Knut Fleckenstein says proposal remains controversial despite removal of many 'contentious issues'.

Added value of revised ports package 'debatable'

 

Twice already, the European parliament has rejected the commission's proposal to regulate European ports. Yet again, transport commissioner Siim Kallas has come forward with a third attempt to establish uniform rules in the port sector. The current proposal is a lighter version compared to the so-called port packages I and II as the highly controversial issue of self-handling is not included in the text anymore, cargo and passenger handling are excluded from the chapter on market access, and social provisions are being dealt with in the sectoral social dialogue.

The commission's initiative comes at an awkward time: the window in which parliament can work with the proposal is very short due to the upcoming elections. However, neither the Ten-T guidelines nor the concession directive have been adopted. The social dialogue between employers, unions and the commission has only had its first kick-off meeting. The outcome of this dialogue remains to be seen, but it is certain that parliament will have no further say on the social provisions.

The commission aims at increasing competitiveness in European ports mainly through concentrating on the issue of market access to port services, financial transparency and independent supervision. It is debatable whether the content which is left in the proposal still has added value. I believe that creating a level playing field with some basic rules which all players have to respect will be especially beneficial for small and medium sized ports. However, these rules must not be to the disadvantage of already established well-functioning systems and practices.

Over the next few weeks I will visit various European ports, as well as holding a mini-hearing in parliament's transport and tourism committee to get firsthand information of how the different ports work and how they will be affected by the new policy. A major difficulty of covering all Ten-T sea ports under one regulation is the heterogeneity of the port sector and the wide diversity in types and organisation.

One controversial issue is the scope of the regulation with regard to the market access provisions which will liberalise the port sector. Piloting and towing, which are highly safety relevant services, as well as dredging, which some stakeholders classify as infrastructure work rather than port services, are fully included in the chapter opening the market. Security and safety concerns must be taken seriously and should not be subjected to careless liberalisation.

"The commission aims at increasing competitiveness in European ports mainly through concentrating on the issue of market access to port services, financial transparency and independent supervision"

On the question of transparency in ports and transparency of charge setting we can agree that financial transparency concerning the use of public funds is fundamental in creating a level playing field between ports and in attracting private investments. To find the right line regarding the setting of the charges is less straightforward, however. We will have to find a good balance of making the set-up of the charges transparent and comprehensible for the users and at the same time respecting the autonomy and different systems of ports to leave enough room for commercial negotiations.

The proposal also introduces a mandatory user's committee in each port, independent supervisory bodies in the member states, as well as institutionalised cooperation between the latter. It is important to avoid an unnecessary increase in bureaucracy when dealing with these issues. Existing best practices and well-functioning formats of consultation of users should remain possible under the new regulation. The same goes for the supervisory body. The member states should be flexible in choosing a system of regional bodies or opting for a single national one. Where complaint mechanisms are in place and work well, the system should not be re-invented from scratch. We need to make sure that a user can effectively file complaints to an independent body, but what form that body takes and how it is set up should be left to the member states.

I consider a mandatory cooperation between these supervisory bodies superfluous. The ports themselves should cooperate and exchange best practices but the supervision is a national matter, or possibly a bilateral matter, when it comes to crossborder complaints. As we are dealing with a regulation that is by definition directly applicable in the member states, there is no added value in forcing the supervisory bodies to cooperate in an institutionalised way on how to best implement the provisions of this regulation.

Another question that we will have to look at is the inclusion of private ports in the proposal. On the one hand I understand the position of the private ports, but on the other hand the consequences of excluding them from the scope of the proposal will have to be analysed with great care.

Taking everything into consideration, many of the previously contentious issues from port package I and II are not included in this regulation, but it is still far from being noncontroversial. I believe that solutions have to be found to the above mentioned issues in order to arrive at a text which will secure a majority. I am cautiously optimistic that the port package III will have a better ending than its two predecessors, provided that the context of the state aid guidelines is clarified and that the concession directive has been adopted in the meantime.

Knut Fleckenstein Is parliament's rapporteur on market access to port services and financial transparency of ports