Real meaning of inclusivity in ports

Ports need to ask themselves if they are inclusive enough. Credit: 12019, CC0 Ports need to ask themselves if they are inclusive enough. Credit: 12019, CC0
Industry Database

COMMENT: July saw a major development in Antwerp’s port, with the announcement of the start of a stakeholder-inclusive process to expand container capacity, writes Peter de Langen.

The process will start with a much smaller new dock than originally foreseen, coupled with a series of initiatives to expand capacity elsewhere in the port.

Antwerp’s original plan to construct a major new tidal dock called ‘Saeftinghedok’ has been fiercely opposed for years by Doel 2020, a group of residents of the small village of Doel (and their supporters). This village, according to the port development plans, had to be moved to make way for the new basin and the group successfully contested government decisions by bringing the case to national and European courts, where the decision to dismantle the village was revoked.

For years, the dispute was a David vs Goliath-like encounter where Doel 2020 earned sympathy but was widely expected to ultimately lose the fight to preserve the village. A recent cautious announcement that the Flemish Government, Doel 2020 and other stakeholders including Antwerp’s port authority are studying an option that would enable port development while preserving the village of Doel should be considered as a major breakthrough.

Even if these conversations do not result in an agreement, it is hard to see now how the option to dismantle Doel can prevail. Now that the stakeholders have agreed on a co-operative path, concessions to stakeholders opposing the previous port development plans seem unavoidable. Thus, arguably, for Doel 2020, this initiative and its public announcement is a major achievement.

The success of Doel 2020 in influencing port development is partly driven by European regulation which protects ecological assets, and also partly by an increasing societal support for a critical stance towards port development, especially when port development has perceived negative consequences for nature, cultural assets and/or health and living conditions of nearby residents.

While the case of Antwerp is singular, a path where seemingly marginal stakeholder groups manage to create support for their case and deeply impact port development is increasingly realistic. While many port authorities, including Antwerp’s port authority, claim to involve stakeholders, the Antwerp case suggests it may be wise to spend some time on the question ‘are we inclusive enough?’.


Update on competition filing – Chinese clearance still pending

TTS Group ASA ("TTS") announced on 8 February 2018 that the company had entered into an asset sale a... Read more

Update on the regulatory process: Closing of MacGregor's TTS acquisition postponed to Q2 2019

MacGregor, part of Cargotec, announced on 8 February, 2018 that it has entered into an agreement to ... Read more

LiSIM Simulator for Port Nelson in New Zealand

LiSIM Simulator for Port Nelson in New Zealand Read more

BAPLIE Viewer Online announces new website features and integration options

The online tool announced upgrades to functionality for working with BAPLIE files, providing increas... Read more

OPCSA Las Palmas to report its performance with DATAVIEW from DSP

December 2018 OPCSA successfully migrated its operation to NAVIS N4 and at the same time went live w... Read more

Marseille Fos backs Blockchain bid for hinterland logistics boost

The Marseille Fos port authority is among financial backers of a Blockchain technology pilot scheme ... Read more

View all