Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Green Paper on Sea ports and maritime infrastructure'
Date: 1999-01-14
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: border control, environmental protection, harbour installation, occupational safety, regional aid, trans-European network

C 93/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.1999

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Green Paper on Sea ports and maritime
infrastructure’

(1999/C 93/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the European Commission’s Green Paper on Sea Ports and Maritime
Infrastructure (COM(97) 678 final);

having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 15 December 1997 to consult
the Committee of the Regions, under the first paragraph of Article 198c of the Treaty
establishing the European Community, on the subject;

having regard to its decision of 15 July 1998 to instruct Commission 3 for Trans-European
networks, transport, information society to prepare the opinion on the subject;

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 331/98 rev.), rapporteur Mr Laan, adopted by
Commission 3 on 27 November 1998;

having regard to its earlier opinions on:

— Towards a new maritime strategy (CdR 137/97 fin) (1);

— The pan-European dimension of transport policy (CdR 253/97 fin) (2);

— Spatial planning in Europe (CdR 340/96 fin) (3);

— The proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision amending Decision No
1692/96/EC as regards sea ports, inland ports and intermodal terminals as well as project
No 8 in Annex III (COM(97) 681 final — 97/0358 COD — CdR 101/98 fin) (4);

having regard to the preparatory work of the study group (members: Mrs Scott, Mr Bree, Mr
Cummins, Mr Ervelä, Mr Gustâv, Mr Jensen, Mr Laan (president), Mr Lamberti, Mr
Niederbremer, Mr Pella, Mr Pericu, Mr Sauwens, Mr Suijkerbuijk and Mr Walsh);

having regard to the discussions of the conference on the Future Prospective for European
Ports held by the European Commission in Barcelona on 7 and 8 May 1998 and those of the
seminar on Ports and Maritime Infrastructure in Europe: the Committee of the Regions’
approach, held by the COR in Dublin on 26 November 1998,

at its 27th plenary session of 13 and 14 January 1999 (meeting of 14 January) unanimously
adopted the following opinion.

1.

Introduction

The Committee of the Regions welcomes the
1.1.
publication of the Green Paper on Sea Ports and
Maritime Infrastructure. In this way the Commission is
signalling the great importance of this link in the
transport chain, which up to now has received insuf-
ficient attention in the debate on a European transport
policy and Trans-European Networks. The discussion
now in progress between European institutions, port
authorities, port operators and firms in the maritime

(1) OJ C 379, 15.12.1997, p. 60.
(2) OJ C 64, 27.2.1998, p. 67.
(3) OJ C 116, 14.4.1997, p. 1.
(4) OJ C 373, 2.12.1998, p. 20.

industry, as well as trade unions and other organizations
representing the social interests of the sector is also
wholeheartedly welcomed.

1.2.
The Committee of the Regions believes that
EU sea ports should contribute to the sustainable
development of the Community, both from an ecological
and economic point of view. The European Union’s sea
ports are also border posts of the Union, with all
the health, security and economic considerations this
involves. They are also an integral part of the Union, in
which European law fully applies.

1.3.
The Committee of the Regions therefore endorses
the view that sea ports are vitally important factors in
EU competitiveness and that they are important centres
of regional, economic and social development. Ports are

6.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93/21

not only a link in the transport chain; they are also
economic entities in their own right. They handle more
than 90 % of the Union’s trade with third countries and
approximately 30 % of intra-EU traffic, as well as
facilitating the movement of more than 200 million
passengers each year. They also make an important
contribution to local and regional economies and
employment. Efforts to improve the competitiveness of
overseas trade must therefore be given priority. And
competitiveness is strengthened by an efficient transport
system, and here the sea ports play a central role. They
are ideal locations for industrial activities which are
dependent on the import of large quantities of low-value
raw materials and the export of semi-manufactured
goods. In this way sea ports make a significant contri-
bution to the EU’s added value and to employment both
in coastal regions and inland. The small sea ports, in
collaboration with the larger ports, play a crucial role,
to the benefit of the EU economy and sustainable
development. This is true to an even greater extent of
small sea ports in remote areas of the Community.

