TRANSPORT AND CONNECTIVITY: PROBLEMS FACED BY SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES Robert J. McCalla,...

TRANSPORT AND CONNECTIVITY: PROBLEMS FACED BY SMALL ISLAND

DEVELOPING STATES

Robert J. McCalla,

Department of Geography,

Saint Mary’s University, Halifax,

Canada

B3H 3C3

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]






UNCTAD, Multimodal Transport and Logistic Services, 24-26 September 2003 2

PURPOSE

• The purpose of this paper is to show how the connectiveness of Caribbean island ports impacts on their throughput, and to discuss how other shipping logistics characteristics may or may not be just as important to explain throughput.

• Being ‘connected’ may not be enough!


PRELIMINARY REMARKS

• containerization is a necessary condition for increasing trade in developing countries (UNCTAD Secretariat 2003, 9).

• Moreover, containerization has played the main role in the development of multimodal transport and logistic services.

• Two key players in the seamless operation of logistics services are ports and shipping lines connecting them.


• In order for ports to prosper they must be well connected.

• Four ways to measure ‘connectiveness’ of a port:1. the number of shipping services it has, 2. the number of port partners in its services’ network, 3. the number of linkages provided by the shipping lines to

these port partners. 4. the connectivity index of the port determined by dividing

linkages by port partners.

• To show how well these measures relate to selected Caribbean port’s throughput is the purpose of this paper.


DATA AND METHODOLOGY TO CREATE

NETWORKS • Data were drawn for two years: 1994 and 2002, from the

Containerisation International Yearbook.

• All shipping services operating in the Caribbean basin in those two years were recorded. For every service listed the shipping company, the ships assigned to the service, their capacity, the frequency of the service and the Caribbean ports of call of that service were recorded. By knowing the ports of call service networks could be constructed.


• For each service a line was drawn connecting nearest neighbour ports but the line was not closed. For example, if a route included the ports of New Orleans, Houston, Veracruz and Kingston a line was drawn joining those ports in that order. Kingston and New Orleans were not joined.

• A GIS was used to record the ports and the service routes.

• The complete networks for 1994 and 2002 are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

• Table 1 shows the connectiveness characteristics of these two networks.


