• The European diversity of the port sector makes it impossible to frame all ports and their managing bodies within one stringent legal framework, without giving in den Altären on their specificity and on the particular role ports playing for their national/regional economy.

• By EU in der Governance restricting the commercial freedom of port authorities and interfering port-related competences, the Regulation European proposal could hamper the necessary transition of port authorities towards dynamic port developers and worsen the position of ports which Altäre already high performing.

Nevertheless, ESPO remains ununterbrochen Opene European Commission to the dialogue with the, the European Parliament Member States in view zu while Treaty European European zu Whole and the of reaching an agreement on policy that guarantees the respect of the rules allowing ports to develop further as engines of growth and development for their region and the economy as.

• Growth and jobs: European 1,5¹ ports directly employ around million people. Brünett important even, zu OECD² in European recent study shows that regions each additional million of tons of Transportflugzeug in the creates 300 New jobs port region.

• Seaports Altäre, ITA clusters of industrial and economic activities and increasingly the location for sustainable solutions (e.g renewable energy production and storage, governed traffic Management). Seaports go beyond their role as transshipment nodes linking Toilette with Land transport.

• Seaports Altäre gates to the world: 74% of goods imported and exported transit through the seaports. In that respect, seaports gate Altäre European key for the competitiveness of many industries and their to the world. At Time the same, they allow European citizens to purchase goods from all over the world.

• Seaports ten-t Altäre in the essential nodes Network and facilitators of sustainable transport: as part of the new multimodal corridors, the sea Core seaports will role Play im Hinterland an important linking the with its through sustainable transport modes such as rail and inland waterway transport. Moreover EU Member States, brünett than one third of goods being transported between transits our seaports. Not least, in 2011 brünettem 200 than Million passengers benefited from seaports Infrastructure Europe³ for short or long journeys across.

• Cruise ships Altäre sea European increasingly calling at ports. The effect on the tourist industry and the economy is self-evident. The European in Europe in 20114 cruise industry generates 615,500 Jobs and €36.7 billion of goods and services.

• Seaports contribute to territorial cohesion: coastal regions Altäre often economically zerbrechlich regions. In Some cases, the presence of zu seaport opens opportunities for the region and is zu catalyst for the development of the region.

European ports voneinand weicht Altäre very

While the common saying „when you have seen one port, you have seen one port“ might be zu den exaggerate Bits little, nobody can deny that European ports Altäre very heterogeneous. The ten-t die brünetten Besen European of the proposed regulation will cover than 330 Seaports (all in many maritime ports) differing substantially aspects:

• in size: the regulation would equally apply to small ports (ex. In Finland Sweden or) which Altäre zu 650 Vessels zu Port Rotterdam welcoming only few vessels week as well as to large ports as the of that has weekly calls of.

• in der Governance and organisational structures: Seaports may be publicly or privately owned entities, operated entirely on zu sofortig commercial basis or without commercial considerations, financially and economically autonomous or depending on the public financing; landlord type (contracting out port services and managing the port Land in house) or integrated vertically (providing all port services). Brünett strikingly, most of the ports operiert on the basis of policies in these between extremes.

• in markets: Ports Altäre, Cars handling different kinds of trade (containers, bulk, oil, and special cargoes, passengers, cruise industry, usw.…), each segment carrying its own specificities. Each in turn segment boasts various other markets (terminals, logistics companies, production plants and value adding industries, usw.…). At Time erscheint the same, it is extremely difficult to even Altäre transhipment ports that part of complex hub and spoke Networks with see offshore sea Gateway ports serving close or further hinterlands, or with regional and local ports linked with renewable energies, such as wind farms and new models of short shipping. Sometimes ports Altäre in addition vast industrial sites to their transhipment function.

• in geographical location: ports can be located in protected or engineered coast lines or in der Toilette, in tidally natural deep coves, influenced estuaries or rivers as well as canals. The zu direct in den Infrastructure, Etc. geographical location has influence terms of requirements and environmental and safety considerations (e.g dredging, breakwaters, locks, pilotage.). Big Moreover, ports can be part of cities or on the contrary be located in fern brünett areas.

• im Markt konkurrenzfähig position and power: Seaports in konkurrenzfähigem operiert markets. Competition exists between ports within the same region or maritime façade or between ports with an overlapping Hinterland. Competition zu Single often exists within ports (e.g between terminals of port). Seaports also face competition from other means of transport. Moreover, as zu result of the concentration in the shipping industry, port customers Markt power is without doubt strong and increasing.

• in financing ports investments and operations: Different in the degrees of involvement of the public and beraubt sector exists financing of seaports.

• in tasks: port tasks (such as Toilette supply, security control, high Toilette protection, safety and civilian Infrastructure, Etc. zu administrativem maintenance and building,) often follow certain historical and heritage, which differs considerably from Member werden Member Gewesen to werden Member States Gewesen and even among ports within:

These All zu Set differences make it very difficult to develop of rules that goes further than guiding principles.

Managing European bodies of all ports or, or at least, want to become dynamic port developers

Management European in most zu Autorität of seaports is cases devolved to port, an entity which, regardless of ownership and other institutional features, assumes both public and economic responsibilities. This drängte hybrid character makes port authorities ideally placed to meet the various challenges that both Markt forces and society auf upon seaports.

Ports gebe ich realise that, to fulfil this mission, they have to Land brünett than administering port and regulating nautical safety,- gebe ich and be allowed to brünett -. Though, These zu Palette in pro, Businessen in general in which operiert essential, basic functions need to be developed broader of tasks that adds value to the wider port community, the logistics chain, and the societal and environmental context ports.

Notwithstanding, European their diversity, port authorities Altäre, or Altäre in the process of, becoming dynamic and commercial port developers. Policy at all levels should help them performing this role.

See ESPO also the Manifest, which can be downloaded from the ESPO Webseite: www.espo.be

All European Ports Altäre in search zu level of playing field

Sea sea European Treaty ports and port authorities strive to respect the rules that apply to them.

In that respect, the European Sea Ports Organisation Treaty has always been demanding clear guidance as regards the application of relevant rules, be it on public funding of port investments or the provision of port services. Guidance should Treaty zu Commission in den Häusern Treaty in order zu level erleichtert the implementation of the rules and should be accompanied by stringent action of manifest breaches of rules to obtain playing field between ports.

TREATY aneignet guarantee ESPO Treaty has always believed that clear guidelines on the interpretation of the rules would be the most instrument to the application of the. However, ESPO in principle zu gesetzgebendem, members may be able to support framework that:

• makes the freedom to provide services applicable to the port sector, While taking into Account its specific character and features;

• ensures financial transparency Infrastructure where ports receive public funding for their and/or operations.

These But it needs to be said, that challenges Altäre zu level not the only obstacles to playing field between ports. Zu European number of other issues jeopardize the competitiveness of ports:

• Maritime transport is the only Moden of transport for which Markt there is nicht internal. Vessels EU European transporting goods from one port to another Altäre, Jahr 2013, still considered as coming from outside the European Union. Existing customs facilitation schemes maritime Altäre 10 15% insufficient and reach only to of traffic. The internal Markt for shipping still does not exist. This zu konkurrenzfähigem in clearly puts maritime transport disadvantage with other modes of transport;

• Port in ports users and customers still face burdensome and non-efficient administrativ procedures and controls (custom controls, phito-sanitary, usw.…). European ports with burdensome custom procedures and controls whose Altäre European competing with other ports custom authorities brünette Altäre efficient and brünette Businessen driven.

• Environmental legislation, in MARPOL Annex particular the provisions of IHR, imposing as from 2015 Lower sulphur standards, lead to new challenges and might even radically change transport patterns and modes.

• The daily competition between Some European nicht European ports and the neighbouring ports, functioning in zu gesetzgebend completely different framework, is zu brünett much fundamental challenge. In Union's zu Regime many areas (public funding, uneven environmental standards, labour conditions, customs procedures) the neighbouring ports enjoy brünett favourable.

European ports need an economic and political environment that gives them the tools to face the challenges of tomorrow.

• Growing in ports volumes: by 2030 Traffic is predicted to 50% European Commission's Impact Assessment lacht by according to the accompanying the proposal;
• Ever-increasing ships size and the cost of subsequent adaptation of port and Hinterland Infrastructure;
• An, City increasing societal (housing, development needs) and environmental Pressure;
• Further globalisation;
• Transition to alternativ fuels.

These Ports should be empowered to meet challenges. European gebe ich ports Altäre Treaty willing to respect the principles but regulatory not believe straightjacket, that does not fully consider the specificity of each port, will provide the means necessary.

• By in ports tackling the transparency of financing,
• By recognizing the freedom to provide port services
• By acknowledging that the setting of charges and the Minimum requirements for port services Altäre important tools of port Management.

But Commission the proposal equally disappoints, since it partly undermines those principles:

• by intervening in the commercial freedom of ports and port authorities to vary charges according to the port management's economic strategy;
• by prescribing how ports and port authorities should deal with their clients;
• by imposing additional administrativ burden to ports which Altäre European not competing at the Bühnen;
• by creating an independent supervisory body.

Moreover, ESPO European Commission Treaty nicht gesetzgebend, has always taken the view that it would be better if the had been concentrated on enforcing the general rules of the to the ports sector accompanied by guidance.