— the creation of facilities — should, in accordance
with the subsidiarity principle, remain a matter for the
parties involved at national level: business and the local,
regional and national authorities. European involvement
should be mainly restricted to setting and monitoring
equal conditions for fair competition (see also appendix).
Policy on European ports and maritime infrastructure
should be aimed at achieving an optimum allocation of
passenger and goods traffic flows in the coastal regions.

The Committee of the Regions therefore wel-
1.6.
comes the Commission’s new initiatives insofar as these
contribute to a level playing field. Efficient operation of
the market will promote the integration of sea ports
into the trans-European multimodal infrastructure net-
work. In this way a European ports policy will contribute
to the balanced development of a European transport
network.

1.4.
The Green Paper states that the onward march
of globalization, the European internal market and the
impact of the information society make it necessary to
enhance the efficiency of ports and to improve port and
maritime infrastructure. The COR believes that the
creation of an efficient transport system should essen-
tially be left to market forces, provided that guarantees
of public health and safety are maintained. The dynamic
interaction of market forces maintains a transport
system which makes an optimum contribution to the
economy of the European Union and coastal and inland
regions. Free competition under equal conditions can be
achieved on the one hand by guaranteeing equal rules
with regard to the supply of labour, workplace safety,
working conditions, environmental protection, external
security and border controls, and on the other hand by
ensuring that all European port users carry the cost of
port facilities and services equally.

2. Policy establishing conditions

2.1.
The Green Paper’s policy provisions establishing
conditions are basically limited to rules on sea shipping.
The Green Paper does not deal in the broader sense
with matters such as protection of the environment,
workplace safety and conditions, external security and
border controls, although differences in the laws in these
areas, and in their implementation, and the unequal
treatment of the basic rights of European citizens have
a major impact on conditions of competition between
port operators and firms using ports. Efforts are needed
to bring uniformity to the law in Europe.

Environment

2.2.
Environmental pollution does not stop at fron-
tiers. The effects of pollution on human health and the
environment are in principle the same in all countries.
Effective protection of the environment requires a
cross-border approach, at least at EU level, but also
including co-operation with non-EU countries. As
environmental protection measures may have a consider-
able impact on production costs, a common European
approach also contributes to the operation of the market.

1.5.
In order to ensure that the sea ports operate as
efficiently as possible for the EU and coastal and inland
regions, the European Union needs a policy setting out
basic conditions: a coherent system of rules, which are
possible to implement, on the use of port infrastructure
(beginning with transparency with regard to the costs
and revenue arising from port operation) and regarding
the areas mentioned in point 1.4. For the same reasons,
policy setting out basic operating conditions for ports

Atmospheric deposition and discharges from
2.3.
rivers and drainage canals are the main sources of
marine pollution. Discharges from ships also contribute.
The dumping of waste from ships, a practice with a long
history and a common business practice entailing no
cost, is now no longer accepted (Marpol Treaty). The
measures intended to counter the dumping of waste at

C 93/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.1999

sea — the Green Paper links this with the improvement
of the availability and quality of waste reception facilities
in all EU ports — need to take account of this. In
accordance with the ‘no special fee’ principle, the
Committee of the Regions proposes that the cost
of collecting waste from shipping be recovered in
accordance with the user-pays principle, which is applied
in most ports in Member States and in maritime nations
outside the EU.

2.4.
The Committee of the Regions feels that any
European environmental initiatives on shipping should
follow the non-binding international agreements made
in the framework of the IMO and that no attempt should
be made to translate these into binding Community
legislation (see Opinion on the Communication entitled
Towards a new maritime strategy). Applying additional
or stricter conditions to this activity which spans the
globe would be wide of the mark. Port state control,
embodied in a memorandum of understanding, is the
appropriate instrument for applying these laws. Rapid
implementation and equal application of this memor-
andum throughout the European Union would promote
the effectiveness of this instrument and free competition
under equal conditions between European ports.

