DOCSLIB.ORG

Governance of Canadian and American Ports Border Policy Research Institute

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Governance of Canadian and American Ports Border Policy Research Institute Western Washington University Western CEDAR Border Policy Research Institute Publications Border Policy Research Institute 2006 Governance of Canadian and American Ports Border Policy Research Institute Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/bpri_publications Part of the Economics Commons, Geography Commons, International and Area Studies Commons, and the International Relations Commons Recommended Citation Border Policy Research Institute, "Governance of Canadian and American Ports" (2006). Border Policy Research Institute Publications. 51. https://cedar.wwu.edu/bpri_publications/51 This Border Policy Brief is brought to you for free and open access by the Border Policy Research Institute at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Border Policy Research Institute Publications by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BORDER POLICY BRIEF Focus: Governance of Canadian and American Ports Volume 1, No. 5, September 2006 by Jean O. Melious, J.D. * Web Address: www.ac.wwu.edu/~bpri Introduction. This article discusses differences in the proximately $763 million, including payments by the Vancou- governance of seaports within the U.S. and Canada, with par- ver Port Authority itself, by employers and employees in all ticular emphasis upon ports located on the Georgia Basin – five of the port’s employment sectors, and by cruise ship pas- Puget Sound waterway shared by the State of Washington and sengers. 1 The port of Tacoma reported creation of 10,978 full- the Province of British Columbia. The article reveals how time jobs in 2005, 2 while a 2003 port of Seattle report esti- regulatory contexts affect the ability of ports to compete mated that Seattle’s seaport generates 17,927 direct jobs. 3 Sea- within and outside the region and concludes with an assess- port activity at Tacoma and Seattle is estimated to generate ment of the advantages of regional port cooperation. $107.5 million and $210.9 million, respectively, in state and Three globally significant ports are located on the Georgia local tax revenue. Basin – Puget Sound: the ports of Tacoma and Seattle, sepa- These economic benefits, plus the indirect benefits ac- rately operated by two Washington State port authorities, and crued through more broadly defined port-related activities, the port of Vancouver, in British Columbia. Table 1 shows motivate the ports to compete with each other for shippers’ the utilization of the three for container traffic, relative to business. Port users, especially shipping companies, are the other ports in North America. The three ports compete for targets of such competition, and ports compete by offering Asian trade with each other and with North America’s largest faster turnaround times, more and larger facilities for carriers, container ports, Los Angeles and Long Beach. The competi- and lower costs. tion takes place not only at the broadest global levels, as ship- Ports are not solely business enterprises, however. They ping firms calculate their most advantageous routes, but also at are hybrids which allow private enterprise to occur within a the local level. As the ports race to expand and upgrade their public framework. A third definition of ports, therefore, is facilities, located in each case in thriving urban areas, competi- that they are government agencies defined by law. As such, tion is affected by funding sources and public reactions to such U.S. and Canadian laws establish different ground rules on spillover effects as noise, pollution, and land conversion for each side of the border, thereby affecting the competition be- infrastructure and warehouses. As public-private enterprises, tween the port of Vancouver and the ports of Seattle and Ta- ports receive public funding and therefore are required to be coma. While the transportation and economic requirements of accountable to the public, not just to their private clients. Port ports do not vary considerably across the international border, authorities must, of necessity, think globally and act locally. the legal and political contexts in which the ports function are Roles of a Port. The importance of governance to port very different. competitiveness becomes clear upon considering a deceptively U.S. Port Governance: Local Control. In the post- simple question: “What is a port?” The prime definition of a 9/11 world, Americans have started to think of ports