BSR TransGovernance WP 4 Final Report

Transcription

1 BSR TransGovernance WP 4 Final Report

2 Table of Content Table of Content... 2 Introduction... 3 Multilevel Governance and Transport System Development... 4 Towards stronger stakeholder cooperation... 4 Citizen participation... 4 Stakeholder Engagement... 4 Multilevel Governance (MLG)... 7 Multilevel Governance in Intermodal Terminal Context... 8 Definition and justification of Multilevel Governance (MLG)... 8 Recommendations for MLG implementation in transport... 9 Process owner... 9 Role of different stakeholders Practical methods for MLG process MLG and transport system development Consistent summary of WP 4 cases Involved administrational layers Involved stakeholders Stakeholders objectives Stakeholders awareness of their role Previous cooperation between the stakeholders Stakeholders meetings Pre-requisites (e.g. legal, formal and financial) Achieved results

3 Introduction BSR TransGovernance WP4 aims at creating and testing good multi-level governance (MLG) models for the planning and operation stages of intermodal terminals, with the involvement of public authorities and business representatives. The workpackage consists of altogether eight cases: seven site cases (Lahti, Helsingborg, Warmia-Mazury, Karlshamn, Klaipeda, Lithuania, Latvia) and one horizontal case (MLG in short sea shipping). The cases are geographically spread through the Baltic Sea Region and address different planning/operational stages of intermodal terminal facilities. The intention was to test how MLG instruments could facilitate a dialogue between relevant stakeholders in an effort to optimise the performance of intermodal terminals to give the best effects for sustainable regional growth. This BSR TransGovernance WP 4 Final Report has two layers: General description of the Multi-Level Governance and its added value for transport system development especially for intermodal terminal development Consistent summary of eight cases: seven site cases (Lahti, Helsingborg, Warmia- Mazury, Karlshamn, Klaipeda, Lithuania, Latvia) and one horizontal case (MLG in short sea shipping). More detailed analysis of each case can be found from the site specific reports. BSR TransGovernance WP 4 Intermodal terminals work package was led by Lahti Region Development LADEC Ltd and LADEC was also responsible for the WP 4 Case Lahti in Finland. 3

4 Multilevel Governance and Transport System Development Towards stronger stakeholder cooperation Traditionally transport and infrastructure projects utilize Citizen Participation and Stakeholder participation/engagement. These tools are used by public sector organizations responsible for a transport and/or infrastructure project, in many countries these processes are obligatory part of a significant transport / infrastructure investment. Citizen participation Citizen participation may be defined as a process in which ordinary people take part whether on a voluntary or obligatory basis and whether acting alone or as part of a group with the goal of influencing a decision involving significant choices that will affect their community. Such participation may or may not take place within an institutional framework, and it may be organized either by members of civil society (for example, through class action, demonstrations citizens committees, etc.) or by decision makers (for example, through referendums, parliamentary commissions and mediation, etc.). Source: Pierre André, Professor, Université de Montréal Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholder engagement is the process by which an organization involves people who may be affected by the decisions it makes or can influence the implementation of its decisions. They may support or oppose the decisions, be influential in the organization or within the community in which it operates, hold relevant official positions or be affected in the long term. Source: Wikipedia 4

5 Figure 1. Common stakeholder participation techniques 5

6 As the definitions of the Citizen Participation and the Stakeholder Engagement as well as the description of common stakeholder participation techniques indicates, the nature of these stakeholder management techniques is the following: an organization (typically only one organization) involves people who may be affected by the decisions the organization makes. The number of real decision makers is very limited many organizations and citizen are heard, they can participate, but the actual decision is done by one organization or rather limited number of organizations. Source: Pierre André with the collaboration of Bert Enserink, Desmond Connor and Peter Croal. IAIA (International Association of Impact Assessment These approaches are relevant in many circumstances. However, growing number of transport and infrastructure projects are facing situations, in which the successful implementation of the project is dependent on sequence of decisions to be taken by several organizations both public and private. The classic stakeholder management (citizen participation, stakeholder engagement) highlights too much one pole -type decision making. 6

7 Multilevel Governance (MLG) Urban governments face an increasing number and complexity of challenges. As written in the previous chapters, classic public participation is not always strong enough approach to ensure proper handling of these challenges. One of the emerging theories related to the management of these challenges is the Multilevel Governance. Multi-level (or multilevel) governance is an approach in political science and public administration theory that originated from studies on European integration. Political scientists Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks developed the concept of multi-level governance in the early 1990s and have continuously been contributing to the research program in a series of articles. Their theory resulted from the study of the new structures that were put in place by the EU (Maastricht Treaty) in Multi-level governance gives expression to the idea that there are many interacting authority structures at work in the emergent global political economy. It "illuminates the intimate entanglement between the domestic and international levels of authority". Source: Wikipedia In addition to political science and public administration theory, MLG has been implemented for example in environmental / climate change issues. Multilevel Governance has not been involved too much in transport sector, maybe the closest utilization is in the fields of urban development. Thus as described also in the project application the BSR Transgovernance WP 4 decided to test a good MLG model for the planning and operational stages of intermodal terminals. MLG Model to be tested was adapted from the Urban Multilevel Governace, namely The Handbook for Multilevel Urban Governance in Europe Analysing Participatory Instruments for an Integrated Urban Development (Tuna Taşan-Kok & Jan Vranken). 7

8 Multilevel Governance in Intermodal Terminal Context Definition and justification of Multilevel Governance (MLG) The Handbook for Multilevel Urban Governance in Europe Analysing Participatory Instruments for an Integrated Urban Development (Tuna Taşan-Kok & Jan Vranken) was found an interesting and inspiring approach for Multilevel Governance. The handbook defines Multilevel Governance following way: The description an arrangement for making binding decisions that engages a multiplicity of politically independent but otherwise interdependent actors private and public at different levels of territorial aggregation in more-or-less continuous negotiation / deliberation / implementation can be seen rather typical for complex transport / infrastructure project, such as Intermodal terminal development. Intermodal terminal development requires cooperation and decisions by several different actors. For example regional/local authorities need to take decisions concerning land use and infrastructure investments, private cargo owners and logistics service providers must commit to utilize the intermodal terminal and establish the needed logistics services, location of the intermodal terminal should respect the national and European Union level transport policy and macro level transport plan. All in all the process of intermodal terminal development is clearly a case of an arrangement for making binding decisions that engages a multiplicity of politically independent but otherwise interdependent actors private and public. Thus the classic approaches of citizen/stakeholder participation may be too weak, and utilization of Multilevel governance can be seen relevant. 8

9 Recommendations for MLG implementation in transport Process owner Although Multilevel Governance is clearly cooperation of several public and private organizations, there should always be a process owner facilitating and focusing the process. Concerning the intermodal terminal development, it is recommended that the process owner would be one of the local / regional public bodies. Figure 2.Role of different levels of governance (Handbook for Multilevel Urban Governance in Europe) The process owner should first define the objective of the project (e.g. establishment intermodal terminal), then recognize relevant stakeholders (public and private) and start to moderate Multilevel Governance process process of creating binding decisions by various stakeholders leading towards the objective of the process. The process owner should be familiar with the roles of various administrational levels in order to moderate process. 9

10 Role of different stakeholders The Handbook for Multilevel Urban Governance in Europe defines the role of EU and national level organizations as follows: The example above gives a good basis for understanding the role of various authorities in transport sector as well: EU defines the overall transport policy national level is responsible for country level planning and implementation regional and local level are focusing more on local needs of trade and industry and land use planning. The role of private sector is extremely essential while implementing multilevel governance in transport sector: at the end of the day the success of the intermodal terminal is defined by the customers, private sector cargo owners and logistics service providers. This fact underlines the meaning of multilevel governance process with private sector. It can t be highlighted enough, how valuable it is to get true participation of end users of the intermodal terminal. The essential issue is to define the list of critical decisions which needs to be taken by different level authorities in order to implement the overall objective of the Multilevel governance process. Examples given later in this document will clarify the approach. 10

11 Practical methods for MLG process Recommended practical methods for the MLG process for inland terminals are inspired by the Handbook for Multilevel Urban Governance. Methods were further developed to meet the demands of Multilevel Governance for Transport system development, especially for intermodal terminal development. 1. Involved actors The first phase is to identify involved actors. The BSR Transgovernance WP 4 proposes that at least following decision makers are considered as stakeholders while developing Intermodal Terminals: EU-LEVEL o EU Commission (DG Move, DG Regio) o TEN-T Coordinators MACRO-LEVEL o Baltic Sea Region (BSR) o Northern dimension Partnership on Transport and Logistics (NDPTL) NATIONAL-LEVEL o Transport ministries Transport Administrations REGIONAL / LOCAL -LEVEL o Regional authorities o Local authorities PRIVATE-LEVEL o Cargo owners o Logistics service providers o Business networks o Lobby organisations 11

12 2. Define process steps The second phase should be defining the process steps which are expected to lead to the objective, like intermodal terminal development. The definition of steps can be seen as an identification of critical path of decisions. This also gives a good opportunity to identify actors who should be involved each step. The approach indicates the connection between process steps and stakeholders. The number of step-connections per stakeholder indicates where the emphasis of the multilevel governance process should be. STEP INVOLVED ACTORS EU MACRO NAT REG LOG PRIVATE EU Commission (DG MOVE, DG REGIO) TEN-T Coordinators BSR NDPTL Transport ministries Transport administration Regional authorities Local authorities Cargo owners Logistics service providers Business networks Lobby organisations STEP 1 x x x STEP 2 x x x x x x x x x STEP 3 x x x x x x x STEP 4 x x x x x x STEP 5 x x % % Figure 3. Example of recommend Multilevel Governance process for Transport system development The process steps should be defined as concrete way as possible, for example realistic annual volume forecast for the intermodal terminal or analysis of the current infrastructure capacity. 12

13 MLG and transport system development The Multilevel governance seems to be an adequate approach to follow and control very challenging transport system development processes. The method is very relevant for situations, where success is not depending of decisions taken by one stakeholder, but several stakeholders. 13

14 Consistent summary of WP 4 cases Involved administrational layers Lahti, Finland EU: Finnish Ministry of Transport informed the EU about High Capacity Transport pilot programme. National: Finnish Government implemented the legal process concerning High Capacity Transport pilot programme. Finnish Transport Safety Agency (Trafi) participated. One meeting with the Minister of Transport Merja Kyllönen before the start of the pilot. Regional: Lahti Regional Development (LADEC) Local: Municipalities confirming the Duotrailer routes related to their street network Warmia-Mazury, Poland EU: DG MOVE/DG REGIO National: Ministry of Infrastructure and Development Regional: Self-government of the Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodship Local: Municipality of Ełk, Municipality of Braniewo Helsingborg, Sweden EU: Not involved National: Trafikverket (Swedish Transport Administration) Regional: Region Skåne, Familjen Helsingborg (formerly: Helsingborg Business Region) Local: City of Helsingborg and municipalities in the North West corner of Scania. The municipality of Astorp, The municipality of Bjuv Klaipeda, Lithuania Karlshamn, Sweden Intermodal terminals, Lithuania National transport ministry, local government Port of Karlshamn and the customs In 2008 JSC Lithuanian Railways (LG) was appointed by the Lithuanian government to be a main implementer of projects to establish 14