2.5.
A constant flow of large volumes of goods
between two points is a necessary condition for the
development of multimodal transport and short sea
shipping. Only then is the provision of frequent (short
waiting times) transport services offering a large loading
capacity (coastal and inland waterway vessels and trains)
economically viable for the operator and attractive
to the user. Sea ports are a place where constant,
high-volume goods flows converge. As interconnection
points for intermodal transport and short sea shipping,
sea ports can thus make an important contribution to
an environmentally sound transport system (see also
point 3.10).

The Committee of the Regions notes that the
2.6.
Green Paper makes no mention of the following aspects
of environmental protection in ports, on which agree-
ments are needed at European level.

— Quality of dredging mud and storage and/or pro-
cessing of contaminated dredging mud (see also
point 3.7)

— Approach to the use of marine anti-fouling paints
containing tributyltin, on which agreements are
being/have been reached at the IMO;

— Use of disinfectant gases (methyl bromide/phos-
phine) for pest control on some sorts of cargo;

— Handling of dangerous substances by warehousing

and transhipment firms (skills);

— Prevention of nuisances in the form of noise, dust

and odours;

— Control systems for management of ship-generated

waste.

2.7.
The Committee of the Regions recognizes that
the regional and local authorities can make an important
contribution to responsible management of the port
environment. Ports generally lie on river estuaries or
drainage canal outfalls. Where fresh water from inland
waterways meets salt sea water and the flow of water is
halted, suspended particles are deposited. And with
them any contaminants which have entered the water
upstream. In order to prevent silting, ports have to be
periodically dredged. The resulting dredging mud is often
so contaminated that dispersing it in the environment
(dumping at sea) is not acceptable. It has been shown
that a large proportion of port-bottom contaminants
are brought in by river or waste water. The Committee
therefore calls on the European Commission to adopt
measures to protect surface water throughout the Union.

Working conditions and safety in the workplace

2.8.
The Treaty requires that all EU citizens be able
to accept employment anywhere in the Union. Just as
the quality of the environment is important for the
health of all European citizens, so the quality of working
conditions is important for their health and safety.
There is a need therefore for the convergence of national
laws on working conditions and safety in the workplace.

2.9.
The Council Directive of 6 June 1989 (89/391/
EEC) on the introduction of measures to encourage
improvements in the safety and health of workers at
work aims to harmonize the laws on working conditions
and workplace safety throughout the European Union.
This includes ports. The Council Directive of 29 May
1990 (90/269/EEC) on the minimum health and safety
requirements for the manual handling of loads where
there is a risk particularly of back injury to workers
(fourth individual Directive within the meaning of
Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EC) is an example of
this.

6.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93/23

2.10.
The Committee of the Regions notes that the
consequences of these existing laws are not discussed in
the Green Paper. No mention is made of the safety of
workers engaged in the securing of containers, working
on top of containers, or using certain kinds of twistlock
in order to avoid the need to work on top of containers
with the resulting danger of falls (see also Proposal for
a Council Directive on minimum safety and health
requirements for the use by workers of work equipment
for temporary work at height (1), and ILO Treaty 152).
It should be noted that in the USA working on top of
containers will be banned as of mid-1999, which will
oblige shippers to equip their ships with twistlocks,
which can be operated on the dock.

Border checks

Europe’s ports are also Union border posts.
2.11.
And the chain of border posts is of course only as strong
as its weakest link. One particularly strong link does
not make the chain any stronger. In view of the
health, security, tax and economic interests involved,
the Committee of the Regions considers that effective
and practicable community control procedures are
needed. Examples of checks conducted at borders are:

— Veterinary checks (animal products),

— Plant health checks (plant products),

— Checks on payment of taxes (VAT, excise duty),

— Checks on illegal imports (drugs and arms).

