2003/295/EC: Commission Decision of 5 February 2003 on the ad hoc aid which the United Kingdom is planning to implement for CLYDEBoyd under the Freight Facilities Grant Scheme (FFG) (notified under document C(2003) 388) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2003-02-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, freight rate, maritime transport, transport infrastructure

L 111/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.5.2003

COMMISSION DECISION

of 5 February 2003

on the ad hoc aid which the United Kingdom is planning to implement for CLYDEBoyd under the
Freight Facilities Grant Scheme (FFG)

(notified under document C(2003) 388)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2003/295/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article
88(2) thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic
Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,

(3)

(4)

The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was
published in the Official
the European
Communities (2). The Commission called on interested
parties to submit their comments.

Journal

of

The United Kingdom submitted its comments to the
Commission by letter dated 29 October 2002, registered
on 4 November 2002.

Having called on interested parties to submit their comments
pursuant to those provisions (1),

(5)

The Commission received no comments from interested
parties.

Whereas:

2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID

1. PROCEDURE

(1)

an ad hoc

By letter dated 14 March 2002, the United Kingdom
notified the Commission of
aid to
CLYDEBoyd (Fort William) Ltd (hereinafter CLYDEBoyd)
in accordance with the extended Freight Facilities Grant
scheme, which was approved by the Commission on 20
aid case N 649/01). The
December 2001 (State
notification was registered by the Secretariat General of
the Commission on 15 March 2002 under No N
221/2002. The notification was considered incomplete
and, on 26 April 2002, the United Kingdom was asked
to provide additional
information. The Commission
received the requested information on 28 May 2002.
The Commission sent a second request for information
on 1 July 2002. The reply received was registered by
the Commission on 17 July 2002.

(2)

By letter dated 2 October 2002,
the Commission
informed the United Kingdom that it had decided to
initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the
EC Treaty in respect of the aid. This procedure was
registered as C 62/2002.

(6)

(7)

A. Commission's decision of 20 December 2001,
State aid — UK-N 649/2001 — Freight Facilities
Grant Scheme

of

freight

operators

On 20 December 2001 the Commission adopted
Decision number N 649/01 approving the extended
Freight Facilities Grant (FFG) scheme, which grants aid
to
for
coastal/short-sea shipping. The aid is intended to tip the
balance
and to
and
investments
financially
specialised equipment required for sending freight by
water, which would not be needed if the goods went by
road.

in favour of
support

shipping
in expensive

short-sea

handling

facilities

calculated by the United
Grant
intensity will be
Kingdom competent authorities
for each individual
scheme following the FFG rules. The FFG scheme first
assesses the environmental benefit using a standard
formula which takes into account the lorry-miles that
will be saved over the agreed period of the individual

(1) OJ C 269, 5.11.2002, p. 3.

(2) OJ C 269, 5.11.2002, p. 3.

6.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 111/51

benefit,

scheme and their monetary value. This monetary
environmental
the United
Kingdom competent authorities using the FFG formula,
constitutes the maximum amount of grant that can be
offered by the United Kingdom Government
to the
applicants.

calculated

by

(8)

(9)

(10)

As a condition of FFG, operators are required to notify
the tonnage to be moved each year during the agreed
period of the scheme and to report to the government
the actual tonnage moved each year. This is subject to
verification by government audit of company records.
the United Kingdom
This monitoring also allows
authorities to confirm the expected proportion of lorry
journeys saved, and therefore to validate the lorry mile
saving.

The FFG scheme contains an express provision which
allows the Government to claw back a proportion of
the grant paid in the event of a shortfall in the freight
tonnage transferred from road to water. In the event of
such a shortfall,
the circumstances are examined to
establish whether it is appropriate to extend the original
time period in order to obtain the full environmental
benefit or to require reimbursement of a proportion of
the grant. Recovery is unlikely where the reason for the
shortfall
is outside the beneficiary's control and the
beneficiary has made reasonable efforts to secure traffic.

