In the port industry, we are used to often hear that port congestion and port productivity are the main causes of disruption in the maritime logistics chains. But we often reply: “Don’t miss the forest for the trees…” as congestion in ports is often the sign of inefficiencies in the maritime logistics chain i.e., upstream and downstream ports.

One “positive” outcome of the COVID-19 crisis is that port stakeholders for instance in the EU have shown their resilience. Both employers and employees have ensured 24/7 the good circulation of cargoes and the security of the supplies to hospitals, factories, and supermarkets. The pandemic has thrown light on the strategic dimension and the role of ports even if praise of port stakeholders has been very discrete.

At this very moment, in the framework of the necessary support of the EU to Ukraine, port stakeholders and FEPORT members are mobilizing to support the recent EU Commission’s initiative EU-Ukraine solidarity lanes. Port stakeholders are very often problem solvers when difficulties arise and threaten the good functioning of the maritime logistics chain and the EU security of supplies.

But the ability of port stakeholders to handle difficult situations must not exempt other parties of the maritime logistics chain as well as Member States from the responsibility to improve individually. This is exactly what FEPORT has tried to flag out in its Press Release end of April and its recent feedback to the EU Commission regarding the lack of harmonization of border controls and too lengthy veterinary checks regarding agricultural products, for instance coming from Ukraine or from non-EU countries like Serbia, and crossing different borders.

COVID-19 has taught us that disruption will be part of the new functioning we should all accept. However, this does not mean that we should accept that inefficiencies within the maritime logistics chain become a “destiny”, a “curse” that cannot be overcome. Throughout the two last years, we indeed heard about “coming back to normal slowly”, about the “new normal”, no “back to normal” and then other events such as the Suez blockade by the Ever Given occurred, followed by the lockdowns in some countries. And since end of February, in connection with the tragedy in Ukraine, port stakeholders are facing the consequences of the implementation of the sanctions on Russia, which translate into many justified customs checks leading to further delays and longer dwell times if not storage of part of the containers destined for Russia.

And now, Shanghai…, the lockdown, the lack of information about the reality prevailing there. While some parties are considering that the situation in Shanghai is nothing really exceptional and that hundreds of ships usually wait there while other regions of the world must just wait. Others, for instance in the port sector, are worried about the possible consequences.

The slowing down of the Chinese manufacturing industry might be an explanation for the situation in Shanghai, but then should we not all question the unbalanced nature of trade flows and envisage more diversification and sourcing from other countries? Same question arises regarding Ukraine and the lack of transport capacities or alternatives when ports are closed due to war. Should we not seriously invest in multimodality, in a robust physical and digital connectivity and in interoperability all over the EU to be prepared and more agile?

Whatever the explanation about “Shanghai’s bottleneck” is, the situation calls for more awareness and more proactivity from all stakeholders as well as from policy makers. Currently EU port stakeholders manage and are compelled to accept that exports are not picked up from yards, that schedule reliability remains low, that imports are not collected either and that port terminal capacities are in some ports full up to 90%.

Some will say that congestion is due to the cargo destined to Russia, but this is only partially true and certainly not valid for all ports. It has probably become a habit for a certain number of stakeholders – both public and private ones – to consider that terminals can find space “within a night”, even if operators have been requesting for months or years to extend yards and storage areas without success… It has become a habit to see ships showing up three days later than expected while still expecting to be served as if they were on time. It has become a habit for cargo interests to use yards as areas where they stock their cargo when their warehouses are full… It has become a habit for terminals to reiterate year after year that port multimodal connectivity is vital without being really heard…

Time has come to consider the function of seaport terminals seriously: yards are not open roof warehouses or parking areas. Any owner of a car parking cannot be profitable or efficiently manage its assets if customers do not respect the rules and appointments. This is not only detrimental to business, but just terrible for the environment with trucks waiting in the vicinity of ports longer than needed, with unnecessary moves in the yards to manage the hectic and unpredictable arrivals of ships or their cascading effects… Seaport terminals have no visibility on the contractual relationship between shipping lines and their customers, thus – if they do not receive information from these two important stakeholders – the situation can only get worse.

COVID-19 and recent events should not justify wrong practices deriving from silo strategies in the maritime logistics chains as this will ultimately harm the EU economy, its citizens, and its businesses.

There is an urgent need for coordination at EU level to make the best use of port and rail capacities that can be mobilized for Ukrainian agricultural exports. There is an urgent need for more cooperation between different jurisdictions and competition authorities and a real monitoring of practices in the maritime logistics chain that may have negative consequences on the EU economy.
Source: FEPORT