Green Paper on sea ports and maritime infrastructure
Date: 1997-12-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: charges for use of infrastructure, free competition, harbour installation, maritime transport, transport infrastructure

ll•L.l,m 

1-~*-b-l  COMMISSION OF THE  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
I  * 
--* 
i  ~  : 
*** 
I 

I 
I 

Brussels,  10.12.1997 
COM(97) 678 final 

GREEN PAPER 

ON SEAPORTS 

AND MARITIME 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

(presented by the Commission) 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

2.  EU  PORTS AND THE ECONOMY 

2.1  In general 

2.2  The changing role of ports in  an  increasingly competitive environment 

3.  EU  PORTS AND THE COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY 

3.1  General 

3.2  The  role of ports  in  the Trans-European Transport Network 

3.3 Connections to  neighbouring third countries 

3.4 Ports as transfer points in  the intermodal transport chain 

3.5 Ports and the development vf short sea shipping in  Europe 

3.6 Maritime safety and the environment 

3. 7  Research and development 

4.  FINANCING AND CHARGING  FOR PORTS AND MARITIME INFRASTRUCTURE 

4.1  Diversity of national approaches and current trends 

-t2  EU approach to date 

4.3 Search  for  new direction 

-L4  To" a rds  a  Community framework on  port financing and charging 

-L5  A  framework  for  port charging 

4.6 The TEN-T and  EU  financial support for infrastructure denlopment 

5.  PORT SERVICES:  ORGANISATION AND MARKET ACCESS 

5.1  General 

5.2 Sen·ices  related  to  the cargo 

5.3 Services  related to  the ship 

5..t  Port services under the  rules of the  EC Treaty 

5.5 Search for a  new direction 

ANNEX I 

ANNEX II 

ANNEX  Ill 

2 

6 

7 

7 

8 

8 

8 

9 

9 

IO 

1 I 

12 

14 

14 

15 

IS 

18 

22 

23 

23 

24 

29 

31 

39 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

J.  Sea  ports  are  vital  to  the  European  Union  both  in  terms  of  trade  and  transport.  Europe's 
competitiveness  in  the  global  economy  increasingly  depends  on  an  efficient  and  cost  effective 
tLmspurt  and  port  system.  The  Community~ s  port  sector  handles  more  than  90%  of the  Union's 
1rack  '' ith  third  countries  and  approximately  30%  of intra-EU  traffic.  as  \vell  as  facilitating  the 
rno\·ement  of more  than  200  million  passengers  every  year.  I'v1orcover,  ports  are  also  important 
centres  of  regional.  ecoi10mic  and  social  development  and  act  as  essential  interface  between 
~eaborne and  land-based modes of transport. 

2.  The  completion of the  internal  market, technology changes  in  the transport sector and the  ongoing 
dewlopment of inland transport networks across Europe have intensified competition significantly 
among  ports.  As  a  result.  ports  in  different  Member  States  are  now,  more  than  ever  before,' 
competing for  trade.  In  the  past ports have tended  to  remain on  the  sidelines of the  EU~ s transport 
policy  debate.  The  time  has  now  come  to  redress  this  situation.  and  to  focus  on  the  key  issues 
relating to  ports  in  today's competitive environment. 

_,.  The  purpose  of this  paper  is  therefore  to  launch  a  wide  ranging  debate  on  individual  port  issues 
and  possible  future  policies  ,,·hich  should  help  to  increase  port  efficiency  and  improve  port  and 
maritime  infrastructure  by  integrating p01is  into  the  multimoda1  trans-European  network  and  which 
should  also  meet  the  Community's  responsibilities  under  the  Treaty  to  ensure  free  and  fair 
competition  in  the  port  sector.  The  Commission  suggests  a  number  of possible  measures  which 
can  be  applied  in  the  context of existing policies, and  identifies other policy areas,  in  particular in 
the  fields  of port  charging  and  market  access.  in  which  new  initiatives  should  be  considered. 
These  suggestions.  on  \Yhich  the  Commission  seeks  the 
,·ic\YS  of  interested  parties,  are 
summ~irised in  the  follc)\\·ing  paragraphs. 

Ports and specific  aspects of the Common Transport Policy 

I) orrs u nd the  t runs-Eu ropL'a 11  Trompor! .Ye fl rnrk 

-L  The  Commission  considers  the  full  integration  of  ports  into  the  TEN-T  desirable  for  the 
establishment  of the  multimodal  net\York  taking  into  account.  in  particular.  the  need  to  ensure 
links  to  the  peripheral  meas  and  to  encourage  short  sea  shipping.  A  proposal  to  adapt  the  present 
guidelines  for  the  dc\·clopment of TEN-T accordingly  is  being  presented  in  parallel  to  this  Green 
Paper. 

DJ/orging !hi!  Community om/ connections lo lleighbourillg coumries 

.::;  The  J'uture  cnlargcnh.'nt or the  EU  emphasises the  need  for  extending-the  trans-European netm..Jrks 
lt1  the  11l'ighbouri11~  countries  in  order  to  integrate  their  transport  systems  more  effectively  \Vith 
those  u (the  L n ion.  The  port  and  maritime  sector is  of considerable  importance  to  the  economies 
cir  a  number  of those  countries  expected  to  join  in  the  first  round  of accession  and  substantial 
i nn~stmcnt \Yl 11  be  needed  in  transport operations and  infrastructure (including  ports)  both prior to 
and  f()llo,,·ing  accession 
the  rest  of  the 
Community.  The  Commission  \\ill  continue  to  work  with  all  neighbouring  third  countries  in  the 
relevant  Cora  in  order to  identi Cy  pro.iects  of mutual  interest and  to  use  available  funds  in  the  most 
c rli c i en t  m~m 11 er. 

to  promote  their  co11\'ergent  <.k\·elopmcnt 

\Yith 

(), 

l)orts us  trmz.fcr JJOinls  in  the  inlcrnwda/ lramJJO!'!  chain 
l 11  order to  op ti 111 isc  the  role  0 r ports  in  the  door-to-door  tr~rnsport chain  proper  i 11 fi·astructure  links 
to  the  TEN-T arc  \·ital.  l lmn~\-cr, equally  important arc  other  measures  such  as  standardisation of 
loading  units.  integration  of tclcmatics  etc.  The  Commission  will  suppL)rt  actions  to  improve  the 
pnr(s  position  ~lS  intcrrnodaJ  transrer  points  including  linancing  or  n:sc~lrch  and  demonstration 
projects  in  the  area  of management  systems.  and  mcasur1...'S  to  fpster  innL)\'<llinn  ;md  support  the 
dc\·clopmcnt or a curnpctitin:  i11tcrmodal  transport system. 

Encouraging the  del'elopment o/Slwrt Sea SlnjJping 

7.  The  streamlining of procedures  in  ports.  e.g.  by  enhancing  information  and  managem~nt systems. 
is  a key  issue pinpointed by  the  Commission in  its  policy  to  promote  the  de\'elopment of short sea 
shipping.  This  policy  also  gives  priority  to  short  sea  projects  in  the  framework  of the  trans 
European  networks  and  continues  to  support  actions  through  research  and  de\'Clopment  and  the 
new PACT programme.  Furthermore.  the  Commission  recognises  that  the  pricing  policy  for  other 
modes  of  transport  is  an  important  factor  for·  the  de\'elopment  of  short  sea  shipping.  The 
Commission  intends  to  t:.ike  this  issue  forward  \\ ith  ~1  ne\\.  cnmmunic~llion  on  infrastructure 
c h~1rg i ng  in  a  111 u I ti mocb I p1:.'rspect in~. 

The  role of ports in  maritime Sl{/i.:ty 

8.  A  sustainable  transport  system  can  only  be  achien:d  if  the  safety  legislation  in  force  in  the 
Community  is  properly  respected.  Theretlm~. the  Commission  \\'ill  continue  its  efforts  to  ensure 
effective and  uniform compliance \\·ith  international  legislation  by  all  ships entering  EU  ports and 
the  harmonised  application  within  the  Community  of L\10  and  ILO  provisions  related  to  the 
ship/port  interface.  such  as  cargo-handling,  techno-nautical  sen·ices.  and  protection  n r \\ nrkers 
i11\'olved  in  cargo operations. 

Protect ion  <~( 1 he  e nrirnnment 

tJ  To  ensure environmentally  friendly  solutions in  the  port sector and  at  seu.  the  Commission  tinds  it 
is  important  to  enhance  the  present a\'ailability and  adequacy  of reception  facilities  in  all  EL:  ports. 
The  Commission  \\'ill  also  continue  its  \\"Ork  in  fostering  new  technology  in  order  to  make  port 
operations  as  efficient  as  possible  and  ensure  a  better  use  of e.\isting  facilities  as  \\ell  ~1s  the 
dcYelopment of integrated coastal  management.  including strategic em·ironmcntal assessment. 

Research and del'u!opmenr 

1 O.The  Commission  \\·ill  continue to  support  maritime  and  port  pro.iccts  under  the  present  ~rnd future 
R&D  programmes.  in  its  pnipns:_tl  l~)r  the  .5th  Fr~1111e\rnrk  Pn1grammc  on  RTD  the  Cnnrn1issil1n 
hl.h  incluLkd  t\\O  key  l.lctions  \\hich  <lre  relc\·~mt  to  port  rc~Lncd  research:  ··~ustainahlc  \lobilit: 
Jnd  l11tL'rmud<ilit~ ··  <llld  "'\LlrinL'  l L'Chnt1!ngies ...  The  futurL'  R&D  should  ~dsn  prm ide  tl~nls  tt1 
<.t!lo\\  policy  m<1kers  tn  ~1sscss different  pl'ilicy  scenarios.  such  ~is  the  unL'S  needed  tl)  foll\)\\  up  this 
Green  Paper. 

Financing and  charging for  ports and  maritime infrastructure 

11.The ownership. organisation  ~md administration of ports  vary  bet\\·een  and  \\·ithin  '.\ kmbcr  ~talcs. 
thus  leading  to  great  di\·crsity  in  the  port  sector.  While  accepting  that  it  should  be  left  to  the 
iv1embcr  States  to  decide  upon  the  O\\'ncrship  and  organisation.  a  key  issue  from  a  competition 
point  of \·ic\v  is  the  financial  !lows  bctm~cn the  public  authorities.  the  port  ;wthorities.  the  port 
operators and  the  users of the  port  focilities  and  sen·ices. 

12.Until  110\V  the  Commission  has  not  considered  public  fundi1.1g  of pt)rt  in!'r;istruL'lLJrL'  \\·hi ch  is  open 
to  all  users  as  aid.  HmYe\'cr.  as  ports  are  increasingly  cunsidcrcd  ~1s  lL'rrninals  h:l\  in~  rn:1i11I: 
commercial activities  \Yi th  greater  in\'oh·ement  of the  pri\ <ltc  sector.  and  cPrnpctition  is  strung\ lI1 
a  Community-\vide  basis,  a  different  approach  cnuld  bl.'  desirdblc  for  till.'  t'uturL'.  I hcn.:furL',  thL' 
Commission  finds  that  port  inli·astructure  should  hL'  priced  in  such  ~1  \\ <iY  tlut  users  should  hc:ir 
the  real  costs of the  port scn·iccs and  facilities  they  cunsurnL'. 

13.  If the  Union  is  to  den~lop  a  mon~  uniform  ;1p11rn;1ch  to  port  ch;1rgL'S  in  the  Community.  <t 
rramcwork  shou Id  be  i llC l uded  in  a  prnposa I  for  ;1  (  \rnnci l  di l'L'Ct i \'L'.  The  fr:mle\\ ( )rk  Cl)L! ld  he 
hdscd  Oil  ~l  principle  ur l'L'L'O\·cring  the  COSt  or 11L'\\.  im CSlll1L'11lS.  tliKT;ttitl~.  <llhi  C:\tcrn;1J  CUSlS  hot Ji 
to  ensurL'  th~1t  llL'\\  im esl111L·11ls  :trc  Lkrn~rnd dri\·en  <llld  to  L'l1SllrL'  L1ir  corn11ctitio11  het\\\.:en  ports  in 
the  longer term.  ;\ltenlion  s]wu]d  he  gi\·en  to  thL'  !leL'd  ror  llc:\ibiJity  to  <lCCO!l111lOd;1te  the  needs  nr 

..., 
) 

Jess  developed  regions  and  to  take  into  account  external  costs  in  parallel  \Vith  other developments 
in  the  transport  sector. 

!-+.As a tirst step. and  in  order to  update the  information on  the  financial  flows  from  the public sector 
to  the  various  types of ports  in  the  Member States,  the  Commission  intends  to  make an  inventory 
of public  finance  giYen  to  the main ports with  international  traffic  as  well  as  charging practices in 
these  ports.  This  information  will  be  useful  in  the  further  elaboration  of the  charging  framework 
\vhen for  example, evaluating the possible impact of the  implementation of the  framework on port 
tariff regimes and determining a suitable transition period. 

15.In the  State aid  field.  and taking into account the  information that will  be  obtained from  improved 
transparency of port  financing,  the  Commission will continue to  examine public  financial  support 
for  assets  used  by  undertakings  in  carrying  out  commercial  activities  in  ports.  The  Commission 
considers  financial  support that  benefits  particular operators  as  distinct  from  others,  as  State  aid 
in  accordance  with  the  Treaty  provisions.  Such  an  approach  \Vill  contribute  to  improving  the 
application  of a  cost  reco\·ery  principle  by  ensuring  that  except  for  situations  covered  by  the 
derogations  in  the  Treaty.  investments  will  be  financed  by  port  undertakings  on  a  commercial 
basis  and  accordingly  their  cost  passed  on  to  users.  The  need  to  link  rules  on  State  aid  to  the 
proposed  frame\rnrk  on  port  charges  will  be  considered  in  the  context  of  setting  up  such  a 
framework. 

16.The  implementation of a Community approach to  port charging and  financing  \Vntdd  furthermore. 
h~we  to  be  progressi\·e  and  dovetailed  \Vith 
the  development  of  a  general  approach  to 
inti·astructure  charging  and  financing  for  all  modes  of  transport.  The  Commission  intends  to 
prepare  a  communication  on  an  intermodal  approach  to  this  matter  in  1998  \Yhich  will.  on  the 
basis of the discussion on  this Green  Paper.  address  the  existing approach to  public  investments  in 
infrastructure  and  suggest  concrete  steps  on  the  development  of an  appropriate  framework  for 
ports. 

17.ivfaritimc  infrastructure  outside  the  port area needs  particular attention.  In  the  case  of coastal  aids 
to  navigation  a  Community  initiati\·e  should  be  prepared  to  establish  the  principles  for  charging 
systems.  aimed  at  the  recovery  of the  development  and  investment  costs  of such  aids,  and  a 
mechanism to  equitably  share the  financial  burden with users.  For local  aids  to  navigation  within 
the  port area and  in  its  immediate approach as  \\'ell  as  for  dredging  of approach  channels  to  ports. 
the  user-pays  principle  will  have  to  be  examined  with  caution  in  order  to  take  adequately  into 
account the different  geographical situations in  \vfoch  ports find  themselves. 

18.The  future  approach for  Community support to  ports should be  in  line \Yith  the  approach taken  for 
port  investments  in  general.  Financing  under  the  TEN-T  budget  line  \\·i 11  be  concentrated  within 
the  port area on  feasibility  studies.  EDI  systems and  support  for  combined  transpurt.  Priority  will 
also  be  gin~n  to  improving  hinterland  connections,  especially  rail  and  inland  \Vaterways. 
Financing  from  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  ERDF  will  be  available.  primarily  serving  such  priorities 
as  better  integration  of  ports  into  the  TEN-T.  imprO\:ed  connections  \\ ith  the  hinterland.  and 
refurbishment  inside  the  port area. 

Port  services and  market access 

19.Port  sen·ices  are  to  be  seen  as  an  integrated  part  of the  maritime  transport  system  as  they  are 
indispensable  for  the  proper  functioning  of this  mode  of transport  ~md thereby  make  an  essential 
contribution  to  the  efficient  and  safe  use  of port  and  maritime  infrastructure.  Current  practices 
han~ given  rise  to  complaints  by  users  and  potential  suppliers  of such  sen ices  about  alleged 
breaches of the  EC  Treaty~ \\·hich  the  Commission  is  currently  cx~1111ini11g on  a case  by  case  basis. 
as  well  as  about  din~rgent standards on  safety and  ser\'ice quality. 

20.Complcmentary to  the  case  by  case  approach.  Community  action  could  he  cm isJgL'd  in  the  rorm 
of  developing  a  rcgubtory  fr~1mc\\"()rk  :1iming  at  a  more  systematic  lihi..'r~llisatinn  nr  the  port 
scn·iccs 111:1rkct  in  the  main  J"'ll'rts  with  intcrn~1tion:il  tr:1rtic  in  onkr tP  csLthlish.  mer ~1  rL':lS011:1blc 

· period  of  time,  a level  playing  field  between  and  within  Community  ports  while  ensuring 
compliance  with  port  and  maritime  safety·  standards.  Such  a  new  framework  would  in  no  way 
prejudice the  Commission's appraisal  of any  complaints  made  in  individual  cases  01fthe  basis of 
the competition rules. 

21.The objective of the  liberalisation measures would be to  ensure open access to  the  market for port 
services  through  appropriate  mechanisms  and  requirements  on  the  basis  of transparency,  non 
discrimination  and  certain  principles  for  charging,  while  determining  an  appropriate  framework 
for the  implementation of public service obligations, whenever they are deemed necessary, as well 
as· of the  safety  requirements.  As  an  integral  part  of these  measures,  harmonised  or,  at  least, 
minimuln  standards  for  training  and  qualifications  of  the  personnel  and  for  the  equipment 
involved should be established at EU level.  This ensemble of actions would be especially relevant 
for  the  technical-nautical  services  in  so  far  as  they  contribute to  the  efficient  and  safe  use  of port 
and maritime infrastructure. 

22.However,  the  heterogeneous  nature  of these  services  and  the  diverse  nature  of ports  (in terms  of 
their  size,  function  and  geographical  characteristics),  would  require  a  differentiated  approach  to 
the  liberalisation  of the  various  types  of port  services  and  provisions  for  specific  situations, 
including  the  possibility to  grant  exemptions  in  certain  cases  where justified.  Any  steps  towards 
liberalisation would need to  be introduced gradually in order to allow sufficient time for the sector 
to adapt. 

