Directive on Market Access to Seaports - Proposal of Parliament’s Rapporteur.
European terminal operators recognise the improvements but remain sceptical about the overall need of the present format
Facts:
During the last months, the globally already very low handling charges continued to experience downward pressure. Shipping lines merged or changed ports; shippers re-directed their volumes. This recent evolution confirms the long-term trends in cargo handling in European ports: tough competition with declining charges and a volatile clientele.
At present in Europe the only negative impact on competition does not originate from market access restrictions but from public funding. Different levels of public funding may contribute to competitive distortions. In extreme cases excessive public funding may disturb the alignment of capacity with market needs.
Nevertheless, the current proposal for a directive on seaports focuses on market access in individual ports, defines only in the margin inter-port competition and related public funding issues, and ignores entirely sustainable port development issues.
Conclusion:
Consequently, Feport remains puzzled why a directive on seaports has to focus on market access to enhance efficiency, competition and sustainability in European ports. In Feport’s view, this approach impacts negatively on the current efficiency of European terminals. Feport is therefore convinced that a European initiative can only contribute to efficiency, competition and sustainability if the focus were on the transparent and balanced public funding rules.
Irrespective of this conclusion, the European terminal operators realise that the debate on the Commission’s text has properly commenced with the Rapporteur’s proposal. On this proposal Feport wishes to provide remarks on only four issues, which sadly remain under-emphasised but could, when fully considered, limit undesirable side-effects:
Ownership should be protected;
Competition should properly be taken into account;
Durations should be in line with relevant market needs;
Employment should not be endangered by artificial transfers of concessions.
Feport hopes the debate will re-analyse the need for the proposal or at least more strongly take into account the four issues mentioned above.