The over 1,200 commercial seaports on the European coasts are responsible for 90% of the international exchanges of European countries and 40% of domestic trade within the continent. European seaports are indispensable elements in the European cohesion system and ensure intra and extra community freight and passenger traffic and a vital source of over half a million jobs in EU, generating investments for regions and being acknowledged in the strategy of the Treaty of Lisbon as key priorities in the social-economic sustainable development of the European Union. Two essential and also complementary aspects in ensuring the continuity of the European system of seaports are free access to port facilities and port infrastructure security, as main structure that would frame the entire legislation and all community initiatives aimed at levelling up national legislation in order to develop a single seaport network across the European Union. Unfortunately, EU has not succeeded in adopting a directive on the free access to European seaports.
The European Union has elaborated a series of normative acts – directives and consultation documents – green papers aimed at speeding up the liberalisation process of maritime and inland waterway transport within member states and improving security in European seaports, as pledges to the fluent development of all seaports across the EU. The European approach specifies that sustainable development can be achieved by promoting the naval industry, reducing the environmental impact, integrating seaports into a European transport chain and stimulating co-modality.
For the European initiatives to be successful, it is important to ensure competitiveness in the wake of opening up domestic markets, the evolution and changes generated by technological progress, the development of a fluvial and naval Trans-European network and the adaptation to the new environment dominated by multi-modality and the implementation of a framework agreement that would guarantee the principles of a free and fair competitiveness.
EU was not successful in adopting a directive on the free access to seaport services
The implementation of a single policy on the free access to seaports has been obstructed by problems that still linger and the European authorities have not been capable to adopt a directive. There has been only a proposal which failed to receive the approval of all member states. Countries such as Greece and the Netherlands, which own the most important seaports in EU, have elaborated their own directive proposals, hoping to meet the expectations of all players. Such countries are not happy about EU’s policy of levelling legislations, generically called “One size fits all ports”, as their positions promote a policy that is still protecting the monopolist interests of a giant operator or manager of several seaports.
The aspects that met hostility include the compulsory existence on every market of two companies in charge with the 3 main categories of activities carried on in seaports: technical-navigational operations (pilotage etc.); logistics services related to freight operation (storage, transshipment etc.) and passenger services. Operation certifications and authorizations will continue to be issued by authorities. The conclusion was reached that this system will eliminate any discriminatory treatment in terms of costs and fares in case of seaports.
Another delicate aspect was that of seaports providing freight operation services as well, using their own staff and technical resources. In the end, a compromise has been reached permitting seaports to carry on restrictive activities, in the limit of a turnover rate. The period for which the authorizations are granted has been source of another conflict, as the EC wishes to reduce their validity period. Operators complained that shorter authorizations will affect the damping period of investments in mobile assets. Another controversial topic was the authorization passing regime to the next contract winner and what happens with the mobile assets invested by the former concessioner. There was no agreement on the state aids granted for investments to seaport authorities either, since the authorities feared that this could incline the balance in favour of state-owned companies, the majority shareholder in the case of most European seaports continuing to be state-owned companies or local administrations.
As for the access infrastructure to seaport facilities and main transport network, the directive proposal limits at stipulating that the development of quality services requires the collaboration of the authorities involved in the project, from seaport administrations to railway infrastructure managers. In case of European seaports, the railway access infrastructure is managed either by port authorities, who most of the time choose to concession these lines, or by private managers (usually by the intermodal terminal owners that operate in the port) and sometimes, by both parties to different extents or operating in joint-ventures. The documents shows that to ensure a competitive level, it is necessary to divide responsibilities and the share of shareholding within the company that manages the access infrastructure. Another problem is track access charges and the fares applied for using seaport intermodal facilities. The document stresses the important of an independent regulatory body that would objectively establish these access charges.
State’s interventionism can affect free market
According to the study called “The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011”, issued by the World Economic Forum, the Netherlands has the best port infrastructure in Europe, while Rotterdam seaport is the most performing European port. Most of Rotterdam seaport successful activities are due to access infrastructures and the successful giant projects of Maasvlakte terminal, A 15 motorway and the Betuweroute railway line. The Betuweroute railway line, although successful, is relevant to inherent problems that appear in port access infrastructure projects and in the free access to such facilities. Although the project was initially thought as a Public-Private Partnership (PPP), it has been entirely developed using state-funds and the Betuweroute line became the most expensive project in the recent history of the Netherlands with a final cost estimated at EUR 4.7 Billion (compared to the EUR 2.3 Billion allocated budget and the EUR 1.1 Billion cost stipulated in the feasibility study). When the authorities placed the lines into service, operators complained about high charges for track access and intermodal terminals, accusing the state of interventionism, of trying to dump investments and of favouring bigger customers that bring higher incomes (among which DB Schenker who owns the former state operator, NS Cargo).
