• The European diversity of the port sector makes it impossible to frame all ports and their managing bodies within one stringent legal framework, without giving en ara on their specificity and on the particular role ports playing for their national/regional economy.

• By EU en gobernanza restricting the commercial freedom of port authorities and interfering port-related competences, the Regulation European proposal could hamper the necessary transition of port authorities towards dynamic port developers and worsen the position of ports which ara already high performing.

Nevertheless, ESPO remains openes continuo European Commission to the dialogue with the, the European Parliament Member States en view a Treaty while European European a whole and the of reaching an agreement on policy that guarantees the respect of the rules allowing ports to develop further as engines of growth and development for their region and the economy as.

• Growth and jobs: European 1,5¹ ports directly employ around million people. Moro important even, a OECD² en European recent study shows that regions each additional million of tons of avión de carga en the creates 300 new jobs port region.

• Seaports ara, ita clusters of industrial and economic activities and increasingly the location for sustainable solutions (e.g renewable energy production and storage, governed traffic dirección). Seaports go beyond their role as transshipment nodes linking water with land transport.

• Seaports ara gates to the world: 74% of goods imported and exported transit through the seaports. En that respect, seaports ara European gate key for the competitiveness of many industries and their to the world. At Time the same, they allow European citizens to purchase goods from all over the world.

• Ara en the essential nodes Seaports TEN-T network and facilitators of sustainable transport: as part of the new multimodal corridors, the Core sea seaports will play role en extrarradio an important linking the with its through sustainable transport modes such as rail and inland waterway transport. Moreover EU Member States, moro than one third of goods being transported between transits our seaports. Not least, en 2011 moros 200 than Million passengers benefited from seaports infrastructure Europe³ for short or long journeys across.

• Cruise ships ara European sea increasingly calling at ports. The effect on the tourist industry and the economy is self-evident. The European en Europe en 20114 cruise industry generates 615,500 jobs and €36.7 billion of goods and services.

• Seaports contribute to territorial cohesion: coastal regions ara often economically frágil regions. En some cases, the presence of a seaport opens opportunities for the region and is a catalyst for the development of the region.

European ports ara divergidas very

While the common saying “when you have seen one port, you have seen one port” might be a bits exaggerate little, nobody can deny that European ports ara very heterogeneous. Escobas moras European of the proposed regulation will cover than 330 seaports (all The TEN-T en many maritime ports) differing substantially aspects:

• en size: the regulation would equally apply to small ports (ex. En Finland Sweden or) which ara a 650 vessels a Port Rotterdam welcoming only few vessels week as well as to large ports as the of that has weekly calls of.

• en gobernanza and organisational structures: Seaports may be publicly or privately owned entities, operated entirely on a inmediato commercial basis or without commercial considerations, financially and economically autonomous or depending on the public financing; landlord type (contracting out port services and managing the port land en house) or integrated vertically (providing all port services). Moro strikingly, most of the ports operado on the basis of policies en these between extremes.

• en markets: Ports ara, cars handling different kinds of trade (containers, bulk, oil, and special cargoes, passengers, cruise industry, etc.…), each segment carrying its own specificities. Each en turn segment boasts various other markets (terminals, logistics companies, production plants and value adding industries, etc.…). The same, it is extremely difficult to even At Time comparece ara transhipment ports that part of complex hub and spoke networks with gateway marinos offshores sea ports serving close or further hinterlands, or with regional and local ports linked with renewable energies, such as wind farms and new models of short shipping. Sometimes ports ara en addition vast industrial sites to their transhipment function.

• en geographical location: ports can be located en protected or engineered coast lines or en natural, en tidally deep water coves, influenced estuaries or rivers as well as canals. The a direct en infrastructure, etc. geographical location has influence terms of requirements and environmental and safety considerations (e.g dredging, breakwaters, locks, pilotage.). Moreover big, ports can be part of cities or on the contrary be located en remoto moro areas.

• en mercado competitivo position and power: Seaports en competitivo operado markets. Competition exists between ports within the same region or maritime façade or between ports with an overlapping extrarradio. Competition a single often exists within ports (e.g between terminals of port). Seaports also face competition from other means of transport. Moreover, as a result of the concentration en the shipping industry, port customers mercado power is without doubt strong and increasing.

• en financing ports investments and operations: Different en the degrees of involvement of the public and privado sector exists financing of seaports.