as a part port is to serve as a link in the transportation chain. In addi- of our national infrastructure that should be regulated by the tion to moving cargo onshore and offshore, ports must pro- federal government. Because the Constitution gives the fed- vide for the efficient movement of cargo between transporta- eral government authority over harbors and over foreign com- tion modes. This “intermodal” connection generally involves merce, it would be logical to assume that the federal govern- the movement of cargo from ships to railroads or trucks, which may take the cargo to its ultimate destination or to a Table 1. Ranking of North American Ports by warehouse for storage until the ultimate user requires the Container Traffic, 2005 goods. Based on this definition alone, it would make sense for TEUs the ports of Seattle, Tacoma, and Vancouver to coordinate Los Angeles, CA 7,484,624 their activities in order to ensure adequate infrastructure, create Long Beach, CA 6,709,818 a rational cargo-handling system, and compete most effectively New York, NY 4,792,922 with other West Coast ports. Oakland, CA 2,272,525 A second definition of ports focuses on their economic role. Ports are engines of regional economic development, as Seattle, WA 2,087,929 is often emphasized by the ports themselves. All three Puget Tacoma, WA 2,066,447 Sound ports periodically release economic impact studies com- Charleston, SC 1,986,586 piling their local, regional, and even national value. In 2005 Hampton Roads, VA 1,981,955 the port of Vancouver created 30,100 direct jobs, generated by Savannah, GA 1,901,520 five port-related sectors: maritime cargo, cruise industry, capi- Vancouver, BC 1,767,379 tal investment in port facilities, shipbuilding and repair, and non-maritime enterprises. Federal, provincial, and local taxes Source: American Association of Port Authorities. TEU stands for “twenty-foot equivalent unit,” a standard container and revenues generated in the year 2004 were estimated at ap- measurement. A 40-foot container is 2 TEUs. 2 ment controls ports. In fact, state and local governments are thorities are municipal corporations classified as “special dis- the primary operators and regulators of ports, with the result tricts,” a category which also includes school districts, fire dis- that port planning and investment decisions are largely decen- tricts, emergency medical districts, and approximately seventy tralized. The federal government does play a role, but its func- other categories in Washington. State law grants ports a wide tions are diffuse and largely uncoordinated. range of powers, including the “acquisition, construction, The U.S. has no national port authority or port policy, and maintenance, operation, development and regulation within many commentators and government agencies have expressed the district” of improvements and facilities. Ports are specifi- concern over the absence of a strategy for the marine trans- cally authorized to engage in economic and industrial develop- portation system that would take into account the needs of ment projects. Ports may exercise eminent domain to acquire ports, waterways, and intermodal connections. A new cabinet property, construct and operate sewer and water utilities, issue level Committee on the Marine Transportation System tax-exempt bonds, and even levy taxes – a power envied by (CMTS) is intended to provide a more holistic approach to Canadian ports. A port may levy up to 45 cents per $1,000 of marine transportation, although its makeup demonstrates the assessed valuation on all property within its district bounds for fragmentation of federal agency control in this area. The four general port purposes. In 2006, the port of Tacoma levied “core agencies” of the CMTS are each lo- 18.59 cents per $1,000 of assessed value, cated within a different department of the estimated to result in a total collection of federal government: the Maritime Admini- $11.9 million. 9 The port of Seattle’s 2006 stration, within the Department of Trans- rate was 23.4 cents per $1,000 of assessed portation, tasked with promoting “the de- value, yielding a projected collection of velopment and maintenance of an ade- $62.7 million. 