European legislation

2.12.
European legislation may be needed to ensure
effective policy and equal conditions of competition,
e.g. with regard to environmental protection, working
conditions, workplace safety and border checks. When
legislation takes the form of a directive equal implemen-
tation is in practice not guaranteed. The Committee of
the Regions therefore advocates the following:

— Clear directives setting out clear guidelines on equal
interpretation, so that implementation of European
law gives rise to as few
directives in national
disparities as possible.

(1) Doc. No 202/3/97.

— Deadlines for adoption to be as short as possible
with a view to the maximum possible simultaneity
of implementation so that disparities between the
dates on which European directives enter into force
via national law are minimized.

— Convergence on application by national authorities.

In order to promote this process of convergence,
2.13.
the Committee recommends that an exchange pro-
gramme be established for officials responsible for the
application of laws relating to environmental protection,
working conditions and workplace safety. Exchanges of
officials already take place with a view to uniform
application of European laws on veterinary checks.

3. Policy designed to create conditions

The port complex

3.1.
European port policy is characterized by a
number of agreements, but also differences. A port
can be regarded as a complex of basins, quays and
commercial areas situated at the centre of a network of
public infrastructure consisting of a sea lane for access,
infrastructure connecting the port with its hinterland
(inland waterways, railways, roads) (2). The network
may also include private infrastructure (pipelines, power
lines). The complex is designed and equipped to transfer
passengers and goods (in some cases after temporary
storage) efficiently and safely to another mode of
transport. The complex is also designed and equipped
to enable goods entering the port to undergo industrial
processing there and to leave the port again in another
form. These basic activities bring any number of
subsidiary activities in their wake (pilotage, land-based
control of shipping movements, towage, mooring main-
tenance and supply, mediation between suppliers and
users of transport services, commerce, financing and
insurance). The operation of a port can thus be regarded
as the management of a complex of commercial areas
developed to serve shipping. The main costs involved in
port operation relate to the acquisition and preparation

(2) The use of infrastructure is affected by climatic conditions.
Thus, ports in northerly waters have to cope with winter
icing, and icebreakers are part of port infrastructure. The
resulting costs are comparable with the cost of dredging in
other ports (see also point 3.7).

C 93/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.1999

of the site, the construction of basins and quays,
maintenance and administration. The main sources of
revenue for port operators are harbour charges and
charges for the provision of land.

leading local transhipment firm. In other ports
transhipment (and thus responsibility for superstruc-
ture) is the exclusive domain of private business.

In practice there are any number of definitions
3.2.
of a seaport. On the one hand there is a small number
of large ports with a large throughput of goods and an
international hinterland, which are thus subject to
international competition.

On the other hand, there are many commercial ports,
the main feature of which is an essential regional/local
economic and social function, handling passenger ser-
vices, fisheries and tourism/recreation, in addition to
their role in the handling of goods’ flows (short sea), the
scale of which is far from negligible. It should also be
noted that a number of ports, located upstream or on
canals, also perform a function as sea ports. They also
receive seagoing ships and handle overseas goods. The
policy to be developed by the EU should take account
of the power and the potential of these commercial
ports.

3.3.
Port management also varies. The Committee of
the Regions considers that in view of the following
differences transparency is needed to underpin the
development of policy.

1) A number of sea ports in the European Union are
run by companies, and the others by public authorities
(local authorities, regions, associations of auth-
orities).

2) At a number of these ports management and account-
ing is handled separately from other public-sector
services. In the other cases port management and
accounting is part of general government services.

3) A number of port operators receive non-repayable
contributions from national government (in some
cases up to 100 %) for the construction of port basins,
quays and facilities. Other port operators have to
finance these investments themselves, at their own
risk.

4) Some of the government-run ports have to pay part
of their operating profit into government coffers.
The operating losses of some other port operators
are covered from public-sector funds.

5) A number of port operators offer more than a
complex of port basins, quays and other facilities
(e.g. port equipment, towage). Some port operators
have a substantial interest (up to 100 %) in the

6) The way in which basins, quays and port areas are
made available differs. In a number of ports the
construction of basins and quays and the preparation
of land is done in consultation with the party already
using, or about to use, a given area. The price
for constructing quays and making land ready for
construction is included by the port operator in the
price paid by the user for the land. In other cases the
construction of basins and quays and the preparation
of land is done on the initiative of a port operator
wishing to attract a given activity. The allocation of
the port facility thus established to the final user is
done by public auction.

3.4.
The flow of goods is determined by the business
sector. The geographical location of the market and the
areas from which raw materials are obtained, together
with transport facilities, determine the choice of place
of establishment. It is the port operators and the
authorities directly concerned who can best follow
market trends. For this reason the Committee of the
Regions feels that policy designed to create conditions
for sea ports — the establishment of facilities — should
remain the preserve of the parties involved at national
level: business and local, regional and national auth-
orities. The subsidiarity principle should of course be
applied to policy designed to lay down conditions.

Market operation as a structural regulatory instrument

3.5.
The Committee of the Regions is convinced that
an efficient transport system can be established only
if there is free competition under equal conditions.
Dynamic adjustment by free market forces can maintain
a transport system which makes an optimum contri-
bution to the economy of the EU and coastal and inland
regions. Free competition under equal conditions can be
achieved by 1) ensuring that laws on care of the
environment, safety at work and working conditions,
external security and border checks (i.e. policy setting
conditions, which has already been discussed) are equal,
and 2) by ensuring that users of all European sea ports
carry the costs of basins, quays and port areas equally.
The Committee of the Regions regards equal allocation
of costs to users to be an absolute prerequisite for the
operation of the market as a structural regulatory
instrument for the supply of port infrastructure in the

6.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93/25

European Union, although it realizes that, in view of
differences in port management, this is not a simple
task. The allocation of costs is also complicated by the
fact that transport systems account differently for
internal and external costs. For example: a port practis-
ing excellent but expensive care of the environment
could suffer a competitive disadvantage if costs were
fully allocated. Account should be taken of the outcome
of the debate on the rules on state support for infrastruc-
ture.

3.6.
The Committee of the Regions is not in favour
of a rigid pricing framework, which the Green Paper
suggests is the intention. The Committee would prefer
the Commission to draw up guidelines based on
Article 92 of the EC Treaty. These guidelines should
make it clear what is allowed and what is not allowed
with regard to the passing on, or non-passing, on
of port infrastructure costs (basins, quays and port
areas) (1).

Apart

3.7.
from the above, port operation also
includes storage and/or processing of contaminated
dredging mud and administrative costs. There are major
disparities in these areas, which affect conditions of
competition. Policy should aim to remove these dispari-
ties and achieve harmonization. These questions should
be entirely a matter for the port operator.

— Sea ports have to be regularly dredged. A judgement
has to be made on whether the resulting dredging
mud can be safely dispersed in the environment (e.g.
dumped at sea) or whether it can be re-used, e.g. for
building up port land. If neither of these options are
available, certain measures have to be adopted (e.g.
storage or cleaning of the contaminated mud). The
costs associated with this are very considerable and
may, depending on whether or not they have to be
borne by the port operator, have a considerable
impact on conditions of competition between sea
ports. The Committee of the Regions calls for the
drawing-up of clear rules on the assessment of
dredging mud, the dumping of dredging mud in salt
and fresh water, the storage and processing of

contaminated mud and the allocation of costs. The
Committee refers in this regard to the Landfill of
waste directive of 23 March 1998.

— Administrative costs should also be equally allocated
to port users. This would include pension costs,
which are a significant part of total staff costs. In a
number of cases these costs are actually carried by
the port operator. In other cases these costs are
covered from public funds. The Committee of the
Regions suggests that this question be examined in
the framework of social harmonization.

— There are currently no reception facilities for ship-
generated oil residues in many EU ports. It is vitally
important that reception facilities be provided in
those ports, and top priority should be given to their
funding. Consequently, it is extremely important to
promote cooperation between the countries con-
cerned with a view to harmonizing the legislation
governing control systems for the management of
ship-generated waste. All EU ports should adopt a
best practice-based approach to environmental and
safety concerns.

The objective of free competition under equal
3.8.
conditions of course also applies to port services,
examples of which are pilotage, control of shipping
movements, towage, mooring, stevedore services (load-
ing, unloading and storage pending further transport).
Port services are provided by both government and
the private sector. Where services are provided by
government, there should be a uniform European system
of allocating costs, as is done with regard to the
operation of port infrastructure. Where services are
provided by the private sector, this goal may, in the light
of European competition law, be regarded as already
achieved.

3.9. With regard to dock labour, the Committee of
the Regions would draw attention to the following. In
number of ports operational staff are employed by
private companies. In other ports (some) operational
staff are provided in line with needs by the stevedore
companies from an organization which may or may not
have legal personality which is responsible for providing
dock labour. The Committee feels that the equal cost
allocation criterion should also apply to the wage costs
of these organizations when workers are under-utilized.

(1) One possibility would be to require (possibly in relation
to all ports of a certain size) that total revenue from the
provision of port basins, quays and land (port charges and
income from provision of land) represent at least ... % of
associated costs (acquisition of land, preparation for
construction, construction, maintenance and adminis-
tration of port and quays).

3.10.
The Committee of the Regions notes that the
Green Paper strongly emphasizes greater port efficiency.
The Committee feels that internal efficiency is primarily
the responsibility of port operators and private firms

C 93/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.1999

working in the port. If the market is allowed to work
sufficiently, which the Committee strongly advocates,
inefficiencies will be eliminated. The European Com-
mission can also promote the efficient operation of the
European port transport system by creating a level
playing field.

coastal areas, while at the same time limiting the
damaging effects of transport. A network of small ports
is an important precondition for the development of
short sea shipping.

Regional policy as an incidental/temporary corrective
instrument

3.11.
The Committee of the Regions is an advocate
of regional economic policy as an incidental/temporary
corrective instrument for the structural regulation of the
market. This does not detract from the importance of
regional policy. The aim is to let the ports play an active
role in the EU’s frontier with the rest of the world and
to allow ports in remote areas to contribute to the
opening-up and development of these areas in the
interests of optimum operation of the Community
market. The Committee thus recognizes that, whilst the
use of resources from the European Structural Funds
and the Cohesion Fund for port infrastructure may
perhaps in principle distort conditions of competition
between sea ports (port preference policy), this may be
justified by conditions in parts of the EU. The same
applies to the use of European funding for intermodal
transport
interconnection points located in ports.
Intermodal transport and short sea shipping can con-
tribute to the reduction of road congestion and to the
establishment of an environmentally sound transport
system. With a view to promoting intermodal transport
and short sea shipping via European funding, generic
measures aimed at transport operators should be given
preference above specific support aimed at intercon-
nection points.

3.12.
The Committee of the Regions stresses the
importance of sea transport in reducing pressure on the
environment. The promotion of sea transport, e.g.
within intra-Community transport flows, deserves to be
given the highest priority. As stated in the Committee’s
Opinion on Spatial planning in Europe this requires
‘intensifying traffic between the major ports and the
medium-sized ports by developing coastal shipping and
operational frequency on short routes and building up
high-speed links’. Good links between remote regions
and coastal areas on the one hand, and centrally located
markets on the other, are in the interests of the
Community. Apart from ensuring well developed short
sea shipping, smaller ports also make a contribution to
these links in remote regions and coastal areas. Measures
are needed to promote sea shipping and thus to safeguard
future mobility in Europe. Small ports often contribute
to sustainable mobility and to the development of

The Committee of the Regions points out that
3.13.
ports are part of European transport policy and a
link in the combined transport chain. In developing
Trans-European Networks (TENs) account should also
be taken of remote regions. The networks should
moreover also extend to countries outside the EU. It is
important that the TENs should not only link different
modes of transport and national networks, but also
operate across borders and not stop at the external
frontiers of the EU. The use of funds earmarked for
Trans-European Networks (TEN) should, the Com-
mittee feels, be restricted to the ‘missing links’ between
ports and in hinterland connections. It is essential that
any possible distortion of competition be assessed.

