This year’s theme ‘Ports Ahead: Navigating the future EU Maritime Industrial Strategy’ was a timely one given the announcements of the EU Commission but maritime and ports are also on the headlines beyond the EU probably because of disruptions, increased military conflict – or the threat thereof - and tensions resulting from tariffs being levied by the Trump Administration.
As such, speakers noted that predictability for ports has reduced, although they stressed it is clear they will continue to have a central role to play in terms of their traditional role as hubs for the import and export goods, further to being critical assets for military mobility going forward in particular. Several speakers mentioned the revised FDI Screening Regulation as an essential and necessary piece of legislation to mitigate the risks posed by foreign investments but also highlighted the crucial need for the EU to continue to attract FDI.
Read more below in our report ...
Report
Dear speakers, Dear guests, Dear colleagues,
It has been a pleasure to welcome you for the Eighth edition of our Stakeholders’ Conference.
Our warmest thanks to all speakers for their time, for sharing their thoughts and providing us with valuable insights.
This year’s theme ‘Ports Ahead: Navigating the future EU Maritime Industrial Strategy’ was a timely one given the announcements of the EU Commission but maritime and ports are also on the headlines beyond the EU probably because of disruptions, increased military conflict – or the threat thereof - and tensions resulting from tariffs being levied by the Trump Administration.
As such, speakers noted that predictability for ports has reduced, although they stressed it is clear they will continue to have a central role to play in terms of their traditional role as hubs for the import and export goods, further to being critical assets for military mobility going forward in particular. Several speakers mentioned the revised FDI Screening Regulation as an essential and necessary piece of legislation to mitigate the risks posed by foreign investments but also highlighted the crucial need for the EU to continue to attract FDI.
Further challenges facing ports outlined by guest speakers include, inter alia, the twin digital and green transitions, such as when it comes to the need to increasingly electrify and decarbonise ports. In this context, the Commission has proposed or plans to propose initiatives which will directly and/or indirectly target ports with a view to boosting their competitiveness and lowering their carbon footprint, such as the ports strategy, the maritime industrial strategy and the clean industrial strategy.
Moderator Lamia Kerdjoudj, FEPORT Secretary General, welcomed all participants to the conference, before playing a short video which firstly noted that the cargo handling industry is one of the EU’s most competitive sectors, employing about 400,000 port workers. 11 billion tonnes of cargo are shipped across the world each year, approximately 1.5 tonnes per person on the planet. 3.5 billion tonnes were shipped in and out of the EU through European ports in 2022. Private companies and terminals had invested more than 70 billion euro in European ports over the last decade.
Founded in 1993, FEPORT represents the interests of 2,290 port companies and terminals in the sea ports of the EU, Norway and Turkey. FEPORT is committed to fostering inclusive dialogue and a constructive exchange of views between port operators and policymakers. Private port companies and terminals will continue to play a pivotal role in modernising European ports, though the EU’s legal framework must provide a stable environment for investing. Ports must continue to be recognised as critical infrastructure and this status should not entail forewent changes to the legal framework the EU must adopt a consistent approach to critical infrastructure.
Furthermore, fragmented sectoral policies could result in vulnerabilities and adequate time will be needed to properly implement rules stemming from the EU green deal and the Fit for 55 initiative. Competition and resilience of the maritime ecosystem must be placed at the heart of the Commission’s next road map. Moreover, the EU should deploy diplomacy to harmonise competition rules vis-à-vis ports in third companies which compete with European ports or, alternatively, adjust its legislation to preserve the competitiveness of the EU port ecosystem. FEPORT also called for regulators to ensure there is a real level playing field in the internal market and for State-aid rules to not distort the market. Finally, the video finished by stating that the collective ambition of FEPORT members is to remain first class operators who provide the best service while creating value and jobs.
Gunther Bonz, President of FEPORT, welcomed all participants to the Eighth Stakeholders’ Conference and thanked those who had organised the conference. This conference is taking place during an historic moment: politically, economically, militarily and in terms of social and cultural changes. This is not only due to the new Trump Administration. The reasons for these changes could be traced back to 2015. Actions must be aligned accordingly.
The Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Screening Regulation was adopted yesterday by the INTA Committee in Parliament, and it included the principle of reciprocity, which he supported. He hoped it would soon be adopted by Parliament as a whole. He supported a worldwide regulated open trade system as this could provide welfare, peace and good relations between States.
The US Administration is adopting a wrong attitude towards the EU. The only answer for Europe is to stay together and define its own interests. Furthermore, trade contracts, such as Mercosur, should be signed as soon as possible. The EU should also negotiate similar trade contracts with other blocs to increase European independence. FEPORT represents over 40,000 employees and the responsibility is also to consumers and people across the EU, as well as the employees. FEPORT believes in EU values; however, European industry should not be regulated more than global competitors otherwise this will cause harm to its competitiveness.
When one thought back 10 or 15 years ago, the major issues concerned the environment, social welfare and perhaps lack of infrastructure. One would not have considered that, in 2025, another war could be possible.
President Bonz then thanked the TT Club for the sponsorship of FEPORT Conference, in addition to all speakers.
Moderator Lamia Kerdjoudj welcomed the keynote speaker, Captain Engelen, a Belgian Naval Officer. She had heard him speak before and was very impressed by his ability to predict the future among others regarding the war in Ukraine. Captain Engelen has overseen many assignments, including as Head of the EU section at the Belgian defence strategy department, in addition to working with NATO, and as part of the Permanent Representative of Belgium to the EU.
Captain Kurt Engelen, Director of the Centre for Security and Defence Studies (CSDS) at the Royal Higher Institute for Defence and former Defence Counsellor to the Belgian Ambassador to the Political and Security Committee of the EU Council, stated that his speech would go beyond military affairs and look into what sustained the heart and resilience of the unique European way of life. As a naval officer, his first mission was to keep sea lane communications free, in addition to safeguarding access to ports and preserving key infrastructure and protecting citizens’ security and welfare. As such, he stood here today as a humble servant of Belgium and the EU, committed to contributing to a safer and more sustainable port economy.
Competitiveness and security are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they are different sides of the same coin. Strong ports are key to national and European sovereignty. He wished to share some strategic perspectives today. Economic vitality and strategic stability must go hand-in-hand. As a part of the military, his role is to prepare for war. Europe has been at war for the past 10 years already.
Over 75% of the EU’s external trade by volume is seaborne, Captain Engelen noted. Maritime transport remains by far the dominant mode of exchange. European ports handle over 3.5 billion tonnes of cargo annually, including food, fuel supply and economic goods, for instance. Intra-EU transport, while strongly supported by road and rail, still relies on maritime traffic for short-sea shipping, especially in the Baltic, the Mediterranean and the North Sea. The EU merchant fleet, while significant in size, is fragmented. By contrast, China now controls the world’s largest merchant fleet in terms of deadweight tonnage. The US, meanwhile, relies heavily on foreign-flagged vessels for commercial shipping.
Europe’s economic model is inseparable from maritime trade, with the latter dependent on secure ports. These issues are therefore existential in nature when it comes to upholding the European way of life.
Concerning military mobility, ports play a vital role in this regard. There must be a renewed focus on military mobility as it begins at sea. In the event of a major crisis, the rapid and secure offloading at ports would be needed. There must also be secure storage sites, access to multimodal transport links and living facilities for troops.
The military mobility action plan highlights these needs. The success of this plan relies on the availability and sovereignty of European ports and the presence of non-EU actors pose a real threat. Cyber access to port management systems also formed passive intelligence collection that could severely hinder preparedness and operational security. IT systems are inherently vulnerable. There is also deep interdependence between port operations and the military when it comes to resupplying ships at sea. Losing operational sovereignty over ports risks having Europe lose the ability to assist allies and respond to crises.
On balancing competitiveness with security, long-term competitiveness demands a foundation of strategic autonomy and resilience. The revised FDI Screening Regulation is a critical and necessary step to mitigating the risks posed by foreign investments. Prioritising security is not about rejecting foreign investment. It is about de-risking without de-coupling the economy.
Mr Engelen then stated that strategic interdependence also need to be considered. There is strategic interdependence between ports, shipping, and trade. Ports do not exist in a vacuum, he underlined. Their activity, viability, and prosperity depend on a complex interplay of global trade flows, merchant fleet operations, and geopolitical stability. Ports are, fundamentally, nodes in the global maritime network — and their throughput is only as strong as the demand for shipping and the freedom of movement at sea.
Another secondary but increasingly urgent risk lies to our north, in the Arctic region. With the progressive melting of the polar ice cap, the Northern Sea Route (NSR) is no longer a distant concept. Last year, some experts he had spoken to claimed this would not happen for two or three decades. However, other climate experts had told him the NSR could be a reality by the end of this decade. As the ice retreats, transit times between Asia and Europe could be cut by up to one third, presenting an attractive alternative to the Suez Canal, for instance.
This new route is not a mere commercial opportunity. It is a highly politicised and controlled corridor. Russia is already putting in place an arsenal of legal, regulatory, and administrative mechanisms, claiming to act under Article 234 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In practice, this approach aimed to ensure Russia had full control over this corridor. In case of tensions, Russia could restrict or deny access to European shipping, create uncertainty for global shipping operators, or use the route to exert pressure on European ports and trade flows.
While the NSR may provide new economic opportunities, it also creates strategic dependencies on an increasingly aggressive actor. For port operators, this could mean unpredictable volumes, restructuring of maritime flows, and the need to rethink long-term infrastructure and investment decisions. This is yet another wake-up call for Europe.
Captain Engelen then stated that protectionism is the enemy of free trade and port activity is all about free trade. The third elephant in the room, after China and Russia, is the United States. Under the administration of Donald Trump, they have reintroduced aggressive trade tariffs targeting a wide range of imports from anywhere outside the US. These tariffs are already destabilising global trade patterns. Retaliatory measures from major economic players such as China, but also the EU could disrupt existing supply chains and introduce more uncertainty into maritime logistics. Furthermore, protectionist spirals weaken the rules-based international order which is key to economic prosperity. This calls for more strategic awareness on the European side.
Concluding, he emphasised that ports are not just gateways of trade; they are gateways of power. Those who control the ports shape the flow of commerce, the balance of influence, and the future of geopolitics. Policymakers, port operators, logistics professionals, security experts and allied navies, share a common responsibility: to safeguard the arteries of the economy from covert control and strategic exploitation. By reinforcing defences — not just with fences and scanners, but with policy, foresight, and unity — we can ensure that European ports remain what they were always meant to be: open to the world, but sovereign and secure.
Moderator Lamia Kerdjoudj asked Captain Engelen about the three elephants in the room: China, Russia and the US. How could Europe remain open in the face of such challenges? Should Europe seek to impose its own rules?
Captain Kurt Engelen replied that Europeans were children of the enlightenment, with our mode of thought based on Emmanuel Kant. China and Russia had been more influenced by Hobbes’ The Leviathan and Machiavelli’s The Prince. They were therefore realists. Europeans, as principles-based actors, are competing against people who are purely transactional. Europe must learn to be transactional with these global players. Europe must therefore seek to act in its best interests. European rules are a strength as the market is 500 million strong. Major companies cannot afford to ignore the European market and this can provide Europe with leverage. For example, the US is dependent on Europe for military transit and they should be reminded of this.
Christophe Tytgat, Secretary General, Sea Europe, stated that Chinese shipbuilding capabilities should not be overlooked. The US did not have the capacity to build many military support ships anymore, never mind a decent commercial fleet. The EU still had this strength regarding shipbuilding. The EU should use its industrial capacity as a strength when dealing with the US.
Captain Kurt Engelen agreed on the need for Europe to play to its strengths. Regarding the military industry, Europe has been building systems that are highly sophisticated. The problem is, it takes Europe close to 10 years before these systems are ready to be deployed. Currently, a limited number of people are working in a technologically advanced environment. What Europe lacks is the large industrial capacity to generate the numbers. Numbers matter. An expensive frigate could be taken out by a salvo of cheap aerial drones. As such, more accompanying ships and/or drones are needed. Quantity is also a quality all of its own.
Moderator Lamia Kerdjoudj thanked Captain Engelen for his insightful address and comments. She then gave the floor to Mr Vonck for his keynote speech.
Keynote speeches
Moderator Indra Vonck, Partner, MBTS, welcomed the panellists and noted that topics such as trade and tariffs would be covered during this session. The one thing all could be sure of is that it is impossible to predict what will happen over the coming months. Quoting JFK, he noted the former US President had said ‘Geography has made us neighbours. History has made us friends. Economics has made us allies. Those whom God has so joined together, let no man pull asunder’.
Trade integration is a core value of Europe and Europe is proud of its peacebuilding efforts through interdependencies. However, this model is changing, and the current times are both uncertain and volatile. There are many black swans that could not have been foreseen and many disruptions are being seen. He would focus on short to medium term disruptions which could potentially arrive. One must also consider ports from a dual-use civil-military perspective, as per Captain Engelen’s speech.
There are many challenges, including geo-political risk. It is about viewing ports as critical infrastructure. It is not clear whether ports would be full of Toyotas, tanks or Teslas going forward, for example, and there is a real lack of clarity. There are increased costs which come with uncertainty. Sustainability would possibly fall by the wayside given the emerging priorities. The question is how industry could react to such changes.
The business model of Europe has been built on cheap trade, military stability and cheap energy. A lot of policies were this built on this model. For example, if it was cheaper to build it in China and ship it to Europe then that was the best course to take. There was also high interdependence with Russia, particularly regarding Germany’s approach.
Today, this model must be rethought. There is no longer military stability, cheap trade or cheap energy. ‘Slowbalisation’ is being seen. Tariffs are disrupting the free flow of trade which is making transport (and all imports) more expensive. He said tariffs were a ‘doom loop,’ as shipping costs go up and disruptions go up. There is also increased competition and efficiency to counter costs and congestion and shortages in selected ports, for example.
In addition, military disruptions are having a real-time effect on what is happening. Red Sea irregularities are leading to more congestion in some ports, for instance. Slowbalisation is unfortunately knocking at the door and there has been a levelling off of global trade since 2008. He was concerned there could possibly be a return to trade volumes seen in the 1930s, when the US also imposed many tariffs which deepened the depression. There was also a war 10 years later.
More near-shoring, re-shoring and friend-shoring are also being seen and trade distances are getting shorter on average. There is a mindset shift towards being more regional, trading with friends and finding diverse sources. This shift is being seen in policies, such as through an increased focus on safeguarding supply chains and the defence union.
Predictability has evaporated and the port industry will need to play a key role, as they always do during times of uncertainty, such as when COVID hit. The bill would be harder to pay as the core business model of ports is under a lot of pressure, however. Mr Vonck then gave the floor to Mr Merk.
Olaf Merk, Senior Advisor to the Secretary-General, ITF/OECD, remarked that gone are the days of business as usual; this is a time of transitions. In the face of such disruption, resilience seems to be the answer. Resilience is being embraced by many governments and organisations. On what resilience means, he asked if means to be robust like an oak, adaptive like bamboo or regenerative like ivy. It could be one or all of these approaches. Disruption leads to some systems collapsing immediately; however, more robust systems would absorb such disruption, though even they had their limits. Another approach is to be more adaptative to be able to recover given any situation. The final approach, regenerative, seeks to build back better after disruption.
Mr Merk stated that some of the approaches are likely better for certain circumstances and contexts. Concerning resilience, there are five components of transfer systems relevant. This could concern the people involved, the vehicles, the infrastructure, the networks or, finally, the flows or the activities. Much of the discussion in resilience is about infrastructure, though there are other components.
Resilience can also help achieve other policy goals, such as by boosting competitiveness. It can also put into question old convictions. Regarding the connection between resilience and connectivity, transport systems are highly connected. There is huge interdependence across supply chain systems. For example, geopolitical issues could have an impact on energy. Disruptive events can thus have huge impacts on transport networks. A further point is that transport networks have become much more connected at a global level, such as the maritime transport chain. If one of these parts gets disrupted, the whole transport chain is affected, as seen during the COVID demand shocks and disruption in the Red Sea.
A lot of policy effort has been put in place to make transport chains as smoothly integrated as possible; however, this can lead to more risks of cascade effects. Adding more connections therefore increased the risks of cascading effects. The question concerned where the point is where interconnection leads to more risk than it mitigates. A lot depends on the kind of networks being discussed.
Concerning the efficiency of transport networks, there are four different network types. The first is a highly connected network which could be thought of as an urban street system. Another type of network forms circuit-like connections, similar to urban roadways. A third type is a randomly connected network, like urban transit. Finally, there are centrally connected networks, such as seen in container shipping. The first type is the most resilient, the last one, centrally connected networks, is the least resilient.
A lot of the networks could also be redesigned to be made more resilient. One possibility in this regard is to have more redundancy in the network. This means there are several pathways to go from A to B. a couple of pathways could be paralysed and yet goods, for example, could still get from A to B. That said, there are trade-offs as such transport networks would be more inefficient. Another possibility is to have more modularity, which means having a lot of connections within different blocks.
His main point is that there are policy trade-offs between equity, sustainability and efficiency, for example. Resilience should be a core consideration and it should not be an afterthought. It would also help if resilience could be quantified and be integrated into project cost-benefit appraisals. Many future events are unpredictable and a veil of uncertainty should be employed when assessing the trade-offs. There should be good mapping of risks of interdependencies, for example, in addition to creating a mindset of constantly considering resilience. Concluding, Mr Merk noted that the question is always what the best mix of the robust, adaptive and regenerative approaches are. An international Transport Forum would be held in May and resilience would feature as a key subject.
Moderator Indra Vonck introduced Mr Mayet and noted he would speak about the clean industrial deal and the electrification of ports, among other topics.
Rémi Mayet, Policy Advisor, Just Transition, Efficiency and Innovation, Directorate General for Energy, echoed that few people would have thought so many disruptions would have to be discussed in 2025. Major changes have been seen in this sector and he emphasised that the port industry is an essential player as it is a strategic hub when it comes to deploying low carbon technologies, for example. Europe’s fossil fuel dependencies were one of the biggest strategic threats to the EU and the Commission had tabled the clean industrial deal in February to address this issue. These plans are only as good as their implementation, however.
The two key goals for the EU are energy sovereignty for competitiveness and security, and climate neutrality by 2050. Energy is 75% of greenhouse gases (GHGs), he stated. The invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has only accelerated Europe’s drive towards these goals as the over reliance on cheap Russian gas had been made clear. The Repower EU Plan has thus been put in place to speed up the role out of clean energy.
Imports of piped Russian gas have dropped from 50% of imports pre-war to less than 10% today. Another important development is that this gas is now imported in the form of LNG, particularly from the US, via ports. Fantastic work has been undertaken in ports to allow for this shift, with LNG capacities having increased by 25%. Oil imports from Russian are now down to 2% and this was a huge change in terms of the energy landscape.
There is also a growing trade of critical raw materials and clean tech. Furthermore, the Commission has also realised that military mobility relies on adequate amounts of liquid fuel and this required good infrastructure in ports. On the clean industrial deal, this is based on the Draghi report and seeks to allow decarbonisation to reinforce European industries, such as by removing volatile prices. Key actions include leverage 100 billion euro to spur massive investments, in addition to the decarbonisation accelerator act to promote EU clean products.
This plan was accompanied by the affordable energy action plan. The goal is to reach the energy-cost gap vis-à-vis Europe, the US and China. The retail electricity prices in Europe were twice those of the US and China. This gap is due to several factors, one being the over dependence on fossil fuel. In 2022, 600 billion euro was spent on importing fossil fuels into Europe, twice what was spent on defence. The affordable energy action plan sought to address this issue through rolling out simplified permitting, de-risking long-term energy contracts, boosting energy efficiency services and attracting investments with tripartite contracts.
Offshore renewable energy is being scaled up in Europe and Europe is well positioned in this area in terms of it being a global leader. 12 gigawatts of offshore renewable power are planned to be installed per year over the next 20 years and this would have a huge impact on the port system. There must also be regional cooperation to provide visibility and assurance for investors, such as seen in the North Sea.
Ports are also industrial clusters and they are transforming into industrial energy systems, such as when it comes to hydrogen. An action plan to promote clean heating and cooling technologies will be put forward soon by the Commission. A 1 billion euro pilot auction from the innovation fund would be carried out in this area before the end of the year. Ports are also fuel supply points for clean shipping and CO2 can also be collected and stored at ports. The global port hydrogen coalition featured 60 ports, for example. many projects could be financed to develop technologies such as electrolysers. He then mentioned C02 transport projects being undertaken to transport CO2 in Belgium. The CO2 would then be used to make plastics or synthetic fuels.
On the electrification of ports, they would see their electricity demands quadruple by 2030 because of the electrification of port equipment and the need to produce hydrogen, for example. Public-private investment in grid connections and investment in onshore power supply infrastructure would be required. Having adequate space for this change would be needed and the Renewable Acceleration Area special procedure would allow for permitting to be simplified to install renewable and storage technologies. In the regulation on net-zero technologies, similar provisions are seen. While these are turbulent times, the Commission is seeking to accelerate its initiatives to ensure there are tangible results in ports. He invited the industry to work with the Commission to implement the many new actions, such as under the affordable energy action plan.
Panel discussion
Moderator Indra Vonck introduced the panellists for the discussion. Regarding the proposed change to the FDI Screening Regulation, he asked Mr Herlitz for his comments on this file.
Florent Herlitz, FDI screening case handler, DG TRADE, said the core business is to screen certain cases in Member States. Risks to security and public order are assessed under this instrument. Critical infrastructure, such as ports, are screened in this regard. Airports are also screened, and questions such as what kind of data is collected and who has access to it are posed. On the investor side, the Commission looks into what type of activity the investor is linked to and, of course, which country they are based in. Concerning the revision to the file, he noted the INTA Committee’s text went beyond the Commission’s original proposal.
All Member States must have this screening mechanism in place. Currently, this is not the case. Among those that do not have such a mechanism in place is Greece. Portugal is currently seeking to improve their rules around the mechanism and all Member States should have an ex-ante mechanism approach going forward. The Commission would also be able to scrutinise intra-European investment so no investments could escape scrutiny. The scope of screening is an issue of debate at the moment, and the Commission had suggested having minimum harmonisation across Member States.
