EUROPEAN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER
ON
PUBLIC FINANCING AND CHARGING PRACTICES
IN THE COMMUNITY SEA PORT SECTOR
(ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY
THE MEMBER STATES)
I N D E X
Results of the Inventory on Public Financing
and Charging Practices in the Community Sea Port Sector
|
1. Introduction | p. 2
| | 2. Commission's Questionnaire / Methodology | p. 2 |
| 3. Organisational and Managerial Structures in Community ports | p. 3 |
| 4. Public Financing in Community Ports (structural & geographical
distribution) | p. 6 |
| 5. Public Financial Flows and Accounting Systems | p. 12 |
| 6. Charging Systems and Cost Recovery Practices | p. 13 |
| 7. Access to Port Services | p. 14 |
| 8. Conclusions | p. 15 |
Annexes:
Annex A: Definition "Public Financing"
Annex B: Glossary for the purposes of this inventory
Results of the Inventory on Public Financing
and Charging Practices in the Community Sea Port Sector
1. INTRODUCTION
The Commission's Green Paper on Seaports and Maritime
Infrastructure opened a debate on how to improve the position
of ports in the European transport network. The discussion confirmed
that the efficient functioning of ports as part of the door-to-door
intermodal chain is an essential prerequisite to stimulate the
development of maritime transport, in particular as a sustainable
alternative to land transport.
One issue at the centre of the debate following the
Green Paper was the need to assess whether specific rules for
the port sector with regard to transparency in the ports' financial
relations with Member States and other public bodies, to state
aid and infrastructure charging should be developed. As a first
step the Commission proposed therefore to gather, with the help
and active involvement of Member States, information in the form
of an inventory on public financing and charging practices in
ports throughout the Community. Additionally, the enquiry covered
the issue of access to port services.
The proposal to set up the inventory was supported
by the European Transport Ministers in the Council of 18 June
1998.
|
2. COMMISSION'S QUESTIONNAIRE / METHODOLOGY
a) Commission's questionnaire
In order to collect the information needed for the
inventory the Commission services submitted a questionnaire to
Member States in October 1998. The questionnaire was composed
of two parts:
Part A) Concerning information
at national level, including an overview on organisation and management
of ports, a description on general and specific measures or instruments
for financing and charging of port infrastructure costs.
Part B) Concerning information
on individual ports in Member States. It was suggested that ideally
the selection of ports (4 to 5 per Member State) should offer
a representative picture of major types of ports, in both organisation
and cargo handled. A similar set of questions to those raised
at national level was asked and, in addition, a request for information
was made covering public investments undertaken in each port,
to be quantified for the period 1995 to 1997. Finally, a description
of the conditions on access to infrastructure facilities was requested.
The questionnaire encouraged descriptive replies
concerning the organisational structure of ports. It also covered
specific issues like cost recovery and public support, and asked
there for key figures; the questionnaire was accompanied by appropriate
explanatory documentation. In addition, bilateral meetings between
the Commission services and each Member State were held in order
to explain further the scope of the questionnaire and to resolve
any uncertainties and eliminate possible misinterpretations.
Although these precautions were taken by the Commission
services in order to ensure clarity, it has to be generally concluded
that the quality of information received in reply to the questionnaire,
and in particular the one on individual ports, varied considerably.
Replies submitted by the Member States ranged from scant 'two
page-statements' with virtually no information at all, to substantial
documentation in both volume and quality. This divergence in the
level of co-operation can be seen in the submission of information
in aggregated form where individual port data was requested, partial
or complete omissions on specific issues or refusals to supply
data. While recognising that certain questions in the questionnaire
could have been misinterpreted and/or certain data omitted, the
results are, however, considered to provide a representative picture
with regard to the issues raised for the inventory.
b) Methodology applied to analyse the replies
to the questionnaire
From the outset it was clear that issues like public
financing or charging practices in the European port sector are
intricately linked to the level of public involvement in the ownership
and/or operation of a port. Thus the Commission services tried
to establish initially, for the purpose of this inventory, an
ownership and management typology which would encompass most of
the organisational structures found in the Community ports (see
point 3.). In a second step, Member States replies to the question
on public financial support provided to individual ports, were
examined by investment category and geographical spread (see point
4.). Next, and recalling the objectives of the inventory set out
above, the answers were analysed with a view to obtaining information
about the accounting systems employed in the European port sector
(see point 5.). Charging practices and, connected to that, the
question of cost recovery for infrastructure expenditure were
investigated on the basis of the information submitted by the
Member States under point 6. Finally data made available on the
issue of access to port services was analysed and is summarised
under point 7..
