Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission — Communication on a European Ports Policy COM(2007) 616 final
Date: 2008-07-09
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, common ports policy, disclosure of information, maritime transport, port administration

3.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/45

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission — Communication on a European Ports Policy’

COM(2007) 616 final

(2009/C 27/11)

On 18 October 2007 the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Communication from the Commission — Communication on a European Ports Policy.

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 8 May 2008. The rapporteur was
Mr Simons.

At its 446th plenary session, held on 9-10 July 2008 (meeting of 9 July), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 122 votes with 5 abstentions.

1. Conclusions

1.1
The EESC welcomes the European Commission's new
ports policy communication which mainly proposes measures
of a ‘soft
law’ nature. The EESC furthermore supports the
focus on the establishment of a stable investment
general
climate, the sustainable development of ports, a good social
climate in ports and the consistent application of Treaty rules.

1.2
The European port scene is becoming more diverse in
terms of the number of ports involved and the scope of port
functions and services. The EESC recommends that EU ports
policy should support this market-driven process by ensuring
that all European ports are able to use their full potential in a
sustainable manner.

opment of State aid guidelines and transparency of financial
accounts. Equally, the guidance included in the Communication
on the use of concessions, technical-nautical services and labour
pools is felt
the
Commission should take further initiatives to ensure fair compe-
tition between EU and neighbouring non-EU ports.

to be generally helpful and clear. Finally,

1.7
The EESC welcomes the Commission's aim to promote
and enhance co-operation between cities and their ports. In par-
ticular, it invites the Commission to organise a proper study on
the socio-economic impact of ports.

1.8
The EESC welcomes the Commission's decision to encou-
rage European social partners to create a European sectoral
social dialogue committee in ports.

the Commission's

The EESC welcomes

1.3
initiative to
develop a rail-freight oriented network and urges Member States
to give priority, without going to the detriment of rail passenger
transport,
to the implementation of major cross-border rail
infrastructure projects connecting to ports.

1.4
The EESC welcomes the Commission's initiative to issue
guidelines to solve the ambiguities related to the application of
Community environment legislation to port development and
recommends that these are published before the end of 2008.

1.5
The European Commission should step up measures to
ensure administrative facilitation in ports. The EESC therefore
welcomes the Commission's intention to present a European
in 2008. The
Maritime Transport Space without Barriers
Commission and,
in particular, Member States should make
further progress with the modernisation of customs and give
this higher political priority.

1.6
The EESC agrees with the Commission that a level
playing field among ports can be enhanced through the devel-

2. Introduction

2.1
Throughout the last ten years the EESC actively partici-
pated in the debate on a common EU ports policy. Given the
key role seaports play for the socio-economic development,
welfare and cohesion of the European Union such a common
policy has significant added value.

2.2
The EESC adopted opinions on the Green Paper on Sea
Ports and Maritime Infrastructure COM (1997) 678 (1) as well as
on the two legislative proposals of the European Commission to
open up markets for port services in European seaports (2). On
26 April 2007, the EESC furthermore adopted an own-initiative
opinion on a common EU ports policy (3). Taking into account
the confrontational climate which characterised the debate on
the port services' Directive,
this opinion focused on those
aspects of a European seaport policy on which stakeholders in
the port sector could reach consensus.

(1) OJ C 407 of 28.12.1998.
(2) Opinions of the EESC on the Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on market access to port services
COM(2001) 35 final OJ C 48 of 21.2.2001, p. 122 and
COM(2004) 654 final OJ C 294 of 25.11.2005, p. 25.

(3) OJ C 168 of 20.7.2007, p. 57.

C 27/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2.2009

3. European Commission communication on a European

Ports Policy

The European Commission published on 18 October
3.1
2007 its communication on a European Ports Policy. This
communication is the result of a year-long stakeholder consulta-
two conferences and six
tion process which consisted of
the
thematic workshops. The communication resorts under
Commission's overall maritime policy strategy and is part of its
new freight transport agenda.

in a handful of north-west European ports. It should however
also be recognised that there is a trend towards participation of
an increased number of ports in the European container market
rather than a channelling of traffic through only a few ports.
The strongest growing container ports in 2006 were mostly
small and medium-sized ports located in various port ranges in
Europe. Port ranges located at substantial distance are thus
increasingly competing with each other (4). EU ports policy can
support this process by ensuring that all European ports are
able to use their full potential in a sustainable manner.