Comments are invited 

23.This Green Paper is  intended to  launch an active discussion involving the Council of the European 
Union  and  the  European  Parliament,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee of 
the  Regions,  the  port  authorities,  operators  of the  port  and  maritime  industries  and  associated 
interested  parties.  together  with  the  trade  unions  and  other  organisations  representing  the  social 
interests  in  the sector.  Comments and opinions are  invited on all  the positions set out in this Green 
Paper. 

24.Comments should  be  sent to  the  European Commission, DGVII  D/4,  Rue  de  la Loi  200,  B-1049 
Brussels to the attention of Mr Aragon Morales (fax+ 32 2 2953076) at the  latest by  I  April  1998. 
Comments may also be sent by e-mail to:  ports-green-paper@dg7.cec.be 

5 

1.  Introduction 
1.  The  port  sector  handles  more  than  90%  of  the  Union's  trade  with  third  countries  and 
approximately  30%  of intra-Community  traffic,  as  well  as  more  than  200 1  million  passengers 
every year.  There is,  therefore, a clear need for a  modern, efficient and competitive European port 
sector  which  contributes  to  the  principle  of sustainable  mobility  and  which  enables  maritime 
transport to  be  integrated,  together with the  other transport  modes,  into  the  transport  chain.  This 
has  to  be seen in the context of the great diversity which exists  in  the  sector in  terms of structure, 
operation, organisation and legal framework which all show great regional differences. 

2.  The Treaty of Rome established the fundamental  Community rules with regard to competition, State 
aid,  the  freedom  to  provide  services  and  the  right  of establishment.  Fmihem1ore,  the  ~faastricht 
Treaty  has  introduced  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  and  laid  down  the  rules  concerning  the 
establishment  of a  trans-European  transport  network,  which  aims  to  create  an  integrated  transport 
network  in  order  to  achieve  the  objectives  of the  single  market  and  to  strengthen  economic  and 
social  cohesion.  Finally,  the  future  enlargement  of the  European  Union  will  see  the  extension  of 
the  existing  EU  legislation,  includmg  that  concerning  trans-European  networks,  to  the  acceding 
countries. 

3.  Competition between and  within ports  is  increasing due  to  a number of factors.  The realisation  of 
a  liberalised  internal  market  including  the  market  in  transport  services,  technological  changes 
including  the  application  of information  technology  and  standardisation of loading  units,  and  the 
development  of the  trans-European  network  are  all  drawing  the  different  parts  of Europe  closer 
together  and  providing  transport  organisers  and  users  with  greater  choice  in  an  intermodal 
transport  environment.  This  increased  inter-changeability  brings  into  sharper  focus  any  factors 
distorting  trade  flows  between  Member  States  arid  underlines  the  need  for  a  Community 
framework in order to ensure the principle of free  and fair competition. 

-1-.  Ports are important not only as centres of regional economic and social development and as part of 
the maritime transport system but also  as  interconnection points between seaborne and  land-based 
modes  of transport.  The  Common Transport  Policy,  as  set  out in  the  Commission's  White  Paper 
in  1992,  emphasised  the  need  to  develop  a  more  balanced  transport  S) ~tcm by  promoting  more 
environmentally  friendly  transport solutions such as  intermodality and  short sea shipping.  From  a 
maritime  and  ports  perspective  this  concept  was  further  endorsed 
in  the  Commission's 
Communication  on  Short  Sea  Shipping  (1995)2  and  in  the  recent  Communication  "Shaping 
Europe's Maritime  Future  (1996) 3
.  However,  while  European  ports are  handling more  goods than 
ever  the  scale  of  intra-European  maritime  traffic  is  not  fulfilling  expectations  as  a  desired 
alternative to  a consistently increasing road transport sector. 

) .  The port sector has so  far  not been at the centre of the European transport policy debate.  The purpose 
of this  paper is,  therefore,  to  launch a discussion on the European port sector to  identify those  issues 
which need to  be addressed at Community level with a view to the development of,  where necessary, 
coherent policies on individual port issues which should improve the performance of the sector while 
supporting the economic and  social  needs of the  Community.  The  main objectives  of such  policies 
should  be,  firstly,  to  help  increase  port efficiency  and  improve  port  and  maritime  infrastructure  by 
to  meet  the 
integrating  ports 
Community's  responsibilities  under  the  Treaty  to  ensure  free  and  fair  competition  in  the  port 
sector. 

the  multimodal  trans-European  network  and,  secondly. 

into 

: 1\ecordi11g tu  figures  provided  by  the  Member Stales 
- The Den:lopmenl  of Shor!  Sea  Shipping  in  F11rope:  Prospects and  Challenges.  COi'.·1(95 )J 17.  05.0h.!)5. 
; "'Sh;1ping  h1ropc:'s Maritime  Future"'  - a Contribution  to  the  Competitiveness or i\1;1riti111c  Industries.  ( '( ):\·!  (96)X·l  or  I J.IU.!J(>. 

6 

2.  EU  PORTS AND THE  ECONOMY 

2.1  In  general 
6.  EU ports handle approximately 2.7 billion tons of cargo per year (1996 figures).  In  addition, ports 
the 
provide  essential  connections  to.  peripheral  countries  and 
development of the  tourism  industry.  Turnover  in  EU  ports,  by  maritime  region,  in  1993  was  as 
follows: 

islands  and  contribute  to 

Region 

Deep Sea 

Inter-Regional 

Regional 

Total 

Baltic Sea 

North  Sea 

Atlantic 

Mediterranean 

TOTAL 

47 
359 
136 
270 

812 

121 
494 
219 
146 
980 

98 
355 
19 
245 
717 

266 
1209 
374 
661 
2510 

Table  1.  Estimated turnover in EU ports by region  1993 [million tons/ 
The main features of recent developments in these four regions are summarised in Annex I 

7.  Profound  trends  in  trade  liberalisation  and  globalisation  of the  world  economy  are  having  a 
significant impact on international seaborne transport and ports, with long term effects difficult to 
predict.  These trends have drastically weakened the  link between manufacturing and the  location of 
factors  of production  and  have  stimulated  a  noticeable  shift  in  manufacturing  activities  towards 
countries with a comparative advantage. 

8.  In  their  tum,  too,  developments  in  international  transport  and  communication  technologies  have 
been  instrumental  in  shaping these  processes.  Containerisation and  multimodal  integrated transport 
have  revolutionised 
trading  arrangements  for  higher  value-added  goods  and  have  given 
manufacturers  and  shippers  more  control  and  choice  over  the  "production-transpo11-distribution" 
chain.  Transport  efficiency becomes even more  necessary due  to  the  nature  of value-added  goods 
which  require  fast  transit  times  from  origin  to  destination  in  order  to  increase  traders'  turnover 
and  minimise inventory costs. 

9.  The  capital-intensity  of modern  shipping,  as  a  result  of the  need  to  achieve  economies  of scale 
and  to  offer  a  more  frequent  service  of  higher  quality,  has  led  to  considerable  capital 
concentration  in  the  industry.  Carriers  are  forming  new  alliances  and  logistic  companies,  often 
linked to  European distribution services.  Such rationalisation of services  requires  carriers  to  limit 
their  ports  of call.  Concentration of cargo  in  a  limited number of ports  may  make it  more  viable 
for  high-volume modes such as  rail  to  be used  but it  could alternatively  lead to  an  increase  in the 
use of road transport and thus run counter to  a policy of shifting freight transport from  road to  sea. 

l O.Undoubtedly,  further  trade  liberalisation will  create new and  stronger trade  flows  and demand for 
shipping  services.  Industry  observers  are  not  yet  clear as  to  the  "type"  of shipping  required.  On 
the one hand, some see a continuing increase in ship sizes.  On the other hand, others point out that 
the  trends  of  world-wide  port  development  (making  direct  port  calls 5  financially  attractive), 
diseconomies  of scale  in  major  ports,  the  development  of transport  infrastructure  in  peripheral 
Europe and  a  future  road  pricing policy  less  favourable  to  long-distance  haulage could all  lead  to 
smaller ships  making direct  port  calls.  The  effect  could  be  a  more  balanced  traffic  flow  and  port 
development in Europe. 

I I. Whatever the  likely  future  scenario,  one  thing remains clear.  Europe's export competitiveness in 
a  global  economy  increasingly depends on efficient and  cost effective transport and  port systems. 

1  Figures estimated on  the  basis or lJN  Commodity Trade Statistics  for  1993  and  port turnon:r data  provided  by  the  i\k111ber  States. 
',\direct port  call  is\\ hen  a\ CS'-.CI  goes directly  to  the  llnal  port  of destination  i11stc;1d  or Cltlling  ill  a (lilrgc)  hub  port  fir:;t  in  on.kr to 
reload  the  cargo  into a smaller  keder vessel. 

7 

Furthermore,· the  substantial  emphasis the  Union  attributes  to  the  development of trans-European 
transport  network,  aiming  at  closer  economic  and  social  integration,  creation  of employment, 
growth,  and  sustainable moqility,  emphasises  the  role  ports  have  to  play  in  the  transport  system. 
Indeed,  the· d~velopment 9f the  Union's  multimodal  network  would  be  seriously  incomplete 
without including interconnecting points such as ports. 

12. The  Commission,  therefore,  finds  it  important  to  promote  the  port  sector  through  a  number  of 
measures  and  actions  aimed  at  improving  its  overall  performance:  These  include  actions  to 
improve port efficiency, remove harmful obstacles to trade and promote improvements in port and 
port-related  infrastructure  so  that  ports  reach  a  high  standard  throughout  the  Community  taking 
into account the existing regional differences. 

2.2  The  changing role of ports in  an  increasingly competitive environment 
13.In  Europe,  as  in  many  other  parts  of the  world,  ports  have  often  been  seen  by  governments  as 
growth-poles  and  fulcrums  of national  and  regional  development,6  and  ports  \Vere  often  used  as 
instruments of regional planning. Many Member States have done so by steering State investment, 
through  regional  policies,  towards  ports  and  port-related  infrastructure,  in  order  to  encourage 
national  development.  Over  time,  the  major  European  ports  have  become  commercial  transport 
and  service  centres  for  international  and  intermodal  transportation  with  increasing  container  and 
roll  on - roll  off (Ro-Ro)  facilities.  For these  kinds  of operations,  the  cargo  handling  services  are 
now  largely  standardised  and  rationalised  and  therefore  less  labour  intensive.  However,  these 
ports  still  create  value  added  activities  by  becoming  handling,  service,  distribution  and  logistics 
centres  for  all  modes  of  tr~nsport,  providing  new  telematic  and  technological  solutions,  less 
burdensome  administrative  procedures  and  becoming  active  commercial  players  in  the  transport 
chain. 

14.The  completion  of the  internal  market  and  the  existence  and  further  development  of  inland 
intensified  competition  among  ports  significantly, 
transport  networks  across  Europe  has 
particularly  competition  aimed  at  attracting  unitised  transhipmen.t  cargo.  The  disappearing 
national  (captive)  hinterlands  mean  that  pricing,  port  development  and  financing  decisions  of a 
particular  port  may  have  marked  effects  on  its  neighbours,  nationally  l.:..nd  internationally.  This 
raises  the  question  of the  relevance  and  desirability  of a  more  co-ordinated  approach  to  port 
de\'elopment  at  pan-European  level  aimed,  inter  alia.  at  ensuring  that  ports  compete  on  sound 
commercial  grounds,  both  for  existing  and  new  trade,  and  at  the·  same  time  highlighting  the 
crucial  role of ports  in  the  optimisation of trans-European transport network.  However,  it  must be 
borne  in  mind  that  ports  are  part of the  overall  transport  system  and  that  investment and  pricing 
policies  in other modes of transport  may seriously  affect them. _Therefore.  a  new approach  to  the 
port sector should also be seen in the  broader intermodal context. 

3.  EU  PORTS AND THE COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY 

3.1  General 

15.Although  p01is  have  so  far  not  been  at  the  centre  of the  development  of the  common  transport 
policy,  their  importance  to  the  transpo1i  system  is  already  reflected  by  their  inclusion  in  a 
significant  number  of Community  policies.  Past  and  current  developments  in  these  fields  are 
summarised  in  this  chapter.  Subsequent chapters  address  in  greater  detail  two  areas  of particular 
importance  for  the  future  deve]opment  of the  common  transport  po] icy:  financing  and  charging 
for infrastructure and port services. 

Ch;1r;1ctc1istic  c..;amplcs  or  this  approach  can  bl"  fo 1 11;rf  in  the  rvlaritimc  Industrial  Dcvclop1111.:nt  i\rcas  (MID/\)  or  Rotterdam. 

,\111wnp.  l.L·  I lavrc,  f\-larscillc  and  Cicnoa. 

' 

8 

3.2  The role of ports in the Trans-European  Transport Network 
16.Articles  129  b and  c  of the  Treaty  on  the  European  Union  gowrn  the  development  9f the  trans 
European  transport  network  (TEN-T).  It  requires  the  EU  to  promote  the  interconnection  and 
interoperability  of national  networks  and  access  to  them.  taking  into  account  the  need  to  link 
island.  landlocked  and  peripheral  regions  of the  Union  with  its  more  central  areas.  The  aim  is  to 
enable  citizens  of the  Union,  economic  operators  and  regional  and  local  communities  to  derive 
full  benefit  from  the  internal  market.  Clearly,  interconnection.  interoperability  and  TEN-T 
optimisation  in  general  cannot  be  achieved  if ports  are  not  included  in  the  equation  as  a  crucial 
element of an integrated European transport network. 

17.In brief, the objectives of including ports in the TEN-T strategy can  be  summarised as: 

•  Increasing the efficiency of the European transport system: 
•  Encouraging  grow1h  of intra  EU  trade  and  trade  with  third  cou:1tries  including  the  Community's 

nearest neighbours (EFT A,  Central and Eastern Europe, iv!editerranean and  North Africa): 

•  Overcoming congestion of the  main  land-corridors and  minimising the  external costs of European 

transport by  contributing to  the development of short sea shipping: 

•  Improving  the  accessibility  of  peripheral  regions  and  strengthening  the  economic  and  social 
cohesion  within  the  Community  by  enhancing  the  Community· s  internal  maritime  links.  paying 
particular attention  to  island and peripheral regions. 

18.The  guidelines 7  for  the  development  of TEN-T,  setting  out  the  priorities  of the  EU's  transport 
infrastructure  policy,  do  not  include  a  map  of ports.  However.  following  a  request  from  the 
Parliament  \Vhen  the  guidelines  were  adopted.  the  port  element  is  nO\\.  being  adapted  in  order  to 
include  a  map  of  ports  and  revised  criteria  for  identifying  projects  of  common  interest.  The 
inclusion  of  seaports  as  important  interconnection  points  is  consistent  '' ith  the  concept  of  a 
rnultirnodal  network.  Objective  criteria.  such  as  freight  turno,·er  figurl's.  han~ been  employed  to 
establish the  ports  to  be  included  in  the  map.  Fm1hermore.  it  must  take  into  account  that  one  of the 
aims  of EU  transport  policy  is  to  promote  short  sea  shipping  and  that  the  maritime  element  of the 
net\rnrk often ensures important links to  peripheral areas and  islands.  This  \rnuld  imply  including 
ports  in  all  parts  of the  Union  in  which  projects  eliminating  bottlenech:s  can  be  located.  \\·hile 
keeping  in  mind  that  including  too  many  ports  could  be  counterproductiw  to  short  sea  shipping 
which  requires  a  concentration  of cargo  to  be  feasible.  It  will  therefore.  be  necessary  also  in  the 
future  to  consider  introducing  additional.  objective  criteria  for  the  identification  of  ports  that 
could enhance the  integration of ports into the  multimodal chain. 

19.ln  order  to  integrate  ports  into  the  multimodal  network.  priority  needs  to  be  given  to  projects  of 
common  interest  \vhich  improve  missing  links  between  the  ports  and  other  modes.  in  particubr 
railways  and  inland  waterways.  and  to  the  implementation  of Electronic  Data  Interchange  (EDI) 
projects.  The funding  of such projects will  be  discussed  in  Chapter  IV  of this  paper. 

Action 

The  Commission  considers  the  full  integration  of ports  into  the  TEN-T  desirable  for  the 
establishment  of the  multimodal  network  taking  into  account,  in  particular,  the  need  to 
ensure  links  to  the  peripheral  areas  and  to  encourage  short  sea  shipping.  A  proposal  to 
adapt the present guidelines for the development of TEN-T accordingly  is  being presented 
in  parnllel to this Green  Paper. 

3.3  Connections to neighbouring third countries 
20.The Treaty and the  TEN-T guidelines permit co-operation \vith  neighbouring countries  in  order to 
promote projects of mutual  interest and  ensure  the  interoperability of nct\\Orks at  a 1xm-Europcan 
level.  One of the  aims  is  to  connect the  TEN-T ,,·ith  nctm.Hks  outside  the  LI nion.  particularly  with 

7  Decision  N°  161)2/96/FC  or  the  Euro1wan  Parli~1111e11t  and  l)r  thL'  ( .llllllCil  or  23  .luh 
lkvdopllll'll( or thc  trans-Europc'11l  Ill"(\\ orh:. 

j l)I)()  llll  (  'orn1111111ity  ( iuidcli1ll'S  ror  the 

Central  and  Eastern  Europe  and  the  Mediterranean area.  This  has  become even  more  important  in 
the  light  of the  forthcoming  enlargement  of the  EU  in  order  to  achieve  a  full  integration  of the 
acceding  countries.  To  facilitate  this  integration  and  prepare  for  accession,  the  Comi11ission  has 
launched a process of Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment (TINA) 8
.  The port and maritime 
sector  is  of considerable -importance  to  the  economies of a number of those  countries  expected  to 
join  in  the  first  round  of  accession  and  substantial  investment  \\·ill  be  needed  in  transport 
operations and  infrastructure  (including  ports)  both  prior to,  and  follO\ving,  accession to  promote 
their convergent development \Vi th  the  rest of the  Community. 

this  means  continuing 

~ l .Gi \·en  the  opportunities and  initiatives  for  increased  trade  between  the  EU  and  neighbouring  third 
countries,  it  is  a  desirable  objective  to  promote  standards  in  these  ports,  particularly  those 
ir1\'oh·ed  in major trade flows  with the  EU,  which are comparable to  standards found  in the Union. 
In  general. 
the 
implementation  of basic  standards  concerning  safety  and  environmental  protection  and,  where 
necessary.  improving  security,  monitoring  and· registration  arrangements  for  cargo.  Community 
funds  l'rom  the  PHARE  and  T ACIS  programmes  (in  the  Baltic,  Adriatic  and  Black Sea  Regions) 
the  MEDA9  programme  (Mediterranean  Region)  could  offer  assistance  towards  the 
and 
achievement  of these  goals.  Furthermore,  Waterborne  Working  Transport  Groups  have  been  set 
up  in  order to  actively encourage co-operation by  identifying projects of mutual  interest. 

the  process  of  i·ehabilitation  and  modernisation, 

Actio11 

The  future  enlargement of the  EU  emphasises  the  need  for  extending  the  TEN-T  to  o·ur 
neighbouring  countrie~.  The  Commission  will  continue  to  work  with  all  neighbouring 
third  countries  in  the  relevant fora  in  order to  identify  projects of mutual interest and  to 
use available funds in the most efficient manner. 

3.4  Ports as transfer points in the intermodal transport chain 
~~.I rnernwd~:tl ity  is  an  e~scnti'11  component  of the  European  Union· s  Common  Transport  Policy  for 
-.,usui 11~1 b le  mo bi Ii ty.  l ts  objecti n.~  is  to  den~lop a  framework  for  an  optimal  integration  of the 
different  modes  and  utilisation  of their capacities,  so  as  to  enable  an  efficient  use  of the  transport 
s\·stem  through  seamkss.  customer-oriented.  door-to-door  sen·ices  fa\'ouring  innovation  and 
c~)mpcti ti on b~t\veen transport operators. 10 

.... 

, 

~3. Ports  are  crucial  connecting  points  in  intermodal  transport.  transferring  goods  and  passengers 
bet\\·een  maritime  and  land-based  modes.  Higher port efficiency thus contributes to  the  integration 
of modes  in  a  single  system,  allowing  better  use  of rail 11
,  inland  watenvays  and  sea  transport: 
modes  that  by  themselves  do  not  always  allow  door-to-door  delivery  as  is  the  case  for  road 
transport. 

2-LOnc  of the  main  requirements  of intermodality.  and  a  prime  object in:  in  the  development  of the 
TFN-T.  is  that  transport  modes  are  physically  linked,  for  example  through  better  hinterland 
connections  to  ports.  However,  successful  intermodality  is  dependent  on  a  number  of equally 
important  factors  that  have  to  be  identified  and  addressed  in  the  future.  For  example.  the  use  of 
more  than  one  transport  mode  results  in  additional  transfer  costs,  the  risk  or reduced  reliability 
and  more complex administrative procedures. The  use of modern  information systems is  crucial  in 
this  respect.  Such  systems  are  already  in  use  in  the  larger  European  ports  but  are  still  important 

I 11l'  11"..\  prnCL':'S  \\;IS  i11itiated  h:  tile  joint  111eeti11g  ur  tile  Tr:lll~port  Council  and  the  '.\li11i:-te1s  ll(  the  ten  ;1cceding  Clllllltries  in 
\  ,·1:11,11  .111d  i  ;h1L111  Lurope.  This  J'l'l•L'L'-;s.  ~uppclrll'd by  l't1nds  frl>ill  the  Pli;1rc  \lulti-( \lt111try  Tr:111-;p<lrt  l11'<1;,:r;1111111L'.  aims  ;it  dclini11g  a 
.~:lei!L  11  :\-1  111  tl1e  l'11L1rt'-ed  I 1111P11  It  is  b:ised  on  the  IL'.\ t'-uidcli11l's  ::nd  includes :tll  nwtks ol'tr;111spmt 

I ilL'  \11,1)  \  1111llli11g  is  direL·tcd  ltl\\:1rds  l'rnjL'l'lS  in  \\hich  \\\O 11r  lll!lrc  ClHllltriL'S  in  the  rL·gio11  :ire  ill\llhL'ci. 
·  l11tl'lllHHL1l1ty  and  l11tcr111odal  Freii,:ht  Tr:111sp1lrl  in  the  1:urupe<111  l !11ill11:  1\  Systc111s  ,\ppro:1ch  lo  Frl'ight  1·r:111-,pPrl.  ( ·!lmmi~..;ion 

c·cl111111u11ic:1tio11.  C<  )\!(l>7)2-U  tin;il.  :2lJ  O.:'i.<n. 
11  The  (\11nlllissio11  is  <;t1pporti11g  tile  de\L'lo11111enl  ol.s11l:h  :1  sy~lL'1n  in  the  fr:1lllL'\\<llK  oi'tlie  Ith  11'  I r.111'-!'tlrl  !·'.!I)  i'rPf-'r:1111111l·  (i.L· 
< l'ilRIS  projL'cl). 

I 0 

12

missing  links  in  other parts  of the  Union
.  The  aim  for  future  projects  in  the  ticlJ  of intcrmodality 
\Viii  be  to  ensure  interoperability  and  interconnection  between  such  systems  e.g.  to  develop  one 
common  information  system  optimising  communication  between  the  port  anJ  its- customers. 
reducing  paper  requirements  and  improving  the  service  and  management  of  ports.  Equally 
important  are  measures  su~h as  standardisation  of loading  units 13  and  harmonisation  of relevant 
regulations. 

Action  In  order  to  optimise  the  role  of  ports  in  the  door-to-door  transport  chain  proper 
. infrastructure  links  to  the  TEN-T  are  vital.  However,  equally  important  are  other 
measures  such  as  standardisation  of  loading  units,  integration  of  telematics  etc.  The 
Commission  will  support  actions  to  improve  the  port's  position  as  intermodal  transfer 
points  including  financing  of  ·research  and  demonstration  projects  in  the  area  of 
management systems, and  measures to  foster  innovation  and  to  support the development 
of a competitive intermodal transport system. 

3.5  Ports and the development of short sea shipping in  Europe 
25.The  promotion  of environmentally  friendly  modes  of transport.  in  particular  short  sea  shipping. 
and  their  effective  integration  in  multimodal  transport  chains  and  net\rnrks  is  a  central  objective 
of  the  Union· s  transport  policy.  Ho\Yever,  despite  the  increasing  turnon·r  in  European  ports. 
intra-European maritime traffic  has  not as  yet  been able  to  demonstrate a distincti\'C  increase  in  its 
market  share  vis  u  1'is  that  of the  road  transport  sector.  A  number  of factors  can  account  for  this 
including  terminal  costs  and  turnaround  times,  lack  of  appropriate  infrastructure.  institutional 
rigidities  in  ports.  poor  adaptability  to  multimodal  transport  systems  and  lack  of information  to 
shippers. 

26.In its  Communication on Short Sea Shipping 14

. 

,  the  Commission set  out  a framework  of initiatin~s 
necessary to  promote short sea  services  in  Europe,  stressing the  need  for  imprO\:ed  port  efficiency. 
Within  the  Maritime  Industries  Forum,  created  by  the  Commission  in  1992.  the  panel  on  Short 
Sea  Shipping  has  repeatedly  addressed  these  issues  and  made  recommendations  to  the  Industry. 
the  I'v1ember  States  and  the  Commission.  An  important  issue  in  this  respect  has  been  the 
complexity  of  documentary  and  procedural  requirements  in  ports.  gi\·en  that  a  number  of 
cumbersome  procedures  and  practices  still  exist,  mostly  beyond  the  port" s  own  control.  that 
impose  significant  costs  on  commercial  operators  and  put  maritime  transport  at  a  disadvantage 
compared  to  other  modes.  The  Commission  is,  therefore.  currently  undertaking  a  fact-finding 
study  to  identify  requirements  in  ports  that  affect  maritime  trade  in  Europe  and  compare  them 
with  those  prevailing  in  inland  transport.  Customs  requirements  and  the  efficiency  of customs 
authorities  in  processing  documentation  are  particularly  being  addressed. 
this  context. 
implementation  of EDI  systems  is  seen  as  an  important  tool  to  impro\'C  the  flow  of inrormation 
bet\vecn custom authorities and  the other parties  in  the  transport chain.  If needed.  the  Commission 
\\ill  recommend  actions  aimed  at  the  streamlining of procedures  and  intcgr~1te them  into  maritime 
transport and  across the  transport chain as  a whole. 

. 

In 

27 .The  Commission  has  put  forward  in  July  1996  a  draft  Counci I Regulation 1 ~  which  provides  l't1r 
the  extension  of  the  PACT 16  programme.  The  new  PACT  1xm·idcs  for  support  to  combined 
transport projects  including short sea shipping.  A number of projects  arc  ~1lrcady being  den~lopcd 
with PACT support in  the  framework  of the  1997 exercise. 

i: The Commission  is  suppor1ing  the den:lopment  of such  sysll'ms  in  the  frarne\\!11l  u!'the  sp1.·c1lic  lrd11s1~(lrt  Progr:1111111e  u1'('0111111u11it.' 
Research  and  Development ( INTIJ\PORT and  130PCO~ I)  and" ithin  the  fra111ework  lll' the  l11!(1111i;1tiu11  SP1.'i1.'l.'  ( i\ I:\ RI R,\ NS). 
I;  ,\  Ile\\'  COST  Action  (COST  339)  Oil  technical  :ind  econnlllic  Cl)flditions  ror  the  l-:urope;111  \\ idL'  (lj11,_T;1tin11  pj' SllLlil  i11krn111d;il 
tr;111sport  units (slllall  containers).  is  cmrently  umkr preparation.  This <1Ltinn  is  aiming to  de\ 1.'l\\p  pr1.·-sLmd;1rds. 
11  Till'  Den:l(lp1m:11t  11!' Slwrt  Sc;1  Shipping  in  l·:uro111,_·:  l'rospccts ;111d  Ch:llknges.  CO:.. l(lJ) )317.  O:'i.(1(1  (J:'i. 

1

1

' 

( 

' (   ),\fi<)(,:335  llr1<il  ,,( ~7 ./uh  I<)<)(,_ 
' '   l'ilut  .-\L'tions  ror  Cu111hi11cd .Transp(l!l. 

11 

'.28.Co-operation  among all  parties  in  the  transport  chain  is  necessary  if short  sea  operators  are  to  be 
effecti\'ely  and  competitively  engaged  in  door-to-door  transport  solutions.  Notwithstanding 
commercial  considerations,  co-operation  among  ports  should  be  encouraged,  particularly  in  the 
area of telematics, the  streamlining of procedures and  the exchange of know-how. 

29.Howewr,  one  of the  most  important  factors  that  could  be  instrumental  in  boosting  Short  Sea 
Shipping  in  Europe  is  a  cost  recovery  pricing  policy  in  road  transport  that  would  better  internalise 
its external costs.  Such a policy, already  suggested by  the  Commission in  its  Green Paper Tmvards 
a  Fair  and Efficient  Pricing  in  Transport' 7
,  is  expected  to  make  competition  among  ports  and 
transport  systems  fairer  and  more  efficient,  leading  to  a  more  balanced  distribution  of traffic 
across  Europe. 

A ctio11 

The  Commission  will  continue  to  see  the  development  of short  sea  shipping  as  one  of the 
priorities  of  the  future  transport  policy.  In  doing  so,  it  'viii  consider  ways  to  streamline 
procedures  in  ports,  give  priority  to  short  sea  projects  in  the  framework  of  the  TEN-T, 
continue to  support actions  in  the framework of Research  and  Development  and  of the new 
PACT programme.  Furthermore, the  Commission  intends  to  take the  issue  of pricing in  the 
different transport modes  fonvard with  a  new  communication  on  infrastructure charging in 
a  multimodal perspective. 

3. 6  Maritime safety and the environment 
JO.Ports  are  the  most  obvious  points  where  compliance  with  international  or  EC  mant1me  safety 
regulations  can  best  be  checked  and  uniformly  enforced.  The  Community's maritime  safety  policy, 
aimed  at  the  elimination  of sub-standard  shipping  through  the  proper  enforcement  of international 
legislation.  is  primarily  focused  on ships.  HO\vever,  the  policy has  also  a direct  impact on ports, as  it 
requires  them to  co-operate in the  implementation or enforcement of the  legislation 18  and to  ensure a 
high  level  of port  sen·ices  such  as  pilotage,  mooring  and  towage  that  are  intrinsically  related to  the 
safety  of ships.  Equally.  the  absence  of unifo1111  application  of safety  rules  among  ports  can  lead  to 
dist011ions  of competition  and  this  is  an  important  consideration  to  be  taken  into  account  \vhen 
examining possible ne\\' initiatives in the field of maritime safety. 

31.The  Commission  is  cunently  examining  the  conditions  for  the  harmonised  application  \Vithin  the 
Community  of various  provisions  of the  International  Maritime  Organisation  (IMO)  in  relation  to 
cargo-handling  operations.  The  mandatory  application  by  ship  and  terminal  operators  of the  draft 
l!'vfO  Code of Practice  for  the  safe  loading and  unloading of bulk caITiers,  as  \\·ell  as  its  enforcement 
through port State control, would  significantly enhance safety in  this area.  Furthermore. compliance 
with  regulations  concerning  stov.'age  and  securing  of cargo  and  safety  of cargo  lifting  equipment, 
such  as  the  Convention  of the  International  Labour  Organisation  (ILO)  n°  152  on  occupational 
risks 19

,  \vill  contribute to  the safety"and protection ofw9rkers involved in  cargo operations. 

32.In  the  area  of  crn·ironmental  protection,  a  number  of  international  conventions,  codes  and 
resolutions  have  been  issued  by  the  IMO.  The  Community  has  already  started  to  take  measures 
towards  the  convergent  implementation  of  these  international  rules  and  legislation20  and  port 
authorities  will  ha\·e  to  play  an  essential  role.  Perhaps  the  most  relevant  upcoming  legislation 
affrcting  ports  in  this  respect  will  be  a  proposal  for  a  Directive  on  the  use  of waste  reception 
facilities  in  European  ports,  which  the  Commission  sen'ices  arc  currently  drafting.  This  proposal 

17  To\\ ards  Fair  and  Ertici-:nt  Pricing  in  Transport:  Policy  Options  for  Internalising  th-:  L:-..:tcrnal  Cnsts  of Transport  in  the  European 
Union.  COi'v1(95)691,  final. 
1 ~  The  uniform  enforcement  of international  ruks  for  all  ships  operating  in  Community  \\'atcrs  is  the  purpose  of Directi\c  95/21/FC 
on  Port  State  Control  (PSC).  The  Directi,·c  requ-:sts  port  authorities  ;rnd  pilut;1ge  sen ices  to  rn-opcratc  hy  prO\ iding  rl.'.kvant 
information and  assisting  PSC  inspectors  in  detecting and  targeting sub-standard  ships  for  pri\1rity  insp-:ctiuns. 

1 

1

'

Occupational  Safety and  I kalth  (Dock\rnrk) Comcntion ( 1979). 

0  Legislation  lids  already  hccn  ;1doptcd  (or  (i)  nutilic;1tiun  rcq11ircmrnls  for  ships  C:lrl) ing  d;tll1:,'.l'IOUS  or  pPlluting  1:,'.lHlds.  dnd  (ii) 
=
11romotio11  \ll'cnviro11111e11t<tlly  friendly  oil  t;111kcrs  (SHT  Rcguhtion). 

12 

springs  from the recognhion  that  operational  discharges  from  ships  are  at  an  unacceptable  level  in 
spite  of the  obligations  under  the  MARPOL  convention.  The  draft  Directive  is  being  designed  to 
enhance the present availability and adequacy of reception facilities  in  EU  ports  and  to ·secure  their 
use  by  ships.  The  preven_tion·  of operational  or  intentional  oil  spills  at  sea  should  furthem1ore  be 
enhanced  by  the  elaboration of wide-scale  monitoring  programmes,  and  measures  such  as  training 
and more efficient legal int~rventions. 

33.h)frast~ucture projects  can  have  a  negative  impact  on  the  environment  and  have  always  to  be 
considered  in  the  context  of environmental  legislation  and  through  appropriate  environmental 
impact  asse~sment.  Ports  are  _often  in  proximity  to  populated  areas,  or  areas  where  particular 
attention  must  be  given  to  protected  or  endangered  habitats  and  species.  As  a  result,  port 
development  is  often  confronted  with  special  circumstances  and  constraints.  Community 
legislation  is  already  in  place  to  address  this  problem  and  promote  environmentally  friendly 
solutions,  such  as  the  Directive  on  environmental  impact  assessment21  and  the  Wild  Birds  and 
H  b.  D' 

a  1tats  1rective 

.  22 
. 

34.In  addition,  new  port  developments  should  also  be  considered  in  the  light  of  an  integrated 
frame\vork  for  coastal  planning taking  into  account  the  socio-economic  and  environmental  needs 
and constraints of the surro·unding coastal area. The proposed Council Directive on the assessment 
. of the  effe~ts of certain plans and  programmes  on the  environment23
,  which  has  been adopted  by 
the  Commission, coulCi  play an  important role  in this  regard.  Strategic  environmental  assessment 
of transport development plans will improve the consideration of alternatives and the involvement 
of the  various  authorities  and  the  public  in  the  planning  process.  Furthermore,  with  assistance 
from  the  Commission,  the  European  Seaports  Organisation  (ESPO)  has  published  a  Code  of 
Conduct providing a quality framework for a programming action with respect to the protection of 
the environment within port areas. 

35.New technology  and  more  efficient  operations  should  be  seen  as  better  options  through  making 
the  best  use  of existing  facilities  instead of providing new ones.  In  areas  with a  large  number of 
ports,  better co-ordination and  specialisation among  them  could  also  reduce  the  demand  for  new 
port  development.  Finally,  demand  driven  decisions  can  also  help  in  this  direction,  as  they  will 
reduce  the  risk  of over  capacity  and  foster  efficiency  in  ports.  Where  new  developments  are 
needed environmental regulations must be properly and consistently applied. 

Action 

The  Commission  will  continue its  efforts  to  ensure effective  and  uniform  enforcement of 
compliance  with  international  legislation  rules  by  all  ships  entering  EU  ports  and  the 
harmonised application within the Community of IMO and ILO provisions  related to  the 
ship/port  interface,  such  as  cargo-handling,  techno-nautical  services  and  protection  of 
workers involved  in cargo operations. Furthermore, the Commission finds  it is  important 
to  ensure  environmentally  friendly  solutions  in  the  port  sector  and  at  sea,  such  as 
enhancing  the  present  availability  and  adequacy  of reception  facilities  in  all  EU  ports.  In 
order to  improve the integration of environmental considerations  in  the  planning of port 
development,  the  Commission  will  continue  to  promote  the  development  of integrated 
coastal  planning  and  management,  including  strategic  environmental  assessment.  The 
Commission  will  continue  its  work  in  fostering  new  technology  in  order  to  make  port 
operations as efficient as  possible and to ensure a  better use of existing facilities. 

