92002E3530

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3530/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Competition between large ports with a common hinterland and squandering of public money in an effort to beat the competition

1. In connection with this issue, does the Commission recall the discussion which its predecessor held with the European Parliament about the need to regulate competition between maritime ports, a discussion which ultimately failed to lead to any proposals to that effect in the proposal for a directive on market access to port services which was aimed at promoting competition within the maritime ports and debated by the European Parliament at first reading on 14 November 2001?

2. Is the Commission aware that the problem of competition concerns principally ports on the eastern shore of the North Sea which all serve the same densely-populated hinterland more or less, i.e. the ports, located in four different Member States, of Hamburg, Bremen, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp, Zeebrugge and Dunkirk, which, consequently, compete with each other for the same cargoes instead of seeking to share out the trade on a sensible basis?

3. Is the Commission also aware that, over the years, competition between the ports listed in question 2 has led to each of them outbidding each other with the help of government investment, to the creation of surplus capacity, given the trends in the amount of maritime transport, to the constant endeavour to offer lower rates than the nearest competitor port, to maximum opacity as regards their own financial input, and to spying on the competition?

4. Does the Commission recall how difficult it was to reach an EU-wide agreement on a common system for the collection of ship-generated waste and cargo residues applicable to the North Sea and the Baltic as well as to the Mediterranean? Does it admit that there are major differences between the small ports scattered around the shore of the Mediterranean, which have a limited sphere of influence, and the large ports located within each other's sphere of influence on the densely-populated shores of the North Sea? Can a common type of EU-wide operational management be imposed on ports operating under widely differing conditions, or does the Commission see any grounds for promoting the drawing up of more restricted rules to apply to ports which have a strong influence on each other's operations?

5. Does the Commission accept that, as far as competition between ports is concerned, the existence or not of the EU is a matter of supreme indifference? Or is it seeking a separate solution to this problem, in addition to the proposed directive? Will this result in legislative proposals, and is the memorandum which it has undertaken to publish to be seen as a preliminary stage in such legislation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2003)

1. and 5. The Commission recalls all previous debates on a European ports policy. It wishes to remind the Honourable Member that the Treaty's rules on state aid apply to ports. The essence of these rules was set out in the

Communication from the Commission to the Parliament and the Council Reinforcing Quality Service in Sea Ports: A Key for European Transport(1) of 13 February 2001. Following requests by Parliament and Council, a more detailed document has been made available to Council and Parliament to facilitate the current debate on the Directive on Port Services.

2. to 4. The Commission is aware of the fact that, in particular since the completion of the internal market, there is intense competition between ports. This is particularly the case, as for example in North West (NW) Europe, where ports serve essentially the main hinterland, although competition between ports is by no means limited to such figuration.

The Commission is aware of the fact that public and private bodies in NW European ports have made significant port investments over recent years and continue to do so. There is no indication that these investments have led to serious overcapacity. Indeed, indications are that generally a balance was found between capacity demand and supply.

Public investments may be made provided the state aid rules of the EC Treaty are respected. The Commission would follow up complaints, as it has done in the past, in order to assess whether the rules have been respected. However, the Commission does not believe that an Union-wide operational management body should be set up to distribute cargoes and business between ports and the NW European ports in particular, because such body would be unlikely to substitute adequately the commercial activities of ports and their customers.

The Community initiative Interreg III for the period 2000-2006, under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), can contribute to promote the co-operation among ports in view of achieving a more balanced and sustainable development of maritime transport in Europe. In the framework of certain programmes, such as North Sea area, Baltic Sea area, North West Europe, Atlantic area or Western Mediterranean national, regional or local authorities and other actors can deal with the questions raised under point 4 and work together to address issues such as sea transport and co-operation among ports. More information can be obtained on http:/europa.eu.int./comm/regional_policy/interreg3.

(1) COM(2001) 35 final.