The European Union has elaborated a series of normative acts – directives and consultation documents – green papers aimed at speeding up the liberalisation process of maritime and inland waterway transport within member states and improving security in European seaports, as pledges to the fluent development of all seaports across the EU. The European approach specifies that sustainable development can be achieved by promoting the naval industry, reducing the environmental impact, integrating seaports into a European transport chain and stimulating co-modality.
For the European initiatives to be successful, it is important to ensure competitiveness in the wake of opening up domestic markets, the evolution and changes generated by technological progress, the development of a fluvial and naval Trans-European network and the adaptation to the new environment dominated by multi-modality and the implementation of a framework agreement that would guarantee the principles of a free and fair competitiveness.
EU was not successful in adopting a directive on the free access to seaport services
The implementation of a single policy on the free access to seaports has been obstructed by problems that still linger and the European authorities have not been capable to adopt a directive. There has been only a proposal which failed to receive the approval of all member states. Countries such as Greece and the Netherlands, which own the most important seaports in EU, have elaborated their own directive proposals, hoping to meet the expectations of all players. Such countries are not happy about EU’s policy of levelling legislations, generically called “One size fits all ports”, as their positions promote a policy that is still protecting the monopolist interests of a giant operator or manager of several seaports.
The aspects that met hostility include the compulsory existence on every market of two companies in charge with the 3 main categories of activities carried on in seaports: technical-navigational operations (pilotage etc.); logistics services related to freight operation (storage, transshipment etc.) and passenger services. Operation certifications and authorizations will continue to be issued by authorities. The conclusion was reached that this system will eliminate any discriminatory treatment in terms of costs and fares in case of seaports.
Another delicate aspect was that of seaports providing freight operation services as well, using their own staff and technical resources. In the end, a compromise has been reached permitting seaports to carry on restrictive activities, in the limit of a turnover rate. The period for which the authorizations are granted has been source of another conflict, as the EC wishes to reduce their validity period. Operators complained that shorter authorizations will affect the damping period of investments in mobile assets. Another controversial topic was the authorization passing regime to the next contract winner and what happens with the mobile assets invested by the former concessioner. There was no agreement on the state aids granted for investments to seaport authorities either, since the authorities feared that this could incline the balance in favour of state-owned companies, the majority shareholder in the case of most European seaports continuing to be state-owned companies or local administrations.
As for the access infrastructure to seaport facilities and main transport network, the directive proposal limits at stipulating that the development of quality services requires the collaboration of the authorities involved in the project, from seaport administrations to railway infrastructure managers. In case of European seaports, the railway access infrastructure is managed either by port authorities, who most of the time choose to concession these lines, or by private managers (usually by the intermodal terminal owners that operate in the port) and sometimes, by both parties to different extents or operating in joint-ventures. The documents shows that to ensure a competitive level, it is necessary to divide responsibilities and the share of shareholding within the company that manages the access infrastructure. Another problem is track access charges and the fares applied for using seaport intermodal facilities. The document stresses the important of an independent regulatory body that would objectively establish these access charges.
State’s interventionism can affect free market
According to the study called “The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011”, issued by the World Economic Forum, the Netherlands has the best port infrastructure in Europe, while Rotterdam seaport is the most performing European port. Most of Rotterdam seaport successful activities are due to access infrastructures and the successful giant projects of Maasvlakte terminal, A 15 motorway and the Betuweroute railway line. The Betuweroute railway line, although successful, is relevant to inherent problems that appear in port access infrastructure projects and in the free access to such facilities. Although the project was initially thought as a Public-Private Partnership (PPP), it has been entirely developed using state-funds and the Betuweroute line became the most expensive project in the recent history of the Netherlands with a final cost estimated at EUR 4.7 Billion (compared to the EUR 2.3 Billion allocated budget and the EUR 1.1 Billion cost stipulated in the feasibility study). When the authorities placed the lines into service, operators complained about high charges for track access and intermodal terminals, accusing the state of interventionism, of trying to dump investments and of favouring bigger customers that bring higher incomes (among which DB Schenker who owns the former state operator, NS Cargo).
by Alin Lupulescu
Share on:
