607
1 INTRODUCTION
For 3000 years, port cities polarize and structure
globalization.Accordingly,managingthese spacesis
a key issue. Additionally, since the mid‐twentieth
century, port cities have undergone major
transformations which have had consequences on
theirspatialandsocialdynamics.Then,itisofcritical
importance that the port
authorities, territorial
communitiesandalltheportcity’sstakeholdersfind
modesofpartnershipinordertoresolveanypossible
problemsofcohabitation.
The purpose of this article is to analyse the
interactionsbetweenthestakeholderswhoshapeport
dynamics by considering them as challenges in the
developmentofthewider
territory(extendingbeyond
theportboundaries).
Our analysis is underpinned by a European
benchmark which should, over time, incorporate a
score of medium‐sized port‐cities (See Map 1) We
shall present the case of Le Havre and Klaipeda
(Lithuania),bothchoseninviewofcertainsimilarities
between them. Approximately twenty
interviews
were conducted with the principal stakeholders in
both port cities, enabling us as of now to identify
some results and lines of thought. The degree of
interdependence is especially high when one
comparesthisscaletolargerportcities(Rotterdamor
Antwerp).
In the first part, this paper will
set out some
elementstodefinethemedium‐sizedportcityacross
Europe. It will highlight the complexity of the
exercise. The second part will present the territories
and study the governance of the two port cities by
identifying the respective roles of the different
stakeholders(port,municipal,regional,private,etc.).
Lastly,the impact of theirinterplay onthe port and
territorialdevelopmentwillbeexplained.
Developing the City, Developing the Port: Comparison
of the Governance in Medium-size Port-cities in Europe
A.Serry&L.Loubet
UniversityLeHavreNormandy,LeHavre,France
ABSTRACT:Modificationsundergoneinglobaltradehaveforcedportstotransformandmoveawayfromthe
city.Thisspatial distancecontributestoare‐compositionofterritoriesandlocalgovernance.Theanalysisof
medium‐sized port cities is particularly illustrative in this respect. Their
city‐port relationship is especially
robustandthemutua limpactsofterritorialandportdynamicsemergemoreclearly.LeHavreandKlaipeda
(Lithuania)werethereforeanalysed.Morethantwentyinterviews werecarriedoutwithsomeprincipalstake‐
holders,whichfacilitatedtoclarifythewayinwhichtheinterplaybetweenstakeholders’
structuresportcities
andinfluencesthedevelopmentofterritoriesatseveralscales.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 13
Number 3
September 2019
DOI:10.12716/1001.13.03.17
608
2 EUROPEANMID‐SIZEDPORTCITIES
Historical links between ports and towns are clear.
Notably,manytownsoriginatefromports.Indeed,it
isrecognisedthatthereisarelationshipbetweenthe
sizeofaportandthatoftheconurbationitoccupies,
in particular for coastal towns with good port
sites
(Rodrigue&al.,2017).
Evenifthiscorrelationhaslostitsvigouroverthe
lastdecades,ithasnotdisappeared.Therehasbeena
gradualfunctionalandspatialdisconnectionbetween
towns and ports. Containerization has compelled
portstomovefurtheraway,inasearchforvast,easily
accessible easements.
The functional separation
resultsfrom the progressive empowerment of urban
functions compared with functions of
interconnectedness port, maritime and transport),
which make up the original functions of urban
anchoring(Ducruet,2005).
These evolutions have heightened what were
already complex specificities and realities of port
cities. For that matter, there is no
commonly agreed
definitionof a portcity. “The precisedefinition of a
port city concept does not exist as such and varies
accordingtodifferentdisciplinesandevenaccording
to different approaches within the same discipline”
(Ducruet,2004).Whileitsspatialroleisclear(atraffic
hub at the interface
of maritime and land transport
networks), the two major orientations of port cities
(urban function, port function) combine in different
ways. There are multiple urban‐port configurations,
just as there are variations in the sizeof port towns
andcities.
Surveys on large ports dominate research on
maritime transport. But, the
port system is also
characterized by the presence of numerus medium‐
sizedports whichoften serviceless extensiveinland
areas. Maritime geography or economic approaches
lessfocusonthesemedium‐sizedportsandevenless
so (Comtois& al., 1993). Though there are issues of
territorialdevelopmentwhichjustifya
closerlookat
the inclusion of these ports and their territory in a
globalizedmaritimesystem.
AttheEuropeanscale,studiesconsidermid‐sized
cities as between 100 000 and 500 000 inhabitants
(Giffinger, 2007). If the population of the town is of
primary importance, it represents only one of the
defining components. Its roles and functions within
extended spaces (conurbation, region, etc.) also
requirespecialattention.
From the perspective of the port, especially
becauseofthediversityofconfigurations,awideset
of criteria makes it possible to define medium‐sized
ports (Bird, 1971). They can be characterised
rendering to
the size of their facilities. But it is not
sure that the extent of these infrastructures is
indicativeof trafficor activity (Comtois &al., 1993).