3.2
The objective of the new European ports policy is to
promote a performing EU port system able to cope with the
future challenges of EU transport needs. According to the
Commission, these challenges include the demand for interna-
tional transport, technological change, emissions and climate
change, dialogue between ports, cities and stakeholders and,
finally, reconciliation with transparency, competition and in
general the Community set of rules.

3.3
The communication's actual policy proposals generally
consist of a mixture of interpretation of Treaty rules and an
action plan with further measures, which are mostly of a ‘soft
law’ nature.

3.4

These are:

— port performance and hinterland connections,

— expanding capacity while respecting the environment,

5.1.2
The EESC highlights in addition to the list of challenges
identified by the Commission those of globalisation and consoli-
dation which characterise the European port and shipping
sector. This phenomenon is especially visible in the container
market but also occurs in other markets such as ro-ro, general
cargo and bulk. European seaports deal with international ship-
ping groups and large terminal operator groups have emerged
which now provide services in several European ports. The chal-
lenge for a port authority is to ensure commitment from these
global operators as well as compliance with the development
objectives of the port in respect of relevant European policies.

— modernisation,

5.2 Port performance and hinterland connections

— a level playing field with clarity for investors, operators and

users,

— structured dialogue between ports and cities,

— work in ports.

4. General observations

4.1
The EESC welcomes the Commission's communication
as it recognises the strategic importance of seaports for Europe's
external and internal
trade as well as their contribution to
economic development and employment.

The EESC particularly welcomes

4.2
the
Commission does not propose interventionist measures but
focuses — within the scope of EU Treaty rules — on the estab-
lishment of a stable investment climate, the sustainable develop-
ment of ports, a good social climate in ports.

the fact

that

4.3
The EESC is also pleased to see that the Commission is
using ‘soft law’ as an alternative to legislation on the one hand
and a case-by-case approach on the other.

The EESC nevertheless has

4.4
specific
comments and recommendations on the different chapters of
the Commission's communication.

a number of

5. Specific observations

5.1 The economic context and challenges for the European port system

5.1.1
The EESC takes note of the Commission's conclusion
that movement of containerised cargo is currently concentrated

5.2.1
The EESC agrees with the Commission that the first
option to cope with increased demand for port and port-related
capacity should be an optimisation of the use of existing port
facilities and access routes. The EESC further agrees that a full
societal cost-benefit analysis should be made before new infra-
structural developments are envisaged. These should take into
account economic, social and environmental considerations as
these form the pillars of the EU Lisbon agenda.

5.2.2
As explained above, market processes are already
driving towards a more diverse European port scene. The
bottom-up principle should be fostered whereby project propo-
sals are designated by the managing body of a port in conjunc-
tion with regional or national authorities where applicable. This
does not, of course, alter the fact that the EU shall continue to
formulate objectives and to provide guidelines.

(4) Seen over a long-term period, the average European container market
share of ports in the Hamburg — Le Havre range dropped from 61 % in
1975 to 48 % in 2003, whereas the market share of ports in the
Mediterranean range doubled from 18 % in 1975 to 36 % in 2003.
Furthermore, the port concentration level
in Europe for container
traffic (measured by the Gini-coefficient) has constantly decreased since
1990 thus pointing at a rise in entry points to the European market.
The strongest growing container ports in 2006 (in relative terms) were
mostly medium and smaller-sized ports
located in different
European regions (Amsterdam, Sines, Rauma, Constanța, Kotka,
Tallinn, Bremerhaven, Zeebrugge and Gdynia) — Source: Institute of
Transport and Maritime Management Antwerp (ITMMA)/University of
Antwerp This stands for instance in sharp contrast to the situation in
the United States where the port concentration level has increased
dramatically over the same period. Source: Notteboom, T. (2007),
Market report on the European seaport industry, which uses data
provided by Eurostat and individual ports).

3.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/47

5.2.3
The Commission can however use the 2010 mid-term
review of the Trans-European Transport Network to help resol-
ving bottlenecks with regard to hinterland connections to ports.
This should however be done on the basis of objective criteria.

its

request

The EESC furthermore repeats

5.2.4
to the
Commission to step up efforts to solve remaining bottlenecks in
the hinterland through its general transport policy instruments,
in particular with regard to inland navigation and rail freight.
Especially rail remains a serious bottleneck for the optimal
performance of ports and their integration in logistics chains. In
this respect, the EESC welcomes the Commission's initiative to
develop a rail-freight oriented network and urges Member States
to give priority, without going to the detriment of rail passenger
transport,
to the implementation of major cross-border rail
infrastructure projects connecting to ports.

