Enrique Badía/ Estrella Digital
Los cálculos varían en función de quien los esgrime, pero en todo caso han pasado bastantes años desde que Barcelona comenzó a reclamar la ampliación del aeropuerto de El Prat. Mañana entrará al fin en servicio la nueva T-1, que prácticamente permitirá duplicar su teórica capacidad. Cuestión distinta será que se materialice el resto de cosas que de siempre se han esgrimido como elemento de agravio, sobre todo desde que en Madrid-Barajas se añadió la un tanto grandilocuente T-4, con todo lo que ha dado de sí en términos de comparación.
Como casi todas las obras públicas, esta de El Prat ha discurrido salpicada de polémicas que es poco probable desaparezcan con el acto de inauguración. Han sido de diversos tipos, con desigual grado de eco y agitación, no siempre del todo correspondiente con la trascendencia en términos de uso y funcionalidad. Habría que destacar quizás la enésima omisión del concepto intermodal que suele caracterizar la ejecutoria de las administraciones y entes públicos; en este caso concreto, AENA, titular exclusivo de la red de aeropuertos públicos españoles.
Tampoco las estimaciones de plazos coinciden, pero la más ajustada señala que se ha tardado alrededor de nueve años en llevar a cabo las obras. Tiempo que, sin embargo, no ha sido suficiente para que el remodelado aeropuerto disponga de una red de accesos acorde con los alrededor de 60 millones de pasajeros anuales que aspira mover: una de las carreteras más congestionadas del área metropolitana de Barcelona es el único modo de llegar a la nueva terminal. Sobre el papel se ha hablado de extender hasta allí la red de metro, así como prolongar la línea de cercanías que llega hasta los alrededores del primitivo edificio terminal, pero no es creíble que nada de eso tarde menos de tres o cuatro años, si no más.
La reivindicación de fondo de una parte relevante de la sociedad catalana, con los líderes políticos, empresariales y mediáticos al frente, es que El Prat se potencie para convertirlo en lo que se denomina hub; esto es, cabecera y enlace de vuelos intercontinentales. Con ese propósito se ha reclamado largo tiempo dotarlo de mucha mayor capacidad. Cuestión distinta es que determinadas decisiones políticas discurran en esa misma dirección.
Una de las incógnitas a tener presente es cómo se van a compadecer las aspiraciones de propiciar una mayor potenciación de El Prat con la política aeroportuaria del Gobierno catalán. Hace pocos meses aprobó un plan de dotación aeroportuaria que pretende primar el tráfico en Girona-Costa Brava y Reus-Costa Dorada, distantes apenas 100 kilómetros del centro de Barcelona, respectivamente en direcciones norte y sur, así como añadir hasta media docena de nuevos recintos, comenzando por la restitución operativa de los de Sabadell y La Seu d'Urgell, y la puesta en servicio el próximo otoño del construido en los alrededores de Lleida.
No hace falta ser un experto para presumir que el resto de aeropuertos de Cataluña acabará detrayendo tráfico a El Prat, por lo que potenciarlos en paralelo habrá de desembocar en la sobredimensión de alguno. Puro sentido común. De momento, la inauguración no ha tenido demasiada suerte: tras años de crecimiento apreciable del tráfico de pasajeros y mercancías, resulta que la nueva fase entra en servicio tras doce meses de caídas superiores al 10 por ciento. Y si esto es producto de la coyuntura, lo otro parece responder al hábito de considerar cada infraestructura de forma aislada, sin una visión de conjunto que haga todo más eficiente y eficaz.
Cerrando el círculo, cabe prever que la nueva terminal será bonita, aunque no esté tan asegurado, vistos los precedentes, que usarla rebose comodidad.
martes, 16 de junio de 2009
lunes, 8 de junio de 2009
Corporate governance rules divide Japan
By Michiyo Nakamoto in Tokyo
Published: May 28 2009 17:24 Last updated: May 28 2009 17:24
It used to be said that Japan’s business community, bureaucracy and politicians formed an iron triangle that was a key factor in the country’s post-war industrial success.
But a stand-off between the Keidanren, Japan’s powerful business lobby, and regulators over whether listed companies should be required to appoint outside directors has exposed cracks in the foundations of the Japanese economic edifice.
EDITOR’S CHOICE
Tokyo plans guidelines for independent directors - May-26
The Keidanren – headed by the indomitable Fujio Mitarai, chairman of Canon – is resisting an initiative by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry to require listed companies to appoint outside directors as a means to improve corporate governance.
Japanese regulators, once criticised for their cosy relationships with companies, have joined investors in raising concerns about the impact of poor corporate governance on the future of the Japanese economy.
The issue of outside, independent directors has been the subject of much debate in recent years, particularly after it was raised by foreign fund managers unhappy with corporate governance standards in Japan.
