1. Port Development in Europe
Challenges and Prospects
Patrick Verhoeven
Norfolk VA – 17 February 2012
1

2. Summary
1. Introduction to the European port system
2. Operational dimension
3. Spatial dimension
4. Societal dimension
5. Governance implications
6. EU policy context
7. Conclusions
2

3. 1. Introduction to the European port
system
3

7. 7

8. 2500000
2000000
1500000 Total
Liquid bulk
Solid bulk
1000000 Containers
Breakbulk
500000
0
2008 2009 2010 2011
Evolution traffic selected EU ports in 1000 metric tonnes: 2008 – 2011
Source: ESPO / Rapid Exchange System
8

9. 2. Operational dimension
9

10. Photo: Autoridad Portuaria de la Bahía de Algeciras
10

11. Photo: ECT
11

12. Photo: Antwerp Port Authority
12

13. Photo: Port of Rotterdam
13

14. Dimension Sub-dimension Key features
Operational Ship-shore Core port services: cargo-handling,
operations technical-nautical and ancillary
services.
Strong focus on containers
Value-added logistics Shift from core to non-core port
activities (various paths possible).
Industrial activities Shift from traditional to sustainable
industries (e.g. LNG, biofuel)
14

15. 3. Spatial dimension
15

16. Source: Theo Notteboom / ITMMA (2007)
16

17. Photo: Maersk
17

19. Source: Port of Rotterdam

20. Photo: Andreas Gress
20

21. Source: North Adriatic Ports Association
21

22. Dimension Sub-dimension Key features
Spatial Terminalisation Multinational operators develop
networks of terminals under
corporate logic.
Competitive emphasis shifts to
terminal level, extending into the
supply chain.
Port-city separation Loosening of spatial relationship
combined with weakening of
economic and societal ties (but first
signs of re-integration appear).
Regionalisation Network development beyond the
port perimeter, involves co-operation
with inland ports, dry ports and
(neighbouring) seaports.
22

23. 4. Societal dimension
23

24. Photo: Hamburg Port Authority

25. Photo: Patrick Verhoeven

26. Photo: Port of Helsinki

27. Photo: Patrick Verhoeven

28. Dimension Sub-dimension Key features
Societal Ecosystems Seaport is part of a wider (coastal)
ecosystem where it has a variety of
environmental interactions with the
outside.
Human factor Sustainable co-habitation with local
communities, focus on avoiding
negative (pollution, congestion, etc.)
and stimulating positive externalities
(soft values).
28

29. Conclusions so far
• Ports are elements in value-driven logistics chain
• Port competitiveness depends largely on factors
external to the port
• Bargaining power of market players shifted due to
horizontal and vertical integration
• Post-modern society does no longer value the
significance of ports
• Result: ports function in a highly uncertain and
complex environment
29

30. 5. Governance implications
30

31. • Multiple pressure on port authorities:
– Pressure of market players
– Pressure of government
– Pressure of societal stakeholders
• Existential options (Heaver et al. 2000):
– Be full-fledged partners in the logistics chain
– Play a supporting role
– Disappear
31

32. 32

33. A renaissance of port authorities?
Sandro Botticelli – Nascita di Venere (Galleria degli Uffizi, Firenze)
33

34. Hypothetical typology
Conservator Facilitator Entrepreneur
Landlord Passive real estate Active real estate “broker” Active real estate “developer”
“manager” Mediator in B2B relations Direct commercial B2B
Strategic partnerships beyond port negotiations
perimeter Direct investments beyond port
perimeter
Regulator Passive application and Active application and enforcement Idem facilitator
enforcement Other + own rules Idem facilitator + commercialising
Rules set by others Provide assistance in compliance expertise and tools outside port
Financial revenue on Tariffs + differential charging options Financial revenue on commercial
“tariff” basis to promote sustainability basis
Operator Mechanistic concession Dynamic concession policy Dynamic concession policy
policy “Leader in dissatisfaction” Shareholder in private service
Provide public services / specialised providers
services Provide commercial and public
services
Community Not actively developed Solve economic bottlenecks Idem facilitator but more direct
manager Provide public goods commercial involvement
Solve conflicting interests
Promote positive externalities
Local Local + Regional Local + Regional + Global
Source: Patrick Verhoeven (2010)

35. Facts: functional profile
• Cargo handling services are mostly privatised / liberalised
• The landlord function has become the primary function
• Increased attention for negative externalities of port
operations has reinforced the regulator function
• The ‘community manager’ function is well-established
• So far few port authorities expand their activities beyond their
own port perimeter, but this is evolving
• Conclusion: most European port authorities converge towards
the ‘facilitator’ type

36. Facts: legal and statutory framework
• Most port authorities in Europe are publicly owned
– North Europe: mainly cities
– South Europe: mainly central government
– Multipurpose private ports only exist in the UK
• Most European port authorities have their own legal personality
• There is a growing trend of corporatisation
• But political influence remains present almost everywhere

37. Facts: financial capabilities
• European port authorities bear considerable financial
responsibilities for capital assets that constitute a port
• Maritime and land access in several EU countries
funded by the public purse
• Port dues form the main source of income of port
authorities, followed by land lease and services
• Port dues are generally of public nature (taxes or
retributions)
• Financial autonomy of port authorities varies a lot and
is generally more restricted in southern Europe

38. 6. EU policy context
38

39. 39

40. Common EU ports policy
• A long and difficult process given diversity of sector
• Two attempts to open up market access for port services
failed in 2003 and 2006 (so-called ‘port packages’)
• New start in 2007: Ports Policy Communication
• Revival policy in 2011:
– Infrastructure: ports integrated in Trans-European Transport
Networks (TEN-T)
– Administrative simplification
– Financing (use of public funding – State aid)
– Concessions (application of internal market rules – transparency)
– Port services (dock labour, technical-nautical services)
• 2012 consultation period – 2013 new proposals (?)

41. 7. Conclusions
41

42. • European port system dynamic and generally competitive
• Challenges EU ports not fundamentally different from
those of US ports
• Operational, spatial and societal changes put strong
pressure on role port authorities
• Many port authorities have ‘renaissance’ ambitions,
converging to ‘facilitator’ role
• Governance factors play major enabling / inhibiting role
• Governance diversity mainly determined regionally
• Common EU ports policy has the potential of creating a
more level playing field
42

43. Thank you for your attention
Patrick Verhoeven – Secretary General
European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO)
Treurenberg 6 – B-1000 Brussel / Bruxelles
Tel + 32 2 736 34 63 – Fax + 32 2 736 63 25
Email: patrick.verhoeven@espo.be – www.espo.be