5.3 Expanding capacity while respecting the environment

5.4 Modernisation

The EESC welcomes the intention to present a legisla-
5.4.1
tive proposal on the creation of a European Maritime Transport
Space without Barriers in 2008 and refers to the specific
comments which it has already expressed in several earlier
opinions (7).

5.4.2
The EESC further repeats its recommendation that the
EU should make further progress with the modernisation of
its policies on customs, maritime
customs and ensure that
safety, security, public health and environmental quality are
properly coordinated and harmonised and do not unduly
transfer government responsibilities to ports.

The EESC supports the development of single windows
5.4.3
and the deployment of ‘e-maritime’,
‘e-customs’ and ‘e-freight’
initiatives. At the same time it believes that ITC-based solutions
should be cost-effective, also for smaller and medium-sized
ports.

5.3.1
The EESC very much welcomes the Commission's
initiative to issue guidelines on the application of Community
environment legislation to port development. This will mean an
important step forward in solving some of
the ambiguities
created by EU legislation such as the Birds and Habitats Direc-
tives and the Water Framework Directive. Given the urgency of
these guidelines are
the matter,
published before the end of 2008.

the EESC recommends that

5.4.4
Finally, on efficiency improvement, the EESC supports
the Commission's proposal to develop a set of generic European
indicators by the end of 2009 provided these respect commer-
cially sensitive data. These indicators, based on the ones existing
in the fields of air-, coastal-, and combined rail transport, are to
be developed accordingly for elements relevant to ports, such as
performance of ports installations, collaboration between ports
and the pooling of hinterland activities.

5.3.2
The EESC further also invites the Commission to
consider additional measures to reinforce the legal status of port
development projects and simplify existing legislation, as
outlined in more detail in the EESC's own-initiative opinion (5).

5.3.3
Clearly stating that contaminated sediment has to be
subject to appropriate treatment, the EESC further recommends
that pending legislative proposals which will affect the manage-
ment of water bodies and sediments, such as the Waste Directive
and the ‘Daughter Directive’ of the Water Framework Direc-
tive (6), must recognise that non-contaminated sediment is not
to be regarded as waste and does not have to follow the treat-
ment of contaminated sediment because dredging operations of
introduce nor add any
non-contaminated sediment do not
substances of pollution into a water body.

5.5 A level playing field — clarity for investors, operators and users

5.5.1
The EESC endorses the Commission's view on the role
of port authorities and the diversity of port management
systems in Europe. It particularly subscribes to the recognition
that
tasks of port authorities can be better
fulfilled if they enjoy a sufficient degree of autonomy and, espe-
cially, full financial autonomy.

the important

The

EESC equally welcomes

5.5.2
the Commission's
announcement to adopt guidelines on State aid in 2008. In this
respect, the EESC refers to the basic principles on the use of
public funding in ports it has elaborated in its own-initiative
opinion of 26 April 2007.

5.3.4
Finally, the EESC agrees with the Commission's propo-
sals regarding the provision of ship's waste reception facilities in
ports and the improvement of air emissions. The EESC recom-
mends that economic incentives through harbour dues are best
left to the discretion of each individual managing body of the
port since such measures would affect the financial structure of
ports which differs greatly in Europe.

(5) See Section 4 of the Opinion OJ C 168, 20.7.2007, p. 57 on a

common EU ports policy.

(6) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
on waste (COM(2005) 667) and the proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on environmental quality stan-
dards in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC
(COM(2006) 397).

The EESC is also pleased to see that the Commission
5.5.3
has adopted its recommendation to extend the provisions on
transparency of Directive 2006/111/EC to all merchant ports,
irrespective of their annual turnover.

(7) OJ C 168, 20.7.2007, p. 50, Opinion on the Communication from
the Commission — Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union:
A European vision for the oceans and seas COM(2006) 275 final.
OJ C 168, 20.7.2007, p. 57, Opinion on a common EU ports policy
(Own-initiative opinion).
OJ C 151, 17.6.2008, p. 20, Opinion on the Motorways of the sea
in the logistics chain (exploratory opinion).
OJ C 168, 20.7.2007, p. 68, Opinion Communication from the
Commission — Mid-Term Review of the Programme for the Promotion
of Short Sea Shipping [COM(2003) 155 final] COM(2006) 380 final.