10 The ports control some of quate, well-balanced United States mer- the most valuable property in the two cit- chant marine”; the National Oceanic and ies, including 1,400 waterfront acres in Atmospheric Administration, within the Seattle. Department of Commerce, which provides A port district is formed by referen- oceanographic and meteorological data to dum, and the voters also elect commis- ports and is also charged with protection sioners to administer the districts and of marine species subject to the Endan- oversee their development and operation. gered Species Act; the U.S. Coast Guard, Port commissions have many of the pow- the federal lead agency for maritime secu- ers of a city council. In Seattle, for exam- rity, now within the Department of Home- ple, the port commission is a part-time, land Security; and the U.S. Army Corps of five-member panel, with a two-person Engineers, primarily associated with port staff. The day-to-day work is done by the dredging and channel improvement, but port’s professional staff of 1,600 and its also the lead agency for regulating wetland CEO, referred to by one journalist as “one development. of the most powerful men in Seattle.” 11 Federal agencies thus are involved in Port of Seattle, courtesy NOAA Port authorities were among the earliest the navigational, commercial, environ- special districts to be established in Wash- mental, and security interests of ports.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Letters Patent
    Canada Gazette Page 1 of 77 Français Contact us Help Search Canada Site Home About us History FAQ Site Map Notice Vol. 141, No. 51 — December 22, 2007 ORDERS IN COUNCIL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Certificate of amalgamation of port authorities P.C. 2007-1885 December 6, 2007 Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, pursuant to section 59.1 of the Port Authorities Management Regulations, hereby issues the annexed certificate of amalgamation of the port authorities specified in the certificate. CERTIFICATE OF AMALGAMATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES WHEREAS pursuant to Order in Council P.C. 2007-944 a certificate of intent to amalgamate the Vancouver Port Authority, the Fraser River Port Authority and the North Fraser Port Authority was issued on June 7, 2007; AND WHEREAS the notice requirements pertaining to the certificate of intent to amalgamate set out in subsection 59.1(2) of the Port Authorities Management Regulations have been met; AND WHEREAS the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has recommended that the Vancouver Port Authority, the Fraser River Port Authority and the North Fraser Port Authority be amalgamated and continue as one port authority to be named the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority; NOW THEREFORE under the authority of section 59.1 of the Port Authorities Management Regulations, it is hereby certified that the Vancouver Port Authority, the Fraser River Port Authority and the North Fraser Port Authority are amalgamated and continue as one port authority to be named the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, with the letters patent for the amalgamated port authority contained herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Approaches to Vexillological Research—Port Flags In
    APPROACHES TO VEXH.LOLOGICAL RESEARCH: PORT FLAGS IN AUSTRALIA AND CANADA A CASE STUDY ^ Kevin Harrington SYNOPSIS Flags for Port Authorities have followed in the heels of the movement towards more active government interest and involvement in the multifold activities of ports and harbours, a movement particularly pronounced in the past two decades, as technology and trade developments rapidly expanded. PORT FLAGS A STUDY OF DEVELOPMENTS IN AUSTRALIAN AND CANADIAN PORTS INTRODUCTION Vexillological research into the flags of ports, harbour commissions and port authorities poses a number of problems. First of all, one could ask the question why should such research be done at all. Secondly how does one gather the data, i.e. - where is the information? Thirdly, where does one stop, what are the dimensions or framework for the research? We have gathered the data by writing directly to port managers in both Australia and Canada. This paper will primarily describe the various flags and suggest some directions worthy of further consideration. FLAGS OF NEW SOUTH WALES Visits to the Maritime Services Board (MSB) of New South Wtdes followed our correspondence (See Appendix 1). Three port flags were shown and discussed in an interview with Marketing Manager Robert Worsley. The official MSB flag, made by Harry West of East Balmain, Sydney, is a British blue ensign defaced by the MSB badge. This badge comprises a red disc bearing a representation of a sailing vessel, the Sirius. Surrounding the disc is a lifebuoy alternately blue.and yellow, a symbol of maritime safety. A white ribbon with red backing where shown, bears in black lettering the words THE MARITIME SERVICES BOARD OF N.S.W.
