PORT COOPERATION BETWEEN EUROPEAN SEAPORTS FUNDAMENTALS, CHALLENGES AND GOOD PRACTICES Presentation of the study carried out on behalf of the GUE/NGL in the European Parliament, 19th October 2016, Brussels M.Sc. (dist.) Ing. Verena Flitsch Fraunhofer Center for Maritime Logistics and Services CML Am Schwarzenberg-Campus 4D 21073 Hamburg, Germany Phone +49 40 42878-6037, Fax -4452 Verena.flitsch@cml.fraunhofer.de www.cml.fraunhofer.de
Agenda Background Actors and types Good practices Limitations and synergies Conclusion 2
Agenda Background Actors and types Good practices Limitations and synergies Conclusion 3
Background Study 1 Fundamentals of port cooperation Approach: Analysis of previous studies and desk research Insights from interviews with port authorities, terminal operators, liner carriers and sea freight forwarders Study 2 Application of the fundamentals of port cooperation to the German North Sea ports (Wilhelmshaven, Bremerhaven, Hamburg) 4
Background Opportunities of port cooperation Reduction of investment needs (infrastructure = physical and fixed technical structures, suprastructure = surface equipment) Pooling of ressources Environmental protection Flexible adjustment to changed market conditions Ship sizes Surface area Digitalization Risks of port cooperation Competition is of benefit for ocean carriers May violate EU Competition Law Effort and extent are difficult to measure 5
Agenda Background Actors and types Good practices Limitations and synergies Conclusion 6
Actors Ocean carriers Main customers of ports (ports have a passive role embedded in a competitive system with similar service offerings) Shippers and seafreight forwarders provide cargo ( ships follow cargo ) Economic parameters are main port choice factors (low port dues have an impact but hinterland transport costs can be far higher than ocean freight rate) Port attractiveness for carriers relates to Efficient terminal handling and port hinterland connections High local transport volumes Strategies to influence ocean carrier s port choices (Federal) state owned carrier Dedicated terminals Port dues + hinterland costs (!) Port capacity and handling efficiency 7
Actors In political and public debate The port is referred to as if it was only one business unit, which is only rarely the case Distinction into port authority and terminal operator with different business goals according to organizational structure (public, private, public-private) Classification of sovereign, commercially oriented or commercial tasks Port governance is related to the ownership of a port area and operation of a port terminal According to ESPO (2016): 87% of the port authorities in Europe remain mainly publicly state owned or municipality owned; full private ownership is only a characteristic of some ports in the UK >50% of the port authorities are structured as independent commercial entities and operate in a commercially-oriented manner (Ltd, GmbH, AB) Cargo handling ship-to-shore services are in the hands of private operators (74%) 8
Actors Port authority Responsible for sovereign tasks; strong link to public welfare generation and social benefit maximization Landlord for a private terminal operator => income is generated by charging rent for terminal infrastructure and port dues OR Authority and operator of terminal handling and storage => income is generated by charging port dues and handling and storage fees Other roles: Promoter of port services Operator of nautical services Facilitator of hinterland transport by providing inland infrastructure Port planner, infrastructure investment controller, financier, and manager Regulator of marine access, port performance, port safety and security 9
Actors Terminal operator Responsible for the operation of terminal handling and storage; in addition provision of hinterland transport services Main income is generated through terminal handling charges; customers are ocean carriers Terminal operators are competitors since their goods and services are comparable The market of terminal operation Global terminal operators as worldwide businesses (PSA, APM, DP World) Regional or local terminal operators (Eurogate, Waalhaven Group, Bolloré Logistics, HHLA) Shipping lines who invest in terminals (Maersk at NTB Bremerhaven, or dedicated terminals in Antwerp of PSA and MSC) 10
Actors Distinction of private and public ownership and operation Public service port - A public authority owns and operates the port (small German ports of Husum, Büsum, Tönning, or Friedrichstadt) Tool port A public authority owns infrastructure and suprastructure but a private company operates the port ( Ports Autonomes in France) Landlord port - Public infrastructure, private suprastructure, and private port operations management (big container ports of Rotterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg) Corporate port - Represents ports which are almost entirely privatized but ownership remains public (parts of the ports of Kiel and Amsterdam) Private service port Private infrastructure, private suprastructure, and private port operations management (Associated British Ports with Cardiff, Southampton and Plymouth; or Brunsbüttel in Germany) 11
Types Port cooperation types (with overlaps) MoU (Shanghai and Antwerp in 2014, Los Angeles and Hamburg in 2013) Coopetition of ports in proximity Ports segment service offerings (Elbe Seaports, RheinPorts); joint venture seems only way for full cooperation Port integration Revenues are shared (joint venture CMP, or the ports of Kotka and Hamina); only in the UK full port privatization and deregulation Seaport and inland port Terminals at both locations (ECT in Rotterdam and Duisburg), subsidaries providing barge/rail/truck transport services Hub port cooperation Hub and feeder port system in container transport Steering of transport flows (e.g. transshipment vs. import/export) 12
Agenda Background Actors and types Good practices Limitations and synergies Conclusion 13
Good practices Elbe Seaports Characteristics Description Number of ports 5 Country Type of cooperation Governance Actors Main tasks Germany (at the river Elbe) Coopetition of ports in proximity Landlord ports (Cuxhaven, Stade, Hamburg), Private service ports (Brunsbüttel, Glücksstadt) Port authorities, business development organisations, private terminal operator Marketing of services, sourcing of services 14
Good practices RheinPorts Characteristics Description Number of ports 3 Country Type of cooperation Switzerland, France, Germany Coopetition of ports in proximity Governance Public service port/corporate port Actors Main tasks Port authorities and terminal operators Traffic management for efficient use of resources, joint IT system incl. traffic information exchange, marketing, area allocation 15
Good practices Antwerp-Duisburg Characteristics Description Number of ports 2 Country Type of cooperation Belgium, Germany Cooperation of seaports and inland ports Governance Landlord ports Actors Main tasks Port authority, port authority and terminal operator Daily rail shuttle service between the Deurganck dock in Antwerp and Logport I 16
Good practices Copenhagen-Malmö (CMP) Characteristics Description Number of ports 2 Country Type of cooperation Sweden, Denmark Integration of ports in proximity Governance Actors Main tasks Landlord ports Joint port authority and terminal operator: City & Port Development I/S (50%), City of Malmö (27%), private shareholders (23%) All port services 17
Good practices Peel Ports Characteristics Description Number of ports 7 Country Type of cooperation UK and Ireland Integration (privatization) Governance Private service port Actors Port authority and port terminal is the Peel Ports Group Limited Main tasks All task of an integrated port authority and port terminal 18
Good practices Other examples New container terminal in Wilhelmshaven (JadeWeserPort 51% Federal State of Lower Saxony and 49% Federal State of Bremen) Eurogate Group with container terminals at different port locations in close geographical distance (Wilhelmshaven, Bremerhaven, Hamburg) and Shareholders from Bremen and Hamburg Hamburg Vessel Coodination Center (HVCC) as Joint Venture between HHLA (67%) and Eurogate (33%) to coordinate vessel calls Many examples on authority level No direct competition; customers are long-term tenants Soft tasks seem always possible Few examples on terminal operator level in cargo handling Direct competition Joint Ventures or integration seem only options (CMP, Kotka-Hamina, Rheinports have very special frameworks) 19
Agenda Background Actors and types Good practices Limitations and synergies Conclusion 20
Limitations EU Policy Lack of addressing this issue in communication and strategy papers, e.g. 2013 Ports: an engine for growth 2011 White Paper TEN-T port network plans Blue Belt initiative Also on national level, e.g. in Germany, cooperation among seaports has not been a priority within the national port development program (although included briefly now) Tendency: Port cooperation is initiated on regional level instead of national or EU level 21
Limitations Legal framework Cooperation between terminal operators is feasible if the benefit is not only of commercial nature but also of relevance for the general public Limiting laws, e.g. Cartel law and competition law Procurement law Rules regarding subsidiaries and state aid law (notification of projects) Starting point for legal analysis is to clarify if a port cooperation initiative fulfills Sovereign tasks (environmental, safety and security, and regulatory issues in ports) of the authority; or Economical tasks (handling of cargo) of the operating actor Cooperation on authority level is not bound to cartel law 22
Synergies Hierarchy of port cooperation Marketing+ as extendable basis Pursued by port authorities acting as independent commercial entities Possible without bigger structural changes Cargo handling and storage remains in the hand of private terminal operators Cooperative tasks deal with, e.g. Marketing and PR Strategy development Port and investment planning Engineering Human resources Environmental protection Joint venture... Hinterland and value-added logistics services IT platforms Human ressources management Procurement of services Sourcing of material and equipment Marketing, information exchange 23
Synergies Hierarchy of port cooperation Joint venture incl. terminal handling as strongest type Takes place between port authorities operating in a commercially oriented manner and one/several private port terminal operators Foundation of a joint venture company responsible for cargo handling and storage; shared revenues So far only applicable in special situations such as port access or port area restrictions Requires fundamental structural changes of the port governance and is not easy to accomplish without a strong economic and societal necessity The impact on public infrastructure investments is large Joint venture... Hinterland and value-added logistics services IT platforms Human ressources management Procurement of services Sourcing of material and equipment Marketing, information exchange 24
Agenda Background Actors and types Good practices Limitations and synergies Conclusion 25
Conclusion Discussion of future initiatives requires Precise distinction of port actors and port governance structures ( Who should cooperate with whom why how? ) Awareness that port cooperation between authorities is already in place Through regular meetings and information exchange Mainly on national but also on international level, e.g. through ESPO Awareness that terminal operators are willing to cooperate If there is an indirect commercial value by generating benefits for carriers seaside and landside If there is a direct commercial value (BUT then legal frameworks only allow certain company structures) 26
Conclusion It is anticipated that the future lies with Port cooperation initiatives at regional level rather than on national level or EU Proximity to operations Port governance structures are still regional Cooperation of port authorities Fewer legal restrictions Can be rapidly realized and enlarged on a mid-term scale Cooperation of two (or more) terminal operators in proximity To improve services for carriers (seaside and landside) Cooperation of authorities and/or operators to improve supporting activities IT, customs, energy supply, waste disposal Security in ports (container scanning, access control) 27
PORT COOPERATION BETWEEN EUROPEAN SEAPORTS FUNDAMENTALS, CHALLENGES AND GOOD PRACTICES Discussion M.Sc. (dist.) Ing. Verena Flitsch Fraunhofer Center for Maritime Logistics and Services CML Am Schwarzenberg-Campus 4D 21073 Hamburg, Germany Phone +49 40 42878-6037, Fax -4452 Verena.flitsch@cml.fraunhofer.de www.cml.fraunhofer.de