1Council  Directive  of 27  .lune  1985  on  the  assessment  of the  effects  of certain  public  and  private  projects  on  the  environment, 
: 
amcndt:d  by the Council  Directive 97/11  of March  1997. 
::Council  Directive  of 2  April  1979  on  the  conservation  of \vild  birds  (79/409/EEC)  and  Council  Dirccti\'c  or 21  May  1992  on  the 
conservation of natural  habitats and or wild  fauna and  tlora (92/43/EEC). 
~ 1  Cotv1(96) 511  fin<ll  OJ  Cl29 of 25  April  1997. 

13 

3. 7  Research and development 
36.A substantial  part of the currently  ongoing specific  R&D  programme on transport  is  ~edicated to 
ports-related  research  including  those  already  mentioned  favouring  intermodality  and  short  sea 
shipping24
.  These  actions  include  public/private  finance~ R&D  projects  developing  information 
and communication~ cargo tracking and tracing and AEI2:i  systems; analyses of the administrative, 
information and  organisational  framework  of ports;  and  accordingly  developing  decision  support 
tools  for  (re-)  organisation,  resource  planning  and  management of ports  and  their role  as  transfer 
points  in  the  intennodal  transport  chain.  They  address  also  enviro11mental 
issues  such  as  the 
application  of MARPOL  rules  in  ports,  efficient  dredging  and  the  relations  between  ports  and 
their  urban  environment.  Complementary research on new transhipment technologies  is  currently 
addressed by the Industrial and Materials Technologies (IMT) Programme. 

3 7 .New  technologies  such  as  Geographic  Information  Systems,  and  in  particular  Electronic  Chart 
Display  and  Information  Systems  (ECDIS)26
,  are  currently  being  assessed  and  integrated  to 
support  traffic  management  in  port  areas  and  therefore  improve  efficiency  and  safety  of 
navigation.  The  development  of a  Cargo  Black  Box  (CBB)  will  contribute  to  the facilitation  of 
customs procedures in ports and should therefore provide, in the  future,  a  remedial  tool  for  one of 
the  major  obstacles  to  a  more  widespread  use  of  short  sea  shipping.  Newly  developed 
methodologies  such  as  Formal  Safety  and  Environmental  Assessment  (FSEA)  will  also  provide 
indexes  to  assess  quality,  safety  and  environmental  measures.  Among  the  environmental 
initiatives  are  the  Commission's  demonstration  programme  on  integrated  coastal  management. 
The  aim  of this  programme  is,  amongst  others,  to  improve  the  co-operation  between  authorities 
and individuals involved in coastal development. 

Action 

The Commission will  continue to  support maritime and  port projects  under the  present 
and future R&D  programmes.  The Commission  has included  in  its  proposal for the 5th 
Framework  Programme  on  Research  and  Development27  two  key  actions  which  are 
relevant to  port related  research: "Sustainable Mobility" and "Marine Technology". The 
aim  will  be 
the  operability,  reliability,  economic  performance  and 
environmental  compatibility  of  ports  and  to  dev~lop  ports  as  part  of  the  intermodal 
transport  chain.  For example  a  major challenge  will  be  the  inte~rration of commercial 
and  safety-related  information.  Future  R&D  should  also  provide  tools  to  allow  policy 
makers  to  assess  differ.ent  policy  scenarios,  including  those  needed  to  follow  up  this 
Green Paper. 

improve 

to 

4.  FINANCING AND CHARGING  FOR PORTS AND MARITIME 
INFRASTRUCTURE 

4.1  Diversity of national approaches and current trends 

38.The  financing  of ports  and  maritime  infrastructure  in  Europe  and  policies  on  charging their  users 
vary  considerably.  reflecting the  considerable differences in  the  way  in  which their ownership and 
organisation  has  been  approached.  Ports  may  be  owned  by  the  State,  regional  or  local 
governments  or  by  private  enterprises.  Their  management  are  often  dependent  on  public 
authorities and subject to  different degrees ofregulation and  supervision.:  ln the  past, ports tended 
to  be  seen  mainly  as  trade  facilitators  and  growth  poles  for  regional  and  national  development 
providing services of general  economic interest by the  public sector and  \\ hich  principally  were to 

2
"  ,\cl ions  to  promote  SSS  is  aln.:ady  being  undertaken  within  the  4th  Framework  Programme  on  R& I>  tlm,ugh  the  Concerted  Action 
on  Short  Sea  Shipping. 
='  1\utomatic equipment  identilication 
=<·  In  addition  to  the  transport  R&D  programme  there  arc  currently  two  COST  Actions  addressing  pPll  isst1es.  namely  COST :no  as 
lllL'ntioncd  before and  COST .:r:2r)  on  l-:lectronic Chart  Display and  lnli.w111<1tion  Systems. 

27 

COM(97)  142 

be  paid  for  by  the  taxpayer.  Whereas  now the trend  has  increasingly  moved  towards  considering 
ports  as  commercial  entities  which  ought  to  recover  their  costs  entirely  from  port  users  who 
benefit  from  them  directly ..  At  the  same  time,  certain  port  and  maritime  infrastruct\.1re  such  as, 
breakwaters  and  certain  navigation  aids,  have  in  the  great  majority  of  I\i1ember  States  been 
traditionally  regarded  as  public  goods
,  while  a  number  of port  services  (mainly  the  nautical 
technical  ones  described  be'low)  also  carry  public  service  obligations  due  to  their  relationship  to 
port safety and the protection of the environment. 

28

39.Despite the wide variety of approaches to  financing port facilities and services, however, there is a 
discemib.le  current  trend  towards  greater private  participation  in  port  activities,  particularly  those 
of a  predominantly  commercial  nature  such  as  cargo  handling.  As  a  result,  financing  of port 
facilities  for  such purposes is  increasingly becoming the responsibility of the private sector,  while 
the  port  authorities  tend  to  restrict  themselves  more  and  more  to  their  "landlord"  role  and  the 
financing and operation of those facilities  which  are essential to  the safe and efficient operation of 
the  port as  a  whole.  At the  same time,  there  are  indications  that  in  future  some ports  may  seek to 
develop  a  more  active  commercial  role,  in  co-operation  with  private  partners  inside  and  outside 
the port, to  provide a door-to-door service to customers. 

40.The  trend  towards  greater  private  sector  participation  in  ports  can  be  explained  by  both  current 
economic  considerations  and  by  a  notic~able shift  in  attitude  regarding  the  function  and  role  of 
ports.  Firstly,  the  need  for  projects  to  be  economically  or  even  financially  viable  is  seen  as  a 
necessary discipline  in circumstances where resources for infrastructure development have proved 
to  be  scarce  and  when  the  involvement  of the  private  sector,  either  on  its  own  or  in  the  form  of 
public/private  partnerships,  is  accepted  as  a  growing  and  desirable  development. 29  Second.  the 
fact that ports are used mostly for commercial ends, the often narrow range of users they serve and 
the  typically private  organisational  structures they adopt,  differentiates  them  from  the  pure  public 
goods  to  which  they  had  often  been  compared.  Thus,  the  port  industry  is  increasingly  viewed  as 
moving  from  a  situation  where  predominantly  public  capital  was  used  to  provide  common  user 
facilities,  to  one  \vhere  capital  from  different  sources  is  being  used  to  provide  terminals  which 
serve  the  logistical  requirements  of more narrowly defined groups  of commercial  users.  In  such a 
way,  the  "general  economic  interest"  argument  loses  weight  leading  to  a  more  commercial 
attitude towards pricing and infrastructure funding. 

4.2  EU approach to  date 

-+I  .At  the  level  of the  EU,  financing  and  charging  for  port  and  mant1me  infrastructure  has  been 

approached with some caution, given the variety of approaches at  national level. 

42.As  regards  State  aid  policy,  the  Commission  has  taken  the  view  that  public  investment  in  port 
infrastructure which is  accessible to  all  users on a non-discriminatory basis is  not to  be considered 
as  State aid  within the meaning of Article 92 of the EC Treat/ 0
.  Such investments have thus been 
considered as  general  measures,  being expenditures  incurred  by  the  State  in  the  framework  of its 
responsibilities  for  planning  and  developing  a  transport  system  in  the  interests  of the  general 
public.  The  same  applies  to  navigation  aids  and  other  maritime  infrastructure  of benefit  to  the 
whole  maritime  community.  On  the  other  hand,  where  particular  investments  favour  certain 
operators  rather  than  others,  they  are  considered  to  be  aid  but  may  benefit  from  the  exemptions 
provided  for  in  the  Treaty,  for  example,  in  the  case  of regional  development  projects  which  are 
exempted under Artie le  92 (3) ( c ). 

::s  In  the  sense  that  (i)  no  particular  user  can  be  excluded  from  their  use  if  he/she  is  not  pn:pared  to  share  in  the  costs  of their 
production:  (ii)  the  consumption  of user;\  docs  not  affect  the  consumption  of user  B:  and  (iii)  the  cost  of their  production  docs  not 
\'my  with  consumption. 
c'!  1\s  has  becn  stressed  in  the  final  report  of  the  I ligh  Level  Group  on  Public-Private  Partnership  Financing  of  trans-Eun)pcan 
Transport  Net\\ Ork  Projects (Vll/321/97) and  follom:d  up  with  a communication of the  Commission COM(97) 453  linal. 
;"Open  t1sc  or  tile  port  infrastructure  is  usually  considered  to  imply  th;1t  access  should  he  open  to  (i)  all  users  of tile  facility.  i.e. 
,J1ippLTS'\ L''>',L'/s  ;111d  (jj) ;Ill_\'  ll/'LT;l!Ol'  th:1t  is  illkl'L'S!Cd  ill  OJlCrating  the  l'acility:  !"or  C:\:l!llpJc  hy  Sclcctillg_  the  0)1l.'.r<1tor  through  <Ill  Of1~11 

k11tkr111~  11rl'l'l'dur..:. 

I 5 

.+3 .An  essential  condition  for  the  effective  and  fair  application  of the  State  aid  provisions  outlined 
above is  financial  transparency of port accounts.  Such  accounts should  identify the  financial  flows 
from  the public authorities to  the  port sector and  allow meaningful  comparisons across pt1rts  to  be 
made.  Currently,  however,  due  to  the  complexity  of the  institutional  and  financial  regimes  for 
ports  and  maritime  infrastructure  in  Europe,  the  financial  relationships  between  the  public  sector, 
the  ports and other undertakings operating within them are often not clear. 

31 

.+.+.The  Commission  Directive  80/723

on  the  transparency  of financial  relations  between  Member 
States and public undertakings applies to public ports  whose annual  turnover  exceeds 40 MECU 
during the two  financial  years preceding that in which public funds  are  made available.  However, 
irrespective  of  the  turnover,  the  Commission  requests  information  from  the  Member  States 
whenever it suspects that State aid may have been granted to  certain ports,  for example,  following 
complaints.  According to  existing case-law in  this area,  the  Member States are  obliged to  provide 
information  at  the  request  of the  Commission  also  in  situations  where  economic  activities  of an 
industrial or commercial nature are integrated into the State administration. 

-1-5.The  Commission  is  currently  examining  possible  amendments  to  the  transparency  Directive  in 
order  to  be  able  to  request  information about  financial  flows  \Vithin  undertakings  with  a  view  to 
verifying  possible  cross  subsidisation.  The  obligation  to  keep  separate  accounts  for  different 
activities  would  apply  to  all  those  undertakings,  public  or  private,  irrespective  of their  turnover,  . 
which on the one hand operate in reserved sectors for which they receive compensation (exclusive 
rights or subsidies) for  public service obligations and on the other. operate in  non-reserved sectors 
in competition with other enterprises. 

-1-6.As  regards  policy  on  the  Trans-European  Transport  network  (TEN-T)~ the  approach  has  been  to 
assist  port  and  port-related  actions  of  common  interest  only  with  feasibility  studies,  thus 
recognising  that  there  can  be  strong  competition  for  trade  between  ports  and  that  care  should 
therefore  be  taken  not  to  distort  those  relationships.  Accordingly.  port  and  port-related  projects  of 
common interest can,  at  present,  be  located  in  any  Community port.  The  projects  can  be  located  in 
the  port area or they can provide the  po11  with better maritime/river access or link  it to  the TEN land 
network.  Emphasis is  placed on projects which improve port efiiciency and  eliminate  bottlenecks. 
The  Commission  considers  the  projects  against  a  set  of objective  criteria,  including  a  criterion 
relating  to  potential  economic  viability,  and  also  against  background  information  about  maritime 
transport  and  p011  systems  in  the  Union.  No  attempt  has  been  made  to  impose  a  centrally 
determined system of port development nor in general to  play a  leading role  in  providing new port 
capacity. 

-1- 7.At  the  same  time,  in  eligible  regions,  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  ERDF  have  been  used  to  support 
new  and  improved  facilities  necessary  for  economic  development  and  the  fulfilment  of public 
service  obligations  such  as  the  provision  of accessibility  to  peripheral  areas,  while  taking  into 
account  the  framework  established  by  the  TEN-T  guidelines33
.  All  Cqhesion  Fund  countries  and 
many areas covered by the ERDF are on the periphery of the EU, having substantial coastlines and 
often  many  islands.  A  well-integrated  maritime  sector  \Vill  accordingly  contribute  to  the 
development of the  single  market and to  a  more balanced economic development.  as  envisaged  in 
the Treaty. 

-1-8. HO\\·ever.  ports  in  these  regions  have  to  be  adequately  prepared  to  take  on  the  challenge.  Many 
ports  concerned  are  characterised  by  10\ver  levels  of efficiency.  I mprovcmcnts  are  necessary  to 
ensure  that existing and  future  facilities  are  used  as  effectively  as  possible,  to  enable  ports  to  take 
their share  of the  increased  traffic  in  the  single  market and  to  allow them  to  play  their proper part 
in  a  more balanced distribution of traffic.  It should also  be kept in  mind  that the  lack of focilitics  at 

; 

1  Commission  Din:ctin~ 801723/l·:EC  (0.J  L  195  nf 29  .July  1980).  as  amended  h:- Dirnti\ c  X). 1-l  I :n-:i:c  (0.1  I 229  or 28  August 
1985)  in  order to  cover.  inter alia.  the transport  sector. 

1 () 

one  end  of the  mant1me  chain  can  eventually  damage  the  efficiency  and  image  of  maritime 
transport  as  a  whole.  The  aim  is  thus  to  brin.g  ports  at  both  ··ends··  up  to  the  highest  possible 
standards in order to  benefit the overall port system. 

49.As  regards  charging  policies,  the  EU  has  not  so  far  intervened,  leaving  these  to  he  decided  at 
national,  regional  or  local  level  except  in  so  far  as  they  may  be  relevant  in  assessing  public 
interYentions as  State aids. 

4.3  Search for new direction 
50.In  recent  years,  hm\·e\·er,  trends  in  port  organisation  and  financing  have  led  to  calls  for  a  new 

direction in EU  policy. 

51.A  study  on  European  seaports  ordered  by 

the  European  Parliament 

l 993~q.  while 
acknowledging  that  there  are  different  financing  an-angements  in  individual  ports  which  need  to 
be  respected,  concluded  that  there  is  no  fundamental  difference  between  investments  in  port 
infrastructure  and  other capital  intensive  investments  in  industrial  complexes.  Therefore,  there  is 
no  reason  for  adopting  a completely  different  approach  to  port  investments.  and  consequently  no 
justification  as  to  why  the  direct  users  should  not  bear  the  costs  of such  irn·estments.  The  study 
suggested  that  the  introduction  of  market  principles  in  infrastructure  \vorks.  except  for  those 
related  to  maritime  access  and  defence,  would  be  the  most  effective  remed\·  to  avoid  the  risk  of 
creating wasteful overcapacit/ 5 and possible distortions of trade floyvs  bet\\-~en !\frmber States. 

in 

5~.Indeed, the  liberalisation of transport  markets  and  the  development  of the  TEN-T  has  resulted  in 
inten>ified  competition  between  ports36
.  For  example,  the  development  of the  Trans-European 
Rail  Freight  Freeways  connecting  both  Northern  and  Southern  ports  with  central  industrial  areas 
will  draw  Europe  closer  together  and  further  intensify  competition  bet\\·een  ports  in  different 
regions,  in  particular,  in  the  field  of container traffic  \vhere  considerable  gro\\1h  rates  ha\·e  been 
seen  in  the  last  5 years  (see  Annex  II  maps  1-5).  The  increasingly  competiti\·e  situation  is  calling 
into  question the  EU"s  policy on  ports as  it  has developed to  date. 

::;_~.The  same  applies  to  the  trend  for  an  increasing  number  of  ports  to  recowr  at  least  some 
infrastructure  inwstments  costs  through  related  port  charges.  Fundamental  considerations  of fair 
competition  and  economic  efficiency  suggest  that  in  this  context  as  i.n  others,  transport  users 
should  as  a  matter  of principle  be  paying  the  cost  of the  infrastructure  \\·hich  they  exploit. 37 
Moreover,  mobilisation  of private  capital  to  finance  sensible  investments  \\·ill  not  be  attractin~ if 
public  funds  can be  used elsewhere to  finance  competing developments with  little or no  guarantee 
of an  adequate return.  A sound allocation of resources  in  the port sector as  a \Yhole  will  depend  on 
investment  decisions  being  taken  within  a coherent  frame\vork  for  ensuring  that  costs  are  passed 
on to  port users. 

54.ln  developing  this  framework.  however,  a  number  of factors  must  be  kept  in  mind  which  \Yill 
affect  the  manner  in  which  the  user-pays  principle  is  applied  at  Community  level.  First.  as 
indicated  above.  port  organisation  varies  considerably  between  and  ewn  \\·ithin  Member  States. 
Some  of  these  forms  of  organisation  are  complex  and  deeply  rooted  in  the  history  of  port 
development in  Europe.  There  is  a need  for  analysis of these different  situations as  a pre-condition 
to  successfully  designing  a  framework  which  respects,  to  the  greatest  extent  possible.  different 

'~European Sea  Port  Polin'.  a  study  co111missio11L·d  by  the  l~uropcan Parliamc111·s  Directorate  ( lener~il  t'1.\r  RL'SL';1rch.  1·r;111sport  SeriL·s 
1-:-1.  1993. 
''.\nother  r.:ccnt  study  includes  tipircs  \\hich  indicate  that  in  (J  main  ports  in  tile  l,e  I Ll\ re  - l L11nburg  range  suhstanti;il  c;1p;1cit) 
.1dditions  rur  container  t';1cilities  arc  l'orl'SL'Cll.  \\ ith  (Ill  U\L'rall  increase  or SOlllC  .u  ·~;,anticipated  f'pr  the  llL''>\l  6  YL'(lJ'S  i.L'.  (1  °o  ;1nnt1;tl 
lkJlL'11di11g  011  thL'  scL·n;i1ios  for  th.:  1·uturl'.  tr;1rtic  demand  the  l'\u:ss  c1pacity  hy  2000  \\ould  r:111gc  bet\\L'Cll  20"i,  and  .I()'~;,. 
111,JL\tsl'. 
/0  :oos.  Oc.:an  Shipping  ConsulL1nts.  ( 9t>7.  and  t'unhcr  cl;1bor;itiun  dPnc  by  the 
I,-,,, 
C u111111issill11 
•(•  :\ltlwugh  the  overall  tr;msit  costs  thrnugh  ports  may  not  constitute  a  high  proportion  in  the  case  or'  deep  sea  transport  ot' the  tntal 
door to  door costs (5-1 ()'~·;,)  in  thL'  c;1sc  of short  sea  shipping such  port  CllSts  constituk bdwccn -10-<iO  0  o  ,,f th..:  h1tal  C\JS\S  ;\lld  influence 
th.:rel"orc  the  choice or port and Ctn  distort  trade  llm\ s. 
n  Towards Fair and  FniciL·nt  Pricing  in  Tr;lllsport.  ( '( )i\1('>5)(1<) I  linal.  20.12. l ')'>5. 