    [Show full text]
  • Port of Vancouver Supply Chain System
    PORT OF VANCOUVER SUPPLY CHAIN SYSTEM James Ireland Bachelor of Commerce, University of British Columbia, 1977 PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION In the Faculty of Business Administration Executive MBA O James Ireland 2005 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Summer 2005 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: James Ireland Degree: Master of Business Administration Title of Project: Port of Vancouver Supply Chain System Supervisory Committee: Senior Supervisor Michael Parent, Associate Professor Second Reader Carolyne F. Smart, Associate Professor Date Approved: SIMON FRASER $$&2Q? UN~VERSWY~ibra ry DECLARATION OF PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENCE The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. The author has further granted permission to Simon Fraser University to keep or make a digital copy for use in its circulating collection, and, without changing the content, to translate the thesislproject or extended essays, if technically possible, to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation of the digital work. The author has further agreed that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by either the author or the Dean of Graduate Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Saint John Port Authority
    Saint John Port Authority Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2018 (all amounts in thousands of Canadian dollars) Independent auditor’s report To the Board of Directors of Saint John Port Authority Our opinion In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Saint John Port Authority and its subsidiaries (together, the Authority) as at December 31, 2018 and its financial performance and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) . What we have audited The Authority's consolidated financial statements comprise: the consolidated statement of financial position as at December 31, 2018; the consolidated statement of comprehensive income for the year then ended; the consolidated statement of changes in equity for the year then ended; the consolidated statement of cash flows for the year then ended; and the notes to the consolidated financial statements, which include a summary of significant accounting policies. Basis for opinion We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s responsibilities for the audit of the consolidated financial statements section of our report. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion. Independence We are independent of the Authority in accordance with the ethical requirements that are relevant to our audit of the consolidated financial statements in Canada. We have fulfilled our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with these requirements. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 14 King Street, Suite 320, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada E2L 1G2 T: +1 506 632 1810, F: +1 506 632 8997 “PwC” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership.
    [Show full text]
  • Hon. J.W. Pickersgill MG 32, B 34
    Manuscript Division des Division manuscrits Hon. J.W. Pickersgill MG 32, B 34 Finding Aid No. 1627 / Instrument de recherche no 1627 Prepared in 1991 by Geoff Ott and revised in Archives Section 2001 by Muguette Brady of the Political -ii- Préparé en 1991 par Geoff Ott et révisé en 2001 par Muguette Brady de la Section des Archives politiques TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PRE-PARLIAMENTARY SERIES ............................................... 1 SECRETARY OF STATE SERIES, 1953-1954 ..................................... 3 CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERIES ..................................... 4 Outgoing Correspondence - Sub-Series ........................................ 4 Citizenship - Sub-Series .................................................... 5 Estimates - Sub-Series .................................................... 28 National Gallery - Sub-Series .............................................. 32 National Film Board - Sub-Series ........................................... 37 Indian Affairs Branch - Sub-Series - Indian Act ................................. 44 Indian Affairs Branch - Sub-Series - General ................................... 46 Immigration - Sub-Series .................................................. 76 Immigration Newfoundland - Sub-Series ..................................... 256 Immigration - Miscellaneous - Sub-Series .................................... 260 Public Archives of Canada - Sub-Series ...................................... 260 National Library of Canada - Sub-Series ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Port Metro Vancouver's 21St Century Re‐Structuring
    Canadian Political Science Review Vol 2 (4) December 2008 Making Biggest Bigger: Port Metro Vancouver’s 21st Century Re‐Structuring – Global Meets Local at the Asia Pacific Gateway Kevin Ginnell (Simon Fraser University), Patrick Smith (Simon Fraser University) and H. Peter Oberlander (University of British Columbia)1 Abstract Vancouver’s Port is Canada’s biggest. On January 1, 2008, it got bigger ‐ restructuring the Port of Vancouver, the Fraser River Port Authority and the North Fraser Port Authority, into a single Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, marketed (as of June, 2008) as Port Metro Vancouver.1 This new entity was the culmination of a process of divestiture, re‐organizational adjustment, shift to market orientation and consolidation that has played out over several decades across Canada’s ports. This article examines some of this recent history – both in terms of (i) divestiture and increased market orientation and (ii) more recently, major port consolidation ‐ and governmental responses to ensure Vancouver remains Canada’s busiest port and a central part of the country’s Asia‐Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative. (APGCI) I. Past as Prologue: Canada’s Ports Divestiture Program2 The early history of Canada’s ports was one of public investment, public ownership and public management. From the Atlantic to the Pacific, the Arctic to the Great Lakes, hundreds of ports, large and small were established and came under the purview of the Government of Canada. Authority came from legislation such as the Government Harbours and Piers Act, the National 1 Kevin Ginnell and Patrick Smith, Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby BC, Canada V5A 1S6 [email protected] [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Governance Review of the Yellowknife Airport
    Final Technical Report GOVERNANCE REVIEW OF THE YELLOWKNIFE AIRPORT September 2015 The Lindbergh Group Inc. Yellowknife Airport Governance Review SC446825 i Yellowknife Airport Governance Review SC446825 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... iv 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Engagement Objectives ........................................................................................................ 1 1.3. Engagement Scope .................................................................................................................. 1 1.4. Overall Approach and Methodology ................................................................................ 3 1.5. Key Issues and Considerations .......................................................................................... 4 2. EVOLVING PRACTICES IN AIRPORT GOVERNANCE IN CANADA AND AROUND THE WORLD ..................................................................................................... 5 2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5 2.2. Overview of Privatization ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • General Information
    GENERAL INFORMATION CONTEXT In 1805, the Canadian government established the Trinity House, which was responsible for managing the port, issuing licences to pilots on the St. Lawrence and even tending buoys. In 1858, the government created the Québec Harbour Commission, which had a mandate to coordinate the development of maritime and port activities in Québec. The Trinity House was abolished in 1873, and in 1875, responsibility for managing the port was granted to the Québec Harbour Commission. In 1936, the government established the National Harbours Board, which brought together the largest ports in Canada, and disbanded the Harbour Commission. The National Harbours Board was an agent of the Crown and was responsible for conducting commercial operations and services. This organization was accountable to Parliament for matters concerning it, through the Department of Transport. Around 1983, the federal government reviewed the legislation concerning the management of Canadian ports and created the Canada Ports Corporation Act. In 1984, it established the Québec Port Corporation as well as six other local port corporations. This new legislative step effectively merged the main Canadian port organizations into a single corporation and returned decision-making power to the local level. On May 1, 1999, following the adoption of the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Ports Corporation began to dissolve, making way for a national port network managed by the Canadian Port Authorities (CPAs). The Québec Port Corporation thus became the Québec Port Authority, a shared governance organization that reports to Parliament through the Minister of Transport. RESPONSIBILITIES The Québec Port Authority plays a role in building a national marine policy that provides Canada with the marine infrastructure that it needs and that offers effective support for the achievement of local, regional and national social and economic objectives and will promote and safeguard Canada’s competitiveness and trade objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • General Information
    GENERAL INFORMATION HISTORY In 1805, the Canadian government established the Trinity House, which was responsible for port management, issuing licences to pilots on the St. Lawrence and tending buoys. In 1858, the government created the Québec Harbour Commission whose mandate was to coordinate the development of maritime and port activities in Québec. The Trinity House was abolished in 1873, and in 1875, responsibility for managing the port was granted to the Québec Harbour Commission. In 1936, the government established the National Harbours Board, which grouped together the largest ports in Canada, and disbanded the Harbour Commission. The National Harbours Board was an agent of the Crown and was responsible for conducting commercial operations and services. This organization was accountable to Parliament for matters concerning it, through the Department of Transport. Around 1983, the federal government reviewed the legislation concerning the