Under Japanese company law, companies are free to choose between two systems of corporate governance: a system with committees, which requires the appointment of outside directors; and a statutory auditor system, which does not call for outside directors.
In practice, although just 56 of the 2,634 companies listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange have opted for the committee system, only 1,057 companies have outside directors. Corporate governance advocates, such as the Asian Corporate Governance Association, as well as foreign business lobby groups, including the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan, believe companies should be required to have one-third of board members who are independent.
Regulators too, including Meti, the TSE and the Financial Services Agency have been working to improve corporate governance standards. “Investors are rapidly losing confidence and interest in [the] Tokyo market . . . market players, including . . . listed companies, are facing an urgent need to restore investor confidence and interest,” the TSE noted in a recent report.
The FSA has considered requiring mutual funds and insurance companies to disclose how they voted at shareholder meetings.
Meti plans to compile a report next month on reforms to Japan’s system of governance, in which it would like to include some form of requirement that companies appoint independent directors, as well as a clear definition of what is meant by independence.
But efforts by regulators to implement changes that would bring Japan’s corporate governance standards more in line with international practice have met fierce resistance from the business community. “There is no relationship between a company’s performance and whether or not they have outside directors,” says Yasuhisa Abe, director of the business infrastructure bureau of the Keidanren.
A draft report by Meti’s Corporate Governance Study Group published on Tuesday, suggests Keidanren’s opposition is leading to a compromise solution.
According to the draft, companies will be allowed to choose whether to appoint outside directors. But companies that do not appoint outside directors must disclose their own system of management oversight.
The changes will make Japanese rules similar to the “comply or explain” system in the UK, whereby it is recommended companies have a majority of independent directors and if they do not, are required to explain why.
For many investors concerned about corporate governance in Japan, the final outcome is likely to fall significantly short of what they had hoped for. As one observer notes, given the Keidanren’s power and the lack of public debate, any attempt to impose changes that the business community opposes will end up “whittled down and diluted”.
Published: May 28 2009 17:24 Last updated: May 28 2009 17:24
It used to be said that Japan’s business community, bureaucracy and politicians formed an iron triangle that was a key factor in the country’s post-war industrial success.
But a stand-off between the Keidanren, Japan’s powerful business lobby, and regulators over whether listed companies should be required to appoint outside directors has exposed cracks in the foundations of the Japanese economic edifice.
EDITOR’S CHOICE
Tokyo plans guidelines for independent directors - May-26
The Keidanren – headed by the indomitable Fujio Mitarai, chairman of Canon – is resisting an initiative by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry to require listed companies to appoint outside directors as a means to improve corporate governance.
Japanese regulators, once criticised for their cosy relationships with companies, have joined investors in raising concerns about the impact of poor corporate governance on the future of the Japanese economy.
The issue of outside, independent directors has been the subject of much debate in recent years, particularly after it was raised by foreign fund managers unhappy with corporate governance standards in Japan.
Under Japanese company law, companies are free to choose between two systems of corporate governance: a system with committees, which requires the appointment of outside directors; and a statutory auditor system, which does not call for outside directors.
In practice, although just 56 of the 2,634 companies listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange have opted for the committee system, only 1,057 companies have outside directors. Corporate governance advocates, such as the Asian Corporate Governance Association, as well as foreign business lobby groups, including the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan, believe companies should be required to have one-third of board members who are independent.
Regulators too, including Meti, the TSE and the Financial Services Agency have been working to improve corporate governance standards. “Investors are rapidly losing confidence and interest in [the] Tokyo market . . . market players, including . . . listed companies, are facing an urgent need to restore investor confidence and interest,” the TSE noted in a recent report.
The FSA has considered requiring mutual funds and insurance companies to disclose how they voted at shareholder meetings.
Meti plans to compile a report next month on reforms to Japan’s system of governance, in which it would like to include some form of requirement that companies appoint independent directors, as well as a clear definition of what is meant by independence.
But efforts by regulators to implement changes that would bring Japan’s corporate governance standards more in line with international practice have met fierce resistance from the business community. “There is no relationship between a company’s performance and whether or not they have outside directors,” says Yasuhisa Abe, director of the business infrastructure bureau of the Keidanren.
A draft report by Meti’s Corporate Governance Study Group published on Tuesday, suggests Keidanren’s opposition is leading to a compromise solution.
According to the draft, companies will be allowed to choose whether to appoint outside directors. But companies that do not appoint outside directors must disclose their own system of management oversight.
The changes will make Japanese rules similar to the “comply or explain” system in the UK, whereby it is recommended companies have a majority of independent directors and if they do not, are required to explain why.
For many investors concerned about corporate governance in Japan, the final outcome is likely to fall significantly short of what they had hoped for. As one observer notes, given the Keidanren’s power and the lack of public debate, any attempt to impose changes that the business community opposes will end up “whittled down and diluted”.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