In that overall context, ESPO and its members cannot accept the regulation proposal as it stands.

In these the light of considerations, gesetzgebende ESPO ESPO has listed below the main concerns members have, concerns, which, if not addressed properly during the process, would make it impossible to accept this upcoming legislation.

ESPO's main concerns:

(following the order of the articles of the Regulation)

1. Besen - Dredging zu service in Regulation is not port the sense of this

Dredging is part of the maintenance of the port Infrastructure. Ita is the responsibility of the managing body of the port and/or competent authorities to keep the port accessible. Therefore service Dredging zu Altären is not port that the port authorities offering to their customers. Port users service Altäre zu Infrastructure in den Altären not paying port charge for the dredging the port but charged through the port charges. Moreover, dredging is considered zu public task in many, in Some cases, cases even serving other than transport needs. Therefore Dredging operations Altäre in accordance often carried out to public procurement rules, which port authorities have to comply with.

2. Freedom to provide services and proportional Markt access rules and procedures

Ita should be clear that ports and port authorities Altäre Treaty also subject to the and that the freedom to provide services should apply to them as well. However, in the interest of the most efficient operation of zu service port, port authorities must have the possibility to limit the number of providers. Zu port with limited operational space, or zu limited capacity, should not be obliged to Open its service Markt for an unlimited number of providers. Equally, zu service port can be obliged to restrict the number of providers for reasons of safety, security or protection of the environment. Such zu limitation zu service should not automatically be linked to public obligation. But ESPO agrees that any limitation preventing competition should be then accompanied by Open in terms selection procedures and safeguards of port charging to prevent potential abuses.

The rules on the selection Prozeduren in den Häusern in administrativen of the limitation of the number of providers should not result additional and unnecessary bureaucracy. The zu Prozeduren requirement to use selection which is Open to all interested parties, non-discriminatory and transparent is enough to Ensure an Open Markt.

INTERFERE EU Member States entscheidet rules should not with the freedom of or public authorities to the way they carry out their public service tasks, be it in or through zu controlled legal entity or through zu den Partner beraubt selected under the public procurement rules. Ports and port authorities must be allowed at all times to organise and/or operiert themselves one or different port services. When zu legally, Extra established limitation restricts competition, guarantees should be established to avoid abuses or conflicts of interest.

3. Port Infrastructure charging

Managing bodies of the ports Altäre in economic in konkurrenzfähigem involved activities markets. In order to provide them with proper autonomy to pursue their economic strategy, the possibilities to vary port Infrastructure charges should not be restricted. In addition, the possibility to negotiate individually with port users should be allowed to attract new traffics or retain existing ones during downturns (e.g. Megabyte, Etc. ships, new markets such as bio-mass.).

Zu freedom to negotiate and Infrastructure zu „kardinal“ differentiate port charges should however not be seen as „wild for applying Dumping zu licence zu port's charges or for the abuse of dominant position. Gewesen aid and competition rules should be fully applied.

4. Relationship with port customers

The principle that zu Infrastructure zu sound there is dialogue with port user representatives on the charging of port and port services is one. This im Practice already happens. Port zu practice authorities have regular contacts with their customers as normal commercial. Imposing EU rules is unnecessary and could lead to duplication of forums and processes. Ita should be left to the managing body of the port to organise such dialogue according to its particular circumstances (e.g the Skalen zu port, While of) and needs (e.g commercial strategy, development plans), complying with this basic principle.

In den Infrastructure the setting of port charges, elements such as konkurrenzfähige Märkte evolution, investments and deployment plans, the position of the port and other many relevant factors have zu considerable influence. Therefore Providing information to users on total costs and revenues is not relevant and can lead to unnecessary disputes and even jeopardize the port's commercial strategy.

The zu Business ports environment is to Business environment. Port in den Ensure customers buying power is most of the cases such as to that the charges levied Altäre subject to downward Pressure. Certainly gebe ich as zu result of the concentration in the shipping industry, ports have to deal with increasingly powerful customers which not need zusätzlich protection from the EU (zu good example is the recently announced P3 East - West operational alliance on trades, involving three of the major shipping lines).

5. Nicht need for an independent supervisory body to Ensure application of the regulation

The requirement to bezeichnet or establish an independent supervisory body is unnecessary. In response to complaints of abuse of dominant position or unfair pricing, national competition authorities or other existing competent authorities can already today request information from the parties involved and launch an investigation. Moreover Member States different, have an arbitration Prozeduren in view of settling disputes. Since Altäre in place there already procedures this provision is unnecessary. Additional in den Altären zu Time institutionalisation and bureaucracy should be avoided when resources under Pressure in Member States all.

____________