You are on page 1of 5

Coopetition between Ports = Greater Competitiveness = richest

Autonomy implies the port closest to the object manager and managed
economy, the port, which leads to greater attention and commitment and
increased competitiveness, implying greater efficiency to compete or at
least reduced costs for the customer.

After several years working in various ports and studying them, I have no
doubt that it is essential to competition between ports and between port
terminals, which are viable, in order to increase the competitiveness of the
port system, seeking to maximize benefits for customers, ie for the

The ports have as main objectives is to ensure the interface between land
and sea links and be efficient and responsive logistics chains that serve the
regions of the hinterland. Ports are essential for the competitiveness of
regions and countries.

This role can not be met unless the ports are competitive, that is, without
the efficient and effective and without providing a value for money and
responsive to its major customers.

That is, the ports should try to have efficiency levels on high when
compared with other ports, and minimize costs and maximize the quality of
their services and should have the services that the region needs, and that
its industries and importers are willing to pay the best price. No ports
competitive, the regions are not competitive and not be able to compete
with other regions to have higher GDP and higher levels of life.

In short, ports must constantly strive to reduce costs, reflecting that of lower
prices to its customers, and increase the quality of their services, investing
and improving their performance and productivity.

The competitiveness of ports can only be achieved with a higher exposure

of the market, whenever possible, and with high levels of collaboration in
areas where there are common interests or national interests. Thus, the
competitiveness of ports can only be achieved with greater coopetition
between ports.
Coopetition or "Co-opetition is a neologism coined to describe cooperative
competition. Coopetition occurs when competitors in the market work
together on parts of its business, in which they perceive they do not have
competitive advantages, thus sharing common costs.

For example, cooperation between the Peugeot and Toyota in shared

components for a new city car in 2005. In this case, companies could save
money on shared costs, remaining fiercely competitive in other areas. In
coopetition, companies must define very clearly which areas work together
and where they compete.

In areas that ports must compete and in which areas the ports should

No doubt the competition must be carried out in business, cargo, concession

between the terminals and public, and there should be competition between
ports by public and private investment, seeking to exploit its advantages to
the investors and political power, which plans and decides to national level.

The marketing strategies of ports must be different and uncoordinated, the

same should happen with the prices of ports, with the commercial work of
each port and the dissemination at national level.

Still, the cooperation can and should be encouraged between ports at the
national and regional level, particularly in activities to disseminate abroad in
external partnerships, information systems, management of human and
material resources, legislation and regulations, harmonization procedures,
safety and protection, exchange of expertise, "lobbies" of common interest,
logistics platforms and accessibility and research and development.

It could be argued for greater integration between ports in some countries,

because they are many ports in a small strand. Looking at the examples of
Belgium and the Netherlands, port systems that have the most efficient in
the world, with ports such as Rotterdam and Antwerp, it appears that the
ports are very short distances, all competing for the same hinterland, but
each with its identity with its viability, its characteristics, its port community,
its trade policy, all in all loads, running and specializing in certain market
segments where Sutra comparative competitive advantages.

For example Zeebrugge is 75 km from Antwerp, Ghent is 48 km from

Zeebrugge and 40 in Antwerp. The Port of Oostende is 20 km from
Zeebrugge, Rotterdam is 63 Km from Amsterdam, Rotterdam is 70 km from
Antwerp, Bremen is 85km from Hamburg, Tonning is 100km and 85km from
Hamburg, Bremen, Wilhelms is 30 km Bremen. The port of Huelva is 85km
from Seville and 86 km of Cadiz, Cadiz is 90 km from Algeciras, Marin is 18
km from Vigo, Coruna is 18 km from Ferrol.

The size, one could say that some ports are too small or that together they
could have economies of scale. The point is that the autonomous
management of ports should not be made taking into consideration its size,
but its own identity, different location, the port community and
distinguished itself viable, and even with the integration of ports there
would always be a split due to autonomous management of port terminals
concession, and the economies of scale in the port authority can be
achieved only with the use of coopetition in areas where this is possible
without the need for this full integration.