Tonnage is certainly the most widely used
instrument.The European Sea Ports Organisation
definesmedium‐sized ports bytraffic of between 10
and 50 million
tons (Verhoeven, 2010). But this
procedurealsohasitsdrawbackssuchastheabsence
ofaccounttakenoftheaddedva lueofacommodity.
Mostimportantly,thenotionofsizeneedsto beput
into perspective in accordance with the diversity of
coastline: a small Chinese port would appear like
a
largeSouthAmericanport.
So,tobeasspecificandexhaustiveaspossible,we
have defined medium‐sized port cities by means of
thistwofoldcomponent, urban andport.Inorderto
do this, we have taken the classical quantitative
indicators by assimilating the difficulty of
international comparison. The medium
‐sized port
cities taken into consideration in this paper are
thereforethefollowing(SeeFigure1):
Cities between 100 000 and 250 000 inhabitants
withmaritimetrafficofover10milliontons.
And cities of over 20 000 inhabitants and fewer
than 500 000 inhabitants with a port traffic of
between10and50milliontons.
Defining the thresholds can be subject to
discussion. It is perhaps surprising to see Le Havre
(becauseofitsporttraffic)classedamongstmedium‐
sizedEuropean
portcities. But,yet asearly as2004,
LeHavrewasnotclassifiedasamajorEuropeanport
despite being one of the highest performing as
regardscontainertraffic(Rozenblat,2004).Ifwelook
againatthedefining componentsabove,itsinclusion
inthebenchmarksseemslegitimate.
Figure1.Medium‐sizedportcitiesinEurope
3 CASESTUDIESONMEDIUM‐SIZEDPORT
CITIES:KLAIPEDAANDLAHAVRE
3.1 Twocomparableconfigurations
The choice of these two cities is based not only on
their belonging to our definition of a medium‐sized
portcity,totheirsimilarities,butalsototheirrelative
diversitywhichisomnipresentat
Europeanlevel.
By their similar populations (approximately
177000 inhabitants in 2017), Le Havre and Klaipeda
arecitiesofcomparablesizesinwhichportactivities
have a sure economic impact. Moreover, they are
regularly associated with the phenomenon of
shrinkingcitieswhichreferstotheconsequencesofan
urbanshrinkageimpacting
thesecitiesonthreefronts:
609
lossofpopulation;lossofactivities,functionsorjobs;
increaseinpovertyandunemployment.
KlaipedaisthethirdlargestcityofLithuania,but
it witnessed a 19.3 % decline in its population from
1993to2010.However,thesituationislessdisastrous
than itseems asthisurban decline is
largelydue to
suburbanization (Spiriajevas, 2015). Le Havre is one
ofafewindustrialandportcitiessituatedingrowing
regionsdescribedasshrinking cities(Genoa,Palermo,
Aberdeen…)(Wolff,Fol,Roth&Cunningham‐Sabot,
2013).
With regard to maritime activity, the picture is
quitedifferent. Having72.7million tons of
trafficin
2017,the port ofLe Havre is thelargest port of our
panelwhereasKlaipeda’s(46.3Mtin2018)ismedian.
Similarly, the dynamics seems to be varied (See
Figure2).Infact,LeHavre’straffichasstagnatedover
the last twenty years, seeing the port lose market
share
in the northern European range (Serry, 2018).
Meanwhile, the port of Klaipeda has seen intense
growth. Moreover, Klaipeda has a far more
diversifiedtraffic(liquidanddrybulklikefertilizers,
container,ro‐ro)thantheportofLeHavre,dominated
byliquidbulkandcontainers.
Figure2.Trendsinporttraffic (Mt)
Source:PortofLeHavre,PortofKlaipeda(2018)
The situation varies considerably with regard to
the port‐city interface. At Le Havre, while the port
activitymovedawayfromtheurbancentre,itbecame
more inward‐looking. A waterfront project was
consequently sharped by the municipality, the
conurbation community and the port in order to
propose urban requalification to
the original dock
basins, as well as the adjacent neighbourhoods. At
Klaipeda, the port and the city are still closely
interlinked.Development of portactivityis partially
lockedbyurbanmorphology.Ontheotherhand,the
city’s access to the sea is restricted by the port
territory.Henceportfunction
andurbanfunctiondo
not yet stand far apart, offering up little port
wasteland to regeneration projects. Social and
environmentalimpacts(notablydustemissions)from
portactivityare,infact,verynoticeable.
To finish, apart from socioeconomic similarities,
these two port communities match a model of
identical governance (from an institutional
perspective) of Landlord Port under the direct
supervisionoftheState.
3.2 Decision‐makingorganizationinKlaipeda
The organization and the functions of the port of
Klaipeda are defined by the 1996 law. Under the
direct regulation of the Lithuanian ministry of
transport, the main missions of the port authority
(KlaipedaStateSeaportAuthority)aretomanagethe
territoryinitspossession,ensuresafetyandsecurity,
build infrastructure and perform strategic
development plans. The port general director is
appointedbytheministeroftransport.
