Search

The prosperity and social progress of developed and developing economies is highly dependent on the existence of efficient transport infrastructure. Nevertheless, current budgetary constraints are jeopardizing the necessary investments in new or existing infrastructure. New models for planning and managing infrastructure are now necessary to overcome the lack of public economic resources available. Port infrastructure is no exception and, due to the vast number of uncertainties involving these projects, it is relevant to maximize the capture of the latent value of flexible options. Incorporating flexibility in these projects, prior to the implementation phase, can be a solution that allows port managers to address future uncertainties and mitigate risk exposure. This paper analyzes the incorporation of flexibility in port planning through the use of an American call option to the physical capacity expansion problem. The rationale is to implement a flexible expansion plan, through options that can be exercised at any given time, that are able to deal with uncertainty in demand. The paper uses a case study – Terminal Container of Ferrol, in Spain – and the results support the hypothesis that imbedded flexibility will robustly increase the net present value of the project. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

British commercial and political hopes to expand trade in the new Soviet state after 1920 were to an extent disappointed. Despite successful ventures by individual companies, in aggregate business fell short of expectations, especially compared with German and American competitors. The reasons were both (micro and macro) economic variables and political factors, in Britain and the USSR. From 1926 the Soviet regime was committed to rapid industrialization and a pattern of imports in which Germany enjoyed some comparative advantage. But, in contrast to major rivals, British governments occasionally tried to use trade as a political instrument to the disadvantage of commercial operations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has been assumed that strategies for estuarine and marine conservation must be substantially different than those for terrestrial conservation because the seas are all publicly owned. This is an unfortunate misconception. We explored the leasing and ownership of submerged lands as tools for marine conservation and provide examples of the implementation of these tools from The Nature Conservancy's work in Texas, Washington, and New York (U.S.A.). We found that the leasing and ownership of submerged lands are viable new tools for marine conservation. There is a significant amount of submerged land available for lease and ownership in the United States and other countries that includes a diverse array of ecosystems (e.g., kelp forests, marshes, seagrass meadows, oyster reefs, tidal flats, clam beds, scallop beds, sponge, and coral reefs). From our review of policy and experience in practice, we have identified some key benefits and considerations for the use of these tools. Conservation benefits for the leasing and ownership of submerged lands include opportunities to restore ecologically and economically important species, protect diversity in sanctuaries, draw on substantial terrestrial experience in leasing and ownership, buy land cheaply, develop ecologically sustainable harvest practices, partner with fishers and local communities to improve water quality, create control areas for research, and partake in local management forums as a direct stakeholder. Bivalve shellfish are particularly amenable to conservation with these tools because existing policy is well established for leasing and ownership rights to sessile animals that exist on the sea floor. Conservation buyers need to consider that community sentiment does not always favor private rights to submerged lands, conservation interest in submerged lands could affect prices, association with incompatible aquaculture practices will be detrimental, enforcement of restrictions can be difficult, and there may be concerns about setting the precedent of paying for conservation of submerged lands. Policy makers should be encouraged to include more opportunities for conservation and not just exploitation of natural resources on submerged land leases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]