|
3. ORGANISATIONAL AND MANAGERIAL STRUCTURES
IN THE COMMUNITY PORT SECTOR (Part I -
A.1 and B.1 of the questionnaire)
Public financial support for a port, transparency
in the financial relations between Member States and ports, cost
recovery practices and the conditions of access to the market
of port services are all strongly influenced by ownership and
management of a port. In order to obtain a more structured overview
of existing organisational port structures in the Community, the
information provided by Member States was used to establish certain
major types of ports, which reflect the different degrees of public
involvement found. The following parameters were used:
Ownership can range from exclusive public ownership
(by federal, regional, municipal or other public bodies) to forms
of mixed ownership (e.g. with basic infrastructure in public ownership
whilst private ownership for the operational equipment, or shared
ownership through a port holding company) to full private ownership.
Managerial autonomy over management decisions was
used as a benchmark to describe the influence of the public sector,
e.g. in financial resourcing, investments, tariff setting or the
capability to adapt autonomously to changing market requirements.
- Managerial responsibility:
Economic and public objectives set by national/regional
port policies often pre-determine actions by port managers.
The analysis showed a wide range of existing models:
at one extreme, ports are run as departments of the national,
regional or local administration, or under the exclusive auspices
of a Port Authority (P.A.), with, in either case, the obligation
of the management to implement policy decisions taken elsewhere.
In particular the public institution "Port Authority",
acting as port management, was noted in many Member States. P.A.'s
have extensive responsibilities for port development, the provision
of infrastructure, safety, services and, as an overall function,
play a role as co-ordinator and arbiter of public and private
interests within a port.
Other types of port organisations could be found
which were characterised by a decreasing influence of the public
sector, reserving the role of the public side to questions of
planning, safety, land management or the provision of a corresponding
infrastructure.
Finally, at the other end of the spectrum,
ports established as private enterprises with managerial decision-making
purely based upon economic considerations with no public influence
whatsoever, aside from constraints associated with public policies
such as environment, regional/territorial planning or connection
of these ports to land networks.
The following Table 1 shows, with decreasing
influence of the public sector from type I towards type IV, the
principal organisational characteristics as established for the
purpose of this inventory:
|
*
= Traffic estimates based on Member States replies and best
evidence available.
** = A port where the PA is not only providing basic infrastructure
but also (some) facilities to port operators.
*** = A port where the PA is co-ordinating port development
and manages only basic infrastructure.
**** = A port operating company runs the port entirely. This
company is very often established in a mixed holding
between public and private operators.The
above categorisation of current organisational structures in the
Community port sector clearly shows the predominant involvement
of public institutions. Indeed, some 90 % of European maritime
traffic is estimated to be handled in ports where decisions on
funding for infrastructure and charging of expenditure are, to
varying degrees, dependent or influenced by public regulatory
or supervisory bodies.
|
|
4. PUBLIC FINANCING IN COMMUNITY PORTS (structural
& geographical distribution)(Part
I - A.2, A.3, A.4 and B.2 of the questionnaire)
There is reason to believe that the information provided
by the Member States on public monies invested in Community ports
is incomplete (see page 8). Therefore, conclusions drawn
may not necessarily reflect the actual situation correctly, i.e.
underestimate the importance of the public role in port investment.
In fact, and as a main result from Member States replies, public
financing is important and clearly linked to port policy objectives
(see point 3.), which are themselves dependent upon on-going developments
in the respective Community maritime regions.
Having established the prominent role of the public
sector in the organisation and management of Community ports it
was expected, as a logic consequence, that public monies spent
on infrastructure would be an important factor. Also it was clear
from the outset that in those Member States where ports play a
prominent role in the national transport policy, public authorities
would use instruments such as laws, financing schemes or budget
plans to support them financially. Against that background, it
is worthwhile recalling what was meant, for the purpose of this
inventory, by 'public financing': 'any financial advantage, in
whatever form, granted by any public source to a port'.
Having identified the goals of the inventory it was
however important not only to record total investments but also,
in view of any future Community policies, to analyse public support
per investment category as well as per geographic region.
a) public financing per investment category
The Commission services undertook a grouping of Member
States replies on public financing in accordance with the investment
categories as established in Annex II of the questionnaire.