Moderator Indra Vonck asked about the usage of ports, as they were dual-use infrastructure. Was this as simple as thinking ports must be ready for troops and tanks?
Martin Seidel, Advisor to the European Coordinator for the European Maritime Space, DG MOVE, replied that, essentially, it is as simple as that. The movement of troops implies largescale equipment deployment at short notice. There must also be sufficient capacity in the hinterland to dispatch the military equipment, such as the widening of tunnels and reinforcing bridge load capacity. The management of ports in times of crisis should also not be challenged or be up for discussion. Access to routes is also needed, and the Commission put forward a regulatory proposal to this end. Storage capacity at short notice is also an important consideration. In terms of hard infrastructure, 500 hotspot projects are earmarked for urgent implementation and realisation, mostly relating to the upgrading of infrastructure.
Mihai Sebastian Chihaia, Policy Analyst at European Policy Centre, said that his organisation looked at which capabilities are required. He covered the maritime domain and the area of military mobility. He agreed the current environment has fundamentally changed. Threats included hybrid threats, such as threats to ports and subsea cables. Almost everything is now dual-use, such as when it comes to drones. Discussion on military mobility has been going on since around 2016-17. This debate has picked up pace since the Russian invasion of Ukraine with the Strategic Compass, for example, being out forward. There is more of an appetite to focus on military mobility, as seen under the recent White Paper on defence. Challenges persisted, however, such as infrastructure necessary to host troops and equipment at ports. It is also about having the right regulations and procedures in place. this infrastructure must also be well protected. Physical threats, such as sabotage, are also mounting. A drone attack could knock out a port, for instance. He stressed the need to have a multi-stakeholder engagement platform to advance military mobility, including ports and the private sector, as this has been lacking. Several Member States have such platforms in place. However, these are not uniform across the EU and the goal must be to reach a uniform system whereby all move along at the same time and are at the same level.
Wojciech Szymulewicz, Chief Executive Officer, President of Management Board at Baltic Container Terminal, ICTSI, remarked that recent missions at his container terminal have involved sometimes two or three thousand armoured vehicles at any one time and around 10 hectares of land has to be dedicated to storing such a large amount of equipment. Both civilian and military activities could be maintained simultaneously. He was not aware if there are any special dual-use military regulations in place. The role of the operator is to support the foreign country, as he noted his organisation is controlled by a Filipino entity. In his case, his organisations had a direct contract with the US transportation command. This contact is regularly renewed and thus his organisation is subject to ongoing security reviews. It is a massive operation to export military vehicles as they have to be industrially cleaned. This is a new competence which must be provided by the terminal and local companies are providing support to this end.
Moderator Indra Vonck believed dual-use is built into certain national policies. While Europe is not officially at war, this is quite a grey area. Is there any overall dual-use regulation in place?
Martin Seidel replied that, as far as he is aware, there is no overall regulation in place. Approval procedures for the movement of goods are done at the national level.
Florent Herlitz noted there is a regulation on some dual-use items in place.
Mihai Sebastian Chihaia remarked that military mobility corridors have been agreed between countries such as Germany, Netherlands and Poland. Another involves cooperation between the Nordic countries, for example. These countries had agreed to streamline procedures between themselves. The next step should be to connect these corridors together. The question is what happens in a crisis situation. It is important to note the definition of crisis differs between Member States and this poses certain issues. During a crisis, the military suddenly had access to much civilian infrastructure.
Martin Seidel stated that Council has adopted a communication strategy on four military corridors which have been elaborated. On the 500 aforementioned projects, this is currently classified information, though some ports are included. A communication on military mobility is also being worked on and he hoped this would be published by the end of this year.
Rémi Mayet echoed that Member States all have different interpretations of the rules during crises. On dual-use, there would be an omnibus to facilitate European rearmament, as set out in the White Paper. This included a review of the dual-use regulation.
Moderator Indra Vonck asked Mr Szymulewicz if any lessons had been learnt from his port’s dual-use approach.
Wojciech Szymulewicz stated that some military needs were specific, as some military vehicles weighed 60-70 tonnes. Lashing them to ships is therefore much more labour intensive. There are much more security requirements regarding military transports, like needing well equipped guards to protect the equipment. There is also the threat of cyberattacks from hostile actors and activity in this area has been intensified. This also requires more investment in cyber security. Cooperation has also been started with the Polish military in the area of cyber security which has been promising.
Moderator Indra Vonck noted he had heard the complexity and challenges were increasing. This entails increasing costs and the question is whether there are sufficient funds available.
Wojciech Szymulewicz underlined that everything is changing. Critical infrastructure must come under European defence or NATO level rather than discussions with individual armies. Past models are no longer applicable, particularly as the presence of the US army would likely be less visible.
Mihai Sebastian Chihaia held that the funding traditionally available at EU level has not been enough. Military mobility required alternatives in case one option was not possible and additional funding is thus required, particularly regarding national funds. There is clear urgency in this regard. In many Member States, development of dual-use infrastructure does not fall under the Ministry of Defence and therefore a multi-stakeholder approach in all Member States is needed. The private sector also needs to come in to develop some of the infrastructure.
Moderator Indra Vonck asked Mr Mayet about current energy dependency. Is this also a vulnerability for the EU?
Rémi Mayet replied that this remains a vulnerability for Europe. That said, positive changes have been seen in terms of the deployment of low carbon alternatives. The US had the slogan of ‘Drill, Baby Drill’. In Europe, the slogan should be ‘Grid, Baby Grid’, as suggested by MEP Seán Kelly.
Moderator Indra Vonck then asked about resilience. Is the current European transport system resilient?
Olaf Merk answered that having adequate resilience is a main challenge for the future, including for the whole port and terminal sector. At the FEPORT conference 10 years ago, the main paradigm was how there was a lot of competition between ports. A lot of ports have since realised they are not in competition, particularly given the need for cooperation in areas such as the management of military corridors. A lot of actors in Europe are now cooperation more and more with each other.
Moderator Indra Vonck noted that ports competed with each other when it comes to investment. Is investment screening making Europe a safer place?
Florent Herlitz replied that the screening mechanism has been in place for 4 years now. The 2023 report noted 480 cases had been screened. The Commission has 15 calendar days to analyse the cases. 92% were closed in 15 days which means there is no problem. The goal is to keep the EU attractive to FDI, while also focusing on the risky investments. The Commission issued an opinion, the strongest response, in less than 3% of cases. Additional focus is also being put on economic security. He hoped the FDI Screening Regulation would be improved and adopted before long.
Moderator Indra Vonck then opened up questions from the floor.
Paris Sansoglou, Secretary General, European Dredging Association, called on all to consider the skills and strategic services required when it comes to resilience. His organisation provides may services to ports. Therefore, the key elements that guarantee the network should be integrated into considerations on resilience.
Moderator Indra VoncK agreed that dredgers were a key element of port infrastructure. To what extent were such critical industries taken into account?
Mihai Sebastian Chihaia stressed they were not taken into account enough.
Martin Seidel noted the port strategy would soon come out, with a call for evidence being published in May. He called on all to engage in this consultation. Issues such as military mobility in terms of ports’ needs would be addressed, for example.
Mihai Sebastian Chihaia added that the mentality of having a whole of society and whole of government approach is important, and this means including stakeholders which have not been previously thought about.
Filip Reyniers, Director, IPIS, on the cost of security, said an important debate is needed on who should bear the additional costs. On critical maritime infrastructure, there is a serious debate as to whether the private sector or the State should fund such changes. He asked for a comment on this.
Mihai Sebastian Chihaia underscored that defence should be seen as a public good and thus all should chip in, including society more generally. In terms of funding, there is also a debate about private investment. The Commission clearly wants to market defence as more investable for private funds, such as pension funds. It is about connecting the money with the needs.
Moderator Indra Vonck asked Mr Szymulewicz if physical and digital security are at the same level. Or is one considered more important than the other?
Wojciech Szymulewicz replied that a cyber security breach in a centralised system could have a greater impact. For example, the impact of hacking a data centre could have an enormous impact. Physical breaches are usually localised. More and more systems are digitalised and this means there are more and more risks. Decentralisation could allow for more risk mitigation.
Moderator Indra Vonck agreed that more connected systems were more resilient. However, did more connected systems lead to more potential vulnerabilities?
Wojciech Szymulewicz underlined the need for good control and oversight of system so there could be an immediate response.
Olaf Merk gave the example of an urban grid which had many redundancies. This could allow for issues to be bypassed as there are many interconnections between nodes. The other extreme is when there is only one large node and it is a very hierarchical system. In this case, if something happens, the system risks being not very resilient.
Moderator Indra Vonck asked about energy initiatives on strategic autonomy. Europe had pivoted nicely from Russia. Is Europe moving towards a more decentralised network? Is Europe becoming more energy independent?
Rémi Mayet replied that the concept used is energy sovereignty and not energy independence. Energy efficiency is also a key approach, as is good diversification. Being less strategically dependent should be the overarching goal.
Isabel Ryckbost, Secretary General, ESPO, addressing Mr Mayet, stated that, in time of energy congestion, certain priority rules must be adhered to. Could ports have priority access?
Rémi Mayet agreed that access to grids must be looked at, as under the grid electrification plan, which he hoped would be released by the end of 2025. Simplifying permitting should facilitate the reduction of bottlenecks. Additional elements, such as tariffs related to the use of the grid, are also being looked at.
Moderator Indra Vonck asked whether energy decarbonisation efforts are losing ground now that military priorities are coming to the forefront. Is sustainability losing out?
Wojciech Szymulewicz said the answer is obvious: physical security must be the first priority.
Moderator Indra Vonck asked if being more self-sufficient is also a way of being more secure.
Rémi Mayet noted that NATO also has a Working Group on climate. It is furthermore about preparedness for the unforeseen, including climate disasters. As such, there is no trade-off between decarbonisation and security.
Wojciech Szymulewicz agreed work is needed on both. However, sustainability is a luxury subject. The war in Ukraine had left a massive carbon footprint, for example.
Olaf Merk tended to agree with Mr Mayet. These issues are very interconnected and geopolitical turmoil is also related to climate. A holistic view is needed with regard to risk assessment.
Moderator Indra Vonck thanked panellists for their participation.
Commissioner’s Speech
Moderator Lamia Kerdjoudj welcomed Ms Anna Panagopoulou, Head of the Cabinet of Mr Tzitzikostas, who would speak on behalf of the Commissioner.
Anna Panagopoulou, Head of Cabinet of Apostolos Tzitzikostas, European Union Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism, apologized for the last-minute absence of the Commissioner who has an emergency and started her speech by mentioning the forthcoming maritime industrial strategy which will be particularly important given the ongoing geopolitical challenges.
Regarding the tariffs put in place by the US, this would impact global trade, including maritime. A letter from the US was designed to intervene in the IMO negotiations and this would have a trade impact. The future would be challenging and all must work together in this regard.
Concerning the maritime and ports sector, they would have a significant impact on European society and the European way of life. Rising protectionism is being seen and, at the same time, there is a race to address climate change, for instance. Policies for the maritime and port sectors reflect broader EU objectives, such as strengthening security and competitiveness and fighting against climate change.
The Competitiveness Compass has set such priorities out and the sustainable maritime investment plan seeks to build a more sustainable future. Driving ambition at EU level is the goal. The maritime and port strategies would ensure Europe is not only prepared to change, but is ready to lead. On the industrial maritime strategy, the aim is to boost the sustainability and competitiveness of this sector, such as through boosting construction of dredgers and cruise ships. The European shipbuilding industry led globally in many areas. Moreover, the alternative fuels regulation, provides a clear path towards reducing GHGs. Both the clean industrial deal and the Competitiveness Compass align decarbonisation with long-term competitiveness to create new jobs and bolster sustainable growth. This will drive the twin digital and climate transitions in the maritime sector. The goal is also to maintain Europe’s global edge in emerging technologies.
At the same time, competitiveness in maritime shipping must be retained. While too early to share all areas of the strategy, she could mention several key areas. First, boosting research and innovation for green and digital ships. Innovative technologies and sustainable fuels, such as e-fuels, are key for competitiveness, as is advanced digitisation. Collaborative research and development are needed in areas such as propulsion technologies. Investment in the twin transition is needed and the strategy will also look at financing. Funding must be mobilised and streamlined and private capital de-risked and unlocked. Additionally, opportunities in areas such as retrofitting must be seized.
Domestic capabilities must also be strengthened and there must be a level playing field. While Europe must strive for greater autonomy, strategic partnerships would be built with likeminded companies. Fostering collaboration and synergies across the full value chain would also be key. Labour and skills shortages will also be addressed. This strategy will also respond to recommendations in key reports, such as the Draghi report.
On the ports strategy, she noted they were also becoming centres for the sustainable economy and decarbonised energy. They also play a critical role in military mobility. This strategy will address elements such as safety and security, including cyber security, in addition to skills and labour shortages. The energy transition also opened new opportunities for ports and they could become even more central in the economy.
Regarding resilience, defence and security, military goods must be able to be moved quickly and efficiently. Existing infrastructure for dual-use must be adapted to this end. Ports were place of embarkation and disembarkation and they should be military mobility enabled. Furthermore, security of ports must be considered, such as when it comes to cyber-attacks. These threats affected safety, as well as trade routes and supply chains. The EU defence strategy and the Eu preparedness strategy formed part of the response. the coming Eu ports strategy would be the second part.
The EU is working closely with likeminded partners, such as the IMO and NATO. Negotiations taking place right now in London on the final package of measures to delivered on the 2023 IMO strategy to reduce gas emissions from ships. A global challenge like this required global solutions. These would ensure a level playing field. The Commission is committed to achieving an ambitious, robust global agreement. For the Commission, it is important that this final package includes both a technical goal-based fuel standard and a greenhouse gas emissions pricing mechanism. The port sector clearly needs substantial investments. The Commission’s strategy will also look at how to prioritise funding to meet emergency needs. Consultations on the maritime and ports strategies will soon be launched and she called for feedback. The challenges being faced could feel overwhelmingly. However, the required actions are clear and, if all work together, a course can be charted towards greater prosperity. Please see here for the full text of her speech.
Gunther Bonz, President of FEPORT, said that a FEPORT Board meeting was held yesterday and the first contribution is ready and he is therefore glad to hand it over to Ms Anna Panagopoulou and Commissioner Tziztzikostas.
Moderator Johannes Berg, Director Corporate Affairs, HHLA, said this panel would seek to set out how to make European maritime clusters competitive and future proof. However, there were some imaginary elephants in the room, including Mr Musk and Mr Bezos. He welcomed Mr Berterottière and invited him to provide his keynote speech.
Keynote speeches
Philippe Berterottière, Chief Executive Officer of GTT and President of the Strategic Cluster of the French Maritime Industries, noted he also headed up a company called GTT which designed energy tanks for energy carriers, in addition to heading up the strategic cluster of French maritime industries. The shipbuilding industry is evolving fast. Last year, Chinese shipbuilders received 60% of global orders, with Korea representing about 30%. Much shipbuilding, including tankers had gone to China, and the same would soon be soon for container ships. US tariffs would not change this. The industry was labour intensive and did not fit with the declining demographics of Korea.
Europe had a tiny market share of the industry, around 4%, such as in Spain, Poland, Germany and the Netherlands. The shipyards in Europe mainly produced expensive ships, such as cruise ships. Some Asian shipyards were producing 150 shipyards per year, far more than the European tailormade shipbuilding industry produced.
The world is increasingly aggressive, he stated, and free trade could no longer be ensured in some parts of the world. European equipment vendors are also being ghosted more and more. 90% of commodities are transported by ships and they are therefore indispensable. If European equipment is avoided by shipyards, soon it will be European vendors, then owners and then possibly European goods.
Ships should be considered as a strategic asset. This expertise in Europe should be kept at any cost. Not only cruise ships, but other types of ships also need to be produced in Europe. It is of utmost importance for European sovereignty. Remaining European shipyards must be maintained. Shipyards building ferries had moved from mainly Germany to China in the last three years alone.
Moderator Johannes Berg then introduced Mr Dalus, before giving him the floor.
Neil Dalus, Risk Assessment Manager at TT Club, said he wanted to talk about climate change and climate change resilience. The climate is changing and it is causing problems. On the TT Club, he noted it stands for Through Transport and was tailored to industry needs. Set up in 1968, it still insured 80% of the world’s cargo. The TT club’s mission statement is to make the industry safer, more secure and more sustainable.
About 11% of the claims were related to fires, whereas reefer cargos only make up 4% of claims. Extreme weather now accounts for 13% of the claims and this may well change over the coming years. Other areas of claims include vehicle damage, 10%, and ship related incidents, standing at 4% of claims. Slips, trips and falls also account for 7% of claims, while damage to part infrastructure and assets account for one-third of claims. Environmental incidents account for 3% of claims.
Concerning claims for extreme weather events, this can be a result of increased navigational challenges or damage to marine infrastructure, such as damage to breakwaters. Increased mooring loads can also be an issue, as can cranes being blown along or over the berth. Container stacks can also be blown over. There could also be port equipment damage, such as damage caused by heatwaves. Localised flooding could also be seen, as could an increase strain on connecting transport which can make things go wrong.
Port facilities are located across the globe. Equipment is often designed based on local topography and the environment. If the environment changes, a different approach has to be taken. Even in best case scenarios, there would be no return to 1950s levels in terms of lower levels of extreme weather events.
2024 was the hottest year on record, and 2023 was the hottest year on record before that. There was a 30% increase in losses from the prior year. Global natural catastrophes had exceeded 100 billion dollars for the fifth year in a row. This is estimated to double over the next 10 years. Each of these claims is a signpost of the changes at hand. Weather related claims were constantly increasing year on year.
320 billion dollars in losses in 2024 were recorded, with only 140 billion dollars covered by insurance. Inaction in this area therefore had a huge impact on the bottom line. Much of the equipment designed was built to be able to withstand once in a lifetime events. However, the probability of ‘once in a lifetime events’ were getting more common and thus the probability of equipment being damaged is increasing. This could lead to a drop in operational performance. The goal should be to reduce the impact sustained and the recovery time needed.
Oftentimes, there were operational concerns resulting from weather events, such as high winds meaning cranes could not be operated, which insurance would not pay out on. A multiples risk approach should be taken as this works well. He called on all to avoid focusing on only one risk and for both short term and long term considerations to be made Uncertainty should be accommodated in the design and there has to be a good understanding on when to act. Finally, there should be continued reviews of climate adaptation plans.
Panel discussion
Moderator Johannes Berg said the speakers had outlined how much must be done. There would be a call for evidence regarding the Commission’s port and maritime strategies and this time could be used to elaborate good ideas to feed into the Commission’s reflections. He then introduced the participants. He asked Mr Belcastro why he believed Trump’s tariffs would spur innovation in Europe, as he had previously mentioned.
Guillermo Belcastro, CEO, BEST Terminal HPH, replied that Europe was suffering from a lack of competitiveness as there is too much regulation in place. On top of that, more efficiency is needed, and AI can assist to this end, with the final result being increased innovation. An environmental change is needed to create a more innovative approach.
Moderator Johannes Berg then asked Mr Vera about environment and climate protection. If there was one main issue for him, what would it be?
Luis Núñez Vera, Head of Strategy and European Affairs, Algeciras Bay Port Authority, replied that all issues were interlinked and could not be looked at in an isolated manner. Competitiveness would reinforce resilience and innovation. There were three pillars of sustainability: environmental, economic and social and all three must be considered. He was concerned about different regulations as they mainly targeted environmental issues but did not consider economic and social elements.
Moderator Johannes Berg, addressing Mr Jose, stated that some companies had remained competitive, such as Airbus. This is a European champion where cooperation between Member States is key. There seemed to be more competition in the maritime sector and he asked for a comment on this.
Sergio Oliete Josa, Head of Unit, DG INTPA, stressed the need to promote European interests outside the EU as well. There are segments of the value chains where Europe is still competitive. However, Europe is also very interdependent on other global actors. It is important for the comparative advantage of what can be done in Europe to be analysed. Partnerships can also be forged with likeminded regions. The clean industrial deal, for example, would seek to find such mutually beneficial partnerships. The EU needs to change its approach abroad towards one based on the Global Gateway. Europe must act in a smarter and more strategic way regarding partner countries.
Moderator Johannes Berg asked Mr Evans about the EU’s relationship with the UK. There seemed to be a getting together again and he asked for Mr Evans’ views on what he had heard here this morning.
Geraint Evans, CEO, UK Major Ports, believed there would be a stronger UK-EU relationship as it is in both sides’ shared interest. The UK Government is working on a new industrial strategy and there are lessons the UK can learn from Europe, such as in the area of hydrogen and e-fuels. The UK sometimes struggles to put together clusters and Europe could provide lessons in this regard.
Moderator Johannes Berg asked Mr Berterottière about the need for a shipbuilding strategy. Would this be too shortsighted? Is an entire reindustrialisation strategy for Europe not needed instead?
Philippe Berterottière replied that Europe has many advantages in the area of shipbuilding. However, this will not last for long if focus is not put on shipbuilding. Ships from the US cost five times more than the international market and their capacity to build had greatly reduced. Europe should support its state-of-the-art industry, even though it would likely never be able to equal Asian shipyards. These shipyards have been helped by their respective governments and Europe must not be naïve and find ways to maintain this industry. The IMO will vote on a new regime on fuels in a couple of days and he hoped that this will go in the right direction. This would further reinforce the Asian shipyards, however, while it will weaken European shipowners as they will not be able to amortise their ships as they were expecting.
Guillermo Belcastro supported the idea of developing technology in Europe. All of the current cyber technology currently being used is made in the US.
Moderator Johannes Berg, on the climate aspect, asked Mr Dalus for a comment on how non-European companies were viewing this.
Neil Dalus stated that, when he travelled around, he has seen that multiple challenges are being faced at the same time, such as when it comes to climate. Having trained staff is an issue around the globe, as is securing adequate amounts of energy. The more inconsistency, the more planning is thrown into turmoil.
Geraint Evans echoed that there are many challenges being seen. One thing that had come through loud and clear is the dual-use aspect which created challenges for ports’ planning.
Moderator Johannes Berg asked Mr Jose about putting green shipping corridors in place all over the world and helping to roll out low carbon fuels. At the same time, EU ports have to deal with ETS which created a lot of burden. Is this not unfair as the EU is helping ports around the world while having more rules for European ports.
Sergio Oliete Josa answered that that the initiative to support renewable and low carbon fuels outside Europe comes from the private sector. Different interests can be reconciled. There is a possibility that the approaches of differing sectors may not be fully aligned over the short to medium term, however. Colleagues in DG CLIMA and DG MOVE are the experts on ETS. It is worth supporting the agenda as the US and China cannot be allowed to lead in this area. The goal is also to project EU soft power around the globe so that European standards are adopted, for example. EU economic diplomacy can also be promoted through EU delegations abroad. Ultimately, facilities for managing green fuels can also be supported by the EU through the use of grants. Such projects would normally be bankable to have the right to receive funding. The dialogue with third countries on maritime issues can also form part of wider partnerships.
Moderator Johannes Berg asked Mr Vera about European software, such as via the ETS. Is the time of soft power over?
Luis Núñez Vera underscored the need for more resources given this is a time of crisis. He noted former Commissioner Pascal Lamy had stated that more opportunities for trade for Europe are needed, particularly in developing countries. However, caution must be shown as they may not be entirely aligned with EU values. The issue is also that these regions may not have to adhere to the same conditions as ports in Europe, such as in the area of alternative fuels. Partnerships do need to be made for adequate levels of alternative fuels, so it is clear that good partnerships are needed. Carbon leakage is synonymous with business leakage and this could lead to less activity and less employment in Europe. Everything is interconnected, he finished.
Guillermo Belcastro remarked that double digit growth is being seen in ports such as Valencia and Barcelona. A lot of transhipment would move away from the South of Europe in the future if there is carbon leakage, however, and this could undermine social aspects. Countries are receiving a lot of money from ETS and he encouraged the EU to monitor whether the money is being ploughed back into ports to accelerate the sustainable transition.
Moderator Johannes Berg asked Mr Evans about the need for investment into ports. Where will this money come from?
Geraint Evans replied that his broader fear is that the government sometimes struggles to follow through on the strategies they have put in place. When the government spoke about long-term, it meant 2-3 years, whereas when one spoke about long-term in this industry one was projecting 10-15 year out. As such, the visions are often misaligned. Not everywhere can be the centre of the universe of e-fuels, for example, and cooperation is needed in this area.
Moderator Johannes Berg opened the floor to questions.
Yves De Lariviere, Managing Director, Antwerp Euroterminal, stated that nuclear area had not been discussed. His terminal produced three times what it consumed. However, 30% of the power must come from the grid given lack of energy storage options. How could this energy supply be ensured?
Geraint Evans believed that the diversification of the power supply requires significant investment which is a challenge.
Luis Núñez Vera echoed that various sources of energy are needed. Nuclear should not be taken off the table. China and Russia are developing small modular reactors (SMRs) and Europe must make sure it does not become dependent on this new technology from either Russia or China. All types of energy had a risk.
Daniel Hosseus, Chief Executive Officer, Zentralverband der deutschen Seehafenbetriebe e.V., remarked that the tonnage tax in Germany had led to foregone revenue of 27 billion euro in Germany alone. He would like to see the same level of investment for ports. Revenues from the ETS should go into ports to enable the transition.
Philippe Berterottière said all could agree on the importance of low tax regimes for shipbuilders. Shipowners could not operate effectively without good and modern ports and, as such, a comprehensive approach should be put in place, including for equipment vendors. Otherwise, Europe would become very vulnerable.
Moderator Lamia Kerdjoudj asked Mr Berterottière if it makes sense to have a maritime industrial strategy that is separate from the port strategy. This approach seems to suggest ports are not industrial.
Philippe Berterottière replied that Europe is an exporting power. Europe, as a very powerful economic union, should have a global strategy in place, including shipping, shipyards and ports. This need must be properly articulated.
Moderator Johannes Berg asked what should be written in the port strategy.
Luis Núñez Vera called for a specific fund for ports.
Sergio Oliete Josa stated the need for more EU influence in foreign ports.
Geraint Evans underlined that rushed policy is bad policy so time should be taken when drafting policy.
Guillermo Belcastro held that the environmental challenges should also be paid for by the State and by users in general.
Neil Dalus emphasised that any strategy set out should be developed and aligned with realities on the ground and not how things were a couple of year ago.
Philippe Berterottière underlined that there must be space for European renewable energy, such as the possibility to harness offshore wind power to develop e-fuels.
Moderator Johannes Berg noted he had asked all panellists who they would like on their side to accompany them during these challenging times. Some had said Jeff Bezos, while others had said Elon Musk. He thought the best response was Asterix and Obelix as they were European, they stuck together and ultimately they always found solutions.
Keynote speeches
Moderator Lamia Kerdjoudj opened the final session. This panel would discuss the wish list in terms of maritime clusters. The goal should be to achieve synergies between maritime and port considerations. She then gave the floor to Mr Blauert.
Christian Blauert, Global Director, Port and Terminal Development, Moffatt & Nichol, would explain the conditions port operators are now operating in and which problems they are encountering. He noted he had managed port groups as well as big terminals in the past and he knew how difficult it is to change strategy. Regarding Moffatt & Nichol, there were over 1,000 employees. His organisation only concentrates on ports and terminals as is ranked number 1 in the US in terms of maritime turnover. There is north of 80% repeat business and the focus is on repeat business. They have offices across the US, in addition to 10 offices in Europe and several in Latin America, Asia and Australia.
Regarding global and European developments, he believed port competition is strong, with Algeciras in direct competition with Tangiers, for example. There has been a difference of 10 million TEU year-on-year in terms of growth rates and the distribution across regions is quite stable. Concerning main challenges, global economy development must be considered. Macro-economic developments across the globe must be taken into account, as should micro developments. He agreed that ‘slowbalisation’ is being seen, as is near-shoring and re-shoring.
There are geopolitical disruptions at play, in addition to environmental impacts. Sustainability experts are critical to ensuring infrastructure sustainability over the long term. Furthermore, there is ongoing maritime industry development being seen, including ongoing vertical and horizontal integration. There should be focus on better collaboration. Digitisation is also becoming a standard in the industry.
Disruptions include the Ukraine War, sanctions on Russia, the Gaza War, ETS and liner alliances, among others. On ETS, shipping is now included under this system. This has been overshadowed by attacks in the Red Sea, however. In terms of the effects of ETS on container shipping, there has been no apparent slowdown of ships since ETS was introduced. Regarding emissions regulations, he had recently seen a brand new LNG vessel and the push now is to upgrade port infrastructure in this area.
The New Gemini Alliance is also emerging. The Premier Alliance is also cooperating with MSC in Asia and there is a big deal with Hutchison which will likely create a giant. This would lead to changes in many ports and there could be an impact on European ports. Key maritime arteries are at risk, including challenges in the Panama Canal. There are also continuing tensions in the South China Sea. He echoed Captain Engelen’s contention that Arctic Shipping Routes (ASR) would come in the not-so-distant future. This inter-continental highway cannot be stopped and this would change the transport system dramatically. It would shake up the European landscape and different hubs would be seen. Russia is already analysing which port would be best to serve Russia.
He underlined the importance of trying to predict such changes long term. One must be fit and lean to survive in difficult times. Diversification can also be a way to survive, such as SSA moving into the cruise world. Policymakers and governments must ensure there is long term clarity for investment and to have balanced policies regarding local, regional and global considerations. There must also be good cooperation between stakeholders and governing bodies.