C 27/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2.2009

5.5.4
In its own-initiative opinion the EESC recommended
guidance on the use of selection procedures, such as tenders or
other acceptable instruments, conditions for concessions and
land-lease agreements as well as guidance on the legal status of
those port services which service as a public service,
for
example for the overall safety in ports.

5.6.2
The EESC also emphasises the lack of reliable data on
direct and indirect employment and added value generated by
European ports.
It has for instance the impression that the
employment data used in the Communication largely underesti-
mate the actual
the
Commission to organise a proper study into this field.

situation. The EESC therefore invites

5.5.5
The Commission has met this request by providing
guidance in its ports policy communication on the use of
concessions and technical-nautical services. The EESC finds that
the Commission's interpretation of Treaty rules and case-law is
generally helpful and clear. The EESC however underlines that
technical-nautical services have the common characteristic of
being related to safety of navigation which should justify their
qualification as services of general economic interest.

5.5.6
An intelligent concession policy should ensure intra-
port competition as well as optimal performance and commit-
ment of terminal operators. The EESC recommends that the
Commission regularly reviews the guidance it has provided on
concessions to ensure that
it effectively matches the above
objectives and contains sufficient common elements so as to
guarantee a level playing field among port authorities. The latter
is particularly relevant given the ongoing consolidation process
in the cargo handling market as outlined above.

The EESC welcomes the Commission's proposal

5.5.7
to
help disseminating best practices on transparency in port
charges. The EESC firmly believes that port charges should be
set at the local
level of the port so that they can optimally
match the requirements of port users and the overall interest of
the port.

Finally, the EESC is pleased to see that the Commission
5.5.8
has taken up its recommendation to address cases of unfair
competition by neighbouring non-EU ports. Through its acces-
sion and external relations policies, the Commission should also
step up actions to address politically-inspired distortions such as
the Turkish embargo on Cypriot-flag ships and ships emanating
form Cypriot ports, the Aegean Sea Turkish-Greek problems as
well as the Baltic-Russian border crossing problems.

5.6 Establishing a structured dialogue between ports and cities

5.6.1
The EESC welcomes the Commission's aim to promote
and enhance co-operation between cities and their ports. Inte-
gration of ports into cities and city life combined with a strong
awareness, interest and even pride of citizens in port activities
are vital
In this
respect, the EESC particularly supports synergies with tourism,
recreation, heritage and culture generally.

the sustainable development of ports.

for

Brussels, 9 July 2008.

Finally, the EESC supports the Commission's intention
5.6.3
to assess the impact of security measures on accessibility of
ports and to provide guidance on how both can be reconciled.

5.7 Work in ports

5.7.1
The EESC emphasised the need to promote good and
safe working conditions and surroundings as well as construc-
tive labour relations in ports. The EESC notes with satisfaction
the Commission devotes considerable attention to this
that
theme in is ports policy communication.

5.7.2
The EESC repeats its view that the efficiency of opera-
tions in ports depends both on a reliability and safety compo-
nent which are, despite technological progress, to a large extent
determined by the human factor. This explains the need for a
qualified and well-trained workforce in ports, both landside and
on board ships. The EESC has recommended that social partners
should play an important role in creating and maintaining these
conditions and that, at European level, the Commission should
support their input by facilitating social dialogue.

5.7.3
The EESC is therefore pleased that the Commission's
has decided to encourage European social partners to create a
European sectoral social dialogue committee in ports within the
meaning of Commission Decision 98/500/EC.

5.7.4
The EESC supports the Commission's intention to set
up a mutually recognisable framework on training of port
workers but proposes to first compare the different existing
systems of professional qualifications for port workers. This
could usefully be done in the context of the European social
dialogue.

5.7.5
Finally, the EESC agrees with the Commission that the
implementation of rules on safety and health of workers in
ports, be these Community rules or rules established by the
International Labour Organisation, need to be closely monitored
and statistics on accidents improved. However, the EESC also
urges that initiatives be taken at all levels within the adequate
forums to secure a further improvement of safety and heath.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS