Presentazione di PowerPoint - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 25
About This Presentation
Title:

Presentazione di PowerPoint

Description:

... are various ports divided by short distances that compete for the market share. ... What is experience of Pan-European transport corridors and other transnational ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:45
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 26
Provided by: Ceka9
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Presentazione di PowerPoint


1
Adriatic-Baltic Landbridge
WP 4 Institutional settings
Overview of achievements and summary Vilem
Cekajle The Region of South Bohemia A-B
Landbridge Final Conference Venice, Italy,
23/04/2008
2
WP 4 Why Institutional Settings? (1)
  • What we had?
  • Transport surveys (road, rail, maritime and
    waterways)
  • Logistic possibilites and state of the art
    analyse in the field of logistics
  • Spatial situation analyse including the
    socio-economic data
  • Pilot projects evaluating the possibility to use
    the infrastructure to run a new services

3
WP 4 Why Institutional Settings? (2)
  • What we did not have?
  • We are not alone - what are the opinions and the
    ideas of other players that are linked to A-B
    area (ie. Scandinavia, but also main private
    operators as possible clients etc.)
  • Who are the players that are, or possibly could
    be influencing the development of the trasport
    infrastructure?

4
WP 4 Why Institutional Settings? (3)
  • What we did not have?
  • Who is responsible for what and what are the
    diferences among the regions and states?
  • What are the experiences of diferent actors with
    the development of Trans European transport
    infrastracture? Are there any chances to
    coorinate the development along the whole
    itineraries?

5
WP 4 Institutional settings - partners
  • The Region of South Bohemia (SBR) WP Leader
  • Institutional Settings and profiling- Action
    Leader
  • Maritime Institute Gdansk (MIG)
  • Extra CADSES Action Leader
  • AMRIE
  • High Level Advisory Board - Action Leader
  • Central European initiative (CEI)
  • Spatial Development Forum - Action Leader

6
Structure of WP 4
  • High Level Advisory Board consultations during
    the entire project summary of Results from
    HLAB
  • Extra CADSES geographic considerations from
    consultations with Stakeholders from Area wich
    influence Transport Flows in A-B Landbridge
  • Spatial Development Considerations from
    consultation with Non-Parther Stakeholders and
    experts
  • Institutional profile of the A-B Landbridge
    corridor
  • Institutional

7
High Level Advisory Board (HLAB) General
overview
  • HLAB was organised as a consultation group
    consisting of 3 main reference groups
  • Public authorities ie. Ministries of Transport
    and other relevant ministries in a number of EU
    countries, regions, cities, public associations
    etc.
  • Organisations representing particular categories
    of the transport sector (EIRAC, etc.)
  • Industry representatives divided per categories
    in order to ensure knowledge across the various
    fields of business in the intermodal industry
    (e.g. multimode freight operators Railways
    Intermodal Operators Terminals Equipment
    suppliers etc.)

8
HLAB The role and objectives
  • The role of the HLAB was
  • to ensure that there will be coordination
    between requirements of the represented
    organisations/ institutions and the actions
    undertaken by the project
  • to receive feedback on the activities and
    results of A-B Landbridge
  • to ensure that the results and actions of the
    A-B Landbridge project are promulgated in the
    different Countries involved, in terms of
    business advice and policy recommendations

9
HLAB Organisation and events
  • Database of key players and stakeholders
    developed including several key institutions and
    stakeholder involved in trasport infrastructure
    development in each represented country and the
    EU as a whole.
  • Two meetings organised
  • 1st meeting in Castellanza, September 2006
  • 2nd meeting in Sofia, 9th November 2007.

10
HLAB - Results and conslusions (1)
  • The objective of the project is not and should
    not be considered as to connect two geographical
    areas. The Baltic/Adriatic ports do not only
    represent a starting/ending point, but a
    gate/linkages towards other geographical areas in
    order to cope with already congestionated/saturate
    d corridors
  • The project should not seek to identify
    solutions and corridors to develop traffic flows
    starting only in the Baltic and ending in the
    Adriatic and viceversa. There might be different
    solutions and corridors which will start/end from
    different geografical areas passing through the
    Baltic and the Adriatic and ending/starting in
    different points around the Central/Eastern
    Europe.

11
HLAB - Results and conslusions (2)
  • It should be recognised the role of ports in the
    development of intermodality and the possibility
    of creating clusters in order to maximise the
    efficiency of the port systems and create
    synergies between ports. This could be done if
    ports differentiates their offer (e.g. bulk,
    container, ro-ro) instead of competing. This
    issue is more pressing in the Adriatic area where
    there are various ports divided by short
    distances that compete for the market share. For
    the contrary, good examples of port clusters and
    differentiation among them are in Finland.
  • We are assisting nowadays to the shift of the
    location of the production and distribution
    centres in Europe toward the East of Europe,
    which should be taken into account when talking
    about sea motorways and TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT
    NETWORK, since the economic and productive
    systems are directly related to the transport
    flows.

12
HLAB - Results and conslusions (3)
  • In terms of future development, the European
    Unions enlargement to the East will move the
    Adriatic Baltic area into a central stage
    position, marking a shift away from the Unions
    geo-economic centre of gravity.

13
Extra CADSES consultations
  • The first round of consultations was carried out
    during the Baltic Ro-Ro and Ferry Conference 2006
    Trade growth In the Baltic area impact on
    Ro-Ro and Ferry market, which took place on
    11-12 October 2006 in Gdynia, with
    representatives of selected shipping lines, ports
    and forwarders.
  • The second round of consultations was carried out
    using a questionnaire that was discussed with the
    representatives of Ministry of Transport and
    Communications, Finland, Ministry of Economic
    Affairs and Communications, Estonia, and Ministry
    of Transport Latvia.

14
Conclusions and recommendations
  • The general conclusions suggest to focus further
    more on following aspects
  • The necessity to specify of the kind of possible
    cargo to be transported by the infrastructure and
    the profile of enterprises that would be possible
    clients of the planned infrastructure and secure
    their wider involvement (ie. Business case
    studies)
  • Focus more on the role of the ports, port
    operators and port-oriented players as a crucial
    hubs and take into consideration that they see AB
    Landbridge corridor as a chance for enhanced
    development of Motorways of the Sea (MoS) and
    Short-Sea Shipping (SSS).

15
Spatial Development Forum (SDF)
  • Organised under the motto Planning
    Infrastructure for Regional Development as an
    associated event on the 22nd May 2007 in Vienna,
    Austria at the Tech Gate, in the frame of REAL
    CORP 2007, 12th Conference on Urban Planning and
    Regional Cooperation and the Information Society.
    (REAL CORP 2007)
  • The SDF was attended by more than 60 high level
    participants from the whole EU and qualified
    experts in the field of spatial development and
    transport infrastructure development taking part
    in the discussion.

16
SDF - The Concept (1)
Session 1 Territorial Development in the frame
of the European Spatial Development Perspective -
The focus of this session was to discuss the link
of the project idea to the EU strategic vision of
the European Spatial Development Perspective
(ESDP) as an instrument for territorial
cooperation. Session 2 Planning growth through
infrastructure development what lessons learnt?
- Focus of this panel was on the impact of
transport infrastructures and the accessibility
of the territory on the economic growth of
regions. In this context, attention was given to
relations between the development of
infrastructure of various transport modes and the
increased potential of regions
17
SDF - The Concept (2)
Session 3 New trends in logistics and its role
in the development of corridors Focus This panel
provided an opportunity for forward-looking
discussion on the logistics-related challenges in
the Adriatic-Baltic area and beyond and with
dealt with the topic of motorways of the sea and
new transport scenarios. Session 4
Transnational cooperation in spatial planning
seeking for a new momentum Focus The main
purpose of this concluding panel was to provide a
platform for discussion on the role of
international-level spatial planning, mainly
related to the development of transport
infrastructure. Can such planning be effective in
country interest-driven Europe? What is
experience of Pan-European transport corridors
and other transnational spatial initiatives? How
can the current institutional setting be improved
to better respond to the ever-changing European
space?
18
SDF - Results and conslusions (1)
  • The outputs of the update of the document of the
    European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP)
    should be taken into account when considering the
    development of corridors
  • A key issue for the benefit of the proposed
    corridors by A-B remains the possibility of
    funding available and the accessibility of funds,
    for those cities and regions that are lagging
    behind. It needs to be mentioned that the current
    tools are mainly focused on the economically
    effective investments, which are usually suitable
    for PPP (public-private partnership) approach and
    there is still a gap for instruments for
    development of prior cohesion infrastructure.

19
SDF - Results and conslusions (2)
  • Experience shows the necessity of putting
    together all actors interested in the development
    of corridors for economic growth of a particular
    region, meaning that cooperation among all
    stakeholders remains a crucial factor for
    development not only from the point of view of
    the funding issues, but also from the point of
    view ensuring that the transport development is a
    common priority of all actors in the relevant
    regions.
  • When talking about the realisation of corridors,
    significant attention should be paid to the
    question of international coordination of the
    corridor, as there are examples of corridors
    where no coordinated development hinders the
    utilisation of the whole potential along the
    whole corridor, there are also examples where
    coordination helped to solve many issues
    regarding the final realisation of prior
    corridors.

20
SDF - Results and conslusions (3)
  • The cost of the non-realization of corridors
    should be taken into account an important
    aspect underlined during the SDF that should be
    taken into account when analysing the grounds for
    realisation corridors. Issue of even conditions
    for regional development where transport
    infrastructure plays the main role should be
    addressed and taken into account when preparing
    any future spatial or transport development
    strategies on EU level.
  • Furthermore the transport and spatial strategies
    at EU level should be part of one complex
    strategy for the future development of regions in
    EU.

21
Institutional settings Basic scope (1)
  • General objectives
  • Who is Who
  • What are the soft bottlenecks/ suggested
    improvements
  • What are the possbilities of soft measures to
    improve the A-B Landbridge connection

22
Institutional settings Basic scope (2)
  • To provide a description of the different levels
    of institutional setting involved in transport
    infrastructure planning and deployment in the A-B
    countries including the settings at the level of
    international cooperation in transport
    development
  • To analyse the described state-of-the art
    regarding institutional setting for A-B
    Landbridge and identify institutional
    considerations for facilitating future
    collaborations beyond the completion of the
    project, focussing on
  • main problems that could hinder or complicate or
    are already complicating possible cooperation in
    transport infrastructure development
  • could complicate or are complicating the
    effective utilisation of already existing or
    planned infrastructure

23
Institutional Settings Main problems (1)
  • Overall planning process is very bureacratic and
    thus complicating the possibility to act fast
    even the conditions are changig quite rapidly
  • The settings and responsibilities are diferent
    for each state making it very complicated when
    trying to coordinate the whole proces the
    division of roles and responsibilities are not
    always clear, in many cases experimental
    approach prevails, like for PPP
  • Even if we are talking about multimodality the
    diferent transport sectors are competing for
    financing which makes it nearly impossible to
    reach a working balanced multimodal system

24
Institutional Settings Main problems (2)
  • The fluid political situation is complicating the
    situation as not always the priorities remains
    the same, which is very crutial espetially for
    any international connection where the planning
    procedure and the coordination takes long time
  • The overall situation is also complicated by the
    broken connestions due to the iron curtain
    and diferent state of the art situation in old
    and new member states which influences the
    overall view on priorities
  • In many cases even when an agreement is reached
    it does not always include a binding technical
    standards regarding the interoperability which
    makes the corridor as a whole less efective and
    therefore less attractive for clients, investors
    etc.

25
Thank you for your attention Vilem
Cekajle The Region of South Bohemia National
Coordinator for Czech Republic cekajle_at_eurocorrid
or.cz
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com