15 public logistic centers in Vilnius and Kaunas. Since then all the necessary documentation for the construction of inland intermodal terminals in those public logistic centers has been prepared and construction works already started in spring of The EU is also strongly involved in implementation of those projects as they are partly (up to 85 % of total eligible cost) financed from the Cohesion Fund. As for the Kaunas inland two-gauge intermodal terminal case - Kaunas city municipality and Lietuvos automobilių kelių direkcija (institution responsible for maintenance and development of national road network) are directly involved as an agreement has been signed between LG and them before submitting financing application. The reason was that a road connection to main highway Vilnius Klaipėda had to be improved, which partly belongs to the responsibilities of the Kaunas city municipality and Lietuvos automobilių kelių direkcija Latvia Short sea shipping, Denmark National: Ministry of Transport, Latvian Railways, Freeport of Riga Authority, Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development Local: Riga City Council (2 departments), Ventspils City Council Danish national and regional stakeholders Involved stakeholders Lahti, Finland Business: Leading logistics service providers Community: chamber of commerce Any other: Media Warmia-Mazury, Poland Business: representatives of the logistics operators, representatives of the railway carriers, representative of the exporters and importers from the Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodeship Community: Special Economic Zones Any other: Representatives of the railway infrastructure manager 15

16 Helsingborg, Sweden Business: Vectura, Port of Helsingborg, GDL Any other: Lund University Klaipeda, Lithuania Karlshamn, Sweden Intermodal terminals, Lithuania Business: AB Klasco (Klaipeda Stevedoring Company), DFDS Seaways DFDS Seaways, the customs Customs authorities are directly involved according to cooperation agreements, which were signed with LG. In a scope of this project a customs facilities (office and warehouse for detailed checks) are being constructed and they will move in immediately after opening of the terminals in Vilnius and Kaunas. Local association of freight forwarders Lineka was involved as a consultant advising on various issues on development of the concept of the terminals as well as container shipping lines such as Maersk and MSC which plan to establish empty container depots in the Vilnius terminal. Latvia Business: Schenker SIA, Baltic Container Terminal SIA, Man-Tess Tranzits SIA, SRR AS, NNT SIA Community (e.g. NGOs, local interest groups etc.): LaTDEA, Latvian Transport Union, Local community union of Sarkandaugava district Short sea shipping, Denmark Business stakeholders, ports, interest organisations and authorities. 16

17 Stakeholders objectives Lahti, Finland Warmia-Mazury, Poland Different stakeholders look at the DuoTrailer-pilot from their own perspective industry has the main focus in logistics efficiency and green solutions, transport administration has an infrastructure focus, while Finnish Transport Safety Agency (Trafi) ensures the road safety. The Case of Warmia-Mazury Region is based on two potential locations of the terminal that were indicated in the updated EC TEN-T Regulation (both locations are labelled as rail-road terminals (RRT) on the comprehensive network). Hence, during the study and discussion with stakeholders our aim was to find complementary not rivalry features that Braniewo and Ełk intermodal terminals may have in terms of operation. Moreover, in Braniewo there is an existing logistic infrastructure (small-scale, handling bulk and oil) that operates, inter alia, trade exchange between Poland and Russia. On the other hand, in Ełk there s no such infrastructure and the project is in a planning stage. Therefore, a different attitude was visible when comparing both locations but the role of consultant was to focus on potential not on an existing infrastructure. Positive was that during discussions between public authorities such as the national ministry, municipalities and regional authority stakeholders, they had the same point of view. Helsingborg, Sweden Motives and attitudes differ. For instance, the port of Helsingborg is interested in increased capacity. The municipalities are interested in work opportunities but on the other hand are also worried about the environmental issues, noise, congestions etc. Also the benefits and the back sides of a dry-port differ which effect the motives and attitudes of the involved partners. Klaipeda, Lithuania Karlshamn, Sweden In order to find new goods and increase the number of passengers a better cooperation is needed between the local government and shipping line operators. In this case it should be more discussion to try to find one common strategy. The companies, as normal, have a focus on here and now. 17