Figure 1: 1994 Network

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

Rama

Abaco

Ponce

Tampa

Guanta

HavanaMariel

Nassau

Tuxpan

Bonaire

Tampico

TortolaAnguilla

Beaumont Gulfport

Kingston

Plymouth

Veracruz

Arlen SiuCartagena

Coco SoloCristobal

Maracaibo

Rio Haina

Cienfuegos

Georgetown

Grand Turk

Oranjestad

Belize City

Brownsville

Montego Bay

St George's

Port Manatee

Puerto Limon

Puerto Plata

Coatzacoalcos

Puerto Andres

Puerto CortesFort-de-France

Panama City FL

Providenciales

Puerto Barrios

Puerto Morelos

Freeport

Puerto Castilla

Freeport

Mobile

Roseau

Curacao

Houston

Altamira

Guaranao

Gustavia

Matanzas

San Juan

St Croix

Galveston

Kingstown

La Guaira

La Romana

Pensacola

St John's

St Thomas

Basseterre

BridgetownSt Vincent

Willemstad

Baton Rouge

Cap Haitien

El Guamache

New Orleans

Philipsburg

Point Lisas

Santa MartaBarranquilla

Lake Charles

Puerto OrdazPuerto Sucre

St Eustatius

Port Castries

Port of Spain

Santo Domingo

Isla Margarita

Pointe-a-Pitre

Port-au-Prince

Puerto Cabello Bahia Las Minas

Santiago de Cuba

Santo Tomas de Castilla

0 1000 Kilometers

N

EW

S

Caribbean Container Shipping Network,All Connections, 1994

# Ports

Shipping Connections

Ports = 90

Linkages = 677

Connectivity = 7.36


Figure 2: 2002 Network

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

###

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

###

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

Rama

Abaco

Colon

Ponce

Tampa

Guanta

HavanaMariel

Nassau

NicaroTuxpan

Guanaja

Marigot

Tampico

Tortola Anguilla

BeaumontGulfport

Kingston

Plymouth

Progreso

Veracruz

Arlen Siu

CartagenaCoco Solo

Cristobal

Kingstown

La GuairaMaracaibo

Rio Haina

Cienfuegos

Georgetown

Grand Turk

Oranjestad

Belize City

Brownsville

Montego Bay

Panama City

Port Manatee

Puerto Limon

Puerto Plata

Puerto CortesPuerto BarriosPuerto Lempira

Puerto Morelos

Freeport

Freeport,

Utila

Mobile

Roatan

BonaireCuracao

Altamira

Cruz Bay

Guaranao

Gustavia

Matanzas

San Juan

St Croix

La Romana

Pensacola

St John's

St Thomas

BasseterreBoca Chica


Vieux Fort

Willemstad

Baton Rouge

Cap Haitien

Charlestown

El Guamache

New Orleans

Philipsburg

Point Lisas

Santa Marta St George'sBarranquilla

Lake Charles


St EustatiusCoatzacoalcos

Port Castries

Port of Spain

Santo Domingo

Fort-de-France

Isla Margarita

Pointe-a-Pitre

Port-au-Prince

Providenciales


Puerto Castilla

Santiago de Cuba

Puerto Manzanillo

San Andres Island


Roseau

Houston Galveston

0 1000 Kilometers

N

EW

S

Caribbean Container Shipping Network, All Connections, 2002

# Ports


Ports = 89

Linkages = 584

Connectivity = 6.56


Table 1: 1994 and 2002 Networks Compared

Links (l) Ports (p) Connect-ivity (l/p)

1994 677 90 7.36

2002 584 89 6.56


• In the 8 year period the network has actually become simpler in structure. There are fewer linkages, fewer ports (marginally) and a lower connectivity index. What is remarkable about this simplification is the fact that the actual number of containers handled in Caribbean basin ports has more than doubled from around 5.5 million in

1994 to close to 13 million in 2002.

• Table 2 shows the most connected ports in 1994 and 2002.


Table 2A: Ports with the Most Port Partners, 1994 vs. 2002

First Ten Ports 1994 Port

Part-ners

Rank 2002 Port Part-ners

Rank Change in Rank

1994 to 2002

Houston 51 1 Rio Haina 49 1 +9

New Orleans 49 2 Port of Spain 46 2 +2

San Juan 46 3 Kingston 44 3 +7

La Guaira 45 4 Puerto Cabello 43 4 +2

Port of Spain 45 4 La Guaira 42 5 -1

Puerto Cabello 44 6 Houston 37 6 -5

Maracaibo 42 7 San Juan 35 7 -4

Oranjestad 38 8 Cartagena 35 7 +6

Willemstad 37 9 New Orleans 32 9 -7

Kingston 35 10 Puerto Limon 32 9 +1

Continued…


Table 2B: Ports with the Most Port Partners, 1994 vs. 2002Second Ten Ports

1994 Port

Part-ners

Rank 2002 Port Part-ners

Rank Change in Rank

1994 to 2002

Puerto Limon 35 10 Bridgetown 32 9 +8

Rio Haina 35 10 Pointe-a-Pitre 32 9 +11

Cartagena 34 13 Willemstad 32 9 0

Guanta 33 14 Port-au-Prince 30 14 +3

Mobile 32 15 Fort-de-France 30 14 +19

S. Tom. de Castilla 32 15 Veracruz 29 16 +14

Bridgetown 31 17 Port Castries 28 17 +17

Port-au-Prince 31 17 Puerto Cortes 27 18 -1

Puerto Cortes 31 17 Basseterre 27 18 +7

Santa Marta 30 20 Puerto Manzanillo(Not ranked in 1994)

27 18 n/a


• The highlighted ports (excluding Basseterre) from Table 2 form the focus of the rest of the paper. The ports are: Rio Haina, Port of Spain, Kingston, San Juan, Bridgetown, Pointe-a-Pitre, Willemstad, Port-au-Prince, Fort-de-France, Port Castries and Oranjestad.

• Connectivity networks were drawn for each of these ports for 1994 and 2002.

• As examples, Figure 3 and 4 are shown for Kingston and Bridgetown respectively.

• Table 3 is a summary of the connectiveness characteristics of these ports for 2002.