!:11r11;1t'<111  cu11tu111tT  111(11·/..t'f 

;1rosJ!i't l.1 

-

17 

long  established  traditions.  Second, a  number or European  ports  an:  located  in  less  developed  and 
peripheral  areas  or  on  islands.  Often,  these  ports  represent  the  only  link  to  the  rest  of the  Union 
and  constitute  the  centre  of significant  economic  activity  in  their  region.  They  a·re  therefore 
important parameters  in  the  Union's cohesion policies  which  will  need  to  be  respected  if the  cost 
the 
. based  charging  principle 
interdependence  of  transport  modes  and  related  infrastructure.  some  of  them  falling  under 
different  legal  and  financial  regimes,  necessitates  not  only  a  consistent  step-by-step  approach  to 
the financing and pricing of port infrastructure,  starting from  investnients within the port, but also 
coherence  with  developments  concerning  the  pricing  of other  transport  infrastructure  as  well  as 
the  provision  of  ample  time  for  ports  to  adjust.  Special  attention  has  to  be  given  to  the 
Community's policy on combined transport. 

to  be  given  a  more  systematic  application. 

Finally, 

is 

4.4  Towards a  Community framework on port financing and charging 
55.If the  Union  is  to  develop  a  more  uniform  approach  to  ensuring  that  the  costs  of ports  and 
maritime infrastructure are charged to  the users  it  will  require to  proceed  in  stages  in a  number of 
fields:  charging  practices  and  systems  including  transparency  of port  financing  and  development 
of State  aid  rules.  Any  ne\v  approach  will  have  to  be  co-ordinated  with  the  TEN-T  and  other 
financial  support for infrastructure development. 

4. 5  A framework for port charging 
)(J.  l'raditionally  a  distinction  is  made  at  management and  administrative  levels  bet\veen the  services 
and  facilities  inside  the  port  and  infrastructure  outside  the  port  area  (hinterland  connections  and 
maritime access). 

lVithin  the port 
57.The  current diverse  arrangements  for  port financing  and  charging  involve  growing  distortions  of 
competition.  Subsidies  can  allow  ports  and  operators  to  reduce  prices  and  divert  business.  The 
State  aid  regime  permits  certain  situations  to  be  addressed  but  according  to  the  existing 
Commission approach public financing of infrastructure represents a general  measure of economic 
policy which cannot be  controlled by  the Commission under the  Treaty  rules  on State Aid  as  long 
as  the  use  of  the  infrastructure  is  open  to  all  potential  users  in  a  non  discriminatory  way. 
Reconsidering this  approach for  ports  would obviously have an impact on  infrastructure financing 
in general.  This issue will,  however.  be  looked at in the  communication on infrastructure charging 
that  the  Commission  will  prepare  in  1998.  In  order  to  address  the  distortion  of competition,  the 
Commission will  examine the possibility of developing a framework  for  port charging.  This is  the 
approach explored in this Green paper and developed below. 

58.A  Community  framework  on  port  charges  would  require  charges  to  be  linked  with  costs  and 
contain  guidelines  on  the  extent  to  which  port  charges  should  reflect  the  cost  of infrastructure 
investments.  It would  form  the  subject  matter  of a  Council  directive  establishing  an  appropriate 
framework  \Vhilst  leaving sufficient scope for  divergent traditions  in  port  organisation.  This could 
take  the  form  of  minimum  requirements  on  charging  principles  that  would  have  to  be  met 
throughout the Community. 

59 .Port  charging  systems  in  the  Community  differ  considerably  between  European  ports.  They 
nevertheless  include  certain  basic  elements  such  as  a  description  of the  port  facility  and  services 
covered  by  each  type  of port  charge,  the  basis  of  the  individual  charges  and  the  method  of 
calculation. In general. three types of payment can be distinguished in  the  ports38 
- those related to 
the  provision of services and  facilities  to  enable a  ship  to  enter safely  and  use  the  port;  payments 
for  specific  services  or  supplies  rendered;  and  rents  or  charges  for  the  use  of land  or equipment 
owned  by the port.  Depending on  the  individual  port.  these  charges  reflect  to  varying degrees the 
use  or services  and  facilities  both  of which  should  be  addressed  in  a  future  charging  frame\vork. 

;x  .. RL'port  ol"an  l'nquiry  into  thl'  Cll!Tl'nt  situation  in  thl'  111a_jor  l'o111111unity  sl'<1  porb ...  !·:~;po_  llNh. 

18 

As  regards  the.  former,  the  future  framework  could  lay  down  certain  general  principles  for  a 
charging system for port services with a  view to ensuring that the prices charged reflect the cost of 
the services provided (see also chapter 5). 

60.As  for  infrastructure  different  charging  approaches  are  possible:  1)  Average  cost  pricing,  which 
would  guarantee  full  cost  recovery;  2)  charging  for  operating  costs  only;  and  3)  marginal  cost 
pricing  (those  methods  are  developed  further  in  A1mex  III).  Ports  in  some  Member  States  are 
already  reflecting,  to  varying  degrees,  infrastructure  costs  in  port  charges,  the  extreme  being  in 
certain  countries  where' ports  are  privately  owned  and/or  operated  as  commercial  entities  and 
recover all  new investments and maintenance costs of infrastructure fully  from users. 

39 

61.The  long  term  objective  of an  infrastructure  pricing  policy  should,  in  principle,  be  to  charge  for 
marginal social costs which cover capital, operating and external
costs of infrastructure use.  This 
policy  would  ensure  that  port  customers· are  faced  with  all  costs  that  their  transport  decisions 
imply  for  society  as  a  whole.  The  approach  would  maximise  economic  welfare  and  promote 
economic  efficiency  as  long  as  this  principle  also  applies  to  other  related  markets.  Provided  that 
investments  decisions  are  made  on a  rational  economic  basis  such an  approach  would,  over time, 
lead  to  a  high  degree  of cost  recovery.  The  application  of this  principle  to  the  port  sector  would 
ensure  that  investments  are  demand  driven  because  only  investments  for  which  there  is  market 
demand  can  be  recouped  financially.  If the  principle  is  applied  systematically  across  Europe  it 
would make a significant contribution to ensuring fair competition in the port sector. 

62. The alternative of imposing the principle of average cost pricing (full  infrastructure cost recovery) 
would,  in  the  current  situation,  be  characterised  by  overcapacity  in  some  regions,  lead  to  strong 
increases in port charges as  past  investments  in ports  would also  have  to  be fully  recovered.  More 
importantly.  it  would  lead  to  significant  inefficiencies  since  there  is  no  economic  rationale  for 
requiring current users to  pay for  sunk costs. 

63 .At  the  other  extreme,  requiring  charges  to  be  aligned  with  operating  costs  only  would  not  come 
close  to  providing  users  with meaningful  signals  regarding  the  costs  that  their transport  decisions 
imply.  In  particular,  this  approach  would  not  cover  the  costs  of new  investments.  As  a  result 
pricing  would  be  inefficient,  the  port  sector  would  continue  to  incur  large  financial  deficits,  fair 
competition  between  EU  ports  would  not  be  ensured  and  the  problem  of  creating  new 
overcapacity not addressed. 

6-t.The  Commission,  therefore,  considers  that  port  charges  could  be  set  in  line  with  ~narginal costs. 
\Vhich  would  also  take  into  account  new  investments.  Clearly,  operational  definitions  and 
measurement  issues  \Vill  have  to  be  addressed  and  care  will  have  to  be  taken  that  the  charging 
guidelines can be easily implemented in practice (see Annex III) . 

.  65.The  charging  framework  would,  in  principle,  apply  to  ports  with  international  traffic.  The 
question arises  whether the  application of this  principle would  have  a  different  impact on  smaller 
ports  in  need  of expansion  compared  to  large  ports  in  which  significant  capacity  expansion  has 
already occurred.  Insofar as  ports  in economically less developed and peripheral areas are  lagging 
behind in terms of port facilities,  this issue  is  also dearly relevant to  the  impact on cohesion of the 
proposal. 

66.The  rebtive  impact  depends  on  the  way  in  which  the  charging  principle  is  implemented,  the 
extent  of overcapacity  in  different  ports,  the  costs  of capacity  expansion  in  individual  ports  and  a 
variety  of other  factors.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe,  however,  that,  as  a  general  rule,  smaller 
ports  will  be  disadvantaged  compared  to  large  ports  by  the  application  of the  proposed  charging 
principle. 

'"This relates to  the environment.  congestion  and  accidents costs which  arc generally described  as  c:-;tcrn;ilitics since they  ;ire  c:-;tcrnal 
to  those\\ lw ca11se  them.  anJ therefore  not  p;1rt  or the  prices  paid  by  transport  users. 

19 

67.However,  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  proposed  approach  does  not  conflict  with  the  objective  of 
fostering  cohesion  in  the  Union,  further  analysis  is  required  as  to  whether  special  rules  should 
apply to  ports in  Objective  1,  cohesion and peripheral  regions (for example, allowing-port charges 
in  the$_e  regions  to  be  set  at  a  certain  %  of marginal  costs),  whil_e  at  the  same  time  ensuring  that 
such flexibility  does not breach the competition rules. 

68.A  charging  framework  would  also  be  based  on  transparency  of the  systems  applied  by  different 
p01is  in order to ensure fair competition between and within ports and at the same time enable the 
users to  check whether th~y are receiving the facilities  and services they are being charged for. 

69 .In  addition,  as  already  indicated,  the  Commission  has  so  far  treated  public  financing  of 
infrastructure  as  a  general  measure  of economic  policy  falling  outside  the  rules  on  State  aid  as 
long as the use of the infrastructure is open to  all  potential users  in a non discriminatory way.  The 
including  port 
existing  Commission  approach 
infrastructure,  will  be  examined  in  the  context  of  a  wider  policy  in  a  communication  on 
infrastructure charging for all modes of transport that the Commission will prepare in 1998. 

infrastructure, 

investments 

tB  public 

in 

Action  Accordingly  as  a  first  step,  and  in  order to  update the  information  on  the  financial  flows 
from  the  pubHc  sector  to  the  various  types  of ports  in  the  Member  States,  notably  the 
1  amounts and form  of financing involved, the Commission intends to  make an inventory of 
public finance given to main ports with international traffic as well as  charging practices in 
these  ports.  This  information  will  be  a  useful  input  in  the  further  elaboration  of  the 
charging  framework  wheri 
impact  of  the 
implementation  of  the  framework  on  port  tariff  regimes  and  determining  a  suitable 
transition period. 

for  example, 

the  possible 

·evaluating 

If the  Union  is  to  develop  a  more uniform  approach  to  port charges,  a  framework should 
then be included in  a  proposal for a  Council directive. The framework could be based on a 
principle  of recovering  the  cost  of new  investments,  operating  and  external  costs  both  to 
ensure  that  new  investments  are  demand  driven  and  to  ensure  fair  competition  between 
ports  in  the  longer  term.  Attention  will  also  be  given  to  the  need  for  flexibility  to 
accommodate the needs of less  developed regions  and to  take into account external costs in 
parallel with other 'developments in the transport sector. 

The  implementation  of  a  Community  approach  to  port  charging  and  financing  would, 
furthermore,  have  to  be  progressive  and  dovetail  with  the  development  of  a  general 
approach  to  infrastructure  charging  and  financing  for  all  modes  of  transport.  The 
Commission intends to  prepare a communication 'on  an intermodal approach to this matter 
in  1998 which will,  on  the basis  of the discussion  on  this  Green Paper, address the existing 
approach  to  public  investment  in  infrastructure  and  suggest  concrete  steps  on  the 
development of an appropriate framework for ports.  -

In  the  State aid  field,  and taking  into  account  the  information  that will  be  obtained  from 
improved  transparency of port financing,  the Commission will  continue to  examine public 
financial  support for  assets  used  by  und.ertakings  in  carrying out commercial activities  in 
ports.The  Commission  considers  financial  support  that  benefits  particular  operators  as 
distinct  from  others,  as  State  aid  in  accord~nce with  the  Treaty  provisions.  Such  an 
approach  will  contribute  to  improving  the  application  of  a  cost  recovery  principle  by 
ensuring  that  except for  situations  covered  by  the  derogations  in  th~ Treaty,  investments 
will  be  financed  by  port  undertakings  on  a  commercial  basis  and  accordingly  their  cost 
passed  on to  users. The need to  link rules  on  State aid  to  the proposed framework on port 
charges will be considered in the context of setting up such a framework. 

20 

Outside the port 

70.Inter-port  competition  is  also  affected  by  hinterland  and  maritime  access  to  the  port  and  pricing 
policies in land transport modes.  A  users-pay policy for all  modes of transport, as  suggested by the 
Commission,  could  affect  the  distribution  of cargo  flows  among  European  ports.  Clearly,  the 
elaboration of a  general  infrastructure charging framework  for  all  modes  of transport is  necessary 
to  ensure a  balanced development of pricing policies across the  different modes  of transport.  The 
above mentioned Communication on an intermodal approach will  also  elaborate how the charging 
principles for port infrastructure could be integrated in a more global approach. 

71.The  implications  of the  cost  recovery  principle  for  two  specific  types  of infrastructure,  maritime 
access  to  ports  and  navigational  aids,  deserves  special  attention and  is  examined  in  the  following 
paragraphs. 

Maritime access 

72.A number of European ports,  mainly those  of the North Sea,  are  located  on  river estuaries or are 
river  ports  subject  to  chronic  silting.  The  provision  of adequate  maritime  access  in  these  ports 
requires  substantial  yearly  outlays  for  dredging,  which  are  at  present  in  most  cases  publicly 
funded.  Although  there . is  no  a  priori  reason  why  maritime  access  should  be  treated  any 
differently from other port infrastructure,40  the  unqualified and abrupt application of the  user-pays 
principle in this  case would gravely disadvantage a number of ports,  some of which are  important 
gateways to European trade, and could have a negative impact on the inland waterway traffic.  The 
desirability of applying the  cost recovery principle to  approach channels will  therefore  need to  be 
approached  with  caution 41
•  Other  possibilities  for  achieving  convergence  in  applying  the  cost 
recovery principle are likely to  prove more urgent and easier to achieve. 

Navigational Aids 

73 .Aids  to  navigation  have  traditionally  been  used  in  economic  theory  as  the  most  characteristic 
examples of a public good. 42  Apart from  the typical  lighthouses,  buoys, etc.,  modern navigational 
aids  in  busy  seaways  and  along  dangerous  or  environmentally  sensitive  coasts  include  the 
development  of radio-navigation  systems  (e.g.  LORAN-C,  GNSS),  the  physical  infrastructure 
needed  to  support VTS  or VTMIS,  and systems of mandatory ship-routing and ship-reporting. 

7 4.In several contexts, the safety or commercial interests of both local  and transiting traffic are  better 
served  by  systems  which  transcend  national  boundaries  and  could  be  developed  on  a  regional 
basis 43
•  Moreover the  importance  of several  European  seaways  to  world  trade  and  the  increasing 
sophistication  and  capital  intensity  of such  systems  make  it  unfair  to  leave  the  expense  of their 
implementation  solely  to  individual  coastal  states  concerned,  since  all  transiting  traffic  and 
regional  users  (e.g.  fishing  vessels)  stand  to  benefit.  The  risk  of doing  so  is  that  necessary  aids 
may not be provided or that States providing them may try to  recover costs in  a non-optimal  way. 
Moreover,  coastal  aids  to  navigation  benefit  a  traffic  which,  for  cost  recovery  purposes,  is 
"captive" only  if systems  are  organised  on  a  large  regional  basis.  A  Community  initiative  could 
provide  the  means  to  achieve  such  mechanisms.  Indeed  the  need  for  the  development  of  a 
Commission  proposal  laying  dO\vn  both  the  principles  for  charging  systems,  aimed  at  the 
recovery  of the  development  and  investment  costs  of such· aids,  and  a  mechanism  to  equitably 

40  Particularly when  approach channels are pro\;ided  at  such  water depth that,  although  open  to  all,  arc  really  meant for  a small  number 
of easily identifiable users. 
41 

In  other  industrial  countries  eg.  USA  and  Japan  the  approach  channels  arc  considered  as  public  goods  and  therefore  publicly 

1

funded. 
42  For a definition  see  footnote  17. 
'  In  the  context  or the  development  of a  trans-European  network  for  vessel  traflic  management  and  information  systems  (VTMIS), 
tile  Commu11ity  has  already  granted  financial  support  to  a number of port  or coastal  vessel  traffic  services  in  the  peripheral  regions of 
the  Community.  In  addition,  with  the  European  Permanent Traffic Observatory (EPTO)  project,  a tool  has  been  made available  hy  the 
Commission  to  any  port  or  VTS  in  the  Community  for  the  systematic  analysis  of local  tralfo.:  conditions  in  the  port  area  and  their 
improvement.  The  extension  of EPTO  to  a  large,  number  of ports  would  greatly  enhance  its  potential  positive  effects.  Finally.  the 
Commission  is  examining  harmonisation  measures  for  VTSs,  concentrating  on  minimum  pnl'orma1w·  n:quiremcnts  for  VTS 
cquipmrnl (interfaces between  VTS) and  harmonised  procedures to  improve ship-shore comn11111ic1tio11. 

21 

share  the  financial  burden  with  users,  was  already  identified  in  the  Commission  Communication 
"A  Common Policy on Sqfe Seas"44 

(points  I 0 I  to  114 ). 

75.As far  as  local aids to  navigation are concerned, particularly those associated  \vith  the  approaches 
to  ports,  the  principal  beneficiaries  are  local  port  users.  The  development  and  implementation  of 
navigational  aids  in  port  areas  is  therefore  closely  related  to  investments  in  or  near  the  port  and 
should  normally  be  treated  in  the  same  way.  Costs  should  therefore,  as  a  matter of principle,  be 
recovered through port dues  in  a  similar way throughout the  Community.  However,  it  may prove 
necessary  in  this  context  too  to  consider  specific  derogations  for  ports  with  long  approaches  not 
covered by a coastal cost recovery system of the kind mentioned above. 

76.In  all  these  cases,  any  proposals  will  be  consistent  with  the  broader  framework  set  by  the  trans 
forthcoming 

the  subject  of  a 

European  positioning  and  navigation  network,  which 
communication. 

is 

Action  Maritime  infrastructure  outside  the  port  area  needs  particular  attention.  fo  the  case  of 
coastal  aids  to  navigation  a  Community  initiative  should  be  prepared  to  establish  the 
principles  for  charging systems,  aimed at the  recovery  of the development and  investment 
costs  of such  aids,  and  a  mechanism  to  equitably  share  the  financial  burden  with  users. 
For local  aids  to  navigation within  the port area and  in  its  immediate approach  as  well  as 
for  dredging  of  approa•ch  channels  to  ports,  the  user-pays  principle  will  have  to  be 
examined with  caution  in  order to  take adequately into  account the different geographical 
situations in which poi:ts find themselves. 

4. 6  The  TEN-T and EU financial support for infrastructure development 
77.The future approach on the TEN-T, should be in line with the approach taken for  port investments 
in  general.  The  TEN-T  budget  line 45  should  assist  ports  as  vital  transfer  points  in  Europe's 
multimodal transport system, while recognising the potential distortive impact of public subsidies. 
The Commission, therefore, considers that the TEN-T budget line should. as a  general rule,  not be 
used  for  financing  projeets  in  the  port  area,  except  for  the  implement1tion  of EDI  systems  and 
infrastructure  projects  concerning  rail,  inland  waterway  and  short  sea  shipping  for  combined 
transport.  Priority  should also  be  given to  hinterland  projects  linking  the  ports  with the  rest  of the 
network especially with rail  and inland watenvay connections. 

78.In  eligible  regions  the  use  of Cohesion  Funds  and  ERDF,  particularly  in  Objective  1 areas,  for 
financing  infrastructure  investment  in  ports  should  continue  to  be  possible.  These  funds  should 
serve  such  priorities  as:  better  integration  of  ports  into  the  TEN-T;  improving  access  to  the 
hinterland;  and  refurbishing  the  infrastructure  inside  the  port  area.  A  balance  will  have  to  be 
struck  between  regional  policy  objectives  and  the  need  to  avoid  undue  distortion  of competition 
between ports. 

Action 

to 

improving  hinterland  connections,  especially  rail  and 

Financing  under  the  TEN-T  budget  line  will  be  concentrated  within  the  port  area  on 
feasibility  studies, EDI systems  and support for  combined  transport.  Priority will  also  be 
inland  watenvays. 
given 
Financing  from  the  Cohesion  Funds  and  ERDF  will  be  available,  primarily  serving  such 
priorities  as  better  integration  of  ports  into  the  TEN-T  improved  connections  with  the 
hinterland  and  refurbishment  inside  the  port  area.  Environmental  criteria  will  be  an 
integral part of the conditions for Community funding to  port projects. 

LI  (  ()i\1  (CJ_l)  (J(l  lill;JI  2..t.2.l<JlJJ. 
'(1L'lh:r:il  l~uks i'nr  the gr;111ting  ol'Ct1m1111111ity  Financi;il  1\ssista11ce  in  the  field  Pl'Tr:111s-L11ropc;111  Ncl\\'orks (R1.:gulatio11  N°  2236/95 
ci!  18  Scptc111hcr  I ()<)5 ). 

22 

5.  PORT SERVICES:  ORGANISATION AND MARKET ACCESS 

5.1  General 
79.Having as  their main  function  the transfer of passengers and  cargo  from  sea to  land  transport and 
vice  versa,  ports pro\·ide a  miscellany of services and  facilities,  often distinguished between those 
pertaining to  the  ship  (such as  pilotage,  towage  arid  mooring)  and  those  related  to  cargo  (mainly 
cargo-handling  and  storage).  In  addition,  a  number of ancillary  services  are  also  provided  by  the 
port,  such as  fire-fighting,  bunkering,  water  supply  and  waste  reception  facilities.  Depending  on 
the  organisation,  legal  status  and  objectives  of a  port,  port  services  can  be  provided  either  as  a 
comprehensive package or separately and on a mandatory or voluntary basis. 

80.Port services have  usually  functioned  in isolated frameworks  protected  by  exclusive rights  and/or 
legal  or  de  facto  monopolies  of public  or  private  nature.  This  traditional  organisation  of port 
services,  mainly  those  related  to  the  cargo,  has,  however,  been  widely  contested  during  the  last 
decade  as  not corresponding to  new technological  requirements  and  increasing competition.  As  a 
result,  restrictions  have  been  gradually  removed  from  the  market  of cargo-handling  services, 
which has become more commercially oriented with increasing participation of the  private sector, 
whereas  restrictions  often  still  prevail  in  the  market  for  services  relating  to  the  ship  (technical 
nautical services). 

5.2  Services related to  the cargo 

81.Among  all  port  services,  cargo-handling  has  been  the  one  most  profoundly  affected  by 
technological  de\·elopment  and  intensified  inter-port  competition,  the  latter  mainly  as  a  result  of 
the  completion of the  internal  qrnrket-i 6
.  The new tendencies  in the  market can be  characterised by 
capital  concentration.  specialisation and vertical  integration. 

82.The organisation  of cargo-handling  services  is  \Videly  dependent on the  structure  of the  port  and 
the  regulatory  frame\YOrk  for  employment.  The  continuing  trend  is  to  shift  the  provision of these 
services  from  the  public  to  the  private. sector  in  order  to  increase  efficiency,  make  use  of the 
know-how of the  pri\·ate  sector and  reduce  public  expenditure  on  port  labour costs.  To  this  end, 
legislative  reforms  have  taken  place  recently  in  a  number of Member  States  aiming  at  adjusting 
the  port labour market to  technological  and  structural  changes,  while  at  the  same time taking  into 
account  the  associated  social  implications.  Restructuring  will  enable  ports  to  take  advantage  of 
their  critical  position  in  intermodal  transport  and  to  exploit  opportunities  for  job  creation  in 
services, such as  stuffing and stripping of containers, physical distribution.  storage and packaging. 
The  development  of  new  services  \Vill  require  the  use  of  advanced  technologies  and  the 
application  of  data  highway  networks.  To  cope  with  ever  growing  qualification  demands  of 
workers,  together  \Yith  the  increasing  need  for  flexibility,  awareness  of  environmental  and 
maritime  safety  aspects,  adapted  training  concepts  need  to  be  developed  further  in  a  life  long 
learning process. 

83.Nevertheless  port  labour  rigidities  remain  characteristic  of  the  sector,  mainly  related  to  the 
registration of port \\'Orkers  and  the existence of labour pools  in  a  number of EU  ports.  They  have 
their  origin  in  the  past,  at  times  when  port  work  was  highly  irregular,  in  order  to  cope  with  the 
··peaks ...  mainly  due  to  the  unpredictable  pattern  of ship  arrivals.  NO\Yadays.  pools  constitute  the 
bridge  between the  former labour-oriented type of port organisation, based on casual employment,  · 
and  the  present  capital-intensive  one  where  direct  and  long-term  employment  relationships  with 
the  operator becomes  the  rule.  In  any  case,  they  imply  participation  and  financing  on  the  part  of 
all  operators in the port in  which they are established. 

1
"  Containl'.risation  and  thl'.  capital-intrnsivc  naturl'.  of shipping  han:  incrl'.ascd  pressures  on  ports  for  further  improvements  in  labor 
·
productivity  and  operntional  ertieiency.  In  its  efforts  to  aujust  to  the  new  demand  requirements.  the  port  industry  itself  has  also  been 
progressively  tr;111srormed  into  a  capital-intrnsive  one.  requiring  massi\ l'.  investments  in  sopliisticall'd  cargo  handling  equipment  and 
n1111n1L·nsur;1tl'.  retlul'lions  in  dirL·ct  port c111ployme11t. 

84.Independently  from  the  existence  of labour  pools,  a  priority  of employment  for  registered  port 
workers  still  prevails  in  some  Member  States:  as  recommended  in  the  ILO  Dock  Work 
Convention  137  of  1973.  Generally,  restrictions  or  conditions  for  registration  do  not  pose 
problems  as  long  as  they  are  non-discriminatory,  necessary  and  proportional.  An  obligation  for 
port operators to  pnrticipate  in the  pools and/or use  exclusively  workers  who  are  members of the 
pool ·for  their  port  operations  may,  however,  under  certain  circumstances  constitute  a  de-facto 
restriction to  market access. 

5.3  Services related to the ship 
85.Generally, the need to ensure the safety of vessels, cargo, passengers and the port community as a 
whole  has  led  to  considerable  public  invol':'ement 
in  order  to  guarantee  the  competence  of the 
personnel responsible.  The organisation of the technical-nautical  services, particularly pilotage,  is 
thus  often modelled around the "'public  service" approach,  with dues  determined  or controlled  by 
the competent national administration. 

86.Pilotage  is  a  characteristic  example  of a  mandatory  technical-nautical  service,  organised  on  a 
monopoly  basis,  in  the  majority  of European  ports.  Access  to  the  ports  is  subject  to  mandatory 
pilotage  for  vessels  exceeding  a  certain  tonnage  or  length  and  for  vessels  carrying  dangerous 
goods.  Exemption  certificates  for  frequently  calling  masters  and  vessels  (usually  ferries)  may  be 
issued, albeit on the basis of complex and diversified rules. 

87. The  degree  of public  sector  involvement  in  the  provision  of the  service  varies  widely  across 
Europe.  In some Member States,  the  service is  entrusted to  national  or port authorities  and pilots 
are,  in  this  case,  civil  servants.  In  other  Member  States,  pilots  are  self-employed  in  partnership 
associations  or collectives,  which can  be  financially  or a operationally  autonomous.  Even  in  this 
case,  hO\:vever,  public  sector  involvement  still  remains  strong  in  relation  to  licensing,  training, 
tariffs  and  quality  standards.  The  regulatory  framework  that  governs  the  provision  of the  service 
affords  pilot  associations  de  jure  exclusive  rights,  usually  limited  to  a  single  port  and  often 
associated with public  service obligations, and it  limits pilot liability in  case of accident. 

88.Although the  information  at  the  disposal  of the  Commission  concerning  the  services  of towage 
and  mooring is  more  fragmented  and  limited,  a  significant  diversity  of organisational  structures 
seems to  exi~t in Europe.  Here too,  the  services are provided either by the public or private sector, 
on a voluntary or mandatory basis~ on an exclusive basis or in competition with other operators. 

89.In the case of towage, public sector provision may involve the port authority or licensed operators 
under  exclusive  rights  where  rates  are  fixed  and  controlled  by  the  competent  port  authority. 
Where  the  service  is  provided  by  private  operators,  no  formal  restrictions  to  market  access  exist 
and  public  sector  involvement  is  generally  limited  to  ensuring  compliance  with  safety  and 
environmeutal standards.  Rates are,  in principle, freely negotiated. 

90. The  service  of mooring  is  provided  directly  by  port  authorities,  by  licensed  companies  or  co 
operatives operating under exclusive rights, or by ~1  number of private companies.  In certain cases, 
licensed  operators  are  charged  legally  or  contractually  wit.h  public  service  obligations,  ensuring 
their participation  in  emergency situations.  The  licensing  system  implies  also  the  involvement of 
port authorities, and eventually of professional organisations, in the fixing  of rates. 

5.4  Port services under the rules of the EC  Treaty 
0 I .According to  the  principle of neutrality,  guaranteed  by  Art.  222  of the  EC  Treaty.  the  Community 
must  remain  neutral  \Vi th  regard  to  the  private  or  public  status  of port  operators.  Moreover. 
the 
right  of Member  States  to  define  the  regimes  of the  services  provided  in  their  ports  according  to 
their particular geographical,  administrative, sociaL  technical  and  historical  circumstances should 
be  respected.  However,  the  rules  of the  EC  Treaty,  also  apply,  in  principle,  to  port  undertakings 
and  authorities.  Irrespective  of the  regime,  public  and  private  port  undertakings  should  compete 

24 

under  equal  conditions,  as  regards  port  services  of a  commercial  nature47
.  When  port  authorities 
themselves,  as  public  undertakings,  provide  port  services  of a  commercial  nature,  like  cargo 
handling  in  competition with other operators,  which  they  are  indeed  free  to  do,  separate  accounts 
should  be  kept  for  these  activities.  The  proposal  to  amend  the  Transparency  Directive  will  make 
this requirement explicit (see paragraph 45). 

92.The European Court of Justice and the European Commission haw adopted a number of decisions 
in  relation  to  ports,  particularly  in  the  field  of competition.  Concerning  the  application  of the 
competition rules  to  port  services,  the  Com1  of Justice  condemned  in  one judgement a  regime  of 
stevedoring  services,  which  \Vas  based  on  the  dual  monopoly  of port  operators  and  dock  work 
companies. as  an  abuse  of a dominant position 48
.  Subsequently. the  discriminatory tariffs  charged 
by  pilot  corporations  in  a  port  were  held  to  be  incompatible  with  EC  competition  rules 49
.  In 
addition, the Commission has also  adopted decisions applying competition rules to  the port sector, 
;nrer  aha.  condemning port undertakings,  acting both as  port authorities  and  shipping  companies, 
(mostly ferry  operators), for  having refused their competitors access to  essential port facilities. 50 

93.This  legal  tendency  to\vards  the  more  systematic  application  of Treaty  rules  in  the  port  sector  is 
consistent  with  the  European  Union's  policy  to  encourage  modernisation  and  efficiency,  taking 
into  account  structural  developments  in  \Vorld-wide  competition  and  the  need  of companies  to 
seek  out  better  quality  at  reasonable  prices.  This  becomes  en~n more  important  when  users  in 
practice  may  haw limited possibilities to  choose amqng ports. 

LJ-t.ln  addition  to  the  competition  rules,  the  functioning  of  port  services  regimes  have  to  be  in 
confcirmity  with the  major freedoms  guaranteed  by  the  EC  Treaty  (freedom  of establishment,  free 
movement of  workers,  goods and  services).  The  Commission must nevertheless take into account 
safety  requirements  and  public  service obligations  aimed  at  ensuri1}g  the  continuity of the  service 
on a non-discriminatory basis and  overcoming of emergency  situations.  The  above  considerations 
may  constitute  legitimate grounds  for  restrictions  in  the  access  to  the  market  for  the  provision of 
the  technical-nautical  services.  The  size of the  port.  or the  optimal  organisation of some  services. 
notably the  technical-nautical ones.  may  be  among those  factors  determining  the  scope  for  market 
access. 

95.I-lm\·e\'er.  no  restriction can  be  unconditionally justified.  The  established  conditions regarding  the 
nature  of the  restriction  and  the  evaluation  of the  service  as  one  of '·12,eneral  economic  interesC 
have  to  be  fulfilled 51
•  In  this  context,  the  Commission  will  assess.  f~llo\ving  the  principle  of 
proportionality,  whether the  same  objectives could not be  achieved  by  less  restrictive  practices  or 
even  without restrictions  at  all.  The  challenge,  therefore,  is  to  combine  safety  imperatives  as  \Vell 
as  public  service  obligations  with  a  structure  compatible  with  competitive  patterns.  This  is 
particularly  relevant  in  cases  where  a  single  undertaking  is  operating  both  services  falling  under 
the  scope of Article 90  of the  EC  Treaty and  ones of purely commercial  nature 52

. 

%. l 11  caSl.'S  where  the  interplay  of market  forces  is  still  limited.  Jttcntion  has  to  be  focused  on  the 
tari !ls  appl icd  in  order  to  ensure  that  prices  are  fair.  transparent  and  rdkct the  costs  incurred  in 
the  provision  of the  service.  A  lack  of correlation  between  applied  tariffs  and  rendered  services 

17 

Only  the  economic  acti\ itics  in  the  port.  and  not  the  puhlic/administrative  onrs.  an:  capable  or  !"ailing  "ithin  thl.'.  scope  or  the 
L'ompctition  rules.  The  Court  has  recl.'.ntly  held  in  the  '"Cali  case~·  (CJJ:C  1813197,  o/T  C-3./3:95.  Diegn  Cali  &  Figli  Sri!  Ser\'i:::i 
L'cologici  /lOrtn  di  Ge110\'ll  S/J.-/  (.~PEC;J.  u11p11hlishcd).  that  article  86  of the  Treaty  docs  not  ;1pply  to  the  legal  monopoly  or  anti 
pollution  control  on  thl'  gro11nds  that  this  actiYity  is  inherent to  the  essential  prerogati,·L's  of thl'  Stall.'.  responsible  for  the  protection  of 
the  marine l.'.11\  ironment. 
·~ CJEC  10/ 12/91, Clff.  C-179/90, i\·1erci  Convcnzionali de!  Porto di Genova v.  Gabrielli  [1991]  ECR-1-5923. 
:<i  C.IEC  17.':5,'9.t  aff.  C-18,'93.  Corsica Ferries  Italia  Srl/Corpo dci  piloti  de!  porto di  Cicnon.  11994 I r:CR-1-1824. 
' I  i.e.  Decision  21112/93.  Port or Rndby.  <).)/ 11 1)/l::C.  0.11-:c  L 55/52.  2(1-2- 1).l:  Decision  21/I2N3.  l\/ 13-+.689.  S\.'.a  Cont;1iners/Scali11k. 
l).IJ-:C  l.  1:5'8.  [8-J- 1)4.  Following  the  aho\e  c:1se  C-18/<J.1.  the  Commission  considered  in  a  dccisinn  nf2J_()ctohcr  19 1>7.  tli;11  the 
rd~: I ti.'.  S)SIL'Ill  for  pi](1tagc  t;iri ffs  in  the  pnrl  or (ieJl\l;t  remains  discri111in;1tury.  in  h1"l:ach  111"  th\.'.  FC Trt.·;11:. 
'I  (  'ollllllllilil'dliPn  from  the  ( \1m111ission  ()Jl  SCI"\  ices or general  int nest in  I :mope. C0:\·1  (1)(1)  .1.13  lin:tl  tlf 11.01). I <)<)h. 
·:  111  tile  ;1h11 c c:1.-;c  ( '-17 1>.'90.  the  ( 0(1IIJ't  nplicitly  held  tli:1t  the  slc,·cdorin.!,'.  scn·iccs could  nol  qu:ili('  ;h St.'/Ticc:;  1i!' ~~:ncr;tl economic 
j Il IL'J'L'St. 

could  be  very  difficult to  justify  even  on  the  ground  of .. service  of general  economic  interest'\ 
such as  cases  where  a service  is  not  carried  out but  must  be  paid  for  all  the  same.  These elements 
emphfisise  the  significance  of adequate  monitoring  by  the  national  authorities  responsible  for  the 
approval  or fixing  of prices, aimed at avoiding excessive or abusive tarification. 