4. Conclusions

The basic rights of European citizens — health
4.1.
and safety — should be guaranteed equally throughout
the Union, in sea ports too. The European Union’s sea
ports should contribute to the sustained development of
the Community, from both an ecological and economic
point of view. The European Union’s sea ports are also
border posts of the Union, with all the health, security
and economic considerations this involves. They are
also an integral part of the Union, in which European
law fully applies.

Differences in the national

4.2.
laws relating to
protection of the environment, workplace safety and
conditions, external security and border controls, and
in their implementation, and the unequal treatment of
the basic rights of European citizens have a major impact
on conditions of competition between port operators
and firms using ports. Efforts are needed to bring
uniformity to the law and its implementation in Europe.

4.3.
The flow of goods is determined by the business
sector. An efficient transport system can be established
only if there is free competition under equal conditions.
Dynamic adjustment by free market forces can maintain
a transport system which makes an optimum contri-
bution to maintaining the price/quality competitiveness
of products on the European market and of European
products on the world market. The operation of the
for the structural
market is a suitable instrument
regulation of capacity and quality in the port sector.

6.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93/27

4.4.
Free competition under equal conditions can be
achieved on the one hand by guaranteeing equal rules
with regard to care of the environment, workplace
safety, working conditions, external security and border
controls, and on the other hand by ensuring that all
European port users carry the cost of port facilities and
services equally. Account should also be taken of
natural — geographical and climatic — as well as
management/organizational differences.

4.5.
Ensuring that the sea ports operate as efficiently
as possible requires from the European Union a policy
setting out the basic conditions: a coherent system of
rules, which are possible to implement, on the use of
port infrastructure (beginning with transparency with
regard to the costs and revenue arising from port
management) and with regard to care of the environ-
ment, safety at work and working conditions, external
security and border checks. Policy designed to create
conditions for sea ports — the establishment of facilities
— should for the same reason remain the preserve of
the national operators: business and local, regional and

national authorities. The subsidiarity principle should
of course be applied to policy designed to lay down
conditions.

4.6.
Regional policy, policy on Trans-European Net-
works (TEN) and policy to promote intermodal trans-
port and short sea shipping should be seen as an
incidental, temporary corrective instrument for the
structural regulation of the market. Projects receiving
funding must ultimately become
self-supporting.
Regional policy, policy on Trans-European Networks
and policy to promote intermodal transport and short
sea shipping can distort the operation of the market in
the port sector, which is the instrument for the structural
regulation of capacity and quality in the sector. Such
policy needs to be implemented carefully. It must be
ensured that distortion of the operation of the market
does not lead to a sub-optimum transport system, which
would be damaging to both the environmental and
economic interests of the European Union. Via the TENs
efforts should be made to forge links with infrastructure
in non-EU countries.

Brussels, 14 January 1999.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Manfred DAMMEYER

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions

Policy

Policy setting out basic conditions

Policy setting out basic conditions

Environmental care

Safety at work

Border checks on:

Financing of
and charging

Regional policy

Trans-European
Networks

Intermodal
transport/short
sea shipping

Port management

• Marpol

• Manual lifting

• Animal products

• Transparency of ex- • Cohesion fund

• Missing links

• Support

for trans- • Offer of port basins,

• Port State Control

• Lashing and unlash- • Vegetable products

ing

• Working on top of

containers

• Taxation

• Drugs

• Arms

• Dredging

• Cargo disinfection

• Hazardous cargo

• Noise etc.

Structural task

penses and revenues

• Guidelines for state

aid

• ERDF

• Resider

• Pesca

• Renaval

portation companies
(not terminals)

quays and sites

• Offer of port services

Incidental/temporary (corrective) task

Structural task for na-
tional, regional and lo-
cal authorities together
with
com-
private
panies

European Union

Policy makers

C
9
3
/
2
8

E
N

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

6
.
4
.
1
9
9
9