Following her presentation at the conference “Air Quality Improvement and Climate Impact Reduction: Opportunities for Mediterranean Shipping and Ports” in Livorno, Dr. Francesca Savoldi, currently (2024) a lecturer at Glasgow Caledonian University in London, a visiting researcher at Erasmus University, and a postdoctoral research fellow at Cà Foscari University, delved into the complex conflicts shaping modern port cities. Savoldi, known for her critical research on the political ecology of port spaces, discussed how globalization, maritime logistics, and privatization have intensified pressures on urban areas, often sacrificing local needs for global supply chain demands. Through her platform ContestedPorts.com, she has collaborated with communities worldwide to map and support mobilizations against unsustainable port expansions.
In conversation, Savoldi explained how, since the 1990s, shipping corporations’ consolidation and the rise of mega-ships have turned ports into logistical hubs, largely disconnected from their local economies. This transformation has led to powerful alliances among corporations that can now exert vast influence over ports and even cities. From Genoa to Cozumel, port expansions are often promoted as economic opportunities, but Savoldi’s research reveals a different story: one of environmental harm, socio-economic disruption, and public health risks, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. Yet, in these challenging landscapes, she observes growing grassroots movements. As port cities confront “gigantism” in shipping, Savoldi sees a pivotal moment where communities are uniting across continents to challenge dominant economic models and advocate for equitable, sustainable urban futures.
– Thank you for accepting GeoTrends invitation for the interview. Let’s begin. Your talk focuses on the frictions between ports and urban spaces. Can you explain how global maritime logistics create power imbalances in port cities and how local communities are affected by these dynamics?
Certainly, that’s at the heart of my work. This friction isn’t isolated but structural; it’s happening in many port cities worldwide due to a shift that has, essentially, separated ports from their cities. This change began with the advent of containerization but took on a new dimension by the late 1980s, when ports fully integrated into global trade circuits. They evolved into logistics hubs primarily serving the global economy, which significantly distanced them from the surrounding urban areas.
A key factor in this shift was the privatization of port terminals, even though port authorities in Europe are typically public. This led to the terminals being run by private concessions, with policies of decentralization and devolution further accelerating the ports’ integration into global logistics. As a result, ports are now disconnected from the regional economy, serving as logistical devices rather than community assets.
Another major trend contributing to this disconnection is “gigantism”—the rise of colossal container ships. In the 1990s, shipping companies began ordering larger vessels to cut unit costs, aiming for economies of scale. But over time, gigantism became a strategy for industrial consolidation, where the big players invested in ever-larger ships to drive out competitors. This shift led to an oligopoly where a few global alliances control around 80% of global trade routes. In Europe, for instance, there were 30 shipping companies in 1992; by 2017, only three alliances dominated, though this recently changed when Maersk and MSC split.
– So only a handful of alliances control the vast majority of trade?
Exactly. These four alliances now dictate conditions to ports, even pressuring port authorities to make concessions by threatening to reroute their ships elsewhere. The concentration of power is staggering. Ports are thus continually expanding to meet the demands of these companies, even if this growth doesn’t benefit the local economy.
Take Genoa, for example. Over the past two decades, vast sums of public money have been invested to expand the port under the justification of boosting the regional economy. Yet, the economy has not seen significant growth, because bigger ports prioritize cheap, globalized logistics over regional benefits. Often, a port becomes wealthier while the city around it becomes poorer.
– But why do cities accommodate these expansions if the benefits aren’t felt locally?
It’s largely because port authorities feel compelled to comply with the demands of shipping companies, which now extend to water, space, and energy. Cities rarely intervene, even though they don’t benefit from these expansions. In fact, cities increasingly provide land for energy production to power the shipping industry, which is especially problematic when that energy is for cruise ships that bring little local benefit.
This creates new “extraction areas,” such as offshore wind farms built primarily to serve the logistics and cruise sectors rather than regional energy needs. So, we’re seeing port areas sacrificed for the sake of large-scale shipping needs, often without any economic returns for the surrounding city. This is happening as we enter a period of “slowbalization”—the slowing down and reorganization of globalization, which may eventually necessitate a rethinking of how ports are used.
For instance, one speaker at the conference mentioned the potential shift in Mediterranean ports toward a feeder economy. This would mean that mega-ports like Tangier could serve as hubs where smaller, older vessels would then distribute containers regionally, causing environmental concerns due to the added pollution.
– You’ve developed a platform to map community resistance to port expansions. What patterns have you observed in how different port cities respond to these developments?
Yes, although the platform’s content is co-created with citizens, so it’s not solely my project. One of our goals is to connect communities worldwide facing similar challenges, as many people once felt their struggles were unique to their city. Now, there is a growing consciousness of a global geography of port-related conflicts.
These conflicts often share common themes. Issues like governance, dredging, and resource allocation consistently lead to tensions. However, each community has its own approach to resistance. For example, in Piraeus, Greece, people view the port’s expansion as infringing on their “right to the city,” as the port overtakes urban spaces. In Cozumel, Mexico, activists frame their struggle as a matter of human rights, specifically access to a healthy environment. This connects with “second and third-generation human rights” – rights that encompass public health and a clean environment.
In many cases, environmental injustices disproportionately impact marginalized communities, which makes these struggles both social and economic. For instance, in Sri Lanka, dredging for the port of Colombo has severely affected local fisherfolk, who are predominantly women. The environmental degradation caused by dredging and altered seabed conditions has destroyed their livelihood, forcing them to rely on alternative, less sustainable means of income. Such changes often lead to socioeconomic hardship, as these communities are stripped of their traditional means of survival.
– How do you see civic movements against unsustainable port projects evolving, and what strategies might help them scale?
There are new alliances emerging around these issues, uniting groups that were previously disconnected. This is happening not only in Europe but also in places like Durban, South Africa, where an expansion project has fostered an environmental coalition including ecologists and local residents. These alliances are beginning to transcend local issues, opening up transnational conversations. For instance, I’ve organized events through academia to bring together activists from various European port cities who had never previously connected, and the enthusiasm for shared strategies is incredible.
Increasingly, groups are focusing on dispelling myths propagated by the shipping and cruise industries. A common misconception is that these industries create significant local jobs and economic value. In reality, cruise ships and container terminals are largely self-sustaining, with restaurants, shops, and amenities onboard that minimize local spending. In Cozumel, for example, cruise ships have privatized beaches and introduced amenities that discourage passengers from venturing into the local economy.
Some communities have successfully resisted these expansions by debunking industry claims with economic modeling. In Australia, for example, two communities blocked cruise port expansions by demonstrating that these projects would ultimately harm local industries like tourism and coastal recreation. The cruise industry’s promises of thousands of jobs were shown to be inflated, with the real figure closer to a few dozen precarious positions. These victories are vital reminders that every community has unique strengths and strategies, but learning from others is essential.
– In your experience, how do the media and public perceptions play into this?
The shipping and cruise sectors indeed have powerful control over media narratives, perpetuating the idea that these developments bring economic prosperity. They can easily influence public perception, leading people to believe that a new port expansion or cruise terminal will open up job opportunities. However, studies show that these gains are largely illusory. Onboard services capture most passenger spending, leaving little economic benefit for the city.
To break through this misconception, we must expose the direct and indirect costs of these industries. It’s not only a question of pollution or public health; these projects often consume space that could be dedicated to smaller, sustainable economies. When we dismantle the myths surrounding the industry, as the activists in Australia did, communities can make informed decisions about the type of economy they want to support.
– In your studies, you use the concept of “eco-territoriality.” Can you explain this term?
Yes, though it’s a bit abstract. I adapted the term from South American theory, specifically from Argentine sociologist María Estela Svampa, who studies extractivism and its social impacts. She describes how social struggles against resource extraction often envision territories in more sustainable and ecological ways. I’ve borrowed this concept to discuss how resistance movements in Europe frame their territories against the expansive, extractive demands of the global shipping industry. Eco-territoriality implies a shift in how we conceive of these spaces – from extraction zones serving a global industry to places with ecological and social significance. It’s a concept that encourages envisioning alternative futures for these areas, where communities have agency over their resources and sustainable economies can thrive.