97.Self-supply,  where  the  port  users  perform  one  or  more  types  of services  for  themselves,  may  in 
some  cases  be  considered as  one  alternative  for  the provision of services.  The  significance of this 
option in practice largely depends on the nature of the service as  well  as  on local particularities.  In 
general, restrictions would only seem justified if the self-supply would be detrimental to  the safety 
stand.ards  or  the  functioning  of the  public  service  obligations  and  only  to  the  extent  absolutely 
necessary to  avoid such risk. 

A ctio11 

Port services  are  to  be  seen  as  an  integrated  part of the  maritime  transport system  as 
they  are  indispensable  for  the  proper functioning  of this  mode  of transport  and  thereby 
make  an  essential  contribution  to  the  efficient  and  safe  use  of  port  and  maritime 
infrastructure.  Current  practices  have  given  rise  to  complaints  by  users  and  potential 
suppliers of such services about alleged  breaches of the EC Treaty, which the Commission 
is  currently  examining  on  a  case  by  case  basis,  as  well  as  about  divergent  standards  on 
safety and service quality. 

5.5  Search for a new direction 
98.In  the  light  of the  above  considerations,  different  options  could  be  envisaged.  On  the  one  hand, 
the  Commission  could  continue  its  present  approach  of examining  each  complaint  on  a  case  by 
case  basis.  giving  due  regard  to  the  above  considerations.  It  \vould  apply  the  EC  Treaty 
provisions,  particularly t11e  cc)mpetition rules,  to  the  port sector,  leaving specific regulations on the 
organisation of these  services to  be  developed  at  a local,  regional  or national  level  in  the  Member 
States. 

99.Complementary  to  the  case  by  case  approach,  community  action  coul~ be  envisaged  in  the  form 
of  establishing  a  regulatory  framework  at  Community  level  aiming  at  the  more  systematic 
liberalisation of the  port  services  market  in  the  main  ports  with  international  traffic,  while  taking 
into  due  consideration  the  safety  requirements  and  public  sel"\'ice  obligations  which  are 
particularly  releYant  for  the  technical-nautical  services.  In  this  context.  the  economic  and  social 
effects of modifying the existing regimes for  the  poi:t  services \:vould  need  to  be considered. 

I 00.Such  a  regulatory  framework  \Votdd  entail  the  establishment  at  Community  level  of certain 
minimum  professional  qualifications  and  service  requirements  for  the  suppliers  of  technical 
nautical  services.  such  as  pilots,  mooring  and  towing  undertakings  based  on  both  professional 
levels and standards already  existing in  Member States and  relevant ongoing action in  this  field  of 
international  organisations.  This  would  contribute  to  enhancing  these  levels  and  stanJards  in  all 
ports  receiving  international  traffic  thereby  ensuring  that  adequate  safety  requirements  are  met 
throughout the Community, and  would moreover facilitate  the  mon?ment of these workers and the 
supply of these sen·ices \vi thin  the Community. 

I U I .The  regulatory  frame\vork  could  also  provide  common  rules  for  access  to  the  port  services 
market.  taking due  consideration or the  specific features  of this  market.  The objective  would  be  to 
ensure  that  access  to  the  market  is  attained  in  an  objective.  transparent  and  non-discriminatory 
manner,  while  taking  account  of  the  constraints  at  individual  ports.  Given  that  a  number  of 
practical  constraints  exist  mainly  due  to  safety  considerations.  sometimes  determined  by  the 
specific  geographical  characteristics  of  the  ports,  some  limitations  on  market  access  may  be 
necessary. 

I 02.In  such  exceptional  situations  where  the  access  to  a  service  is  limited  by  authorising.  often 
though  concessions or  licences.  only  a limited  number of suppliers.  it  is  essential  in  order to  avoid 
d iscri mi n:1t ion  tu  pn)\'idc  for  :1  ncutr<.il.  object i \'C  and  transp<.ircnt  sc lcction  proccd urc.  Such 

26 

authorisations,  and  particularly  exclusive  rights,  should  only  be  granted  for  a  limited  period  of 
time  that  would,  inter alia,  allow  normal  recovery  of investments.  The  public  service  obligations 
should also  be  organised in  a  fair  manner,  for  example  by  establishing a  system  whereby  all  port 
operators would bear a reasonable and fair share of the obligation to  provide permanent service, or 
by  granting  the  concession  or  license  subject  to  public  service  obligation  to  one_ single  operator, 
duly  selected,  and  compensate  for  the  extra costs  incurred  by  such  an  obligation) 3
.  The  aim  is  to 
ensure  fair  competition between operators,  both public and private,  by  preventing  some operators 
from  leaving the  less  profi.table  segments of the  market,  such as  providing the  service at night,  to 
others. 

103 .Finally,  certain  general  principles  for  a  charging  system  for  port  services  could  be  envisaged 
with  a  view  to  ensuring  that  the  prices  charged  reflect  the  cost  of the  facilities  used  and  the 
services  provided.  The  relevant  charging  regimes  for  ports  services  could  be  considered  in  the 
context of the proposed overall framework for port charges as  already described in Chapter 4.  Any 
steps towards liberalisation would need to  be introduced gradually in order to allow sufficient time 
for  the  sector  to  adapt.  Such  a  new  framework  would  in  no  way  prejudice  the  Commission's 
appraisal  of any  complaints made in individual cases on the basis of the competition rules . 

Action 

.. Complementary  to  the  present case  by  case  approach  a  regulatory  framework could  be 
developed  at  Community  level  aiming  at  a  more  systematic  liberalisation  of  the  port 
services  market in  the main  ports with international traffic in  order to  establish,  over a 
reasonable  period  of time,  a  level  playing  field  between  and  within  Community  ports 
while  ensuring  compliance  with  port  and  maritime  safe.ty  standards.  Such  a  new 
framework  would  in  no  way  prejudice  the  Commission's  appraisal  of any  complaints 
made in individual cases on ~he basis of the competition rules. 

The objective of the liberalisation measures would be to ensure open access  to  the market 
for  port  services  through  appropriate  mechanisms  and  requirements  on  the  basis  of 
transparency, non-discrimination and certain principles for charging, while determining 
an  appropriate  framework  for  the  implementation  of  public  sen1ice  obligations, 
whenever they are deemed necessary, as well as  of the safety requirements. As  an integral 
part  of these  measures,  harmonised  or,  at  least,  minimum  standards  for  training  and 
qualifications  of the  personnel and  for  the  equipment involved  should  be  established  at 
E. U.  level.  This  ensemble  of  actions  would  be  ·especially  relevant  for  the  technical 
nautical  services  in  so  far  as  they  contribute  to  the  efficient  and  safe  use  of port  and 
maritime infrastructure. 

However,  the  heterogeneous  nature of these  services  and  the  diverse  nature of ports  (in 
terms  of  their  size,  function  and  geographical  characteristics),  would  require  a 
differentiated  approach  to  the  liberalisation  of the  various  types  of port  services  and 
provisions for specific situations, including the possibility to  grant exemptions  in  certain 
cases  where  justified.  Any  steps  towards  liberalisation  would  need  to  be  introduced 
gradually in order to allow sufficient time for the sector to adapt. 

Comments are invited 

This Green Paper is  intended to launch an active discussion involving the  Council of the European 
Union  and  the  European  Parliament,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee of 
the  Regions,  the  port  authorities,  operators  of the  port  and  maritime  industries  and  associated 

q  For accounting transparency  sec paragraph  45  above. 

27 

interested  parties,  together  with  the  trade  unions  and  other  organisations  representing  the  social 
interests in the sector. Comments and opinions are invited on all  the positions set out in this Green 
Paper. 

Comments should be  sent to  the  European Commission,  DGVII  D/4,  Rue  de  la Loi  200,  B-1049 
Brussels  to  the  attention  of Mr  Aragon  Morales  (fax  + 32  2  2953076  or  e-mail  to:  ports-green 
paper@dg7.cec.be) at the latest by 1 April  1998. 

28 

The European Pmt sector, its diversity and its  prospects 

Annex I 

The  ports  of  the  European  Union  reflect  its  diversity  in  terms  of  geography,  distribution  of 
population  as  well  as  levels  and  types  of economic  activity.  The  port  systems  in  the  four  main 
maritime regions are  described below in order to  give a concise description of the  port sector and  its 
prospects,  to  pinpoint  some of the  most  important areas  for  the  development  of ports  and  to  set the 
scene for  Community initiatives in the future. 

The  Baltic  Sea  Region  is  a  region  of fundamental  change  and  transition.  The  opening  of Eastern 
Europe  is  bringing new opportunities for  trade and travel.  The  EU  ports  in  the  region handled  10.5 54 
010  more  in  1996 than in  1993.  It  has  been estimated that international  traffic  will  grow by  some 65% 
until  2010.  Maritime transport has considerable potential in the region since geographically the Baltic 
sea  often  offers  the  shortest  routes.  The  port  systems  in  countries  which  are  members  of the  Union 
are  characterised  by  a  large  number  of smaller  and  medium  sized  ports  (see  A1mex  II  map  1 ). 
Specialisation and  co-operation between the  ports  could  be  a way  forward  in  order  to  use  resources 
most  effectively.  In  order  to  deal  with  the  potential  growth  in  maritime  transport,  priority  in  this 
region  needs  to  be  given  to  linking  and  integrating  ports  more  effectively  with  land  transport,  in 
particular  those  ports  with  considerable  amounts  of international  traffic,  and  to  the  development  of 
EDI  systems. 

The  North  Sea Region  has  the  greatest  concentration of industry  and  population  in  the  Union.  This 
has  clear implications  for  both  land  and  maritime  transport.  North  Sea  ports  (see  Annex  II  - map  2) 
handle  50%  of EU  maritime  traffic  including  almost half of the  deep ·sea  traffic  to  and  from  Europe 
(see  Annex  II  - maps  6).  The  ports  in  the  region  handled  approximately  6  %  more  in  1996  than  in 
! 993.  It  has  been  forecast  that  maritime  traffic  in  the  region  will  continue  to  grow  and  most  of the 
growth  is  expected  to  be  associated  wilh  containers.  As  a result of the  concentration of traffic,  some 
hinterland  connections  are  facing  problems  of  capacity  and  congestion~  bottlenecks  rather  than 
rn issing  links.  Apart  from  the  need to  improve the quality and  capacity of the  road  and  rail  networks, 
attention  needs  to  be  gi,·en.  where  possible.  to  developing  inland \Vaterway  traffic,  and  feeder  traffic 
instead  of land  transport.  Furthermore,  many  ports  in  the  region are  faced  with tidal  restrictions.  The 
principal  problems relate  to  the  depth of access  channels and  berths,  which  is  important for  deep sea 
ships, and  the  width of sea locks, which is  important for  short sea vessels. 

The  strength of maritime transport  in the  Atlantic  Region  lies  in  bulk traffic  links  with  other parts of 
Europe  and  the  rest  of the  world.  This  traffic  accounts  for  77  %  of the  total  turno\'er  and  tends  to 
serve  the  heavy  industries  situated  close  to  the  ports,  including  refineries,  power  stations  and 
chemical works.  It also  serves the agricultural sector through the  importation of animal feedstuffs and 
the  export of cereals.  It  provides  the  basis  for  the  development of general  cargo  traffic.  As  the  ports 
are  closely  related  to  industrial  and  agricultural  activities, they  play  an  important  role  in  the  regional 
economies. The ports handled approximately 5.5  % more in  1996 than  in  1993.  However, ports in the 
Atlantic  Region (see Annex  II  map 3)  are  experiencing difficulty in  retaining present levels of traffic, 
and  the  opportunities  for  expansion  are  limited,  mainly  because  the  ports  do  not  have  the  same 
markets  and  levels  of population  as  those  in  many  other  parts  of the  Union.  In  fact,  in  most  cases 
their effective hinterlands do  not extend  beyond 200  km  from  the  coast.  One  of the  main problems is 
that  the  ports  are  inadequately  connected  with  the  strategic  land  network  and  are  missing  east-west 
zixial  transport corridors. 

1 

'

I Ile  port  tm110\'LT  figures  prm ilkd in  this Sl'Ssio11  and  on  the 1n;1ps  in  the "\1111n  II  ;ire  prll\ ided  by  the  i\ kmlwr Stah:s 

29 

The Mediterranean Region--is  one ·of great complexity and  contrasts.  There are  enormous differences 
in  scale, development and trading relationships and  for  most of the region development and  cohesion 
are  important  issues.  In  general,  the  region's  ports  (see  Annex  II  maps  4  and  5)  have  been  lagging 
behind  their  northern  competitors  in  terms  of  investment,  pricing,  efficient  management,  and 
physical  accessibility  to  large  European  markets.  The  ports  handled  approximately  4.4  %  more  in 
1995  (see  Annex  II  map  6)  than  in  1990.  There  has  been  in  recent  years,  a  substantial  growth  for 
container  traffic  in  the  region  and  this  t.rend  is  clearly  ongoing.  In  order  to  facilitate  this  growth  in 
traffic,  attention should  be given to  integrating the ports more  satisfactorily  into  the  transport chain. 
Measures  to  achieve  this  need  to  include  rectifying  organisational  and  operational  problems  in  the 
port areas,  developing port information and logistics  sy~tems which are compatible with those  of the 
land  networks  and  promoting  short-sea-shipping,  particularly  in  view  of the  increasing  economic 
links with the non-member countries of the region.  In doing so  the ports should be  able to  gain more 
traffic and achieve higher l,ltilisation rates. 

30 

ANNEX  II 

MAPS of PORTS* 

INLAND NETWORK 

---•nuc111:  HOCHGESCHWINDIGKEITSZUqSTRECKEN/HIGH SPEED  LINES/ 

LIGNES A GRANDE VITESSE 

• 

•  1- a  K 

• 

•  GEPlANTE HOCHGESCHWINDIGKEITSZUGSTRECKEN/ 

PLANNED HIGH SPEED LINES/LIGNES A GRANDE VITESSE Pl.ANIFIEES 

- - - ·  AUSBAUSTRECKEN FOR  HOCHGESCHWINDIGKEITSVERKEHR/UPGRADED 

..+- + ·~ 

HIGH SPEED UNESn.JGNES AMENAGEES POUR  LA GRANDE VITESSE 
GEPlANTE AUSBAUSTRECKEN FOR HOCHGESCHWINOIGKEITSVERKEJ-lR/ 
PLANNED UPGRADED HIGH SPEED LINES/ 
LIGNES A AMENAGEMENT PLANIFIE POUR  LA  GRANDE \llTESSE 

·· 

·-~···· · · - ··  KONVENTIONELLE STRECKEN.'CONVENTIONAL LINES/ 

LIGNES CONVENTIONNELLES 

·  GEPlANTE KONVENTIONELLE STRECKEN/PlANNED CONVENTIONAL 

LINES/LIGNES CONVENTIONNELLES PLANIFIEES 

STRASSEN/ROADSIROUTES 

_............., 

BESTEHEND/EXIS11NGi1:.XISTANT 

"  •  •  "  ,.  ""  " 

GEPLANTIPLANNEDIPL/l.NIFIE 

BINNENWASSERSTRASSEN/lNLAND WATERWAYSNOIES NAVIGABLE$ 

I 

* The  ports on  the maps are identified on  the basis of the following criteria: 
- total annual traffic volume of no less than  1 million tonnes freight,  or, 
- total annual traffic volume of no less than  200 000 international passengers. 

The port turnover figures used in  the maps have been provided by the  Member States, 
while figures on container traffic are extrapolated from  those published in: 
"The  European container market - prospects to  2008"  Ocean  Shipping Consultants,  1997. 

The  traffic flows shown in  maps 6 and 7 of Annex II are estimated on  the basis of UN 
Commodity Trade statistics for 1993. 

31 

• 

BALTIC SEA 

OUTLINE PLAN 
SECTION : SEAPORTS 

PORT TURNOVER IN  1996 
FREIGHT [in  million tonnes]  PASSENGERS/year 

• TRANSEUROPEANTRANSPORTNETWORK 
• • 

500.000 - 1.000.000 

200.000 - 500.000 

• Only ports with less than  1 million tonnes freight year 
and at  least 200.000 international passengers/year 

>  1.000.000 

• 

• 

10-20 

20-50 

5-10 

1-5 

>50 

• 

• 

• 

REGIONAL CONTAINER TURNOVER 
4.6% 

.____.  Regional share in  total  E .U 
container traffic(%). 

• Traffic volume  (in  million TE Us) 

Growth  with  respect to the previous 
period 

I 

( Pietarsaari 
'\ 
\ 
\ 
\ 
\ 
\ 

32 

TRANSEUROPEAN  TRANSPORT 
NETWORK OUTLINE PLAN 
SECTION : SEAPORTS 
NORTH SEA 

• 

• 

• 

·1 

• 
• 

>50 

1 - 5 
5-10 

200.000 - 500.000 

PASSENGERS/year• 

PORT TURNOVER IN  1996 
r{REIGHT [in million tonnes/year] 
' 
~ 

I 
:  ~~:~ 
. 500.000-1.000.000 
I 
I 

> 1.000.000 

• 

* Only ports with fess than  1 million tonnes  freight year 
and at least 200.000 international passengers/year 

.41omvoe , .. · 

Peterhead 

Aberdeen 

North  Sea 

REGIONAL CONTAINER TURNOVER 

";:_...  Regional share in  total E.U 

container traffic(%) 

•  Traffic volume (in million TEUs) 

18.000 

12.000 

6.000 

1996 

l--

;r 

a-. 

w 
w 

..r--~'-

·~ 

~ 12/97 

MAP3 

• 

TRANSEUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK 
OUTLINE PLAN 
SECTION : SEAPORTS 
ATLANTIC AND PERIPHERAL ISLANDS 

PORT TURNOVER IN  1996 
FREIGHT [in million tonnes/year] 

• 
1 - 5 
•  5- 10 
10- 20 
• 
20 ~ 50 
• 

• 

>50 

PASSENGERS/year* 

• 
• 
• 

200.000 - 500.000 
500.000 - 1.000.000 
> 1.000.000 

• Only ports with less than  1 million tonnes freighUyear 
and at least 200.000 international passengers/year 

REGIONAL CONTAINER TURNOVER 
t-.::...__.  Regional shore in  tote IE .U 

conta111er traffic ('Mo J 
•  Traffic volume (in milhon TEUs) 

C·, 

Rosco ff 
•  ~~nt-Malo 
Brest~-·  '"~ 

0 

~ '·-_,' 

Lorient 

-. ·v- -~··-.:.: 

\  .. ':! '-' r 
.I 

1980 

1985 

1990 

1996 

Atlantic Ocean 

A cores 

Madeir< 

~" <:) 
Ponta Delgada 

., 

Porto do F~nchal 

Santa Ctuz de Tenerife 

. 0,. • ..l)d 

Canaries 

Las  Palmas 

34 

. 

