The future perspectives for European sea ports
Ports Conference - Barcelona, 7 May 1998
Neil Kinnock
Member of the European Commission responsible for Transport
I would like thank the Port of Barcelona for hosting this conference
on the Commission's Green Paper on Sea Ports and Maritime Infrastructure.
The fact that in the Commission we particularly wanted to have
this meeting in Barcelona near a weekend in May will, I hope,
bring us some credit for our consideration of the finer feelings
of the people likely to attend. I have to say, however, that even
if we were here on a wet Wednesday in February, we' d still have
the opportunity to commend the benefits that have come from the
reforms and projects put in place in the port in the recent years,
such as logistics improvements and marketing promotions conducted
around the world. They have borne fruit in many ways, including
the new services from the Far East and South America and we wish
the Port of Barcelona well in the future.
Naturally my colleagues and I are very pleased to see so many
people from the relevant industries all over the Union here today.
That clear sign of interest in discussing the future of the European
port sector, and that interest is also reflected in the fact that
well over 100 written submissions have been received by my services
since the Green Paper was published. Most organisations, industry
partners and Member States have welcomed the paper and the opportunity
to have a thorough debate on port related matters and, obviously,
I'm gratified by that.
As some here will know from our previous discussions, I decided
back in 1996 that a Green Paper on Sea Ports and Maritime Infrastructure
was essential simply because of my view that, even though Europe's
export competitiveness in the global economy depends in many ways
on a cost effective maritime transport system, and even though
the EU port sector handles 90% of EU trade with third countries,
ports had never received the attention that they deserve in the
Community transport policy.
To me, that seemed to be a serious omission and its significance
was becoming more apparent because of two main developments that
were well under way:
- Firstly, in recent years the Commission's transport policy
has increasingly moved from focusing on individual modes of transport
to a strategy which emphasises the need to develop a more balanced
and integrated transport system that can provide sustainable mobility
in the changing conditions of the next decades.
- Secondly, the completion of the internal market as well as
the ongoing development of the inland transport networks across
Europe has significantly intensified competition between ports.
As a result, ports in different Member States are now competing
for the same trade, more than ever before, while an increasing
trend of commercialisation and participation of the private sector
in port operations and investments has become evident in many
maritime regions in the Union.
This evolution has raised the question of the relevance and the
desirability of a more co-ordinated approach to port development
at European level to properly emphasise the crucial role of ports
in the efficient functioning of the trans-European Transport Networks
to foster conditions in which ports compete on sound commercial
grounds.
Against that background, it seemed to me necessary to clarify
the main issues needed for development and to identify the areas
in which useful legislative and other changes might be pursued.
I know that few people would support the development of a centralised
EU ports policy simply because the sector differs greatly from
region to region and ports serve different roles and functions
in the local and regional economies. I heed those views and consequently,
I take this opportunity to emphasise that the purpose of an EU
ports policy is definitely not to achieve uniformity among European
ports. Diversity and the need to ensure healthy competitive conditions
prohibits such rigidity in any case, and neither the Commission
nor anyone else should ever lose sight of that.
Our purpose is therefore to develop a set of coherent policies
on individual port issues in order to help to maximise the overall
potential of the sector and its contribution to European and World
wide transport systems. In taking that approach, as everyone here
knows, the Green Paper addresses three broad areas:
- Firstly, the need for various initiatives to improve port
efficiency including better procedures, implementation of new
technology, and fostering further co-operation in and between
ports.
- Secondly, actions to improve infrastructure within and around
ports in order to integrate ports into multimodal networks and
provide adequate accessibility to peripheral areas.
- Thirdly, the need to ensure that the Community's responsibilities
under the Treaty for providing free and fair competition are being
met in the port sector.
I will briefly try to set the scene for the discussion in the
panels on the most controversial issues, and I will also address
the matters where most concern and criticism have been registered
in the written reactions to the Green Paper.
I begin from the firm basis that the European Commission considers
waterborne transport to be central to our efforts to promote free
movement, competitiveness and "sustainable mobility"
both within the European Union Single Market and, more widely,
in our relationships with the rest of the World.
That is not merely a declaration of good intentions - and I hope
that is evident from the series of initiatives which the Commission
has undertaken in recent times.
In relation to actions in ports the Commission is, as many here
will know, already working with the industry in order to promote
the development of Short Sea Shipping by examining ways and means
of streamlining procedures in ports; we already work to improve
port and maritime safety and to ensure the protection of the environment;
and we already support port and maritime projects under the Research
and Development programme.
All of these enabling activities should be maintained and I am
confident they will help the sector. In addition, it is obviously
important that the ports continue to contribute to advances, particularly
in the efforts needed to achieve the best of quality in shipping.
As everyone here will be aware, a substantial number of flag states
are consistently ignoring or failing to implement and enforce
international safety standards even when they have agreed to fulfill
their responsibilities. Port State Control inspections are consequently
regarded by us and by the people in the industry who do operate
at good standards to be the best way to reduce substandard shipping
in their waters. I would therefore like to urge the Member State
authorities to meet their Port State Control obligations in order
to ensure the inspection of at least 25% of foreign ships calling
at their ports regardless of their flags. I am sure that Ports
see the general benefits of such rigour and seek to fulfill their
role in securing improvement.
As everyone connected with Port activities knows, mulitmodality
a concept practised in ports generations before it even got a
name elsewhere is achieving greater significance as operators
and users of all kinds work for extra efficiency in the whole
transport chain.
The full integration of ports and other terminals into the multi-modal
trans-European network is therefore achieving increasing importance
and, in the revision of the Trans European Network legislation
which the Commission presented last year, we included a map of
seaports and revised criteria for selecting projects of common
interest.
I emphasise that this new proposal certainly does not make a hierarchical
classification of ports. It proposes a list of more than 300 ports
in the Community by using objective, volume-based criteria and
we are therefore not contemplating a restricted approach which
would allow only the biggest North Sea ports into the defined
Network. Instead we have chosen a method which ensures the inclusion
of a high number of ports in all maritime regions, which takes
into account the importance of linking the peripheral parts of
the Union, and which can ensure a proper basis for the development
of Short Sea Shipping. I'd also add that the advantage of having
identified ports as part of the network is that it will be easier
to see where those ports lack essential links to the land network.
Obviously, one of the main impediments to activity is the deficiencies
in port connections to the hinterland and, in order to help to
achieve full integration of ports and maritime transport into
the trans-European network, priority will therefore be given to
projects which ensure better land side connections. Any assistance
provided in the context of TENs is meant to ensure a "natural"
flow of traffic across Europe to the benefit of the consumer and
to remove bottlenecks and missing links. It is not to distort,
or to give unfair advantage, or to penalise.
I finalise this part of what I have to say relating to the infrastructure
Network by highlighting one of the most important tasks that confronts
the Community in the near future - the forthcoming Enlargement
of the Union.
The port and maritime sectors are obviously of importance to the
economies of a number of those countries that are expected to
join in the first column of accession, and substantial investment
will be needed in transport operations and infrastructure before
and after they join in order to ensure that their development
is convergent with the rest of the Community. That will clearly
impose very heavy pressures on them - and it will be to the mutual
advantage of the industry in the existing Union and in the enlarged
Union if those with expertise in the sector are ready with advice
and experience to help to the advance of modernisation in all
aspects of port activities in the new entrant States.
I move now to what has not unexpectedly proved to be the most
controversial issue in the Green Paper and that is the need to
establish equitable competitive conditions the so-called "level
playing field" -between and within European ports.
The principle of free and fair competition clearly poses particular
challenges in the case of the financing and charging of port and
maritime infrastructure. As everyone here knows, practices vary
significantly between and within Member States and the different
levels of government and municipal involvement mean that it is
often not clear whether the cost of investments in port and maritime
infrastructure is, in practice, passed on to users through port
charges.
Considerations of equity, therefore, produced the Green Paper
suggestion that there might be a case for introducing a Community
framework to ensure that port infrastructure is priced in such
a way that in the future users bear the real costs of the port
services and facilities they consume.
I was consequently pleased to see that most of the comments received
from the industry and from the Member States strongly supported
the basic principles set out in the Green Paper of providing fair
competition between and within ports, of ensuring non-discrimination
between users, and of securing transparency of port accounts.