management of Canadian ports and created the Canada Ports Corporation Act. In 1984, it established the Quebec Port Corporation as well as six other local port corporations. This new legislative step effectively merged the main Canadian port organizations into a single corporation and returned decision-making power to the local level. On May 1, 1999, following the adoption of the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Ports Corporation began to dissolve, making way for a national port network managed by the Canada Port Authorities (CPAs). The Quebec Port Corporation thus became the Québec Port Authority, a shared governance organization. RESPONSIBILITIES The Québec Port Authority plays a role in building a national marine policy that ensures that the necessary marine infrastructure for Canada is established, constitutes a support tool for the achievement of socio-economic, local, regional and national goals, and helps promote and maintain Canada’s competitiveness and its commercial objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • S:\CAB\Finding Aids\Political and Social Heritage Division\1900
    FONDS DU TRÈS HONORABLE PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU THE RT. HON. PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU FONDS MG 26 O 19 Instrument de recherche no 1900 \ Finding Aid No. 1900 SÉRIE DU PERSONNEL STAFF SERIES 1968-1984 Préparé par la Section des archives Prepared by the Political Archives Section, politiques, Division des manuscrits Manuscript Division TABLE DES MATIÈRES/TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................... ii SUB-SERIES ............................................................... ii -Volumes 1-11: Gordon Ashworth 1983-1984 ................................ ii -Volumes 12-26: Tom Axworthy 1976-1984 ................................. ii -Volumes 27-36: Denise Chong 1982-1984 .................................. ii -Volumes 37-46:David Crenna 1981-1984 ................................... ii -Volumes 47-50:Gilles Dufault 1971-1976 ................................... iii -Volumes 51-75, 283-286 (Electronic Records): Michael Langill 1981-1984 ........ iii -Volumes 76-83: Peter Larsen 1981-1984 .................................... iii -Volumes 84-87: Robert Pace 1982-1984 .................................... iv -Volumes 88-96: Florence Ievers 1982-1984 ................................. iv -Volumes 97-114: Heather Peterson 1982-1984 ............................... iv -Volumes 115-134: Geoffrey O’Brien 1980-1981 ..............................v -Volumes 135-159: Ivan Head 1968-1978 ....................................v -Volumes 160-186: Ted Johnson 1980-1984 ...................................v -Volumes 187-188:
    [Show full text]
  • History of Development at Roberts Bank - an Overview
    HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT AT ROBERTS BANK - AN OVERVIEW Prepared for: Vancouver Port Authority 1900 Granville Square 200 Granville Street Vancouver, BC V6C 2P9 Prepared by: Hemmera Envirochem Inc. Suite 350 - 1190 Hornby Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 2K5 November, 2004 Vancouver Port Authority Hemmera Envirochem Inc. Roberts Bank File: 499-002.01 History of Development at Roberts Bank -i- November 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE .................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT................................................................................... 2 2.1 1950’S - LOWER MAINLAND MARINE TRANSPORTATION ........................................ 2 2.2 1958 - 1960 - DEVELOPMENT OF TSAWWASSEN FERRY TERMINAL......................... 2 2.3 1961-1968 - PORT DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 3 2.4 1968-1970 – ROBERTS BANK COAL PORT FACILITY ............................................... 4 2.5 1975-1979 – PROPOSED EXPANSION OF ROBERTS BANK PORT................................ 5 2.6 1980-1984 – EXPANSION OF ROBERTS BANK COAL PORT FACILITY (WESTSHORE TERMINALS)............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Restructuring of Port Charges in South Africa
    COPYRIGHT AND CITATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS THESIS/ DISSERTATION o Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. o NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. o ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. How to cite this thesis Surname, Initial(s). (2012) Title of the thesis or dissertation. PhD. (Chemistry)/ M.Sc. (Physics)/ M.A. (Philosophy)/M.Com. (Finance) etc. [Unpublished]: University of Johannesburg. Retrieved from: https://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za (Accessed: Date). E \}\O ~.~ \E\~ RESTRUCTURING OF PORT CHARGES IN SOUTH AFRICA by HENRIETTE CHRISTA VAN NIEKERK THESIS Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCtOR OF COMMERCE in the field of TRANSPORT ECONOMICS in the <, FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS SCIENCE at the RAND AFRIKAANS UNIVERSITY PROMOTER: PROF W PRETORIUS CO-PROMOTER: MR B C FLOOR SEPTEMBER 1994 • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to all those who enabled me to complete this thesis. In particular I wish to thank: Mr Be Floor, for his encouragement, support and guidance throughout the study, Prof W Pretorius, for his advice and assistance as promoter, Mr NW Oosthuizen, Chief Executive of Portnet, for making the study possible and providing the opportunity
    [Show full text]