The Commission's decision of 20 December 2001 stated
that the aid intensity should not be higher than 50 % of
the total project cost for facilities that are accessible on
non-discriminatory terms for all existing and potential
operators. Where access to the infrastructure is limited
to one or more specific operators, the latter must be
fair
chosen
and
through
procedure.
non-discriminatory
the
the authorities can prove that
if
Exceptionally,
commitment
agreed between the United Kingdom
authorities and the beneficiary cannot be met through
the aid amounts as described above, higher percentages
may be granted after prior notification and approval by
the Commission.

a
public

transparent,

tendering

B. The notified aid

(11)

In line with the aim of the FFG scheme to secure a
modal shift from road to water transport, CLYDEBoyd
wishes to provide a larger berth and freight handling
facilities at Corpach Pier, near Fort William, Scotland.
CLYDEBoyd is a limited company. Its shareholders are
Boyd Brothers
and
Ltd (road haulage
Clydeport plc (port operator), who own 50 % each.
Clydeport plc also owns and operates several ports on
the Clyde estuary and the Firth of Clyde, namely
Hunterston, Ardrossan, Greenock and Glasgow.

company)

(12)

(13)

The existing facility has severe limitations due to the
size of the pier (31 metres) and the lack of adjacent
storage and handling facilities. CLYDEBoyd believe that
any further loss of existing volumes will render the
current facility uneconomic and lead to closure. In such
circumstances CLYDEBoyd would be forced to close the
facility and around 40 000 tonnes per annum of timber,
pulp
road
chip would
transportation. The work to be carried out with grant
assistance would not only safeguard this existing traffic
but would make it possible to secure the transport of an
additional 50 000 tonnes per year.

and wood

revert

to

In order to do this, the port must be enlarged to allow
vessels of up to 6 000 tonnes dwt to berth safely, and
the pier must be extended to accommodate two vessels
at the same time. A greater area is needed close by the
quayside for goods handling and placement during
loading and unloading, plus a covered area for short
term storage of vulnerable products. Finally, mobile
freight handling equipment
is required to load and
unload the larger vessels quickly and efficiently.

(14) Apart from the aid intensity, the proposal complies fully
the approved FFG scheme

with the conditions of
(N 649/2001).

C. Aid intensity

(15)

take the form of a non-reimbursable
The aid will
subsidy. Financial analysis of
the case in accordance
with the provisions of the FFG scheme has determined
that aid is required at the level of 85 % (GPB 3,332
the eligible costs at Corpach (GBP 3,92
million) of
million). The environmental benefits calculated by the
United Kingdom competent authority in line with the
scheme rules are GBP 5,4 million.

INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS

(in GBP million)

Berth structure

Construction and fitting of freight
handling facility

Mobile plant

Project management and legal fees

Total cost

Grant

Aid intensity

2,19

0,64

1,02

0,07

3,92

3,332

85 %

L 111/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.5.2003

D. Market analysis

(18)

VOLUME OF TRAFFIC THROUGH CORPACH

Year

1999

2000

2001

(Tonnes)

Of
which is
new
traffic

Pre-
dicted

In addition, although they are not part of the initial
development of
round timber
the port, additional
exports to different places in Ireland and Scandinavia
are expected. CLYDEBoyd is also in discussion with Arjo
Wiggins regarding the possibility of shipping paper to
it is envisaged
Belgium directly from Corpach. Finally,
that CLYDEBoyd will use the facility for all types of
traffic (except for timber/paper traffic (4)).

Timber

8 180 15 155 14 379 23 000

8 600

Woodchip

9 000 13 540 25 091 25 000

0

Baled Pulp

4 000

3 000

6 000 30 000

24 000

(19)

Salt

Other

600

4 170 13 622

8 000

0

4 608

1 362

2 455

Total 26 400 37 200 61 500 86 000

32 600

(16)

The additional timber is internal United Kingdom traffic,
which otherwise would be moved by road. The baled
pulp is imported into the United Kingdom through a
number of different ports, but is now being brought
mainly through Greenock (owned and operated by
Clydeboyd, one of the partners in the Corpach project).
The estimate of the average annual balep pulp handled
by the various ports is as follows:

Greenock

Inverness

Montrose

Dundee

Aberdeen

Leith

12 000

3 000

2 500

2 500

2 000

2 000

E. Grounds for initiating the procedure

The Commission decision to initiate the procedure laid
down in Article 88(2) of
the Treaty and to request
clarification from the United Kingdom authorities was
the outcome of an initial examination of the notified
project. Furthermore, concern was expressed regarding
the proportionality of
aid. The Commission
the
normally considers State aid beyond 50 % aid intensity
for transport infrastructure as not compatible with the
Treaty, unless a detailed and neutral commercial and
financial analysis shows that the main beneficiary of the
facilities is not capable of financing a higher amount
without State intervention (5). It should be noted that
CLYDEBoyd declined a 50 % grant of GBP 1,96 million
to undertake the project.

(20)

The Commission expressed
following issues in particular:

doubts

regarding

the

— the necessity and proportionality of the aid for the
realisation of the project. In addition,
information
was needed to show that the aid proposed is the
least necessary to realise such port facilities and that
the relevant market could not have provided a
cheaper alternative.

— the impact of the aided project on existing transport

infrastructures in the area.

Total

24 000

3. COMMENTS FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM

(17)

in

the

near

further

volumes

This project will be also able to unlock the potential for
significant
future.
CLYDEBoyd has identified a number of specific traffic
it is actively pursuing with the relevant
flows which,
customers, and should be in a position to finalise these
proposals shortly. For instance,
the letter of support
sent by Scanfiber AS (3) states that ‘unless you are able
to offer us better/longer quays … we are afraid that
Corpach in the future will have difficulties in competing
with other export facilities, like Belfast and other Irish
ports'.

(3) Oslo, 1 March 2001.

(21)

indicated that

the
The United Kingdom authorities
project has been subject to scrutiny by both Scottish
Executive and Department of Transport officials and
third party consulting engineers appointed by the
Scottish Executive. They stated that the proposed 85 %
aid is both necessary and proportional for realisation of
the project and that it will not proceed without this aid.
In addition, no other port is in a position to provide the

(4) Scottish Executive, Meeting notes — Visit to Corpach, 31 August

2001.

(5) Commission Decision of 31 January 2001, N 597/2000 — The
Netherlands; Commission Decision of 14 September 2001, N
208/2000, NL — SOIT; Commission Decision of 15 November
2000, N 755/1999 IT — Bozen.

6.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 111/53

service and benefits to the environment in the Corpach
proposal, irrespective of the level of aid. As the BSW
sawmill
is adjacent to Corpach port, the use of any
other port would generate additional road journeys to
Corpach, defeating the purpose of the grant by causing
negative environmental impact in this sensitive area on
the periphery of the Community.

(26)

The provisions of the Treaty do not imply that all types
of public financing fall under the notion of ‘State aid'
caught by Article 87(1). Community State aid rules
apply only to measures that satisfy all the criteria listed
in Article 87(1) of the Treaty. Since no two ports are
identical with regard to their physical characteristics,
specific responsibilities and commercial activities of
their managing bodies, the applicability of those criteria
has to be examined individually, on a case by case basis.

(22)

the points of origin of

the
Regarding a possible distortion of competition,
United Kingdom stated that any possible distortion
would be negligible and would not affect trade between
Member States. Furthermore, there would be no adverse
industry since there is no railway
effect on the rail
the traffic.
serving most of
Letters
from the United Kingdom Strategic Rail
Authority and English, Welsh and Scottish Railways, the
main private
freight
operator, confirm this view. With respect to maritime
competition, the redeveloped Corpach would seek to
service small amounts of balep pulp not currently
handled through ports owned by Clydeport (one of the
joint partners in the CLYDEBoyd venture). This traffic
only represents around one ship every two years.

sector United Kingdom rail

4. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE

A. Existence of aid within the meaning of Article
87(1) of the Treaty

(23) According to Article 87(1) of

the Treaty any,

‘aid
granted by a Member State or through State resources
in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to
distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or
the production of certain goods, shall
in so far as it
affects trade between Member States, be incompatible
with the common market'.

Transfer of State resources

(27)

indirectly,

The concept of State aid applies to any advantage
granted directly or
financed out of State
resources. Under the notified project, CLYDEBoyd will
receive a State grant for the provision of a larger berth
and freight handling facilities at Corpach Pier. Therefore,
it is clear that the notified measure involves a transfer of
state resources.

Conferring an advantage

(28)

(29)

The legal status of ports varies greatly among Member
States. Private companies holding the ownership of the
port are a feature of
the United Kingdom, where
privatisation of a considerable number of ports was
carried out, mainly in the 1980s. Ports, irrespective of
their legal status, are structured essentially as separate
and fully commercial entities. Therefore, in general, they
have to finance all port infrastructure investments from
their revenues.

The notified project intends to provide a larger berth
and freight handling facilities at Corpach Pier. The aid
measure in question confers a measurable economic
advantage to a particular undertaking involved in an
economic activity in respect of
its competitors, even
though the subsidised infrastructure will be open to all
potential operators on non-discriminatory terms.

(24)

The Treaty's State aid rules only apply to undertakings.
The concept of an undertaking covers any entity
engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal
is financed (6). Any
status and the way in which it
activity consisting in offering goods and services on a
given market has to be considered as an economic
activity (7).

Selectivity

(30)

The aid measure favours CLYDEBoyd and is therefore
selective in nature.

(25)

Therefore, it is clear that CLYDEBoyd is an undertaking
involved in the economic activity of providing services
in a given market.

(6) Case C-41/90 Höfner and Elser v Macrotron [1991] ECR I-1979,
paragraph 21; Case C-35/96 Commission v Italy [1998] ECR
I-3851, paragraph 36.

(7) Case 118/85 Commission v Italy [1987] ECR 2599.

Effects on trade and distortion of competition

(31) Under the notified project, the port of Corpach will
mainly constitute a timber hub port. Experience has
shown that small ports engaged in local coastal trades
serving local
threatened to distort
competition or affect trade between Member States to a
significant extent.

interest have not

L 111/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.5.2003

(32) Nevertheless, CLYDEBoyd envisages using the facility for
any traffic not just traffic linked to the timber/paper
industry. In view of CLYDEBoyd's intention to act on
different goods traffic and the existence of cross-border
maritime trade, the possibility of an impact on trade
between Member States cannot entirely be ruled out.

(33)

In a sector with specific difficulties and a high degree of
competition (8), as well as in sectors specially exposed
to international competition, an effect on trade between
Member States cannot be ruled out.

the Treaty. Article
meaning of Article 87(3)(c) of
87(3)(c) of the Treaty is therefore the appropriate legal
basis to analyse aid for investments in the infrastructure
for
its
compatibility with the common market.

and to assess

coastal/short

shipping

sea

(38) Article 87(3)(c)

states

aid to facilitate

the
that
development of certain economic activities or of certain
economic areas, may be considered to be compatible
with the common market where such aid does not
adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary
to the common interest.

(34)

The measure in question therefore constitutes State aid
within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty and is
it
incompatible with the
qualifies for exemption under Article 87(2) or (3) of the
Treaty.

common market, unless

(39)

It is thus necessary to verify if these requirements are
fulfilled in order to apply Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty.

B. Legal basis for the assessment

(35)

The aim of the notified aid measure is to provide a
larger berth and freight handling facilities at Corpach
in order to enable coastal/short sea shipping to
Pier,
compete on financial
terms with road transport by
providing the necessary infrastructure. The Commission
considers that none of the exemptions in Article 87(2)
of the Treaty apply to the scheme. Nor is the State aid
in question destined to promote the execution of an
important project of common European interest or to
remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a
Member State within the meaning of Article 87(3)(b) of
and heritage
to promote
the Treaty, or
conservation within the meaning of Article 87(3)(d).

culture

(36) Article 73 of

73

that aids

the Treaty states

shall be
compatible with the Treaty if they meet the needs of
coordination of transport. The notion of coordination in
Article
the
implies more
it involves some form of
development of an industry,
planning by the State. Nevertheless, Article 80 of the
Treaty limits the provisions under the transport chapter
by stating that ‘(t)he provisions of this Title shall apply
to transport by rail, road and inland waterway …'. Thus,
Article 73 does not apply to the maritime sector.

facilitating

than

(37)

The development of activities shifting traffic from road
to other modes is in the common interest within the

(8) Case C-305/89; Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-1603, paragraph
26, and Joined Cases C-278/92, 279/92 and 280/92, Spain v
Commission [1994] ECR I-4103, paragraph 41.

C. Appraisal of the compatibility of the aid measure

1. Necessity of the aid

(40)

The Community has for some time pursued a policy of
promoting the achievement of a balanced intermodal
transport system and a policy of fostering the transfer of
goods from road to other more environmentally friendly
modes (9). The Commission's White Paper on transport
policy (10) states that water transport is not expensive
and does less damage to the environment than road
transport. Intra-Community maritime transport is a key
intermodality, which must provide a
component of
means of coping with growing road congestion. It must
be considered as a real competitive alternative to land
transport. Therefore, efforts must be made to harness
the advantages of short-sea shipping, for example by
equipment and encouraging
installing transhipment
shipping routes between European ports
to create
networks.

(41)

The new Marco Polo proposal (11) intends to shift the
expected increase in international road freight of 12
billion tonne-kilometres per year, from congested roads
to short sea shipping, rail and inland waterway services.

(9) See Commission's Green Paper on Fair and Efficient Pricing, COM
(1995) 691 of 20 December 1995; Commission's White Paper on
Fair Payment for Infrastructure Use, COM (1998) 466 of 22 July
1998 and Council Resolution of 14 February 2000 on the
promotion of intermodality and intermodal freight transport in the
European Union, OJ C 56, 29.2.2000, p. 1.

(10) European transport policy for 2010: time to decide. COM (2001)

370.

(11) COM (2002) 54 final.

(42)

(43)

(44)

6.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 111/55

The Commission's view is that in order to achieve an
intermodal and sustainable transport system for
the
future, priority should be given to infrastructure
investments.

been demonstrated in an economic appraisal carried out
in March 2001 by economists
from the Scottish
Executive and Department of Transport officials, and by
a third party appointed by the Scottish Executive (Scott
Wilson Kirkpatrick & Co Ltd).

Sending freight by water can require expensive and
specialised equipment, which would not be needed if
the goods went by road. By contributing to the cost of
such facilities coastal/short sea shipping may compete in
financial
if
intermodal terminal infrastructures were not cofinanced
by the public sector, operators performing economic
activities would not invest in them, as their viability
could not be ascertained without State funding.

terms with road transport. However,

The objective of the notified project is to safeguarde the
existing maritime traffic at the port of Corpach. Unless
the port is improved, all existing Corpach traffic will be
any
lost and revert
to road transportation since
reduction below present volumes would render
the
activity totally uneconomical. As well as safeguarding
the existing sea traffic, additional volumes of road traffic
would be transferred to sea.

(45) No other port is in a position to provide the service and
benefits to the environment in this area, irrespective of
the level of aid, due to the location of the port of
Corpach close to a number of forest product industries.
The use of any other port would generate additional
road journeys to Corpach, defeating the purpose of the
grant by causing negative environmental impact in this
sensitive area on the periphery of the Community. Thus,
the proposal is in the Community interest.

(49)

In accordance with the terms of
the general FFG
scheme, the grant would be awarded against an annual
tonnage commitment of 90 000 tonnes to be moved by
water for 10 years. In the event that the target is not
achieved or the recipient
fails to comply with grant
conditions, the grant may be recovered.

(50)

The Commission considers that the subsidy of GBP 3,92
million is necessary for the realisation of the project and
is
(GBP 5,4
justified by the environmental benefit
million), being in the interest of the Community.

3. No distortion of competition

(51)

In order to ascertain that there is no undue distortion of
is necesssary to analyse competition
competition,
between the notified project and road transport, other
modes of transport and existing services.

it

(a) C o m p e t i t i o n b e t w e e n t h e n o t i f i e d

p r o j e c t a n d r o a d t r a n s p o r t

(46)

(47)

2. Proportionality

The Corpach project is an example where modal shift
can not be obtained at a 50 % grant
level. The
substantial environmental benefit (GBP 5,4 million) can
only be achieved by a significant investment in the new
port infrastructure.

(52)

Road freight and coastal/short sea shipping transport
traditionally respond to different user
requirements.
Road freight transport is more flexible and faster than
coastal/short sea shipping transport. It is therefore used
for high value general cargo, which is time sensitive,
needed in smaller quantities and heterogeneous. As
coastal/short sea shipping transport is slower, it can not
ask the same prices as road and is as a rule be relied on
for less time-sensitive and regular transport flows of
larger volumes.

The Commission has previously (12)
recognised the
possibility to allow a high degree of aid intensity if the
market does not provide society with the public
transport infrastructure necessary to achieve sustainable
mobility.

(53)

The aim of the subsidy is to equalise the cost of road
and water transportation.Operators who choose to send
freight by water do not gain a commercial advantage
over competitors who use road.

(48)

The United Kingdom authorities have verified, through a
market analysis, that the objective of equalising the cost
of road and water transportation could not be met with
a lower amount of aid. The cost of the development has

(b) C o m p e t i t i o n b e t w e e n t h e n o t i f i e d

p r o j e c t a n d o t h e r m o d e s o f t r a n s p o r t

(12) N 464/99 — The Netherlands: Grant of aid for the building and

operation of the ‘Pilot Transferium Sittard'.

(54) An adverse effect on rail traffic must be ruled out since
the rail network does not serve most of the points of

L 111/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.5.2003

origin of the traffic. The Scottish railway network is
used to move timber for the long distance markets
internally, while timber intended for transport by water
is currently distributed locally.

(58) No comments have been received from interested third
the Commission assumes that
not
services
the

parties. Consequently,
competitors
considered the planned project as a threat
market.

providing

do
for

existing

In 1993 the original FFG scheme was extended (13) to
combined transport operators and international railway
groupings.

(59)

(55)

(56)

(57)

The Commission takes note that after the publication of
the formal investigation procedure no comments were
received by rail companies. Further, the main private
sector United Kingdom rail
freight operator, English,
Welsh and Scottish Railways, stated by letter dated 17
October 2002 that it had no objections to the project.

(c) C o m p e t i t i o n b e t w e e n t h e n o t i f i e d

p r o j e c t a n d e x i s t i n g s e r v i c e s

The volume of traffic through Corpach in 2001 was
61 500 tonnes. With the improvement of the port this
volume will increase to 86 000 tonnes, of which only
32 600 tonnes will be new traffic. This added new
traffic would mostly come
from internal United
Kingdom traffic currently moved through Scottish ports.
The most substantial new traffic will be the balep pulp,
which will only represent 12 000 tonnes for the Port of
Greenock per year. The minor importance of this traffic
is stressed if the Corpach traffic volume is compared
with of other Community ports (14):

(a) Rotterdam (The Netherlands): 320 000 000 tonnes;

(b) Le Havre (France): 67 500 000 tonnes;

(c) Tees-Hartlepool (United Kingdom):

51 500 000 tonnes;

(d) Forth Port (Scotland): 41 100 000 tonnes;

(e) Liverpool/Mersey-side (United Kingdom):

30 600 000 tonnes.

environmental benefit of

the project will be
The
considerably higher
impact on
competition. The Commission considers that there will
be a limited impact on competition, and that
that
impact is acceptable.

than the potential

5. CONCLUSION

(60)

the aid measure is
The Commission concludes that
compatible with the EC Treaty in accordance with
Article 87(3)(c) thereof,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

for CLYDEBoyd (Fort William) Ltd under

The ad hoc aid which the United Kingdom is planning to
implement
the
Freight
compatible with the
common market within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) of the
Treaty. Implementation of the aid is accordingly authorised.

Facilities Grant Scheme

is

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland.

Done at Brussels, 5 February 2003.

For the Commission

Loyola DE PALACIO

Vice-President

(13) State aid N 162/93.
(14) Source:

Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics, Bremen,

Shipping Statistics Yearbook 2001.