Figure 3: Kingston Connectivity Networks, 1994 and 2002

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

Rama

Abaco

Ponce

Tampa

Guanta

HavanaMariel

Nassau

Tuxpan

Bonaire

Tampico

TortolaAnguilla

Beaumont Gulfport

Kingston

Plymouth

Veracruz

Arlen SiuCartagena

Coco SoloCristobal

Maracaibo

Rio Haina

Cienfuegos

Georgetown

Grand Turk

Oranjestad

Belize City

Brownsville

Montego Bay

St George's

Port Manatee

Puerto Limon

Puerto Plata

Coatzacoalcos

Puerto Andres


Panama City FL

Providenciales

Puerto Barrios

Puerto Morelos

Freeport

Puerto Castilla

Freeport

Mobile

Roseau

Curacao

Houston

Altamira

Guaranao

Gustavia

Matanzas

San Juan

St Croix

Galveston

Kingstown

La Guaira

La Romana

Pensacola

St John's

St Thomas

Basseterre


Willemstad

Baton Rouge

Cap Haitien

El Guamache

New Orleans

Philipsburg

Point Lisas


Lake Charles


St Eustatius

Port Castries

Port of Spain

Santo Domingo

Isla Margarita

Pointe-a-Pitre

Port-au-Prince


Santiago de Cuba


#

0 1000 Kilometers

N

EW

S

Caribbean Container Shipping Network,Kingston, 1994

# Ports


#

#

#

#

##

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

###

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

###

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

Rama

Abaco

Colon

Ponce

Tampa

Guanta

HavanaMariel

Nassau

NicaroTuxpan

Guanaja

Marigot

Tampico

Tortola Anguilla

BeaumontGulfport

Kingston

Plymouth

Progreso

Veracruz

Arlen Siu

CartagenaCoco Solo

Cristobal

Kingstown

La GuairaMaracaibo

Rio Haina

Cienfuegos

Georgetown

Grand Turk

Oranjestad

Belize City

Brownsville

Montego Bay

Panama City

Port Manatee

Puerto Limon

Puerto Plata


Puerto Morelos

Freeport

Freeport,

Utila

Mobile

Roatan

BonaireCuracao

Altamira

Cruz Bay

Guaranao

Gustavia

Matanzas

San Juan

St Croix

La Romana

Pensacola

St John's

St Thomas



Vieux Fort

Willemstad

Baton Rouge

Cap Haitien

Charlestown

El Guamache

New Orleans

Philipsburg

Point Lisas


Lake Charles



Port Castries

Port of Spain

Santo Domingo

Fort-de-France

Isla Margarita

Pointe-a-Pitre

Port-au-Prince

Providenciales


Puerto Castilla

Santiago de Cuba

Puerto Manzanillo

San Andres Island


Roseau

Houston Galveston

#

0 1000 Kilometers

N

EW

S

Caribbean Container Shipping Network,Kingston, 2002

# Ports


Ports = 35 Linkages = 93 Connectivity = 2.66 Ports = 44 Linkages = 118 Connectivity = 2.68