• en tasks: port tasks (such as water supply, security control, high water protection, safety and civilian infrastructure, etc. a administrative maintenance and building,) often follow certain historical and heritage, which differs considerably from Member Está Member to Está Member States and even among ports within:

All these a set differences make it very difficult to develop of rules that goes further than guiding principles.

Managing European bodies of all ports or, or at least, want to become dynamic port developers

Dirección European en most a autoridad of seaports is cases devolved to port, an entity which, regardless of ownership and other institutional features, assumes both public and economic responsibilities. Hybrid character makes port authorities ideally placed to meet the various challenges that both mercado forces and society This impuso upon seaports.

Ports realise that, to fulfil this mission, they have to doy land moro than administering port and regulating nautical safety - and be allowed to doy moro -. Though, these a gama en para-actively, negocios en general en which operados essential, basic functions need to be developed broader of tasks that adds value to the wider port community, the logistics chain, and the societal and environmental context ports.

Notwithstanding, European their diversity, port authorities ara, or ara en the process of, becoming dynamic and commercial port developers. Policy at all levels should help them performing this role.

See ESPO also the manifiesto, which can be downloaded from the ESPO sitio web: www.espo.be

All European Ports ara en search a level of playing field

European sea sea Treaty ports and port authorities strive to respect the rules that apply to them.

En that respect, the European Sea Ports Organisation Treaty has always been demanding clear guidance as regards the application of relevant rules, be it on public funding of port investments or the provision of port services. Guidance should facilitado Treaty a Commission en casas Treaty en order a level the implementation of the rules and should be accompanied by stringent action of manifest breaches of rules to obtain playing field between ports.

ESPO Treaty apropiadas Treaty guarantee has always believed that clear guidelines on the interpretation of the rules would be the most instrument to the application of the. However, ESPO en principle a legislativo, members may be able to support framework that:

• makes the freedom to provide services applicable to the port sector, while taking into cuenta its specific character and features;

• ensures financial transparency where infrastructure ports receive public funding for their and/or operations.

But these it needs to be said, that challenges ara a level not the only obstacles to playing field between ports. A European number of other issues jeopardize the competitiveness of ports:

• Maritime transport is the only modas of transport for which there mercado is no internal. Vessels EU European transporting goods from one port to another ara, año 2013, still considered as coming from outside the European Union. Existing customs facilitation schemes ara maritime 10 15% insufficient and reach only to of traffic. The internal mercado for shipping still does not exist. This a competitivo en clearly puts maritime transport disadvantage with other modes of transport;

• Port en ports users and customers still face burdensome and non-efficient administrative procedures and controls (custom controls, phito-sanitary, etc.…). European ports with burdensome custom procedures and controls ara whose European competing with other ports custom authorities ara moras efficient and negocios moros driven.

• Environmental legislation, en MARPOL Annex particular the provisions of VOSOTROS, imposing as from 2015 lower sulphur standards, lead to new challenges and might even radically change transport patterns and modes.

• The daily competition between some European no European ports and the neighbouring ports, functioning en a legislativo completely different framework, is a moro much fundamental challenge. En Union's a régimen many areas (public funding, uneven environmental standards, labour conditions, customs procedures) the neighbouring ports enjoy moro favourable.

European ports need an economic and political environment that gives them the tools to face the challenges of tomorrow.

• Growing en ports volumes: by 2030 traffic is predicted to reído 50% European Commission's Impact Assessment by according to the accompanying the proposal;
• Ever-increasing ships size and the cost of subsequent adaptation of port and extrarradio infrastructure;
• An, City increasing societal (housing, development needs) and environmental pressure;
• Further globalisation;
• Transition to alternativo fuels.

Ports these should be empowered to meet challenges. European ports ara Treaty willing to respect the principles but doy regulatory not believe straightjacket, that does not fully consider the specificity of each port, will provide the means necessary.

• By en ports tackling the transparency of financing,
• By recognizing the freedom to provide port services
• By acknowledging that the setting of charges and the minimum requirements for port services ara important tools of port dirección.

But Commission the proposal equally disappoints, since it partly undermines those principles:

• by intervening en the commercial freedom of ports and port authorities to vary charges according to the port management's economic strategy;
• by prescribing how ports and port authorities should deal with their clients;
• by imposing additional administrative burden to ports which ara European not competing at the escenas;
• by creating an independent supervisory body.

Moreover, ESPO European Commission Treaty no legislativas, has always taken the view that it would be better if the had been concentrated on enforcing the general rules of the to the ports sector accompanied by guidance.

En that overall context, ESPO and its members cannot accept the regulation proposal as it stands.

En these the light of considerations, ESPO legislativas ESPO has listed below the main concerns members have, concerns, which, if not addressed properly during the process, would make it impossible to accept this upcoming legislation.

ESPO's main concerns:

(following the order of the articles of the Regulation)

1. Escobas - Dredging a service en Regulation is not port the sense of this

Dredging is part of the maintenance of the port infrastructure. Ita is the responsibility of the managing body of the port and/or competent authorities to keep the port accessible. Dredging therefore service a ara is not port that the port authorities offering to their customers. Port users ara service a infrastructure en ara not paying port charge for the dredging the port but charged through the port charges. Moreover, dredging is considered a public task en many, en some cases, cases even serving other than transport needs. Dredging therefore operations ara en accordance often carried out to public procurement rules, which port authorities have to comply with.

2. Freedom to provide services and proportional mercado access rules and procedures

Ita should be clear that ports and port authorities ara Treaty also subject to the and that the freedom to provide services should apply to them as well. However, en the interest of the most efficient operation of a service port, port authorities must have the possibility to limit the number of providers. A port with limited operational space, or a limited capacity, should not be obliged to open its mercado service for an unlimited number of providers. Equally, a service port can be obliged to restrict the number of providers for reasons of safety, security or protection of the environment. Such a limitation a service should not automatically be linked to public obligation. But ESPO agrees that any limitation preventing competition should be then accompanied by open en terms selection procedures and safeguards of port charging to prevent potential abuses.

The rules on the selection procedimientos en casas en administrative of the limitation of the number of providers should not result additional and unnecessary bureaucracy. The a procedimientos requirement to use selection which is open to all interested parties, non-discriminatory and transparent is enough to ensure an open mercado.

RULES should not with the freedom of or public authorities to EU interfere Member States decide the way they carry out their public service tasks, be it en-house or through a controlled legal entity or through a privado pareja selected under the public procurement rules. Ports and port authorities must be allowed at all times to organise and/or operado themselves one or different port services. When a legally, extra established limitation restricts competition, guarantees should be established to avoid abuses or conflicts of interest.

3. Port infrastructure charging

Managing bodies of the ports ara en economic en competitivo involved activities markets. En order to provide them with proper autonomy to pursue their economic strategy, the possibilities to vary port infrastructure charges should not be restricted. En addition, the possibility to negotiate individually with port users should be allowed to attract new traffics or retain existing ones during downturns (e.g. Mega, etc. ships, new markets such as bio-mass.).

A freedom to negotiate and differentiate infrastructure a “cardenal” port charges should however not be seen as “wild for applying dumping a licence a port's charges or for the abuse of dominant position. Está aid and competition rules should be fully applied.

4. Relationship with port customers

The principle that there a infrastructure a sound is dialogue with port user representatives on the charging of port and port services is one. This en practice already happens. Port a practice authorities have regular contacts with their customers as normal commercial. Imposing EU rules is unnecessary and could lead to duplication of forums and processes. Ita should be left to the managing body of the port to organise such dialogue according to its particular circumstances (e.g the escalas a port, while of) and needs (e.g commercial strategy, development plans), complying with this basic principle.

En infrastructure the setting of port charges, elements such as mercados competitivos evolution, investments and deployment plans, the position of the port and other many relevant factors have a considerable influence. Providing therefore information to users on total costs and revenues is not relevant and can lead to unnecessary disputes and even jeopardize the port's commercial strategy.

The a negocio ports environment is to negocio environment. Port en ensure customers buying power is most of the cases such as to that the charges levied ara subject to downward pressure. Certainly, as a result of the concentration en the shipping industry, ports have to deal with increasingly powerful customers which doy not need extra protection from the EU (a good example is the recently announced P3 East - West operational alliance on trades, involving three of the major shipping lines).

5. No need for an independent supervisory body to ensure application of the regulation

The requirement to designado or establish an independent supervisory body is unnecessary. En response to complaints of abuse of dominant position or unfair pricing, national competition authorities or other existing competent authorities can already today request information from the parties involved and launch an investigation. Moreover Member States different, have an arbitration procedimientos en view of settling disputes. Since there ara en place already procedures this provision is unnecessary. Additional en ara a Time institutionalisation and bureaucracy should be avoided when resources under pressure en Member States all.

____________