The port development board formulates the
development strategy and coordinates relations
between the port and the municipal
authority and
governmental institutions. It is composed of
representatives from the transport and finances
ministries, the region, the Klaipeda municipality,
representatives from the academic world, the port
and its users. The port council, comprising
representativesfromalmostthesamebodiesasthose
seen in the port development board. does not
have
any supervisory functions. It prepares the
developmentplans.
Theresult ofaround teninterviews conductedin
April2017 with differentactors inKlaipeda (deputy
mayor, manager of the port authority of Klaipeda,
directors of termi nals, the manager of Lithuania’s
maritime academy, the manager of the public
maritime transport company, managers
of the
Association of Lithuanian Stevedoring Compa nies,
LJKKA) allow to analyse the decision‐making
organizationinKlaipeda.
The institutional management of the port of
Klaipeda, is based on great presence of central
government. The State seems to enjoy very strong
leadership.
“We are a state‐run business and were set
up by the
ministry of transport. We are like a subsidiary of the
ministry of transport”. A manager of Klaipeda’s port
authority.
Inthiscontext,thecitycouncilfindsitdifficultto
direct the port development in line with municipal
policies:
“IfIsaidthatwehavenoimpact
ontheport,thiswould
almost be the truth. Lithuania only has one port. It’s a
state‐runportandthemunicipalityhasno rights over it;
other than the fact that we are convened to two advisory
councils.Theportcouncilinwhichwedon’thavetheright
tovote.
There’salsothecouncilfordevelopmentin which
wehavefourseatsoutof23andinwhichnobodypaysany
attentiontous”.ThedeputymayorofKlaipeda.
So, local and central governments can face (over
real‐estate management, for example) in an
environment where the municipality is not
recognized by the port authority as a port
stakeholder:
“There’snoproblem[infindinganagreement],butthe
discussions with the municipality; but it isn’t a port
stakeholder”.AmanagerofKlaipeda’sportauthority.
Concerning private sector stakeholders, they are
importantpartnersandarepresentinthemajorityof
decision‐making instances. These companies
participateactivelyinportmanagementbymeansof
theirassociationsforthedefenceoftheirinterests:
610
“We represent our industry in parliament, in the
Lithuanian government and we help it to take the right
decisions…Atthesametime,wealsodiscussissueswith
thecitycouncil.Werepresentourmembers’interestswith
thecity”.Astevedoringcompanydirector,amanager
ofLJKKA.
«
Our aim is to develop the port of Klaipeda together
with state institutions, the port authority of Klaipeda...
Therearepractices,suchas:nodirectfacetofacecontact
between the state institutions and businessmen. But
generally,it’spreferabletogoalongand negotiatewiththe
governmentorministriesor
theLithuanian parliamentas
members of associations, for example for the port or for
maritime activities”. Another stevedoring company
director,alsoamanagerofLJKKA.
Companies negotiate and cooperate with the
government, building coalitions which result in the
municipalitybeingmarginalizedinissuesrelatingto
the development of the port
community. The city
council, on the other hand, appears to communicate
more on the defence of inhabitants faced with the
negativeexternalitiesofindustrialportactivities.
Thus,positionsareadoptedwhichillustratefairly
classiclandsettlementwhereeconomicdevelopment
(promotedbybusinessesandtheState)seemstobein
contradiction with
the living environment and well‐
being of the residents (prioritized by the
municipality). These tensions become exacerbated
duringthevariouselectoralcampaigns,betheylocal
ornational.
In such context, the lack of dialogue and the
imbalance between the port authority and the
municipality in their ability to wield influence
(reported by a large number of port stakeholders)
encourage the municipality to adopt a defensive
attitude(perhapstothedetrimentofthedevelopment
oftheport):
“Ithinkthatthecitycouncillorsshouldbepartofthe
portcouncilatthesamelevel[asthatoftheport],butif
the
city wants to be part of the decision‐making process, it
should also contribute to port activities. As it stands, the
citywantstotakebutdoesn’tliketogive”.Themanager
ofthemaritimeacademyofLithuania.
Therefore, the State, the port authority, the
businesses replaced by their
associations, the
municipality, have been described as major
stakeholders.Theworkers’unions(suchasDockers’)
are not mentioned, as well as the intermediary
territorialtiers(theregion,forexample).
3.3 GovernanceoftheLeHavreportcommunity
The governance of the Greater Maritime Port of Le
Havre (GPMH) subscribes to the
general model
following the 2008 port reform. It is a public body,
performing sovereign functions as well as the
developmentoftheharbourarea.ATheManagement
Board oversees the establishment and is responsible
for its management. The Supervisory Board adopts
the strategic guidelines for the establishment and
exercises permanent
control of itsmanagement. It is
completed by a consultative body: the development
council whichis consulted on the seaport’s strategic
project and pricing policy. The decision‐making
organizationandleadershipstructureisclearlystated
by the results from some ten interviews conducted
from April to September 2017 with different
stakeholders
from Le Havre (elected councillors,
chamber of commerce and industry directors (CCI)
Seine Estuary, GPMH representatives, a stevedoring
company director, port companies ‘association
(UMEP)managers).
The State seems to be the most influential
stakeholder.Theinstitutionalmanagementoftheport
of Le Havre, therefore, partly resembles that which
was presented
in the case of Klaipeda. The geo‐
economicimportanceoftheportofLeHavre,butalso
the former mayor of Le Havre who is the current
Prime Minister,explain the particula rattention paid
tothedevelopmentofthisportcommunity.TheState
ensures its control by means of senior civil
representativesinallthedecision‐makingbodiesand
especially the chairman of the port’s management
board.
“AttheGPMH,decisionsaretakenbythemanagement
board... They’re presented to a supervisory board which
validatesthem,apartfrombudgetmatterssinceit’sunder
Bercy’sadministrative(ministryofeconomy)supervision”.
Astevedoring
companydirector.
According to most of the interviewed actors,
entrusting the port’s management to nominated
officials is a handicap to territorial and port
development.
“One of the main problems with port management in
France is that representatives of the State are senior
officialswhocometothesupervisoryboardwithno
genuine
politicalmandate…sotheyseetothemanagement.There’s
no real vision, just management”. A councillor of Le
Havre.
Suchportmanagementbypublicofficials“passing
through”and“withnoreallocalbase”(accordingto
thestakeholderinterviewed),isseenasdetrimentalto
the definition of a port
and territorial strategy
promotinglong‐termglobaldevelopment.
“Theircareersareelsewhere,theycomefromelsewhere,
and will return elsewhere. It would be better, as in other
ports, to have people whose careers are based in this
enterprise we call the port”. A stevedoring company
director.
In this context, the
dual ministerial supervision
(TransportMinistry,EconomyandFinanceMinistry)
would complicate the management dimension and
this would be to the detriment of more ambitious
policies.
With regard to the urban side (City and
agglomeration) it appears to be in an ambivalent
position. On the one hand, the urban community of
Le
Havreseemstohavelimitedpower:
“The city isn’t a stakeholder with strong decision‐
making powers […] We aren’t the ones who make the
decisions, we’re simply invited to the discussions… you
havetorealizethatthegovernanceofaportlikeLeHavreis
largely out of the hands
of the local elected officials”. A
councillorofLeHavre.
“As an organizing body, the City Council and the
CODAHhavenoimpactonusinourbusinessproper”.A
stevedoringcompanydirector.
611
On the other hand, strong informal relations
between the president of the GPMH board of
directors and the mayor (president of the urban
community: CODAH) enable the latter to have a
significant impact on the main directions involving
theport.Thesedynamicsarestrengthenedinviewof
the closeness that
exists between the current mayor
and his predecessor, today the Prime Minister.
Mechanismsoffairlyclassic“crossregulation”canbe
observedwherecentral anddecentralizedpowersare
interwoven(Crozier&Thoenig,1975).
“If you have a mayor of one town who has a certain
powernationallyandamayorof
anothertownwhohasno
power nationally, you don’t have the same type of
relationship…Andthepolitical factor carriestremendous
weight;it’sclearthatthequalityofaninstitutionlikeours
facingtheRegion…”.AGPMHrepresentative.
So, one informal and powerful decision‐making
body (acknowledged by all) has constructive
cooperation between state officials (namely the
director of the port) and the mayor: “the
quadripartite”.
“TheQuadripartite,ameetingwhichtakesplacethree
or four times a year and brings together the mayor of Le
Havre,thepresidentoftheCODAH,whoisinfactoneand
thesame,the
presidentoftheCCIandthepresidentofthe
port board of directors. This is a powerful, yet totally
informal, decision‐making body. […] On sensitive
questions, where a choice has to be made between several
scenarios, where arbitration is absolutely essential, that’s
whatit’stherefor.Sometimes…it’sjustcity
andport”.A
councillorofLeHavre.
“That’s where [at the quadripartite] discussions take
placeandthen,dependingonthedecisions,well,decisions
aretakenatthatlevel”.AGPMHrepresentative.
Themunicipalofficialscanalsobenefitfrommore
leadershipthankstotheroletheyplayasmediatorsin
the
eventofsocialconflicts.Themunicipalityhovers
between a form of neutrality and a mission of
appeasementbetweenthetradesunionsandtheport
management.
Theunionsalsoemergeasinfluentialplayersafter
the State and the municipality, especially in light of
their ability to block agreements. This leadership
appears as
a very important component when
representativesofportcompaniesareinterviewed.
“If a decision issuing from the State doesn’t go down
well,you’vegotamonthofstrikes,amonthwithnowork
andseveralmillioneuroslost...soasforme,I’dhavesaid,
theoperatingforce:thatmeans,
theunionsfirst”.AUMEP
representative.
In this context, private sector stakeholders
(operators,logisticians, handlers, etc.)do notappear
tohavemuchinfluenceindecision‐makingbodies.
“Theshare oftheprivatesectorshouldbeincreasedin
these decision‐making groups. Sovereign power is clearly
indisputable,butIthinkthatthe
voiceofthepeopleonthe
ground should be heard, those who are involved”. A
UMEPrepresentative.
Other stakeholders who could appear as key
players in the system are mentioned last in our
interviewsorelsearenotcited.
In order of importance, shipping companies are
poorlyrepresentedinGPMH
decision‐makingbodies,
theyexerciseconsiderableinfluence.Theirstrategies,
thesizeoftheirships…,conditionthedirectionsand
development of ports. As such, they influence
economicmodelsandportinfrastructures
“Hereisavery important playeryetonewhoisrather
infrequently to be seen in governing bodies. He is
represented
allthesame,butthere’s noneed,hedictates,in
fact. He’s not even represented on the port supervisory
board”.AcouncillorofLeHavre.
The regional level is virtually absent from our
interviews. At a time when the regionalization of
portsisunderdiscussion,theregional councilisnot
mentioned as an important player in Normandy’s
portsystem. Thelackofclarityinthedistributionof
roles, skills and missions seems to disadvantage
identificationofthisechelon:
“There is the big question of the respective place the
Stateandtheregionshouldhaveinthesegoverningbodies,
since the Region
is increasinglycalled upon to co‐finance
infrastructuralprojectsandtheplace oftheRegioninthe
governancehasnotyetbeendetermined”.Acouncillorof
LeHavre.
In parallel, there is no citation from HAROPA
which purpose is to coordinate the strategy of port
developmentofthethreeports
ontheSeineaxis(Le
Havre, Rouen, Paris) by promoting a pooling of
strategicfunctions(commercialdevelopment,quality
of network services into the hinterland,
communication,etc.).Itconfirmsthedifficultyarising
from the emergence of midway scales between the
local (municipality and port community) and the
national.Itisclearthat
todate,thisorganizationdoes
notappear,intheeyesofthestakeholdersquestioned,
as an echelon of reference in the development of a
portlikeLeHavre’s.
“It’s a good thing that it exists and the question that
reallyarisestodayis:shouldwegofurther?Andwe’rein
the process of studying that because that’s what was
announced at the same time as plans to reflect on
regionalization”.AcouncillorofLeHavre.
“HAROPAisbetterthannothing.Butit’snotenough.
There must be much stronger integration in all the
decision‐makingprocessesconcernedwiththeSeineaxis”
.
Astevedoringcompanydirector.
Therefore, although the role of the region
concerning port development, the creation of bodies
ofenhancedcooperation,orevenmergers,seemtobe
underdiscussion, the major stakeholders remainthe
State (and its deconcentrated representatives), the
municipaltiers(inrelationtoitspoliticallegitimacy)
and the
particularly powerful intermediary bodies
(theDockers’unions,forinstance).Inadditiontothis
governance, ship‐owners play a relatively solitary
role. Contrary to the Klaipeda case, the workers’
unions (such as Dockers’) are often mentioned and
they appear to carry a great deal of influence.
Similarly, the intermediary territorial scales
(the
region,forexample)seemhardlytobeacknowledged
(asisthecaseinKlaipeda).
612
4 GOVERNANCEANDDEVELOPMENTOFTHE
PORTANDTERRITORIES
Port city, which serves as a link between local
territoriesandtheglobaleconomy,isaninteractionof
both urban and port systems, giving rise to its
complex and dynamic nature (Xiao & Lam, 2017).
Mutationsininternationaltradehaveforced
portsto
transform and generally move away from the city.
Nowadays, in order to be competitive, ports must
effectively interact within their own territory. This
containsbuildinginfrastructures,coordinatingactors
andcargoflows,creatinglong‐termrelationshipswith
private entrepreneurs and public parties… (Debrie,
Lavaud‐Letilleul, Parola, 2013). So, it
can be more
difficultformunicipalrepresentatives,forinstance,to
understand what are the current trends in the
maritimeindustryandtheneedforportdevelopment
of any magnitude in order to remain competitive.
Thereisarisingseparationofthecityfromtheport,
fuelledby institutionaland organizational rationales
peculiartoeachstakeholderandterritory.
Consequently, despite standardisation of the
modalities of governance according to the landlord
port model (Verhoeven, 2010), there is no single
archetype. For that matter, this model already
distinguishesthehanseaticconfiguration.Thismodel
describes a “governance of proximity”, striking the
rightbalancebetweenprivate
portandLatinpattern
(inwhichtheportisundertheinfluenceoftheState)
(Tourret,2014).Furthermore,eachportisexposedon
a variable basis to political bodies of the different
institutional levels (municipal, regional, provincial,
national, international). Associated to this is the
impactofthemechanismsfordeliveringgoods,
which
aredecisionstakenbytheprivatesector.Thisvariety
of scales and multiplication in the number of
stakeholders make up the general framework in
which the modes of governance of world seaport
systemsfit(Comtois,2014).
In this context, the organization of the urban
project and port project, spatial
planning or the
drafting of urban planning documents reveal the
nature of relations between stakeholders as they
represent the fundamental issues of territorial
development. The geopolitics of urban‐port
developmentisbasedonconflictsofpracticesandis
expressed fairly classically. National, regional or
municipalinterestsareoftenatoddswith
eachother
(Brooks,Cullinane,Pallis,2017).Onthisoccasion,the
imperatives concerning the environment, the
economy, the well‐being of inhabitants, fishing,
logistics and industrial activities, etc., may raise
objections to port development. In the case of
Klaipeda, for example, the development of tourism
andprotectionoflivingconditions,promoted
bythe
municipality, encounter negative externalities and
landrequirementsforportactivity.InthecaseofLe
Havre, the particular interests of the port authority
(duplicated by its land management mission) might
lead it to rein in the economic and industrial
developmentoftheterritory:
“Ihaveastakeholdertoday,the
port,which has areal
land policy which can even conflict with economic
development.Thereareareasofinterestbutwhereindustry
won’tbesetup.Becauseindustrydoesn’tprovideactivity
andasaport,whatintereststheportisdevelopingtraffic.
Sowhatyoufindisaportwith
alandstrategywhichhasto
legitimately provide activity but which in reality won’t
providetheeconomicandespeciallytheindustrialactivity
oftheterritory”.Amanagerofachamberofcommerce
andindustryoftheSeine‐Estuary,April2017
Consequently,theabilityofstakeholderstosetup
regulatoryareas,formal
andinformalarenaslikelyto
reconcilethedifferentprojects,isfundamental.AtLe
Havre, the alignment of port and urban projects
benefits from the “quadripartite” regulation. Strong
local government (municipal and intercommunal)
guarantees that there is mutual recognition between
stakeholders. In the Lithuanian case, the
“interlocking/interconnecting” of projects seems to
sufferfromaformofmanipulationof theportissue
driven by the mayor in order to express his
inclinationstoresistinthefaceofcentralgovernment.
The lack of reciprocal recognition culminates in a
development which would benefit from more
reconciliation:
“Therearetwoofthem[projects]…becausethey
arenot
combinedandtherearetwodistinctdevelopments,notjust
one”.ThemanagerofLithuania’smaritimeacademy.
“The port has its vision, the city has its own…”. A
manager of the public maritime transport company,
April2017
Consequently, urban projects and port projects
will produce games and strategies
which are
illustrated most notably through attempts to
appropriatespaces:
“Thecityisalwaysintimidatingtheportsoastoregain
access to the water, to increase its surface area for port
activities”. A stevedoring company director, a
managerofLJKKA.
Thisunstablegovernance,whereleadershipofthe
local, central
and portauthorities is endlessly under
discussion, accentuates the areas of uncertainty for
economic stakeholders who require institutional
stability:
“We need clear, legitimate boundaries for the
development of the future port of Klaipeda. The port and
the municipality don’t want to come to an agreement…
We’re very willing to determine the
areas for future
developmentforthenext25years”.Anotherstevedoring
companydirector,amanagerofLJKKA.
The partisan dimension (political parties) also
characterizes local governance. Depending on the
context, it can have an impact on the dynamics of
territorial development. In the case of Klaipeda, for
example,nationalbipartite
oppositionscanbeseenat
locallevelintheportsector:
“Inallofthisyoucanseearedolenceofpolitics[…]we
now have a liberal party at the head of the municipal
council. If the director of the port authority were of the
sameparty,Idon’t
thinkwe’dhaveaconflict.Butatthe
moment,thedirectoroftheportauthorityisinthesocial‐
democratpartyandtheheadofthemunicipalcouncilinthe
opposingparty”.Adirectorofa stevedoringcompany,
amanagerofLJKKA.
The drafting of territorial planning documents is
therefore
a considerable political issue. In the two
cases examined, they enable the communal block to
“regain control” in a relationship where the State
613
appearsoftenastheprivilegedinterlocutoroftheport
authority. In this, the communal block sees itself
endowedwithanexcessofleadership:
“It is clearly the urban planning laws that impact
heavily on the port’s flexibility. In the end, it’s the
regulationsthat result in asort of game
of dependence of
the port concerning those municipalities: it’s what they
authorize… In the end, there’s a time when the
municipalities dictate the regulations in force in their
territories”.ArepresentativeoftheGPMH.
Ontheotherhand,urbanplanningdocumentsare
alsolearningtoolsforcooperation(Loubet,2012)and
helpto improvethe dynamicsof localdevelopment.
In addition, “Spatial planning, urban planning and
development documents therefore constitute
territorial arenas for dialogue between stakeholders
(Nadou,2013):
“Before, in those towns, it was partial land use plans
and the port territory was outside the partial land use
plans. One day, they
were asked to review those partial
landuseplansandwereasked:whatareyougoingtowrite
on the port, then? So then, the port and the towns
interacted. It was theimpact of theSolidarity and Urban
Renewal act. So typically in areas like that, it made two
stakeholders come and talk to one another…”. A GPMH
representative.
Thismakesportdecision‐makersre‐examinetheir
territorial anchorage, operate an “expansion of their
baseline territorial status” (Loubet, 2011), here the
port.Similarly,theyincitecouncillors,techniciansand
eveninhabitants,toquestiontheport’sintegrationin
the city and
the way in which they participate in
buildingasenseofidentity.Assuch,theprocedureof
draftingurbanplanningdocuments reconcilesurban
and port projects. It also constitutes a means for
testing the organizational competence of local
communities in a context of increasing complexity
where account should be taken of
the plurality of
stakeholders and all of the issues. As in the
management of social movements in the port of Le
Havre, the “mediation” (Muller, 2000) used bolsters
themunicipalandintercommunalleadership.
So, structuring planning tools, different projects
andmultiplespatialitiesbringstolightamultifaceted
interplay: public/private relationships,
institutional
interference, effects ofcompetition and a divergence
inviewpointsbetweenpeopleoftheseaandthoseof
theland(Foulquier,2009).Similarly,“therelationship
with public authority remains ambivalent, between
the need for strategic supervision to see ahead and
callsforautonomytoactfaster. TheStateadvancesat
its
ownpace,butitstillhasagreatdealtoundertake
whereportsareconcerned,inparticulartogivesense
tolandandenvironmentalmanagement”(Guillaume,
2014). Thus, the port authorities have been
encouragedtothinkaboutthemediumandlong‐term
relevance of their development strategies. What is
important
is no longer the tonne handled, but the
economicimpactontheterritory,especiallyinterms
ofjobcreation(Lemaire,2012).
Moreover,therescalingofportsmeansthatcities
have to go along with the new territorial re‐
composition. “The complexity and extremely
contextual character of the issues make it
indispensable
thatthereis collaborationbetweenthe
different stakeholders and the preliminary study of
the strengths and weaknesses of the territory... A
good city/port relationship would thus appear to be
indispensable”(Jugie,2014).Asaconsequence,scales
andcontextsareofprimordialimportance.Acountry
with a big number of ports
will conduct a different
policy from another, boasting few ports, or ports
having little impact on the domestic economy
(Foulquier&Maugeri,2014).
Furthermore,structuralchangescausedbyglobal,
intermodal logistics are redefining the relationships
betweentheportanditsregion(Comtois,2014).Ports
today enlarge their activities and functional
involvement
aboveandbeyond theirmetropolitanor
regional borders. (Prelorenzo, 2011). There remains,
however,anunfamiliaritywiththeadvantagesforthe
whole territory which are connected to maritime
traffic(be it regional or national). It therefore seems
imperativetoreflectuponthescalesindiscussions,in
a context where decentralizing ports
enables the
regionstoexerciseandimpactonportinfrastructures
and the development of seafront and inland areas.
Increasingly, the regional stakeholder is encouraged
tostrengthenhisleadershipinthegovernanceofport
communities.YetaccordingtothecasesofLeHavre
and Lithuania, his role appears to be only poorly
identified.
5 CONCLUSION
IftheanalysisoftheLeHavreandLithuaniancaseis
not sufficient enough to operate an increase in
generalization, it suggests some avenues for further
reflections with the aim of optimizing port
governance for the purpose of territorial
development. These cases emphasize the need to
understand
port and city decision‐making
organization in their specific temporal and spatial
contexts.
Our first findings seem to value the role of
stakeholders, their ability to adopt cooperative
behaviors within specific territorial configurations.
Beyond the institutional context, the relationships
betweenstakeholdersrequireparticularattention.The
degree of dependence on central government,
the
interplay between deconcentrated and decentralized
local authorities constitute an environment
structuring the quality of cooperative relationships
and local development. Similarly, it would appear
that if the entrepreneurial sphere and intermediary
bodies (associations and unions) contribute
extensively to territorial and port governance, their
influenceappearstovaryconsiderablydependingon
the territories. Their interplay and strategies might
appear as variables which could explain the many
issues. Moreover, what can be said of the virtual
absence of one main stakeholder, ship‐owners, in
decision‐making bodies? How can an increased role
ofthe regionallevelbe envisagedwith sucha timid
presence
in stakeholder representation in the port
community? An in‐depth analysis using a group of
European cases would make it possible to lay the
groundworkoftheseavenuesofreflection.
614
REFERENCES
Bird J. 1971. Seaport and Seaport Terminals. Hutchison,
Londres.
BrooksM.R.,CullinaneK.,Pallis A.A.2017.Revisitingport
governance and port reform: A multi‐country
examination. Research in Transportation Business and
Management22:1‐10.
ComtoisC.&Al.1993. Le rôle et lafonctiondesports de
petiteet moyenne
taille dans lesystèmeSaint‐Laurent.
CahiersdegéographieduQuébec37(100):17‐33.
Comtois C. 2014. Les échelles géographiques à la
gouvernance ville‐port. In Alix Y. (ed.), Port City
Governance:69‐54.Caen:Océanides.
Crozier M., Thoenig J.C. 1975. La régulation des systèmes
organisés complexes. Le cas du système
de décision
politico‐administratif local en France. Revue française de
sociologie16(1):3‐32.
DebrieJ.,Lavaud‐LetilleulV.,ParolaF.2013.Shapingport
governance:theterritorialtrajectoriesofreform.Journal
ofTransportGeography27:56‐65.
Ducruet C. 2004. Les villes‐ports laboratoires de la
mondialisation. Phd in Geography,
University of Le
Havre.
Ducruet C. 2005. Approche comparée du développement
des villes‐ports à l’échelle mondiale : problèmes
conceptuelsetméthodologiques.LesCahiersScientifiques
duTransport48:59‐79.
Foulquier E., Maugeri S. 2014. La notion de communauté
portuaire. Le cas des pays d’europe du Sud. In:
FoulquierE.&
LambertsC.(ed.),Gouverner les ports de
commerceàl’heurelibérale:17‐36.Paris:CNRSEditions.
Giffinger R. & al. 2007. Smart cities. Ranking of European
medium‐sized cities [online] http://www.smart‐
cities.eu/download/smart_cities_final_report.pdf
Guillaume J. 2014. L’Etat, « entrepreneur portuaire ». In:
FoulquierE.&LambertsC.(ed.),Gouverner les ports
de
commerceàl’heurelibérale:125‐146.Paris:CNRSEditions.
JugieJ.H.2014.L’approche urbainedelagouvernanceville‐
port.InAlixY.(ed.),PortCity Governance:23‐38.Caen:
Océanides.
HesseM.2010.Cities,materialflowsandthegeographyof
spatialinteraction:urbanplacesinthesystemof
chains.
GlobalNetworks10(1):75‐91.
Lemaire O. 2012. Le défi ville‐port, Note de synthèse de
l’ISEMAR n°146 [online] http://www.isemar.fr/wp‐
content/uploads/2016/11/note‐de‐synthese‐isemar‐
146.pdf
Loubet L. 2011. Les maires confrontés à l’apprentissage de
l’intercommunalité:l’exempledel’agglomérationtoulousaine.
PhDingeography.UniversityToulouse‐LeMirail.
Loubet
L. 2012. L’apprentissage de la coopération
intercommunale : modalités et instruments. L’espace
Politique, 18. [online]
https://espacepolitique.revues.org/2454
MullerP.2000.L’analysecognitivedespolitiquespubliques
: vers une sociologie politique de l’action publique.
RevueFrançaisedeSciencePolitique50(2):189‐208.
Nadou F. 2013. Intermédia tion territoriale et spatialisation des
activitéséconomiques.
Cohérencesetcontradictionsdel’action
publiquelocale.Investigationparlaplanificationstratégique.
PhDinspatialplanning,UniversityofTours.
PrelorenzoC.2011.La villeportuaire,unnouveauregard.
Rivesméditerranéennes,39:13‐22.
Spiriajevas E. 2015. Spatial patterns of crimes in Klaipėda
and their assessment in social geographic
approach.
CriminologicalStudies,Vol3:124‐153.
Rozenblat C. (ed.) 2004. Les villes portuaires en Europe :
analysecomparative,Rapportfinal,170p.
SerryA.2015.Géographiedutransportmaritime.In:Escach
N.(ed.),Géographiedesmersetdesocéans.Paris:Dunod.
Serry A. 2018. The seaports of
the Seine axis facing the
contemporarymaritimeindustrymutations.Transactions
onMaritimeScience7(2):119‐127.
Tourret P. 2014. Le modèle hanséatique entre mythes et
réalités.In:FoulquierE.&LambertsC.(ed.), Gouverner
lesportsdecommerceàl’heurelibérale:183‐196.Paris:
CNRSEditions.
VerhoevenP.2010.European
PortGovernance.EuropeanSea
Ports Organisation, Bruxelles [online]
https://www.espo.be/media/espopublications/espofactfi
ndingreport2010.pdf
Wolff M., Fol S., Roth & Cunningham‐Sabot E. 2013.
ShrinkingCities,villesendécroissance:unemesuredu
phénomène en France. Cybergeo: European Journal of
Geography [online]
http://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/26136
XiaoZ., Lam J.S.L. 2017. A systems framework for the
sustainabledevelopmentofa
PortCity:Acasestudyof
Singaporeʹspolicies.ResearchinTransportationBusiness&
Management22:255‐262.
