Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Europe's accessibility by sea in the future: developments and how to anticipate them’
Date: 2004-12-16
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common transport policy, maritime transport

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/141

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Europe's accessibility by sea in the
future: developments and how to anticipate them’

(2005/C 157/25)

On 1 July 2004 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of
Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on: ‘Europe's accessibility by sea in the future: developments
and how to anticipate them’.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 24 November 2004. The rappor-
teur was Mr Simons.

At its 413th plenary session on 15 and 16 December 2004 (meeting of 16 December 2004), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 124 votes in favour, with two absten-
tions:

1. Introduction

1.1 Maritime transport to, from and between the countries
of the European Union is of cardinal importance. Each year
more than 3,500 million tonnes of cargo are imported and
exported via the more than 1,000 seaports of the EU. In addi-
tion, about 350 million passengers travel annually by ferry and
cruise ship.

1.2 More than 90 % of Europe's trade with the rest of the
world is routed via its seaports. Moreover, 40 % of goods trans-
ported within Europe are likewise conveyed by sea. From the
energy and environmental points of view, maritime transport is
rated highly. Compared with road transport it can be 13 times
less polluting as
far as CO2 and particle emissions are
concerned and even 19 times less so with regard to CHx (1).

1.3
Around 250,000 people are employed in the ports of
Europe or in the directly related services sector. The entire
maritime sector provides work for about 2.5 million people in
Europe and generates approximately 111 billion euros in added
value. The importance of maritime transport for Europe should
therefore be obvious.

(leisure or commercial); how it is organised (tramp or liner
shipping); whether deep sea or short sea shipping; and the type
of load (passenger or goods transport). Commercial transport
and the four categories mentioned above have a particular
impact on the single market and are the subject of
this
opinion.

1.6
In passenger transport, the most obvious difference is
between cruise ships and ferries/ roll- on/roll -off services. The
transport of goods by sea can be sub-divided depending on
type of load:

— Dry bulk cargo. Carried as bulk cargo in special bulk

carriers, e.g. ore, coal and grain.

— Liquid bulk cargo. Transported in tankers, e.g. crude oil, oil

products and chemicals.

— Mixed cargo. Divided into roll- on/roll -off cargo, other

mixed cargo and containers.

The volume of maritime transport

1.4
from and to
Europe continues to grow each year. It is consequently of great
importance that the EU should keep a close eye on the growth
of these maritime flows and encourage — or where necessary
itself take — appropriate measures at an early stage in order to
be able to manage the growth.

in,

2. Outline of the market situation in the relevant cate-

gories

1.5 Maritime transport can be divided into different types
the voyage
and categories, depending on:

the purpose of

(1) Source: ESPO brochure: Ports creating opportunities - by connecting

people, products and business – by connecting Europe.

2.1
Cruise and ferry roll -on/roll- off shipping are two radi-
cally different types of passenger transport. Cruising is a kind
of tourism by ship. Ferries, on the other hand, provide trans-
port from A to B and, as roll- on/roll- off services, may also be
used to transport goods. A total of 350 million passengers
travel by sea in the EU,
including some 4 million by cruise
ship.

C 157/142

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.6.2005

2.2
The biggest European cruise ports are, Barcelona
(832,000 passengers), Palma de Majorca (665,000), Venice
(634,000), Naples (534,000) Southampton (533,000) and Civi-
tavecchia (520,000).

is stable at around 300,000 DWT. Not until 2002 were, once
more, a few 400,000 DWT Ultra Large Crude Carriers (ULCCs)
built; there is still adequate port capacity to cater for them.

The biggest cruise ship is the Queen Mary 2,
launched this
year, which is 345 metres long and 41 metres broad, and has a
10.3 metre draught. The Queen Mary 2 is about as long as the
biggest bulk carriers and container ships. However, cruise ships
have more restricted draught than container and bulk ships.
Larger ports have no real trouble in providing access for the
small number of ships involved.

2.3
Ferries usually also provide roll- on/roll- off goods trans-
port and are combined passenger-cargo ships. In the EU, ferries
link the European mainland and the UK, Ireland, Scandinavia,
the Baltic States and the Canary Islands, and the Mediterranean
in particular has an extensive ferry network including destina-
tions outside the EU. The biggest ferry/roll- on/roll-off ships are
the Pride of Rotterdam and the Pride of Hull — sister ships of
the P&O North Sea Ferries fleet. These ships are 215 metres
long, 32 metres wide, but their draught is only 6.3 metres.

2.7
Dry bulk cargo transport experienced a similar develop-
ment from the late 1960s onwards. Ships in this category grew
in size, culminating in the 365,000 DWT Berge Stahl, which
has been transporting iron ore from Brazil to Rotterdam for
the past eighteen years and which, with its 23 metre (76 foot)
draught, has no access anywhere else in the world. Since the
1980s, however, the vast majority of new bulk carriers have
been between 150,000 and 175,000 DWT. Dry and liquid bulk
transport operations have thus become fully developed markets
and the European seaports they use have already adapted —
even to the biggest dry bulk cargo ship in the world. No
further significant expansion in loads or size of ship is now to
be expected. These categories are thus also already assured
future European access.

2.4
Apart from occasional local difficulties, physical access
to Europe by vessels of this category does not, for the moment,
require any further structural consideration at European level.
These categories are thus already assured future European
access, which enables further growth in this sector as well.

2.8 Mixed cargo is transported in general cargo and multi-
purpose ships. Since the rise of the container, the mixed cargo
market has declined steeply and is limited to niche markets
such as Africa and reefers in the specialised fruit trade. The
ships are restricted to around 40,000 DWT and ship size is no
longer increasing.

2.5
Dry and liquid bulk cargoes are of great importance for
supplying European industries. Dry and liquid bulk transport in
Europe experienced, especially in the 1960s and 1970s, a
period of enormous growth in terms of expansion in load
volumes and size of ship.

2.6
In the case of liquid bulk cargo, the closure of the Suez
Canal following the Six-Day War and the continued growth in
demand for crude oil resulted in an increase in maximum ship
size from 85,000 DWT in 1968 to 560,000 DWT (2) in 1976.
A number of European ports took steps to allow such ships to
dock there. Once the first oil crisis struck in 1973, these ships
ceased to be profitable and, ultimately, they were scrapped. The
new-build tankers of the 1980s and 1990s did not continue
the trend for bigger and bigger ships. The size of large tankers

(2) DWT= Deadweight Tonnage of a ship, that is the load capacity of a
ship measured in tonnes. With container ships, the number of TEUs
(Twenty Foot Equivalent Units) is used as a unit of capacity. That is
the maximum number of containers measured in TEUs that the ship
can transport. Since an empty container takes up as much space as
a loaded one, DWT is not used with container ships.

Container transport, on the other hand,

is currently
2.9
undergoing a period of unprecedented structural growth,
in
terms of both volume and ship size. In 1966, the Fairland was
the first ship to transport intercontinental containers from the
US to Europe. The Fairland — part of the Sea-Land fleet — was
able to transport 266 35-foot containers. Today, with a capa-
city of 8,500 TEU (twenty-foot equivalent units), the CSCL
Europe is the biggest container ship in the world;, although
9,200-TEU ships are already under construction. The CSCL
Europe is 334 metres long and 42.8 metres broad and has a
maximum draught of 14.5 metres.

The following graph shows the biggest container ship built in
the year in question. The spectacular growth — particularly
since 1995 — is astounding. At the moment, orders have been
placed for 156 ships with a capacity of more than 7,000 TEU.

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/143

2.10
Shipyard orders are expected soon for 10,000-TEU and
even as much as 12,000-TEU ships, which would still require
only a single engine. Calculations have even been made (3) as to
the potential upper limit. Because of the rock formations in the
Malacca straits — a vital part of the Asia trade route — a
figure of 18,000 TEU has been arrived at, although the vessels
in question would be double-engined, significantly raising the
transport price per container. Intercontinental container ships
will therefore not necessarily grow to maximum technical and
geographical capacity, as has been seen during the last few
decades in the case of intercontinental transport by ship of dry
and liquid bulk goods.

Transport of intercontinental containers to and from
2.11
European ports has grown particularly fast over the last few
years. One consequence of the increasing globalisation and
associated rise of China as a producer country is that the
north-west European container ports of the Hamburg — Le
Havre range have experienced structural growth of more than
10 % per year over the past few years. Mediterranean ports
have also expanded very fast.

However, in the main European container ports (4) at
2.13
any rate, congestion is increasingly becoming an issue in the
handling of these growing container flows in port terminals
and in subsequent
In addition to terminal-based
measures to remedy this in the port itself (including expansion),
efficient pre- and post-transport procedures are also needed,
both at sea and on land.

transit.

2.14
The new security requirements are also a major
concern for container ports, in terms of keeping the tranship-
ment and transport process as smooth as possible despite the
increase in checks.

2.15
Given the increase in size described in points 2.9 and
2.10 above, deep sea container flows will not spread to other
European harbours via the shipping market. This is largely due
inadequate
to physical features such as insufficient draught,
facilities, excessive travelling times and insufficient
load to
make the extra port call economically viable (5). This is, never-
theless, not a permanent state of affairs, as economic dynamics
can provide a boost
towards more
activity.

for smaller harbours

Big container ships, for instance from the Far East,
2.12
only call at a limited number of European ports. On the one
hand, this is because they are too big for many ports and, on
the other, because these ships are so expensive that they do not
want to waste too much time in port. In Europe, the biggest
ships generally call at two or three Mediterranean ports and
around four in the north west of the continent. The containers
are then dispatched from these large container ports across
Europe — by sea, using an extensive feeder network, or over-
land, increasingly by rail or inland waterway.

(3) Niko Wijnolst et al.: Malacca-Max, The Ultimate Container Carrier,

Delft University Press, 1999.

3. Links to fore- and hinterland

3.1 Most containers shipped into European ports must be
moved out of them again for onward transportation. Some are
forwarded by sea in small vessels to other ports. The majority

(4) See appendix for a table and map of the key European container

ports.

(5) These are, for instance, the reasons why the very largest container
ships do not call at ports in the north Adriatic Sea, the northern
UK, Ireland and the Baltic Sea. Ultimately, cargo from these areas is
transported by these ships by being ‘fed’ to and from ports that can
cater for them.

C 157/144

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.6.2005

enter the European hinterland by road,
inland waterway or
railway. This means that the capacity of hinterland connections
must keep pace with the growth in container traffic. While not
ruling out road transport where necessary, everything possible
must be done, in line with EU policy, to encourage the use of
inland waterways, railways and short sea/feeder ships.

3.2
Intra-European short sea transport in particular therefore
receives strong support from the EU. As part of the new trans-
European transport networks, this also includes the Motorways
of the Sea programme that still requires further fleshing-out.
More particularly, according to new proposals (16/7/2004) the
TEN-T budget would amount to EUR 20.35 billion, whilst the
MARCO POLO II Programme would include motorways of the
sea and traffic avoidance measures with a budget up to
EUR 740 million.

4. Categories of port

In the EU decision-making process (6), a distinction is

4.1
made between three categories of TEN ports only:

a:

international seaports with an annual transhipment volume
of no less than 1.5 million tonnes or 200,000 passengers;

b: seaports with an annual transhipment volume of no less
than 0.5 million tonnes or between 100,000 and 199,000
passengers and equipped with installations for short sea
traffic;

c: regional seaports not fulfilling criteria A and B and situated

on islands or in peripheral regions.

3.3
The concept of ‘Motorways of the Sea’ (MotS) has been
developed by the European Commission as a supplement to
other modalities that are being supported within the trans-
European network programme. A MotS provides a strong alter-
native to road traffic within Europe on an equal basis, elimi-
nating unnecessary procedures and allowing for efficient inter-
modal connections. The programme is focused on limiting
congestion on the European transit routes and on connecting
remote regions and island states.

3.4
In order to promote short sea shipping itself, improve-
ments can be made in ports and in inter-port collaboration.
The key to success is high frequency of services and thus high
volume. Market potential and commercial exploration are
therefore important
for the viability of short-sea shipping
connections.

3.5
Internal transport within the EU also requires a great
deal of attention. This is already clear from European transport
policy — which, in this context, also includes the appropriate
infrastructure — as it strives to boost efficiency and effective-
ness by establishing, within certain parameters, a free market
that also reflects other social values such as sustainability.

3.6
To achieve that, appropriate rules are already in place
— and are being applied — in the road transport and inland
waterway sectors, and the process is now at last also starting to
get under way across the entire European rail network. Speedier
progress on this front would be welcome, not least given the
container trends described above.

Indeed,

adopted.

approaches being

So far, this distinction has not resulted in any substan-
4.2
tively
the
different
revamped TEN transport priority list makes no mention of
ports, even in connection with the Motorways of the Sea priority.
With some exceptions, there is, for the time being, no support
among either the authorities or industry for the use of more
detailed criteria when selecting ports for specific EU co-finan-
cing of the massive investments required by deep sea container
ports — largely for transit cargo that adds relatively little to the
value of the ports themselves.

The EESC supports recent calls from the Conference of Periph-
eral Maritime Regions of Europe (20/7/2004) to balance the
notions of Motorways of the Sea and accessibility by taking
into account small and medium-sized ports as well in this exer-
cise.

4.3
In the light of the above, the EESC strongly urges the
Commission to investigate the problem of congestion in EU
ports and particularly container ports and explore possible
ways to facilitate it.

to Europe's

Nonetheless, sustained growth is presenting a number of
4.4
larger container ports (7)
particular challenges
which are distributed fairly evenly over the Mediterranean and
the north-west of the continent. These include both really large
and medium-sized ports and they are, for the most part, not
merely container ports, but often also important ports for the
transhipment of bulk and other mixed cargo. These challenges
are as follows:

— How soon can additional transhipment facilities be built, on
both sea and land, while meeting the current stringent rules
with respect
the environment and external
security?

to noise,

(6) TEN Guidelines (Decision No. 1692/96),

incorporating seaports,

inland ports and inter-modal terminals into the TEN.

(7) See appendix, also mentioned in footnote 2.

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/145

— How can ports adapt their accessibility by sea, the depth of
quays and size of transhipment equipment to accommodate
the upcoming increase in 8,000+-TEU ships?

specifically mean the economic players of ports — must be
able to compete with each other on a fair basis; this also
applies to competition both within and between seaports.

— How can it be ensured that connections between a port and
its European hinterland have sufficient capacity to manage
the increasing flow of container traffic?

— How can logistical processes in ports be kept as flexible as

possible with increasing security checks?

4.5
In order to stay competitive on the world stage- one of
the objectives of the Lisbon agenda- it is in Europe's interest
that the ports in question really do take appropriate steps to
tackle and resolve these challenges. The European Union
should also seek to exert its influence on that front wherever
possible.

4.6
Ports, and in particular those alluded to in this point,
are also waterways to the EU, which has security implications.
The EESC recalls its earlier opinions asking the European
Commission to draw up an overall impact study on the cost of
security for ports and to devise an EU scheme for their finan-
cing.

Extra attention for the big container ports is not incon-
4.7
sistent with the promotion of
short-sea routes and the
Motorway of the Sea concept. Precisely the major container
ports serving the deep sea routes are, in many cases, also the
leading short sea ports. What is more, these ports possess the
necessary volume, infrastructure and hinterland to be able to
generate sufficient cargo and thus, thanks to the Motorways of
the Sea, to help the other short sea ports grow.

5. Practical EU action

In the light of the experience of the other goods trans-
5.3
port sectors that have already taken steps in that direction,
some degree of liberalisation in the seaport market would be
beneficial and a good way to make the best possible use of the
available options. At the very end of its term of office, the
transport
outgoing Commission, acting on a proposal of
commissioner Ms de Palacio, submitted to the Council a new
directive on access to the port services market. That will
again (8) give the Committee the opportunity to issue a detailed
opinion. Hence,
this issue is not addressed in the present
opinion.

5.4
There must be much more clarity about what is and
what is not permissible, especially in the field of state aid. For
instance,
to what extent may a seaport's infrastructure —
which is directly related to the increasing size of ships — be
subsidised by the authorities? National governments and port
managers need to know what the situation is. We urgently
need clear guidelines on state aid. The EESC takes note of the
Commission's intention to produce guidelines on state aid to
ports and urges it to do so speedily irrespective of adoption of
the proposed new Directive on ports.

Enforcement and implementation of

5.5
the rules also
require close attention. There is wide scope for interpretation
in transposing EU legislation into national law. The EU should
be much more careful to ensure uniform implementation of EU
rules. This can also be seen with the enforcement of existing
EU rules and regulations, which is patchy and inconsistent.
There are clear differences of
interpretation between the
Member States as regards legislation on the environment,
nature and safety. Competition between ports on these essential
areas is not desirable.

5.1
Steps must be taken to ensure that the effectiveness and
optimum impact of the major investments now being made —
or shortly to be made — by larger container ports to tackle
and resolve the challenges outlined in point 4.3 above are not
compromised by distortions of competition, poor infrastructure
or inefficient
transport policy. Given the close connection
between container ports and short sea shipping via the feeder
lines, Motorways of the Sea and hinterland links, such an
approach has far-reaching consequences and benefits the entire
transport market.

5.2
First and foremost, therefore, the EU should also ensure
that a sound environment is in place for fair competition, or
what is also called a ‘level playing field’. Ports — by which we

5.6
To shed more light on how seaports are financed, their
accounts must be transparent, especially when it comes to
money flows from and to government
(local, regional and
national). The EU must also develop effective instruments to
ensure this. In its 2001 opinion (9), the Committee expressed
its firm belief that, in conjunction with the Treaty articles on
competition and state aid, and the relevant European Court of
Justice case law, applying the ‘transparency’ directive to all TEN
ports is enough to provide the Commission with effective
means of
there has been no practical
follow-up to that statement.

intervention. So far,

(8) The Committee issued an opinion on the proposal on market access
to port services that was submitted in early 2001 and has now been
rejected by the European Parliament in its role as co-legislator, TEN
075, rapporteur: Mr Retureau (OJ C 48, 21.2.2002, p. 122).

(9) Reference: see footnote 8

C 157/146

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.6.2005

6. Summary and conclusions

in,

The volume of maritime transport

6.1
from and to
Europe continues to grow each year. Given the major impor-
tance of this transport sector for the EU, the Union should
keep a close eye on the growth of these maritime flows and
encourage — or where necessary itself take — appropriate
measures at an early stage in order to be able to manage the
growth.

6.2 Maritime transport can be divided into different types
and categories, depending on:
the voyage
(leisure or commercial); whether deep sea or short sea shipping;
and the type of load (passenger or goods transport). These cate-
gories — and commercial transport — have a particular impact
on the single market and are the subject of this opinion.

the purpose of

6.3
EU passenger transport by sea is a very sizeable sector,
with passenger figures running at 350 million. However, given
trends in growth and ship size, the EU need not concern itself
further with infrastructure in this sector, as opposed actual
growth trends. That said, key consideration must be given to
passenger security, especially on cruise ships.

6.4
Dry and liquid bulk transport in Europe also experi-
enced a period of enormous growth in the 1960s and 1970s
and appropriate measures were taken at the time to adapt ports
to larger
ships. These markets are now fully developed.
Conventional mixed cargoes are clearly in decline. Roll- on/roll-
off services are sometimes provided in conjunction with ferries
and also represent an important, fully developed market.

Container transport, on the other hand,

6.5
is currently
experiencing unprecedented structural growth both in scale and
in ship size.

6.7
Given the increase in size, deep-sea container flows will
not necessarily spread to other European harbours via the ship-
ping market. This does not, however, mean that the economic
background is not conducive to the growth of smaller ports.

the above,

In light of

6.8
the EESC strongly urges the
Commission to investigate the problem of congestion in EU
ports, and particularly container ports, and explore possible
ways to facilitate it over and above what is actually being done
in the TENs.

6.9
Having already been successfully achieved in the road
transport, inland waterway and shipping sectors, steps are at
last also starting to be taken to boost the efficiency and effec-
tiveness of the entire European rail network. Speedier progress
on this front would be very welcome.

6.10
In order to stay competitive on the world stage, it is in
Europe's interest that the larger container ports really do take
appropriate steps to tackle and resolve the challenges they face.
The European Union too should seek to exert its influence on
that front wherever possible. No consideration must, however,
be given to proposals for any EU financial support mechanisms
than those mechanisms already in place.
for ports other
However warranted such proposals may be in theory, not least
for container transport, they do not at the moment enjoy
enough support as neither the authorities nor industry want to
see any further distinctions being introduced between European
ports other than those already in place under the TEN.

6.11
Ports are also waterways to the EU, which has security
implications. The EESC recalls its earlier opinions asking the
European Commission to draw up an overall impact study on
the cost of security for ports and to devise an EU scheme for
their financing.

6.6
Congestion is increasingly becoming an issue in the
handling of these growing container flows in port terminals
In addition to terminal-based
and in subsequent
measures to remedy this in the port itself (including expansion),
efficient pre- and post-transport procedures are also needed,
both at sea and on land.

transit.

6.12
The European Union is in a position to establish a
level playing field for fair competition; promote a certain
degree of liberalisation of the seaport market; shed light on
state-aid issues by providing clear guidelines; give close consid-
eration to implementing and enforcing the current rules; and
secure transparency in money flows.

Brussels, 16 December 2004

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND