Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
European Seaport Policy - Old Dominion University Norfolk – 15 February 2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

European Seaport Policy - Old Dominion University Norfolk – 15 February 2012

986
views

Published on

Published in: Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
986
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
34
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. European Seaport Policy Patrick VerhoevenOld Dominion University Norfolk – 15 February 2012
  • 2. Summary1. Snapshot of the EU port system2. Evolution of EU ports policy3. Transport White Paper4. 2012-2013 policy review5. Conclusions
  • 3. 1. Snapshot of the EU port system
  • 4. Common challenges• Integration in logistics chains: – Ports are key elements in value-driven logistics chains – This offers substantial network possibilities but also poses numerous coordination problems• Strategies of market players: – Powerful and footloose actors control freight from origin to destination – Global groups invest and operate terminals in several ports worldwide – These actors and groups have strong bargaining power• Sustainable development of ports: – Port development calls for continuous investment in port facilities and connections – This creates ecological and societal pressures
  • 5. Port governance• Role of the port authority: – Regulator, landlord and „community manager‟ – Coordinator / facilitator of commercial and societal interests• Functional profile: – Landlord model dominant with privatised cargo handling services – Provision technical-nautical services mixed public / private – Port authorities often provide ancillary services• Ownership: – Mostly public, either at local or national level – Very few privately owned port authorities (UK mainly) – Influence economic crisis may push privatisations in some countries• Autonomy: – Most port authorities have separate legal entity from government – Managerial and financial autonomy very diverse – Southern port authorities have typically less autonomy
  • 6. Direct provision of operational services Pilotage outside the port area Pilotage inside the port area Towage outside the port area Towage inside the port area Mooring Dredging outside the port area Dredging inside the port area Provision of water Port authority Provision of electricity (general) Government Provision of shore-side electricity Private OperatorProvision of waste reception facilities Other Cargo handling on board ship Not applicable Cargo handling ship-shoreCargo handling shore-inland transport Warehousing services Passenger services Road haulage Rail operation Inland barging 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: ESPO „Fact-Finding Report‟ on Port Governance (2011)
  • 7. Ownership of port authorities 16% 2% State 1%1% Region 40% Province Municipality Private(industry) Private(logistics) Private(finance) Other 35% 3% 2% Source: ESPO „Fact-Finding Report‟ on Port Governance (2011)
  • 8. 2. Evolution of EU ports policy Signing of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community Rome, 25 March 1957
  • 9. EU Law in five easy lessons1. Legislative “triangle”: • European Commission (right of initiative + execution) • European Parliament (directly elected by EU citizens) • Council of Ministers (Member States)2. Parliament and Council work in “co-decision” on most legislative proposals3. Primary legislation (EU Treaty) and secondary legislation (Directives and Regulations)4. Preparatory instruments: Green (discussion) and White (policy) papers5. Interpretative, decisional and steering instruments: guidelines, communications and recommendations
  • 10. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES EU TREATYOBJECTIVE: HARMONISED OBJECTIVE: BALANCEDAPPLICATION GENERAL DEVELOPMENTTREATY RULES EUROPEAN PORTSFocus on competition rules and Focus on investments in portbasic internal market freedoms in infrastructure, maritime andorder to remove factors which hinterland connections, socio-distort competition between ports. economic restructuration of ports, port governance,Generally ensure a „level playing regional policy and spatialfield‟. planning. Generally ensure „sustainable development‟ of ports. OTHER EU POLICY FIELDS Source: Verhoeven 2009
  • 11. Timeline1961 First call for EU ports policy (« Kapteyn report » Eur. Parliament)1974 Foundation of the « Community Port Working Group »1992 First Transport Policy White Paper1993 Foundation of ESPO1995 Communication on Short Sea Shipping1997 Green Paper on Sea Ports and Maritime Infrastructure2001 First « Ports Package » (rejected 2003) Ports become part of the Trans-European Transport Networks2004 Second « Ports Package » (rejected 2006)2007 Communication on a European Ports Policy
  • 12. A sometimes bumpy road ...Dockers unions demonstrate in Brussels and Strasbourg against EU plans to open market access to port services (2003-2006)
  • 13. Why did Ports Package I & II fail?• Ports Package I: – Consultation minimalist and no preliminary impact assessment – Focus only on proposal Directive market access to port services, no real „package‟ (e.g. State aid guidelines missing) – Original proposal was „copy past‟ airport ground handling Directive – Labour element („self-handling‟) became overrated symbol of resistance, leading to „unholy‟ alliances against the entire Directive – Compromise for conciliation was acceptable to most parties but ultimate negotiation was rushed through• Ports Package II: – Commission introduced PPII in haste just before end of mandate – Proposal did not respect final compromise reached on PPI
  • 14. „Self-handling‟
  • 15. All this time ports were subject to EU law• Case-law: – application EU Treaty rules – decisions European Court of Justice / European Commission – particularly with regard to competition and internal market – often far-reaching impact on port governance• Secondary legislation: – Directives and Regulations – in the fields of environment, safety, security, customs, ... – often not specifically written for ports but again far-reaching impact, e.g. for port development• Up to 2007 no coherent EU policy framework for ports
  • 16. EC Ports Policy Communication 2007 EU Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot opens the consultation on a new European ports policy at the annual conference of ESPO - Stockholm, 2 June 2006