Figure 4: Bridgetown Connectivity Networks, 1994 and 2002

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

Rama

Abaco

Ponce

Tampa

Guanta

HavanaMariel

Nassau

Tuxpan

Bonaire

Tampico

TortolaAnguilla

Beaumont Gulfport

Kingston

Plymouth

Veracruz

Arlen SiuCartagena

Coco SoloCristobal

Maracaibo

Rio Haina

Cienfuegos

Georgetown

Grand Turk

Oranjestad

Belize City

Brownsville

Montego Bay

St George's

Port Manatee

Puerto Limon

Puerto Plata

Coatzacoalcos

Puerto Andres


Panama City FL

Providenciales

Puerto Barrios

Puerto Morelos

Freeport

Puerto Castilla

Freeport

Mobile

Roseau

Curacao

Houston

Altamira

Guaranao

Gustavia

Matanzas

San Juan

St Croix

Galveston

Kingstown

La Guaira

La Romana

Pensacola

St John's

St Thomas

Basseterre


Willemstad

Baton Rouge

Cap Haitien

El Guamache

New Orleans

Philipsburg

Point Lisas


Lake Charles


St Eustatius

Port Castries

Port of Spain

Santo Domingo

Isla Margarita

Pointe-a-Pitre

Port-au-Prince


Santiago de Cuba


#

0 1000 Kilometers

N

EW

S

Caribbean Container Shipping Network,Bridgetown, 1994

# Ports


#

#

#

#

##

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

###

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

###

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

Rama

Abaco

Colon

Ponce

Tampa

Guanta

HavanaMariel

Nassau

NicaroTuxpan

Guanaja

Marigot

Tampico

Tortola Anguilla

BeaumontGulfport

Kingston

Plymouth

Progreso

Veracruz

Arlen Siu

CartagenaCoco Solo

Cristobal

Kingstown

La GuairaMaracaibo

Rio Haina

Cienfuegos

Georgetown

Grand Turk

Oranjestad

Belize City

Brownsville

Montego Bay

Panama City

Port Manatee

Puerto Limon

Puerto Plata


Puerto Morelos

Freeport

Freeport,

Utila

Mobile

Roatan

BonaireCuracao

Altamira

Cruz Bay

Guaranao

Gustavia

Matanzas

San Juan

St Croix

La Romana

Pensacola

St John's

St Thomas



Vieux Fort

Willemstad

Baton Rouge

Cap Haitien

Charlestown

El Guamache

New Orleans

Philipsburg

Point Lisas


Lake Charles



Port Castries

Port of Spain

Santo Domingo

Fort-de-France

Isla Margarita

Pointe-a-Pitre

Port-au-Prince

Providenciales


Puerto Castilla

Santiago de Cuba

Puerto Manzanillo

San Andres Island


Roseau

Houston Galveston

#

0 1000 Kilometers

N

EW

S

Caribbean Container Shipping Network,Bridgetown, 2002

# Ports


Ports = 33 Linkages = 99 Connectivity = 3.00 Ports = 32 Linkages = 71 Connectivity = 2.22


Table 3: Connectiveness Characteristics of Selected Ports, 2002

Services Port Partners

Linkages Connectivity (links/ports)

Throughput (TEUs)*

Rio Haina 27 49 126 2.57 460,184

Port of Spain 25 47 126 2.68 282,487

Kingston 31 44 112 2.68 765,977

San Juan 31 36 100 2.78 2,392,749

Bridgetown 16 32 71 2.22 68,600

Pointe-a-Pitre 17 33 11 2.33 129,991

Willemstad 11 33 68 2.06 71,000

Port-au-Prince 8 31 38 1.20 97,973

Fort-de-France 16 30 72 2.40 141,700

Port Castries 10 29 63 2.17 27,070

Oranjestad 6 17 28 1.64 71,500* Source: Containerization International Yearbook, 2002. Values are for 2000, the latest year available.


ANALYSIS• The results of simple linear regression anlysis between

throughput (dependent variable) and individual port connectiveness variables from Table 3 are shown in Table 4 and graphically in Figure 5.

Table 4: R2 values for Simple Linear Regression Analysis between

Port Throughput (TEUs) and Connectiveness MeasuresConnectiveness Measures R2

Services 0.4944

Port Partners 0.0767

Linkages 0.1754

Connectivity 0.2739


Figure 5: Relationships between TEUs and Port

Connectiveness Measures

TEUs vs Services 2002

y = 52805x - 526154

R2 = 0.4944

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

0 10 20 30 40

Number

TE

Us

TEUs vs. Port Partners 2002

y = 20990x - 317094

R2 = 0.0767

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

0 20 40 60

Number

TE

Us

TEUs vs. Linkages 2002

y = 8715.2x - 292832

R2 = 0.1754

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

0 50 100 150

Number

TE

Us

TEUs vs Connectivity 2002

y = 757364x - 1E+06

R2 = 0.2739

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Index

TE

Us

San Juan San Juan

San JuanSan Juan


• The results are disappointing. • A close appraisal of the graphs shows that one

point, San Juan, is very far removed from the trend lines. Because of its special status with the US it could be considered an anomaly to the ports under study. Removing it from consideration improves the relationships between TEUs and the independent variables. Table 5 shows the new R2 values.


Table 5: R2 values for Simple Linear Regression Analysis between Port Throughput (TEUs) and

Connectiveness Measures - WITHOUT San Juan

Connectiveness Measures R2

Services 0.8025

Port Partners 0.5193

Linkages 0.5678

Connectivity 0.3458

These results are much more encouraging.


DISCUSSION

• The conclusion to draw from the analysis is that port connectiveness is important to port throughput, an assumption made at the start of this paper, but now shown to have validity.

• BUT since 1994 some of the ports have been

losing services, port partners, linkages and connectivity index values.


Table 5: Changes in Port Connectiveness Measures, 1994-2002

Services Port Partners Linkages Connectivity

Rio Haina 2 11 20 -0.22

Port of Spain 0 1 -31 -0.73

Kingston 8 9 25 0.02

Bridgetown -2 -1 -28 -0.78

Pointe-a-Pitre 2 4 -4 -0.46

Willemstad -2 -5 -16 -0.15

Port-au-Prince -2 -1 -10 -0.30

Fort-de-France

2 6 4 -0.43

Port Castries 3 6 7 -0.26

Oranjestad -5 -22 -47 -0.28


• Bridgetown, Willemstad, Port-au-Prince and Oranjestad show negative values under all four variables. Only Kingston has positive change values in all four variables.

• It might be expected that with the decline in connectiveness values that ports would experience declines in throughput, but this is not the case.

• Why?


• Other factors at work: 1. Ship size

2. Frequency of service

3. Hub connections

• Table 7 shows that in all ports average vessel size (exception is Port-au-Prince) and frequency of service increased between the two years.


Table 7: Changes in Vessel Size and Frequency of Service, 1994-2002

Average Vessel Size (TEUs)

Average Service Frequency (per month)

1994 2002 Change 1994 2002 Change

Rio Haina 499 661 162 2.8 4.1 1.3

Port of Spain 404 765 361 2.2 3.3 1.1

Kingston 365 1,146 781 2.3 3.3 1.0

Bridgetown 349 562 213 2.5 3.6 1.1

Pointe a Pitre 533 889 356 3.3 3.8 0.5

Willemstad 526 807 281 2.8 3.7 0.9

Port-au-Prince 526 467 -59 2.7 4.5 1.8

Fort-de-France

528 779 251 3.0 3.6 0.6

Port Castries 225 526 301 3.6 3.8 0.2

Oranjestad 460 856 396 3.4 3.8 0.4


• Hub connections may also be important in explaining throughput. Smaller ports depend on transshipment points, or hubs, as major conduits through which their goods must pass.

• Caribbean hubs include:NORTH: Houston, Miami and Freeport, Bahamas. CENTRE: Kingston, Rio Haina, San Juan SOUTH: Port of Spain, Puerto Cabello, Cartagena and the terminals at Colon (Puerto Manzanillo, Colon and Cristobal)

• Table 8 shows changes to hub connections for seven non-hub Caribbean ports


Table 8: Hub* Connections of Non-Hub Island PortsHub Connections Principle Hub

with No. of Connections

New Hub Connect’s

Lost Hub Connnect’s

1994 2002 Change 1994 2002 1994-02 1994-02

Bridgetown 24 19 -5 PS 9 PS 9 H -4

Pointe-a-Pitre 11 19 8 PS 6 PS 4 K 3, C 3 H -2

Willemstad 31 28 -3 PS 9 PC 9 SJ -2

Port-au-Prince 18 13 -5 K 5 K 5 F 1 PC -2, C -1

Fort-de-France 10 15 5 PS 5 PS 5 C 3, RH 2, Co 1

H -2

Port Castries 7 15 8 PS 6 PS 6 K 3, PS 2, RH 3

Oranjestad 22 11 -11 PC 6 PC 5 PS -3, H -1, SJ -2

* Hub ports are: Houston (H), Freeport (F), Kingston (K), Rio Haina (RH), San Juan (SJ), Port of Spain (SP), Puerto Cabello (PC), Cartagena (C), Colon including Cristobal and Puerto Manzanillo (Co).


• Oranjestad (-11), Bridgetown (-5), Port-au-Prince (-5) and Willemstad (-3) have all experienced net losses in hub connections.

• Note the importance of Port of Spain as a hub.• Houston is the big loser as a transshipment center

for four of the ports. • Kingston,Cartagena and Rio Haina have become

more important.


CONCLUSION

• Ports do need to be connected to prosper.

• The analysis shows this to be true to a varying degree depending on how connectiveness is measured.

• But connectiveness is not everything in explaining port throughput.


• Variables such as vessels size, frequency of service and hub connections are also important in influencing throughput.

• Although there is no doubt that containerization is a necessary condition for increasing trade in developing countries, its very presence is not a guarantee that such improvement will occur. The actual dimensions of the shipping networks by which the country through its ports is connected are important factors in bringing about positive change.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

• Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

• Dr. Brian Slack, Concordia University and Dr. Claude Comtois, Université de Montréal.

TRANSPORT AND CONNECTIVITY: PROBLEMS FACED BY SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES Robert J. McCalla,...

Documents

Transcript of TRANSPORT AND CONNECTIVITY: PROBLEMS FACED BY SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES Robert J. McCalla,...