Maritime Shipping and Ports
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
3
1.
Introduction
7
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
Background to the Project
Context of the Diagnostic Study
Objectives and Approach of the Module
Structure of the Module
7
8
9
10
2.
EU References and Guidelines
12
2.1.
Policy Framework
12
2.1.1.
2.1.2.
2.1.3.
Ports
Maritime Shipping
Maritime Safety & Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)
12
13
15
2.2.
Legal Framework
16
2.2.1.
2.2.2.
2.2.3.
2.2.4.
Ports
Maritime Shipping
Maritime Safety & Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)
Maritime Security
16
18
24
34
3.
Facts, Figures and Statistics about MEDA Maritime
Transport
35
3.1.
3.2.
General
Maritime Traffic
35
35
3.2.1.
3.2.2.
3.2.3.
3.2.4.
Total Volume and Modal Share
Maritime Traffic per Country
Maritime Traffic per Category
Main Corridors
35
37
38
43
3.3.
Maritime Shipping in the MEDA Region
43
3.3.1.
3.3.2.
3.3.3.
Fleet and Fleet Condition
Regular Maritime Lines in Western Mediterranean
Regular Maritime Lines in Eastern Mediterranean
43
45
48
3.4.
Ports
50
4.
Maritime Policy in the MEDA Region
60
4.1.
Competition and Liberalisation
60
4.1.1.
4.1.2.
Maritime Shipping
Ports
60
60
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
Short Sea Shipping
Hub Development
Maritime Safety
60
60
61
5.
Maritime Shipping in the MEDA Region
63
5.1.
General
63
1
Module 5
2
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
5.2.
Legal Framework and Conventions
63
5.2.1.
5.2.2.
Legal Framework
Conventions
63
63
5.3.
Operations
72
5.3.1.
5.3.2.
5.3.3.
Overview
Regional Cabotage and Short Sea Shipping Development
Liner Conferences & Alliances
72
76
78
6.
Port Authorities and Operations in the MEDA Region
79
6.1.
Legal Framework and Conventions
79
6.1.1.
6.1.2.
Legal Framework
Conventions and Associations
79
84
6.2.
Regional Comparison in Case of Regulation & Privatisation
84
6.2.1.
6.2.2.
General
Some Examples of Port Commercialisation
84
88
6.3.
Main Bottlenecks and Issues
91
6.3.1.
6.3.2.
On a Sub-Regional Level
On a MEDA Regional Level
91
94
7.
Maritime Safety / Security and Global Navigation
Satellite System (GNSS)
97
7.1.
7.2.
General
Adhesion to International Conventions
97
97
7.2.1.
7.2.2.
7.2.3.
Maritime Safety
Marine Environment Protection
Harmonisation and Implementation of Maritime conventions
97
98
99
7.3.
7.4.
7.5.
7.6.
VTS-VTMIS
Maritime Security
Maritime Education & Training
GNSS
101
102
102
104
8.
Findings and Recommendations
105
8.1.
8.2.
8.3.
8.4.
8.5.
General
Improvement Measures Related to Maritime Transport Policy
Improvement Measures Related to Maritime Shipping
Improvement Measures Related to Ports
Improvement Measures Related to Maritime Safety and
Maritime Security
105
105
106
107
9.
Abbreviations & Acronyms
110
10.
References
113
108
10.1 Bibliography
10.2. Websites
113
116
Appendix 1: Synthesis of an integrated Maritime Action Plan
117
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Executive Summary
Project Background
The Barcelona Process in 1995 marked the start
of a new relationship between the European
Union (EU-15) and its 12 Mediterranean
Partners (Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan,
Lebanon,
Malta,
Morocco,
Palestinian
Authority, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey). Amongst
its objectives, this partnership intends to create a
Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area between
the EU and its Mediterranean Partners, and
between these partners themselves, and to
enhance overall prosperity and safety in the
region. For the success of this Free Trade Area,
a sustainable and efficient multi-modal transport
system is vital. For this purpose, the European
Commission launched the EuroMed Transport
Project, which aims at:
• Integration of transport policies and
regulations, and harmonisation of transport
institutional structures across the MEDA
region (this is envisaged to be achieved
through a Main Contract that started in the
beginning of 2003).
• Integration of regional transport networks
and physical infrastructure (this is envisaged
to be achieved through the Infrastructure
Contract that started in July 2003).
Module Context and Objectives
Within the context of the Main Contract, several
outputs are planned among which is a Diagnostic
Study that provides an overall comprehensive
assessment of the status of the transport system
in the MEDA region. The Diagnostic Study is
laid out in two parts, namely Part I that covers
Regional Issues and Part II that covers Country
Issues. This present document falls within the
umbrella of Part I of the Diagnostic Study. It is
referenced as Module 5 ‘Maritime Shipping and
Ports; a key sector to foster intra-regional trade
relations’ is devoted to the diagnostic of the
maritime transport sector in the MEDA
countries.
It has the following objectives:
• First, to provide a description of the current
situation of the maritime transport sector in
the MEDA region, and to highlight existing
problems and deficiencies.
•
Second, to define remedial measures that
will have a tangible and positive impact on
eliminating the identified deficiencies,
consequently stimulating the growth of the
maritime and shipping industry in the
MEDA region.
EU Policy and Regulatory Frameworks
in Relation to Maritime Transport
Even though maritime transport faces some
difficulties in the EU, it remains strong,
particularly after the EU enlargement and the
growth of SSS (Short Sea Shipping) routes.
Presently, ships carry 90% of all trade between
the EU and third countries and the maritime
transport sector employs around 2.5 million
people in the EU. The 2001 White Paper
focuses, in particular, on the development of
SSS, sea-motorways and inter-modality. The
implementation of a genuine European maritime
traffic management system, the enhancement of
maritime safety and the development of a global
navigation safety system are also underlined, as
well as port reform and modernisation. The EU
legal framework enforces this policy through a
global set of directives, decisions and regulations
dealing with ports (with an accent on inter-port
and intra-port competition, service quality and
financing), maritime shipping (with an accent on
liberalisation and SSS development) and
maritime safety (through the setting-up of the
European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), the
development of Vessel Traffic Surveillance /
Vessel Traffic Management and Information
Services Systems (VTS/VTMIS), and the
development of the European Global Navigation
Satellite System –Galileo- implementation).
It is clear that the EU policy and regulatory
frameworks relating to maritime transport and
ports can provide a good reference and a set of
best practices for the MEDA Partners in this
domain.
General Facts about the MEDA
Maritime Transport Sector
The MEDA maritime transport sector is
characterised by the following key indicators
(based on 2001-2002 data):
• Most of the trade of the Southern
Mediterranean countries is sea borne with a
stable modal share (in volume) over 75%,
the lion’s share of which is with the EU.
3
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
•
•
•
•
•
The maritime traffic per country reflects
tremendous differences from 132.3 million
tonnes in Turkey (demographic impact and
long coastlines) to 6 million tonnes in
Lebanon (only one major port and small
population) through 100 million tonnes in
Algeria (oil and oil derivatives).
There exist 25 major maritime corridors in
the region, each carrying over 2 million
tonnes/year, mostly for oil and oil derivatives
transport. Moreover, maritime lines are
operated on a regular basis from each major
MEDA port.
In the MEDA region, 57 ports have a traffic
exceeding 1 million tonnes/year mostly
specialised in liquid bulk, with a total traffic
just over 10% of Rotterdam Port. The port
equipment (technical equipment, land
connections,
Information
and
Communication Technology, etc) are
different among countries and among ports
of the same country.
The traffic per category also shows
differences across the region. Some
countries have a significant part of maritime
traffic for Containers and Ro-Ro traffic
(Israel 30%), others for liquid bulk (Algeria
83%), and others for dry bulk (Jordan
62%). The high share of bulk, in general,
explains the low containerisation potential
and, partly, the low containerisation rate.
However, this rate is growing, despite a high
percentage of empty units.
The sea passenger traffic remains low with
just a few regular ferry routes. Meanwhile, a
growing market exists for cruises.
MEDA Maritime Transport Policy
An analysis of the present situation of the
maritime transport policy in the various MEDA
countries was carried out. The results of the
analysis illustrated that apart from a few
coordinating bodies, such as the UAPNA (‘Union
des Administrations Portuaires du Nord de
l’Afrique’ ) or the APU (Arab Port Union), no
common maritime policy / practices presently
exist for ports or shipping in the MEDA region:
• From the competition and liberalisation
points of view, in some countries, the State
dominates to a large extent ports and
maritime fleets, with a low degree of
competition, whereas in some others,
opportunities for BOT in ports already exist
4
•
and the involvement in private shipping
takes place in an open market.
Short see shipping is important for Malta,
Cyprus and partly Turkey while it appears to
be less important elsewhere.
Some countries/ports develop a hub approach,
whereas some do not, for various reasons.
Nevertheless, two major common concerns seem
to be shared across the region:
• Port Reform represents a common objective,
and all countries seem to have an intent to
increase port competition, improve port
services and reduce costs.
• All countries seem very serious to rise with
the
issue
of maritime and
port
safety/security to EU and international
standards. Examples in this domain include
the formation of the Mediterranean MoU
and the Rempec, as well as the common
acceptance of the ISPS code (although the
code application level differs among MEDA
countries).
Based on the above, it is clear that there is a
need to develop a harmonised and common
maritime/port policy to be shared by the various
MEDA Partners. The EU can be of tremendous
assistance in this respect.
MEDA Maritime Shipping
The analysis of the status of maritime shipping in
the MEDA region revealed the following key
facts:
• The shipping market has been opened up in
virtually most MEDA countries where the
private sector is allowed to engage in
maritime shipping operations.
• However, it seems that, in general, the
current regulatory frameworks governing
maritime shipping do not provide the
necessary support for the participation of the
private sector (with few exceptions such as
Cyprus, Malta and Egypt). Specifically, a
local shareholding majority is generally
required for the creation of a private
maritime company, and regulatory or fiscal
incentives that can enhance the livelihood of
private companies while at the same time
ensuring fair competition are often
insufficient (i.e. lack of competitive ship
registration costs, corporate tax levels,
annual tonnage taxes, etc). In addition, it
Maritime Shipping and Ports
appears that several countries still exhibit
practices which negatively impact the
openness and fairness of competition, by
providing state aids and special treatment
for their national carriers, thereby further
reducing the competitive edge of the private
companies. As a combination of the above
factors, private shipping companies are
facing strong competition from foreign
carriers and their activities are endangered,
not to mention that their vessel fleets are in
a poor condition and have a high age in
almost all MEDA countries. It is extremely
essential to turn this situation around. This
will require MEDA governments to adjust
their regulatory frameworks with the
purpose of enhancing the well-being of
private shipping companies while at the
same time maintaining a fair state of play in
the market. The EU regulatory framework
can be very helpful in this regard.
MEDA Ports
With respect to the institutional structure of
ports, this differs considerably in the MEDA
region as follows:
• In some countries (Morocco, Tunisia, Cyprus
and Malta), the management structure is
centralised and a single authority is
mandated at the national level to manage all
major publicly owned ports in the country. It
should be noted that for Cyprus and Malta,
this cannot be viewed as a problem given the
proximity between ports in each country.
• In other countries (Egypt, Israel, Syria,
Lebanon and Jordan), decentralisation has
been achieved to a large extent, or will be
achieved in the near future, where the
management of almost each port is
undertaken by an independent authority with
a high degree of freedom and autonomy.
• In other countries, decentralisation has been
only partially accomplished. For example, in
Turkey, the management of the major
publicly owned ports is divided between two
authorities, and in Algeria, the management
of the port system is carried out by three
regional port authorities.
Concerning port services (pilotage, towage,
cargo handling, container handling, etc.), the
level of market liberalisation varies significantly
between MEDA countries:
•
•
•
These activities seem currently rather
protected in several countries (Syria,
Jordan, Israel and Algeria) and are reserved
to a large extent for the public sector. Many
of these countries are nevertheless taking
steps to change this situation in the future.
In other countries (Tunisia, Morocco and
Turkey), the opening up of these services is
at a moderate stage, as the public sector is
heavily involved in providing port operations
and services, but considerable participation
of the private sector can be noticed as well.
Other countries (Egypt, Cyprus, Lebanon and
Malta) are more advanced in this domain as
the most significant share of port services, if
not all, is undertaken by the private sector
subject to an authorisation and license from
the port authority.
Optimising the functioning of ports represents a
major necessity and a crucial issue for all MEDA
countries. Based on the EU and international
experiences in this domain, there are three main
approaches in which this could be accomplished,
namely the decentralisation of port management,
the commercialisation of ports and the
introduction of private management in ports. In
selecting the optimal approach (or approaches)
to be adopted, MEDA countries need to take into
consideration the specificities of their ports
(ownership, management, function, size, physical
set-up, geographic location, etc.):
• Decentralisation of port management
includes firstly, separating the task of port
regulation from the task of port
management, and secondly, delegating the
management of the ports to local
autonomous authorities which are not
obstructed by government intervention. This
would ensure that port authorities become in
direct contact with their customers and more
aware of their needs, thereby making
customer-based decisions that enhance the
viability and well-being of these ports. As
illustrated above, MEDA countries are at
different levels of development in this
domain as such need to exert different
efforts to reach the desired result.
Specifically, the countries which have a
centralised port management structure (fully
or partially) are encouraged to give priority
to decentralising management of their major
ports, and then move on to the other ports.
The countries which
have already
5
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
•
•
decentralised management need to focus on
further enhancing the existing freedom,
functioning and performance of the local
port authorities to the maximum possible
extent.
The commercialisation of ports includes
injecting momentum into the competitive
spirit of the port by allowing/increasing the
participation of the private sector in the
provision of port services and operations.
The main benefits that would be gained from
such participation include better quality of
service, reduced prices, better labour
relations and a potential source to finance
capital investments in the future. In deciding
on the priority services in which the
involvement of the private sector should be
allowed (or further enhanced if such
involvement
already
exists),
MEDA
countries would need to take into account
the existing level of efficiency in providing
port
services,
with
the
services
demonstrating the lowest levels of efficiency
being accorded the highest priority.
Concerning the introduction of private
management in ports, this includes seeking
an advanced and sophisticated degree of
private sector involvement in ports, with
even a transfer of accountability from the
public sector to the private sector. Although
there are several international models to
reach this objective, MED countries are
encouraged to seek the Landlord Model as
the primary consideration or option, given
that it is widely common at the international
level and has made huge successes.
The above process is clearly a very complex and
intricate one. However, the EU can be a strong
partner for the MEDA countries in making the
required reforms.
Maritime Safety / Security in the MEDA
Region
The analysis of maritime safety and security in
the MEDA region revealed the following key
facts:
• All MEDA countries are members of the
International Maritime Organisation (IMO)
and have adopted the basic IMO
conventions.
However,
several
other
conventions that have a bearing on safety,
security
and/or
protection
of
the
6
•
•
environment have not been adopted by many
MEDA countries (e.g. CSC Convention
1972, SAR Convention 1979, Inmarsat
Convention 1976, Intervention Convention
1969,
etc.).
MEDA countries are
encouraged to join these conventions as soon
as possible.
The implementation of the already signed
IMO conventions (e.g. SOLAS, MARPOL,
ISPS, etc) is still not optimised in the region
thereby posing potential threats to the
regional maritime safety and security and
environment. There are two basic reasons for
this. Firstly, many of the MEDA maritime
administrations still lack qualified inspection
staff, know-how and funds to optimally
perform their duties in relation to flag state
implementation (FSI) and port state control
(PSC). Second, the design and approach of
existing regional initiatives pertaining to
PSC (e.g. Mediterranean Memorandum of
Understating on Port State Control, Med
MoU) do not sufficiently stand up to
international best practices in this domain,
in particular the Paris MoU. The
combination of these factors has resulted in
high numbers of MEDA ships being deemed
as deficient and/or detained in EU ports,
with most MEDA countries ranking on the
black-list of the Paris MoU. It is clear that
MEDA countries need to further strengthen
the capacities and resources of their
maritime
administrations,
and
to
approximate Med MoU with the Paris MoU.
Most MEDA countries have indeed installed
a VTS, but mainly at their major ports. All
MEDA countries are encouraged to extend
the VTS systems they have in their major
ports to the other remaining ports so that to
provide comprehensive coverage of their
entire national coastlines, and to upgrade to
a VTMIS in a parallel manner.
The EU can be of great support to MEDA
countries in pursuing the above objectives. It
would also be important for MEDA partners to
start gradually approximating their transport
legislation with the European regulations
governing maritime safety, security and
environment protection, given the extensive
maritime trade between the two regions and the
significant benefits that such an approximation
would yield.
Maritime Shipping and Ports
1.
Introduction
1.1.
Background to the Project
Following 20 years of intensive bilateral trade
and development cooperation between the
European Union (EU) and countries in the
southern Mediterranean (Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt,
Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, the
Palestinian Authority, Syria, Tunisia and
Turkey), the Foreign Ministers of the then 15 EU
Member States and these 12 Mediterranean
countries met in Barcelona in November 1995 to
mark the start of a new partnership relation
covering bilateral and multilateral or regional
cooperation, called the ‘Barcelona Process’ or,
more generally, the Euro-Mediterranean
Partnership.
Amongst its objectives, this Partnership intends
to create an area of shared prosperity and safety
through the progressive establishment of a EuroMediterranean Free Trade Area between the EU
and the Mediterranean Partners and among
these countries themselves, accompanied by
substantial EU financial support for economic
transition in the Partner Countries and for the
social and economic consequences of this reform
process (economic and financial partnership).
Together with the four EFTA (European Free
Trade Area) Member States and the countries
foreseen to join the EU in coming years, the
Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area is set to
include some 40 states and over 800 million
consumers making it one of the world’s most
important trade entities.
It has to be noted here that since 2004, the
Euro-Mediterranean partnership has gained
additional momentum through the inclusion of
the Mediterranean Partners in the European
Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) through bilateral
action plans. This will reinforce and build on the
cooperation that has been developed over the last
10 years.
A sustainable and efficient intermodal transport
system is vital for the success of the EuroMediterranean Free Trade Area, as well as for
an increased integration of the economies of the
Mediterranean Partner Countries. This was
recognised by the 1995 Barcelona Declaration
which stresses ‘the importance of developing and
improving
infrastructures,
through
the
establishment of an efficient transport system …’
and goes on to state that ‘efficient interoperable
transport links between the EU and its
Mediterranean Partners and among the Partners
themselves, as well as free access to the market
for services in international maritime transport,
are essential to the development of trade
patterns and the smooth operation of the EuroMediterranean Partnership’.
The creation of such a transport system requires
regional coordination within and between the
different modes of transport (land, sea and air
transport), for both passengers and freight,
thereby
ensuring
that
interoperability,
multimodality and intermodality of the regional
transport system as a whole is achieved, between
the various MEDA countries on the one hand,
and between these countries and the EU on the
other hand. This can only be accomplished by
taking into consideration all essential transport
policy elements and objectives, by tackling all
aspects of transport including the simplification
of procedures, harmonisation of rules in terms of
environment policy, customs procedures, etc. and
by physically integrating transport infrastructure
networks. Since the 1995 Barcelona Conference,
a broad consensus has developed on the issue of
transport-sector reform, which should form an
integral part of economic adjustment at the
national level as well as being the focus of
intergovernmental cooperation at the regional
level. These main objectives were confirmed in
the so-called Lisbon Declaration in January
1997, which led to the creation of the Euro-Med
Transport Forum.
To support the objective of achieving sustainable
and integrated multimodal transport networks at
the regional level, and to promote cooperation
with
the
countries
of
the
southern
Mediterranean, the European Commission
approved within the framework of the MEDA
Programme, in November 2001, the EuroMediterranean Regional Transport Project (the
‘EuroMed Transport Project’).
The overall objectives of this project are to:
• Contribute to overall economic and social
development of the Mediterranean Partners
(MEDA countries) through increased and
more sustainable transport flows, increased
trade competitiveness and more balanced
exchanges.
7
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
•
•
Improve the quality, safety and efficiency of
both the goods and passenger transport
systems in the region, and improving the
functioning of the transport sector as a
whole.
Support the development of integrated
multimodal
transport
networks
and
infrastructure, leading to improved transport
flows, better connections and reductions in
bottlenecks.
More specifically, the project aims to contribute
to the development of the Euro-Mediterranean
Free Trade Area and to promote economic
integration among the Mediterranean Partner
through providing assistance to these countries in
the following:
• Improving the functioning and the efficiency
of the Mediterranean transport system by
giving support to institutional and market
reforms, promoting the harmonisation of
operational norms and regulations and
encouraging the coordination of transport
policies.
• Developing and modernising the regional
transport infrastructure network and
ensuring its interconnection to the TransEuropean Networks.
• By facilitating the mobilisation of resources
for investment in commonly agreed priority
infrastructure schemes.
The EuroMed Transport Project is implemented
through two parallel contracts, namely:
• The Main Contract.
• The Infrastructure Network Contract.
The Main Contract (started at the beginning of
2003) – under which this present Diagnostic
Study Module is produced – strives to
accomplish the objectives mentioned above,
through assisting MEDA countries with the
preparation and implementation (at the regional
level) of commonly agreed policy and
institutional measures for improving the quality
of the transport services provided and increasing
the efficiency of the transport system in the
region.
The contract for regional infrastructure network
activities (Infrastructure Network Contract,
started in July 2003) aims at:
• Recommending measures for addressing the
problems and bottlenecks of the transport
8
•
•
sector in the MEDA region, in terms of both
institutional
set-ups
and
physical
infrastructure,
while
taking
into
consideration
security,
safety
and
environmental aspects.
Creating an operational concept for the
Mediterranean transport infrastructure
network through the elaboration of a
strategy for its sound development.
Improving the capacity of administrations to
prepare and implement infrastructure
projects
and
manage
infrastructure
facilities.
Each of the above contracts is managed by a
separate consortium and a different project
team. Nevertheless, close liaison and extensive
coordination is maintained between the two
contracts at all times due to the strong interface
and interaction that exist between them.
1.2.
Context of the Diagnostic Study
The Main Contract is a key component of the
EuroMed Transport Project. Under this
Contract, six main outputs will be produced:
• Diagnostic Study: This includes an
assessment of the existing situation of the
various transport sub-sectors in the MEDA
region with a primary focus on the
institutional,
policy
and
regulatory
dimensions; an analysis of the main
problems and bottlenecks, and corresponding
recommendations for improving the overall
efficiency and quality of transport systems
and services.
• Regional Transport Action Plan (RTAP):
This is based on the results of the Diagnostic
Study and includes the preparation of a
complete and consistent list of priority
measures and projects (tackling not only
institutional,
policy
and
regulatory
dimensions,
but
the
infrastructure
dimensions as well) aimed at improving the
safety, efficiency, cost-effectiveness and
environmental-friendliness of the MEDA
transport system. It also includes defining
the policy, technical, and financial
frameworks that are necessary for
implementation. The RTAP will be defined in
close coordination with the Infrastructure
Contract.
• Studies: This includes undertaking various
additional studies and surveys on transport
Maritime Shipping and Ports
•
•
•
themes (to support the RTAP) at regional,
sub-regional and national levels, which
require further investigation.
Policy dialogue: This includes establishing
an ongoing and effective dialogue process
among the Euro-Mediterranean Partners on
transport policy measures and related
themes.
Training: This includes organising a series of
training programmes and seminars for
transport decision-makers and senior
officials in central governments, transport
authorities and the relevant private sector
groups in MEDA countries.
Information and dissemination: This includes
maintaining adequate communication links
between all project participants and
beneficiaries and ensuring the wide
availability and visibility of project results.
The Diagnostic Study (Output 1) is divided into
two parts as explained below.
Part I of the Diagnostic Study is entitled
Regional Issues. It includes an analysis, from a
regional perspective, of the key transport subsectors and themes across the different MEDA
countries. It is composed of ten modules as
follows:
• Module 1: General Overview of the
Diagnostic Study.
• Module 2: MEDA Economy, Trade and
Transportation.
• Module 3: (Sub) Regional Integration
towards a Liberalised Transport Market.
• Module 4: Cross-Border and Cross-Sector
Transport Issues.
• Module 5: Maritime Shipping and Ports.
• Module 6: Aviation Policy and Airport
Reform.
• Module 7: South-South and Hinterland
Relations.
• Module 8: Operational Concept for the
Mediterranean Transport Infrastructure
Network. It must be noted that this module
has been provided by the Infrastructure
Contract.
• Module 9: From Diagnostic to Action Plan.
• Module 10: Resources for Policy Makers.
Part II of the Diagnostic Study, Country Issues,
discusses the status and describes the
characteristics of the transport system (by theme
and mode) in each MEDA country. It is
composed of twelve modules as follows:
• Module 1: Algeria.
• Module 2: Cyprus.
• Module 3: Egypt.
• Module 4: Israel.
• Module 5: Jordan.
• Module 6: Lebanon.
• Module 7: Malta.
• Module 8: Morocco.
• Module 9: Palestinian Authority.
• Module 10: Syria.
• Module 11: Tunisia.
• Module 12: Turkey.
It should be noted that both parts of the
Diagnostic Study are complementary to each
other. In particular, the regional analyses and
comparisons made under Part I are based upon
and
supported
by
the
country-specific
information provided under Part II.
1.3.
Objectives and Approach of the
Module
This present document falls within the umbrella
of Part I of the Diagnostic Study (Regional
Issue). It is referenced as ‘Module 5: Maritime
Shipping and Ports’. The main objectives of this
module are twofold:
• First, to provide a description of the current
situation of the maritime transport sector in
the MEDA region, and to highlight existing
problems and deficiencies.
• Second, to define remedial measures that
will have a tangible and positive impact on
eliminating the identified deficiencies,
consequently stimulating the growth of the
maritime and shipping industry in the
MEDA region.
In order to realise the above objectives, the
following step-by-step approach was adopted:
• First, the main data and information related
to the maritime transport sector in the
MEDA region was collected and compiled.
The information was gathered from
recognised international sources, recent
regional statistics, interviews with the
various involved stakeholders, and from
other reliable sources. Attention was given
to providing comprehensive coverage of all
involved players and of all relevant themes
and topics.
9
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
•
•
•
Second, a thorough analysis of the collected
data was performed, and a realistic profile
of the current status of the maritime
transport sector in the MEDA region was
derived including an exact identification of
all associated strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, threats, bottlenecks and
constraints.
Third, a literature review of the EU
transport policies and regulations was
conducted (White Paper and ‘acquis
communautaire’) to illustrate the optimal
trends and the best practices in the maritime
transport sector.
Fourth, based on the results of the data
analysis and the literature review,
improvement measures were established to
eliminate the identified bottlenecks and
constraints, and promote the development of
the maritime industry in the MEDA region.
It must be emphasised here that within the
framework of the EuroMed Transport Project,
extensive and up-to-date data was collected from
the national transport administrations in charge
of the various transport sub-sectors in the
different MEDA countries. However, the lack of
completeness, consistency and compatibility in
this recent data prevented using the new
statistics coming from national sources for
analysis purposes. Instead, in most cases, less
recent data dating mainly from the year 20012002, but with a more solid and consistent
statistical base was used (sources of information
include Eurostat, Medstat, WB, UN, etc.). In
this context, it has to be stressed that this data
serves merely for illustrative purposes, and that
its use is confined to identifying general trends,
highlighting global problems and conclusions,
and identifying general solutions and directions.
The region is experiencing rapid developments,
and although changes are bound to have
occurred in the last two years, the 2001/2002
statistics included in this Diagnostic Study are
still quite useful to support the analysis of
problems identified in this document, and the
fact that 2003/2004 data is not provided is not
significant, as this does not affect the general
conclusions reached or the overall directions that
are established. It must also be noted that since
the report has been compiled prior to the latest
EU enlargement (May 2004), then all available
quantitative data relating to the European Union
refers to the EU-15, and Cyprus and Malta (now
10
members of EU–25) are included in the MEDA12 region and not in the EU. Finally, it must be
noted that sometimes when converting from USD
values to EURO values, some inconsistencies at a
minor scale could have occurred across the
various tables included in this module.
1.4.
Structure of the Module
Besides this Introductory Chapter, this Module is
set out in nine further Chapters as follows:
• Chapter 2: EU References and Guidelines;
this includes a discussion of the various
European primary and secondary legislation
(i.e. policies and regulations) related to
maritime transport to illustrate the best
practices in this domain.
• Chapter 3: Facts, Figures and Statistics
about MEDA Maritime Transport Sector;
this includes a presentation and discussion of
the main attributes of maritime passenger
flows and maritime freight movements in the
region.
• Chapter 4: Transport Policy in the MEDA
Region; this provides a discussion of the
status of the maritime transport policies in
the Mediterranean countries and a
description of the outlooks. It also provides
an analysis of ongoing improvement
initiatives in this domain, and presents the
main associated issues and the key findings.
• Chapter 5: Maritime Shipping in the MEDA
Region; this presents the main attributes and
characteristics of the various shipping
companies present in the region. It also
discusses the structure and operation of
these maritime carriers, analyses selected
case studies, and highlights the main
associated issues and key findings.
• Chapter 6: Port authorities and operators in
MEDA Region; this presents the main
attributes and characteristics of the various
port authorities and operators in the
Mediterranean countries. It also discusses
their role and structure, analyses selected
case studies, and highlights the main
associated issues and key findings.
• Chapter 7: Maritime safety and Global
Navigation Satellite System (GNSS); this
provides the status of maritime safety
conventions in the MEDA region, the status
of relevant technology applications, and
their implementation levels. It also discusses
Maritime Shipping and Ports
•
•
•
the problems and difficulties encountered, as
well as progress made so far.
Chapter 8: Findings, Recommendations and
Potential Actions; this provides an
aggregation of all main issues and key
findings that were highlighted throughout
the Module, and proposes recommendations,
actions and measures that are needed to
improve and upgrade the maritime transport
sector in MEDA region.
Chapter 9: Abbreviations and acronyms; this
presents the abbreviations and technical
definitions that were used throughout the
report.
Chapter 10: References; this presents a
selection of some major references that were
used during the report elaboration and can
be used to complete the appraisal and
understanding of maritime transport in the
MEDA region.
11
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
2.
EU References and
Guidelines
2.1.
Policy Framework
In the European Union, Water Transport was in
many respects the least considered among the
different forms of transport. More specifically:
• The European maritime fleet has shrunk in
recent years because of competition from
flags of convenience (shipping companies
registered in countries where safety
standards and crew qualifications are lower
than in the EU-15).
• Since the beginning of the 1980s, the EU-15
has lost 40% of its seamen and, by 2006,
the Union will be about 36 000 sailors short.
• The sector shows great diversity between
regions in terms of structure, operation,
organisation and legal framework.
Meanwhile, for historical, geographical and
economical (globalisation) reasons, the EU is
still heavily dependent on maritime transport:
• With the arrival of 10 new members,
maritime companies belonging to European
Union nationals control one third of the total
world merchant shipping fleet, and about
40% of EU trade is carried on vessels
controlled by EU interests.
• 45% of goods transported within the EU-25
travel by ship over short-sea shipping (SSS)
routes, with a growing market share. As for
road and air, the EU-25 has opened up
national shipping markets to competition
from vessels of other Member States.
• Ships carry 90% of all trade between the
EU-25 and third countries.
• Each year, approximately two billion tonnes
of goods and over 200 million passengers
pass through EU-15 ports.
• The maritime transport sector - including
shipbuilding, ports, fishing and related
industries and services - employs around 2.5
million people in the European Union.
Moreover, it shall be underlined that the inland
waterway network is still under-used, despite the
fact that it is safe and reliable as well as energyefficient. Increased use of short-sea shipping
routes and inland waterways could provide part
of the answer to road congestion1.
Within the framework of the 2001 White Paper
on European Transport Policy for 2010,
European Maritime Transport Policy focuses on
the following main strategic issues:
• SSS and inland waterway transport are
recognised as the two modes that could
provide a means of coping with the
congestion of certain road infrastructure and
the lack of railway infrastructure.
• Development of Sea-Motorways within the
framework of the master plan for the transEuropean Network is expected and planned
to be the way to revive SSS (see Marco Polo
support programme).
• Tougher rules on Maritime Safety are
envisaged.
• Development of a genuine European
maritime traffic management system is
required.
• A tonnage-based taxation system is proposed
in order to promote flagging back to EU
registers.
• Turning inter-modality into reality is
required through technical harmonisation
and interoperability between systems
(particularly for containers).
• Building of the Trans-European Transport
Network (TEN).
• Includes the establishment of specific
'motorways of the sea'.
• Transport by sea and transport by inland
waterway are considered as a key part of
inter-modality.
2.1.1.
Ports
The European Port Policy became officially
public in 1997 by the Green Paper on Seaports
& Maritime Infrastructure (COM (1997) 678
final of 10 December 1997) initiating a formal
dialogue between interested parties on:
• Efficiency
of
ports
and
maritime
infrastructure.
• The application of competition rules.
• Integration of ports into the multi-modal
trans European transport network.
At the same time, the following were recognised:
1
Cf. European Commission, Europe at a crossroads - The
need for sustainable transport, Manuscript finalised in June
2003.
12
Maritime Shipping and Ports
•
•
•
•
The importance of Port Sector.
The high diversity of Ports between EU
regions.
The increased competition between and
within Ports.
The need of a Community framework to
ensure free and fair competition.
The major issues raised were:
• The importance of Short-Sea-Shipping.
• The strategic role of Ports as crucial
connecting points within the multi-modal
trans-European transport networks.
• The need for a flexible pricing and financing
framework in all forms of transport and
particularly in ports with emphasis on:
- Effective and fair application of State
aid.
- Charges linked to costs.
- Pricing policy based on marginal social
costs of infrastructure.
• A regulatory framework ensuring systematic
and effective liberalisation of port services a so-called 'level playing field'.
2.1.2.
Maritime Shipping
Sea transport is of strategic importance for the
European Union due to its significant
contribution to employment, security of supply,
economic independence, and the spin-off effects
concerning its ancillary industries (shipbuilding,
port activities etc). Approximately one-third of
trade within the EU and 90% of trade between
Member States and non-EU countries is carried
by sea.
The Community’s Common Policy in the field of
maritime transport started in 1974, based on
Article 84 (2) of the EC Treaty. The first steps
were taken in response to a 1974 Court ruling
(case 167/73) stating that the general rules in
the Treaty also apply to sea transport. In May
1979, the Council adopted Regulation 954/79 to
make the ratification of the United Nations
Convention on a Code of Conduct for liner
conferences of April 1974 by Member States
compatible with EC law and with the commercial
principles applied by the OECD countries.
Since the late 1970s, the Community fleet has
been in the midst of a serious crisis. The size of
the EC-registered fleet in worldwide shipping has
decreased from 32% of world tonnage in 1970 to
14% in 1995. Over-capacity in the world market
has worsened the conditions of competition of EC
shipping lines as compared to those from
countries with lower costs: open register flags
(flags of convenience), flags from developing
countries, and flags from former State-trading
countries. The EU must also contend with the
protectionist policies of certain non-EU countries
and the unfair practices (e.g. tariff dumping) by
a number of shipping lines.
The first major step to establish European
shipping policy on the economic side was taken
in 1986 with a package of measures covering
market liberalisation and competition policy.
However, by the early 1990s the decline in
Europe's 'traditional' shipping registers, seafaring
employment and maritime-related industries was
sufficiently advanced to call for a reappraisal of
the Community's maritime strategy.
The European Commission's response to the
decline of European shipping in the face of
international structural changes in the industry
was set out in a major paper entitled ‘Towards a
New Maritime Policy’ and published in March
1996. Within the overarching economic aim of
making the Community ‘fit for global
competition’, the revised policy objective was ‘to
ensure freedom of access to shipping markets
across the world for safe and environmentally
friendly ships, preferably registered in EC
Member States with Community nationals
employed on board’.
Accordingly, a two-fold strategy was proposed:
ensuring safety and fair competition in
international open markets, and devising a
Community framework for enhancing shipping
competitiveness. The competitiveness framework
encompassed policy on training and employment
to develop and safeguard maritime expertise,
research and development, and State aids.
SAFEMED PROJECT
EuroMed cooperation on maritime safety and
prevention of pollution from ships is about to
start formally (around early 2005) through the
SAFEMED project (launched on November
2000), aiming strategically at:
•
Sustainable improvement in the protection
of Mediterranean waters against the risk of
accidents at sea and marine pollution.
13
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
•
To further reduce the capacity gap between
the international regulatory framework and
the EU legislative framework in order to
ensure a coherent, effective and uniform
implementation of the international rules for
maritime safety and the prevention of
pollution from ships in both the
Mediterranean area and Europe.
In more detail, main components of SAFEMED
project focus on:
• Ensuring effective flag State implementation
and monitoring of classification societies
(i.e. assessing flag State compliance, ad hoc
training programme addressing the main
flag State obligations and involving a basic
number of staff of each Mediterranean
country, developing an ad hoc framework for
an adequate monitoring of the classification
societies).
• Ensuring the safety of navigation through
traffic monitoring. Associated actions
potentially would include:
- Promoting the development of a
Mediterranean Sea traffic monitoring
system compatible with EU system.
Mediterranean Partners should be made
fully aware of the potentials of the EU
system and of the on-going initiatives to set
up/implement specific aspects of this system.
The development of an ad hoc infrastructure
should be promoted through SAFEMED.
- Investigating how and under which
circumstances all Mediterranean Partners
could be associated /involved in the
SafeSeaNet project and which adaptations
of the system would be required to fully
respond to the specific needs of the
Mediterranean
partners.
- Developing a regional VTMIS cooperation
framework and coordinating traffic related
actions within the IMO etc…
• Assisting implementation of a better
protection
of
the
Mediterranean
environment. Associated actions potentially
would include:
- Evaluating for each country, the needs
related to the implementation of dangerous
goods standards as well as the situation
regarding risk analysis in order to assist in
the preparation of emergency plans and to
provide administrative and technical advice
to the participating countries on the
measures they must take to comply with the
14
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SOLAS requirements and the IMDG Code
both as a flag State and a port State. Based
upon this assessment, and on the basis of the
specific training needs of each country,
regional training courses could be
organised.
- Identifying the impediments, if any, of the
contracting parties to implement effectively
the Barcelona commitments, and setting up
ad hoc seminars.
Assisting human capital on a permanent
basis, to maintain and improve the maritime
safety culture by upgrading the qualification
of the personnel of maritime administrations
and monitoring the implementation of the
ISM Code.
Initiating a state of play of the
implementation of IMO maritime security
rules in the entire Mediterranean, together,
if necessary, with identification of a set of
priority actions to be undertaken to ensure
the full implementation of the security rules
in the Mediterranean area. Special attention
is to be given to the following elements:
Cooperation with the European Maritime
Safety Agency (EMSA). Specifically, the
SAFEMED project is assigned the task of
investigating how and under which
conditions Med Partners membership or
cooperation with
EMSA could
be
materialised.
The need to establish a realistic calendar
taking into account of the priorities dictated
under international legislation.
Establishing
of
a
non-bureaucratic
monitoring system for all the project
components and allowing necessary updates.
Accompanying
measures
(required
investments for VTS, SAR, combating
pollution etc) in cooperation with the
European Investment Bank (EIB).
PSC related issues and in particular, the
relation with the Mediterranean MOU on
port State control has intentionally been left
out of the project. The difficulties
encountered by the Mediterranean partners
to implement within this MOU an efficient
PSC strategy and the consequences of a
possible membership of the Paris MoU for 2
main partners (Cyprus and Malta) deserve
an urgent consideration and will therefore be
addressed under the on-going EuroMed
Transport Project.
Maritime Shipping and Ports
2.1.3.
Maritime Safety & Global Navigation
Satellite System (GNSS)
2.1.3.1. Maritime Safety
The EU legislation on maritime safety is mainly
built on IMO Resolutions, and could be
considered as the outcome of the occurrence of
several accidents. The first set of actions (19871992) was in response to accidents such as the
sinking of the oil tanker ‘Amoco Cadiz’ off the
coast of Brittany on 16 March 1978, the
capsizing of the ‘Herald of Free Enterprise’ off
the port of Zeebrugge in Belgium on 6 March
1987, the ‘Exxon Valdez’ that ran aground in
March 1989 off the coast of Alaska. The EU
responded with several EU Resolutions regarding
the control and reduction of pollution caused by
accidents at sea, the pilotage of vessels by deepsea pilots in the North Sea and English Channel,
the transfer of ships from one register to another
within the Community, the coverage of European
waters with the terrestrial Loran-C radio
navigation system etc.
The accidents of the oil tankers 'Aegean Sea'
which broke up near Spain on 3 December 1992
and 'Brear' which grounded off the Shetland
Island on 5 January 1993) prompted the
Commission in 1993 to adopt its first
communication dealing with maritime safety 'A
Common Policy on Safe Seas' (COM (93) 66
final, 24 February 1993), with a detailed action
programme and a common maritime safety
policy aiming at the implementation of existing
global International rules and their uniform
enforcement by the port States and the
development of navigational aids and traffic
surveillance infrastructures.
2.1.3.2. Global Navigation Safety System
The European Councils at Cologne, Feira, Nice,
Stockholm, Laeken and Barcelona all
emphasised the strategic importance of this
programme. Galileo will provide considerable
advantages in many sectors of the economy. In
road and rail transport, for example, it will make
it possible to predict and manage journey times,
or, thanks to automated vehicle guidance
systems, help reduce traffic jams and cut the
number of road accidents. However, although
transport by road, rail, air and sea is the
example most frequently quoted, satellite radio
navigation is also increasingly of benefit to
fisheries and agriculture, oil prospecting, defence
and civil protection activities, building and
public works, etc. In the field of
telecommunications, allied with other new
technologies such as GSM or UMTS, Galileo is
expected to increase the potential to provide
positioning information as well as to provide
combined services of a very high level.
Furthermore, GNSS technology is regarded as a
main vector for the development and safety of
the Mediterranean region. The 5th EuroMediterranean Conference of Ministers for
Foreign Affairs, held in Valencia in April 2002,
adopted an action plan stressing, among others,
the need to boost cooperation on satellite
navigation by means of considering its concrete
introduction for the benefit of different
application sectors.
This is also in accordance with the European
GNSS strategy. The latter foresees the early
introduction of GNSS services by 2004 when the
European Geostationary Navigation Overlay
Service (EGNOS) becomes operational, while
Europe’s final objective in satellite navigation
will be achieved after 2008 once all Galileo
services are available.
EuroMed GNSS Project
In that context, the European Commission (DG
Energy and Transport and the EuropeAid
Cooperation Office) will launch the EuroMediterranean Satellite Navigation (GNSS)
Project. This project, which will be implemented
within a 3 -year period, will set up training and
demonstration activities for the benefit of the
Mediterranean partners. The project is also
associated with the setting up of a cooperation
office, which shall bring longer-term benefits to
the region.
The project is expected to:
• Set priorities for regional added value
service development based on Galileo and
stemming from EGNOS by identifying the
most important target market segments.
• Carry out a GNSS education and awareness
programme.
• Define an operational validation plan taking
into consideration the existing sub-regional
initiatives.
• Define the concept of service provision and
associated institutional issues.
15
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
•
•
•
•
Perform EGNOS/Galileo trials and pilot
projects taking into consideration the
existing sub-regional initiatives.
Implement the necessary infrastructure
required for the success of the project.
Identify funding requirements.
Identify national partners for Galileo among
the Mediterranean partners.
Work is to be organised in the following four
main tasks:
• GNSS Regional Plan.
• Training and Awareness.
• GNSS Services Demonstration.
• GNSS Signal in Space Provision.
The 1st Euro-Mediterranean Global Satellite
Navigation Systems (GNSS) Seminar
It was organised by the European Commission
and was held in Cairo on 16-17 February 2003.
This was the first of a series of actions planned
to
strengthen
the
Euro-Mediterranean
partnership and its regional transport policy
through GNSS.
The seminar successfully increased the awareness
of decision makers, service providers and product
manufacturers of the potential of Galileo and
EGNOS for the Mediterranean region. It
provided the opportunity to identify key priorities
and common interests in the GNSS sector for the
MEDA partners and initiated contacts at
institutional and industrial levels.
16
mining, and trade, including the various
applications already in use, such as:
• The MIDAN flight test campaign, which was
held over Cairo airport in October 2002
bringing together civil aviation authorities
from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and
ENAV, the Italian Air Traffic Service
Provider. This was supported by the
European Commission and the European
Space Agency and demonstrated Europe's
Satellite Navigation capabilities offering
unprecedented performance.
• The impact of EGNOS and Galileo on
navigation in the Egyptian local waters
especially the Gulf of Suez, Gulf of Aqaba
and the Red Sea.
Differential GNSS services to cover the South
Mediterranean maritime territories.
GNSS service needs in agriculture, forestry and
fisheries in Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria.
• The AMED project to develop an airborne
simulation platform for the location of
fishing vessels and oil spills throughout the
region.
• Status and trends in surveying and mapping.
• Joint plans for the EGNOS service Extension
to the Western Mediterranean area involving
Algeria, Morocco, Spain, France, and
Portugal.
Source:http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/Galil
eo/international/meda_sem1_en.htm
2.2.
Legal Framework
2.2.1.
Ports
This was the first of a series of actions on
satellite navigation by the European Commission
in cooperation with its MEDA partners. A
project to launch demonstration and training
activities in the region is being established and
discussions are on going to establish a
cooperation office as the focal point for satellite
navigation activities in the area. Several
Mediterranean countries have submitted bids to
host this centre.
In February 2001, the Ports Package on
'Reinforcing Quality Service in Sea Ports: A Key
for European Transport'’ was announced in the
form of a Directive Proposal (COM (2001) 35
final of 13 December 2001), which, in November
2003, marginally failed to pass through
European
Parliament
reflecting
severe
opposition from port unions on port services
liberalisation.
The seminar, attended by 200 officials and
business executives from both the EU and the
MEDA partners, discussed the wide-ranging
potential of satellite navigation to address the
needs of the Mediterranean countries. The
discussion focussed on the benefits to transport
safety, agriculture, fisheries, water management,
Key objectives of the Ports Package were
established as:
• Higher efficiency of ports services in the
form of improved quality at flexible and
competitive price levels.
• Increased role of private sector in ports.
• Fair competition between ports.
Maritime Shipping and Ports
•
•
•
Inclusion of seaports in the Trans-European
Transport Network (TEN-T).
Systematic regulation of market access to
port services allowing for local, regional or
national specificities (particularly regarding
safety and the environment).
Setting guidelines on port ‘State aids’ for
port infrastructures and port charges requirement for Service Providers and
Managing Bodies to have separate accounts
for
each
port
service
provided
(‘transparency’).
Particularly concerning the market access, the
Directive Proposal focuses on:
• Ensuring that providers of port services have
equal access to the market through:
- Transparent and common selection
criteria / procedures.
- Appeal procedures.
- Limited Period of services provision.
- Exclusion of port managing body from
the selection procedure when itself is a
service provider.
• Including self-handling to the proposed
framework.
• Allowing limited exceptions for two
providers, only for safety /environmental
reasons and in cases of space / capacity
constraints.
Port infrastructure quality services in
ports
The objective is to reinforce Quality Services in
sea ports, and specifically:
• Inclusion of seaports in the Trans-European
Transport Network (TEN-T).
• Systematic regulation of market access to
port services allowing for local, regional or
national specificities.
• Setting guidelines on port ‘State aids’ for
port infrastructures and port charges requirement for Service Providers and
Managing Bodies to have separate accounts
for each port service provided (transparency
and fair competition between ports). Public
financing that deals with competition
between ports and contains guidance on how
State aid should be applied in the port
sector. Accordingly, ports in the Member
States should operate commercially: they
must generate their funds and ensure proper
information
on
the
financing
of
infrastructure projects. To this end, the
•
•
•
commission defined a so-called transparency
directive, which requires that the financial
relations between public authorities and
private
undertakings
must
become
transparent.
Higher efficiency of port services in the form
of improved quality at flexible and
competitive price levels.
Increased role of the private sector in ports;
Fair competition between ports.
The relevant act is a Communication from the
Commission to the Council and to the European
Parliament of 13 February 2001: ‘Reinforcing
Quality Services in Sea Ports: a Key for
European Transport’ in the form of the Directive
proposal (COM (2001) 35 final of 13 December
2001) referred to above. In this Directive, the
following three key issues are specifically
considered:
Integration of seaports in the transEuropean transport network
The Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996
on Community guidelines for the development of
the trans-European transport network (TEN-T)
(Official Journal L 228, 09 September1996)
provides a framework for establishing an integral
and
multi-modal
infrastructure
network.
Seaports play a significant role within such a
network. The Commission proposed the
identification of about 300 seaports, using
objective criteria, for inclusion in the outline
plans.
Systematic approach to regulate access to
the market of port services
‘Port services’ are services of a commercial
nature that are provided, for payment, to port
users. Such port services (cargo handling,
towage, mooring, pilotage and passenger
services) are essential for the functioning of ports
and represent a major part of the total costs of
port calls for ships and of cargo transported
through ports.
All Member States have opted for the
progressive opening up of this sector to
competition. The Commission still believes that
the need to establish a Community legal
framework for access to the provision of port
services by creating a level playing field within
17
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
and between ports (intra-port and inter-port
competition) remains a strong necessity.
The Directive Proposal COM (2004) 654 final
(13 October 2004) on market access to port
services focuses on:
• Ensuring that criteria for granting
authorisations
should
be
objective,
transparent, non-discriminatory, relevant
and proportional, and should be made
public.
• Including self-handling to the proposed
framework. Self-handling for cargo &
passengers operations may be provided using
the land-based personnel of the self-handler.
• Allowing the highest possible number of
service providers and also limited exceptions
for two providers, only for safety /
environmental reasons and in cases of space
/ capacity constraints. However, such
exceptions must not become a pretext for
reducing or excluding competition.
• Imposing mandatory authorisations for
service providers.
• Transparent accounting for the managing
body of the port.
The above proposed framework is to be applied
to seaports on the territory of a Member State,
which are open to commercial traffic with a
minimal annual volume of activity of 1.5 million
tonnes of freight or 200 000 passengers.
Public financing of seaports and port
infrastructures.
A key issue, from the competition point of view,
is the division of the financial flows between:
• The public authorities.
• The port operators.
• The users of port services.
The following points should be considered:
• Public investment in ports represents
between 5 and 10% of total Community
investments in transport infrastructure.
• Public financing operations are not
sufficiently transparent, in particular
because three accounting systems are used in
port management and none is likely to
provide clear and transparent information on
public money flows in ports or on the use of
funds by the port management body.
• Charging and cost recovery systems vary
greatly.
18
•
Previously, the construction of ports and
port services were expected to be paid for by
the taxpayer, whereas a trend has developed
towards greater private participation in their
financing: some ports are even operating on
an entirely commercial basis.
The port services market is developing and the
possibilities of gaining access to it are
increasing, although the procedural rules, which
would ensure fair and open selection procedures
are still unclear and unsatisfactory.
2.2.2.
Maritime Shipping
In 1985, the Commission proposed a series of
measures. The Council adopted four of these
measures in December 1986, which are
important landmarks in the development of the
Common Maritime Transport Policy:
• Α Regulation for application of the principle
of freedom of maritime services provision
between Member States and third countries
(Reg. 4055/86).
• A Regulation laying down detailed rules for
the application of Articles 85 and 86 of the
Treaty to maritime transport (Reg.
4056/86).
• A Regulation enabling the Community to
respond to the unfair pricing practices
pursued by certain shipping lines outside the
Community (Reg. 4057/86).
• A Regulation allowing coordinated action by
the Community should a third country
restrict access to traffic by Community
shipping lines (Reg. 4058/96).
The 1989 'Positive Measures'
In August 1989, the Commission sent the
Council a package of key measures to improve
the operating conditions and competitiveness of
Community shipping. These centred on two ideas:
• Establishment of a Community register
('EUROS') alongside the national registers.
The Commission’s proposal has finally not
been found opportune by the Council and has
been withdrawn.
• Implementing measures to make Community
vessels more competitive. These measures
include the tightening up of port inspections
to ensure compliance with safety,
environmental protection and labour
standards, proposals for a block exemption
for consortium, subject to conditions and
Maritime Shipping and Ports
obligations to be defined in a Regulation and
measures to improve crew training.
In parallel, the Commission adopted Guidelines
on State aid to the shipping sector to ensure
greater consistency and transparency in this
area.
Competition rules
In February 1992, the Council adopted
Regulation (EC) No 479/92 on the application of
Article 85(3) of the Treaty to consortium.
In April 1995, the Commission adopted
Regulation (EC) No 870/95 on the application of
Art. 85 (3) of the Treaty to certain categories of
agreements, decisions and concerted practices
between liner shipping companies (consortium)
pursuant to Council Regulation 479/92.
In April 1992, the Commission adopted its first
Decision on abuse of dominant positions in the
maritime transport sector. Decision 92/262/EC
imposed fines on certain shipping lines for
forming a traffic-sharing cartel between France
and 11 West African States. The Commission
took a similar position imposing fines on four
shipping lines operating between Europe and
Northern Zaire in December 1992.
By Decision of October 1994 (TAA) under
Article 85 of the Treaty, the Commission
outlawed the capacity management, multi-modal
fixing rate and two-tier rate structure of this
agreement. By Decision of December 1994
(FEFC), the Commission reiterated that multimodal price fixing by conferences is not covered
by the block exemption under Regulation
4056/86.
However, in June 2004, EC Competition
Directorate's website indicates that Brussels is
about to abolish the liner conference system (a
liner conference exists when two or more
shipping lines operating a service in common
between designated locations, agree on a set of
freight rates for shippers and consequently, all
lines charge the same), as most shippers see
conferences as price-fixing cartels. The EC
‘discussion paper’ states that the conditions for a
bloc exemption for the liner conferences would
appear to be ‘no longer fulfilled’, further adding
that there is ‘no conclusive economic evidence
that the assumptions on which the exemptions
were made in 1986 are in the present market
circumstances still justified’.
Maritime safety
In general, the Community has built its maritime
safety policy on the basis of the IMO Conventions
and rules. A number of stricter EU measures
have nevertheless been found necessary in the
aftermath of dramatic shipping accidents such as
those involving the Amoco Cadiz, the Exxon
Valdez, the Herald of Free Enterprise or, more
recently, the Estonia.
In 1993, the Commission submitted to the
Council a Communication on a common policy on
safe seas, setting out a maritime safety strategy,
which the latter approved. In application of this
strategy, the Council adopted in 1994 a Directive
on the minimum level of training of seafarers, a
Directive on ship inspection and surveys, and a
Regulation on tonnage measurement of ballast
spaces in segregated ballast oil tankers. A
Directive on Port State Control was adopted in
June 1995, while in December 1995; the Council
adopted a Regulation on the safety management
of Ro-Ro passenger ferries.
In the years that followed the Commission and
the Council adopted a significant number of
legislative measures concerning maritime safety.
More recently, in 1998, new or amended
legislation was adopted regarding safety rules
and standards for passenger ships, port state
control, levels of training of seafarers,
classification societies, and registration of
persons sailing on board passenger ships within
the EU.
Maritime cabotage – market liberalisation
In December 1992, the Council adopted
Regulation 3577/92 on maritime cabotage. This
allows for free cabotage trade as from January
1993 for Community ship-owners, who have
their ships registered in, and flying the flag of a
Member State, provided the vessels comply with
all the conditions for carrying out cabotage in
that Member State.
Maritime cabotage was liberalised on 1 January
1993 except for France, Italy, Portugal and
Spain
(Mainland-island
and
inter-island
cabotage was liberalised in 1999) and of Greece
(scheduled passenger and lighter services and
19
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
services involving vessels of less than 650 gross
tonnage were liberalised in 1 January 2004).
Two reports on the application of this Regulation
by the Commission show that the economic
effects of liberalisation have been insignificant so
far. However, as liberalisation progresses, there
will be more scope for improving efficiency.
The proposal for a Directive on regular passenger
services between Member States defines a
minimum level of labour standards at EC level,
which shall apply for third country nationals,
employed in all such services.
•
•
•
Maritime State Aid
Given the continuing decline of EC fleets and
increasing divergence between Member States’
policy responses to decreasing competitiveness,
the Commission presented a new maritime
strategy in March 1996. As a follow-up to this
document, it adopted revised Guidelines on State
aid to shipping in July 1997, with the aim of
increasing transparency of State aid whilst
safeguarding EC employment, preserving
maritime expertise and improving safety. It is
also accepted that operating aid should be
exceptional, temporary and digressive. However,
shipping State aid was considered within an
international environment that presents EU fleet
with severe structural competitive disadvantages,
unlikely to be overcome in the short term.
Furthermore, EU proposals for world maritime
liberalisation brought for discussions under WTO
were not accepted for negotiations.
The Guidelines specify the types of aid that can
generally be approved by the Commission
(notification and examination by EU) and those
that cannot. The Member States have been
granted a transitional period of 18 months to
adapt their aid schemes to the new guidelines.
The following types of State aid were considered:
• Fiscal treatment of ship-owning companies:
It includes measures to improve the fiscal
climate such as accelerated depreciation on
ships investment, the right to reserve profits
on a ship sale for a number of years on taxfree basis, provided that they are reinvested
in new ships etc.
Such measures are allowed on a restricted
basis under conditions (full application of
safety and ILO standards, provision of
20
•
•
•
regular reports demonstrating the effect of
the measure etc).
Labour related costs:
Measures reducing labour costs such as
reduced rates of contributions for the social
protection of EU seafarers employed on
member states flag vessels, reduced rates of
income tax for EU seafarers on board
member states flag vessels.
Crew relief:
Crew relief aims at reducing costs of
employing EU seafarers, especially those on
ships operating in distant waters.
Investment aid:
Investment aid is allowed only in cases of
structural reform leading to reductions in
overall fleet capacity. It includes also cases
in line with safe seas policy to improve
community-registered ships to standards
that exceed the mandatory safety and
environmental standards.
Training support schemes:
Not considered to be State aid because of
their general nature.
Restructuring aid (including privatisation):
although the guidelines on restructuring and
rescuing firms in difficulty apply to transport
only to the extent that the specific nature of
the sector is taken into account, the
Commission will apply those guidelines in
considering restructuring aid for maritime
companies.
Public service obligations and contracts:
Subsidisation can, in principle, be accepted
for public service obligations (PSO). A PSO
is defined as any obligation imposed upon a
carrier to ensure the provision of a service
satisfying fixed standards (of continuity,
regularity, capacity and pricing), which the
carrier would not assume if it were solely
considering its economic interest.
PSOs may be imposed for scheduled services to
ports serving peripheral regions of the
Community or thinly served routes considered
vital for the economic development of these
regions, in cases where the operation of market
forces would not ensure a sufficient service level.
The Commission's practice in assessing contracts
relating to PSO is generally to consider that
reimbursement of operating losses incurred as a
direct result of fulfilling certain public service
obligations is not State aid within the meaning of
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Article 92 (1) of the Treaty. Notification is not,
therefore, required under Article 93 (3),
provided that the following criteria are met:
• For public service contracts to be consistent
with the common market and not to
constitute State aid, the Commission expects
public tenders to be made, as the
development and implementation of schemes
must be transparent and allow for the
development of competition.
• Adequate publicity must be given to the call
for tender and all requirements concerning
the level and frequency of the service,
capacity, prices and standards required, etc.,
must be specified in a clear and transparent
manner to ensure that all Community
carriers with the right of access to the route
(according to Community law) have had an
equal chance to bid.
• The Member State can then award a
contract to the successful bidder (except in
exceptional and duly justified cases, to the
bidder requiring the lowest financial
compensation) and reimburse the extra costs
incurred by the operator because of
providing the service. This should be directly
related to the calculated deficit made by the
operator in providing the service. It should
be accounted for separately for each such
service so that it can be verified that there is
no overcompensation or cross-subsidy and
that the scheme cannot be used to support
inefficient management and operating
methods. If a grant is made by the Member
State on this basis and it is limited to
reimbursement of extra costs incurred
(together with a reasonable return on capital
employed), the scheme will not be considered
to constitute State aid.
The duration of public service contracts should
be limited to a reasonable period (normally in
the order of five years), since contracts for
significantly longer periods could entail the
danger of creating a (private) monopoly. After
expiration of the contract period, such contracts
should be subject to re-tendering in accordance
with the procedure described above.
Short sea shipping
Short-sea-shipping is defined by the Commission
as ‘the movement of passengers and cargo by sea
within Europe, both inside and outside the EU,
as well as to and from all ports in the
Mediterranean, the Baltic and the Black Sea’.
The communication ‘the development of short sea
shipping in Europe: a dynamic alternative in a
sustainable transport chain’ (COM (1999) 317
final) sets Europe’s priorities and approaches in
order to increase the use of this mode and
establish sea transport as a viable alternative to
road transport. The role of SSS in the overall
European transport system was also emphasised
in the Commission's White Paper on European
Transport Policy for 2010. The objective is to
provide incentives for short-distance transport by
sea, as this mode of transport consumes less
energy and constitutes a non-polluting
alternative to road transport.
The relevant act is Council Resolution of 11
March 1996 (Official Journal C 099, 02 April
1996), which urges the Commission and the
Member States to take any action that is needed
in order to achieve balanced growth by this form
of transport and to incorporate it into the intermodal transport chain. A number of
recommendations to the Member States, the
regional and local authorities and to the
maritime industries are formulated aiming to
enhance competitiveness in this sector. The
resolution stresses the need (a) to improve the
quality and efficiency of coastal shipping, the
infrastructure and port capacity and (b) to
prepare coastal shipping for future enlargement.
This communication concerns transport by sea
along the coasts of the EU and specifically:
• Between the continental ports and islands of
the EU.
• Purely internal transport (cabotage).
• Cross-frontier transport either within the EU
or between the EU and its adjacent regions.
This resolution was followed:
• In May 1997, by a progress report (SEC
(97) 877) from the Commission. At the
Transport Council meeting on 18 June 1997,
the Commission was asked to present twoyearly progress reports containing an
assessment of the results of the measures
taken to promote short-distance transport by
sea.
• In June 1999, by a Commission
communication (COM (1999) 317 final) on
a second two-yearly progress report which:
− Reviewed the possibilities offered by
short-distance transport by sea in the
framework of sustainable, safe mobility.
21
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
−
−
Analysed the incorporation of this mode
into Community logistic and inter-modal
transport chains, its image and the
barriers to its development.
Defined the measures which the
Commission recommends to take into
account (e. g. certain voluntary actions
to achieve greater uniformity in
documents
and
administrative
procedures applicable to short-distance
transport by sea in the various Member
States, promotion of SSS by ports as
part of their commercial strategy).
•
•
In February 2000, by the Council Resolution
of 14 February 2000 on the promotion of
short sea shipping (Official Journal C 056,
29 February 2000).
In April 2003, by the Commission
communication (COM (2003) 155 final) on
a Programme for the Promotion of Short
Sea Shipping within EU. This particular
programme contains a set of 14 legislative,
technical and operational actions (see table
below), with a 2003-2010 timetable for
each action, which are aimed at developing
Short Sea Shipping (SSS) at the EU
national, regional and industry levels.
Table 1: EU Programme for the promotion of Short Sea Shipping
Category
Description
Implementation of
the Directive on
certain reporting
formalities for ships
arriving in and/or
departing from
ports of the
Member States.
Legislative
Actions
Implementation of
the Marco Polo
programme
Standardisation
and harmonisation
of inter-modal
loading units
Development of
'Motorways of the
Sea’
Improvement of the
environmental
performance of
SSS
Technical
Actions
Guide to Customs
Procedures for SSS
Identification and
elimination of
obstacles to make
SSS more
successful
Computerisation of,
EU Customs
Procedures (‘eCustoms’)
22
Content
This directive requires Member States to accept the standard IMO
(International Maritime Organisation)-FAL forms, from which it is
possible to obtain the relevant arrival/departure information for a ship:
the multitude of different national forms is replaced by one common set of
forms. The Directive will take effect at the latest in 2003. The relevant act
is the Directive 2002/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 18/2/2002 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or
departing from ports of the Member States of the Community (Text with
EEA relevance) (Official Journal L 067, 09/03/ 2002).
Objective: to shift 12 billion tonne-kilometres a year of road freight to
SSS, rail and inland waterways (average annual budget of EUR 18.75
million).
The multitude of different configurations of inter-modal loading units
creates delays when moving from one mode to another. The Commission
has presented a proposal for a Directive (COM (2003) 155 final) that
could enable SSS to acquire a larger market share.
Such ‘Motorways’ should make it possible to bypass land bottlenecks in
Europe by offering efficient, regular and frequent services that can
compete with road (transit time and price).
Maritime transport is generally more environment-friendly and modal
shift to SSS could contribute to fulfilling the objectives of the Kyoto
Protocol.
The Commission has published a Guide to Customs Procedures for SSS
that has a dual purpose: first, to explain the Customs rules, indicating
opportunities for using simplified procedures (the basis for the second
objective) and, second, to identify specific needs for further simplification.
The Commission has been making a list of the factors hampering the
development of SSS (old-fashioned image, complex administrative
procedures, lack of efficiency at ports, inconsistency in the application of
rules and procedures among Member States, not integrated into the intermodal logistics chain).
Objectives: to speed up and simplify the procedures involved in declaring
cargo through implementing the New Computerised Transit System
(NCTS), required by the Single Administrative Document (SAD)
procedure, in some 3 000 Customs offices in 22 countries.
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Category
Description
Research and
Technological
Development
One-Stop
Administrative
Shops
Operational
Actions
Content
Objectives: to improve the quality, safety, security and environmental
performance of maritime transport. A Thematic Network for SSS has
been established within the framework of the 6 Framework Programme,
to carry out research directly related to SSS.
Objectives: to simplify the formalities relating to the arrival, departure
and clearance of ships by limiting the number of administrative authorities
boarding and checking every ship (or at least co-ordinating their
activities), and secondly, to offer port users a single contact point or helpdesk for administrative formalities.
Ensuring the vital
role of SSS Focal
Points
It is necessary to ensure continuous cooperation between the Focal Points
and the Commission by organising regular meetings and to ensure a
continuous flow of information via the internet-based tool 'CIRCA'
(Communication and Information Resource Centre Administrator).
Maintaining the
efficient operation
and guidance of
Short Sea
Promotion Centres
Centres driven by business interests offering a practical tool to promote
SSS at national level. The national centres are presently being integrated
into the European Short Sea Network (ESN) that provides a common tool
for the promotion of SSS in Europe. Objectives: to exchange information
and best practices and to provide practical advice covering the various
stages of a short-sea journey.
Promoting the
image of SSS as a
successful transport alternative
SSS needs to acquire a more modern, dynamic image by highlighting its
current potential, i.e. its speed, reliability, flexibility, regularity and high
degree of cargo safety.
Collection of
statistical
information
Objective: to collect information on SSS from the European Sea Ports
Organisation (ESPO) until the Directive on maritime statistics provides
sufficient information to enable comparisons to be made. The relevant acts
are:
- The Commission Decision 98/385/EC of 13/05/1998 on rules for
implementing Council Directive 95/64/EC on statistical returns in respect
of carriage of goods and passengers by sea (notified under document No C
(1998) 1275) (Text with EEA relevance) (Official Journal L 174,
18/6/1998) amended by the 2000/363/EC Commission Decision of
28/4/2000 (notified under document No C (2000) 1134) (Text with EEA
relevance) (Official Journal L 132, 05 /06/ 2000).
- The Commission Decision 2001/423/EC of 22/05/2001 on arrangements
for publication or dissemination of the statistical data collected pursuant
to Council Directive 95/64/EC on statistical returns in respect of carriage
of goods and passengers by sea (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under
document No C (2001)1456) (Official Journal L 151, 07 /06/2001).
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)-Synthesis from EU Trnasport Legislation
23
Module 5
Furthermore, in the informal EU Transport
Council meeting held in Gijón on 31 May and 1
June 2002, it was stated that there is a political
desire to cooperate in the creation of Motorways
of the Sea in the framework of the transEuropean transport network, as well as at
regional and cross-border level, by connecting
the corridors and shorelines of the Member
States and their immediate neighbours /
Mediterranean partners (Naples Transport
Informal Council on 4-5 July 2003). To this end,
the Ministers stressed the need for the intermodality of short-sea shipping, in particular the
interconnection and interoperability of the
maritime and inland transport networks
(including
roads,
railways
and
inland
waterways).
2.2.3. Maritime Safety & Global Navigation
Satellite System (GNSS)
2.2.3.1. Maritime Safety
Recent developments in the maritime field are
especially fast. Adoption in Malta on 25 January
2002 and the coming into force on 17 March
2004 of the ‘Protocol concerning cooperation
and preventing pollution from ships and, in cases
of emergency, in combating pollution of the
Mediterranean sea by oil, hazardous and noxious
substances (H.N.S.)’ as well as jobs driven under
the aegis of Rempec signify rapid changes in the
corresponding regulatory framework.
Maritime safety for vessels carrying
dangerous or polluting goods
Regarding the carrying of dangerous or
polluting goods, the Commission has set a
number of rules and obligations for vessels,
irrespective of their flag, through Directive
2002/59/EC that focuses on standard
information to the authorities by the shipper and
ship operators on the nature of the cargo carried.
The objective is to avoid conditions likely to
cause accidents during the transport of
dangerous or polluting goods and to reduce the
resulting damage whenever such accidents occur.
The notification of dangerous or polluting goods
carried on-board has to obey a clearly defined
framework.
24
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
The operator, agent or master of a ship,
irrespective of its size, carrying dangerous or
polluting goods and leaving a port of a Member
State must, at the latest at the moment of
departure, notify certain compulsory information
indicated to the competent authority designated
by that Member State. This information
includes:
General information:
• Ship identification (name, call sign, IMO
identification number or MMSI number.
• Port of destination.
• For a ship leaving a port in a Member State:
estimated time of departure from the port of
departure or pilot station, as required by the
competent authority, and estimated time of
arrival at the port of destination.
• For a ship coming from a port located
outside the Community and bound for a port
in a Member State: estimated time of
arrival at the port of destination or pilot
station, as required by the competent
authority.
• Total number of persons on board.
Cargo information:
• The correct technical names of the
dangerous or polluting goods, the United
Nations (UN) numbers where they exist, the
IMO hazard classes in accordance with the
IMDG, IBC and IGC Codes and, where
appropriate, the class of the ship as defined
by the INF Code, the quantities of such
goods and their location on board and, if
they are being carried in cargo transport
units other than tanks, the identification
number thereof.
• Confirmation that a list or manifest or
appropriate loading plan giving details of
the dangerous or polluting goods carried and
of their location on the ship is on board.
• Address from which detailed information on
the cargo may be obtained.
Furthermore, Directive 2002/59/EC, introduces
the following obligations:
• The operator of a vessel leaving a port in a
Member State must notify before vessel
departure all information needed to the
competent authority of that Member State.
• The operator of a vessel coming from a port
located outside the Community and bound
for a port located in the Community must, as
Maritime Shipping and Ports
•
a condition for the entry into that port,
notify on departure from the loading port,
all information needed to the competent
authority of the Member State in which the
first port of destination is located.
Vessels entering or leaving a port located in
a Member State must make use of the
service provided by the local vessel traffic
service (VTS), wherever this is available, or
otherwise make use of pilots.
In case of an accident:
• The competent authority of the Member
State concerned must be informed
immediately of any incident or circumstance
at sea which poses a threat to its coastline
or related interest. The competent authority
of the Member State concerned must
broadcast within the relevant areas any
incident and information with regard to any
vessel, which poses a threat to other ships.
• Notification must comply with IMO
Resolution a 648 (16) and must be made at
least in all circumstances set out in that
Resolution.
The issue of places of refuge for ships in distress
is also touched upon. Member States are obliged
to draw up plans to accommodate, in the waters
under their jurisdiction, ships in distress. These
plans
where
necessary,
must
contain
arrangements for the provision of adequate
means and facilities for assistance, salvage and
pollution response.
Finally, the Directive extends ships' reporting
obligations by requiring:
• The use of computerised exchange of data
and of systems for the automatic
identification of ships (AIS).
• Closer cooperation between Member States.
Maritime safety standards for pollution
prevention and shipboard living and
working conditions
The objective is to establish the legal framework
needed for the implementation of international
safety rules by all vessels that are visiting
European ports through the introduction of a
harmonised port State control system, with a
view to reducing the number of substandard
vessels operating in Community waters and, with
the aid of these preventive measures, enhancing
safety at sea and protection of the marine
environment.
The relevant act is the Council Directive
95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the
enforcement, in respect of shipping using
Community ports and sailing in the waters under
the jurisdiction of the Member States, of
international standards for ship safety, pollution
prevention and shipboard living and working
conditions (port State control) (Official Journal
L 157, 07 July 1995) amended by the Council
Directive 98/25/EC of 27 April 1998 (Official
Journal L 133, 07 May 1998), the Commission
Directive 98/42/EC of 19 June 1998 (Text with
EEA relevance) (Official Journal L 184, 27 June
1998), the Commission Directive 1999/97/EC of
13 December 1999 (Text with EEA relevance)
(Official Journal L 331, 23 December 1999), the
Directive 2001/106/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 19 December
2001 (Official Journal L 019, 22 January 2002)
and the Directive 2002/84/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 5 November
2002 (Text with EEA relevance) (Official
Journal L 324, 29 November 2002).
This Directive applies to all merchant ships and
crews using a seaport of a Member State. The
Member States are obliged to establish and
maintain national maritime administrations
('competent authorities') for the inspection of
ships in their ports or in the waters under their
jurisdiction. Each Member State is under an
obligation to inspect at least 25% of the ships
flying other countries' flags that enter its ports.
Selection criteria are defined for deciding which
vessels to inspect and no further inspections will
be carried out on vessels that have been
inspected within the previous six months.
Enhanced controls must be carried out on:
• Oil tankers within five years or less of the
date of phasing out.
• Bulk carriers older than 12 years.
• Passenger ships.
• Gas and chemical tankers over ten years old,
counting from the date of construction
shown on the ship's safety certificates.
An obligation is placed on the Member States to
ensure that any deficiencies revealed in the
course of the inspection are rectified. Penalties
may be imposed in the event of refusal to comply
25
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
with the competent authorities' requests (refusal
of access to any port within the Community).
Owners or operators of deficient vessels
warranting detention are under an obligation to
pay a fee covering the re-inspection costs.
Maritime safety improvement for seaborne oil trade
Following several disasters (Torrey Canyon
1967, Exxon Valdez 1989), a series of
conventions were drawn up under the auspices of
the International Maritime Organisation (IMO),
amongst which the International Marpol
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships adopted in 1973. This convention also
seeks to bring about the gradual phasing-out of
single hull oil tankers and their replacement by
double hull tankers or tankers of equivalent
design, in order to reduce considerably the risk
of pollution, particularly in incidents involving
slight collisions or grounding2. The Marpol
Convention also provides for more rigorous
checks on the state of ageing oil tankers.
