Editorial:

EU ports: Too diverse for common legislation

The European Community proposed Directive on Ports and Port Services is a significant one, and a lot hinges on getting it right. It has important bearings on the shortsea initiative and on the general policy to shift cargo from roads to sea and canals.
However, the issue is a veritable minefield and it is not immediately apparent that the EU bureaucrats understand the very complex structure of the European port industry. If there is one area within the EU, and elsewhere for that matter, where there are fewer common denominators it is in the port industry. One must never forget why the EU made this proposal:
To promote free and fair competition between ports, encourage transparent pricing and work to end outmoded labour practices.
The proposed directive must be judged on how it will deal with these complex issues. This is where it could become unstuck. For rather than drawing up guidelines for the desired development of the port industry in the community, the proposal is rather static in its thinking. Everyone knows that the port industry is dynamic. It has to be to cope with ever changing demands.
The philosophy is to have a single port industry regulated by single legislation.
But is it possible at this stage to have such legislation dealing with very divers economic models in the port industry? Not without justification the proposal has been called a “Frankenstein’s monster” by a respected UK lawyer, because it tries to be a directive for all ports. The risk is obvious. You may get legislation, which have to fudge important aspects, and therefore will do more harm than good.

From the port user’s point of view it is important to get cost down in ports generally. Some of the cost is a direct result of ownership structures – many ports are municipally owned – and lack of cost effective investments.
For this reason the European Community Shipowner’s Association (ECSA) welcome the proposal without any apparent reservations. This is dangerous, because the proposal as it stands may not solve the problems it is designed to correct.
Worse still, the proposal may invite legal actions by ports and more specifically from operators in ports. In an effort to legislate for a “level playing field” in the EU ports industry the community could risk creating what is generally termed as “ports of convenience”. There is also the danger that many ports will cut on safety to stay in business. Since the UK port industry was liberalised some years ago there are examples of severe cuts in essential services like pilotage and towage in certain areas.
What must be avoided at all cost is that legislation is brought in without a more thorough assessment of the impact on services and the ports ability to change to face ever-stronger operators in the ports themselves and higher demands from the port users.

// Petter Arentz, Editor, Norway

Latest update 18-10-2006 8:49

All material © Scandinavian Shipping Gazette.

Scandinavian Shipping Gazette | www.shipgaz.com | info@shipgaz.com | webmaster | Contact us | Cookie information