Brussels, 08/03/2016 (Agence Europe) - After long discussions, MEPs adopted the report on market access to port services and financial transparency of ports on Tuesday 8 March. The majority in favour was relatively comfortable - 451 to 243, with 187 abstentions - and the report is felt to be a balanced compromise and a sound base for opening inter-institutional negotiations.
The text seeks to ensure transparency in the setting of fees for the use of port services and infrastructure, and in any public funding that ports receive to support port activity. However, it makes provision for a range of derogations for current port arrangements to be retained, subject to certain conditions, and to limit the number of service providers, so long as minimum standards are met (see EUROPE 11475). One of the important points highlighted by the rapporteur, Knut Fleckenstein (S&D, Germany), is that the report was able to dismiss the forced free market access to port services that was in the initial proposal by the European Commission that was brought forward by for transport commissioner Siim Kallas in May 2013.
“For the first time in the course of the long discussions on the port package, we have the ports, the terminal operators and the unions on board”, Fleckenstein noted. “It's a compromise and, as with every compromise, one is never fully satisfied”, said Gesine Meissner (ALDE, Germany) who had backed the report in the plenary session debate on 7 March. Stelios Kouloglou (GUE/NGL, Greece) also supported the text, describing it as reasonably supportive of workers. The Greens/EFA voted against the text, Karima Delli (France) indicating that it was felt still to be too liberal and too weak on protecting the environment.
For civil society, the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) welcomed the plenary session vote. When the Commission brought out its communication, ESPO expressed a great number of misgivings because of its one-size-fits-all approach. Consequently, it went round trying to get its position across to MEPs. It would seem that its arguments have been heard, for example on increasing ports' independence in setting fees and in making the organisation of port services more flexible.
The task that had faced the German rapporteur was, to say the least, difficult. Twice in the past, plans to harmonise and liberalise port services have failed after it proved impossible to reach any compromise as European ports are so highly diversified. In the S&D and EPP, voting discipline was ignored by some delegations which felt national interests were too much at stake. Majorities in the UK, Polish and Spanish delegations voted against the text, each for different reasons (see EUROPE 11475).
Fleckenstein, after being put to the vote in the transport committee, was finally elected to lead the trialogue discussions with the Council of the EU and the European Parliament on behalf of the Parliament.
A day before the vote, the Commission opened a public consultation on the proposal to exempt certain investment aid for ports from its prior scrutiny of state aid (see EUROPE 11506). (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)