.68

15 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200315 Figure 4: Bridgetown Connectivity Networks, 1994 and 2002 Ports = 33 Linkages = 99 Connectivity = 3.00Ports = 32 Linkages = 71 Connectivity = 2.22

16 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200316 Table 3: Connectiveness Characteristics of Selected Ports, 2002 ServicesPort Partners LinkagesConnectivity (links/ports) Throughput (TEUs)* Rio Haina27491262.57460,184 Port of Spain25471262.68282,487 Kingston31441122.68765,977 San Juan31361002.782,392,749 Bridgetown1632712.2268,600 Pointe-a-Pitre1733112.33129,991 Willemstad1133682.0671,000 Port-au-Prince831381.2097,973 Fort-de-France1630722.40141,700 Port Castries1029632.1727,070 Oranjestad617281.6471,500 * Source: Containerization International Yearbook, 2002. Values are for 2000, the latest year available.

17 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200317 ANALYSIS The results of simple linear regression anlysis between throughput (dependent variable) and individual port connectiveness variables from Table 3 are shown in Table 4 and graphically in Figure 5. Table 4: R 2 values for Simple Linear Regression Analysis between Port Throughput (TEUs) and Connectiveness Measures Connectiveness MeasuresR2R2 Services0.4944 Port Partners0.0767 Linkages0.1754 Connectivity0.2739

18 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200318 Figure 5: Relationships between TEUs and Port Connectiveness Measures San Juan

19 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200319 The results are disappointing. A close appraisal of the graphs shows that one point, San Juan, is very far removed from the trend lines. Because of its special status with the US it could be considered an anomaly to the ports under study. Removing it from consideration improves the relationships between TEUs and the independent variables. Table 5 shows the new R 2 values.

20 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200320 Table 5: R 2 values for Simple Linear Regression Analysis between Port Throughput (TEUs) and Connectiveness Measures - WITHOUT San Juan Connectiveness MeasuresR2R2 Services0.8025 Port Partners0.5193 Linkages0.5678 Connectivity0.3458 These results are much more encouraging.

21 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200321 DISCUSSION The conclusion to draw from the analysis is that port connectiveness is important to port throughput, an assumption made at the start of this paper, but now shown to have validity. BUT since 1994 some of the ports have been losing services, port partners, linkages and connectivity index values.

22 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200322 Table 5: Changes in Port Connectiveness Measures, 1994-2002 ServicesPort PartnersLinkagesConnectivity Rio Haina21120-0.22 Port of Spain01-31-0.73 Kingston89250.02 Bridgetown-2-28-0.78 Pointe-a-Pitre24-4-0.46 Willemstad-2-5-16-0.15 Port-au-Prince-2-10-0.30 Fort-de- France 264-0.43 Port Castries367-0.26 Oranjestad-5-22-47-0.28

23 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200323 Bridgetown, Willemstad, Port-au-Prince and Oranjestad show negative values under all four variables. Only Kingston has positive change values in all four variables. It might be expected that with the decline in connectiveness values that ports would experience declines in throughput, but this is not the case. Why?

24 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200324 Other factors at work: 1.Ship size 2.Frequency of service 3.Hub connections Table 7 shows that in all ports average vessel size (exception is Port-au-Prince) and frequency of service increased between the two years.

25 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200325 Table 7: Changes in Vessel Size and Frequency of Service, 1994-2002 Average Vessel Size (TEUs) Average Service Frequency (per month) 19942002Change19942002Change Rio Haina4996611622.84.11.3 Port of Spain4047653612.23.31.1 Kingston3651,1467812.33.31.0 Bridgetown3495622132.53.61.1 Pointe a Pitre5338893563.33.80.5 Willemstad5268072812.83.70.9 Port-au-Prince526467-592.74.51.8 Fort-de-France5287792513.03.60.6 Port Castries2255263013.63.80.2 Oranjestad4608563963.43.80.4

26 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200326 Hub connections may also be important in explaining throughput. Smaller ports depend on transshipment points, or hubs, as major conduits through which their goods must pass. Caribbean hubs include: NORTH: Houston, Miami and Freeport, Bahamas. CENTRE: Kingston, Rio Haina, San Juan SOUTH: Port of Spain, Puerto Cabello, Cartagena and the terminals at Colon (Puerto Manzanillo, Colon and Cristobal) Table 8 shows changes to hub connections for seven non-hub Caribbean ports

27 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200327 Table 8: Hub* Connections of Non-Hub Island Ports Hub ConnectionsPrinciple Hub with No. of Connections New Hub Connect’s Lost Hub Connnect’s 19942002Change199420021994-02 Bridgetown2419-5PS 9 H -4 Pointe-a-Pitre11198PS 6PS 4K 3, C 3H -2 Willemstad3128-3PS 9PC 9SJ -2 Port-au-Prince1813-5K 5 F 1PC -2, C -1 Fort-de-France10155PS 5 C 3, RH 2, Co 1 H -2 Port Castries7158PS 6 K 3, PS 2, RH 3 Oranjestad2211-11PC 6PC 5PS -3, H -1, SJ -2 * Hub ports are: Houston (H), Freeport (F), Kingston (K), Rio Haina (RH), San Juan (SJ), Port of Spain (SP), Puerto Cabello (PC), Cartagena (C), Colon including Cristobal and Puerto Manzanillo (Co).

28 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200328 Oranjestad (-11), Bridgetown (-5), Port-au-Prince (-5) and Willemstad (-3) have all experienced net losses in hub connections. Note the importance of Port of Spain as a hub. Houston is the big loser as a transshipment center for four of the ports. Kingston,Cartagena and Rio Haina have become more important.

29 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200329 CONCLUSION Ports do need to be connected to prosper. The analysis shows this to be true to a varying degree depending on how connectiveness is measured. But connectiveness is not everything in explaining port throughput.

30 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200330 Variables such as vessels size, frequency of service and hub connections are also important in influencing throughput. Although there is no doubt that containerization is a necessary condition for increasing trade in developing countries, its very presence is not a guarantee that such improvement will occur. The actual dimensions of the shipping networks by which the country through its ports is connected are important factors in bringing about positive change.

31 UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 200331 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Dr. Brian Slack, Concordia University and Dr. Claude Comtois, Université de Montréal.


Download ppt "TRANSPORT AND CONNECTIVITY: PROBLEMS FACED BY SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES Robert J. McCalla, Department of Geography, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google