Progressively, the IMO directives have become
more and more specific, and oil tanker hulls are
now subjected to much more stringent
inspections than initially.
ERIKA I and ERIKA II packages
It was not until the mid-1990s and the advent of
qualified majority voting that the Council was
able to adopt the first building blocks of a
common maritime safety policy, including the
organisation at Community level of stricter
application of international conventions and the
adoption of measures specifically of a
Community nature in cases where the IMO
standards were non-existent or inadequate.
Following the accident of the 25-year-old singlehull oil tanker «Erika » on 12 December 1999,
the Commission adopted a first series of
proposals, known as the Erika I and Erika II
packages. These packages aimed at:
• Tightening of the existing legislation on port
State control.
• Monitoring of classification societies.
• Speeding up of the phasing-out of single-hull
oil tankers.
2
On 1 January 2000, double hull vessels accounted for about
20% of the world's oil tanker fleet.
26
•
Improvement of shipping controls in
European waters setting up at the same time
the European Maritime Safety Agency.
Furthermore, in response to the accident of the
26 years old single-hull tanker « Prestige » on
13 November 2002, the Commission adopted a
Communication on improving safety at sea that
included an indicative black list of vessels that
would have been banned from European ports if
the new Community maritime safety measures
had been in force, in conjunction with the
Community telemetric network for monitoring
shipping, etc.
For this purpose, of Directive 95/21/EC on port
State control by Directive 2001/106/EC has
been inacted. This Directive provides for
inspections to be carried out on all vessels and
includes specific requirements relating to the
inspection of oil tankers.
Despite the already existing Directive 95/21/EC,
the wreck of the Erika focused attention on
several shortcomings in the system of Port State
Control, particularly regarding the inspection of
vessels presenting a statistically higher level of
risk because of their age or the polluting nature
of their cargo. Accordingly, the Commission has
proposed to amend Directive 95/21/EC as
follows:
• A ban on vessels more than 15 years old
which have been detained more than twice
during the previous two years and that
appear on a 'black list' of flags (published
every six-months) with a higher than
average number of detentions.
• Systematic inspection in port of vessels
whose 'target factor' (age, flag, previous
detentions…) is particularly high.
• The current Directive's optional provisions
concerning risk vessels become compulsory,
with yearly mandatory expanded inspection
upon entry into a Community port. Such
measures are stepped up with regard to oil
tankers, which will be subject to expanded
inspection arrangements after the age of 15
years (previously 20 to 25). Moreover,
inspectors will have to examine at least one
of the ballast tanks to check for possible
corrosion.
• Inspectors will have extra information on
the vessels they inspect (database EQUASIS
on vessel condition) and their reports will
Maritime Shipping and Ports
•
•
•
have to indicate which checks have been
carried out, to prevent a new identical
inspection.
The flag State and the classification society
will be informed of the results of inspections,
which will enable them to intervene more
rapidly in the event of a vessel's condition
deterioration.
The list of information to be published
regarding inspections and detentions is
extended, to include the name of the
charterer for instance.
The Member States will have to supply
detailed information to the Commission for
it to assess the work of the Directive and the
compliance of the Member States with its
provision.
•
•
•
These points were taken into account on 21
March 2000, in the proposal for a Directive of
the European Parliament and of the Council
amending Council Directive 95/21/EC [COM
(2000) 142 final - Official Journal C 212E 25
July 2000] (Erika I package). This proposal
forms part of a broader document on the safety
of the sea-borne oil trade.
•
Amendment of Council Directive 94/57/EC
of 22 November 1994 on common rules and
standards for ship inspection and survey
organisations and for the relevant activities
of maritime administrations (Official
Journal L 319, 12 December 1994) by
Directive 2001/105/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 19
December 2001 (Text with EEA relevance)
(Official Journal L 019, 22 January 2002),
with a stricter monitoring of the
'classification societies' to which Member
States delegate power to inspect the quality
of ships.
•
Regulation (EC) No 2099/2002 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of
5 November 2002 establishing a Committee
on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships (COSS) and amending the
Regulations on maritime safety and the
prevention of pollution from ships (Official
Journal L 324, 29 November 2002),
amended by the Commission Regulation
(EC) No 415/2004 of 5 March 2004 (Text
with EEA relevance) (Official Journal L
068, 06 March 2004).
•
The Directive 2000/59/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 27
November 2000 on port reception facilities
for ship-generated waste and cargo residues
Commission declaration (Official Journal L
332, 28 December 2000), amended by the
Directive 2002/84/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 5
November 2002 (Text with EEA relevance)
(Official Journal L 324, 29 November
2002). This Directive aims to ensure
compliance with the Marpol provisions
requiring ports to provide adequate
reception facilities. This Directive reinforced
the Marpol 73/78 Convention on the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships.
The Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of
18 February 2002 on the accelerated
phasing-in of double hull or equivalent
design requirements for single hull oil
tankers and repealing Council Regulation
(EC) No 2978/94 (Official Journal L 064,
07 March 2002). The IMO Resolution
A.747 (18) was made mandatory in the EU
waters. Thus, tankers with segregated
ballast tanks (SBT) and double hull oil
tankers were promoted for use and the
tonnage of the segregated ballast tanks is
not included in the port and pilotage fees
applied at EU ports.
The Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of
27 June 2002 establishing a European
Maritime Safety Agency (Text with EEA
relevance) (Official Journal L 208, 05
August 2002) amended by the Regulation
(EC) No 1644/2003 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 22 July
2003 (Official Journal L 245, 29 September
2003).
Of the above maritime safety regulations, those
proposed in the wake of the Erika shipping
disaster and adopted on 19 December 2001,
have been in force since 22 January 2002.
Member States had until 22 July 2003 to apply
them by adopting the requisite laws, regulations
and administrative provisions, and are required
to notify the Commission of the transposition of
these acts into national law as soon as they enter
into force. Only Denmark, France, Germany,
Spain and the United Kingdom have complied.
27
Module 5
The Erika II package objective, as a
supplementary to Erika I, is to bring about a
lasting improvement in the protection of
European waters against the risk of accidents at
sea and marine pollution.
The relevant acts are:
• Communication from the Commission to the
Council and the European Parliament of 6
December 2000 on a second set of
Community measures on maritime safety
following the sinking of the oil tanker Erika
[COM (2000) 802 final - Not published in
the Official Journal].
• Directive 2002/84/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 5
November
2002
amending
various
Directives on maritime safety and the
prevention of pollution from ships (Text with
EEA relevance) (Official Journal L 324, 29
November 2002).The purpose of the
Directive is to improve the implementation
of Community legislation on maritime
safety, the protection of the marine
environment, and living and working
conditions on board the ships. The Directive
is closely linked to Regulation (EC) No
2099/2002 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 5 November 2002
establishing a Committee on Safe Seas and
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(COSS) and amending the Regulations on
maritime safety and the prevention of
pollution from ships (Official Journal L 324,
29 November 2002) amended by the
Commission Regulation (EC) No 415/2004
of 5 March 2004 (Text with EEA relevance)
(Official Journal L 068, 06 March 2004).
The two legislative acts have the same
purpose: to establish a single committee on
maritime safety and the prevention of
pollution from ships, and to speed up and
simplify the incorporation of international
rules into Community legislation.
Maritime safety rules and standards for all
new and existing passenger vessels and
high speed craft
In the sector of passenger traffic, the objective
was to enhance passenger safety on roll-on/rolloff ferries by improving their design and
equipment, the quality of their crews and the
responsibility of owners and operators of this
type of ship. The sinking of the Ro-Ro passenger
28
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
ferry ' Estonia ' on 28 September 1994 in the
Baltic Sea, led to the adoption by the EU of a
set of rules for the protection of passengers and
crew sailing on ferries operating to and from
European ports, as well as safety standards for
passenger ships operating on domestic voyages
within the Community. As a result, passenger
vessels operators must comply with many safety
requirements before they can operate.
The main rules of the EU are set in a number of
directives and regulations that include:
• Council Resolution of 22 December 1994 on
the safety of roll-on/roll-off passenger ferries
(Official Journal C 379, 31 December
1994).
• Council Regulation (EC) No 3051/95 of 8
December 1995 on the safety management
of roll-on/roll-off passenger ferries (Ro-Ro
ferries) (Official Journal L 320, 30
December 1995), amended by the
Commission Regulation (EC) No 179/98 of
23 January 1998 (Official Journal L 019,
24 January 1998), the Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1970/2002 of 4
November 2002 ferries (Ro-Ro ferries)
(Text with EEA relevance) (Official Journal
L 302, 06 November 2002) and the
Regulation (EC) No 2099/2002 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of
5 November 2002 (Official Journal L 324,
29 November 2002). This Directive implied
the application of the International Safety
Management code (ISM code adopted by
IMO in 1993, aims to improve crew
awareness and behaviour in the event of an
emergency and lays down standards for the
safe operation of ships) as of July 1996 by
all companies operating regular Ro-Ro
passenger ferry services in the European
Union.
• Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March
1998 on safety rules and standards for
passenger ships (Official Journal L 144, 15
May 1998), amended by the Commission
Directive 2002/25/EC of 5 March 2002
(Official Journal L 098, 15 April 2002), the
Directive 2002/84/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 5
November 2002 (Text with EEA relevance)
(Official Journal L 324, 29 November
2002), the Directive 2003/24/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of
14 April 2003 (Official Journal L 123, 17
Maritime Shipping and Ports
•
•
May 2003) and the Commission Directive
2003/75/EC of 29 July 2003 (Text with
EEA relevance) (Official Journal L 190, 30
July 2003) harmonises safety standards for
all new and existing passenger vessels and
high speed craft when engaged on voyages
between ports in the same Member State.
This Directive incorporated the provisions of
the 1974 SOLAS convention for the Safety
of Life at Sea setting detailed technical
requirements regarding the construction and
stability of vessels, equipment for fire
protection and life-saving. The purpose of
this Directive is to tighten the safety rules
and standards for passenger ships by
establishing a uniform level of safety of life
and property on new and existing passenger
ships and high-speed passenger craft
engaged on domestic voyages. At the same
time, the Directive lays down procedures for
international negotiation to harmonise the
rules for passenger ships engaged on
international voyages. Directive 2003/24/EC
requires appropriate measures to be taken to
enable persons with reduced mobility to have
safe access to passenger ships and highspeed passenger craft engaged on domestic
voyages in the Member States. Each
Member State must compile and update a
list of sea areas under its jurisdiction,
delimiting the zones in which the classes of
ships operate all year round and those in
which their operation is limited to a specific
period. Moreover, Member States may
inspect, in their capacity as host States,
ships and craft engaged on domestic voyages
and may audit their documentation, in
accordance
with
Council
Directive
95/21/EC.
Council Directive 96/98/EC of 20 December
1996 on marine equipment (Official Journal
L 046, 17 February 1997) was developed to
ensure the application of international
testing standards and procedures for typeapproval of marine equipment.
Council Directive 98/41/EC of 18 June
1998 on the registration of persons sailing
on board passenger ships operating to or
from ports of the Member States of the
Community (Official Journal L 188, 02 July
1998),
amended
by
the
Directive
2002/84/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 5 November 2002
(Text with EEA relevance) (Official Journal
•
•
•
L 324, 29 November 2002). These
Directives mandate that all persons on board
passenger ships departing from a port
located in a Member State must be counted
prior to departure of the ship. The number of
passengers must be communicated to the
master of the ship and to the person
designated by the company. Where a
passenger ship departs from a port located
in a Member State to undertake a voyage of
more than 20 sea miles, certain passenger
information (surname, first name, sex, age
and special details) must be collected and
communicated to the company's passenger
registrar.
Directive 2003/25/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 14 April
2003 on specific stability requirements for
Ro-Ro passenger ships (Text with EEA
relevance) (Official Journal L 123, 17 May
2003).
Commission Decision 2004/71/EC of 4
September 2003 on essential requirements
relating to marine radio communication
equipment which is intended to be used on
non-SOLAS vessels and to participate in the
Global Maritime Distress and Safety System
(GMDSS) (Text with EEA relevance)
(notified under document No C (2003)
2912) (Official Journal L 016, 23 January
2004).
Commission Decision 2000/638/EC of 22
September 2000 on the application of
Article 3(3)(e) of Directive 1999/5/EC to
marine radio communication equipment
intended to be fitted to seagoing non-SOLAS
vessels and which is intended to participate
in the global maritime distress and safety
system (GMDSS) and not covered by Council
Directive 96/98/EC on marine equipment
(notified under document No C (2000)
2719) (Text with EEA relevance) (Official
Journal L 269, 21 October 2000).
Maritime safety standards for fishing
vessels
The Council Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December
1997 sets up a harmonised safety regime for
fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over
(Official Journal L 034, 09 February 1998)
amended by the Commission Directive
1999/19/EC of 18 March 1999 (Text with EEA
relevance) (Official Journal L 083, 27 March
1999), the Commission Directive 2002/35/EC of
29
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
25 April 2002 (Text with EEA relevance)
(Official Journal L 112, 27 April 2002) and the
Directive 2002/84/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 5 November
2002 (Text with EEA relevance) (Official
Journal L 324, 29 November 2002). This
directive sets common safety requirements for
new and existing seagoing fishing vessels of 24
meters of length and over, irrespective of their
flag and when operating in the internal or
territorial waters of Member States or
approaching a port in the Community.
Maritime safety and seafarers
Minimum training level of seafarers:
The objective is to establish a minimum level of
training for seafarers in the Community in order
to improve the safety of maritime transport. The
target is to incorporate into the European
Legislation the IMO Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers
(STCW).
The relevant acts are:
• The Directive 2001/25/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 4 April
2001 on the minimum level of training of
seafarers (Official Journal L 136, 18 May
2001)
amended
by
the
Directive
2002/84/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 5 November 2002
(Text with EEA relevance) (Official Journal
L 324, 29 November 2002) and the
Directive 2003/103/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 17
November 2003 (Text with EEA relevance)
(Official Journal L 326, 13 December
2003). This Directive is aimed at ensuring
that
the
International
Maritime
Organisation
(IMO)
Convention
on
Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping of 1978 (STCW Convention),
as revised, is implemented simultaneously
and consistently in all Member States.
According to the EU legislation, officers on
board EU-flagged ships must have
undergone specific training and hold a
certificate recognised under the STCW
Convention. Additionally, provisions for Port
State Control inspections are included.
• The Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21
December 1988 on a general system for the
recognition of higher-education diplomas
awarded on completion of professional
30
•
education and training of at least three
years' duration (Official Journal L 019, 24
January 1989) and the Council Directive
92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second
general system for the recognition of
professional education and training (Official
Journal L 209, 24 July 1992).
The Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June
1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect
of shipping using Community ports and
sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of
the Member States, of international
standards for ship safety, pollution
prevention and shipboard living and working
conditions (Port State Control) (Official
Journal L 157, 07 July 1995). This
Directive allows Member States to control
crew’s members serving on any ship using
their ports, irrespective of the flag, in order
to verify that all seafarers who are required
to be certified by the STCW Convention are
so certified. This is necessary, in particular,
when a ship is flying the flag of a country
which has not ratified the STCW
Convention, or has a master, officer (or
rating) holding a certificate issued by a third
country which has not ratified it.
Organisation of seafarers' working time:
The objective was to protect the health and
safety of seafarers by laying down minimum
requirements with regard to working time. Apart
from the STCW convention, the EU has
therefore taken into account ILOs (International
Labour Organisation) No 180 on Seafarers'
Hours of Work and the Manning of Ships
(1996).
The relevant act was the Council Directive
1999/63/EC of 21 June 1999 concerning the
Agreement on the organisation of working time
of seafarers concluded by the European
Community Shipowners' Association (ECSA) and
the Federation of Transport Workers' Unions in
the European Union (FST) - Annex: European
Agreement on the organisation of working time
of seafarers (Official Journal L 167, 02 July
1999). This Directive was completed by the
Directive 1999/95/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 13 December
1999 concerning the enforcement of provisions
in respect of seafarers' hours of work on board
ships calling at Community ports (Official
Journal L 014, 20 January 2000).
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Maritime safety: committee on safe seas
The objective is to improve the safety of ships,
their crews and their passengers and to prevent
marine pollution more effectively as well as to
improve the implementation of the relevant
Community legislation.
The relevant act is the Regulation (EC) No
2099/2002 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 5 November 2002 establishing a
Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (COSS) and amending the
Regulations on maritime safety and the
prevention of pollution from ships (Official
Journal L 324, 29 November 2002) amended by
the Commission Regulation (EC) No 415/2004
of 5 March 2004 (Text with EEA relevance)
(Official Journal L 068, 06 March 2004). This
Regulation has two main objectives:
• To simplify procedures by replacing the five
previous various committees set up by the
Community legislation on maritime safety
and the prevention of pollution from ships
with a single committee, the COSS.
• To accelerate and simplify the incorporation
of international rules into the Community
legislation by allowing amendments to the
international rules to apply directly or semiautomatically, based on the 87/373/EEC
Council Decision of 13 July 1987 laying
down the procedures for the exercise of
implementing powers conferred on the
Commission (Official Journal L 197, 18 July
1987). The new regulatory procedure is
based on the Council Decision 1999/468/EC
of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures
for the exercise of implementing powers
conferred on the Commission (Official
Journal L 184, 17 July 1999). The
Regulation also provides for amending
various existing regulations in the field of
maritime safety.
Maritime safety: implementation of the
European maritime safety agency (EMSA)
The objective was to set up a European Maritime
Safety Agency (EMSA), in order to ensure a
high, uniform and effective level of maritime
safety and prevention of pollution from ships
within the Community.
The relevant act is Regulation (EC) No
1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a
European Maritime Safety Agency (Text with
EEA relevance) (Official Journal L 208, 05
August 2002) amended by the Regulation (EC)
No 1644/2003 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 22 July 2003 (Official Journal
L 245, 29 September 2003) and the Regulation
(EC) No 724/2004 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (Text with
EEA relevance) (Official Journal L 129, 29
April 2004) in order to provide the Member
States and the Commission with technical and
scientific assistance to ensure the proper
application of Community legislation in the field
of maritime safety, monitor its implementation
and evaluate its effectiveness.
EMSA was assigned the following tasks:
• To assist the Commission in producing and
updating Community legislation in the field
of maritime safety and the prevention of
pollution from ships, with reference to the
development of international legislation in
that field. This is in addition to helping the
commission in effectively implementing
Community legislation on maritime safety.
• To provide Member States with technical
assistance in implementing Community
legislation and to organise training activities
in the fields which are the responsibility of
the port State and the flag State.
• To provide the Commission and the Member
States with objective, reliable and
comparable information and data on
maritime safety, including information
relating to ships that have been refused
access to Community ports, and to assist the
Member States in their activities to improve
the identification and pursuit of ships
making unlawful discharges. Information
collected in the framework of the application
of this Regulation is subject to Regulation
(EC) No 45/2001 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 18
December 2000 on the protection of
individuals with regard to the processing of
personal data by the Community institutions
and bodies and on the free movement of such
data (Official Journal L 008, 12 January
2001). With regard to transparency, the
Agency applies the principles of Regulation
(EC) No 1049/2001 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 30 May
2001 regarding public access to European
31
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
•
•
Parliament, Council and Commission
documents (Official Journal L 145, 31 May
2001).
To carry out tasks relating to the
surveillance of navigation and maritime
traffic pursuant to Directive 2002/59/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council
of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community
vessel traffic monitoring and information
system and repealing Council Directive
93/75/EEC (Official Journal L 208, 05
August 2002), in order to facilitate
cooperation between the Member States and
the Commission in this field.
To develop, in cooperation with the
Commission and the Member States, a
common methodology for investigating
maritime accidents and to analyse existing
accident investigation reports.
VTMIS & Traffic Management at Sea
A major effort to improve the safety of
navigation is the development of a European seatraffic monitoring system, as proposed in the
Erika II package.
Directive (2002/59/EC) brings in notification
procedures in European waters, establishing a
Community vessel traffic monitoring, control and
information system. Ships in EU waters are
required to fit automatic identification systems
and voyage data recorders (black boxes) to
facilitate accident investigation.
Vessel traffic management and information
services (VTMIS), supported by around EUR 10
million of EU funding, is progressively
integrating coastal and port vessel traffic
services, distress and safety communication
systems and other automatic telecommunications
applications.
Currently, EU interests focus on the development
of an EU wide vessel traffic management and
information system network (see project 'Vessel
Traffic Management and Information System
NETwork'). Project objectives include the
development of:
• Methodology, guidelines and examples for
the development of a VTMIS network in
technical,
institutional,
administrative,
financial and legal aspects based on the
conditions within participating countries.
32
•
•
•
•
Specification of an appropriate architectural
network of all relevant system levels; - tools
for enhanced network operations allowing
for interoperability of individual local
solutions.
Information exchange network to promote
efficient and safe flow of traffic and intermodal transport services.
Introduction of a marine pollution
information system as part of a VTMIS
information network.
Means to monitor the development of the
network, to evaluate systems and services
and to steer further development of the
network towards an EU wide vessel traffic
management and information system.
2.2.3.2.
Global Navigation Satellite System
(GNSS)
In the White Paper on European Transport
Policy adopted by EU in September 2001, it is
accepted that the introduction of satellite based
navigation services is quickly becoming an
essential part of our daily life, providing benefits
on a wide scale when applied in sectors such as
transport,
energy,
natural
resources
management, farming, mining, cartography, civil
protection and fisheries.
EUGNSS
The EUGNSS programme (Galileo) comprises
the following phases:
• Definition of the system.
• Development of the system.
• Deployment and commercial operation.
Definition of the system (finalised):
During the definition phase, the Commission and
the European Space Agency (ESA) have
mobilised a very large part of the European
space industry as well as a large number of
potential service providers with a view to
defining the basic elements of this project.
A number of projects and comprehensive studies
have contributed to this phase:
• GALA for the overall architecture definition.
• GEMINUS to support the Galileo service
definition.
• INTEG
for
EGNOS
(European
Geostationary Overlay Service) integration
into Galileo.
• SAGA
to
support
the
Galileo
Standardisation process.
Maritime Shipping and Ports
•
•
•
GalileoSat
for the
space
segment
architecture definition.
GUST related to Galileo receivers prespecification and certification.
SARGAL related to potential SAR (Search
and Rescue) applications of Galileo.
Based on the outcome of the definition
Phase, the Galileo Mission High Level
Definition document (HLD) has been
produced and consolidated through a
consultation process, involving Member
States, users and potential private investors.
It presents a picture of the main
characteristics and performance of the
Galileo Mission. It will be used as a
framework for the Galileo programme and
forms the basis for the Mission
Requirements Document and the System
Requirements Document.
Two major activities have consolidated the
definition of the Galileo system:
• Phase B2 of the GalileoSat study led by
ESA focussed on the consolidation of
mission and system requirements, system
architecture and finalisation of phase B
activities leading to the Preliminary System
Design Review (PSDR).
• The Community-funded Galilei project
defined the overall service and user
approach for Galileo, complementing the
studies performed by ESA in the frame of
the Galileo definition phase, in particular on
the following topics:
- Architecture
of
Galileo
Local
Components and customisation for some
key applications.
- Interoperability between Galileo and
other systems (GNSS, GSM/UMTS,
etc.).
- Coordination
and
protection
of
frequencies used by Galileo.
- Standardisation
and
certification
aspects.
Market observatory of applications
using Galileo.
- Definition of the legal, regulatory and
institutional framework of Galileo.
Development of the system:
The development and validation phase (2002 –
2005) covers the detailed definition and
subsequent manufacture of the various system
components: satellites, ground components, user
receivers.
This validation will require putting into orbit
prototype satellites from 2005 and the creation
of a minimal terrestrial infrastructure. It will
allow the necessary adjustments to be made to
the ground sector with a view to its global
deployment and the launching, if necessary, of
operational prototypes manufactured in parallel.
During this phase, it will also be possible to
develop the receivers and local elements and to
verify the frequency allocation conditions
imposed by the International Telecommunication
Union.
The development phase is managed by the
Galileo Joint Undertaking.
Deployment and commercial operation:
The constellation deployment phase will consist
in gradually putting all the operational satellites
into orbit as of 2006 and in ensuring the full
deployment of the ground infrastructure to be
able to offer an operational service from 2008
onwards.
Deployment and commercial operation of Galileo
will be entrusted to a private concession holder.
The sea and waterways are the most widely used
mode for transporting goods worldwide. A wide
variety of vessels moves around the world each
day. The efficiency, safety and optimisation of
marine transportation are key issues. Galileo will
be a fundamental tool for bringing innovation
and progress in navigation and many other
marine activities such as fishing, oceanography
and
oil
and
gas
exploitation.
Satellite navigation benefits all maritime
applications, including leisure boats, commercial
vessels, unregulated and SOLAS regulated ships.
Each application will take advantage of the new
characteristics offered by Galileo: increased
accuracy and integrity, certified services and
high availability.
Therefore, by integrating Galileo with other
technologies, the maritime community is
expected to benefit from:
• A reliable, safe, and accurate tool for
maritime navigation in any phase.
• Accurate information for Safety-of-Life.
33
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
•
•
Increased performance
GPS/Galileo receivers.
Improved SAR services.
2.2.4.
with
integrated
Maritime Security
EU legislation on maritime security came
relatively late with the EC Regulation 725/2004
incorporating
• A new Chapter of SOLAS on maritime
security (Chapter XI-2).
• A totally new international Code on ship and
port facility security (ISPS).
Such legislations go even further than IMO, to
areas not covered by SOLAS, including:
• Extension by 1 July 2005 of the IMO
requirements to Class A passenger ships
engaged on domestic voyages, primarily
those ships that travel more than 20
nautical miles from the coast and to the port
facilities serving them.
• Making a number of paragraphs of ISPS
Part B mandatory.
• Requiring all ships to provide pre-arrival
security information.
• Commission inspections are to start from 1
January 2005 on ships, companies & port
facilities and EU Member States, as they
are considered essential to ensure
compliance by Member States.
The responsibilities of ships and ports focus on:
• Ensuring security standards are maintained.
• Reaction to changes in Security Level.
• Declarations of Security.
• Training, drills and exercises.
The Directive Proposal COM (2004) 76 final on
enhancing port security (10 February 2004)
introduced:
• Port security assessments, plans and
officers.
• Port security authorities and committees.
• Three (3) security levels.
• Commission inspections.
EU is still in the process of developing maritime
security policy by listening closely to
stakeholders’ views. New issues are considered
such as minimum standards for assessments /
plans / training and security organizations and
upgrading port security plans in order to ensure
that security controls are carried out on cars and
34
goods vehicles before loading onto Ro-Ro ferries.
Next steps focus on:
• Producing a proposal on intermodal security
(expected in early 2005).
• Covering supply chain including land side
deliveries to ports.
Maritime Shipping and Ports
3.
Facts, Figures and Statistics
about MEDA Maritime
Transport
3.1.
General
further and detailed information, the interested
reader can easily refer to the internet website
established specifically for this purpose at the
following address (in addition to the various
website addresses listed in Module 10):
www.euromedtransport.org
The aim of this Chapter is to present the most
important data that is pertinent to the maritime
transport sector in the MEDA region. This
information has been obtained from the
following sources:
• Major international maritime organisations
(e.g. IMO, IAPH).
• Previous but recent studies (whether at the
international, regional or national levels).
• Ongoing
collaborative
efforts
and
cooperation programmes within the context
of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership.
• Recent statistics, covering both the regional
and country levels.
• Interviews with the various stakeholders
involved.
• The ongoing Infrastructure Contract within
the umbrella of the EuroMed Transport
Project.
• Other reliable sources.
Under the Main Contract Project, an extensive
database has been prepared covering all aspects
of the transport sector in the MEDA region,
including the maritime sector. Clearly, however,
it is neither practical nor beneficial to present all
data related to maritime transport under this
Module. Rather, it would be preferable to
present the main information that is required to
allow the construction of an accurate profile for
the MEDA maritime transport sector. For any
Specifically, the data presented in this Chapter
includes the following:
• Major maritime traffic in MEDA region and
between MEDA region and EU.
• Major shipping companies operating in
MEDA region.
• Main ports in MEDA region.
3.2.
Maritime Traffic
3.2.1.
Total Volume and Modal Share
The majority of trade in the Southern
Mediterranean is sea borne, especially in the
Maghreb where this mode accounts for up to
95% of the total. Maritime transport is
undoubtedly essential to ensure good connections
between Mediterranean countries among each
other and between the new single market and the
maritime
network,
especially
worldwide
container transport/shipping. The speed, cost
effectiveness, reliability and diversity of
maritime transport services is therefore critical
for the promotion of exports, the attraction of
foreign direct investment (FDI), the integration
of these countries in the global economy, and the
ultimate success of the Euro-Mediterranean freetrade area. However, despite recent progress, the
efficiency of maritime transport chains in the
Southern Mediterranean remains low by
international standards.
Table 2: EU External trade with the MEDA region by mode of transport
Mode of transport
Sea
Rail
Road
Air
Inland waterways
Others
Unknown
TOTAL
million tonnes
1990
106
2
5
1
3
18
1
135
1994
118
1
6
<1
2
23
2
153
1998
133
1
6
<1
1
31
2
175
million EUR
2001
144
4
6
<1
1
30
3
188
1990
31
1
13
9
1
4
1
60
1994
39
1
17
13
1
4
1
74
1998
2001
57
77
1
1
26
29
18
23
<1
<1
7
10
2
4
110
145
EUR /
tonne
2001
536
401
4 477
61 646
293
324
1 367
770
Source: Eurostat Comext Database - EEC special trade domain 3 (Note: before 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden are not
included
3
Cf. Eurostat, Le transport dans la région Euro-Méditerranéenne, 2003 edition, p. 15
35
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Figure 1: EU external trade with MEDA
countries by mode of transport (% by volume,
2001)
Figure 2: EU external trade with MEDA
countries by mode of transport (% by value,
2001)
Others
6,7%
Unknown
1,7%
Inland waterways
0,4%
Others
16,0%
Unknown
3,0%
Inland waterways
0,2%
Air
0,2%
Air
16,1%
Road
3,4%
Rail
2,0%
Sea
53,1%
Sea
76,4%
Road
19,9%
Rail
1,0%
36
Source: Eurostat
Source: Eurostat
The position of maritime transport in crossborder trade of MEDA countries is predominant
and stable (relative to other modes of trade).
Particularly regarding Euro-Mediterranean
trade, in EU 2001 external trade with the
MEDA region, the maritime mode was used for
the transport of 143 833 thousand tonnes
(76.4% of the total) worth EUR 77 billion
(53.1% of the total).
In volume, there exist significant growth
prospects of intra-Mediterranean transport (95%
of MEDA countries’ external trade with EU, and
of this 80% through maritime transport).
Maritime transport in the period of 1997-2001
has shown an average annual growth rate of
1.9% with greater contributions from Malta
(8.8%) and Egypt (6.3%).
Figure 3: Trend of EU-MEDA trade volume by
sea, air, rail and road (tonnes, 1990-2001)
Figure 4: Trend of EU-MEDA trade value by
sea, air, rail & road (million EUR, 1990-2001)
Source: Eurostat
Source: Eurostat
Maritime Shipping and Ports
3.2.2.
Maritime Traffic per Country
The national maritime traffic is summarised in
Table 3:
In terms of total maritime traffic turnover per
country during 2001, data indicates the
following order: Turkey (132.3 million), Algeria
(99.6 million), Egypt (59.1 million) and
Morocco (57.5 million).
There is an imbalance between in-bound and outbound maritime traffic in Algerian, Syrian and
Jordanian ports (predominantly export ports),
whereas the rest are predominantly import ports.
Apart from Turkey, national maritime traffic
(cabotage) is very low, closer to non-existence.
Table 3: Maritime Transport in the MEDA countries
Country
Algeria
Cyprus
Egypt 4
Israel
Jordan
Lebanon
Malta
Morocco5
Syria
Tunisia
Turkey 6
TOTAL
Source: Eurostat
Gross weight of goods (million tonnes) Loaded / unloaded average annual growth (%)
1994
1997
2001
1994 - 2001 1997 - 2001
82
90
100
4.2
2.8
2.7
7
8
7
0.3
-0.1
-1.8
40
46
59
0.4
5.8
6.3
35
39
43
0.4
3.1
2.7
11
12
13
1.5
3.0
1.5
6
6
6
0.1
0.2
-1.0
5
3
5
0.1
-1.2
8.8
40
48
58
0.8
5.2
4.6
24
27
28
2.0
2.0
0.4
23
25
27
0.7
2.5
2.3
98
138
132
0.6
4.4
-1.1
370
442
477
0.9
3.7
1.9
Figure 5: Share of the MEDA countries in maritime transport, 2001
Cyprus
1,5%
Algeria
20,9%
Turkey
27,7%
Egypt
12,4%
Tunisia
5,7%
Syria
5,8%
Malta
1,0%
Israel
9,0%
Morocco
12,0%
Jordan
2,7%
Lebanon
1,3%
Source: Eurostat
4
Covers only major ports.
Tare weight of containers and Ro-Ro units included for some Moroccan ports.
6
Includes estimate for the port of Baniyas 2001.
5
37
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Table 4: Maritime flows between some MEDA countries and areas of the world ('000' tonnes, 2001)
Relation country
National traffic
EU
Europe (except EU)
Africa
America
Near and Middle East
Asian Republics for
the ex-USSR
Indian sub-continent
Far-East
Australasia
Not classified
TOTAL
Algeria
3 359
56 739
8 464
1 177
26 649
301
Jordan
Lebanon
Tunisia
3
2 285
1 343
561
610
604
1 451
1 143
1 156
1 680
780
1 849
9 790
4 447
2 046
2 691
991
0
105
2 092
422
266
99 574
3 495
2 810
75
454
13 044
0
28
0
738
6 172
Turkey
23 849
26 671
24 942
25 767
9 686
10 918
1 480
287
302
52
4 868
27 323
612
1 894
1 995
4 504
132 318
Source: Eurostat
The maritime transport of the Mediterranean
countries is located along the international trade
axis Middle East - Red Sea - Mediterranean Atlantic Ocean and as a result, is affected by
changes in international trade such as the
shifting of trade towards Middle East, the
containerisation and the development of ships'
technology.
Maghreb countries (Tunisia, Morocco and
Algeria) are mainly functioning on a South North
Sea
transport
basis
developing
commercial relations mainly with European
countries (principally Italy, Spain, France). On
one hand, Morocco lacks commercial ports with
hub potential in the Mediterranean Sea7. On the
other hand, Tunisian and Algerian ports are
facing problems of saturation since they are
tightly restricted from the urban environment
that deters expansion and further development.
Furthermore, ports in these countries are facing
cases of limited and inefficient infrastructure and
equipment.
Egypt holds an important geopolitical position in
the international trade because of the Suez
Canal connecting the Mediterranean, the Red
Sea and Indian Ocean. In addition, Egypt holds a
strategic
position
in
the
South-South
Mediterranean trade (main trade route from
Suez to Gibraltar). Egypt's ports in the
Mediterranean Sea function as container hub
7
However, this situation will change, since Morocco is
constructing a strategical harbour in deep water on the
Mediterranean shore, the Tanger-Med port, which will be
operational in 2007.
38
ports serving East Mediterranean countries.
Syria on the other hand, functions mainly as a
gateway to the countries of the Middle East
(especially Iran and Iraq) via the terrestrial
transport network.
Cyprus and Malta, with limited internal markets,
possess a strategic position for the international
trade and maritime transport within the
Mediterranean. The Maltese port of Marsaxlokk
already operates as transhipment hub of
maritime traffic between Maghreb and South
EU countries. Limassol in Cyprus lost its old
importance for traffic in the East Mediterranean
Sea due to the Turkish embargo. Turkey is
mainly functioning in the East Mediterranean South EU transport corridor (especially Ro-Ro
connection with North Italy).
Concerning passenger traffic activities, Maghreb
countries face increased passenger demand,
especially during the summer peak seasons, due
to a) the increased tourist flows and b) the flow
of immigrants. Malta, Cyprus, Egypt and in a
lesser extent Turkey, Syria, and Lebanon
accommodate
significant
cruiser-passenger
traffic from South Europe (mainly Italy, Spain,
France, and Greece).
3.2.3.
Maritime Traffic per Category
Freight (general)
The breakdown of 2001
maritime
traffic
with
respect to cargo type is
summarised in Table 5:
Maritime Shipping and Ports
There is a high share of bulk,
resulting
in
a
low
containerisation potential:
• Algeria: 83% share liquid bulk (oil and oil
derivatives) concentrated in the three ports
of Bethioua, Skikda and Arzew.
• Syria: 70.3% share liquid bulk (oil and oil
derivatives) concentrated in the port of
Baniyas.
• Turkey: 38% share liquid bulk and 25%
share of dry bulk (mainly iron core, cement,
solid mineral fuels).
• Jordan: 63% total share mostly from bulk
minerals.
• Morocco: 54% total share mostly from bulk
minerals.
• Egypt: 41% total share.
The fastest growing
sector
of
maritime
transport
is
the
shipment of containers,
both globally and within the region. The global
capacity of world container fleet tripled during
the past decade and total container traffic
handled by all Mediterranean ports grew by an
average of 13% per year during the same period.
Container traffic tends to be highly concentrated
in a few ports (in each case to 1-2 key country
ports) and so far, the Maghreb and Mashrek
countries have managed to capture very little of
the regional market.
Bulk Cargo
Unitised Cargo &
containerisation
Containerisation measured, as share of non-bulk
cargo, when compared with EU-15 average is
quite low, as illustrated in Figure 7:
Table 5: Main freight categories handled in MEDA ports (million tonnes, 2001)
Country
Liquid
bulk
Dry Bulk
Containers
Ro-Ro
Other
general
cargo
Not classified
6.9
TOTAL
Algeria
82.3
8.2
2.1
Cyprus
3.2
1.6
1.5
Egypt
7.3
22.4
Israel
9.2
17.1
13.1
Jordan
0.4
8.1
0.2
Lebanon
1.4
0.3
1.8
Morocco
16.2
30.8
3.6
3.0
3.8
57.5
Tunisia
12.1
9.9
1.7
0.9
2.6
27.3
Turkey
50.7
33.0
11.7
5.0
32.4
0.2
99.6
0.6
2.0
7.0
16.1
8.9
54.8
3.6
0.2
43.0
4.0
0.1
13.0
2.0
0.7
6.2
4.5
132.3
Source: Eurostat
39
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Figure 6: Breakdown of maritime traffic by cargo type, 2001
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Cyprus
Algeria
Egypt
Liquid bulk
Israel
Dry Bulk
Jordan
Containers
Lebanon
Ro-ro
Other general cargo
Morocco
Tunisia
Turkey
Not classified
Source: Eurostat
Figure 7: Containerisation as share of non-bulk freight (2001)
JO
9,1%
23,6%
DZ
26,5%
TR
47,3%
LB
49,7%
TN
63,6%
MA
76,1%
CY
77,8%
UE-15
78,4%
IL
0,0%
Source: Eurostat
40
10,0%
20,0%
30,0%
40,0%
50,0%
60,0%
70,0%
80,0%
90,0%
Maritime Shipping and Ports
On the contrary, in Malta, the Marsaxlokk port
serves as a transhipment hub with high container
and Ro-Ro traffic.
Photo 1: Growing container traffic at Rades port
in Tunisia
lines, due to its longer distance and middle
position for connections with West African
countries. This is illustrated in Table 6.
Ro-Ro regular connection lines to Morocco are
mainly coming from Algeciras, while Marseilles
is dominating connections to Algeria and
Tunisia. This is illustrated in Table 7.
Table 6: Frequency of regular container lines
connections (calls per month)
PORT
% of calls for
container lines
48%
35%
29%
No of calls
Casablanca
Algiers
Tunis
176
160
166
Source: Euromed Transport Project (Main Contract)
Ro-Ro to
Morocco
Ro-Ro to
Algeria
Ro-Ro to
Tunisia
Cadiz
Algeciras
Barcelona
Genoa
Marseilles
Table 7: Frequency of regular Ro-Ro lines
connections (calls per month)
Port
In the specific case of the Maghreb countries, the
low containerisation can be attributed to the
following factors:
• Cargo flow imbalance between South and
North. Relatively low South – North traffic
causes high percentage of empty units, high
unit costs and subsequently low profitability
prospects and investment attractiveness.
• Relatively low unit value of exchanged
cargo.
• Lack of suitable port infrastructure and
equipment in Maghreb with respect to
handling and storage (in Algeria, 70% of
containers are operated through the Algiers
port, in Morocco 85% through the
Casablanca port 8, in Tunisia 95% through
the Rades port).
• Short distance between European and
African shores and relatively large number
of transport correspondents favour the
development of Ro-Ro traffic.
• The export structure (textile, agricultural
products) may imply 'tense flows' and,
therefore, favour Ro-Ro.
12
0
0
420
54
71
14
7
0
0
60
24
4
0
0
Source: Euromed Transport Project (Main Contract)
Photo 2: Example of Ro-Ro transport in the
MEDA region, Morocco
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
Meanwhile, for some forms of unitised freight
the percentage is higher: for instance, there is
high truck traffic between Gibraltar Straits (in
the Ro-Ro lines connecting Algeciras and Cadiz
with Tangiers, Casablanca and Ceuta).
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
The Ro-Ro vessel fleet is
quite important in the
Western
Mediterranean
(truck traffic between Europe and Maghreb),
from Turkey. There is a high percentage of empty
units in several countries (41% in Jordan, 47%
Empty units
Casablanca port is the most important port with
respect to connections with regular container
8
However, this situation is to change within the next years,
with the planned opening of new container terminals
(Tangiers-Med, Mohammedia,…).
41
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
in Beirut, 46% in Algeria) with the exception of
Turkey, affecting adversely unit transport costs.
-
The number of sea passengers is
summarised in Table 8:
-
Passengers
& Cruises
The main facts related to passenger traffic are as
follows:
• Sea-passenger traffic was limited to 9.5
million passengers in 2001 (compared to
335 million in EU during 2000 and 102.5
million of airport traffic in 2001) with
limited growth rates.
• Few regular ferry routes concentrated
mainly in:
-
Morocco: 2.9 million passengers mainly
emigrants (Tangiers connections with
Southern Europe).
Egypt: 2.7 million passengers (mainly
around Suez and the Red Sea).
Turkey: 1.3 million passengers.
Moreover, there is a growing interest for cruises
within the region as North Americana and
European demand is expected to exceed 12
million passengers by the end of 2010. The
Mediterranean is a strategic destination for
cruises, specifically for Cyprus, Malta and
Tangiers that currently enjoy high cruiser traffic
and at the same time high growth potential.
Table 8: Number of passengers at MEDA ports (in '000')
Country
1994
1995
Algeria
Cyprus
Egypt
Israel
Jordan
Lebanon
Malta
Morocco
279
1 826
121
1 364
25
229
1 565
1 833
75
1 175
21
Syria
Tunisia
Turkey
TOTAL
9
288
1 802
7 508
13
281
1 848
5 246
1996
1997
422
670
1 965
73
1 107
21
219
1 621
391
523
2 232
74
829
12
291
1 688
8 089
1998
1999
2000
2001
189
1 889
456
492
2 217
64
718
23
270
2 229
528
561
2 568
93
676
35
200
2 489
587
605
2 931
158
611
46
217
2 668
614
435
2 700
150
653
40
182
2 930
21
318
2 017
8 483
19
316
1 716
8 520
29
380
1 034
8 593
31
414
1 243
9 511
449
1 252
9 405
Source: Eurostat
Table 9: Cruise passengers in some major Mediterranean ports
Port
Limassol (Cyprus)
Sharm El Sheikh (Egypt)
Haifa (Israel)
Casablanca (Morocco)
Tangiers (Morocco)
Tunis La Goulette (Tunisia)
Valetta (Malta)
Year
1997
2000
1997
2000
1997
2000
1997
2000
1997
2000
1997
2000
1997
2000
Source: Eurostat (data from MEDCRUISE Association)
42
Cruise Paxs
(average in / out)
257 181
298 517
271 500
267 500
30 903
49 148
12 875
14 459
747 260
808 620
2 572
3 091
Cruise pax (transit)
91 714
197 419
193 294
152 053
68 575
86 698
43 969
116 690
130 304
170 000
124 898
165 996
Cruise calls
858
1 138
435
461
314
177
195
199
226
Maritime Shipping and Ports
3.2.4.
Main Corridors
Main Euro-Mediterranean maritime corridors
include Egypt - Italy, Egypt - Netherlands,
Algeria - France.
The Mediterranean is already an established
maritime corridor and 'transit area' between Asia
– Europe and Asia – N. America.
On these corridors, regular maritime lines are in
general of high importance to commercial trade.
This becomes even more pronounced particularly
in the Western Mediterranean region, where the
South – North trade interrelationship is
significantly higher.
Moreover, the big shipping companies already
present in the Europe - Americas - Asia routes
are increasingly active in the intra-Med routes
through high competition.
3.3.
Maritime Shipping in the
MEDA Region
Maritime Shipping companies operate on regular
routes in both the Western and Eastern
Mediterranean with a fleet usually in poor
condition.
3.3.1.
Fleet and Fleet Condition
The maritime fleet is described in the following
table.
Table 10: Euro-Mediterranean maritime corridors with at least 2 million tonnes of goods (2000)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MED country
Egypt
Egypt
Algeria
Egypt
Algeria
Algeria
Syria
Turkey
Egypt
Turkey
Algeria
Syria
Morocco
Algeria
Egypt
Morocco
Tunisia
Malta
Turkey
Algeria
Egypt
Israel
Algeria
Tunisia
Egypt
EU-15 country
Italy
Netherlands
France
France
Italy
Spain
Italy
Italy
Greece
Greece
Belgium
France
France
Netherlands
Spain
Spain
Italy
Italy
Spain
Germany
Portugal
Italy
United Kingdom
France
United Kingdom
'000' tonnes
25 086
22 616
18 155
15 200
12 374
9 827
9 701
9 662
9 221
7 286
6 609
5 294
5 208
4 773
4 637
4 500
4 164
3 778
3 441
3 285
3 276
3 202
2 514
2 451
2 406
Source: Eurostat (italics = estimations)
43
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Table 11: MEDA maritime fleet (2001)
14 197
Cyprus
1 066
22 016 374
20 653
Egypt
159
1 194 696
7 513
Israel
18
752 873
41 826
Jordan
9
78 814
8 757
Lebanon
49
198 602
4 052
Morocco
49
317 835
1 176
9
403 276
18
4
Average age (years)
4
9
1
22
VHR
Other
28 145
13
1 109
29
62
16
MR
5
64
14
13
4
18
MR
41
18
2
1
1
4
13
24
VHR
2
6 487
1
6
15
9
2
8
8
20
HR
25 102 401
21 345
468 251
46
74
13
4 210
35
75
16
MR
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
122
446 981
3 663
1
1
5
23
VHR
Tunisia
11
124 733
10 394
Turkey
508
4 666 895
9 186
Syria
-
12 101
2
1
5
1
Palestinian
Authority
5
White
23
Malta
Source: CIA and MoU Paris
9
Paris MoU results, 2002
-
2
1
4
111 229
46
34
VHR
-
3
1
-
-
-
20
MR
9
6
36
26
15
23
VHR
MR = Black, medium risk, HR = Black, high risk, VHR = black, very high risk
44
10
Ro-Ro
SSS / Passenger
6
Container
16
Petroleum Tanker
837 676
Port
State
Control
results 9
Liquefied gas
59
Chemical Tanker
Algeria
Cargo
Bulk
Average GRT per ship
Total GRT
Total (ships over 1 000 GRT)
Country
National fleet
Maritime Shipping and Ports
The present Maritime Shipping fleet has the
following characteristics:
• Two countries (Malta and Cyprus) represent
the majority of the regional fleet. These
countries, now members of the EU, are
traditional flag-carriers.
• The fleet of some countries is modern, if the
structure is considered (i.e. only container
carriers for Israel), whereas it remains more
traditional (bulk, cargo) in some cases. This
is confirmed by the average GRT per ship,
ranging from approx 3 000 to approx
40 000 GRT.
• The average age of the fleet is in correlation
with the Port State Control results: the
MEDA fleet, even for the new members of
the EU, is usually considered as presenting
risks, which can be very high in the case of
some countries.
3.3.2.
Regular Maritime Lines in Western
Mediterranean
According to CETMO data (for year 2000)
concerning regular maritime lines in the Western
Mediterranean region, the following are derived:
• On average, 971 monthly connections are
realised between North - South ports, 50%
of which in Gibraltar Straits (between
Algeciras/Cadiz and Tangiers).
• Marseilles attracts at least 30% and
Barcelona 15% of all regular lines calls on
the European side.
• Casablanca, Algiers and Tunis are by far the
principal connecting ports per country.
Regular maritime lines from Tunis and
Casablanca ports to main European ports in
2003 are presented below:
Table 12: Regular maritime lines from Tunis to main European ports (2003)10
Origin
Tunis
Tunis
Destination
Marseilles
Genoa
Tunis
Barcelona
Tunis
North Europe
Ship-owners /Ship-Agents
Departures per week
Service
Cotunav
3
Ro-Ro
Sudcargos LD Cetam
3
Ro-Ro
CMA-CGM
1
Containers
Cotunav
3
Ro-Ro
Messina
1
Ro-Ro
Sea Malta/ Genmar
1
Ro-Ro
Cotunav
1
Ro-Ro
Tarros Line
1
Containers
Hamburg Sud
1
Containers
Source: Consortium of COWI, ATKINS, BCEOM, GOPA, TYPSA
10
Etude comparative des coûts de transport maritimes – la situation concurrentielle de la Tunisie, EU PROGRAMME MEDA /
FIPA Tunisie / Ministère du Développement et de la Coopération Internationale, February 2004
45
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Table 13: Regular maritime lines from Casablanca to European ports (2003)
Origin
Destination
Departures
per week
1
Ro-Ro
IMTC Sudcargos
1
Ro-Ro
Flota Suardiaz
1
Ro-Ro
1
Ro-Ro
3
Containers
Service
Casablanca
Tangiers
Marseilles
Casablanca
Zeebrugge
Flushing
Bremerhaven
Southampton
Vigo
Casablanca
Barcelona
Casablanca
Valencia
Barcelona
Livorno
Genoa
La Spezia
Fos
Pool: Comanav
IMTC
Navimed
Casablanca
Valencia
Barcelona
Exmaris
1
Casablanca
Casablanca
Valencia
Barcelona
Marseilles
Contenemar
2
Containers
Casablanca
Le Havre
Antwerp
Casablanca
Alliance
4
Containers
Casablanca
Rouen
Dunkerque
Rotterdam
Hamburg
Bremen
Felixstowe
CMA-CGM
4
Containers
Casablanca
Lisbon
Leixoes
Antwerp
Rotterdam
Felixstowe
HMS
2
Containers
Agadir
Casablanca
Tangiers
Antwerp
Rotterdam
Felixstowe
KNSM /
DEXTRAMAR
1/2
Containers
Casablanca
Cadiz
COMANAV / IMTC
3
Ro-Ro
Casablanca
Bilbao
Gijon
Vigo
Las Palmas
CONTENEMAR
1
Containers
Casablanca
Rouen
Dunkerque
Rotterdam
Felixtowe
Hamburg
Casablanca
Alliance
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
46
Ship-owner/
Operator
Pool: Comanav
Containers
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Regarding Algeria, regular lines connect the
country with Marseilles, Rouen, Antwerp,
Hamburg, Bremen,
Alicante,
Barcelona,
Algeciras, Valencia (freight transhipment from
Asia), Malta (freight transhipment from Asia),
Genoa / La Spezia.
There is a fair number of European and African
shipping companies providing regular lines
between South and North shores in Western
Mediterranean. Most of them in 2000 were
operating according to the pattern of the
following table:
Table 14: Shipping companies providing regular connections between South – North coasts (except
those exclusively operating between Gibraltar Straits)
Company
Country of origin
No of regular lines
No of monthly connections
CALTRAM
Algeria - Libya
4
12
CMA CGM
France
5
20
CNAN
Algeria
8
33
COMANAV
Morocco
10
99 *
COTINSA
Spain
6
18
COTUNAV
Tunisia
7
42
ENTMV
Algeria
6
32
GRIMALDI
Italy
4
18
IMTC
Morocco
7
115 *(2)
MAERSK SEA-LAND
Denmark
4
18
MSC
Switzerland
6
23 *(3)
SUDCARGOS
France - Morocco
5
28
TARROS
Italy
3
11
No of connections passing through Gibraltar Straits: (1) 60; (2) 90; (3) 4.
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
Lines operated by local African shipping lines in
Maghreb (Caltram, CNAN, Comanav, Cotunav,
ENTMV) in general do not call to more than one
European port, following patterns of strong
national bilateral relations.
However, lines operated by European shipping
companies (Grimaldi, CMA-CGM, MSC etc),
usually call to multiple North Mediterranean
intermediate ports on their way to a final
Maghreb port (even though in few cases it is
planned to call at various African ports before
reaching the final destination). This proves that,
in reality, it is not feasible for a shipping
company of Maghreb ownership to obtain the
necessary
authorisations (from
Maghreb
countries) in order to run a regular line through
various Maghreb ports to South European ports.
Obviously, the above hindrances give rise to
differential competitiveness, profitability and
viability of shipping lines and subsequently they
need to be eliminated.
Shipping line alliances are important in
contributing to increased connection frequencies,
regularity, transparency, cost competitiveness
and customer quality in total. Few examples of
such alliances in maritime transport of Western
Mediterranean are provided below:
• Sudcargos Company is the product of
alliance between SNMC and Delmas, both of
French interests, exploiting cargo transport
to and from Maghreb, based on the port of
Marseilles.
• Sudcargos and Marfret (Marseilles-Fret),
specialising in cargo transport to Algeria
and Tunisia, proposed to run a regular RoRo common line from Genoa and Marseilles.
• Contenemar and CTE (two Spanish
companies) have agreed to run a common
connection from Barcelona and Valencia to
Casablanca.
• Comanav, IMTC and Sudcargos have agreed
to regroup their connections from Marseilles
to Morocco between themselves by setting up
the MED LINE Service.
47
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
3.3.3.
Regular Maritime Lines in Eastern Mediterranean
These lines are listed in the following table:
Table 15: Regular maritime lines from Istanbul to European ports (2003)
Origin
48
Destination
Ship-owner / agent
Frequency
Service
Istanbul
Trieste
UNO Ro-Ro
9
Ro Ro
Istanbul
Antwerp
Gotheborg
Hapag Lloyd
1
Direct Container
Istanbul
Le Havre
Antwerp
Hamburg
MSC
1
Direct Container
Istanbul
Genoa
Marseilles
Barcelona
Antwerp
Turkon
0.66
Direct Container
Istanbul
Beirut
Port Said
Antwerp
K Une
1
Direct Container
Istanbul
Izmir
Piraeus
Salerno Antwerp
Contaz
0.66
Direct Container
Istanbul
Piraeus
Tarento
Lisbon
Antwerp
Evergreen/Lloyd
Triestino
1
Direct Container
Istanbul
Izmir
Tunis
Antwerp
Hamburg
Sud/Ellerman
/Armada
1
Direct Container
Istanbul
Israel
Egypt
Greece
Antwerp
Borchard
1
Transbo
Istanbul
Malta
Antwerp
CMA
1
Transbo Malte
Istanbul
Gioia Tauro
Antwerp
Maersk
1
Transbo
Tauro
Istanbul
Izmir
Valencia
Barcelona
Hapag Lloyd
1
Container Direct
Istanbul
Izmir
Valencia
Barcelona
Fos
MSC
1
Container Direct
Istanbul
Valencia
Barcelona
Fos
Arkas
1
Container Direct
Istanbul
Genoa
Marseilles
Barcelona
Antwerp
Turkon
0.66
Container Direct
Istanbul
Cagliari
Emes (Arkas Group)
1
Container Direct
Gioia
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Origin
Izmir
Destination
Ship-owner / agent
Frequency
Service
Valencia
Barcelona
Istanbul
Piraeus
Genoa
Marseilles
Barcelona
Borchard
1
Container Direct
Istanbul
Gioia Tauro
Barcelona
Maersk
1
Transbo
Tauro
Istanbul
Piraeus
Genoa
Marseilles
Barcelona
Borchard
1
Container Direct
Istanbul
Genoa
Marseilles
Barcelona
Antwerp
Turkon
0.66
Container Direct
Istanbul
Gioia Tauro
Genoa
Maersk
1
Tranship
Tauro
Istanbul
Piraeus
Genoa
Marseilles
Barcelona
Borchard
1
Container Direct
Istanbul
Genoa
Marseilles
Barcelona
Antwerp
Turkon
0.66
Container Direct
Istanbul
Malta
Marseilles
CMA
1
Tranship Malte
Istanbul
Izmir
Marseilles/Fos
Barcelona
Valencia
MSC
1
Container Direct
Istanbul
Gioia Tauro
Marseilles/Fos
Maersk
1
Tranship
Tauro
Istanbul
Piraeus
Koper
Trieste, Ravenna
MSC
1
Container Direct
Istanbul
Gioia Tauro
Trieste
Maersk
1
Tranship
Tauro
Gioia
Gioia
Gioia
Gioia
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
Moreover:
• Beirut is served by the following regular
connection frequencies:
- Barcelona: 9 regular voyages per
month.
- Marseilles: 11 regular voyages per
month.
- Gioia-Tauro: 14 regular voyages per
month.
-
•
•
Alexandria: 20 regular voyages per
month.
Tartous is served by the following regular
connection frequencies:
- Constantza (Romania).
- Odessa (Ukraine).
- Damietta (Egypt).
Egyptian ports (Alexandria, Damietta and
Port Said) have major maritime connections
with the European ports shown in table 16:
49
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Table 16: Maritime connections of the Egyptian ports of Alexandria, Damietta and Port Said with
European ports
Origin
Destination
Agent
Frequency
Service
Alexandria
Marseilles
Messina
1 dep / week
Ro-Ro
Alexandria
Genoa Direct
Grimaldi
1 dep / week
Ro-Ro
Alexandria
Marseilles
CMA-CGM
1 dep / week
Container
Port Said
Marseilles
JCMA-CGM
1 dep / week
Container
Port Said
Marseilles
Evergreen
1 dep / week
Container
Alexandria
Genoa
Evergreen
1 dep / week
Container
Alexandria
Trieste
MSC
1 dep / week
Container
Damietta
Genoa
JNOR
1 dep / week
Container
Alexandria
Barcelona
NOR
1 dep / week
Container
Alexandria
Barcelona
Sarfies
1 dep / week
Container
Alexandria
Barcelona
Medex
1 dep / week
Container
Alexandria
Barcelona
MSC
1 dep / week
Container
Alexandria
Barcelona
P&O
1 dep / week
Container
Alexandria
Barcelona
NOR
1 dep / week
Container
Alexandria
Antwerp
Maersk
1 dep / week
Container
Alexandria
Antwerp
MSC
1 dep / week
Container
Port Said
Rotterdam
Evergreen
1 dep / week
Container
Source EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
3.4.
Ports
Ports generally represent a crucial link in the
transport chain, with immense repercussions to
efficiency and effectiveness in terms of cost, time
and safety.
New trends and developments in the
international
and
Mediterranean
port
environment focus on higher competition
(particularly on the routes served by the major
companies), high pressure on reliability and
security, stricter environmental and spatial
planning regulations. Port customers are
changing radically becoming global stevedores,
large shipping alliances looking for economies of
scale.
Within the MEDA region during 2001, 57 ports
were identified with over 1 million tonnes
throughput per year.
50
The table below presents a size comparison
between the 15 larger MEDA, EU and CEC
(Central European) seaports. In addition, Figure
8 illustrates the key ports in the MEDA region.
Moreover, the basic charachteries of these ports
are listed in Table 18
Finally, the port activity is summarised in the
Table 19, where the strong (+) and weak (-)
points are underlined:
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Table 17: Top-15 ports in terms of the gross weight of goods in the MEDA, EU and CEC countries
(2001)
‘000’
tonnes
UE-15 Ports
‘000’
tonnes
CEC Ports
‘000’
tonnes
No
MEDA Ports
1
Bethioua / DZ
34 919
Rotterdam / NL
296 620
Ventspils / LV
37 937
2
Izmit /TR
34 621
Antwerp / B
114 777
Tallinn / EE
32 063
3
Alexandria / EG
28 404
Marseilles / F
89 518
Constantza / RO
25 119
4
Skikda / DZ
23 988
Hamburg / D
82 948
Klaipeda . LT
20 953
5
Aliaga / TR
21 330
Le Havre / FR
65 356
Gdansk / PL
16 971
6
Casablanca / MA
20 161
Grimsby / UK
54 831
Riga / LV
14 820
7
Istanbul / TR
17 469
Tees / UK
50 842
Burgas / BG
12 481
8
Banias / SY
16 865
London / UK
50 654
Szczecin / PL
9 988
9
Haifa / IL
16 719
Amsterdam / NL
48 073
Koper / SL
9 110
10
Ashdod / IL
13 574
Trieste / IT
44 712
Swinoujscie / PL
8 798
11
Mersin / TR
13 246
Genova IT
43 134
Gdynia / PL
8 348
12
Arzew / DZ
13 147
Dunkerque /FR
41 909
Varna / BG
7 711
13
Aqaba / JO
13 043
Forth / UK
41 607
Liepaya / LV
3 261
14
Damietta / EG
13 004
Wilhelmshaven / D
40 850
Vene - Balti / EE
2 852
15
Mohammedia / MA
11 142
Bremen / D
40 066
Parnu / EE
1 912
Average
19 442
Average
73 726
Average
14 155
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)-Synthesis from various international sources
51
52
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
Figure 8: Map of major MEDA ports
Module 5
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Table 18: Port technical and capacity characteristics in main MEDA ports
Major ports
Egypt:
Alexandria,
Dekheila,
Damietta,
Port-Said,
Suez
Israel:
Ashdod,
Ashqelon,
Eilat,
Hadera,
Haifa, Tel
Aviv – Yafo
Jordan:
Aqaba
Lebanon:
Beirut,
Tripoli,
Saida, Tyr
Palestinian
Authority:
Availability of
gantry cranes
Connection with other modes
IT & EDI
VTS / VTMIS
Yes
IT and EDI state of the art
technology is disseminated in
main ports, shortly to be
operational. Port of Alexandria
and Port of Barcelona, in a
Hinterland connections of main joint project (Alex Portic
Project), have developed eseaports need improvement
commerce application for port
(Main seaport restructuring
policy lines include development services. This application is to
be disseminated to the other
of Egyptian ports into
integrated inter-modal transport main Egyptian ports. Main
seaport restructuring policy
nodes).
lines include a comprehensive
use of Information Technology
in port management, customer
service and port business
development.
VTS systems in
major ports.
VTS under
modernisation
in Damietta.
Yes
Ports and rail are under the
same State authority. Moreover,
IT and EDI state of the art in
the national maritime shipping
all ports.
company is totally made of
container-carriers.
Major ports are
equipped.
Yes
Yes in Beirut
Port connection with road, rail
and air transport is available.
Inter-modality is facing severe
problems as (a) Lack of
necessary legal framework (b)
No current Port / Rail
connections (c) Port / Road
connections with upgrade needs
(in Beirut soon to be
significantly improved) (d)
Inter-modal facilities such as
terminals, warehouses, logistics
parks are limited or nonexistent.
Absence of MIS and EDI
technology use. IT use for Port
Operations is considered of
high priority for upgrading port
operations efficiency, with
respect to both port MIS and
EDI.
A VTS system
for Red Sea is
being
developed.
IT and EDI
The installation
of a VTS in
Beirut port has
just finished.
no port presently
53
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Major ports
Availability of
gantry cranes
Syria:
Tartous,
Lattakia
No
Algeria:
Algiers,
Oran,
Annaba,
Bejaia,
Arzew –
Bethioua,
Skikda,
Mostaganem,
Djen-Djen
No
Connection with other modes
Efficient connection of both
ports with roads / rail. However,
Multi-modality is facing severe
problems due to lack of (a)
Necessary legal framework (b)
Inter-modal facilities such as
terminals, warehouses, logistics
parks (limited or non-existent).
Severe problems for multimodal transport mainly due to
(a) inefficient land transport
modes – high cost (b) absence of
forwarders (c) time wasting
procedures (customs etc) (d)
Inefficient connections of
Algiers port with rail and road
networks ; rail access cannot be
used during the day for safety
reasons (since it crosses the
main city road artery which is
given the priority). This creates
overflow of road traffic (CMA
uses 100 container tracks per
day from port bound to their
own dry port).
Morocco:
Exists, for instance for the
Casablanca
Phosphate transit between rail
Mohammedia
Yes in
and sea. All ports are served by
Jorf-Lasfar
Casablanca road and rail and the new
Tangiers
Tangiers ports include a rail
Nador
connection.
Agadir
Tunisia: La
Goulette,
Rades,
Bizerte, Sfax
Cyprus:
Limassol,
Larnaca
54
IT & EDI
VTS / VTMIS
Very limited use of Information
Technology in port
management, customer service
and port business development.
No
Information Technology in
Algiers Port has just started.
No
VTS installed in
Casablanca and
recently in
Tangiers. Need
of extension to
cover whole
Speeding up of the Port
coastline with
Reform process will put the
upgrade to a
emphasis on the introduction of
VTMIS system.
IT and EDI in the Port Sector
Networking
with VTMISs of
Spain, Portugal
and Algeria
would be
desirable.
Yes
Severe problems for multimodal transport (and
consequently low transport cost
competitiveness) in Tunisia
mainly due to (a) Inefficient
land transport modes with high
cost (b) Lack of forwarders (c)
Time wasting procedures
(customs etc).
VTS in the
entry of Tunis
port since
Speeding up of the Port
2002. Other
Reform process will put the
emphasis on the introduction of future VTS
IT and EDI in the Port Sector. systems are
planned for
other ports.
Yes in
Limassol
No rail connections of ports due
to absence of railway network,
but efficient road connections
currently in the process of
further improvement. Moreover,
airports are at close distance.
IT and EDI applications are in
use at a well-developed level.
Meanwhile the IT department
is understaffed (currently 4
people planned to increase to
12). Computer applications
include CyPOS, an integrated
VTS installed
(12 miles
range) currently
upgraded to
VTMIS.
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Major ports
Availability of
gantry cranes
Connection with other modes
IT & EDI
VTS / VTMIS
port community information
system, however there is a need
for upgrading and integrating
CyPos, the system of the
container terminal operator.
Malta:
Valetta,
Marsaxlokk
State of the
art handling
equipment,
in
Marsaxlokk
As in Cyprus. Specific
development of Mediterranean
transhipment from the
Marsaxlokk port.
In general, efficient road and
railway connections with TCDD
Turkey:
ports. Important growth of
Mersin, Izmit
combined transportation with
Yes in the
Haydarpasa,
major ports Ro-Ro / rail between Turkey and
Iskenderun,
Central Europe (IstanbulSamsun
Trieste-Munich) – 84 985 semitrailer units in 2003.
State of the art IT / EDI
systems (upgraded Navis
Sparcs and Navis Express
Systems).
VTS, which
could be
extended to
VTMIS
(feasibility
study under
progress).
IT and EDI applications use is
currently absent from the
major TCDD commercial ports
(effort financed by EIB is not
implemented).
A VTMIS
covers
Bosphorus and
Marmara
region through
7 radar
stations.
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
Table 19: Port activity in main MEDA ports
Port
Total
TEUs
handling
handled
volume
(TEUs /
(millions
year)
tonnes/year)
+
-
Strategic geograpghic
positioning of Egyptian ports
for regional and world
trade.Significant role of
maritime transport and ports
in Egyptian economy (99% of
imports and exports are seaborn) and the growth of
maritime transport of home
and international traffic quite
high. Major Commercial
seaports (AlexandriaDekheila, Damietta, Port
Said, East Port Said, Port Of
Suez) share almost the same
hinterland and could complete
on an almost equal basis for
transhipment traffic.
Despite the fact that Port tariffs are
centrally controlled by government,
Port costs for a 20’ container unit in
Alexandria port average to EUR 70.
For ordinary cargo, port transit delay
averages to 15 days in Alexandria
Significant role of maritime
transport and ports in Israel
economy as Israel is
landlocked.
Geopolitical constraints
Egypt
Alexandria
32 852
Dekheila
576 972
Damietta
13 692
699 758
Port Said
7 480
561 894
Suez
6 180
74 476
Haifa
16 700
572 000
Ashdod
13 600
380 000
1 700
18 000
Israel
Eilat
55
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Port
Total
TEUs
handling
handled
volume
(TEUs /
(millions
year)
tonnes/year)
+
-
Jordan
Aqaba
14 158
277 307
Jordan is a crucial link for
the regional transport /
economic integration (mainly
as transit area) in Mashrek
region due to geographical
(multi border) and political
(political influence in
neighbouring Arab countries)
reasons. Aqaba port is the
unique country seaport
possessing strategic
importance in Jordanian
Transport (unique sea access).
Recent ESCWA study fully
justifies the scope for creation
of a Common Transport Area
between Jordan, Syria and
Lebanon.
Lebanon
Beirut
Tripoli
5 600
0 620
Strategic geographic
positioning of Lebanon with
respect to maritime transport
(as transit area). Significant
300 000 infrastructure development
within the country during past
decade (after the years of war)
with strong and successful
private sector participationOpen economy characteristics
Recent ESCWA study fully
justifies the scope for creation
of a Common Transport Area
between Jordan, Syria and
Lebanon. - A consortium
between the British company
MDHC & the American IMA
has won the bid to operate the
new container terminal at the
Port of Beirut as from the
15/12/2004. The Beirut Port
Authority will be the owner of
land, infrastructure and
equipment.
Protectionism from Syria and Jordan
currently limit the regional role of
Beirut Port within the national
boundaries.
Palestinian
Authority
Syria
56
Tartous
8 475
40 000
Lattakia
4 548
300 000
Recent ESCWA study, fully
justifies the scope for creation
of a Common Transport Area
between Jordan, Syria and
Lebanon.
Main ports facing severe problems of
inefficiency (lack of modern
equipment, overstaffing, lack of
training) and under-capacity.
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Port
Total
TEUs
handling
handled
volume
(TEUs /
(millions
year)
tonnes/year)
+
-
Algiers port is the main
mixed commercial port with a
significant inertia on behalf of
users to use other ports.
Low productivity performance
(average waiting time before berthing
approx 3 days) related mainly to:
• Lack of modern handling
equiment (e.g. gantry cranes for
containers).
• Lack of specialised and trained
staff.
• Tariff levels, not associated to the
port services quality and arbitrary
determined by government.
• Preferential treatment to the
national shipping company CNAN.
• Security problems (1% - 2% of
containers broken / stolen in Algiers
port) without legal liability accepted
by the ports.
• Lack of orientation to customer
needs.
• overstaffing (currently 3 000
employees).
Strategic positioning of
Moroccan ports for maritime
transport (proximity to
Gibraltar straights).
Low port competitiveness caused
mainly in the area of cargo handling
(handling fragmentation as on-board
handling by private stevedores,
ground handling by ODEP). Costs for
a 20’ container unit in Casablanca
port average EUR 370.
For ordinary cargo, port transit delay
averages to 9-days.
Port tariffs not associated to costs
and port services quality
EU financially supports
Tunisia (EUR 20 million) to
implement a port
modernisation Action Plan.
Port services quality leading to a
medium relative port competitiveness:
port costs for a 20’ container unit in
Rades port average to EUR 210
For ordinary cargo, port transit delay
averages to 9-days.
Port tariffs (particularly in Rades
port) not associated to costs.
Algeria
Algiers
9 732
249 327
Oran
3 886
46 372
Annaba
4 532
5 387
Bejaia
11 643
16 034
Arzew Bethioua
48 972
0
Skikda
26 585
32 941
Mostaganem
1 080
1 725
Djen-Djen
1 753
287
Morocco
Casablanca
Mohammedia
Jorf-Lasfar
21 305
9 533
10 329
Tangiers
3 228
Nador
2 102
Agadir
2 330
Tunisia
La Goulette
0 975
Rades
3 624
Bizerte
5 308
Sfax
5 062
281 500
57
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Port
Total
TEUs
handling
handled
volume
(TEUs /
(millions
year)
tonnes/year)
+
-
Strategic position and
competitive advantage mainly
for cruisers.
Fragmentation of operations into
different interest groups in the reason
for cost inefficiency in operations and
management (ship on-board
operations by stevedores, cranes and
crane drivers by Cyprus Ports
Authority, ground handling
operations and equipment by porters.)
The number of gantries per quay is
limited to 2 and ground-handling
equipment is inadequate (in numbers
and technology.) Inadequate facilities
of Limassol port concerning the
cruise passenger business (poor
quality passenger terminal at arms
distance from the container and
general cargo terminals;) a further
expansion of Limassol port is possible
and this will lead to rationalization
and consolidation of port operations
(concentration passenger activities in
one area and concentration of
container activities in another.)
Tariff levels are not linked to port
services quality and customers'
satisfaction level.
In general, embargo from Turkey
significantly limits Cyprus' maritime
potential.
Cyprus
Limassol
Larnaca
3 222
0,418
233 400
490
Malta
Valetta
Marsaxlokk
58
Strategic position in
combination with small
country size provide
interesting cases for port use
rationalisation and
2 032
benchmarking (e.g.
Marsaxlokk container
terminal, rationalisation
between Valletta and
Marsaxlokk ports).
Current emphasis in cruiser
liners and containers
transhipment.
The Government of Malta has
on 5/10/2004 granted a 30year concession to the CMACGM Group to operate and
16 000 1 300 000 develop Malta Freeport. As a
result of the agreement, the
Maltese Government has sold
all its shares in Malta
Freeport Terminals Limited
and entered into an
agreement to lease the port
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Port
Total
TEUs
handling
handled
volume
(TEUs /
(millions
year)
tonnes/year)
+
-
facilities and to grant a
licence for the operation of
the Port. For the duration of
the agreement, the
Government remains the
owner of the site of the Port
facilities.
Successful efforts in
establishing Malta as a
regional Mediterranean Hub
mainly for cruises and
container transhipment.
Turkey
Mersin
13 763
290 354
Izmir
9 653
491 377
Haydarpasa
5 114
Iskenderun
1 602
Samsun
2 611
224 544
Strategic position of Turkey
for maritime transport
(extensive hinterlands, high
trade traffic, proximity to
Middle East, control of
maritime routes to/from
Black Sea).