18 Intermodal terminals, Lithuania Latvia We do not see such a big differences in development needs as representatives of public sector most often do not have a clear vision of project details. You can most often hear that terminals should be build according to flow calculations and market needs. Perhaps a wise decision was to leave development of the terminals for LG which will build them and operate as a part of public railway infrastructure enabling equal usage conditions for any railway undertaking. Thus, a complete confidence was given to LG which has an operational experience of pretty similar terminals and knows the market quite well. Yes, there are differences between needs and interests of the stakeholders involved. Differences exist even between attitudes that representatives of individual companies have towards MLG status. Opinions range from complete denial of the necessity to consider MLG status to a strong support of it. Opinions of public administration representatives range in a similar way. Apart from this, there are differences in needs and interests of companies and city inhabitants who are concerned with the state of the environment. Short sea shipping, Denmark Yes, we detect a difference, but the differences are primarily to be explained from individual interests e.g. ports vs land-based transport freight forwarder 18

19 Stakeholders awareness of their role Lahti, Finland Warmia-Mazury, Poland Helsingborg, Sweden Klaipeda, Lithuania Karlshamn, Sweden Intermodal terminals, Lithuania Latvia Short sea shipping, Denmark Stakeholders are professionals and know their roles The project activities are a perfect occasion to consolidate different parties and gather stakeholders who are most important in the process - from the planning to the operational stage. During several meetings it s turned out that not all partners are aware of their duties and roles in the process. Yes, the involved stakeholders know their roles and responsibilities. It was not clear in the beginning. After a while and after some work in the working-group the aims and motives of the participating partners became more clear. In the case implementation process most of them know their roles Yes but they do not care so much Almost no stakeholder knew their role well before the start of the project and things had to be worked out during the process. This of course caused some delays and misunderstandings. In most cases, the project is the first opportunity to define roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in the context of MLG. We elaborated further on this matter and had results when the interviews were completed. 19

20 Previous cooperation between the stakeholders Lahti, Finland Warmia-Mazury, Poland Helsingborg, Sweden Klaipeda, Lithuania Karlshamn, Sweden Intermodal terminals, Lithuania Latvia Short sea shipping, Denmark Lahti case has analysed rail-based solutions in previous projects. The result was that rail-based solutions are not realistic at the moment. At the beginning of 2014 the national railway company VR Cargo stopped all multimodal transport services in Finland. Warmia-Mazury Region was involved in the TransBaltic project, where a dry port study was conducted. Some of the stakeholders that were contacted in previous project were also present in the intermodal terminal study within BSR TransGovernance. Bad experience did not occur. Yes, several of the stakeholders have cooperated before, in different projects and activities. Yes, it was cooperation between the shipping line operator and truck logistics companies. There is same bad experience. Yes Not really. Stakeholders had a previous cooperation experience according to the decision-making model on terminal development. The experience was both positive and negative. Positive factor is that the model is stable and worked out. Negative factor is that there is a lack of information transparency during the decision-making process on national and local levels, poor information exchange between representatives of the same level. In general both private and public entities work together when it comes to transport related matters 20

21 Stakeholders meetings Lahti, Finland Warmia-Mazury, Poland There has been several meetings with the stakeholders during the project From the beginning of the study several meetings were arranged. First meeting regarded consultations on a methodological report with municipalities of Ełk and Braniewo as well as with regional authority experts. Afterwards, a so called focus session was arranged with: representatives of the local authorities, including the president of Elk and the mayor of Braniewo, representatives of: the Marshal Office of Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodeship, railway carriers, road carriers, logistics operators, exporters and importers from the Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodeship, and Special Economic Zones. Final meeting was a seminar in Ełk presenting a draft final report with participants representing both private and public sector (more than 30 persons attended). Most of invited actors participated in the meetings (circa 80 %). Helsingborg, Sweden Klaipeda, Lithuania Karlshamn, Sweden Intermodal terminals, Lithuania Several meetings have been arranged with the stakeholders. Seven interviews have been conducted, for instance port of Helsingborg, Region Skåne, Familjen Helsingborg and local municipalities. There was one meeting with main business companies mentioned before (question no. 2), local government, and a few biggest logistics companies We have had two working meetings with DFDS and they helped us organise visits at their sister terminals in Kiel and Fredricia. Yes. A seminar to mark a launch of construction of the Kaunas intermodal terminal was held in autumn last year with representatives of LG (including director general), Minister of transport, Kaunas city major, Kaunas district vice major, director of Lietuvos automobilių kelių direkcija as well as transport and logistic companies located in Kaunas which have an interest in using the terminal. No one refused to participate. Couple of seminars were held in 2012 as well. Latvia Yes, we have organised 3 seminars with terminals representatives and 11 meetings with stakeholders. Companies representatives refused to take 21

