After years of debating, I must admit I am quite happy that the
European Commission appears to converge to my views on the subject, repeatedly expressed
for more than 20 years now.
As ports are increasingly adopting an ‘enterprise’ model
through the award of concessions to private port operators, the public
financing of port infrastructure and operations assumes a very different
dimension, even for ports that are under full State of municipal control.
For instance, what happens if a public intervention,
intended to promote the ‘general economic interest’, instead favors only one
concessioner, or group of concessioners, against some others located in the
same port, neighboring ports, or neighboring countries? What are, finally, those
‘infamous’ sovereign state responsibilities, often taking the form of Public
Service Obligations, that allow governments to pour public money into clearly
private port infrastructure?
Dredging is a good case in point I have often used with my
students. Providing and maintaining access to a port could be rightfully considered
as a public good serving the general
economic interest. But when the access channel is dredged down to 16 meters,
surely this public good is not meant for my little fishing boat, but for a
containership of 20,000 TEU. Once identified, it should therefore be the user
of the good who should pay for the costs of its production and not the general
taxpayer. In other words, port access is no longer a public good and, among
other things, the taxpayer should be informed on how his money is being spent
by public port authorities.
Last mile
investments is another good example. Connecting the port with the national
motorway system is in principle a public good, serving the general economic
interest (I would happily take my bike and go to the shore for some
birdwatching!). But what happens if this ‘connection’ favors just one terminal
operator against many others? Clearly, this ‘last mile’ investment is a private
rather than a public good and the terminal operator should pay; participate in
the development costs; or pay for the use of the road, once completed. Finally,
the absence of such a connection
should be clearly discussed in the concession agreement: More often than not,
concessions are awarded, with the concessioner quickly reverting back to the
awarding authority to ask for more infrastructure and connections because, allegedly,
he cannot do his job as efficiently as
he would like to. The awarding authority is often ‘obliged’ to accommodate such
requests and this cannot continue.
As said, I am quite content with the policy orientations of Competition
Commissioner Vestager in terms of
focusing on the real issues facing our ports. HH
