For background to the deregulation proposals which will affect dockers throughout Europe see EU poised to unveil port reform plans
IDC to respond to EU flexibility plans
IP/01/203
Brussels, 14 February 2001
European Commission adopts a package of measures aiming to improve quality service in ports
The European Commission has presented today a proposal for a Directive on market access to port services. The aim is to establish clear rules and to set up an open and transparent procedure for access to these services. This proposal is the operational piece of a Commission Communication aiming to reinforce quality service in ports. It also includes a factual report on public financing and charging practices in Community ports and an interpretative summary of Community rules on transparency of public money flows into and within seaports and of state aids to seaports. “Ports play a crucial role in intra and extra Community trade. They will be called upon to play an increasing role in attempts to transfer more goods and passengers to the environmentally less damaging and less congested sea transport mode, encouraging intermodal transport and making it less costly”, said Vice-President Loyola de Palacio, responsible for the transport and energy portfolios. “It is now time, in the interests of operators, authorities and consumers, to establish clear rules on access to the port services market, without of course making any concessions to the high port safety levels witnessed hitherto”, stressed Vice-President de Palacio.
The crucial role which ports play in European Union trade is evident: 70% of all trade with third countries is channelled through the ports. Short sea shipping along the EU’s and its neighbouring countries’ coasts moves about one third of all goods – with considerable growth. Further positive development of short sea shipping will have to rely on efficient ports.
Port services are essential for the functioning of ports. They include in particular cargo handling, towage, mooring, pilotage and passenger services. They represent a major part of total costs of port calls for ships and of cargo transported through ports.
The area of port services has in recent years undergone fundamental changes, and these changes are far from over. Whereas previously a single, monopolistic service provider, in many cases publicly-owned or controlled, was the rule, competitive market forces have gained ground and the public sector has been pushed back. The results (improvement in the quality of service and decrease in prices because of increased competition) are generally positive and ports have become increasingly attractive to the private sector.
Welcome and encouraging, this trend is far from uniform, although already existing Community rules on freedom to provide services, the right of establishment and competition rules equally apply to ports. These rules already allow, for example, service providers access to the port services market, although in reality this right can often not be satisfactorily exercised. Where this is due to port-specific facts like limited space, fair rules on access should be established giving all potential service providers a fair chance.
The proposed legislation includes notably the following:
a) General rules
Procedural rules must become transparent, non-discriminatory, objective and proportional.
These principles of good governance cover all areas where an authority (normally a port authority) takes decisions; for example, should certain professional requirements for service providers be fixed ? If so, what are they ? Does the number of service providers have to be limited ? If so, why ? How is a limited number selected ? By whom ? And for how long ? What are the selection criteria ?
The Commission proposes that every prospective service provider, whether private or public, has a fair and equal chance to take part in the growth industry of port services and that fairness is, and is seen to be, exercised through clear rules and clear procedures.
b) Local specificities
Local specificities, in particular in safety and environment, must be taken into consideration but must not become a pretext for reducing or excluding competition.
It is herewith recognised that one strength of the EU ports is their diversity. The Commission does not want to harmonise ports, their structure, the way they are run, not even whether they should be public, private or a mix between public and private. And, of course, local safety and environmental specificities require local answers. This has to be done within a common framework which ensures that the rights of service providers and competition between them are safeguarded.
c) Number of service providers
Where a port does not restrict the number of service providers, the incidence of the Commission’s proposal is very limited and most clauses do not even apply because the main objective, namely better access for potential service providers, is already achieved.
The number of port service providers can only be limited for reasons of constraints relating to available space or capacity or, as far as technical-nautical services (pilotage, towing and mooring) are concerned, to maritime traffic-related safety.
This principle reconciles an already existing right, namely that of a port service provider to offer his services, with the fact that many ports have geographic constraints or specific safety problems which render unrestricted access impossible. But in this latter case clear rules are set to avoid abuse: the limitation of the number of service providers should become the exception rather than the rule.
The thrust of the Commission’s initiative is particularly clear in the area of cargo handling where, as a general rule, at least two service providers for each category of cargo should be allowed. However, the Commission is aware that certain situations may not allow viable commercial operations by two service providers. It is obvious that the purpose of the Commission’s initiative is not to jeopardise their commercial viability; such a situation may be treated differently.
d) Other requirements
In line with Community law the Commission re-emphasises that a port service provider may employ personnel of his own choice.
The key objective of the Commission’s initiative, namely to increase port efficiency, requires that a port service provider can exercise his own choice, although, of course, social legislation will have to be respected.
Self-handling is allowed and self-handlers should be treated neither more nor less favourably than other providers of a comparable service.
Self-handling describes the situation where a port user provides for itself one or more categories of port services, for example ferry operators carry out their own loading operations. There are in fact no reasons why self-handling should not, in principle, be allowed if operators believe that such action provides better use of their resources and gains in efficiency.
Port authorities cannot maintain their privileged position. In many cases port authorities exercise a dual function: of port management and of port services supplier.
The Commission does not wish to see the management function of the port authorities reduced. But where the port authority is commercially active, it is only fair to other service providers that the port authority is not privileged, that it is given equal rights but not more rights, than its commercial competitors. Where it wishes to compete with other service providers, it must not any more choose who to compete with: port authorities cannot be both judge and interested party at the same time. Instead Member States will have to find an impartial judge.