The following Table 2 summarises the monies
spent for the period 1995 to 1997 in million €:
In analysing the above data
it is worthwhile noting that:
- The figures on public monies invested in Community
ports as reported by Member States seem to be grossly underreported.
In fact, when cross-checking the data submitted with other sources
of information available (published financial statements, web-sites,
fact sheets & brochures of ports, institutional budget plans
etc.), considerable inconsistencies were discovered, and there
are strong indicators that public support was much more important
than for example the 1.6 billion € registered for 1997. The
unreliability factor in this figure is very high and indeed a
prudent estimate of 2 to 3 times this level for public financing
would appear realistic. Having said this, it is again recognised
that to retrace all public financial streams flowing into
an extremely heterogeneous economic conglomerate like a port area,
implying in many cases divided responsibilities for the different
types of investments (e.g. rail, road, port specific hinterland),
is obviously not an easy task.
- To assess whether the public financing of ports
is important in relation to overall public investments for transport
infrastructure and thus has a Community dimension to be reckoned
with, the following should be considered:
- The public monies included in this exercise cover
only 52 major ports in the Community. There are more than 350
Community ports susceptible for public financing under the Trans
European Network programmes.
- Ports constitute a relative limited part of the
overall transport network as nodes in the intermodal chain. All
transport infrastructure investments in Europe reached some
67 billion € p.a., including all sources (public/private)
and Member States (including land locked countries). A public
financing of approximately 3 to 5 billion € p.a. dedicated
alone to ports shows thus a considerable 5 to 10 %-share
for these investments. Finally, it is recalled that in ports operated
under extensive public influence (e.g. port types I, II) the impact
of public financing is by nature very high.
The low levels and/or decreasing trends of typical
'start-up' investments such as expenditure on land purchase, basic
maritime infrastructure and infrastructure links seem to confirm
that the port industry in most parts of the Community can be considered
mature. These three investment categories represent only some
11% of total public financing for ports.
A reservation to the above assessment needs however
to be made when noting the dominant position of port infrastructure
investments (32%), which also shows one of the most prominent
growth rates among the various investment categories. This may
reflect significant constructions in existing port areas, with
major public spending on infrastructures such as internal locks,
docks or quay walls.
Investments in port superstructure and port services,
which are also indicators of expansion in existing capacities
and/or improvement in efficiencies, represent together the major
part of public support for ports (41%). In addition, this public
support has shown significant growth in both absolute and relative
terms.
Again stressing the precautions that should be
noted when drawing conclusions from data available for only 3
years which, in addition, have been aggregated at European-wide
level, there seems reason to believe that the trend in public
financing for ports does not correspond to the evolution of overall
traffic. Whereas overall port traffic in Europe is growing
modestly, and as a rule of thumb by some 1-3% p.a. in line with
trends in GNP and industrial growth (with exceptions for certain
regions and types of cargo), public investment for ports is outpacing
traffic growth. Investments levels may, however, be influenced
by changes in the cargoes handled, in particular the considerable
growth of container traffic and by technological changes.
b) Public financing per Community region
The distribution of total public investment
made in ports in major maritime regions in the Community is shown
in Table 3, based upon Member States replies to the questionnaire:
Table 3: Total public
investment per major maritime region:
The following tables indicate
the evolution of public investment per maritime region and major
investment categories:
Table 4: Public investment
in typical "start-up"investments:
(1.1.-land purchase, 1.2.-maritime infrastructure,
1.5.-infrastructure links)
Table 5:
Public investment in port infrastructure:
Table 6:
Public investment in port superstructure and services:
Table 7:
Public investment in maintenance and other activities:
In order to assess the above
data on public investment in ports by Community maritime region,
the following remarks should be made:
- Public investment need to be set against traffic
handled by ports in the individual maritime regions.
Table 8: Freight turnover
in major Community ports (1993-1996; Mio tonnes):
- In the North Sea
region, covering with major ports some 50% of the European port
traffic, public financing, in absolute terms, is the highest in
comparison to other Community regions. Noteworthy is also the
high level of public investments in this region in relation to
traffic per ton. This may indicate, on the one hand, the enormous
financing needed to remain state-of-the-art, but also, on the
other hand, be an indicator for substantial capacity build-up
through modernisation and/or expansion of existing infrastructure
with the help of public funds. The latter conjecture is supported
by the fact that public investments, particularly in port infrastructure
and maintenance, are showing one of the highest growth rates in
comparison to other Community maritime regions.
- Data on public financing, as available from Member
States replies, shows a different picture for the Baltic region.
Here clearly the emergence of new markets is reflected in the
boom for typical 'start-up' investments in ports such as land
purchase, basic maritime access and infrastructure links. The
same can be said for public support in more commercially oriented
investments like superstructure and services, whereas, for obvious
reasons, spending on maintenance is less prominent. Considering
the relatively small share of overall Community port traffic,
public funds play an important role in creating an operational
port sector in this region.
- The share of total public spending in Atlantic
ports is, in absolute terms and over time, one of the lowest
in the Community. Indeed, overall public investments in these
ports seem to indicate a trend, which is contrary to a steady
growth in traffic. However, a clear orientation towards commercialisation
and increase in port efficiency is indicated in the dynamic evolution
of public support, albeit on low absolute levels, for investments
in superstructure, services and maintenance.
- Similar as to the North Sea region, the Mediterranean
is experiencing high growth rates for public investments in
port infrastructure, indicating considerable increases in capacity
and/or efficiency within existing ports. On the other hand, decreasing
public financing for typical 'start-up' investments (however on
substantial level) seem to indicate that in this region capacities
have been progressively adapted to demand.
- As already seen when examining the data on financing
per investment category, it is to be noted that, also under maritime
regional aspects, growth rates of public investments in most cases
considerably exceed growth rates on the demand side, i.e. port
traffic. However, the lead time factor must be taken into consideration,
namely that investments generally take a number of years before
they will actually be completed and used.
|
|
5. PUBLIC FINANCIAL FLOWS AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS
(Part I - A.1.2 and B.1.9 of the questionnaire)
The questionnaire aimed to examine the possibility
to obtain from existing accounting systems meaningful and readily
available information on financial flows between the public sector
and ports:
- to deliver aggregated information on public
investments going into a port,
and
- to retrace flows and use of public investments
within entities, which are, at the same time, engaged in both
public infrastructure management and commercial activities.
To that end, Member States replies to the questionnaire
show that basically three accountancy practices are used, which,
to a large extent, are a consequence of the organisational structure
in ports:
- The first corresponds to a port management
with an accounting system that produces financial statements comparable
to those employed in the private sector. Accounting procedures
follow the general accepted accounting principles (GAAP) of the
respective country, and audits through independent bodies are
common. This situation can be found in a number of ports of Types
II, III and IV. Overall, a trend could be observed
to adopt this accounting system more often, possibly as a result
of increased commercial exposure of ports. It should be noted
that this practice is, in the first place, intended as an operating
tool for the port management and as a benchmarking instrument
for its shareholders.
- The second system can be described as public
accounting or 'budget' approach. It is commonly found in ports,
which are under relative strong public control (e.g. by a P.A.),
such as Types I and II. In principal, these accounting
procedures are intended to record the use of public monies.
- The third type of accounting system is employed
in certain ports which are part of a wider public body (e.g. at
municipal or federal level) and, as a consequence, do not maintain
separate accounts. Expenditure such as investments are executed
under the authority of the municipal body and are recorded as
an integral part of the (public) accounting system of the municipality.
This approach, termed as "bundled" accounts, can be
found in some of the ports classified as Type I. As with
the second type of accounting system, it is designed to monitor
and control the financial affairs of the wider public body as
a whole.
When analysing these three accounting systems employed
in ports, it is obvious that no accounting procedure is,
by its nature, in a position to provide, in a transparent and
practical way, the information looked for.
The aggregation of datacovering all
public financial support going into a port is virtually an
impossible task with only the help of existing accounting systems.
This is demonstrated by the fact that replies to the questionnaire
did not report the complete financing given by public sources
(see point 4.). When it comes to the possibility of an accounting
system to retrace financial flows and use within different
public entities, clearly a public accounting system, which was
from the beginning not installed to distinguish between commercial
activities and public infrastructure management, is unlikely to
be an appropriate tool for showing the various flows of public
monies and their cross-relationships. Indeed, the public 'budget'
accounting system practised by certain municipal ports with its
inherent principle of universality, i.e. the 'non-dedication of
expenses and incomes', precludes a clear separation of money flows
linked to specific activities.
|
|
6. CHARGING SYSTEMS AND COST RECOVERY PRACTICES
(Part II of the questionnaire)
The question of charging systems and cost recovery
practices for the use of transport infrastructure has been addressed
by the Commission's "White Paper on Fair Payment for Infrastructure
Use". As a follow-up to the discussion opened by this document
between Member States and the Community institutions, the questionnaire
enquired how and to what extent public monies invested in a port
area are recovered from the user of the infrastructure 'port'.
It is again important to underline the apparent discrepancies
in Member State replies on the level of investments carried out
by the public sector (see point 4.). Hence the question of cost
recovery cannot be satisfactorily and comprehensively examined
when there are serious doubts about one important element of the
equation, i.e. the cost side.
Member State replies on the subject of cost recovery
varied in quality. Many answers indicated both, that they apply
or require full cost recovery of the investments carried
out. Others indicated that they try to generate incomes
covering investments made by the port authority, but did not
consider other financial flows. Statements like "Cost-recovery
is not used at all levels", "Cost-recovery is applied
taking into consideration competitors", and "We use
a full cost-recovery system; in 1997 a recovery rate of 87% was
achieved including State contributions", etc. showed a wide
range of cost recovery methods, if any.
Where Member States submitted quantified data, the
analysis revealed that operating costs are generally covered through
incomes such as dues, fees, rents etc.. Of course, the composition
of these incomes is heterogeneous and directly linked to the organisational
and managerial structure of a port.
Table 9 gives an overview
on the distribution of income per type of port organisation, as
established by the inventory and based upon Member States replies:
- The above data appears
to indicate that ports, in which the public sector is strongly
involved (Types I, II), either in its function as owner and/or
through management company, tend to rely, as main source of income,
on more traditional port activities such as renting, ship and
cargo fees, concessions etc..
Ports, which are operated under more commercial rules
(Types III, IV), tend to rely, as main source of income, more
on commercial added-value operations, such as stevedoring, other
specific services or logistics in major hubs for global shipping
lines.
- Although such a conclusion may not be drawn directly
from the above, however it can be assumed that ports operating
under more commercial terms are more successful in recouping infrastructure
investments, also in view of the investors' profitability objectives.
The contrary, allowing for exceptions, may be the case for publicly
run ports, which are often obliged to pursue other objectives
than only an economic return.
When it comes to the question how expenditure on
investments is passed on to users, and in particular capital intensive
ones (e.g. construction of rail, road, access, infrastructure
links etc.) which are possibly carried out under the auspices
of public bodies not directly related to the management of a port,
Member States' replies were largely moot.
|
|
7. ACCESS TO PORT SERVICES (Part
I - A.4 of the questionnaire)
The questionnaire invited the Member States to provide
clarification regarding access to the port services market, notably
concerning the methods for selecting/authorising (depending on
the type of service) service providers in ports. While there is
normally a simple selection of providers of cargo handling services
(allocation of land and/or buildings), a more formal authorisation
(usually with specific conditions) is required from the providers
of those services which demands certain qualifications or equipment,
e.g. to ensure safety. The results can be summarised as follows
in the light of the different categories of ports identified earlier:
In the (smaller) Type I - ports, the authority responsible
for the port normally selects or authorises the providers of port
services in a transparent manner, e.g. through public tenders
or other forms of open selection procedures. However, in some
ports, the selection or authorisation is carried out under direct
agreement, i.e. following bilateral discussions between an interested
provider and the port authority.
In Type II - ports, there is a public body that operates
with a considerable degree of managerial autonomy. This body selects
or authorises service providers either through open tenders, or
through direct agreements without an open selection procedure.
Such direct agreements appear to be widespread. It is worth noting
that the ports falling under this type of organisation are among
the ones that handle the most significant volumes of traffic in
the EU.
In ports that can be classified as type III, and
where often a port operating company is jointly established between
the public and the private sector in order to provide port services,
directly negotiated agreements seem rather common. In these ports,
services are provided either by the port operating company itself
or by other companies (sometimes on behalf of the operating company)
usually on an exclusive basis.
As regards type IV, the port services are normally
carried out either by the private owner of the port or by a service
provider selected by the owner generally through direct agreement.
In view of the above, it seems that the selection
or authorisation of individual service providers is carried out
in different manners in the ports. When the selection/ authorisation
is only based on direct agreement between the service provider
and the relevant authority, it is usually more difficult for other
potential service providers to enter the market, particularly
in those ports where the number of service providers is limited.
