It was very impressive to read the list of commitments that have been taken in Brest on the occasion of the One Ocean Summit organized by the French Presidency of the Council. It is very positive to see that so many stakeholders are ready to engage to protect biodiversity, the oceans and to drastically reduce the carbon footprint of maritime transport.

Ambition is in our interest as are the sense of responsibility and commitment which materialize into concrete actions.

It was however unexpected to read in the final declaration of the summit, commitments on behalf of terminal operators who were not really involved in the discussions. This is probably due to a kind of confusion that often prevails regarding the diversity of port stakeholders and their role.

For those who do not know, ports gather a variety of stakeholders some of whom are public, while others are private.

In most EU ports (which are landlord ones), port authorities represent public municipalities, Members States or regions and are in charge of the building and management of port infrastructure, while private port companies and terminals ensure commercial activities thanks to investments in superstructure, equipment and the training of port workers.

The other port services such as pilotage and towage or salvage offer public and private services.

When it comes to investments to decarbonize their activities, private port companies and terminals invest their own financial resources to green their equipment and operations.

The above mentioned confusion regarding the role of the different stakeholders in ports has materialized in some amendments to the Fit for 55 proposals as well as in few sentences of the final declaration of the One Ocean Summit:

“The port authorities, representing the main maritime entry points of the countries represented at the One Ocean Summit, the terminal operators as well as the financial institutions signatories, declare their common commitment:

– To make their best efforts to deploy, by 2028, shore-side electricity supply, in particular for cruises and container ships.

– To reward as ports the most virtuous ships stopovers by incentive mechanisms such as those based on the environmental ship index (ESI) or Green Award program, which allow to reduce stopover fees and in general to promote actions in favour of the improvement of the port passage environmental balance.”

How can it be expected that terminal operators – which are private entities – commit to finance alternative fuel infrastructure?

This is the primary task of Member States, municipalities or regions and Port Authorities, which represent them at local level. Why building an infrastructure should be in the remit and responsibility of private port companies and terminals, in particular when there is no commitment from the customers to use the alternative fuels and no certainty that there will be a return on investments? Private port companies and terminals will certainly offer to their customers the service – i.e., the access to alternative fuels – once the infrastructure would have been built and the demand proven to be a sustainable one.

It is very reassuring to see that many MEPs are understanding irrelevant shortcuts and realizing that there are no objective reasons to push the “hot potato” of financing to private port companies and terminals in ports. It is the responsibility of Member States and their representatives in ports to finance the deployment of alternative fuel infrastructure.

FEPORT does not support amendments to the Fit for 55 proposals, and more particularly to AFIR, that shift the responsibility of infrastructure deployment in ports to terminal operators. We look forward to continuing the discussion with EU institutions to adopt pieces of legislation that do not create confusion about the role of each stakeholder in ports.
Source: FEPORT