The advantages of self-management relate to the proximity and with the

competition. For those who manage more than one port, there is great
difficulty in following all that becomes more distant. On the other hand, if a
new harbor in growth can and should be more competitive than others,
working with reduced costs, with positive impacts for the economy and the
region, because to be hit with costs for Another port under common
management that requiring, for example, flushing rates and prices by the
highest losing competitiveness and winning vices?

The problems of integration of ports relate to the reduction of competition

and the elimination of the efforts of those who can do the same with lower
costs, better serving the region and expanding their hinterlands. The
problem is the difficulty that the ports with more emphasis on historical
costs have to be competitive, to reduce costs, have more innovative low-
cost. The problem is when only one can improve their services based on
heavy investments are not viable, only made possible if there is no
competitive bidding.

Competition is key ports and has been advocated by the European Union
with its various packages of measures to improve efficiency and
transparency of the ports, bringing them closer to the market where
possible, particularly in concessions with a view to regularly lead to port
scanning each terminal to the market to see if there are other companies
doing the same port service with lower costs, lower prices and better
quality, so-called competition in the market.
Another reason mentioned for integration is the need to specialize the ports.
I have said several times that it makes sense to specialization of ports
administratively, since this amounts to saying that the ports do not have to
be effective, nor cheap, as there should be competition. The specialization
of ports there and has done naturally through competition for port charges,
for public and private investment by choosing the markets. The best, most
effective is staying with the markets.

Today, the specialization of charges is not performed in large units: x

moving car port, the port and handles containers, the port handles bulk z.
All ports handle all types of packing of cargo: bulk cargo, general cargo,
containers, vehicles. But specialization is now done by markets and market
segments: the x port handles more passenger cars, containers for Africa and
general cargo and bulk iron cement, and the port handles more containers
in the market for deep-sea and transhipment and more bulk energy, the
port handles more containers z short-sea and more bulk agri-food. To say
that a port can not move containers is to stop the competition, raise prices
in the ports and create "fat" that remove unnecessary competitiveness of
regions and the country.

But public investment in new infrastructure, that one should take into
account the existing expertise at each port and its competitive advantages
and disadvantages, and national policy, which can lead to, for example,
encourage the transfer of certain charges between ports on grounds of
national interest, regional or local.

Several international studies point to the autonomy of the port as a viable

factor in improving their performance, and the higher is the aggregation of
multiple ports under a single authority, the less appetite for competition and
the greater the tendency towards monopoly, for price increases and for
"administrative fat" that translate into costs to the economy and regions.

Autonomy implies the port closest to the object manager and managed
economy, the port, which leads to greater attention and commitment and
increased competitiveness, implying greater efficiency to compete or at
least reduced costs for the customer.

Several studies indicate that competition between ports and between

terminals as key to port efficiency and price more suitable for customers.
Some authors suggest that the importance of duplication of infrastructure in
the short term to increase competition and efficiency in order to keep prices
down to the final customer.

Goss (1990) states that the competition can lead to increased efficiency but
also can lead to excessive investment ability of the port infrastructure,
because many ports can invest the same kind of competing infrastructure.
However, the excess capacity of ports is essential to ensure competition
between ports, improving performance from the perspective of the
H. Turner et al. (2004), Ng and Lee (2007), Herrera and Pang (2006) state
that although it is important to maximize the output over the input, in terms
of ports, it appears that when the occupancy rate of infrastructure the port
exceeds certain levels, increase the costs of the delays to ships and

Already a situation that encourages competition in the event of saturation,

the port authorities are obliged to increase the supply in advance to ensure
service quality and maintain / increase their market shares, thus limiting the
levels of efficiency of resources used, which, although it could be negative
for the ports as a whole, from the standpoint of the economy in general is
very positive because it reduces the inefficiencies that would result in the
transport system and its clients.