However, at the same time some have quite naturally expressed
doubts as to whether the proposed Directive on charging is the
right instrument for achieving these important principles. "Bureaucratic"
and "theoretical" were the words most frequently used
by those who raised this question.
I am very pleased therefore to have this opportunity of allaying
any misunderstandings. It has never been the intention to create
a bureaucratic machinery controlled from Brussels. The proposed
framework will obviously have to be flexible whilst at the same
time ensuring that users of EU ports are charged on the same basis.
That emphatically does not mean that all ports will in any way
be required to apply the same tariffs, that would be unworkable
as well as undesirable, especially since commercial considerations
will, of course, always have to be left up to the individual port
managements.
I understand that some people and organisations interpreted the
Green Paper as inferring that the Commission would draw up State
Aid Guidelines for port infrastructure. I'm happy to provide reassurance
on that point too. The Commission has not considered and will
not regard public financing of port infrastructure which is open
to all users on a non-discriminatory basis to be aid. That is,
of course, completely consistent with the policy adopted in all
transport modes and the Green Paper therefore suggests that the
issue of distortion of competition should be addressed by the
development of a flexible framework for port charging, not by
some major and general revision of State Aid rules on infrastructure
investment.
In view of the great diversity within the port sector in the EU,
the implementation of a framework will obviously require a step-by-step
approach in order to allow for adaptation. This is particularly
the case for the Cohesion States and Objective 1 areas where port
development in general is lagging behind. Furthermore, the application
of a Community framework to port charging and financing will have
to be co-ordinated with the general approach to infrastructure
charging and financing for all modes of transport. My services
are currently preparing a communication on infrastructure charging
in all modes, using the practical advice of commercial transport
operators and users.
As a first step in the port sector the Commission will launch
an inventory on public financing and that will provide a useful
basis for considering future actions.
In addition, maritime infrastructure outside the port area needs
particular attention. In the case of coastal aids to navigation
we will have to establish the principles for charging systems
that are related to the recovery of the development and investment
costs of such aids, and it will
also be necessary to develop a mechanism to equitably share the
financial burden with users. For local aids to navigation within
the port area and in its immediate vicinity, as well as for dredging
and ice-breaking of approach channels to ports, the user-pays
principle will clearly have to be examined with caution in order
to take adequate account of the different geographical situations
of ports.
Another area where fair competition has to be promoted is in port
services such as cargo handling, pilotage, towing and mooring,
which make essential contributions to the efficient and safe use
of port and maritime infrastructure.
As some here will know, there have been complaints by users and
potential suppliers about unfair practices in some Community ports
in relation to such services and the Commission is currently examining
such complaints on a case by case basis.
It is in the general interest, however, to establish coherent
provisions in relation to such matters and that is why the Green
Paper suggests the development of a regulatory framework at Community
level that, whilst promoting more systematic liberalisation of
the port services market in order to ensure non-discriminatory
access, also maintains an adequate level of safety and public
service, which are particularly relevant for the technical nautical
services. The purpose of such a framework would obviously be to
establish conditions in which, irrespective of the regime, public
and private port undertakings compete fairly in respect of port
services of an economic nature.
The comments received on the port services references in the Green
Paper have been very encouraging and I expect real and relatively
speedy progress that can lead to improvement in the overall conditions
for maritime transport.
That is necessary and it will be beneficial for the whole transport
system. I hope, however, that the Port industry generally will
use the widespread discussions that will continue about change
and modernisation to draw more attention to the vital place of
ports in the nexus of services required for a comfortable and
productive modern life in every country, company and family.
Outside the communities where the port dominates economic activity,
ports have been taken for granted. The need to improve land side
connections has often not received the deserved attention public
awareness about ports as essential economic assets has not been
effectively stimulated, and in too many areas policy has almost
by-passed ports.
Of course, I'm sure that this industry does not want to invite
interference for the sake of it.
But interest, understanding of the potential of ports and responsiveness
to the needs of the industry are different things altogether.
As globalisation develops, as the economies of Europe become more
integrated, as business gives fresh consideration to waterborne
transport as an alternative to, and a complement to, movement
on land, ports deserve to gain greater prominence in public and
political thinking and action.
I hope that the Green Paper and the consultations generated by
it has had, and is having the effect of fostering that response.
|