High port tariffs, centrally and
uniformly determined, irrespective of
quality and customer satisfaction,
leading to a low relative port
competitiveness (port costs for a 20’
container unit in Haydarpasa port
average to EUR 330).
Major commercial TCDD ports are
characterised by low capacity
(insufficiency of port equipment and
infrastructure) and services efficiency
– Relatively low port transit delays
despite the fact that handling,
pilotage and towage exercised by
TCDD (implying – serious under
investment in ports due to crosssubsidisation of railways from ports)
as well as lack of computerisation in
port and yard management create
often delays in tracing cargo
(sometimes cargo is lost).
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
59
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
4.
Maritime Policy in the
MEDA Region
Some major elements of the Maritime Policy in
the MEDA region can be highlighted in the
following sections.
4.1.
Competition and Liberalisation
4.1.1.
Maritime Shipping
At an international level, maritime shipping
companies usually work in a context of
concurrence whereas in the majority of MEDA
countries national shipping companies are
usually considered as undertaking a strategic
activity. Apart from ZIM (privatised) in Israel,
no company of the Southern / Eastern shore of
the Mediterranean is among the biggest shipping
companies in the world.
The fact that the majority of national shipping
companies are considered a strategic asset
implies specific constraints involving difficulties
to operate in a competitive market.
The eastern Mediterranean routes represent a
market, which is quite open, apart from a few
exceptions. For instance, 30 shipping companies
are
serving
Alexandria,
3
companies
representing more than 30% of the total traffic.
On the contrary, the Western Mediterranean is
less opened to competition, with fewer operators
on the routes serving the region.
A maritime policy favouring (or not) competition
has an impact on the transport cost (and the
competitive position of a country): the average
cost for a container between Marseilles and
Damietta is EUR 250, but EUR 500 between
Marseilles and Casablanca.
4.1.2.
Ports
In the majority of MEDA countries, the public
sector is in charge of all three functions
(authority, property, operator) with some local
differences (independent port bodies in Algeria
or national port offices in Cyprus, Morocco,
Tunisia). In some cases, port management is
carried out by the railway company (as in Turkey
or in Israel, where privatisation is in progress).
However, Port Reform can be considered as a
common objective. Concession projects exist in
60
Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, Jordan, and Tunisia
(under PPP). In some cases, privatisation is
considered for existing installations (Lebanon).
Meanwhile, it shall be underlined that, despite
the fact that many port BOT projects are being
negotiated, they are not always successful, in
some cases this being due to bureaucratic
constraints associated with lack of will from the
public authorities, which consider such an
opportunity as a loss of power.
4.2.
Short Sea Shipping
Short Sea Shipping SSS in the Maritime Policy
of the MEDA countries does not have the same
context as in the EU.
In the EU, SSS is essentially considered as a
way to allow modal shift from road to a more
environmentally friendly transport mode. This is
facilitated by a geography that allows SSS
development (no internal borders, big industrial
centres, high traffic flows, sufficient distance,
competitive sea-routes avoiding detours).
In the Southern shore of the Mediterranean, the
only SSS policy which really exists is included in
the general maritime shipping policy, due to the
fact that an important part of the traffic flows
are 'night-crossing' between the two shores with
the same constraints. Elements that can allow
significant modal shift from road to sea in the
EU do not exist in the MEDA countries (apart
from Malta, Cyprus and partly Turkey): borders
still exist, industrial centres do not specifically
have an international activity, traffic flows –
when they are sufficient- are on a short distance
and all land-transport distances are not really
over sea distances.
4.3.
Hub Development
The globalisation of production created a need
for ‘world transport services’, which increased
the general supply and also gave an impulse to
the development of ‘mega-carriers’. The strategy
of the major shipping companies is to stop only
in major ports, from which they organise feeder
services (CMA/CGM in Marsaxlokk, Malta, for
instance, as a breaking up port for containers).
Hubs such as Algeciras or Gioia Tauro developed
in the Northern Mediterranean. In the MEDA
countries (apart from Cyprus and Malta, and
specifically Marsaxlokk), Damietta is the sole
Maritime Shipping and Ports
between the two shores. Behind such high
costs a lack of equipment is detected, as well
as rapidly congested infrastructure, high
salaries with a low productivity (under
normal
working
conditions,
25
containers/hour can be handled, against
17.5 in the Western Mediterranean and
12.5 in the Eastern Mediterranean).
Probably, to reduce the port of call cost, a
port service reorganisation and the opening
to
private
operators
(national
or
international) can be a relevant solution.
major container hub presently existing. Tangiers
is considered eventually to benefit from the
Algeciras dynamics.
Photo 3: Example of hub ports in the MEDA
region: (the Marsaxlokk port in Malta)
It is necessary to underline the fact that the hub
potential in the Mediterranean is not without
limit as some major hub ports already occupy the
market and are engaged in fierce competition.
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
Hubs are usually involved in true competition.
Marsaxlokk does not have any hinterland
(compared with Valencia and Marseilles) and it
is difficult to determine the impact of any change
in the Malta Maritime Authority (MMA) and its
financial resources: presently, a part of the
Maltese port revenues are coming from the
Malta shipping register. The Maltese authorities
could, under pressure from the EU in order not
to be 'black-listed' in the Paris MoU, eliminate
substandard shipping, which could lead to fewer
revenues from the register and a port of call fare
increase.
More generally, the lack of a hub approach in
the MEDA maritime policy is related to two
major factors:
• A 'national' maritime policy (the opportunity
to serve other neighbouring ports from the
national port is not yet considered) and a
lack of 'regional' orientation (shuttle services
coming from regional hubs are considered as
competing with the national port). This is
strengthened by the fact that borders still
represent real constraints.
• The fact that hub implementation implies
true competition among ports. Presently,
port real costs (for a port of call) are
difficult to estimate as a great opacity
remains: public fares are negotiated and, in
some cases, do not cover all costs. However,
the port of call costs in the MEDA region
are globally quite high and even, in some
cases, higher than the port of call costs in
Europe and higher than the transport cost
4.4.
Maritime Safety
Cooperation between EU Member States and
MEDA partners is obviously of high importance
for maritime safety within the Mediterranean. In
order to enhance the effectiveness of individual
States in carrying out Port State Control,
inspections of ships under international maritime
conventions including the Marpol Convention,
various regional Memoranda of Understanding
have been agreed by the States concerned to
enhance their regional cooperation on this issue.
The Paris MoU11 was adopted in 1982 to
strengthen cooperation on Port State Control
primarily between European States and, in the
mid-1990s, a MoU12 for the Mediterranean
region was adopted with its headquarters in
Alexandria and a decision that a ship inspection
database should be established in Morocco.
The EU Directive 95/21/EC1, in line with the
Paris MoU, sets out an inspection level of 25%
of ships calling at European ports. It also
foresees a specific targeting system, including
11
12
The Paris MoU on Port State Control is a system of
harmonised inspection procedures designed to target substandard ships with the main objective being their eventual
elimination. The current Member States of the Paris MoU
region are Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russian
Federation, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom
The Mediterranean MoU was signed in 1997 by all the
Mediterranean Partners. Its secretariat is based at
Casablanca. The accession of Malta and Cyprus to the EU
will provide a strong link between the Mediterranean MoU
and the Paris Memorandum with the prospect of a safer
and cleaner Mediterranean.
61
Module 5
the possibility to ban some ships from the EU
ports. The Mediterranean MoU sets out an
inspection level of 15% inspections, but this
target is not yet achieved and a different
detention policy is followed.
In that respect, there is a high scope for
improved
cooperation
between
the
Mediterranean MoU and the Paris MoU for
better coordination and information exchange.
Rempec13, a UN organisation to promote
regional cooperation within the Mediterranean
against marine pollution, is already mandated to
facilitate this cooperation.
13
Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for
the Mediterranean Sea, based in Malta. .
62
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Maritime Shipping and Ports
5.
Maritime Shipping in the
MEDA Region
5.1.
General
Shipping was the first global industry and its
future is tightly attached to its global nature
concerning future shipping developments. If
MEDA countries are to support effectively the
growth prospects and at the same time be in
alignment with EU maritime policy (EU'acquis'), they should focus mainly on the
following key directions:
• Effective liberalisation of the shipping
market allowing introduction of healthy
competition and subsequent attraction of
private investment. In that respect, the
issues of capital importance include free
market access and minimisation of State
aid, the phasing out of monopoly on
cabotage, more clear and effective
positioning with regard to conferences and
shipping line agreements. These issues have
proved difficult and controversial to tackle
on a universal basis (see ineffective round of
negotiations
for
maritime
trade
liberalisation under General Agreement on
Trade in Services), and naturally, they are
not easier to handle in the Mediterranean
region.
• Promotion when possible of short-seashipping, which is considered a key issue in
the EU, revolutionising transport patterns
with respect to traffic, infrastructure
requirements and above all administrative
procedures. It must be understood,
nevertheless, that the reasons leading to
SSS success in the EU (lack of borders,
short distance by sea,…) do not always exist
in the MEDA countries.
• Attraction of competent seafarers and
promotion of their quality level through
education and training.
• Fight against substandard shipping with
respect to safety at sea (maritime safety and
security) and protection of marine
environment, through adoption / ratification
and
implementation
of
international
conventions. Effective Flag and Port State
Control enforcement mechanisms are a key
issue for implementation.
• Upgrade
of
port
infrastructure
/
interconnections
and
promotion
of
competition in port services.
5.2.
Legal Framework and
Conventions
5.2.1.
Legal Framework
A summary of the legal framework is presented
in Table 20. This table indicates that the main
problems which hinder MEDA maritime shipping
are:
• Competition barriers to foreign investors in
setting up and operating local shipping
companies (minimum percentage of local
shares required, taxing practices, etc.).
• Unfair competition from public shipping
companies - state aid in the form of
investment subsidies, subsidised tariffs,
preferential treatment, etc.
• Cabotage market competition.
• Liner conferences and shipping line
agreements.
5.2.2.
Conventions
The convention framework is as illustrated in
Table 21:
Besides the core IMO conventions, the major
conventions which MEDA countries has focused
on are the following:
• Convention on Facilitation of International
Maritime Traffic (FAL), 1965.
• International Convention on Tonnage
Measurement of Ships (TONNAGE), 1969.
• Athens Convention relating to the Carriage
of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea
(PAL), 1974.
• Convention on Limitation of Liability for
Maritime Claims (LLMC), 1976.
In general, MEDA countries signed all basic
conventions. Yet not all have abided by a rapid
implementation.
Moreover, bilateral cargo sharing agreements
were signed by MEDA countries (Maghreb and
Mashrek), as illustrated in Table 22:
63
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Table 20: Institutional framework in the MEDA countries
Country
Algeria
Cyprus
64
Flag State
Established Marine
Authority
Competition in shipping
One ship
registry
Flag state
control
enforced
Law No 98-05 of 1998
Introduces competition and
de-monopolisation in
maritime transport – Slow
adaptation process to open
market in the absence of
liberalisation and
regulatory framework.
Large state-Owned
Shipping Sector (CNAN for
freight, HYPROC for
In the form of a
directorate for merchant hydrocarbons, CALTRAM,
marine in the Ministry of ENTMV for passengers,
Transport (Directorate for ERENAV for ship repairs).
Public / Private Association
ports also available).
Allowed In Maritime
Law No 98-05 of 1998
Transport
Introduces competition
and de-monopolisation in Private participation in
maritime transport
shipping under
Unsuitable / Vague legal development, lack of
framework for transport incentives
Inefficient public ports and
agents and forwarders
port administration – Port
Reform under way but very
slow - Port Reform is a
central objective, setting up
new port authorities
Cabotage services reserved
only for national carriers
Measures favouring the use
and state aid provided to
national carriers
One ship
registry
Flag state
control
enforced
The department of
merchant shipping is
responsible for the
development of maritime
activities including
registration of ships,
administration of the
merchant shipping laws,
control of shipping and
enforcement of
international conventions,
casualties investigation,
labour disputes and
training / certification of
seafarers.
Significant progress has
been made recently (Preaccession period) on
capacity building
(Recruitment of
specialised staff and
training) through EU and
Pre-accession funds
Fully liberalised market.
High competitiveness level
within EU standards.
Cyprus has developed to be
one of the largest thirdparty ship-management
centres with about 100
ship-management
companies.
Competitive incentives to
promote shipping
investment (Competitive
ship registration costs and
annual tonnage tax, low
corporate tax level etc)
Highly developed /
competitive auxiliary
services (agents,
forwarders, insurances etc)
Port services
competitiveness need
significant improvement.
Shipping Industry Ownership
& Control
Large state-owned fleet –
High government intervention
Private shipping companies
allowed – local shareholding
majority required in private
shipping companies.
Complementary shipping
services (Forwarders, Agents,
Insurances etc) Moderately
developed by the private
sector.
No incentives to promote
shipping investment.
Cyprus has today the 6th
largest shipping fleet globally
with 2031 vessels of 24.3
million GRT capacity.
No state-owned vessels.
Local shareholding majority
not required for a new private
maritime company.
Total number of ships in
Cyprus register at the end of
2002 was 2 153 compared To
2 509 In 1993.
481 general cargo ships, 437
yachts, 439 bulk carriers, 164
oil tankers, 124 fishing
vessels, 180 container ships,
36 passenger ships and 292
other types (Tugboats,
Refrigerated cargo, vehicle
carriers etc).
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Country
Egypt
Israel
Jordan
Flag State
One Ship
Registry.
Flag State
Control
enforced.
Established Marine
Authority
Competition in shipping
Shipping Industry Ownership
& Control
No
Limited Competition level
mainly due to (a) free
cabotage services not
applied (access restriction
to shipping lines between
local ports) (b) large Sateowned fleet and significant
Government intervention
(c) heavy State involvement
in the absence of
liberalisation and
regulatory framework (d)
Relatively limited private
investment and lack of
incentives (e) inefficient
public ports with a high
incident ratio
Large State-owned fleet
resulting in a significant
Government intervention (1
national company, 2 shipping
companies under Investment
Law, 3 Joint- Ventures and
17 private companies).
Complementary shipping
services are relatively
developed by the private
sector.
Local shareholding majority
required when setting up a
new private maritime
company.
No significant tax or other
incentives to shipping
companies.
One Ship
Registry.
Flag State
Control
enforced.
ZIM Israel Navigation
Company was up recently a
semi private shipping
company, one of the largest
container-shipping companies
in the world and the flagship
of Israeli shipping. ZIM is
now owned by the Israel
Corporation (IC's main
shareholders are the Ofer
Group and Bank Leumi) to the
The Administration of
extent of 97.5% and the
Shipping and Ports exists,
balance of the shares are held
about to be upgraded to
an independent authority Advancing in the process of by other small investors (the
government recently sold to
liberalization.
(probably within 2004)
IC its 48.6% share).
assuming also the role of
ZIM operates over 80 vessels
the previous Ports
of all types.
Authority.
In 2000 there were about 5
Israeli shipping companies.
The authority of the Shipping
and Ports Administration still
has to approve the leasing of
foreign vessels - derives from
the Commodities and Services
Supervision Ordinance
(Supervision of Foreign
Vessels) 5740-1980.
One Ship
Registry.
Flag State
Control
enforced.
Establishment of the
Jordan Maritime
Authority JMA
(1/12/2002) as a
regulatory body to control
and develop Maritime
Sector in Jordan and
setting up an organisation
structure and detailed job
description for all officers
Only 5 vessels are Stateowned which represent a
limited government
intervention.
The private participation is
considered as considerable
in shipping .
Port Competition is limited
(only one port in Aqaba).
Liberalisation of maritime
State-Owned fleet (only 5
vessels) resulting in a limited
government intervention –
significant private shipping
companies.
State companies are – Syrian
Jordanian Shipping Company
(owns two vessels of 6 300
dwt each) – Arab Bridge
Maritime Company (jointly
65
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Country
Flag State
Established Marine
Authority
Competition in shipping
services under progress, in
within the Authority to
conformity with the GATT
perform the duties and
responsibilities allocated requirements.
to the Authority by its law
particularly on FSI, PSC,
Ships Registration,
International Relations,
following up International
Maritime Conventions
and Seafarers Affairs.
Moreover, the Jordan
Maritime Law (Shipping
Act) has been updated to
accommodate the updated
IMO Instrument including
matters falling under
maritime Safety, Flag
State implementation
Maritime Security, ISM,
STCW (Jordan joined the
list of the Countries that
give and complete effect
to the STCW 78 as
amended 95.), ISPS
Codes ,marine
environment, accident
investigation and
facilitation of maritime
traffic.
Lebanon
66
One Ship
Registry.
Flag State
Control
enforced.
No
Higher Competition in
shipping is required
through (a) Clearer legal
and regulatory framework
(b) Further stimulation of
private investment –
Incentives (c) Promotion of
port efficiency (d) No
measures favouring the use
of national carriers
State aid in the form of
50% reduction on port and
harbour master dues, 25%
reduction on piloting dues
Shipping Industry Ownership
& Control
and equally owned by
governments of Jordan,
Egypt, and Iraq. It was
granted an exclusive
concession by the
Governments of Jordan and
Egypt to operate the AqabaNuweiba ferry service line for
the transport of passengers,
goods, and vehicles. The
Company currently owns and
operates 3 vessels.
Complementary shipping
services (Forwarders, Agents,
Insurances, etc.) Moderately
developed by the private
sector.
Local shareholding majority
required in setting up a new
private Maritime Company
Limited Amount of tax or
other incentives to shipping
companies
No state – owned fleet
Complementary Shipping
services are relatively
developed by the private
sector
Local shareholding majority
required in setting up a new
private maritime company
No significant tax or other
incentives to shipping
companies
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Established Marine
Authority
Competition in shipping
Shipping Industry Ownership
& Control
Malta
One ship
registry
Flag state
control
enforced
Malta Maritime Authority
(MMA) established in
1991 as an autonomous
government agency to
organise and supervise
primary maritime
services. Today its
structure contains a
shipping directorate, a
port directorate and a
Yachting Centres
directorate.
Main responsibilities
concerning shipping focus
to:
regulate, control and
administer merchant
shipping and marine
pollution, ship
registration under
Maltese flag, port and
flag state control,
employment / education
and training of seafarers,
technical performance
regarding safety and
pollution prevention,
international relations
and implementation of
international conventions
and agreements.
Significant capacity
building of MMA has
been made from year
2000 (Pre-accession
period) on recruitment of
specialised staff and
training through EU and
Pre-accession funds
High competitiveness level
within EU standards
Competitive incentives to
promote shipping
investment (Competitive
ship registration costs and
annual tonnage tax, low
corporate tax level etc.)
Highly developed /
competitive auxiliary
services (Agents,
forwarders, insurances etc)
Port services
competitiveness need
improvement
State aid provided to ‘Gozo
Channel Company LTD.’14
Domestic passenger – Car
Carrier between Malta and
Gozo Island.
Malta has today the 5th
largest shipping fleet globally
with
3 365 vessels of
26.7 million GRT Capacity.
'Sea Malta' is a local shipping
company established in 1973
with state majority interest
69% (31% Shared between
CNAN, Lafigo and 13 local
private agents) – Owns two (2)
RO-RO vessels running regular
lines (Weekly liner service to
Geneva Marseilles, Tunis,
Livorno, Salerno, 3 Weekly
calls at Reggio-Calabria, 2
Weekly Calls at Catania) –
Jointly with private interests
its current activities extend to
auxiliary services (such as
freight forwarding, brokerage,
agencing, port ground
handling etc.)
Morocco
One ship
registry
Flag state
control
enforced
New
maritime
code may
introduce a
new 'second
register of
In the form of a
directorate for merchant
marine in the Ministry of
Equipment and Transport.
New maritime code under
way (Project led by the
Directorate for Merchant
Marine and supported by
IMO) is to deal amongst
others with shippers and
shipping companies,
National fleet shifts only
10-12% of total maritime
traffic, concentrating
mainly to phosphoric acid,
cabotage, vegetables and
car / passengers
Relatively large state
owned fleet (around 25
vessels representing) 50%
of total national flag
vessels number and 70% of
Local shareholding Majority
required for a new private
maritime company.
State-owned fleet (around 25
vessels) resulting in significant
government intervention.
Two state-owned companies
highly inefficient and rapidly
declining (Lost more than half
of their capacity) – Comanav
concentrating to regular lines
Country
Flag State
14
Gozo Channel offers a comprehensive Ro-Ro Passenger Service for foot passengers, car and car passengers as well as cargo
vehicles, including hazardous cargo.
67
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Country
Flag State
registration'
to support
competitiven
ess of
Moroccan
fleet.
Established Marine
Authority
seafarers, shipping
insurances etc – other
legal texts and
regulations are also to be
issued dealing with
restructuring and
protection of national
fleet (second register of
registration, reservation
of non-regular container
traffic for domestic
carriers only).
Competition in shipping
national capacity
Developed private
participation in shipping –
stop of state financial
incentives / protection after
1984 have caused
significant decline of
national flag.
National flag requirements
create non-competitive
operating costs (Thought to
be around 25% higher than
foreign competition).
Local privates today are
small in size (Usually do
not own more than two
vessels with the exception
of IMTC) facing fierce
competition by big
foreigners – no financial
support from state and
banks
Bulk shipping
(Representing 85% of total
shipping activity) was fully
liberalised and as a result,
it is currently dominated by
foreigners
High penetration of foreign
carriers – they have
recently started to set up
local subsidiaries (MSC,
CMA-CGM, Contenmar)
pushing out gradually
domestic carriers from
regular container lines
between Morocco and
Mediterranean hubs.
Meanwhile, the maritime
activity of the national fleet
keeps concentrated on the
transport of containers with
European destination.
Good cooperation level
(Alliances) of domestic and
European carriers for
passenger and RO-RO
traffic (Short and long
distance) – in long
distances 3-4 participants –
in short distances
(Gibraltar straits). From
2001 there is an alliance of
Shipping Industry Ownership
& Control
– Marphocean to bulk
chemicals 15
Complementary shipping
services (Forwarders, Agents,
Insurances etc) moderately
developed by the private
sector.
Lack of financial incentives
after 1984 has caused
significant decline– privates
today usually do not awn more
than two vessels.
15
Meanwhile, it has to be underlined that COMANAV launched in 2002 the first stages of a process of restructuring which is
included within a levelling plan for the company, determined in 2000 and formalized in 2002 in a contract - programme stateCOMANAV for 2002-2005.
68
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Country
Flag State
Established Marine
Authority
Competition in shipping
Shipping Industry Ownership
& Control
seven (7) carriers. After
ratification of association
agreement with EU (2001),
new bilateral negotiations
are to start aiming to
maritime transport market
& services liberalisation.
Cabotage reserved for
domestic carriers.
Inefficient public ports
(Casablanca Mainly)
Syria
Tunisia
One Ship
Registry.
Flag State
Control
enforced.
One ship
registry
Flag state
control
enforced.
No
In the form of a
directorate general for
merchant marine in the
Ministry of
Communication
Technologies & Transport.
Unsuitable / vague legal
framework for transport
agents and forwarders.
State-Owned fleet resulting in
significant government
Quite limited competition
intervention. limited private
witnessed by:
shipping.
Free cabotage services not
State companies are – Syrian
applied (Access restriction
Navigation Co (owns two
to shipping lines between
vessels of 3 300 dwt each) local ports)
Syrian Jordanian Shipping Co
State owned fleet &
(owns two vessels of 6 300
significant government
dwt each).
intervention
The fleet of Syria consists of
Heavy state involvement in
367 vessels (Vessels under
the absence of
Syrian flag) - Total Capacity
liberalisation and
about 1 Million tonnes – Most
regulatory framework
of vessels are general cargo
Quite limited private
ships aged between 20 and 25
investment & lack of
years.
incentives
There are no car passenger
Inefficient public ports (All
ferries among the vessels of
public)
the Syrian fleet.
All cargo related to
Complementary Shipping
national enterprises is
Services (Forwarders, Agents,
handled through
Insurances etc) Not developed
SYRIAMAR (Under the
by the private sector.
Syrian Ministry of
Local shareholding majority
Transport)
compulsory or a new private
No State aid – However,
maritime company.
dues may be paid in local
No significant tax or other
currency
incentives to Shipping
Companies.
National fleet participates
only by 13% in total
maritime traffic.
Relatively large state
owned fleet (Around 10
vessels) representing 37%
of total national flag
vessels number.
Cabotage reserved for
domestic carriers.
Inefficient public ports.
There are eight (8) national
shipping carriers in total –
one (1) state-owned (CTN
including SONATRA) owning
10 vessels and possessing
52% of international traffic
From/To Tunisia – Seven (7)
Private (TSTC, HMT,
Cogemar, GMT, GM,
Petronav & Tunisia SEA
WAYS) Owning around 17
vessels.
Regular lines are run by CTN
& foreign carriers – no
domestic private carriers
69
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Country
Flag State
Established Marine
Authority
Competition in shipping
Shipping Industry Ownership
& Control
participation.
Local shareholding majority
required for a new private
maritime company.
Turkey
70
Turkey
posses a
Two-register
systems:
The National
Ship
Register for
vessels
owned by
Turkish
citizens and
companies
which
capital must
be in
majority
owned by
Turkish
nationals. In
addition, the
general
manager of
the company
should be
Turkish.
Furthermore
, company
shares
should be
registered
on the
related
persons
possession.
The
Internationa
l Ship
Registry for
ships and
yachts
owned by
Turkish and
foreign
persons
resident in
Turkey and
companies
incorporated
pursuant to
Turkish
legislation.
They enjoy
Maritime activities are
administered mainly by
the under-secretariat for
maritime affaire, directly
attached to the Prime
Ministry.
Main objectives of the
under-secretariat for
maritime affairs as a
main Authority in the
field of maritime issues at
the national and the
international level, is to
determine and coordinate
the national maritime
policy. It consists of two
general directorates,
thirteen departments and
other related auxiliary
units.
The legal basis for
maritime activities in
Turkey is the Turkish code
of commerce of 1959.
The revision studies of the
Turkish code of commerce
have been launched under
the coordination of the
Ministry of justice by
considering the related
laws of the member states
of the EU.
Turkey’s merchant fleet had a
capacity (1 January 2003) of
5.7 million GRT with about
Market access to coastal
1185 ships (in both registries)
trade (Cabotage) is
becoming the 20th rank in the
reserved for Turkish
world. Total capacity
breakdown is 5% to public
flagged vessels.
and 95% to private sector.
Embargo from Turkish
ports for vessels serving the The majority of ship capacity
Cyprus trade and Cyprus
is bulk carriers (57%), oil
flagged vessels.
tankers (15.6%), dry cargo
ships (14.5%), and other types
(12.9%).
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Country
Established Marine
Authority
Flag State
Shipping Industry Ownership
& Control
Competition in shipping
certain tax
exemptions
and are
subject to
annual
tonnage tax
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
X
Cyprus
X
X
X
X
Egypt
X
X
X
Israel
X
X
X
Jordan
X
X
X
Lebanon
X
X
X
X
Malta
X
X
X
X
X
Morocco
X
X
X
X
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Syria
X
X
X
X
X
Tunisia
X
X
X
X
X
Turkey
X
X
X
Palestinian
Authority
LLMC Protocoll96
X
LLMC Convention 76
FACILITATION (FAL)
Convention 65
X
PAL Protocol 02
TONNAGE Convention 69
X
PAL Protocol 90
IMO amendments 93
X
PAL Protocol 76
IMO amendments 91
Algeria
IMO
STATUS
31/05/2003
PAL Convention 74
IMO Convention 48
Table 21: Conventions signed by MEDA countries
X
X
X
X
X
X
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
X
N/A
N/A
X
N/A: Not Available
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
71
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Table 22: List of bilateral cargo sharing agreements
Country
Bilateral Cargo Sharing Agreements
Algeria
With France, Italy, Germany, Turkey, Belgium, Jordan, Cyprus, Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Libya.
Signatory of the UN convention on the code of conduct for liner conferences.
Egypt
Signatory of the UN convention on the code of conduct for liner conferences.
Jordan
With all Arab countries + Turkey, Iran, Belgium, Greece, Pakistan, India, Bulgaria, Italy
No signatory of the UN convention on the code of conduct for liner conferences.
Lebanon
With Turkey, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Bulgaria
In the process of ratification with Sudan, Algeria, Yemen, Tunisia, Iraq, Cyprus, Gabon, India, Cuba,
Slovenia, China, Greece, Malaysia.
Signatory of the UN convention on the code of conduct for liner conferences.
Morocco
With Arab countries, EU (the association agreement led to structural adjustment programme support
for Moroccan maritime transport), Belgium, Bahrain, Mauritania.
Signatory of the UN convention on the code of conduct for liner conferences.
Starting up a new regular maritime line between Mashrek and Maghreb Arab countries in the
Mediterranean is currently under consideration.
Syria
15 agreements on maritime commercial shipping with Lebanon, Egypt, Cyprus, Iran, Morocco,
Sudan, Tunisia, Jordan, Algeria, Iraq, Greece, Pakistan, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait, China,
Holland, France, Germany, Russia, Ukraine and Saudi Arabia. Also 3 twinning agreements of
Lattakia Port with the ports of Marseilles, Izmir and Alexandria.
signatory of the UN convention on the code of conduct for liner conferences
Tunisia
With Arab countries, EU (the association Agreement, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Lebanon,
Algeria, Libya.
Signature of the UN convention on the code of conduct for liner conferences.
Starting up a new regular maritime line between Mashrek and Maghreb Arab countries in the
Mediterranean is currently under consideration.
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
5.3.
Operations
5.3.1.
Overview
The maritime shipping operation organisation is
presented in the following table:
72
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Table 23: Maritime Shipping operations in the MEDA countries
Country
Algeria
State of national
fleet
Substandard Shipping
Algerian flag
vessels around 67
(21 cargos, 12
Ro-Ro, 6 cereals,
5 bulk, 5
Containers, 11 oil
& LNG)
High average
level of ship age
(Average higher
than 22 years) –
limited
investment
contributing to
relatively low
fleet renovation
and low ship
quality.
Intention and
strategic position
to clean up and
renovate national
flag vessels.
Lack of new investment and relatively low
effectiveness of flag and port state control,
contribute to substandard shipping.
Enforcement mechanisms for flag state and port
state control are in place. However, they need
strong performance enhancement support on
organisational, staffing and training level.
According to Paris MoU, Algerian flagged ships in
foreign ports had a 28.81% detention rate in 2002
(59 inspections, 55 with deficiencies, 17 with
detention) – the country is black listed in the very
high risk level.
Inadequate education and
training level for seafarers.
Sufficient seafarers
availability.
Significant efforts have been taken during the past
five years by adopting strictest EU legislation.
Detention rate of the Cyprus fleet under the Paris
MoU fell by 2002 to 7.43% (1 279 inspections,
784 with deficiencies, 95 with detention). – the
country is black listed in the medium risk level
Good education and training
level.
The Hanseatic Marine
Training School is an
independent training centre
operating under the auspices
of the Cyprus Department or
Merchant Shipping in a
campus style facility, based
in Limassol. This centre is
training seafarers from
many nations to STCW
standards
Insufficient seafarers
availability.
Seafarers Availability &
Training
Cyprus
The average age
of the Cypriot
fleet is 16 years.
Egypt
Lack of new investment and relatively low
effectiveness of flag and port state control,
contribute to substandard shipping.
Average age level
Flag state and port state enforcement mechanisms
18 years– lack of
are significantly ineffective mainly due to
investment
organisational, staffing and training problems.
contributing to
According to Paris MoU, Egyptian Flagged ships in
relatively low
foreign ports had a 13.24% detention rate in 2002
ship quality.
(68 inspections, 57 with deficiencies, 9 with
detention) – the country is black listed in the
medium risk level.
The Arab academy for
science & technology and
maritime transport, ensures
good standard of academic
education and vocational
training.
Satisfactory level of
seafarers availability and
training.
Israel
No substandard shipping (13 inspection, 0
Modern
deficiency, 0 detention) – Israel is the white list in
container-carriers
the Paris MoU.
fleet (ZIM).
Good education and training
level.
Sufficient seafarers
availability.
73
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Country
Jordan
State of national
fleet
High level of ship
age (average 24
years), however
there is an
improvement on
level of ship age
for Jordanian
fleet) – limited
investment
contributing to
relatively low
fleet renovation
and low ship
quality
Substandard Shipping
Enforcement mechanisms for flag state and port
state control are in place. However, they need
strong performance enhancement support on
organisational, staffing and training level.
The information is about the detention number not
the classification on black list.
According to Paris MoU, Jordanian flagged ships
in foreign ports had a 33.33% detention rate in
2002 (3 inspections, 3 with deficiencies, 1 with
detention) – due to the low number of inspected
ships16, the country is not listed in the MoU Black –
Grey – White list.
Lack of new investment and relatively low
effectiveness of flag and port state control,
contribute to substandard shipping.
Flag state and port state control enforcement
mechanisms are significantly ineffective mainly due
to organisational, staffing and training problems.
According to Paris MOU, Lebanese flagged ships in
foreign ports had a 26.98% detention rate in 2002
(63 inspections, 55 with deficiencies, 17 with
detention) – the country is black listed in the very
high risk level.
Lebanon
Seafarers Availability &
Training
Low education and training
level for seafarers; however
establishment of the Jordan
Maritime Institute will
allow to develop Maritime
training and education in
Jordan
Sufficient seafarers
availability. It has to be
underlined that Jordan give
and complete effect to the
STCW 78 as amended 95.
Low education and training
level for seafarers.
Insufficient level of
seafarers availability.
Malta
Good education and training
level – the maritime
institute within the Maltese
Significant efforts have been taken during the past college of arts, science &
five years by transposing and adopting EU 'acquis' technology, provides all
level education and training
The average age (see maritime transport plan agreed with EU in
2001).
for seafarers
of the Maltese
fleet is around 16 Detention rate under the Paris MoU fell by 2002 to IMO international maritime
7.39% (1 637 inspections, 1 043 with deficiencies, law institute established in
years.
121 with detention) – the country is black listed in Malta since 1989 to provide
specialised education /
the medium risk level.
training to shipping lawyers.
Insufficient seafarers
availability.
Morocco
Moroccan flag
vessels around 49
(1 Cargo, 6
chemical tankers,
9
Passengers/SSS,
8 Ro-Ro /, 6
Cereals, 2 oil
tankers, 15
Containers, 8
Reefers)
High level of ship
age (average 20
16
Lack of new investment and relatively low
effectiveness of flag and port state control,
contribute to substandard shipping.
Enforcement mechanisms for flag state and port
state control are in place. However, they need
strong performance enhancement support on
organisational, staffing and training level.
According to Paris MoU, Moroccan flagged ships
in foreign ports had a 14.52% detention rate in
2002 (62 inspections, 47 with deficiencies, 9 with
detention) – the country is black listed in the highrisk level years)-limited investment.
Good education and training
level for Moroccan seafarers
(ISEM ensures satisfactory
education and training
standards).
Sufficient seafarers
availability.
The methodology for PSC evaluation requires at least 10 vessels to be inspected in the same Mou to determine the position on
the list.
74
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Country
State of national
fleet
Substandard Shipping
Seafarers Availability &
Training
years)– limited
investment
contributing to
fleet degradation
and low ship
quality.
Syria
Lack of new investment and relatively low
effectiveness of flag and port state control,
High level of ship
contribute to substandard shipping.
age average 23
Flag state and port state control enforcement
years – lack of
mechanisms are currently significantly ineffective
investment
mainly due to organisational, staffing and training
contributing to
problems.
relatively low
According to Paris MoU, Syrian flagged ships in
fleet renovation
foreign ports had a 19.82% detention rate in 2002
and low ship
(111 inspections, 95 with deficiencies, 22 with
quality
detention) – the country is black listed in the very
high risk level.
Low education and training
level for seafarers.
Insufficient level of
seafarers availability.
Tunisia
Tunisian flag
vessels around 27
High level of ship
age (average 20
years) – limited
investment
contributing to
relatively low
fleet renovation
and low ship
quality
Lack of new investment and relatively low
effectiveness of flag and port state control,
contribute to substandard shipping.
Enforcement mechanisms for flag state and port
state control are in place. However, they need
strong performance enhancement support on
organisational staffing and training level.
According to Paris MoU, Tunisian flagged ships in
foreign ports had a 35.71% detention rate in 2002
(14 inspections, 10 with deficiencies, 5 with
detention) – the country is black listed in the
medium risk level
Low education and training
level for seafarers.
Sufficient seafarers
availability.
The average age
of the Turkish
fleet is around
23.2 years.
Poor performance of Turkey with respect to
maritime safety and sea pollution prevention.
According to Paris MoU, Turkish flagged ships in
foreign ports had a 18.78% detention rate in 2002
(852 inspections, 675 with deficiencies, 160 with
detention) – the country is black listed in the very
high risk level – shortage of institutional capacity
and relevant administration for flag and port state
control.
EU financed twinning project under way (from
2002) to improve the legal alignment of the
Turkish legislation with the EU 'acquis' in the field
of maritime safety and sea pollution prevention;
also to upgrade the administrative capacity of the
relevant administrations to better implement the
legislation in the field of maritime safety and sea
pollution prevention.
A national programme for the adoption of the
'acquis' (NPAA) has been adopted by Turkey in
2001.
Turkey
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract) Paris MoU 2002 Report pp 26-28
75
Module 5
5.3.2.
Regional Cabotage and Short Sea Shipping
Development
According
to
the
Communication
(COM
(2003) 376 final) on the
development of a EuroMediterranean transport
network, SSS is particularly important in the
Mediterranean given the distances involved and
that, in some cases, alternative land links are
non-existent. The Mediterranean Partners
operate at least 58 major ports, which handle
more than a million tonnes of goods per year.
Current
Development &
Problems
Regarding SSS development, the Ministers have
stressed the need for the inter-modality of shortsea shipping, in particular the interconnection
and interoperability of the maritime and inland
transport networks (including roads, railways
and inland waterways).
SSS in MEDA partners is quite limited for many
reasons, most of which exist in EU countries.
Both in Maghreb and Mashrek regions the
following are noted (with minimal exceptions):
• Intra-regional trade is minimal due to trade
barriers and political disputes.
• Domestic maritime traffic in MEDA
countries is negligible (even in Turkey with
over 8 000 km of coastline, the usage of sea
for domestic transport is less than 5% since
legislation banned domestic traffic from
international ports) and exclusively reserved
for domestic flagged vessels (except for
Malta and Cyprus).
• Application of the rules and procedures
greatly differs among countries.
• Port activities are highly inefficient due to
inadequate
and
inefficient
port
infrastructure and hinterland interconnection
at a national and regional level, while
inefficient and non-competitive port services
are common.
• Customs and documentation procedures in
most of the countries are highly inefficient
even for intra-national trade (see Tunisian
example). Measures have been taken for
computerisation
but
are
currently
inadequate.
• Inter-modal loading standardisation is
absent.
It shall be underlined –as previously said- that,
even if presently under-developed, SSS probably
76
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
does not have the same potential in the
Mediterranean South shore as it has in the EU.
This is due to many reasons; including the
existence of borders (which do not exist in
Europe) or geography, (the coast is linear from
Tangiers to Port Said whereas in the EU the sea
is unavoidable – or highly competitive - through
the Baltic or the Channels or even between Italy
and Spain).
Nevertheless,
large
European
shipping
companies have already shown interest in
incorporating a fair number of MEDA ports in
their new Short-Sea Shipping lines. Recent
examples showing that initiatives from the EU
contribute to SSS development prospects in the
South Mediterranean coast include:
• New service linking Spain, Italy, Malta and
Tunisia: Grimaldi Naples has started a new
short sea service linking Valencia, Salerno,
La Valletta and Tunis. Grimaldi has
deployed a Ro-Pax with a capacity for 172
trailers and 80 reefer plugs.
• New service linking Spain to Algeria:
Sloman Neptun has included the port of
Cartagena in its service linking North
European and UK ports to Oran and Argel
(Algeria). The sail from Cartagena to Oran
will take place every 12 days.
• Expanded
service
linking
Germany,
Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Morocco:
Recently, OPDR commissioned the ‘OPDR
Cadiz’. Together with the two sister ships
‘Focs Tenerife’ and ‘OPDR Las Palmas’,
these vessels are employed on the container
liner routes from Rotterdam/Hamburg to the
Iberian Peninsula, Morocco, Canary Islands
and Madeira. The new ships with a capacity
of 698 TEU replace three ships of 450 TEU.
• More capacity for an Intra-Med service:
With four ships, PONL operates its IMS
route, connecting with niche destinations in
the Eastern Mediterranean from Cagliari
and Damietta. The capacity of those ships
has been increased from 600 to 1 000 TEU.
• Increased capacity for a Mashrek-Maghreb
service: CMA CGM is adding a third ship to
its
new
Maghreb-Maghreb
Service,
increasing its frequency to weekly and
adding two new ports of call: Barcelona and
Genoa.
• New service linking Europe to Algiers:
Private Algerian operator Alconship
initiated a multipurpose service between
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Marseilles and Djen-Djen, a congestion-free
port in the North of Algiers.
New service linking Spain and the Maghreb:
CMA CGM has started a new line linking the
Spanish East coast to the Maghreb. Five
560 TEU containerships are servicing the
following ports: Barcelona, Marseilles,
Genes, Mersin, Lattakia, Beirut, Alexandria,
Tripoli, El Koms, Tunis, Skikda and Algiers
(October 2003).
•
Case study ‘Door-to-Door Transport via Ro-Ro
Lines between Turkey and Italy’
The concept of inter-modal transport service
between Turkey and Italy was developed in 1992
(because of internal conflicts in the former
Yugoslavia), to provide Turkish transport
operators with an alternative route. Such an
inter-modal service requires the cooperation of
the following actors: (17)
• Road Transport Operators. Turkish tractor
units are lodged in the Port of Trieste as per
a bilateral agreement between Turkey and
Italy. The transport of semi-trailer units is
carried out only via Ro-Ro vessels. The semitrailers are then coupled with tractor units
located in Trieste and carry goods to various
destinations in Italy.
• Service Providers that include:
- Ro-Ro Operators (3 Ro-Ro Operators + 13
Vessels, 560 000 vehicles carried during 19932003).
- Tugmaster Operators: They are located in the
Ports of Trieste and Istanbul, embarking
/disembarking semi-trailer units to /from the RoRo vessels onto the TIR parking terminals.
- Airline Operator: The vessels utilised in the
existing Ro-Ro lines are non Ro-Pax type
(=unaccompanied transport). They only provide
12 cabins for drivers of refrigerated vehicles. All
other drivers are carried by means of air
transport to Ljubljana and backwards (in 2003,
37 500 drivers were carried from Istanbul to
Ljubljana and backwards).
- Bus Operator: Once the drivers land at
Ljubljana Airport, they are carried to the Port of
Trieste
by
busses
and
backwards.
- Rolling Railways: Serves the Turkish transport
industry
since
1993,
on
both
land.
17
Cumhur Atilgan, Ro-Ro Lines between Turkey and Italy,
(Atelier: 'Les conditions pour assurer un transport Multimodal efficace en Méditerranée'), REG-MED thematic
network, CETMO, Casablanca, 4-5 March 2004
- Ro-Ro agencies and Forwarding agencies: They
have the responsibility of preparing the ship
manifest, the documentation for port authorities,
the payment of various port changes /fees, the
facilitation of vessels mobility. The Forwarding
agencies are responsible to introduce the customs
documents of the trucks to customs authorities
and facilitating the clearance of customs
formalities.
The concept proved to be quite successful:
through the years, traffic grew impressively,
from 12 500 vehicles carried by Ro-Ro vessels
through parts of Turkey to Trieste in 1993, to
85 000 vehicles carried in 2003.
Furthermore, the Arab Federation of Chamber of
Shipping during its latest meeting in Damascus
in early March 2004, highlighted the importance
of the Pan Arab Shipping Market approach,
recommending a liner service to link Syria,
Lebanon and Egypt serving both Cargo and
Passengers.
development
in
Proposed actions SSS
MEDA countries will be a
slow process depending on the maturity /
progress achieved in each country regarding
transport market reform and investment. Action
should be based on the 14 action lines proposed
in the Commission Communication (COM (2003)
155 final) of the Programme for the Promotion
of Short-Sea Shipping within EU. Emphasis
should be given to:
• Design and finance of crucial port
infrastructure within the framework of a
Euro-Mediterranean transport network (Van
Miert Group report), based on an extended
version of Motorways of the Seas in the
Mediterranean, including links of Malta,
Cyprus, Southern and eastern shores to the
rest of EU (one Motorway of the sea linking
Northern Greece to south-eastern Turkey
and the Middle East).
• Simplification adjustment (minimise number
of needed documents) and standardisation of
customs procedures suited for SSS Computerisation of procedures and all
related information. Close cooperation
between ports on a regional level is crucial
in this respect.
• Full adoption of the IMO FAL for
standardisation of ship reporting formalities
in ports.
77
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
•
•
•
Encourage companies in Mediterranean
Partner Countries to participate in pilot
projects under the Marco Polo Programme.
Promotion of SSS concept to potential
players in both sides of Mediterranean along
the known lines of:
- Nominating focal points (national
representatives in each country assigned
with the task to promote SSS at
national level).
- Setting up SSS promotion centres.
- Extending the role of the European
Short-Sea Network (ESN) to cover the
whole Mediterranean region.
Setting up one-stop shops offering the
customers a single contact point that takes
responsibility for the whole inter-modal
chain offering door-to-door solutions
(integration of Short Sea Shipping into
logistics chains).
5.3.3.
Liner Conferences & Alliances
Liner conferences and alliances are forms of
cartel preventing competition from nonparticipants through exclusivity arrangements
with port operators, price fixing and predatory
pricing, capacity restrictions etc. Although EU
until recently was exempting such agreements
from anticompetitive behaviour, this exemption
will probably be abolished in the mid-term.
Liner conferences and alliances are not
abundant in MEDA countries. Very few cases
are mentioned such as:
•
•
78
IEMCO
Italy/East
Mediterranean
Conference (from Italian ports to Cyprus,
Egypt, Greece, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and
vice versa); Member Companies:
- Egyptian
Navigation
Company,
Alexandria Egypt.
- Grandi Traghetti-Gilnavi Società di
Navigazione S.r.l., Genoa.
- Ignazio Messina & C. S.p.a., Genoa.
- Niver Lines Shipping Co. S.A., Glyfada
Athens GR.
- Sarlis Container Services S.A., Piraeus
GR.
- Tarros International S.p.a., La Spezia.
C.I.MA.T. - Conference Italia/Malta-Tunisia
(from Italian ports to Malta and Tunisia and
vice versa); Member Companies:
-
•
•
Grandi Navi Veloci S.p.a., Genoa.
Grandi Traghetti-Gilnavi Società di
Navigazione S.r.l., Genoa.
- Ignazio Messina & C. S.p.a., Genova.
- Sea Malta Company Ltd., La Valletta
Malta.
- Sloman Neptun Schiffharts AG. ,
Bremen.
- Sud Line S.r.l., Genoa.
- Tarros International S.p.a., La Spezia.
I.M.A.C. - IntraMed / Algeria Conference
(from Mediterranean ports to Algeria and
vice versa);Member Companies:
- Grandi Traghetti-Gilnavi Società di
Navigazione S.r.l., Genoa.
- Ignazio Messina & C. S.p.a., Genoa.
- Tarros International S.p.a., La Spezia.
MED PAC conference Mediterranean North
Pacific Coast Freight Conference (from the
ports of the Mediterranean, the Black Sea,
the Atlantic coast of Spain, Portugal and
Morocco to the ports of the Pacific coast of
the United States, Canada, Hawaii and vice
versa); Member companies:
- D’ Amico, Rome / Italia, Genoa and
Med Pacific Express.
- Zim Israel Navigation, Haifa.
It is clear therefore that in MEDA countries,
liner conferences are rare and more pronounced
in the West Mediterranean.
Photo 4: Haifa Port, Israel
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
Maritime Shipping and Ports
6.
Port Authorities and
Operations in the MEDA
Region
6.1.
Legal Framework and
Conventions
6.1.1.
Legal Framework
The legal framework is summarised in the
following table:
Table 24: Port legal framework
Country
Restructuring framework
Maritime Authority and Port Operator
Algeria
Law No 98-05 (New Maritime Code) introduces (a)
Regional Port Authorities: East, Central, West as
EPIC type enterprises (b) Differentiation of Public
Service functions from commercial functions (c)
Possibility for introduction of competition (at a later
stage) (d) Port security and safety (e) Environmental
protection (f) Concessions and commercial services in
Regional Port Authorities under Law No
maritime transport
98-05.
Up till now, minimal implementation of the above
Law 98-05, mainly due to (a) absence of a detailed
and fully coordinated Action Plan (b) high social
costs involved (c) government inertia (d) preference to
the specialisation of ports and small scale concession
for specific users or activities.
No Master Plan for port development.
Cyprus
Management / operation of Limassol and
Larnaca ports in the hands of Cyprus Port
Authority (CPA), which is a public
autonomous organisation (but Government
controls over CPA operations as CPA
Harmonisation of maritime legislation with EU'acquis'. Unclear strategy and policies concerning
budget is approved by national Parliament).
future of Ports. For example, (a) discussions on
This Authority is precluded by law from any
landlord model adoption but no official position
control on stevedoring operations, which are
stated (b) Government intentions for a modern cruiser governed, by separate law (Port Labour
Law under the jurisdiction on Ministry of
terminal in Larnaca are not fully shared by local
cruising industry (c) strategic development plans for Labour and Social Insurance.)
Limassol and Larnaca ports still unclear.
The installation at industrial port of
Vassiliko, oil terminal of Larnaka,
Dhekelia, Moni and Vassiliko, were created
by private/public sector companies, which
operate them as well.
79
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Country
80
Restructuring framework
Maritime Authority and Port Operator
Egypt
Port services gradually liberalised but are still
lacking clear regulatory strategy / framework (despite
the fact that a specific PPP legislation was passed in
1998) as the government is involved at the same time
with regulatory and commercial functions.
Port operators can be public or private.
Strong Government commitment in modernisation
Ain Soukhna, a State owned port is run by
and radical increase of seaports efficiency to world
private operator.
standard levels, through the adoption of the 20012017 port restructuring master plan in order to
create a system of integrated and specialised port
terminals, partly owned but fully run by qualified
private operators, capable and willing to invest in
port superstructure and equipment.
Israel
Government intends to replace the Ports Authority.
On 22/08/1999, it decided to reorganize the ports as
three operational profit centres and another profitbaring centre for infrastructure. At the same time, it
demanded the port tariffs to reflect operational costs.
On 12/08/1998, the government decided to advise the
Ports Authority to allow Israel Docks to make
commercial use of existing infrastructures in the area
of the docks.
With the aim of improving service to customers and
building an efficient model of direct service, the ports
are planned to receive complete independence in
management and operations, in the framework of
independent governmental companies. A separate
governmental company shall replace the Ports
Authority in the management, planning and
development of the ports starting from the
31/12/2003. Regulatory functions will remain in the
hands of the Transportation Ministry
Jordan
The maritime Authority is the Jordan
Maritime Authority (JMA), recently
established (2002) to regulate maritime
sector. It is expected to take over gradually
the role of regulating Aqaba port activities
with emphasis on privatisation of various
Port Sector (and maritime sector in general) in
transition period as institutional restructuring (roles port services and regulation of maritime
sector in general (ports, shipping, maritime
redistribution, regulation etc) is well under way by:
safety).
(a) Establishment of Jordanian Maritime Authority
(b) Amendment of law No 42 (c) Enactment of a new Aqaba Port Corporation of ASEZA (Free
zone) is currently running the Aqaba port –
Maritime Law.
Strong restructuring need to promote
privatisation opportunities - Aqaba
Development Company to be created taking
responsibility for project development and
privatisation.
There is a Ports Authority running centrally
Israeli ports.
Absence of autonomous port authorities and
private operators.
Following the creation of the independent
port authorities, which will give the ports
economic and commercial autonomy, the
long term plan is to gradually privatize the
ports services completely and eventually
transfer ownership of operations and assets
to private companies.
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Country
Lebanon
Restructuring framework
Port Sector in early stage of a transition period, but
there is a strong need for Port Reform imposed by
current mix-up and inefficient distribution of
authorities & powers between Beirut Port Authority
(GERB), Port Board of Directors (for other ports),
Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MPWT),
Maritime Transport Department (MTD) in the
Ministry of Transport, and Ministry of Finance
(MoF).
Enactment of the new Transport Policy Bill expected
to initiate the much desired Port Reform Process.
Harmonisation of maritime legislation with EU-
Malta
'acquis'.
No general privatisation law – each privatisation
dealt on a case by case basis.
Maritime Authority and Port Operator
Public or Private. New container terminal
of 700 000 TEUs capacity is fully equipped
and ready to be operated by an independent
private operator as a tool port (tender is
already out, on a 'tool' model basis
(handling equipment already bought by the
Port Authority).
Malta Maritime Authority (MMA)
regarding ports, is in the process of
gradually transforming itself to a port
activities regulator.
Two main State owned ports (Valletta and
Malta Freeport in Marsaxlokk Bay).
Maltese ports are in principal controlled
(managed and developed) by the Ports
Directorate in the MMA with the exception
of the Marsaxlokk Container port.
Government already initiated the process
for privatising operations and management
of Malta Freeport, by selling up to 100% of
share capital of Malta Freeport Terminal
Ltd which is the current operator of the
Marsaxlokk Container Port
Private independent oil terminal in
Marsaxlokk Bay under the name Oil
Tanking Malta Ltd.
Morocco
New Port Law about to be adopted introducing
institutional and organisational port reform based on:
(a) Reorganisation of roles and authorities between
ODEP and the Ministry of Equipment & Transport
(separation between land ownership / planning,
regulation and commercial operation functions) (b)
Designing the new institutional and legal framework
(c) Introducing and promoting competition in port
services (d) A well thought implementation plan (e)
Severe port labour rigidities within the framework of
Port Reform (f) Institute for port training is available
providing quality continuous training at all levels.
L’ Office d’Exploitation des Ports (ODEP) –
a public entity - manages ports and
monopolises ground handling.
Since 1984, ODEP managed successfully
the first development stage of major
Moroccan ports activities (investment and
operations), but there is a confusion of line
of authority / responsibilities and power
struggle between ODEP and Direction des
Ports of the Ministry (DPDPM).
Syria
Government accepted need for Port Reform to (a)
significant modernisation and extension of existing
infrastructure and handling equipment in order to
upgrade and increase efficiency (plan to increase port
handling capacity from 17 million tonnes / year today
to 40 million tonnes / year by 2020) (b) and boost
tourism.
State-owned port managed companies.
Conversion to independent port authorities
on an incorporation basis under
consideration.
81
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Country
Restructuring framework
Turkey
Existing legal framework for privatisation of ports
and port concession
No regulating authority and dispersion of
authorities and responsibilities concerning
Turkish ports:
• Under Secretariat for Maritime Affairs
(directly under the Prime Minister) in
charge of (a) Port safety and security
(b) Harbour master services (c)
Licensing and supervision of public &
private port operators.
• Under Secretariat of State Planning
Organisation (directly under the Prime
Minister) controls. investment planning
finally approved by Parliament.
• Wide variety of port owners /
operators: (a) 7 TCDD run ports (the
only railway connected ports) (b)
approx35 ports run by private
industrial (c) approx. 30 ports run by
local authorities.
Absence of autonomous port authorities for
the state-owned ports.
Tunisia
Law 99-25 (new Code for Commercial Ports –
03/1999) already enacted, introduces to the Port
Sector the notions of:
- Concessions
- Temporary occupation
Thus permitting PPP.
Ambitious port modernisation plan is embodied in the
10 National Development Plan 2002-2006,
concerning port infrastructure investment,
organisational reform and promotion of PPP.
From 1998 onwards, port ownership /
management / exploitation in the hands of
the ‘Office de la Marine Marchande ET des
Ports’ (O.M.M.P.), which is a public
company. OMMP manages ports in
association with (a) The National Council of
Ports (set up in 1999) (b) The Committee of
port community (set up in 1999) (c) The
Port Security Committee (set up in 1999).
Reform process will put the emphasis on
setting up independent port authorities.
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
82
Maritime Authority and Port Operator
Maritime Shipping and Ports
The regional diversity shall be underlined:
• The restructuring framework is at different
stages, as port reform is 'accepted' in some
countries (Syria) whereas it is already
benefiting from a legal framework elsewhere
(Jordan for instance). Moreover, Cyprus and
Malta are already applying the EU
framework.
• The difference between maritime authority
and port operator is sometimes clearly
established as in the case of Malta (with the
MMA) or Jordan (with the Jordan Maritime
Authority, JMA18). In other cases, as in
18
Jordan Maritime Authority (JMA) was established on 1
December 2002 as a governmental body by the Temporary
Law No 47 for the Year 2002. JMA enjoys financial and
administrative autonomy. It has the power of management
with authority to regulate, control and develop the Maritime
Transport Sector in Jordan. The core of the work is very
technical and based on international conventions, standards
and regulations which require highly qualified personnel in all
areas of maritime activities, including experts on maritime
safety engineers, Surveyors, master mariners and maritime
transport economics and maritime lawyers.
The Authority aims to achieve the following objectives: a) Regulate, supervise and develop the maritime sector
including all transportation modes, stationary and moving
equipment, labour force, transport auxiliaries and associated
services, and provide guidance according to the Kingdom's
economic and social plans in conformity with the provisions
of ASEZA Law in force.
b) Enhance the private sector's role in contribution to
improve and develop the maritime sector.
c) Encourage competition and prevent monopoly in the
sector.
d) Contribute in marine environment protection and boost
maritime safety standards.
The JMA is performing the related following functions:
a) Licensing of all maritime activities.
b) Registration of ships under the Jordanian flag.
c) Issuing of statutory certificates for Jordanian ships.
d) Issuing of documents and certificates for seafarers in the
maritime sector including certificates of competency.
e) Conducting inspections and surveys on ships and marine
equipment in Aqaba Port area and within the Jordanian
territorial waters according to related national laws and
international conventions.
f) Controlling pilotage, tugboat activities and coastal
navigation in the Jordanian territorial waters.
g) Following up of search, rescue and salvage operations
within and outside Jordanian territorial waters.
h) Investigating maritime accidents within the Jordanian
territorial waters and on Jordanian ships wherever they may
be.
i) Recommending to the Ministry of Transport to ratify
bilateral, regional and international maritime conventions
and follow-up their implementation.
j) Representing the Kingdom at international and regional
maritime commissions, organizations, associations, unions,
committees, and follow-up their activities.
k) Cooperation and coordination with national, regional and
international parties related to the Authority functions.
Cyprus, maritime authority and port
operator are under the same body (CPA,
Cyprus Port Authority).
Port Reform Opportunities in the MEDA Region
The following objectives can be considered:
• Improve Port Infrastructure by:
- Attracting private investment.
- Promoting PPP in ports (management
contracts, concessions, BOT etc).
- Disseminating EU experience.
• Encourage Private Sector Participation in
the provision of port services and where
specific infrastructure / superstructure is
required (e.g. containers handling) ensuring
at the same time a 'Level Playing Field' with
clear rules and procedures.
• Market access to be allowed only in cases
where the increased number of port services
providers doesn’t create problems for safety
and environment.
• Encourage competition within and among
ports, taking care at the same time to set
guidelines on port ‘State aid’ and prevent
cases of private monopolies (regulation).
• Improve port efficiency by:
- Introducing, supporting and effectively
regulating competition and market access to
port services (except cases where safety and
environmental reasons do not permit.
- Minimising disruption from administration
and
customs
procedures
effectively
integrating these needs to core port
operations.
- Linking port charges to relative costs.
- Exploiting fully IT in port operation and
management.
- Training of ports personnel.
• Promote development and competition of
Value Added Port Services (logistics) within
or by the ports, transforming ports into
distribution
centres
(thus
achieving
increased containerisation
rates and
transhipment facilitation).
• Adoption of provisions associated with ISPS
Code, IMO Maritime Safety (Paris MoU)
and Environment Protection (SOLAS).
l) Conducting studies, gathering data and information
relevant to the sector, and classify, analyze, issue bulletins,
periodicals and reports of the sector's activity.
83
Module 5
6.1.2.
Conventions and Associations
MEDA countries are members of two majors
associations:
• UAPNA,
The
North
Africa
Port
Management Association (or Union des
Administrations Portuaires du Nord de
l’Afrique) was established under the auspices
of the Economic Commission for Africa. The
UAPNA members are Algeria, Morocco,
Tunisia, Libya, Egypt plus Mauritania and
Sudan.
• The Arab Association of Maritime and Port
Authorities is a member of the Arab League.
It is located in Damascus. All MEDA
countries, apart from Malta, Cyprus, Turkey
and Israel are member of this Association.
Moreover, twinning of main Maghreb ports with
European Mediterranean ports such as
Marseilles, Genoa and Barcelona must be
underlined.
6.2.
Regional Comparison in Case of
Regulation & Privatisation
6.2.1.
General
The impact of globalisation has been similar in
the MEDA region to that in other parts of the
world, with increased privatisation, competition
or deregulation. However, Port Reform is taking
place in all MEDA countries at a different pace
and in various ways as shown in the following
table:
84
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Table 25: Regional comparison of MEDA Port system in terms of regulation & privatisation
Country
Port operating model
Private Sector Participation
Adoption of landlord port
management model (if the
size of port traffic
permits) is considered.
Low PPP in the economy and
limited open market culture.
No private ports but expressed
government will for PPP in the
Ports Sector (Bejaia port,
currently used as model of port
development with PPP) as well as
strong private interest for ports
investment /services.
Ground handling in the ports of
Algiers and Oran (to a lesser
extent) is the only current Private
Sector presence in Algerian ports
(small-sized fork-lift operators)
The Cyprus Ports
Authority is the all
encompassing authority
for all port activities
except stevedoring.
Extensive current private sector
participation in port operations,
but limited investment
participation and CPA is the
major investor in ports.
No general privatisation law –
each privatisation dealt on a
case-by-case basis - BOT
experience present. Main port
investments under consideration
are (a) new passenger / cruiser
terminal in Larnaca Port, to be
financed by BOT method –
express of interest stage already
completed (b) new passenger
terminal in Limassol Port- to be
financed by CPA funds (c)
conversion of Old Limassol Port
into Marina, no decision on
financing.
Egypt
Can be public or private.
In Damietta and Alexandria,
private stevedoring companies
recently started (with problems) to
compete with a State owned one,
which controls 50% of the existing
quays. Pilotage with private
enterprises under multiyear
contracts and licenses.
Main seaport
restructuring policy lines
include a landlord model,
with State owned
infrastructure and
privately owned
superstructure.
PPP for ports in the form of both
ownership and operation. The
strong private interest due to
high business importance of
Egyptian ports (strategic
positioning for world maritime
routes).
Several BOTs already in position
(Ain Shoukhna and East Port
Said new Container Terminals
are already concessioned to
private port operators).
Jordan
- Stevedoring, Aqaba Port
corporation.
- New Improvement on land
transport.
- Private sector is granted 2
years management contract for
container terminal.
Aqaba development
company (ADC) will be
landlord port.
The container terminal is
managed by private
sector.
Aqaba development company
(ADC) is responsible for the
conclusion of several agreements
with the private sector to operate
port terminals.
Algeria
Cyprus
Port ground handling Operator
Partly privatised
Pilotage, towage, mooring, rescue,
cranes at quay, safe keeping of
cargo performed directly by CPA.
The private sector handles cargo
on ship and shore, and all other
services, including in several cases
some of the previously mentioned.
85
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Country
Lebanon
Malta
Morocco
Syria
86
Port ground handling Operator
Private Sector Participation
already present in Beirut Port on
a private monopoly basis for
pilotage, towage and mooring
services. There is a competitive
environment for the provision of
stevedoring services.
Pilotage privatised two years ago
but towage still in hands of MMA.
Private cargo handling operator
(Cargo Handling Company
Limited) was granted a contract
from MMA.
L’ Office d’Exploitation des Ports
(ODEP) – a public entity manages ports and monopolises
ground handling. Private
participation is currently limited
mainly to (a) on-board cargo
handling (Casablanca, Tangiers,
and Agadir) – ground handling
monopolised by ODEP (b) Pilotage
and towage in Casablanca Port (c)
Private tractors handling semitrailers.
Port operating model
Private Sector Participation
Study by BCEOM
proposed application of
the 'landlord’ model for
Beirut and Tripoli ports.
PPP in Lebanon port sector, as in
other transport sectors, shows a
fast but not correctly regulated
development, resulting in private
monopolies and an unsuccessful
BOT attempt for the new Beirut
container terminal, mainly due to
unsuitable legal framework).
Marsaxlokk Container
Port is currently owned by
Malta Freeport
Corporation Ltd
(landlord) and run by
Malta Freeport Terminal
Ltd (operator) which is
about to be privatised –
adoption of a landlord
model.
The Valletta International Sea
Terminal (VISET Malta plc) –
private consortium - has been
granted an operational license
and conceded a 65-year BOT
lease, for the construction and
operation of Malta's new cruise
liner and ferry passenger
terminal (capacity to handle 2
000 passengers per hour). The
project, called the Valletta
Waterfront, will include a large
waterfront development with
shopping and leisure complex.
Adoption of landlord port
management model (if the
size of port traffic
permits) is considered.
No private ports but expressed
government will for PPP in the
Ports Sector - Terminal
concession for Jorf Lasfar coal
port terminal - Concessions
intended mainly for the five
terminals of the new TangiersMediterranean port (intended to
be a transhipment hub) - special
law for the creation of 'Agence
Spéciale de Tangier Med' which
allows this entity to prepare the
international tender for manager,
operator and developer of the
terminal facilities and the free
zone - in view of the new Port
Law (expected in 2004) several
port infrastructure facilities
and/or services are to be
considered for privatisation in
Casablanca and Mohammedia
ports.
The applicability of
landlord model (tool
model seems at first
rather suitable) under
consideration.
State dominated economy with
limited open market culture
leading to no current private
sector participation in ports.
Meanwhile, a recent decree
allows private sector
participation in transport sector.
PPP envisaged in the BOT form
for a Free Trade Zone South of
Tartous and a new container
terminal (early planning stage).
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Country
Tunisia
Port ground handling Operator
Limited participation of private
sector in Tunisian ports – only for
cargo handling in secondary ports.
In the major port of La Goulette Rades, cargo handling
monopolised by a public company,
STAM. Plans to privatise STAM.
Port operating model
Private Sector Participation
Adoption of landlord port
management model (if the
size of port traffic
permits) is considered.
No private ports but strong
government will for PPP in the
Ports Sector.
Government plans to step up PPP
in the transport sector
Speeding up of the Port Reform
process will put the emphasis on
PPP planned for the new
container terminal in Port Rades
and for the cruiser ship terminal
at La Goulette.
Turkey
Central Privatisation Authority
Unit manages all privatisation
projects in Turkey but no
concrete Port Privatisation
Action Plan for implementation
was acted and just a few private
ports / terminals are privatised,
although significant potential
exists:
- The 11 ports run by the
Turkish Maritime Authority
(TDI), over the past 10 years
have been transferred to the
private sector – In most cases
not satisfactory results
(Antalya port back to public
sector), setting a negative
example for privatisation.
- The major commercial Turkish
ports (the ones belonging to
Turkish railways TCDD) is
desirable by the Government,
but obstructed by TCDD (using
port profits to cross subsidise
railway activities but also
considering ports as multimodal hub).
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
Commercial activities with PPP are an
important issue in all ports, progressing slowly
but steadily. However, there are varying degrees
of private sector maturity and open market
culture:
• Syria and Algeria: very low.
• Jordan, Egypt, Turkey: low.
• Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon: developed.
• Cyprus, Malta: well advanced.
87
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
6.2.2.
Some Examples of Port Commercialisation
Port-Louis (Mauritius)
A new law entered into force on 1st August 1998
transforming the Mauritius Marine Authority
(MMA) Into the Mauritius Port Authority
(MPA).
MPA became a landlord port authority and the
Cargo Handling Corporation Ltd. (CHCL) is the
only operator in Port Louis. CHCL is a public
corporation under private law.
Established in October 1983; the State holds
60% of its capital and MPA 40%. In January
1999, MPA granted a concession for the
Mauritius Container Terminal to CHCL for a
period of five years and sold it the equipment in
May 1999. MPA introduced new revised tariffs
in January 2000 and a human resources
Development plan in October 2001. At the
present time, the Government is in negotiations
with international Private operators for the
transfer of the share held by MPA.
Ghana
The Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority
(GPHA) launched the first phase of its
privatisation Programme in September 2001
with the transfer of part of the cargo handling
services to private companies, based on a
concession. The second phase will last from July
to December 2002 and GPHA will have the
status of a landlord port and regulatory authority
and will ensure the collection of the payments
made by the concessionaires. At the end of this
phase, the port of Tema will be completely
privatised.
South Africa
The reforms of March 2001 have led to the split
into two bodies of the State company PORTNET,
with the establishment of the National Port
Authority, responsible for regulatory activities,
and South African Port Operations (SAPO) in
charge of operations. The two are independent.
This separation is the first stage prior to the
granting of concessions, for port operations to
private companies in the seven South African
ports. A new law is being finalised in which the
Port Authority will be a 'landlord authority'. At
the present time, SAPO manages all the
88
container terminals, 77% of the miscellaneous
merchandise terminals and 35% of the bulk
terminals. Private operators under leasing
contracts operate the rest19.
Baltic Port
During the 1990s, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
fully privatised stevedoring services. Estonia’s
major port, Tallinn, became a joint stock
company in 1996. In Lithuania the main port of
Klaipeda was transformed into a landlord port
and most commercial activities were privatised.
Greek Port Reform Case
Law 2932/2001 in June 2001, introduced port
reform in Greece converting major Greek ports
into independent authorities under the form of
limited companies. Two major Greek ports,
Piraeus & Thessalonica, were floated in the
Athens Stock Exchange and the next ten major
ones (ports of Alexandroupolis, Kavala, Volos,
Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Lavrion, Elefsis, Rafina,
Heraklion, Patras) were corporatised.
Managing boards were appointed and significant
investments were undertaken, co-financed by EU
structural funds. Currently, they are financially
autonomous (with the exception of infrastructure
finance) with port-tariffs set uniformly for all
ports by the Ministry of Merchant Marine. Full
liberalisation of port services and the maritime
transport market is obstructed severely by the
large number of Greek islands (public service
obligation).
Port Reform in India-Jawaharlal Nehru Port
Trust (JNPT) Mumbai
JNPT presents a recent successful example of
port reform with the goal of creating an
excellent port in India. Indeed, it clearly enjoyed
an edge over other Indian ports with respect to
both infrastructure and performance even in the
pre-reforms period. However, it suffered from
some of the inherent drawbacks ailing the Indian
port sector that prevented it from achieving
world standards in port efficiency. As the most
modern among Indian ports, and the one with the
19
Source: United Nations, Conference on Trade and
Development, African ports: reform and the role of the
private sector, Report by the secretariat of UNCTAD, March
2003.
Maritime Shipping and Ports
least labour problems, JNPT was the natural
choice as a test case in privatization of port
operations. The reform process was well designed
and
optimally
sequenced
with
active
participation of a wide range of actors. The
reform has been a reasonable success. With the
creation of a new private terminal and the
follow-up measures undertaken thereafter, JNPT
has demonstrated its capability to enhance
efficiency of the public terminal through the
introduction of intra-port competition and it has
succeeded in earning the distinction of being the
world’s 29 largest container port.
Port reforms in India involved four sets of key
issues. There were policy issues pertaining to
private
sector
participation
(PSP),
corporatisation, competition and connectivity.
There were also organizational issues concerning
labour,
equipment
and
management
(coordination). Capacity issues of port reforms
were related to capacity augmentation, creation
of new facilities in existing ports, creation of new
ports and feasibility of hub ports. Finally, there
were regulatory issues, which included safety and
conservancy,, environmental, and economic
regulations,
namely
tariffs
and
entry.
Consequently, the 1996 policy guidelines
specified the following four areas for
privatization:
Leasing out existing assets and construction of
new assets: Major ports were permitted to lease
out their existing assets to private entities.
Permission was also granted for entering into
contractual
arrangements
with
private
developers for construction/creation of new
assets like container terminals, cargo berths,
warehousing, storage facilities, tank farms,
crane equipment, captive power plants, drydocking and ship repair facilities.
captive facilities (including oil jetties, platforms
etc.) to port-based industries.
As a first attempt to establish a regulator for the
port sector, a Tariff Authority for Major Ports
(TAMP) was set up in 1997 for regulating tariffs
in major ports. The TAMP fixes tariff ceilings for
services rendered by major ports. The major
ports are free to fix tariffs on various services at
any level, which is less than the notified tariff
ceilings prescribed by the TAMP. It is
mentionable in this context that TAMP’s
mandate is limited to only notification of the
tariff bands. It doesn’t have any quasi-judicial
authority like regulators in other infrastructure
sectors (e.g. Telecom Regulatory Authority of
India (TRAI), the Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission (CERC) etc.)
In 2001, India’s first corporate port was set up
at Ennore near Chennai. The government has
decided to progressively corporatise all the
existing major ports for ensuring their
functioning on commercial principles. In this
regard, it has introduced the Major Port Trust
Act Amendment Bill, 2001 in the Parliament.
The JNPT is slated to be corporatised next, as
proposed in the Union Budget for 2001-02.
However, the process of corporatisation is yet to
begin due to the delay in the passage of the
legislation introduced in the Parliament. The
expansion of the JNPCT is well on the way
considering now the construction of a 4 terminal
on a BOT basis, increasing the depth of the
approach channel to 12.8 m draft.
Pilotage: The need for privatization will be
assessed by the port trusts based on existing
floating crafts /pilots and the period of contract
will also be determined by them.
Morocco Port Reform
Owing to the important share of trade flows
which are carried by maritime means (over
95%), the ports sector has always been an
essential component in the country’s foreign
trade, which explains the importance given by
the Moroccan government to the development,
diversification and extension of ports over the
last 30 years. Important investments have been
granted to the ports sector; these were
accompanied by the introduction of reforms and
in-depth changes in the organisation of ports in
order to improve the sector’s efficiency and to
respond to growth in foreign trade and ever
increasing requirements linked to port activities.
Captive facilities for port-based industries:
Major ports were allowed to lease out 100%
The ports sector has undergone important
structural changes, one the most striking being
Leasing of equipment and floating crafts:
Permission was granted to major ports to lease
out modern equipment and floating crafts to the
private sector.
89
Module 5
the establishment of the Port Management Office
(Office d’Exploitation des Ports, ODEP) in 1984.
Nevertheless, after nearly two decades, the ports
sector reform of 1984 has reached its limits and
has become unadapted to new competitiveness
requirements linked to commitments in favour of
market opening towards the private sector and
the reinforcement of competition.
Therefore, in order to anticipate future
developments in the ports sector, on the one hand
and to adapt port activities to new economic and
political settings on the other, the MOT has
undertaken a critical appraisal of the current
situation of the sector. Based on the strengths,
malfunctions and expectations revealed by this
evaluation, a new strategic vision was defined,
leading to a global and in-depth reform of the
sector.
The main objectives of this port reform policy
are:
• To raise the level of competitiveness of
Moroccan ports to international standards.
• To clarify the roles and prerogatives of
stakeholders through the separation of state
authority functions, port authority functions
and commercial functions.
• To introduce competition between ports and
within individual ports to end the of facto
monopoly exercised by ODEP and the
oligopoly exerted by stevedoring companies.
• To back the integrated nature of handling
activities to end the separation of legal
liability, improve the efficiency and
productivity of ship loading and unloading
operations and reduce port transit costs
through better management of the transport
chain.
• To encourage private sector participation in
the financing of port infrastructures and
equipments in the framework of concession
procedures.
Regarding the separation between functions:
In order to clarify the roles and missions of
different stakeholders, to look for the best
synergies between them and give the future
entities the necessary flexibility for efficient
management, the reform of the ports sector is
based on the separation of the three main port
functions:
90
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
The state authority function, assigned to the
state at national level, is the remit of a strong,
coherent and homogeneous central government
administration for all ports and harbours. The
government’s duties in this respect are focused
on:
• Defining and implementing sector-related
policy.
• Defining the regulatory framework.
• planning and carrying out of new port
infrastructure.
• Management and protection of the public
maritime domain and coastlines.
The port authority function is assigned to the
National Ports Agency, which is responsible for
control and regulation. These duties include:
• Ensuring the development, maintenance and
modernisation of ports to deal with vessels
and goods transiting through the ports in the
best conditions in terms of costs, delays and
safety.
• Overseeing the optimal use of port facilities
by
improving
port
competitiveness,
simplifying procedures and upgrading
organisational and working methods.
• Guaranteeing the respect of free competition
in the management of port activities.
• Establishing a list of activities to run and
the
number of authorisations and
concessions to grant in each port and to
prepare and implement the selection and
allocation
procedures
for
these
authorisations and concessions and ensure
the monitoring of compliance of these and of
their corresponding terms of reference.
• Controlling the enforcement of provisions
included in the law and its various
implementation acts.
• Overseeing compliance with legal obligations
regarding safety rules, operational and
management principles.
• Managing the port (port policing; granting
of concessions and authorisations, etc.).
The commercial functions will be delegated, in
the framework of competition, to the port
operating company and to private or public
undertakings acting as operators or service
suppliers, on the basis of concession or
authorisation procedures and of terms of
reference established by the National Ports
Agency. These functions mainly concern the
operation of various ports services, such as:
Maritime Shipping and Ports
•
•
•
Port handling activities and collective use
port activities such as pilotage, towage,
boatage, warehousing and storage.
Management of port terminal and port
facilities (quays, dock level surfaces,
warehouses or other port installations).
All other ancillary port services for goods
ships or passenger ships.
Regarding competition:
The possibilities examined for introducing
competition, done by par traffic category among
and within individual ports, enabled to identify
which ports can sustain, at present, more than
one operator, and to determine the amendments
needed and actions to undertake to extend this
competition within and amongst ports.
During the next three years the plan for the
introduction of competition among ports and
within individual ports will cover the following:
• The ports of Jorf Lasfar and Mohammedia
through the concessioning of a petrol quay
for refined products at Jorf.
• The port of Casablanca through the
concessioning of the Tarik container
terminal, the Ro-Ro terminal and a break
bulk terminal.
• The port of Nador through the concessioning
of the Ro-Ro terminal.
• The ports of Casablanca et Mohammedia
through the concessioning of the future
container terminal at Mohammedia.
Competition has already been partially
introduced through the authorisation given to an
international private operator to build and
operate a grain silo at the port of Casablanca
and a second one at the port of Jorf Lasfar.
There will therefore will be genuine competition
within the cereals market segment at the port of
Casablanca and between this port and the port of
Jorf Lasfar.
Regarding the integration of handling activities:
The new port sector reform policy emphasised
the need to adopt the principle of integration for
ports handling activities. This is an essential
condition for improving the competitiveness of
Moroccan ports. The integration of handling will
result in:
• Elimination
of
the
severance
of
responsibility between vessel/ground.
•
•
•
•
•
Better management of the handling chain by
optimising human resources and technical
means.
Productivity gains.
Reduced vessel dwell time.
Decreases in port transit costs.
Introduction of new handling technologies.
Photo 5: Planned PPP for Casablanca port
within the framework of Port Reform in Morocco
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
6.3.
Main Bottlenecks and Issues
Despite recent progress, the efficiency of
maritime transport chains in the Southern
Mediterranean remains low by international
standards. Ports, which are the key inter-modal
nodes and entry points for trade into most
Mediterranean Partners (MPs), are among the
weakest links presenting in their majority a
major bottleneck. Thus, port reform remains an
issue of high importance and priority.
6.3.1.
On a Sub-Regional Level
The Ports sector in the
Mashrek region presents the
following main constraints:
With the exception of Egypt and Israel,
insufficient
and
inefficient
port
infrastructure and equipment.
Overlapping hinterlands in several cases (e.g.
Beirut / Tartous / Lattakia, Damietta / Port
Said / El Shoukna).
Lack and distortion of competition between
ports (no 'level playing field') due to
numerous reasons:
- Cross border barriers caused by political
factors (e.g. Israel with neighbouring
countries) or protectionism (e.g. the
Syrian case not allowing exports /
imports from non-Syrian ports).
Mashrek
•
•
•
91
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
-
•
•
•
•
92
Inefficient
hinterland
connections
infrastructure (e.g. Beirut and Tripoli
port connections).
Government intervention (State aid,
uniform port tariffs amongst country
ports irrespective of production costs
and
national
/
international
competition).
- Iraqi War.
- Inadequate legislation in order to
promote the modern role of ports as
logistics services integrators (although
progress is on the way).
- Limited size of private sector and
private transport services integrators
(forwarders).
- Low containerisation rates.
All governments share the need for Port
Reform taking steps towards the following
directions:
- Promotion of PPP in port operations to
increase port efficiency and to cut down
government
spending
on
port
investment.
- Adoption of the landlord port
management model (if the size of port
traffic
permits).
However, PPP and port services
liberalisation
/
deregulation
has
progressed at different levels within the
region:
- Egypt is quite advanced in that respect
and is still progressing (many BOTs
under implementation).
- Lebanon is suffering delays due to fast
steps taken without waiting for all
necessary parameters to mature (e.g.
regulatory framework, labour relations).
- Syria is just starting with a long way to
go.
With respect to maritime safety / security
and environmental protection issues,
although steps have been taken for adoption
and ratification of the relevant international
conventions, there is a strong need to
support full harmonisation as well as
technical assistance (including training) for
implementation.
Limited level of IT / EDI technology and
expertise (with the exception of Israeli and
major Egyptian ports which provide a best
practice benchmark).
Usually, severe overstaffing and lack of
labour training and specialisation.
•
Port tariffs are not linked to costs and
marginal social costs.
Despite the fact that ports
are strategically positioned
with respect to international
maritime routes and transhipment (mainly
Moroccan ports), the ports sector in the
Maghreb region presents the following main
constraints:
• Overlapping hinterlands in some port cases
(e.g. Annaba / Tunis), but no real
competition due to the border constraint.
• Lack and distortion of competition between
ports (no 'level playing field') due to many
factors:
- Cross border barriers due to political
reasons (e.g. Algeria / Morocco).
- Inefficient
hinterland
land-side
connections
(e.g.
Algiers
port
connections).
- Government intervention (uniform port
tariffs imposed amongst country ports,
irrespective of production costs and
national / international competition).
- Inadequate legislation in order to
promote the modern role of ports as
logistics services integrators, although
progress is on the way (e.g. Tan-Med
port Free Trade Zone, new Free Trade
Zones in Tunisia).
- Limited size of private sector and
private transport services integrators
(forwarders).
• All governments share the need for Port
Reform taking steps towards the following
directions:
- Promotion of PPP in port operations to
increase port efficiency and to cut down
government
spending
on
port
investment.
- Adoption of the landlord port
management model (if the size of port
traffic permits).
However, the following are also noted:
- Limited
BOT
port
concessions
experience (about to start only in
Morocco – Tunisia).
- Market access to port services quite
limited in all three countries – real
liberalisation calls for a clear
government strategy and adequate
regulatory framework in position prior
to potential privatisation steps.
Maghreb
Maritime Shipping and Ports
-
-
Variable level of maturity for
implementation of Port Reform in each
country: (a) Tunisia, with a well
developed private sector shows high
commitment and maturity (labour
reform already in place), lagging back
with respect to its institutional and
regulatory framework (b) Morocco is
currently working on a new legal,
institutional and regulatory framework.
Labour reform issues present a serious
challenge (c) In Algeria, the new legal
framework already established is
difficult to be implemented due to lack
of
government
commitment
/
experience, limited private sector and
open market culture, overstaffing
problems.
6:
Problematic
port
hinterland
Photo
connections at the port of Algiers in Algeria due
to its proximity to the city centre
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
•
•
•
•
•
With respect to maritime safety / security
and environmental protection issues,
although steps have been taken for adoption
and ratification of the relevant international
conventions, there is a strong need
(emphasis on Algeria with the three big
hydrocarbon export ports and relatively
recent security incidents) to support full
harmonisation and technical assistance
(including training) for implementation.
Limited level of IT / EDI technology and
expertise.
Severe overstaffing.
Lack of labour training and specialisation
(mainly in Tunisian and Algerian ports).
Port tariffs are not linked to costs and
marginal social costs.
Cyprus-MaltaTurkey
•
•
Two major positive points
must be underlined:
Ports are strategically positioned with
respect to international maritime routes and
transhipment (Cyprus, Malta and Bosporus
Turkish ports).
With respect to maritime safety / security
and environmental protection issues, major
steps have been taken by all countries, as
Malta and Cyprus are already EU members
and Turkey a candidate.
Meanwhile, the ports sector in the CMT region
presents the following main constraints:
• Port infrastructure and equipment vary
between each country and within each
country.
• Overlapping hinterlands exist essentially in
Turkey.
• There is not a significant distortion of
competition between ports (the 'level playing
field') as the regional background is not
homogeneous. Meanwhile, the following
points must be underlined:
- From the hub point of view, there is a
specific cross border barrier due to
political reasons between Cyprus and
Turkey.
Inefficient
hinterland
connections
infrastructure exist (Turkey).
- Government intervention (State aid,
uniform port tariffs amongst country
ports irrespective of production costs
and
national
/
international
competition).
- Inadequate legislation in order to
promote the modern role of ports as
logistics services integrators in Turkey,
although progress is on the way.
- Sometimes (Turkey) private transport
services integrators (forwarders) are not
as powerful as needed.
• All governments share the need for Port
Reform taking steps towards the following
directions:
- Promotion of PPP in port operations to
increase port efficiency and to cut down
government
spending
on
port
investment.
Adoption of the landlord port
management model (if the size of port
traffic permits). However, PPP and port
services liberalisation / deregulation has
progressed at different levels within the
93
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
•
•
•
region (a) Malta is quite advanced in
that respect (case of the Malta
Freeport) (b) On the contrary, many
ports in Turkey are still indirectly Stateowned (case of TCDD owned ports). At
the same time, it shall be underlined
that the possibility for a transport
company (TCDD) to manage both ports
and railway could represent a true
opportunity to develop inter-modal
transport.
The use of IT / EDI technology and expertise
differs between Malta-Cyprus and Turkey,
but also differences are noted among the
Turkish ports.
In Turkey (and Cyprus, to a lesser extent)
overstaffing is recorded.
Apart from Malta, port tariffs are not linked
to costs and marginal social costs.
6.3.2.
On a MEDA Regional Level
Maritime traffic concentrates systematically in a
limited number of major ports in each country
mainly due to scarcity of funding to finance
supplementary port investment. However, there
are cases like Algeria where port traffic (bulk
and unitised) prefers the port of Algiers although
other less congested port alternatives are
available with equally good hinterland
connection. Although easier administration
procedures are thought to be the main reason,
the case needs a thorough investigation.
Domestic maritime traffic is negligible
occasionally due to legal hurdles (see the case of
Turkey where local freight could not pass
through the so-called international ports),
whereas intra-regional traffic is limited. Low
containerisation and high percentage of empty
units is observed, due to trade imbalances
(between exports and imports) contributing to
relatively high and non-competitive maritime
transport unit costs.
Despite a recent development, transhipment
remains limited (except in the cases of Malta
and Egypt) since European Mediterranean ports
are attracting the largest share and few ports
probably have presently a transhipment hub
potential.
Turkey, Algeria and Egypt are the main origins
and destinations of maritime transport freight
traffic amongst MEDA countries.
94
The size of sea-passenger traffic is small with
limited growth rates. Few regular ferry routes
are concentrated mainly in Morocco, Egypt and
Turkey. Considerable potential for cruiser traffic
growth is currently concentrated in Cyprus,
Malta and Tangiers.
Regarding competition, borders closed to trade
or political barriers (e.g. Algeria / Morocco,
Turkey / Cyprus, Syria / Lebanon) prevent port
competition and subsequent motives for
efficiency.
MEDA ports in their vast majority are:
• Publicly owned and strongly protected public
monopolies, isolated from any kind of real
competition, with uniform port tariffs set by
the government, preferential treatment,
government subsidies,… Even if the
liberalisation of port services has already
started (for instance in Egypt) there is
usually an absence of legal and regulatory
framework concerning Private Sector
Participation in the ports sector, which
discourages access to the market. Some
countries are ready to introduce / adopt the
relevant legislation (Morocco, Tunisia, and
Lebanon) but there are considerable delays
and implementation difficulties. Although
port concessions have been granted (Egypt,
Morocco 20), these port terminals have been
treated legally as exceptional cases (no
legislation to cover all cases uniformly). This
results frequently in the absence of a real
level playing field.
• Inefficient and overstaffed (the exception of
Tunisia shall be underlined). This is going to
present a serious but unavoidable challenge
to all governments wishing to implement an
effective Port Reform. Port labour
rationalisation plans must be designed and
negotiated with high priority.
• Lacking of:
- Modern infrastructure and handling
equipment.
- Any form of PPP.
- Competent management skills.
- Accountability.
- Operational independence.
20
In Morocco, cereal terminals in Casablanca and Jorf
Lasfar where given, under BOT, to the private sector. This is
also the framework that is considered for the concession
tendering under progress for some naval yards.
Maritime Shipping and Ports
-
•
•
IT and EDI technology, infrastructure
and expertise.
- Specialised / trained personnel on
modern port operations / equipment.
- Development of integrated logistics
services within and/or close to ports.
Ineffective
liaising
with
public
administration
(mainly
customs
authorities21.)
Inefficient port handling services, even in
cases with PPP (broken down into inefficient
and badly coordinated chapters, high costs,
lack of modern equipment and sufficient
investment, port tariffs not associated to
costs) – typical examples may be found in
Tunisia, Cyprus and Morocco22.
Although all governments are keen on port
reform, its implementation in most cases is
considered quite difficult due to lack of:
• Expertise as well as a suitable legal,
institutional and regulatory framework.
• Open market culture and experience.
• An active business oriented private sector.
• Will to face political costs.
• Trained human resources to support reform
changes.
Most countries have in principle accepted the
landlord port model (where applicable) and the
idea of allowing PPP in the port sector.
However, PPP in ports just started to take off in
the form of terminal concessions in Egypt (East
Port Said, El Shokna) and Morocco (Jorf Lasfar
coal terminal, Tang-Med). Furthermore, in few
cases political instability and lack of stable legal
environment do not favour the attraction of
foreign private funds.
21
However, the context is evolving. In Morocco, a very
advanced modernization of the customs has been under
progress since 2000, with a new code and an entirely
automatic system for the processing of simplified
declarations (the computerized system BADR which allows a
customs clearance in less than one hour)
22
Meanwhile, ODEP adopted a strategy of port offer
levelling for unitized traffic:
- Installation capacity increase for the unitized traffic transit
(purchase of 2 40 tonnes cranes and 6 dock forklifts,
delivered in 2001) and building of the 220 m extension of the
container terminal, which will be equipped with 3 new cranes
and with 7 new dock forklifts for 'on park' management.
- Organisation Measures defined as part of an urgent plan
matched by objectives of productivity (20 movement / crane /
hour).
- Tariff measures, following the price fixation of the tariff of
aconage for containers.
Port and general marine environment protection
awareness is growing (see Mediterranean MoU
or Rempec involvement) but enforcement
mechanisms are usually (at least partly)
ineffective due to lack of financing and know
how. This is becoming a serious situation day by
day at a time when international environmental
protection risks and standards are becoming
higher due to
• Increased
maritime
traffic
in
the
Mediterranean region.
• High hydrocarbon fuel traffic in the
Mediterranean region (particularly through
Algeria and Bosporus).
Photo 7: Example of hydrocarbon & oil maritime
traffic in the MEDA region: Haydarpasa Port,
Morocco
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
Mediterranean Ports are faced with high security
risks, due to recent growth of terrorism and
illegal immigration globally and within the
Mediterranean basin. ISPS Code application
levels differ among MEDA countries (with the
exception of Cyprus and Malta), although there
is common acceptance of its provisions and
necessity. Most of the ports are in a quest for
expertise and necessary funds.
95
Module 5
Figure 9: Main port issues in MEDA countries
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
96
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Maritime Shipping and Ports
7.
7.1.
agreements and conventions regarding Maritime
Safety.
Maritime Safety / Security
and Global Navigation
Satellite System (GNSS)
General
Maritime Safety is a hot global issue nowadays
and is even more crucial for a closed and
ecologically fragile sea like the Mediterranean.
Considering
Euro-Mediterranean
maritime
transport flows today and their future growth
prospects, the EU has developed (under the
auspices of IMO) a quite strict and elaborate
regulating framework. The objective was to
improve on-board safety and environmental
protection through strict enforcement of
international
standards
within
the
Mediterranean by assisting MEDA partners to
the effective enforcement of all international
The effort is multidimensional, starting from full
adoption / ratification of international
agreements and conventions, up to effective
implementation (by setting up coordination and
control of suitable enforcement mechanisms).
7.2.
Adhesion to International
Conventions
The following paragraphs present the status of
conventions for MEDA countries in July 2003.
7.2.1.
Maritime Safety
The major maritime safety conventions applied
by the MEDA countries are the following:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Morocco
X
X
Syria
X
X
Tunisia
X
X
Turkey
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SUA Protocol 88
Malta
X
X
SUA Convention 88
X
X
X
X
INMARSAT amendments 98
Lebanon
X
X
INMARSAT amendments 94
X
X
X
INMARSAT OA 76
Jordan
X
X
INMARSAT Convention 76
X
X
X
X
STP Protocol 73
X
X
X
STP Agreement 71
Israel
X
SAR Convention 79
X
X
STCW-F Convention 95
X
X
STCW Convention 78
Egypt
X
SFV Protocol 93
X
X
CSC amendments 93
X
X
CSC Convention 72
Cyprus
COLREG Convention 72
X
LOAD LINES Protocol 88
X
LOAD LINES Convention 66
SOLAS Protocol 78
Algeria
IMO
STATUS
31/05/2003
SOLAS Protocol 88
SOLAS Convention 74
Table 26: Maritime Safety Conventions signed by MEDA countries
X
Source: IMO
97
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
The relevant conventions are the following ones:
• International Convention for the Safety of
Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974.
• International Convention on Load Lines
(LL), 1966.
• Special Trade Passenger Ships Agreement
(STP), 1971.
• Protocol on Space Requirements for Special
Trade Passenger Ships, 1973.
• Convention on the International Regulations
for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREG),
1972.
• International
Convention
for
Safe
Containers (CSC), 1972.
• Convention on the International Maritime
Satellite Organisation (INMARSAT), 1976.
• The Torremolinos International Convention
for the Safety of Fishing Vessels (SFV),
1977.
•
•
•
•
International Convention on Standards of
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping
for Seafarers (STCW), 1978.
International Convention on Standards of
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping
for Fishing Vessel Personnel (STCW-F),
1995.
International Convention on Maritime
Search and Rescue (SAR), 1979.
Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Acts against the Safety of Maritime
Navigation (SUA), 1988.
7.2.2.
Marine Environment Protection
The major marine environment conventions
applied by the MEDA countries are the
following:
98
X
X
X
X
Malta
X
Morocco
X
Syria
X
Tunisia
X
Turkey
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ANTI FOULING 2001
BUNKERS CONVENTION 2001
OPRC/HNS 2000
HNS Convention 96
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lebanon
OPRC Convention 90
X
X
X
X
Jordan
Source: IMO
X
X
SALVAGE Convention 89
X
X
X
X
NUCLEAR Convention 71
X
X
X
FUND Protocol 92
Israel
X
X
X
FUND Protocol 76
X
X
FUND Convention 71
X
X
CLC Protocol 92
Egypt
CLC Protocol 76
X
CLC Convention 69
Cyprus
INTERVENTION Protocol 73
X
INTERVENTION Convention 69
X
London Convention Protocol 96
Marpol 73/78 (Annex V)
X
London Convention 72
Marpol 73/78 (Annex IV)
X
Marpol Protocol 97 (Annex VI)
Marpol 73/78 (Annex III)
Algeria
IMO
STATUS
31/05/2003
Stockholm Agreement 96
Marpol 73/78 (Annex I/II)
Table 27: Maritime Environment Conventions signed by MEDA countries
Maritime Shipping and Ports
The relevant conventions are the following ones:
• International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified
by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto
(Marpol 73/78).
• International Convention Relating to
Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil
Pollution Casualties (Intervention), 1969.
• Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other
Matter (LDC), 1972.
• International Convention on Oil Pollution
Preparedness, Response and Cooperation
(OPRC), 1990.
• Protocol on Preparedness, Response and
Cooperation to pollution Incidents by
Hazardous and Noxious Substances, 2000
(HNS Protocol).
• International Convention on the Control of
Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships
(AFS), 2001.
• International Convention for the Control and
Management of Ships' Ballast Water and
Sediments, 2004.
• International Convention on Civil Liability
for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC), 1969.
• International
Convention
on
the
Establishment of an International Fund for
Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage
(FUND), 1971.
• Convention relating to Civil Liability in the
Field of Maritime Carriage of Nuclear
Material (NUCLEAR), 1971.
• International Convention on Liability and
Compensation for Damage in Connection
with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious
Substances by Sea (HNS), 1996.
• International Convention on Civil Liability
for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001.
• International Convention on Salvage
(SALVAGE), 1989.
As already noted for the IMO conventions,
ratification is not a warranty for efficient
implementation. This is the case for the port
reception installations imposed by Marpol that
should have been implemented a long time ago.
However,
a
new
MEDA
programme,
implemented by the Rempec, is set up to enhance
progress demonstrating the lack of correct
installations
presently.
Moreover,
this
programme is progressing slowly. On the
contrary, Algeria, following the cooperation
agreement of the three Maghreb countries
(managed by the Rempec on EU funding) that
deals with the fight against maritime pollution,
is now implementing a legislation that should
follow the EU record, in particular with 'préfets
maritimes'.
7.2.3.
Harmonisation and Implementation of
Maritime conventions
From the tables above, it is observed that the
level of compliance / harmonisation varies
significantly between countries. Most of the
countries have adopted some basic Maritime
Safety international agreements but there is a
significant gap left yet to be covered. Only
Cyprus and Malta have practically transposed
the relevant EU legislation by 1 May 2004, as
part of the accession process obligations. At the
same time, Turkey has just started running an
EU financed Twinning Project to harmonise
Maritime Safety legislation and build up PSC &
FSC capacity.
However, all countries have expressed their
strong interest and intention to improve their
Maritime Safety record by adopting /
harmonising their legislation to EU standards
and by enforcing their implementation.
Furthermore, they have expressed their need for
support in the process.
Since July 1997, the Mediterranean MoU on
Port State Control has taken an important role
in ensuring strict application of the international
standards in maritime safety and marine
environment protection for shipping within the
territorial waters of signatory states (Algeria,
Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia,
Turkey, Palestinian Authority, Lebanon and
Jordan). This was to be achieved starting with a
target of annual total inspections corresponding
to 15% of the estimated number of individual
foreign merchant ships. However, currently the
Mediterranean MoU effectiveness seems to be
facing problems in meeting its objectives due to
lack of the recourses (expertise and funds)
needed to support the necessary mechanisms.
As far as for the real level of Maritime Safety
implementation, the Paris MoU Annual Report
for 2002 on Port State Control in foreign ports
has produced the following table, summing up
deficiencies and detentions.
99
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Table 28: Country Port State Control evaluation results by Paris MoU (2002)
Flag
State
Detention
%
Detentions
Deficiencies
%
Inspections
with deficiencies
Inspections
Black – Grey – White List
Algeria
28.81
17
93.22
55
59 Black-very High Risk
Cyprus
7.43
95
61.30
784
1.279 Balck-Medium High Risk
Egypt
13.24
9
83.82
57
Israel
0.00
0
0.00
0
Jordan
33.33
1
100.00
3
Lebanon
26.98
17
87.30
55
7.39
121
63.71
1.043
Morocco
14.52
9
75.81
47
Syria
19.82
22
85.59
95
111 Black-Very High Risk
Tunisia
35.71
5
71.43
10
14 Black-Medium Risk
Turkey
18.78
160
79.23
675
852 Black-Very High Risk
7.98
1 577
57.20
11.307
Malta
World
totals &
averages
68 Black-Medium Risk
13 White
3
23
63 Black-Very High Risk
1.637 Black-Medium Risk
62 Black-High Risk
19.766
Source: Paris MoU 2002 Report, pp 26-28
23
100
Only 3 ships were inspected; therefore the list classification (which implies a minimum of 10 inspections) is unavailable.
Maritime Shipping and Ports
The results show a quite poor application level
for MEDA countries stemming from poor
harmonisation
but
mainly
from
poor
enforcement.
In fact, only Israel shows a clean record. Malta
and Cyprus, although have produced recently a
significant improvement falling below the total
average detention level, are still black-listed
needing more time to assimilate new legislation,
restructuring and control procedures. Algeria,
within the Mediterranean, shows a poor record
(however, great parts of its sea-borne exports are
carried out, essentially, under another flag). Very
poor results were presented for the other MEDA
countries, too.
First, a serious lack in organisation, staff and
expertise of the maritime control authorities was
identified in most countries.
• In Syria, the department of the Ministry of
Transport in charge of issues concerning
maritime safety rules and regulations
consists of only 3 clerks of medium-level
education.
• In Lebanon, the problem was even more
pronounced as a Maritime Authority is about
to be formed.
• In Jordan, the new Maritime Authority is
just starting organisation and systematic
action. This new authority is intended to act
as a regulatory body to control and develop
Maritime Sector in Jordan and to set up an
organisation structure and detailed job
description for all officers within the
Authority to perform the duties and
responsibilities allocated to the Authority by
its law, particularly on FSI , PSC , Ships
Registration , International Relations
,following up International Maritime
Conventions and Seafarers Affairs, Morocco,
Maritime Safety issues have been treated in
the Equipment and Transport Ministry. A
law project defining a new Maritime Code
project is being considered (it represents an
update of all regulations organising the
maritime transport, in order for these
regulations to respect all international
standards). A fully organised and staffed
PSC department is established Morocco
shows a real commitment to be associated
with the recent EU initiatives following the
'Prestige' disaster.
•
•
In Tunisia, the PSC department in the
Directorate General allows for 16 highqualified inspectors and was recently staffed
by personnel trained in France and in
Sweden (Malmö). However, there is still a
lot to be done regarding the organisation,
personnel, equipment and training for the
Flag & Port State Control Authority.
In Algeria, local authorities are working to
improve maritime safety along the coast,
and to actively cooperate with neighbouring
countries on regional action; they have also
called on the EU to support the training of
maritime experts.
‘Algeria has always been in favour of a clean and
prosperous Mediterranean, and today's decision
to set up a joint expert group to devise a
programme of cooperation in this area is of key
importance in the Algeria-EU Association
Agreement. Taking international air traffic
control systems as a model, we could work
together to introduce a similar system for
maritime safety’
Abdelmalek Sellal, Algerian Transport Minister
Cyprus and Malta have already fully
transposed EU legislation and, through preaccession funds, they have fully organised
and staffed Port State Control and Flag
State Implementation mechanisms.
• Turkey is facing severe problems but has
currently started running an EU financed
twinning project to harmonise legislation
and built up PSC & FSC capacity. Although
progress is slow, the process is on its way.
A common problem in most countries, which is
also true in some EU-15 countries, is that
maritime safety and prevention of pollution by
ships, and all actions linked with them, often
calls for action by several different ministries;
the latter are not always well coordinated and
the definition of ‘who does what’ is not always
sufficient.
•
7.3.
VTS-VTMIS
A VTS (Vessel Traffic System) or a VTMIS
(Vessel Traffic Monitoring and Information
System) are no doubt important for the following
reasons:
• Facilitation of vessel traffic.
• Decrement of marine accidents.
• Improvement of offered search and rescue
services, and.
101
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
•
Protection of marine environment pollution
and shore pollution.
For a closed sea like Mediterranean, with thick
traffic, very high oil sea-borne traffic, increased
levels of illegal immigration and smuggling using
obsolete ships, the application of vessel traffic
monitoring is more than necessary.
In the EU, it has to be underlined that the
Directive (2002/59/EC) introduces notification
procedures in European waters, establishing a
Community vessel traffic monitoring, control and
information system. Ships in EU waters are
required to fit automatic identification systems
and voyage data recorders to facilitate accident
investigation. Furthermore, along the lines of the
EU-wide vessel traffic monitoring and
information system (see the project 'Vessel
Traffic Management and Information System
Network'), one can clearly understand the need
for a Mediterranean VTMIS.
In the MEDA Region, the current situation is as
shown in Table 29.
7.4.
Maritime Security
As previously mentioned, Mediterranean Ports
are faced with high security risks, due to recent
growth of terrorism and illegal immigration
globally and within the Mediterranean basin.
ISPS Code application levels differ among
MEDA countries (with the exception of Cyprus
and Malta), although there is common
acceptance of its provisions and necessity. Most
of the ports are in a quest for expertise and
necessary funds.
Regarding on-board security, all MEDA
countries are members of the IMO and therefore
ISPS code on-board provisions are mandatory.
However, as this concerns recent international
developments, the implementation by ship owners
(public or private) is not yet finalised.
In both cases (on-board and port facilities
security), support measures to assist on setting
up effective enforcement mechanisms and
provision of trainers/ training are strongly
recommended.
102
7.5.
Maritime Education & Training
In the field of Seafarers training, the Convention
of the IMO on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers
(STCW) prevails. It was incorporated into the
EU legislation via the Council Directive
94/58/EC and revised in 1998 to include the
1995 revision of the STCW Convention and this
led to the development of Council Directive
2001/25/EC. According to the EU legislation,
officers on board EU-flagged ships must have
undergone specific training and hold a certificate
recognised under the STCW Convention.
Additionally, provisions for Port State control
inspections are included.
All MEDA countries have ratified the STCW
1978 Convention, but not its amendments when
revised in 1995. They should be strongly
encouraged to ratify them.
As to the level of maritime education, some
MEDA countries have developed training and
education centres. More specifically:
• In Egypt, the Arab Academy for Science and
Technology & Maritime Transport in
Alexandria incorporating the College of
Maritime Transport and Technology provides
training to seamen of all levels (from sailors
to masters) with state-of-the-art equipment
and methods (including simulators). It
operates and maintains a large number of
teaching and training aids and facilities,
among which is the new modern training
ship AIDA IV - in addition to a considerable
number of simulators, laboratories, floating
units and technical marine centres such as
Fire-fighting and Survival at Sea Centres,
Marine Pollution Combating Centre, Tanker
Operation Simulators, a planetarium,
models, workshops and laboratories in
seamanship, chat work, cargo handling,
radar, navigational aids and other
navigation-related training facilities. The
Academy has an excellent reputation
particularly in the Arab maritime world with
well-developed regional activity.
• In Jordan the Jordan Maritime Institute was
established to develop Maritime training and
education.
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Table 29: VTS / VTMIS equipment
Country
VTS / VTMIS equipment
Comment
Algeria
Absence of VTS-VTMIS
Cyprus
A 12 mile range VTS is installed. System
currently upgraded to VTMIS.
Egypt
VTS systems in major ports
Israel
Major ports are equipped
Jordan
A VTS system for the Red Sea is being
developed
Lebanon
VTS equipment recently installed in Beirut port
Malta
The country is in the process of setting up a
local Vessel Traffic System (VTS), by virtue of a
twinning agreement between Malta and France,
which is funded by EU Pre-Accession Funds.
This project could be extended to VTMIS as
Malta could be nominated as a regional VTMIS
centre.
The initial costs of the VTS / VTMIS
system extension are estimated at
around EUR 7 million, although the
final figure will depend upon
feasibility studies, which will be
conducted shortly.
Morocco
A VTS is currently installed and operational in
the port of Casablanca. A VTS, funded by the
World Bank, is also installed in the port of
Tangiers and it will be ready shortly. It will be
integrated with VHF radio stations between the
two ports in the near future.
It is planned to develop and expand
the existing system alongside the
Atlantic Ocean coastline, integrating
it with VHF radio stations. For the
implementation of the above project,
the government of Morocco is seeking
technical assistance from EU.
Syria
Absence of VTS-VTMIS
Tunisia
Port Authorities already installed a VTS in the
entry of Tunis port in 2002. Future plans
include the installation of VTS in the ports of
Bizerte and Sfax as well as the installation of
VTS alongside the coast in order to control
traffic and avoid sea accidents and control
immigration traffic;
Turkey
The country has recently commissioned a first
VTMIS to cover Bosporus and Marmara
regions. The system is based on 7 radar stations,
and is fully operational since 2003.
VTS under modernisation in
Damietta.
The Strait of Istanbul connecting the
Black Sea to the Aegean Sea is one
of the major trade arteries in the
World with an average of 132
transits a day, second to the Straits
of Malacca.
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
103
Module 5
•
•
•
•
In Algeria, the 'Institut Supérieur Maritime
de Bou-Ismail' (ISM) is in charge of seamen
training (mainly of practical and technical
character) and runs small postgraduate
courses. Established in 1974, it presents a
good regional activity co-operating closely
with the Malmö Maritime University.
In Morocco, the Higher Institute of
Maritime Studies (ISEM) cooperates with
European Universities and also with Japan.
In Cyprus (Nicosia), there is the Higher
Technological Institute for the training of
marine engineer officers. Moreover, there is
the Hanseatic Marine Training School for
low level training in communications, safety
issues etc.
In Malta, education and training of
seafarers as officers of the merchant navy is
conducted in the Maritime Institute, a part
of Malta College of Arts, Science and
Technology. Additionally, in 1988, the
International Maritime Law Institute was
established by IMO for lawyers to specialise
in Maritime Law.
7.6.
GNSS
GNSS, and specifically EGNOS and Galileo are
widely accepted in the MEDA countries without
exceptions, due to the advantages they can bring
to maritime transport.
Egypt has participated to phase A of the
development of Galileo and it will probably
participate to phase B also, but the Egyptian
government has not yet reached a final decision.
It welcomes a navigation system such as Galileo,
oriented towards private initiative rather than
the military-oriented GPS.
Syria’s Civil Aviation is developing the
infrastructure for the facilitation of the Galileo
System.
The Moroccan government remains keen to
participate in the implementation phase of
Galileo and further development of the necessary
infrastructure. It has already installed a ground
station for EGNOS and officially requested, in
August 2004, to join the Galileo programme.
Tunisia’s interest was confirmed with its
candidature to host the future Galileo
Cooperation Office.
104
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
The EURO-MED GNSS project is highly needed
to promote
awareness and
technology
assimilation through its demonstration and
training activities. Partnerships and networking
will surely be a longer-range objective.
Maritime Shipping and Ports
8.
Findings and
Recommendations
8.1. General
The purpose of this Chapter is to provide a
recapitulation of the main Improvement
Measures that are needed for the advancement of
the maritime transport sector in the MEDA
region. It should be noted here that these
measures are directed only towards the
institutional and policy aspects (Scope of the
Main Contract), as the infrastructure and
physical aspects of the sector are tackled
separately under the Infrastructure Contract. The
Improvement Measures were derived based on a
comprehensive analysis of the status of the
maritime transport sector in the various
Mediterranean countries (refer to Chapters 3
through 7). The Improvement Measures are
presented separately for each of the following
main topics:
• Maritime Transport Policy.
• Maritime Shipping.
• Ports.
• Maritime Safety.
8.2.
Improvement Measures Related
to Maritime Transport Policy
Apart from a few coordinating bodies, such as
the UAPNA, there is not really a common
maritime policy in the MEDA region, for both
port and shipping: In some countries, the State
still owns ports and maritime fleet, whereas in
some other, opportunities for BOT in ports and
private shipping are already a reality.
Meanwhile, the maritime transport safety topic
represents an exception as it is seriously
considered and shared by all countries, with a
real will to be handled in relation with the EU.
Based on the above, and on the general facts
underlined, it is obvious that several
improvement measures need to be taken at a
national and/or regional level to develop the
homogenisation of the maritime policy. In this
respect, some improvement measures were put
forward and conveyed to the EuroMed Transport
Project (Main Contract) by the officials of the
MEDA countries at the time of the country visits
and regular NCT meetings. These measures are
detailed in each relevant chapter (maritime
shipping, ports, maritime safety). A specific
improvement measure would be needed to assist
some MEDA countries in the development of a
more common maritime policy. Such a measure
could be sponsored by the EU, and support to the
development of an integrated policy framework
could take place through training seminars and
specific studies allowing the Ministries of
Transport to develop their Strategic Transport
Planning capacities.
Figure 10: Maritime Transport integration
Source: EuroMed Transport Project (Main Contract)
105
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
8.3.
Improvement Measures Related
to Maritime Shipping
Maritime
transport
possesses a predominant
position (relative to other
modes of trade) in crossborder trade of MEDA countries with significant
growth potential both in North-South and SouthSouth directions.
A predominant
position
Transport flows between the two shores of the
Mediterranean are very dense, and the EU is the
main trade partner for a large number of MEDA
countries, in particular the Maghreb. At the
same time, maritime traffic is the predominant
transport mode used (95% of MEDA countries’
external trade is exchanged with the EU and of
this 80% through maritime transport). Growth
prospects of the intra-Mediterranean trade are
quite good, favoured by culture and recent
political climate.
Main market segments are general cargo
(containerised & non-containerised), dry bulk,
liquid bulk, passengers and cruiser traffic.
In-bound / out-bound imbalances and low
containerisation create non-competitive unit
transport costs conditions.
Egypt, Morocco, Malta and Turkey possess a
strategic position for international maritime
transport within Mediterranean. At the same
time, Turkey is dominating maritime trade (132
million tonnes) but its main commercial ports
are suffering severe inefficiencies and underinvestment, as controlled by Turkish Railways
(TCDD). Malta is already an established
transhipment hub (Marsaxlokk) with high growth
potential. Algeria and Syria demonstrate high
volume liquid bulk traffic (fuel) while Maghreb
countries possess relatively high Ro-Ro traffic.
Finally, Cyprus and Malta show (a) significant
sea-cruiser passenger traffic with high growth
potential, and (b) well-developed private sector
and an open market.
Competition in shipping may
be significantly improved.
Firstly, there is a strong need
for competent maritime authorities with clear
mandate, assigned to the task of planning,
implementing and monitoring suitable legal and
Competition
106
regulatory frameworks to promote and ensure
fair competition. With the exception of Malta
and Cyprus, maritime authorities, if present,
were not as effective as they should be.
Inefficient enforcement mechanisms for Flag
State and Port State Control were sheltering
substandard shipping that, apart from the
extensive
maritime safety and marine
environment risks, is a main source of unfair
competition.
Restrictions to maritime market access are
manifested by reserving cabotage traffic to
national flag carriers, as well as by the presence
of entry barriers to foreign investment in the
form of local majority requirement, unilateral
reservation of a high domestic traffic share for
local carriers, and restrictions on the use of
shipping agents. Large state-owned fleets were
present in most of the countries witnessing
extensive government involvement in the market
with high possibility of unfair competition
practices such as preferential treatment, state
aid etc. However, their size is gradually
diminishing.
Competition is thought to be insignificantly
affected by a limited number of liner conferences
present in the Mediterranean Sea transport.
Short Sea Shipping is quite
limited mainly due to trade
barriers,
local
legislation,
absence of standardisation in
port / customs administrative procedures and
inter-modal loading, as well as inefficient port
services.
Short Sea
Shipping
Regional
cooperation
International and
with respect to maritime
regional cooperation transport (ports and
shipping lines) seems to
be strong due to the prevailing common Arab
culture in both the east and west the
Mediterranean basin. However, the effectiveness
of this cooperation seems to be quite low since
intra regional trade is minimal and maritime
traffic is even lower. Success of recent efforts to
establish regular lines between Maghreb and
Mashrek countries remains to be seen.
To support effective growth prospects and, at the
same time, to be in alignment with the EU
maritime policy, the majority of MEDA countries
Maritime Shipping and Ports
must consider several improvement measures. In
this respect, some improvement measures were
put forward and conveyed to the EuroMed
Transport Project (Main Contract) by the
officials of the MEDA countries at the time of
the country visits and regular NCT meetings:
• Promoting shipping market liberalisation
focusing on a legislation against unfair
competition practices (such as liner
conferences, State aid to state-owned
carriers etc), enhancing free cabotage, and
removing entry barriers for foreign
investment, through a specific study.
• Setting up competent maritime authorities
with a clear mandate, assigned to the task of
planning, implementing and monitoring
suitable maritime strategy with legal and
regulatory framework to promote and ensure
fair competition (including effective FSI and
PSC mechanisms in order to extinguish
substandard shipping), through a specific
study.
• Considering the opportunity of Ro-Ro
development in some Mediterranean routes
through a specific study.
8.4.
•
•
•
Improvement Measures Related
to Ports
Ports and their associated administration present
a major bottleneck to maritime transport growth
as they impede traffic flow with significant and
unpredictable time delays. At the same time,
port dues contribute to disproportionate
increases to the total unit transport costs.
Improved port passage facilitation through
higher port efficiency and competitiveness is
therefore a critical issue in boosting maritime
transport and shipping.
Important findings are as follows:
• MEDA ports present a major and serious
challenge in improving maritime transport
efficiency
and
safety
within
the
Mediterranean, between the EU and MEDA
countries.
• Port reform is strongly needed in almost
every country, but it is more mature in
Cyprus, Malta, Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and
Lebanon. Syria and Algeria should take
slower and more coordinated steps allowing
at the same time for the private sector to
mature. It must be noticed that, due to
variations between port reform parameters,
•
port reform plans need to be designed in a
customised manner per country, taking each
time into account the specific internal and
external environment. The port reform issues
are usually considered on a national (or just
on a port) basis. A more regional approach
could be interesting.
PPP already exists. This Private Sector
involvement is important where port traffic
ensures profitability without allowing
development of private monopolies.
Market Access to private port services by
providers already exists in the majority of
MEDA countries but at a variable level. A
development is desirable when not creating
problems with respect to maritime safety
and marine environment protection issues.
At the same time, fair competition (a 'level
playing field') – also developing at different
stages - should extend to the above two very
important parameters.
Alignment with EU standards concerning
maritime safety / security and environment
protection is generally progressing for some
MEDA countries, but regional differences
exist. Training of personnel from each
country on a regional or integrated MEDA
level should be considered. In that respect,
the role of relevant international institutions
like Rempec for example should be explored.
It shall be underlined that the adoption of
the new protocol to the Barcelona
Convention on emergency cases included the
implementation of the OMI conventions.
Rempec prepared a short-term programme
project for bringing together the Paris MoU
(and the 1995 EU Directive) and the
Mediterranean MoU.
Training of port technical and management
personnel
benefits from
a
correct
infrastructure. It represents a sector of
potential assistance on a regional basis (ILO
standards etc).
Based on the above, and on the general facts
underlined, it is quite clear that the port sector
modernisation represents a vital necessity for
most MEDA countries. In this respect, the
improvement measures listed below would be
needed and could be sponsored and/or funded by
the EU. It should be noted that these measures
were put forward and conveyed to the EuroMed
Transport Project (Main Contract) by the
107
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
officials of the MEDA countries at the time of
the country visits and regular NCT meetings:
• Promoting Port Reform, through training
seminars and a specific study.
• Providing integrated support on port reform
issues on a regional basis, by setting up
regional observatories (a general one for
MEDA countries or one for the Mashrek and
one for the Maghreb), through specific
studies.
• Improving port connections with hinterland
and supporting the inter-modal role of ports.
• Developing logistics platforms within and
close to ports in all countries, through
training seminars and specific studies.
• Promoting PPP and gradual market access
in all countries, through training seminars
and a specific study.
• Promoting competition in seaports within
the Mediterranean by lifting cross-border
trade barriers (through a training seminar
and specific studies) and by liberalising port
tariffs and rationalising port labour
organisation in all countries (through a
specific study).
• Fighting inefficiency of administration
procedures within ports (customs and
immigration) by process rationalisation,
effective computerisation (IT and EDI
technology) and development of regional
cooperation, through training seminars and
specific studies, as well as technical
assistance.
8.5.
Improvement Measures Related
to Maritime Safety and
Maritime Security
All MEDA countries are quite
sensitive
and
aware
of
Safety into
account
Maritime Safety and Marine
Environment Protection issues
as these issues are considered of paramount
importance for maritime transport in the
Mediterranean, imposed by the following factors:
• The Mediterranean is a closed sea.
• Disproportionately high oil sea-borne traffic
(Algeria, Bosphours straits).
• High levels of immigration and international
terrorism.
However, there is a lot to be done about
legislation harmonisation (alignment with EU
'acquis' and IMO standards) but mainly with the
108
enforcement
agreements.
of
international
conventions
/
Malta and Cyprus have already adopted EU
'acquis' in their legislation. Turkey is currently
involved in an EU financed twinning project
towards this objective. Other countries are also
thinking seriously to take action.
Regarding enforcement,
Flag State and Port State
Enforcement
Control mechanisms are
quite weak (mainly due to lack of assigned
resources) and ineffective with the exception of
Malta and Cyprus. All countries (with the
exception of Israel) are black listed in the Paris
MoU 2002 annual report with Algeria, Jordan,
Lebanon, Syria and Turkey classified in the
'VERY HIGH RISK' category. The problem
becomes complicated as these countries operate
state-owned shipping fleets while public funds
are very scarce (to flow to the national carriers)
and at the same time there is also a strong will
to make their state flag internationally more
attractive (convenience flag). The above
objectives are obviously contradictory and cannot
be accommodated without detrimental effects to
maritime safety and marine environment
protection.
There is a slow but gradual
investment in Vessel Traffic
Systems for most countries (except
Algeria and Syria). However, these systems need
to be extended to cover the whole national
coastline. Furthermore, they need to be upgraded
to Vessel Traffic Management Information
Systems and additionally to be interlinked with
neighbouring country systems in order to develop
an effective Vessel Traffic Monitoring System for
the whole Mediterranean.
VTS
GNSS is widely accepted in its
general
principles,
without
exceptions. However, if the objectives are
partnerships and networking within MEDA
region, there is a strong need to promote
systematically awareness and technology
assimilation through demonstration and training
activities (MEDA GNSS project).
GNSS
Maritime Shipping and Ports
In general, there is an
abundance of seafarers.
Education and training is
feasible
in
various
specialised institutes. However, significantly
more resources must be spent to get access to
specialised expertise and more frequent
continuous training to all seafarers.
Education and
training on
maritime safety
Education and training with respect to Maritime
Safety and Environment Protection at medium
and low level is feasible in various specialised
institutes. At high level there is significant need
for know how (IMO, Rempec). Nevertheless,
significantly more resources must be assigned in
each country to achieve for all seafarers and
administration systematic and frequent access to
specialised and expert continuous training.
Based on the above, and on the general facts
underlined, maritime safety in the MEDA region
is seriously taken into account, but this effort
must be supported. In this respect, improvement
measures would be needed to assist the MEDA
countries that are ‘less advanced’ in the domain
of maritime safety. Such measures could be
sponsored and/or funded by the EU and would
include the following. Again, it should be noted
that these improvement measures were put
forward and conveyed to the EuroMed Transport
Project (Main Contract) by the officials of the
MEDA countries at the time of the country visits
and regular NCT meetings:
• Implementing a detailed gap analysis
(through a specific study) by country to
identify the exact compliance level
(signature, ratification, adoption and
implementation) of the Maritime Safety and
Environment framework and recommend a
harmonisation action plan for international
conventions and agreements that must be
transposed and ratified.
• Training of upper government maritime and
port authorities on Maritime safety.
• Promoting the setting up of a Mediterranean
VTMIS cooperation framework along the
lines of action sponsored by the SAFEMED
project (preliminary studies, ad hoc training
programme for managers and operators of
the traffic monitoring centres, cooperation
with EIB for hardware financing).
• Systematically promoting awareness and
technology
assimilation
through
•
demonstration and training activities
(MEDA GNSS project).
Education & Training on Maritime Security:
in both cases, on-board and port facilities
security, support measures to assist on
setting up effective enforcement mechanisms
and provision of trainers/ training are
strongly recommended in order to:
- Develop a clear understanding of the
current EU legislative framework with
respect to security risks treatment in
ports and on board.
Provide a systematic overview of
actions, tools and current experience for
implementing
the
international
framework of maritime security (SOLAS
Chapter XI/2 and the ISPS Code) with
related case studies on ISPS Code
implementation.
- Prepare a critical group of executives
per country in order to promote
legislation harmonisation on maritime
security issues with EU (legislation
adoption and implementation).
Moreover, the training of seafarers is of crucial
importance to the implementation of Maritime
Safety in every country.
109
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
9. Abbreviations & Acronyms
Acronym
Meaning
International convention on the
control of harmful anti-fouling
systems on ships
Automatic Identification of Ships
Aqaba Port Corporation (Jordan)
Arab Port Union
Aqaba Free Zone (Jordan)
French Consulting Group
Built Operate Transfer
Compagnie Algéro-Libyenne de
Transport Maritime
Central European Countries
Transport Study Centre for
Western Mediterranean
Cargo's proportion of General
Average
Compagnie Générale Maritime
Communication and Information
Resource Centre Administrator
International convention on civil
liability for oil pollution damage
Compagnie Maritime
d’Affrètement
Compagnie Nationale de
Navigation (Algeria)
Algerian Shipping Company
Convention on the International
Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea
Compagnie Marocaine de
Navigation
See CTN
Crude Oil Washing
International Convention for Safe
Containers
Compagnie Tunisienne de
Navigation
European Community Shipowners’
Association
Electronic Data Interchange
European Economic Area
European Geostationary Overlay
Services
European Investment bank
European Maritime Safety
Agency
Ente Nazionale Di Assistenza Al
Volo (Italian Company for Air
Navigation Services)
Acronym
EQASIS
IAPH
ENTMV
Entreprise Nationale de Transport
Maritime des Voyageurs
(Algeria)
EPIC
Etablissement Public Industriel et
Commercial
AFS
AIS
APC
APU
ASEZA
BCEOM
BOT
CALTRAM
CEC
CETMO
CGA
CGM
CIRCA
CLC
CMA
CNAN
COLREG
COMANAV
COTUNAV
COW
CSC
CTN
ECSA
EDI
EEA
EGNOS
EIB
EMSA
ENAV
110
EQUASIS
ERIKA 1 & 2
ESA
ESCWA
Meaning
Database on vessel condition
Equasis is an information
gathering organization developed
by the European Commission and
the French Maritime
Administration to collect existing
safety-related information on
ships from both public and private
sources for posting on the Internet
Legislative measures by the EU to
strengthen Port State Inspection
European Space Agency
United Nations Economic and
Social Commission for Western
Asia
ESN
European Short Sea Network
ESPO
European Sea Ports Organisation
EU
EUROS
European Union
European Community Register
Facilitation of International
Maritime Traffic
Foreign Direct Investment
Flag State Control
Flag State Implementation
Federation of Transport Worker's
Unions in the European Union
International convention on the
establishment of an international
fund for compensation for oil
pollution damage
A cluster of studies supporting
Galileo design consolidation
European Satelite Navigational
Programme
Beirut Port Authority
FAL
FDI
FSC
FSI
FST
FUND
Galilei
Galileo
GERB
GLONASS
Global Orbiting Navigational
Satellite System (Russia)
GMDSS
Global Maritime Distress and
Safety System
GMT
GNSS
GPS
GRT
GSM
IBC
Global Maritime Tunisia
Global Navigation Satellite
Systems
Global Positioning System (U.S.)
Gross Registered Tonnage
Global System for Mobile
Communication
International association of Ports
and Harbours
International Code for the
Construction and Equipment of
Ships Carrying Dangerous
Chemicals in Bulk
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Acronym
IGC
ILO
IMDG
IMO
IMTC
INF
INMARSAT
ISEM
ISM
ISPS
IT
JNPT
LDC
LL
LLMC
Maghreb region
Marco Polo
MARPOL
Mashrek region
MED
MEDA
MIDAN
MIS
MMA
MMSI
MoU
MSC
MTD
NCT
NCT2
NUCLEAR
ODEP
OECD
Meaning
International Code for the
Construction and Equipment of
Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in
Bulk
International Labour Organisation
International Maritime Dangerous
Goods code
International Maritime
Organisation
International Maritime Transport
Corp. (Morocco)
International Code for the Safe
Carriage of Packaged Irradiated
Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and
High-Level Radioactive Wastes on
Board Ships
International Maritime Satellite
Organisation
Institut Supérieur d’Etudes
Maritimes (Morocco)
International Standard Maritime
International Ship and Port
Facility Security Code
Information Technology
Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust
Convention on the prevention of
marine pollution by dumping of
wastes and other matter
International convention on Load
Lines
Convention on Limitation of
Liability for Maritime Claims
Tunisia, Morocco & Algeria
Acronym
PAX
Meaning
See IMO
Office de la Marine Marchande et
des Ports (Tunisia)
International convention on oil
pollution preparedness, response
and cooperation
Convention relating to the
carriage of passengers and their
luggage by Sea
Passenger
PPP
Public Private Partnership
PSC
Port State Control
Preliminary System Design
Review
Public Service Obligations
Centre Régional Méditerranéen de
lutte contre la pollution marine
Regional Marine Pollution
Emergency Response Centre for
the Mediterranean Sea
Roll On-Roll Off
Regional Transport Action Plan
EuroMed cooperation on maritime
safety & pollution from ships
Licensed Port Handlers
Association (Cyprus)
South African Port Operations
Search And Rescue
Segregated Ballast Tank
The Torremolinos international
convention for the safety of fishing
vessels
The International Convention for
the Safety Of Life At Sea (1974)
Short Sea Shipping
Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping
for Seafarers
Special Trade Passenger Ships
Agreement
Convention for the suppression of
unlawful acts against the safety of
maritime navigation
OMI
OMMP
OPRC
PAL
PSDR
PSO
Rempec
Ro-Ro
RTAP
SAFEMED
SALA
SAPO
SAR
SBT
SFV
SOLAS
International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from
Ships
Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon,
Syria, Palestinian Authority
Mediterranean
Mediterranean Countries
Middle East Air Navigation
Management Information System
Malta Maritime Authority
Maritime Mobile Service Identity
Memorandum of Understanding
Maritime Safety Committee
Maritime Transport Department
National Counterpart Team
Second National Counterpart
Teams' Meeting –March 2004
Convention relating to civil
liability in the field of maritime
carriage of nuclear material
Office D’Exploitation des Ports
(Morocco)
Organization for the Economic
Cooperation and Development
SSS
STCW
STP
SUA
TAMP
Tarrif Authority for Major Ports
TCDD
Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devlet
Demiryollari (Turkish Railway and
Ports)
TEN-T
Trans European Transport
Network
TEU
TONNAGE
UAPNA
Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units
(intermodal shipping container)
International Convention on
Tonnage Measurement of Ships
Union des Administrations
Portuaires du Nord de l'Afrique
111
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Acronym
UMTS
UNCTAD
VSL
VTMIS
VTS
WTO
ZIM
112
Meaning
Universal Mobile
Telecommunication System
United Nations Conference on
Trade & Development
Vessel
Vessel Traffic Management and
Information Services
Vessel Traffic Surveillance /
Services
World Trade Organization
Zim Integrated Shipping Services
Ltd (Israel)
Maritime Shipping and Ports
10.
References
10.1 Bibliography
2nd Annual European Energy & Transport
Conference – Building Energy & Transport
Infrastructures for tomorrow’s Europe, 11
November 2002
Apostolos
Kountras,
VTMIS
&
VTS
Implementation in Ports – the Hellenic
Experience by Telematics for Transport &
Environment Marketing & Sales Dept.,
INTRACOM S.A.
Barcelona Declaration, Euro-Mediterranean
Conference, 27-28 November 1995
CETMO, Bulletin CETMO / No 50 Dossier / Avril
2002, Réflexions sur le transport maritime de
marchandises entre les deux rives de la
Méditerranée Occidentale
Commission Européenne, DG TREN, Transport
Maritime à Courte Distance – Approche
pragmatique des enjeux et des perspectives
Consortium of COWI, ATKINS, BCEOM, GOPA,
TYPSA, Etude Comparative des Coûts de
Transport
Maritime
–
La
situation
concurrentielle de la Tunisie, EU – Programme
MEDA / FIPA Tunisie / Ministère du
développement
et
de
la
Coopération
Internationale février 2004
Convention de coopération dans le domaine
maritime entre les pays de l'Union du Maghreb
Arabe
EuroMed Partnership Regional Strategy Paper
2002-2006 & Regional Indicative Programme
2002-2004
EuroMed Report proceedings of 5th EuroMediterranean Conference of Foreign Ministers,
Valencia 22 April 2002
EuroMed
Report:
Enhancing
EuroMediterranean cooperation on Transport &
Energy (22 March 2001)
European Commission - DG Transport, Guide to
the Transport 'Acquis', Februaruy 1999
European Commission, Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament on the development of a EuroMediterranean Transport Network, Brussels 24
June2003, COM(2003) 376 final
European Commission, Communication from the
Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on
enhancing maritime transport security, Proposal
for a Regulation of the European Parliament and
of the Council on enhancing ship and port facility
security
European Commission, DG TREN / DG External
Relations / EuropeAid Cooperation Office,
Transport & Energy Infrastructure in South East
Europe, 15 October 2001
European Commission, DG TREN / EuropeAid
Cooperation
Office,
EURO-MED
GNSS
PROJECT – Project Guidelines, July 2003
European Commission, DG TREN, Maritime
Policy – European Union legislation and
objectives for sea transport
European Commission, DG TREN, Proposal for
a Directive of the European Parliament and of
the Council on enhancing port security,
COM(2004) 76 final 2004/0031 (COD)
European Commission, Green Paper on Seaports
& Maritime Infrastructure (COM (1997) 678
final of 10 December 1997)
European Commission, Ports & Port Services - a
bottleneck in door-to-door Short-Sea-Shipping
(SSS) and a potential solution, Fiche submitted
for consideration through ECSA on 28 April
2000
European Commission, Ports & Port Services - a
bottleneck in door-to-door SHORT SEA
SHIPPING (SSS) and a potential solution, Fiche
submitted for consideration through ECSA on 28
April 2000
European Commission, Report from the
Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament – Annual Report of the MEDA
Programme 2000, June 2001
113
Module 5
European Commission, Report from the
Commission to the European Parliament –
Annual Report of the MEDA Programme 2000,
June 2001
European Commission, White Paper, European
Transport Policy for 2010 – time to decide, 12
September 2001
Eurostat Statistics
Greek National VTMIS, Hellenic Ministry of
Merchant Marine, Greece August 2003
Helsinki Declaration 'Towards a European wide
Transport Policy – A set of common principles',
Third Pan-European Transport Conference, 2325 June 1997
Lisbon Declaration of Mediterranean Transport
Conference, European Conference of Ministers of
Transport, 23-24 January 1997
Proceedings of 'The European Sea Ports
Conference 2004: European Sea Ports in a
Dynamic Market - Ports and the EU Agenda',
Rotterdam, 17-18 June 2004 (organised by
ESPO in association with the Port of Rotterdam)
Proceedings of 1st Euro-Mediterranean GNSS
Seminar, Cairo 16-17 February 2003
Proceedings of 1st Patras International Port
Conference on 'Ports contribution to Regional
Development' organised by Patras Port Authority
S.A., Patras 17-18 October 2003
Proceedings of 2nd Mediterranean Logistics &
Transport Forum on 'Business opportunities and
best practices in the MED', Barcelona 26 May
2004
Workshop on 'Information and communication
technologies as a means of facilitating
international transport in the Mediterranean',
Madrid, REG MED 3-4 June 2004
Abdelaziz MANTRACH, La facilitation du
transport maritime international et du passage a
Casablanca, Tunis, REG MED, 9-11 octobre
2003
Mahmoud BOUSBIA, La facilitation du
transport maritime international et du passage
114
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
portuaire: le cas de l’Algérie, Tunis, REG MED,
9-11 octobre 2003
La
facilitation
du
transport
maritime
international et du passage a portuaire en
Méditerranée – Interventions et Rapports, Tunis,
REG MED, 9-11 octobre 2003
Rempec, Regional Strategy for the prevention of
and response to marine pollution from ships
(revised second draft as at 18 May 2004)
World Bank, Port Reform Toolkit, World Bank
Technical Paper No 527
UNCTAD 1978, Port Development: A handbook
for Planners in developing Countries
UNCTAD 1987, Measuring and evaluating port
performance and productivity, UN Geneva
UNCTAD 1993, Strategic planning for port
authorities, UN Geneva
UNCTAD 1995, Strategic port pricing, UN
Geneva
UNCTAD 1996, Financing Port Development,
UN Geneva
UNCTAD 1996, Sustainable development
strategies for cities and ports, UN Geneva
UNCTAD 1998, Guidelines for port authorities
and government on the privatisation of port
facilities, UN Geneva
UNCTAD 2003, Review of Maritime Transport
2003, UN New York & Geneva
Nabil Safwat, The facilitation of international
maritime transport and port passage in the
ESCWA countries in the East Mediterranean,
UN-ESCWA, 2003
.UN Economic Commission for Latin America
and
the
Caribbean
ECLAC,
Port
Modernisation: A pyramid of interrelated
challenges, 13 March 1999
World Bank, Technical Paper No 527, Transport
Policies for the Euro-Mediterranean Free-Trade
Area – An Agenda for Multi-modal Transport
Reform in the Southern Mediterranean
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Commission Directive 1999/19/EC of 18 March
1999 (OJ L 83 of 27 March 1999, p.48)
Commission Directive 2002/25/EC of 5 March
2002 (OJ L 98 of 15 April.2002, p. 21)
Commission Directive 2002/35/EC of 25 April
2002 (OJ L 112 of 27 April 2002, p. 21)
Commission Regulation (EC) N° 179/98 of 23
January 1998 (OJ L 19 of 24 January 1998,
p.35)
Council Directive 93/103/EC of 23 November
1993 concerning the minimum safety and health
requirements for work on board fishing vessels
(thirteenth individual Directive within the
meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive
89/391/EEC) OJ L 307, 13 December 1993, p.
0001-0017
Council Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December
1997 setting up a harmonised safety regime for
fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over
(OJ L 34 of 9 February 1998, p.1)
Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998
on safety rules and standards for passenger ships
(OJL 144 of 15 May 1998, p.1)
Council Directive 98/41/EC of 18 June 1998 on
the registration of persons sailing on board
passenger ships (OJ L 188 of 2 July 1998, p.
35)
Council Directive 99/35/EC of 29 April 1999 on
a system of mandatory surveys for the safe
operation of regular Ro-Ro ferry and high-speed
passenger craft services (OJ L 138 of 1 June
1999, p.1)
Council Regulation (EC) No 3051/95, of 8
December 1995 on the safety management of
roll-on/roll-off passenger ferries (Ro-Ro ferries) (OJ L 320 of 30 December 1995, p.14)
Directive 2001/105/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 19 December
2001 amending Council Directive 94/57/EC on
common rules and standards for ship inspection
and survey organisations and for the relevant
activities of maritime administrations (Official
Journal L 019 , 22 January 2002 P. 0009 –
0016)
Directive 2001/96/EC of the European
Parliament and the Council of 4 December 2001
establishing harmonised requirements and
procedures for the safe loading and unloading of
bulk carriers (OJ L 13 of 16 January 2002, p.9)
Directive 2002/59/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002
establishing a Community vessel traffic
monitoring and information system and repealing
Council Directive 93/75/EEC (OJ L 208, 05
August 2002 P. 0010 – 0027)
Directive 2003/24/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 14 April 2003
amending Council Directive 98/18/EC on safety
rules and standards for passenger ships - OJ L
123, 17 May 2003, p.0018-0021.
Directive 2003/25/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 14 April 2003
on specific stability requirements for Ro-Ro
passenger ships (OJ L 123 of 17 May 2003,
p.22). European Commission, Ports Package on
'Reinforcing Quality Service in Sea Ports: A Key
for European Transport) in the form of a
Directive Proposal (COM (2001) 35 final of 13
May 2001)
Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 18 February
2002 on the accelerated phasing-in of double
hull or equivalent design requirements for single
hull oil tankers and repealing Council regulation
(EC) No 2978/94 (OJ L 64 of 7 March 2002,
p.1)
Regulation (EC) No 1726/2003 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2003
amending Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 on the
accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or
equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil
tankers
Abdellah Meziane, Ports Secs en Algérie,
Algerian Containers Services, juillet 2001
Direction
des
infrastructures
maritimes,
Ministère des Travaux Public, octobre 2003
Loi No 98/05 du 25 juin 1998 modifiant et
complétant l'ordonnance No 76/80 du 23 octobre
1976 portant code maritime. La Loi No 98-05
juin 1998
115
Module 5
10.2. Websites
EuroMed Transport Project main website:
http://www.euromedtransport.org
IMO, International Maritime Organization:
http:// www.imo.org/index.htm
EMSA, European Maritime Safety Agency :
http://www.emsa.eu.int/
European Commission, DG TREN, Maritime
(includes Policy, Safety, Short-Sea-Shipping,
and Sea Ports)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/index_en.ht
ml
European Commission, DG TREN, GNSS
(Galileo)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/
galileo/index_en.htm
European Commission, DG External Relations,
Euro-Mediterranean Partnership,
http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/eur
omed/index.htm
Mediterranean Memorandum of Understanding
on Port State Control http://www.medmou.org
Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port
State Control:
www.parismou.org
VTMIS-NET, Transport RTD Programme:
http://www.cordis.lu/transport/src/vtmis.htm
CETMO - The Transport Study Center for the
Western Mediterranean:
http://www.cetmo.org
REG-MED - a thematic network coordinated by
CETMO is aiming to develop a common analysis
and discussion on the transport-related
regulatory framework in the Mediterranean:
http://www.reg-med.net/eng/index.html
Rempec - the Regional Marine Pollution
Emergency Response Centre for the
Mediterranean Sea: http://www.rempec.org
FEPORT - The Federation of European Private
Port Operators:
http://www.feport.be/
116
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
OECD - Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development (Maritime Transport
Committee):
http://www.oecd.org/department/0.2688.en_264
9_34367_1_1_1_1_1.00.html
ESPO, the European Sea Ports Organisation:
http://www.espo.be/
IAPH - International Association of Ports and
Harbors: http://www.iaphworldports.org/top.htm
The WORLD BANK GROUP -Ports and Logistics
http://www.worldbank.org/transport/prt_over.ht
m
ESCWA - The Economic Commission for
Western Asia: http://www.escwa.org.lb
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Appendix 1: Synthesis of an integrated Maritime Action Plan
Action lines
1.
Competition
and Market
Liberalisation
Shipping
Promote competition in maritime transport
within Mediterranean by lifting cabotage
restrictions, supporting the development of Short
Sea Shipping, minimisation of state-owned fleets
and of entry barriers to foreign investment (local
majority, unilateral reservation etc).
Set up competent maritime authorities with clear
mandate, assigned to the task of planning,
implementing and monitoring suitable maritime
strategy and legal / regulatory framework to
promote and ensure fair competition (including
effective FSI & PSC mechanisms in order to
extinguish substandard shipping).
Adopt legislation against unfair competition
practices such as liner conferences, state aid to
state-owned carriers etc.
Provide incentives to domestic and foreign
investment.
Promote port efficiency and port passage
facilitation.
Promote Short Sea Shipping within
Mediterranean region (see specific measures
below).
Ports
Promote Port Reform by developing and
implementing work force rationalisation plan
and suitable legal and regulatory framework
(necessary in all countries but more mature to
advance in Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Cyprus,
Lebanon and Jordan). Egypt, Lebanon,
Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Jordan should
focus on the implementation of their port
reform plans. Syria on the other hand should
start first with the development of a suitable
port strategic plan.
Major commercial Turkish ports under TCDD
should adopt a plan of becoming independent
port authorities.
Provide integrated support on port reform
issues on a regional basis, by setting up
regional observatories (one for Mashrek and
on for Maghreb)
Provide regional assistance for qualified Port
Sector training in the subjects of Port
operation, IT systems use, Maritime Safety /
Security, Marine Environment Protection Explore and encourage / develop regional
cooperation in that respect. Capitalise on
know how and experience of regional training
centres (e.g. Arab Maritime Academy, ISEM,
ISM), of international institutions like IMO
and Rempec and of ports regional associations
like UAPNA and UPA. Finally explore the
'Twinning' model for know how dissemination.
Improve port connections with hinterland
(Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt) and support the
inter-modal role of ports - development
logistics platforms within and close to ports in
all countries.
Modernise / develop Lattakia and Tartous
(Syria), Algiers (Algeria) and La
Goulette/Rades (Tunisia) ports investing
further in port infrastructure & equipment,
management, IT technology and staff training.
Promote PPP and gradual market access in
the ports of Aqaba, Beirut, major Egyptian
ports, Algiers, La Goulette/Rades, Casablanca,
ensuring profitability without allowing private
monopolies and obstructions in maritime
safety and marine environment issues. In
Syrian ports of Lattakia and Tartous ports,
PPP and market access must be seen within
the framework of a new port strategic plan
and the plan for economy liberalisation.
Privatise ground handling and introduce
IT/EDI application in Aqaba Port.
Promote port tariffs liberalisation and port
labour rationalisation in all countries.
Promote inter-port competition by lifting
cross-border trade barriers (see cases between
Morocco – Algeria, Turkey - Cyprus).
117
EuroMed Transport Project
Main Contract
Diagnostic Study
Module 5
Action lines
Shipping
Ports
Promote PPP and gradual market access in
all countries, ensuring profitability without
allowing private monopolies and obstructions
in maritime safety and marine environment
issues.
Promote technical and management port staff
training (Syria, Turkey, Algeria, Tunisia,
Jordan, Morocco).
Fight inefficiency of administration procedures
within ports (customs and immigration) by
process rationalisation, effective
computerisation (IT and EDI technology) and
development of regional cooperation.
2.
3.
118
Investment
(New
Investment,
Incentives and
Financing)
Promote Port Reform by developing and
implementing work force rationalisation plan
and suitable legal and regulatory framework.
Promote PPP and gradual market access in
all countries, ensuring profitability without
allowing private monopolies and obstructions
in maritime safety and marine environment
issues.
Promote PPP and gradual market access in
Promote competition in maritime transport
the ports of Aqaba, Beirut, major Egyptian
within Mediterranean by lifting cabotage
ports, Algiers, La Goulette/Rades, Casablanca,
restrictions, supporting the development of Short
ensuring profitability without allowing private
Sea Shipping, minimisation of state-owned fleets
monopolies and obstructions in maritime
and of entry barriers to foreign investment.
safety and marine environment issues. In
Intensify effectively the fight against
Syrian ports of Lattakia and Tartous ports,
substandard shipping.
PPP and market access must be seen within
Provide incentives to domestic and foreign
the framework of a new port strategic plan
investment.
and the plan for economy liberalisation.
Privatise ground handling and introduce
IT/EDI application in Aqaba Port.
Promote port tariffs liberalisation and port
labour rationalisation in all countries.
Improve port connections with hinterland
(Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt) and support the
inter-modal role of ports - development
logistics platforms within and close to ports in
all countries.
Maritime
Safety/
Security and
Marine
Environment
Protection
Promote harmonisation of local legislation to EU 'acquis' level (technical assistance, gap
analysis, twinning).
Capacity building of competent maritime authorities for FSI and PSC.
Provide suitable education to seafarers and maritime administration.
Provide systematic and frequent continuous training to seafarers.
Invest on suitable VTMIS monitoring along whole coastline and promote regional networking.
Promote the coordinated application of ISPS Code on ships and within ports (requirement of
systems, training, funds).
Promote GNSS adoption at regional level (demonstrations, training, focal points, partnerships
and networking).
Maritime Shipping and Ports
Action lines
Shipping
Ports
4.
Short Sea
Shipping
Development
Design and finance crucial port infrastructure within the framework of a Euro-Mediterranean
transport network based on an extended version of Motorways of the Seas in the Mediterranean,
including links of Malta, Cyprus, Southern and eastern shores to the rest of EU.
Simplification adjustment (minimise number of needed documents) and standardisation of
customs procedures suited for SSS - Computerisation of procedures and all related information Close cooperation between ports on a regional level.
Full adoption of the IMO FAL for standardisation of ship reporting formalities in ports.
Encourage companies in Mediterranean Partner Countries to participate in pilot projects under
the Marco Polo Programme.
Promote the SSS concept to potential players in both sides of Mediterranean along the known
lines of:
nominating focal points (national representatives in each country assigned with the task to
promote SSS at national level).
setting up SSS promotion centres.
extending the role of the European Short sea Network (ESN) to cover the whole of
Mediterranean region.
Set up one-stop shops offering the customers a single contact point that takes responsibility for
the whole inter-modal chain (integration of Short Sea Shipping into logistics chains to offer doorto-door solutions).
Abolish legal barriers (trade barriers, cabotage, any restrictions of port access).
5.
International
and Regional
Cooperation
Although typically present both in Mashrek and Maghreb, it must be more effective (to produce
results) by promoting maritime cooperation and coordination within areas such as maritime
safety, protection of marine environment, naval repairs and construction, seafarer’s education
and training, implementation of bilateral agreements, seaports access and cooperation etc.
119