.,-

". · . )'·L_  ~;-, _./· 

~  )  ~-,  > l  ·' ·,1 
: ,f.~: 

i;.;, 

; 

1

1 

; 

'-~~~-· • ..:.~• 
.,_,.,~.-I·  \ 

"'\ 

~.r------.....__~  ~ 

' .   --

• 

_,Y, 
\_/_  '"- ,,,.:.  " 
.,  }:~/ ·  4 
"II 
/  ,. .. _;  : -'._  • .. ~~-- --

J 

< 
, 
\ 
' \   ..... _ ,-/"<_, ____  .I 

_  -,..../ 

\ 

Ca, 

~ 
! 

,' 
_,._..-·- '.' 

f 
\ 

1 

• 

TRANSEUROPEAN TRANSPORT 
NETWORK OUTLINE PLAN 
SECTION  : SEAPORTS 
MEDITERRANEAN SEA (WEST) 

PORT TURNOVER IN 1996 

FREIGHT [in  million tonnes/year]  PASSENGERS/year*  '~  ··--·---- '~;--~~-.. ,--~~, 
•  200.000 - 500.000 
•  1 - 5 
•  500.000-1.000.000 
• 

r 
·· 

5-10 

10- 20 
20 - 50 
> 50 

• 
• 

• 

•  >  1000000 

*Only ports with less. than  1 ~illion tonnes freight/year j 

and  at least 200.000 international passengers/year 

~--. 

/ 
~  A

i  (  ·  '.l 

.  ·~ 
1  . --.._____  ___.__ 
; 
.

/  ~ ' ,  

I 
t 
t 
: 
) 
.--"' 

·--FT~ 

-.,...-........_.. 

;' 

/ 
('. 
'I 

,  -, .... / 

. 

""-

(' 

1 

; 

/ 

. 

· 

~ 

.{ 

"  \ /   ~ '-~--
/.~ 
· 

\ 
..__. 

L. 

'-, 

, 

·-1; 
i_ 
• 
\. 

............ 

/ 

';\ 
'. 
,  ' 
{ 

. 
- , 

), 
<~ 

: :  t · 
~  ~ 

• , 

~,,.,,,···":"--

," 

~ 

, 

:~/-,  .:  y '  r'~-----("  . ·-

/ ' )  
---;' 

( 

, 

} 

- ~. 
-

! 
/ 
' 
/ 

..... 

·-.........._,__ 

, 

. 
1 

/ 

.. 

.....  . I · .. , ../' 
·> .  '- \ 

I /  

"'·  . 
·  \... 
1
· 

f 
~r--i _ £') 

Castellon 

Valencia 

. 

-

. /_,,...._~;'. 
~ 
" 
. 
~'}..~ 

'.:-.. 
-

• 
~ 

/ 

J 
•.  · .. ·.  t· 
.,·  i·.,.  '·~  i_· ••. , 
vi
J  - - ~· 
1
""1 

_, 

';. 
)'.  ~--~~ !PortlaNouvelle 

-..  --.., / 

•., ____ _,. 

•·· 

.-": _,...e Sete 

·  ~ ice 

. 

.  , - -

M  ri. 
.J .. .._.~ 

ToOlun 

' 
/\. 

.......... 

/ 

... "'•. 

I 

1 

1 

-

' ·  

. - " - - . . . . . ._ \  

i; 

..  . 

··-:.\ 

. ·'·., 

' 
· .. :.. .. · . ~ 

',/  s·\  ·, 
,,. 

,' 
l  , 
. "'I\~  R.E.GION. AL CONTA. INER TURNOVER 
••  ~~'·\~': .-:·?t 
, 
,--' . -- ~ · .. 7'~ '\. 
\-> J' 
l 
,____.  Regio.na1  share  in  total  E.u 
· --- ~" 
. ~ ~ 
~---~( 
containertratt1c C%l 
"'• 
' 
\); 
j 
I\ 
.... ~ ·-.:;z  I..../'\..--..._;~~.......,(  _j,,.., 
•  Traffic votume.(in million TEUs) 
:'F 
. 
. 
~-~~;<~-,'\~· ~·-y/  /-!/---:~ 
t 
'~, 
r; 
·;,r  < 
f.;,, 
,..,,~ 
,,.--... '1:'-'-...~ 
··. 
•.~1'--'  - ... _../ )' 
f.i: 
•,.. 
.  -. 
:,_,  ;_- ">----·f· "-A  '"'~ . ~-.. · ~ 
.:_ 
·  .\~1--J~ I .l· The figures relate to  the  "'.1editerranean  Region  as  a whole. 

-~'-,) J 
•  ••  ,  ..  : ( , /   .:t!1~\.. ·.~ 
l~ 
. 
.  \t 

'...  \ 'l.  : 
\  ·,-~~;Y.:.,,..!  . .< 
·._/·,.··  ·-,,~,  .:·-. ,;.;:-',. .. · 

_.£r\.- 7.. 
.  .c.;o-·· 
, 

( 
.,_-..-:,1 
. 
."  ; \   ·,'. 

'·<· • . . .   ·•.• 

'  ".(  ,. 

1980 

.  --{~----~, -...  --·~,,,,. Yi  .,~ . r-\.j __ _,.,_, ___ _r....-~-

~  1 
.:?-

1990 

1985 

1996 

8.000 

6.000 

4.000 

2.000 

/\) :..._ 

·~  '• 

0 

:  .. 

· .. 

·-.,. 

. 

,i 

~ 

_ 

\ 

. 

·. 

-

( 

. 

\ 

' 

·, 

\ 

_  __  

· .. ·i.·. 
1·.o./ 
/" 
'.1 

:: 
)_ 
'· 
/('·; 
..-·::.-·-: 
1  · 
,.:·.\·"-~"'-·h.. 

)J  

• 

j 
"<;/'-..  . /   I 
/' 
· 
' 
",~/--"::::---.... ..j~-
~ · 
.~ 
. 
··: 
! 
Sa  ya -Vado-
. 

) .  :'·~  . .  r 7 
'··,\f...._ 
r'· 
o./a 
, 
,: 
rr9ra·....x.., 
\I.. 
·~ 
:~-
. !\ 
\·.>  . · 

0 

Pic:ynbin 

Livomo 

LaSpez;a 

Marina di 

01: 

\- ~\  i 
~ 
\\  . 
) 
~\\ 
I:~  ~ ~ 
,u- ~"" 
~"'-
~~ 

"\ 

\  .. 

"'-. 

·< ~ ~ 
. 
...  ""-~ 
"""C:.>"' 
~'--' 
· p  ~~~ 

· 

"' 

--.: 

( 
·' 
,,... 

c'_,.. 

I  t' 
,,..  1 
.··/ 

, ;:..,_,,. 

· 

Ajacc1  -4. 

Barcelona 

Alcudia 

Porto Torr 

~ 

Bas\ia 
. 
CMtavecclla 

• 

d 
1\ 
\:"-
\ 

( 
( 
· ' 
\../'"" 
\ '"i. 
\ 
:·<,;./ 
· -r'°'--· 

:.-
~  <-~ 

. :  / 

Fium1cino 

-..::_~ · . 

alau 
"'--·  ,0tbi ~olfoAranci 
t-.r 
. 

1,---

, 

Gaeta 

\ 
. 
·' 
.. ~.  , 

~ 

/~  Mahon 
'\..,'\~de Mallorca 

-~"} 

r 
J_

) 
,,.,.,.• 

;~) -i' .".::··  Mediterranean  Sea (West) 

~Ibiza 

i;,. 

Malaga ~~ ria 

Bahia de Algeciras 

0Ceu ta  

. 

,/ 
, 

_/ 

....J 
J1 

~......_____., 

~"' F" ·.  : 

..f'-...~Melilla  _/ 

-')/ 

,.-\./--

~._ .... 

~-.,,__,_ 

f 

_...........____  ~  j  -

. ) 
) 
'1 
> 

-Cagliari  P.  Foxi 

I:) 

-~,,,_'t 

/\. 

d.._  r 

I 
// 
i 
l\_, 

~-1. 

/ 

c.~ 

~ 

REGIONAL CONTAINER TURNOVER 
)5.3' . .;. 

._._....  Regional  sh are in  total  E .U 
container traffic(%) 

•  Traffic volume (in  million TEUs) 

Growth with  respect to  the previous 
period 

, .... , 
·-~-·; _,,.  ..... _., 
_ _, .... .__,~ '", ,. _ .. _, ..... ~- -~-1 

i 
l 

r\~-.1 

<-"'l_ 
\ 

~\~ .. 
'.J 
'-----....,_ 

K;r~£::cH .. 
Igou~~' .. 

C>t::i 

Mediterranean  Sea (East)  ~ 

... 

i?~ 

._.., 
Q\ 

, ____ ------- ~--- - . ------·-·-·-- --·-

... 

TRANSEUROPEAN NETWORK OUTLINE PLAN 
SECTION: SEAPORTS. 

REGIONAL FREIGHT AND PASSENGER TURNOVER 
DEEP SEA TRAFFIC 
TRAFFIC GROWTH IN  TEN PORTS 

. 

262 

l 

(in million  passengers). Atlantic and Battie:  figures for  1993 not available (1) 

I Passenger turnover per year in each maritime region,  in  1993 and  199-4195/96 

Freight turnover per year in each maritime region in  1993 and 
1995196  (in million tonnes).  Figures relate to  1990 and  1995 
for the  Medilerranean region ( 1 ). 

""<:>  Mediterranenean Sea 

·----------------

TrafftC grov.rth between1993 and 1996 in the different maritime regions, in% - (1) 

(1) In order to estimate the traffic growth in the different 
maritime regions between  1993 and  1996, the assessment 
was made on the  basis of ports for which traffic data was 
available both in  1993 and  1996.  Therefore, the traffic figures 
for each martime region  do not relate to the total regional turnover. 

106 

Deep sea lraffic (estimated flows for  1993) 

I 
• 
~----·---··----------·-- ·-------··------------- ·--------- ----------···--------------·--·---· ·-··---·---------------··--·----···-·-· -----

Port 

Tr' 

---'· 

--------·-----------------------------

TRANSEUROPEAN  TRANSPORT NETWORK OOTLINE p~;;-~ 
SECTION·  PORTS 

• 

FREIGHT ANO PASSENGER TURNOVER  IN  ~9"6 PER COUNTRY(') 

ESTIMATED CARGO fl.OW BETWEEN  TME  DIFFERENT r.IARITIMf 
REGIONS IN  1993 

{ -....... 

·L .. ~ 
/ 

{ 
~--~~. - . --.- . . ,o._.-.~: 

Estimated Inter Regional traffic flows 
(1993:  in  million tonnes). 

56 

• 

Port 

12197 

38 

FREIGHT AND PASSENGER TURNOVER PER  COUNTRY (1) 
(1) Figures for Greece:  1994. Spain,  Italy,  UK:  1995. Other countries:1996 

Annual freight turnover (in  million tonnes) 

Annual passenger turnover (in  million) 

'----------------·-------------------- ______________ .. ___________________________ _ 

Annex Ill:  Port charging 

When  drawing  up  a possible  future  Community  framework  for  port charging  at  least  the  following 
three  objectives  have  to  be  taken  into  account: 

Economic  efficiency; 
Fair  treatment of well  developed  and  less  developed  ports;  and 
Cohesion policies. 

It  might  not  be  possible  to  meet  all  three  objectives  at  the  same  time  but  a future  framework  should 
he  designed  in  such  a way  that  it  will  take  these  objectives  into  account  in  a balanced manner.  In 
the  following  paragraphs  the  different  objectives  are  outlined  and  discussed. 

Economic efficiency 
Economic  efficiency  requires  charges  to  be  set  in  line  with  marginal  costs  since  this  would  inform 
port  users  of the  costs  of their  individual  transport  decisions  for  society  as  a  whole.  Provided  that 
l·harges  are  set  in  a similar  way  across  all  modes  of transport,  this  would  generate  an  optimal  (i.e. 
k:tst  C\hl)  modal  split.  Moreover,  the  application  of this  principle  would  also  lead  to  an  optimal 
J istrihutiun  of traffic  across  ports  and,  thereby,  minimise  the  costs  of handling  maritime  transport 
for  the  Union  as  a  whole.  Hmvever,  for  projects  just  like  any  other  infrastructure  the  bulk  of the 
total  costs  are  clue  to  capital  investment  rather  than  operating  costs.  Consequently,  if the  marginal 
cost  pricing  principle  is  introduced,  it  could  occur  that  due  to  overcapacity  or  competition  only 
short-run  marginal  cost  (i.e.  operating  costs)  are  charged.  In  this  case  the  costs  of past  investments 
will  not  be  fully  recovered.  On  the  other  hand,  whether  the  costs  of  future  investments  will  be 
completely  recouped  with  marginal  cost  pricing  \!"'ill  depend  on  th~. specific  way  the  principle  is 
implemented. 

Some  argue  that  economic  efficiency  in  the  port  sector  can  hest  he  achieved  if investments  in  port 
infrastructure  are  demand  driven  and  that  this  should  be  ensured  by  requiring  that  all  costs  of 
investments  are  recovered  from  users.  Full  cost  recovery  could,  in  principle.  be  guaranteed  where 
past  investments  are  taken  into  account  (i.e.  average  cost  charging).  However.  an  approach  based 
on  marginal  cost  pricing,  which  would  consider  ne\v  investments  in  addition  to  operating  and 
external  costs,  would  make  a  significant  contribution  towards  cost  recovery  and  at  the  same  time 
avoid  to  consider  historical  investments  in  ports. 

Fair  trearmenr  of well developed and less  developedports 
I ntrnducing  a  new  charging  principle  hased  on  economic  efficiency  from  one  day  to  another could, 
Ii(''' c\ er.  lead  to  an  unfair  situation  hetween  ports  taking  into  account  that  they  have  developed 
di !frrently  in  the  past.  It  could  therefore  be  argued  that  the  introduction  of  a  Community  port 
charging  regime  would  have  to  be  accompanied  by  rules  to  avoid  unfair  treatment  of new  ports  or 
ports  that  are  in  need  of significant development.  The  reasoning  behind  this  argument  is  that  since, 
in  the  absence  of  a  Community  regime,  ,;well  developed"  ports  have  had  the  opportunity  to 
expand  significantly  through  government  support,  ··new"  or  "less  developed ..  ports  should  be 
granted  a  similar  treatment  (possibly  temporarily)  within  the  framework  of  the  Community 
charging  regime.  Whatever  the  merits  of this  equity  argument,  such  an  approach  would  be  at  the 
expense  of economic  efficiency  since  some  capacity  available  in  .. well  developed"'  ports  can  be 
used  at  lower  cost  even  when  account  is  taken  of  the  costs  of  longer  journeys  to  the  ports  in 
question.  Adding  additional  capacity  before  ensuring  that  the  existing  capacity  is  better  utilised 
\rnuld  seem  unnecessary.  The  equity  issue  can  partly  be  addressed  hy  a progressive  introduction of 
the  new  charging  framework  (\vhich.  however,  should  not  provide  for  too  long  a  transition  phase 
~ince  that  could  have  negative  effects).  P.forcover,  to  the  extent  that  the  distinction  between  well 

39 

c.kvdopcd/less  developed  ports  tends  to  coincide  with  the  cohesion  classification,  the  special  rules 
for  ports  in  Objective  1,  cohesion  and  peripheral  areas  would  also  assist  ··new"  ports. 

Cohesion policies 
In  order to  promote cohesion the  Community's State  aid  rules  allow  a larger degree  of government 
support  for  investments  in  less  developed  regions  compared  to  the  rest  of the  Community.  This 
approach  could  also  be  followed  by  the  port  charging  framework  by  granting  partial  derogations 
from  the  charging  rules  for  ports  in  Objective  1,  cohesion  and  peripheral  regions.  Clearly,  the 
extent  to  which  such  derogations  are  accepted  would  have  to  be  balanced  against  the  distorting 
effect  they  would  have  on  port  competition and  thereby  on economic  efficiency. 

A JJossible  way fonvard 
This  discussion  shows  ·that  different  objectives  have  different  implications  for  designing  a 
Community  pricing  regime.  The  approach  advocated  in  the  Green  Paper  proposes  that  charges 
should  be  progressively  based  on  marginal  costs  and  ensuring  cost  recovery  of new  investments  in 
addition  to  operating  and  external  costs,  but  that  partial  derogations  should  be  possible  in 
Objective  I ,cohesion  and  peripheral  regions.  Such  an  approach  permits  the  different  objectives, 
which  are  to  some extent  in contension,  to  be  pursued  in  a balanced manner. 

Operational  ways  of defining  and  implement  the  marginal  cost  pricing  principle  would  have  to  be 
developed.  One  possibility  would  be  to  base  port charges  on  an  assessment  of the  costs  per unit  of 
transport  of the  expected  increase  of volumes  handled  in  a port by  a certain percentage  (possibly  to 
he  varied  depending  on  the  type  of port).  In  this  case  the  problem  would  need  to  be  solved,  how 
fixed  costs  need  to  be  allocated  to  port  users.  Another  approach  would  be  to  carry  out  such  an 
assessment  with  respect  to  a  fixed  time  horizon  (e.g.  five  years).  A  third  possibility  could  be  to 
require  that  port charges  fully  recover operating  costs  and  capital  costs  of investments  made  after  a 
certain date.  This  might  require  information about  the  depreciation of the  investment. 

40 

ISSN 0254-14 7 5 

COM(97) 678 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

07  13 

11 

Catalogue  number  ·  CB-C0-97-738-EN-C 

ISBN  92-78-29756-9 

Office for  Official Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985  Luxembourg