22 part in interviews due to the following reasons: lack of time and the need to solve current business issues, poor knowledge of MLG status in terminal development. Local level representatives were quite careful in expressing their opinion, as in some cases their point of view differed from the official one. Short sea shipping, Denmark They were processed, no difficulties Pre-requisites (e.g. legal, formal and financial) Lahti, Finland Warmia-Mazury, Poland Lahti case is focused on DuoTrailer based solutions. After Finnish Government decided that Finland will go for High Capacity Transport pilots, there have been no problems with stakeholder cooperation. A kind of road map for the project implementation has been prepared. It has recommendations - as a result of the concrete part of the study on: a concrete stakeholder responsible for implementation method of implementation, current status, and time schedule. Also, the consultant provided a tool named Potential risks and methods of counteracting in project implementation, divided into technical, financial, organisational, external and strategic risks with proposal of counteracting methods. Helsingborg, Sweden From the report: There are ambiguities in the process that leads to a margin of interpretation and further appears that the actors have different goals and different incentives for participation. We also see that there may be players who create legitimacy for other stakeholders just by themselves being a part of the constellation. It turns out that what happens in the margin of interpretation is that actors interpret the current problem area in a way that suits their organisation, which leads to actors, who previously opposed themselves and felt pressurised, have changed their minds. They have found positive aspects grounded in their own perspective. It seems that these aspects became clearer to participants after they had time to analyse their participation based on their own interpretations. Regarding the degree of volunteerism it appears that actor A may be more dependent on player B than actor B is player A, and so forth, and that this may influence the degree of volunteerism. As we see it is possible to say 22

23 that some of what happens in the scope for interpretation is that the actors are socialised and change their perception and that this may be due to that they feel at home in the group and that you feel that you have access to new knowledge. You feel that you are disconnected from the overall organisation and therefore affect others rather than being influenced by yourself. It is the interdependence, the voluntarism and the margin of interpretation in relation to each other that has led to the constellation status and that some actors have a more positive view of the establishment of a dry-port now than what they had before. What we have learned from the study that is important is that there has been a change and that change can have aspects such as inter-dependencies and margin of interpretation to do. Klaipeda, Lithuania Karlshamn, Sweden Intermodal terminals, Lithuania It is formal and financial Not applicable As it was mentioned before, cooperation agreements with customs authorities, freight forwarding associations as well as shipping lines, for example MSC were signed. As for the Kaunas case a joint financial application of LG, Kaunas city municipality and Lietuvos automobilių kelių direkcija for the EU Cohesion Fund co-financing was submitted - according to the previously signed agreement on distribution of costs. In addition to that, a joint venture Vilnius logistic park has been established between LG and Vilnius city municipality to organise development and sales of land plots around the terminal for the construction of logistics facilities. Latvia Legal pre-requisites: more active participation of port terminals in discussions concerning their development in the Freeport of Riga Authority (amendments to participation conditions that apply to Freeport of Riga Authority Board meetings, where decisions on the approval of terminals business plans are made). Formal pre-requisites: transparency and wider availability of information of each representative of national and local levels. Short sea shipping, Denmark Not applicable 23

24 Achieved results Lahti, Finland Warmia-Mazury, Poland Helsingborg, Sweden Klaipeda, Lithuania Karlshamn, Sweden Intermodal terminals, Lithuania Latvia Short sea shipping, Denmark Site specific final report Site specific final report Site specific final report Site specific final report Site specific final report Site specific final report Site specific final report Site specific final report 24