By Felicity Landon from London
Andrew Moffat
In the UK’s pre-election frenzy, every day brings new promises from the politicians. Personally, as it seems almost at the point of handling out sweeties to children, I am waiting for the promise of free chocolate for all – but in the meantime, the ports industry has drawn up its own “wish list”, publishing a joint manifesto entitled "Delivering Value, A blueprint for ports policy".
This document outlines what the industry wants from the new government after May 7, British Ports Association (BPA) chairman Andrew Moffat told guests at the BPA’s annual lunch.
There are six priorities – and, dear readers, there are no prizes for guessing what is at the top of the list. Yes, it is that ongoing battle against the EU’s proposed Port Services Regulation.
The document, produced jointly by the BPA and the UK Major Ports Group (UKMPG), says the new government must work with the industry to ensure that ‘the EU works for ports and not against them’.
Moffat said: “We are currently negotiating on the Port Services Regulation; some of the principles are fine, but some of the proposals are based on a very different business model to that in the UK.”
The point, says the document, is that unlike many other member states in the EU, the UK’s ports operate on a commercial basis and largely without subsidy. “The EU needs to do more to promote fair and unsubsidised competition between major international ports, not least by enforcing Maritime State Aid rules consistently and fairly. EU measures such as the proposed EU Port Services Regulation would impose red tape, cause uncertainty and put investment and jobs at risk. These must be fought off.”
David Leighton, Associated British Ports’ head of public affairs and corporate communications, has been fighting ABP’s and the wider ports sector’s corner with some passion on this particular issue. And at a recent media gathering, he left journalists in no doubt over his preparedness and appetite for the continued battle.
The EU proposals would threaten the efficiency of a market which can already demonstrate that it is very competitive, Leighton said. “Although the UK government has been working to secure an exemption to some parts of the regulation, this is just not enough.
“We’re really facing a serious challenge here. An exemption is only a partial solution. My personal view is that the only way to protect the national interest is to get this regulation stopped.”
So, back to the BPA/UKMPG manifesto … the other five priorities are: make better port road and rail links a priority; foster a single strategy for ports; create a planning system that backs investment; invest in people and enhance safety; and create a well protected border which does not impede travel and trade.
“What happens to ports, whether that is nationally or internationally, in politics or through acts of God, will ultimately have an impact on the economy of a country that relies on sea trade for 95% of its exported and imported goods,” said Moffat. “The ports industry plays a fundamental role in the country’s economy and ports are also investing huge sums – over £2bn in the last five years, and at no cost to the taxpayer.”
In the General Election purdah, the BPA lunch was missing a Shipping Minister – instead, the guest speaker was John Cridland, director general of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI).
On his wish list when it comes to the new government? A recommitment to a national ports strategy, commitment to an export strategy with ambitious targets – and further investment in transport infrastructure.
“Fair and free competition across Europe must be underpinned in your market, as in all the markets I speak for, by a level playing field,” he told BPA members. “It isn’t just ports that benefit from better road and rail links.”
Calling for an integrated transport policy, he said: “We are very keen to see an independent transport commission, at arm’s length from ministers. We are asking for joined-up thinking. There is so much infrastructure that we need to put right. We need to champion this idea – it will benefit ports, increase growth and generate jobs.”
EU Shipowners Call for Port Reform
European shipowners have sent input to the European Parliament, ahead of a discussion in the TRAN Committee on the European Commission’s proposal for a ‘Regulation on Market’ access to port services and financial transparency of ports. In it, they call for a more comprehensive and inclusive reforms package.
The European Commission, in an effort to avoid repeating the mistakes of previous failed attempts in 2003 and 2006, when its proposals were ultimately rejected, adopted a more cautious approach on its third charge.
This has led to a piecemeal approach that was supposed to fare better than the two previous ones, but still encountered strong reactions from Members of European Parliament (MEPs) and ultimately led to the suspension of the legislative procedure in March last year.
“We understand the Commission’s wariness and caution but remain convinced that an EU ports reform package should be more ambitious than the current proposal, which only addresses some of the real problems faced by ports users in EU ports,” commentedECSA Secretary-General Patrick Verhoeven.
More specifically, EU shipowners are to ask MEPs to push for a balanced market access chapter in the regulation as restrictive practices and legal obstacles continue to hamper access to services in several EU ports. Shipowners, far from advocating an unbridled liberalisation of the port services market, are in favour of a reasonable, more measured approach, based on the principle of openness. This liberalisation would not eliminate restriction on the grounds of safety and other considerations. It would merely ensure that they are applied in a justifiable, proportional and transparent manner.
Shipowners also ask MEPs not to exclude any port services from the text under consideration. Cargo-handling and passenger services, absent from the initial proposal, are the most significant part of port call costs. Hence, they should be included in and covered by an EU ports Regulation. Moreover services, already included in the proposed text such as pilotage, towage and mooring, should remain firmly within the scope of the Regulation, and should not be dismissed for safety or public service reasons, as the proposal already foresees the necessary provisions to take these aspects into account in an appropriate manner.
Financial transparency for port funding is another major issue in this proposal and shipowners see no reason why the rules thereon should only apply to major European ports. “Port size should not be a consideration when applying financial transparency rules” said Mr Verhoeven, adding that they should be considered as the first step towards unambiguous state aid rules for seaports which will provide much-needed clarity to port users, port authorities and port service providers.
Shipowners, as any customer, also want to have the right to express their views on developments that are extremely important to them, such as the coordination of port services, hinterland connections and administrative simplification. The EU shipping industry therefore not only supports the design of a mechanism that ensures that users are heard by the managing body of the port and port service providers, but also highlights the need for independent supervision of port managing bodies as a counterweight to their natural monopoly.
“The current proposal, whatever its final form, only addresses a selection of port-related topics. Other issues, such as the simplification of administrative procedures, the completion of the internal market for shipping and the use of pilotage exemption certificates are part and parcel of a comprehensive EU port policy. Given the essential role ports play as gateways for global and intra-EU trade, we firmly believe that the EU should pursue with unwavering determination its efforts aimed at a more efficient EU ports system” concluded Mr Verhoeven.
Sourced from http://www.porttechnology.org/news/list/
Comments
Post a Comment