  • 17. ImplementationChapter Concrete proposals Realisationa) Performance of ports Review TEN-T (hinterland connections ports) proposalsand connections hinterland issued 2011b) Capacity development Guidelines application EU environment published 2011without harming the legislation on port developmentenvironmentc) Modernisation - Maritime Transport Space without Barriers pilot 2011 - performance indicators PPRISM project 2011d) Level playing field - guidelines State aid studies - concessions horizontal proposal 2011e) Structured dialogue - „Open Ports Day‟ (European Maritime Day) annualbetween cities and ports - support R&D projects ongoingf) Work in ports Sociale dialogue at EU level demand 2011
  • 18. 3. White Paper on Transport 2011
  • 19. Trans-European Transport Networks• TEN-T = transport infrastructure masterplan EU• Ports so far remained in the margins of TEN-T: – took until 2001 before they were part of TEN-T – identification of priorities major taboo – very little EU support as a result• New proposals bring ports centre-stage: – + 80 core network ports / port clusters – core network ports to have adequate hinterland connections by 2030 – multi-modal corridors start and end in ports – co-funding up to 20% (hopefully up to 40%) – approx. 300 comprehensive ports – comprehensive ports to have adequate connections by 2050
  • 20. Review Ports Policy• Integration in TEN-T brings obligations for ports: – connected by rail, road and – where possible – barge – offer at least one terminal open to all operators in a non- discriminatory way – apply transparent charges – have equipment to ensure environmental performance of ships in ports (in particular reception facilities for ships‟ waste)
  • 21. • White Paper announces initiatives on a maritime “Blue Belt” and market access to ports: – “Blue Belt” of free maritime movement in and around Europe with appropriate port facilities (“Blue Lanes”) – Establish a framework for the granting of Pilot Exemption Certificates in EU ports – Review restrictions on provision for port services – Enhance the transparency on ports‟ financing, clarifying the destination of public funding to the different port activities, with a view to avoid any distortion of competition
  • 22. 8 September 2011:Commissioner Kallas confirmsthird Ports Package duringvisit Port of Rotterdam“We have to become harder”• Issues: - Administrative simplification (Blue Belt) - Transparency of port financing - Quality and market access port services• Timing: - 2012: consultation and preparation (studies) - Early 2013: publication - Concrete content and form not determined yet
  • 23. 4. 2012-2013 policy reviewa) Concessionsb) Public financing and State aidc) Technical-nautical servicesd) Port labour
  • 24. a) Concessions• Question: “How can port authorities equitably allocate port sites and how can they guarantee quality of service and continuity of investment in a transparent manner?”• Issues: – Definition „concession‟ and transparency implications – Proportionality: should one always tender ? – Discretionary powers port authority – Prolongation of contracts• On-going initiatives: – Proposal horizontal Directive (DG Markt)
  • 25. European port authorities using public selection procedures to contract out port land 28% 32% Always Only for plots of land that are of strategic interest Subject to other conditions Never 19% 21% Source: ESPO „Fact-Finding Report‟ on Port Governance (2011)
  • 26. b) Public financing and State aid• Question: “To what extent can governments contribute (in)directly to the financing of ports?”• Issues: – Long-standing request EP and port sector for State aid guidelines delayed because of different views within Commission – Port sector favours traditional distinction between basic infrastructure (no State aid) and project-related infrastructure and superstructure – Transparency of accounts• On-going initiatives: – Study commissioned by EP TRAN – Study commissioned by DG Competition
  • 27. Access channels (dredging) Lighthouses, buoys, etc. Radar and other electronic aids to shipping Exterior breakwaters Sea locks giving access to port area Land reclamation for port works Docks, quays, jetties, including back-up land Warehouses, sheds, … Other buildings Fixed cranes Port authority Mobile cranes Government Other cargo-handling equipment Private operator Railway infrastructure inside port area Other Road infrastructure inside port area Combination Tunnels and bridges inside port area Not applicable Canals and navigable waterways inside port area Locks other than sea locks Pipelines inside port area Railway infrastructure outside port area Road infrastructure outside port area Tunnels and bridges outside port areaCanals and navigable waterways outside port area Locks other than sea locks outside port area Pipelines outside port areaSource: ESPO „Fact-Finding Report‟ on Port Governance (2011) 30% 0% 10% 20% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
  • 28. Accounting practices European port authorities Port authority maintains separate accountsPort authority accounts are kept to international accounting standards Port authority accounts are audited by an external auditor Yes Port authority publishes annual accounts NoPort authority has internal analytical accounting process Port authority has to provide for depreciation 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% Source;: ESPO „Fact-Finding Report‟ on Port Governance (2011)
  • 29. c) Technical-nautical services• Question: “Under what conditions can technical-nautical services, and especially pilotage, be run as public service monopolies?”• Issues: – Qualification services of general economic interest – Modernisation of services (e.g. shore-based pilotage) – Mandatory use even if not required (pilot exemption certificates)• On-going initiatives: – Study on Pilot Exemption Certificates commissioned by DG Move
  • 30. d) Port labour• Question: “To what extent are labour pools compatible with Treaty principles on free movement of services and persons?”• Issues: – Mandatory use of labour pools – Restricted access to port labour profession – Training and qualifications – Outdated and restrictive practices• On-going initiatives: – Study on port labour commissioned by DG Move – Set up of EU social dialogue
  • 31. 5. Conclusions• Supra-national level EU has the potential to develop an independent legal / policy framework• So far this potential has not been fully realised and the influence is mostly indirect (case-law / soft law)• Commission reviews its soft law policy in 2012, result still uncertain• EU rules on State aid and concessions will, when fully applied, influence investments and financing of ports and have a harmonising impact on port governance• TEN-T core network and related (EU) financing can influence the European port landscape
  • 32. Thank you for your attention Patrick Verhoeven – Secretary General European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) vzw / asblTreurenberg 6 – B-1000 Brussel / Bruxelles - Tel + 32 2 736 34 63 – Fax + 32 2 736 63 25 Email: patrick.verhoeven@espo.be – www.espo.be