Further, without any public and transparent procedure for the
selection/authorisation, the criteria and conditions for market
access often remain unclear.
|
|
8. CONCLUSIONS
- Public financing plays an important role in
the Community sea port sector.
Recalling that an estimated 10% of overall Community
investment in transport infrastructure is public money spent on
ports, and that ports generally compete with each other, issues
of state aid and competition policy, both of EU concern, need
addressing. The involvement of Member States in the financing
of ports pursues varying national interests, not only narrow port
policies. It has a considerable impact on the development of ports,
their functioning, their integration in the European transport
network as well as on each port's competitive position in the
market of transport services.
- Public investments in ports have a considerable
impact on the competitive positions of ports in the Community.
The results of the inventory have shown that there
are substantial public funds being provided to facilities and
services resulting in a risk of distortion of competition. For
example, a public financing of port superstructures for commercial
market operators at conditions that do not correspond to those
available to other market players is geared to disturb the sensitive
market of port services. In addition, the inventory confirms that
the public sector itself is experiencing a reorientation towards
a more commercial involvement in ports, this being also a consequence
of global trends for concentration and vertical integration in
the market of maritime transport. Public undertakings are entering
more often into direct competition with private operators. In
these circumstances it is important that the Commission ensures,
with the help of appropriate tools, fair competitive conditions
for all operators.
- Transparency in public financial flows in
the Community port sector is an essential tool to ensure, before
the background of the common transport policy, a level playing
field within and between ports. It is insufficient.
Due to the diversity of port structures, present
accounting systems employed in the Community port sector are not
in a position to provide transparent and readily accessible information
on the flows of public monies into a port or between different
organisational and managerial entities within a port.
- The port services sector is still characterised
by unclear procedures which in effect limit access to the port
services sector.
The responses show that potential operators, either
public or private, wishing to enter the market in order to provide
port services, still face various obstacles, which are often the
direct consequence of ports typology and the ports' organisational
structure.
Annex A
Inventory of public financing and charging practices in the
Community Sea Port Sector.
Introduction:
Public financing is for the purposes of this inventory
considered to entail any financial advantage conferred in any
form whatsoever by public authorities, i.e. national, regional
or local. For these purposes, public authorities also include
public undertakings and State-owned banks. Investment in ports
is also co-financed by the Community, particularly by the Structural
Funds, the Cohesion Fund and through the Trans-European Networks
programme. Public financing can be provided in form of general
schemes covering all ports and/or individual measures
covering only specific ports. These schemes or measures are financed
through various financial instruments, such as providing
grants, soft loans, interest subsidy, reductions in or exemption
from general forms or levels of tax relief (on profits, investment
income, property income, asset sales, VAT, local taxes). This
includes also reductions in or exemption from social security
payments (e.g. in respect of dock workers) or other fiscal charges,
special provisions for tax allowances or depreciation, loan facilities
and guarantees.
Annex B
GLOSSARY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INVENTORY
1. Maritime/Port Infrastructure classification
1.1 - Land purchase
|
|
|
1.2 - Maritime access = |
- Capital dredging
- Sea locks, dams & exterior breakwaters
- VTS/Radar & ship movement information networks
- Lights buoys & navigational aids
|
|
1.3 - Port infrastructure = |
- land reclamation works
- Internal locks (new works & capital repairs)
- Docks, quays (quay walls), jetties piers, berths, - River
berth & harbour basin dredging
|
|
1.4 - Port superstructure = |
- Pavements
- Warehouses; sheds
- Cranes and gantries and other mobile/semi-mobile equipment
- Linkspans
- Terminal and office buildings and other associated facilities;
and
- Leasing/renting of buildings and/or equipment
- Public utilities ( sewage, water supply, etc.)
|
|
1.5 - Infrastructure Links = |
- Railways & metrolinks
within the port area
- Roads within the port area
- Canals within the port area
- Tunnels and bridges within the port area.
|
|
1.6 Port maintenance works = |
- Maintenance dredging
- Maintenance of Port infrastructure and superstructure
- Others
|
|
1.7 Port services = |
- Cargo-handling (stevedoring, storage,
stowage)
- Technical-nautical services (pilotage, towage, mooring)
- Other services (fire fighting, water & electricity supply,
safety services, bunkerage, cleaning, pollution control etc.)
|
|
1.8 Other port activities = |
- Promoting industrial areas
or units, port-related activities such as added-value enterprises
etc.
|
| |
- Via Raffaele Paolucci 17r/19r - 16129 Genoa - ITALY