Moderator Lamia Kerdjoudj then invited Mr Klimke to the stage to share his thoughts.
Torsten Klimke, Head of Unit Ports and Inland Waterways, DG MOVE, asked who in the audience is dealing with ports but not primarily from the civil transport side. He noted there were relatively few. Space is often an issue in port areas and there are often many demands on the limited space available. One challenge will be how to optimise the existing space, particularly regarding new demands, such as from the energy transition and military mobility, for example.
A port framework was put forward in 2013 but now it needs updating. As such, the Commission will come up with a ports strategy. Competitiveness in general must be a central focus. There must also be fair competition and a level playing field, also in view of different policies being introduced, such as ETS. This scheme must be introduced in a way that is most effective. It is time to look at the long-term challenges for ports, together with stakeholders, to see what should and could be done from an EU perspective.
More clean energy and clean fuels need to be imported and more clean fuels would be needed for shipping and other modes of transport. It is also important to strengthen ports’ resilience and their military mobility capacities. Off-shore equipment is also growing in size and ports will need to deal with this. Port operations will have to be decarbonised and there is also the question of rolling out more automative and digital solutions to improve awareness of goods actually are, for instance, further to improving security as criminal activities are becoming a bigger and bigger problem in ports.
The question is also how the best possible trained workforce could be made available. How could automation support port workers and how could the gender gap be reduced? On EU funding, discussions on the next multi-financial annual framework (MFF) are ongoing. There are many needs for ports, also for the energy side, in addition to the military side. More funding is needed to enable Europe to strengthen its military capacity and thus more money is required. Different funding streams must be brought together.
Regarding the strategy, new legislation would likely not be the result as the Commission has not seen the need for more legislation. Rather, there should be a focus on clarifying the applicable rules, regulations and policies. Best practices on tackling drug trafficking, for instance, should also be taken up. Policies and regulations in place should be better explained, such as what the FDI Screening Regulation means for ports. There should also be better cooperation under the European Transport Alliance.
The strategy would also have to go hand-in-hand with the European Oceans pact and the maritime industry strategy, in addition to the rules on critical raw materials and cyber security, for example. Perhaps ENISA could also help ports shore up their critical technologies. Ideally, recommendations and guidelines would be developed, further to future actions. The Commission only had a couple of pages of ideas presently and he called for those present to submit their ideas. Future actions could be set out in different bodies. A call for evidence would be issued in May hopefully, though he is also open to receiving emails and meeting with interested parties.
Panel discussion
Moderator Lamia Kerdjoudj said the European Parliament had provided the impetus for the ports strategy. She asked Ms Kyllonen why ports had become a major topic of interest. Were they perceived as being weak?
TRAN Committee MEP Merja Kyllonen replied that some people believed they were weak. The key question was whether ports were really connected and collaborative. It was clear to her that many were still working in their own silos and the same is true of ports. Europe could be stronger if there is more cooperation and Europe can ultimately survive the influence of other global actors. Now is the time for the whole of Europe to wake up. She also hoped that the ports would play a key role in the circular economy. She called for more cooperation.
Moderator Lamia Kerdjoudj noted all were calling for a holistic approach, such as when it comes to dual-use or energy, for example. She asked Mr Klimke why there is a difference between the ports and maritime strategies.
Torsten Klimke said he took the point on breaking out of silo approaches. This approach increased the complexity of the work, though the Commission is committed to working across services. His team is working in close collaboration with the team heading up the industrial maritime strategy. The industrial side would look at software and ICT in general, for example. He expressed confidence there would be good alignment between the two strategies, though the work would probably not merge into one single document.
Moderator Lamia Kerdjoudj then asked Mr Ten Bos what kind of observations he would like to share.
Eric Ten Bos, Global Lead OT/IIoT cybersecurity, Thales Group, stated that cyber is everywhere and agreed one had to step outside of their own silo. The concept of borders does not apply to the digital world. Captain Engelen noted ports are information rich and he stated that one does not ship cargo, but data, and it is the data that allows the cargo to be shipped. IT is everywhere. Cyber is like any other normal criminal activity and it must be monitored to be better anticipated. Integration also led to more cyber risks. Cyber starts at shipbuilding and he underlined that all cyber capabilities were not in the US; rather, the EU also has a lot of cyber capabilities. There should be a dedicated cyber prorgamme put forward by the Commission.
Moderator Lamia Kerdjoudj agreed that there is already huge interconnectedness. Does it make sense to only secure the ports?
Eric Ten Bos replied that everything must be secured across the whole supply chain, and not using a silo approach. Criminals do not care where they can breach supply chains. Cyber security must be approached actively. Collaboration between stakeholders is key to beefing up cyber security and it do not necessarily have to be costly.
Moderator Lamia Kerdjoudj asked Mr Seebold whether he believed he was more exposed to threats in Europe than would be the case in other parts of the world.
Torben Seebold, Chief Human Resources Officer and Member of the Management Board, HHLA, remarked that all knew the issues at play. However, there is a lack of European legislation aimed at reducing bureaucratic burdens and speeding up bureaucratic process. There is also an investment scheme lacking when it comes to testing lower carbon types of energy, such as hydrogen. Social partnership is also a relative area with regard to transforming the industry, though the reduction of bureaucracy and additional funding is what is really required.
Moderator Lamia Kerdjoudj heard he wished to have a level playing field, less bureaucracy and a more comprehensive approach. She then asked Mr Maurer whether he was seeing more problems in his sectors than elsewhere.
Josef Maurer, Head of Maritime and Operations, European Transport Workers' Federation, agreed on the need to be coherent. Port workers wish to be safe and to have good job security. Ports still have decent working conditions; however, ongoing automation should not be used to undermine social elements. As such, ports had an advantage compared to other transport modes.
Moderator Lamia Kerdjoudj asked if the competitiveness agenda is also being discussed. What should the main components of the competitiveness agenda be when it comes to the transport sector.
Josef Maurer replied that providing decent conditions for workers would be fundamental for the whole sector. There should not be a race to the bottom. Good working conditions and salaries are required. Skills profiles are missing in aviation are missing because there are poor working conditions, for example.
Moderator Lamia Kerdjoudj underlined the importance of the energy aspect when it comes to ports. Moreover, European ports are in competition with ports in third countries. She asked Mr Ferrer can adequate funding be secured when it comes to rolling out alternative fuels, for example.
Richard Ferrer, Head of Alternative Fuels Sector, European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA), replied that there are already some financial means in place, such as under Horizon Europe. Most ports do support the deployment of facilities, such as hydrogen and methanol. E-fuels are not begin supported in particular at the moment, however, the means and the tools are available to support all the operators. Erasmus+ funds could also be harnessed, for example.
Christian Blauert said the main question is how one could survive. One must be efficient. Decarbonisation has to be done, though an efficient approach is required. Each decision taken regarding the maritime industry must be taken in an international context. Decisions must be seen in an international context.
Moderator Lamia Kerdjoudj remarked that the EU was in a race with the rest of the world for investors. She then asked Ms Kyllonen whether FDI in ports is something the EU does not like. Did the EU risk pushing investors away?
MEP Merja Kyllonen replied that the EU must show a strong backbone to survive. There are additional global partners possible beyond China and the US. Europe has all the elements to be a strong global player.
Moderator Lamia Kerdjoudj noted Captain Engelen had stated the context was difficult this morning. However, she had heard from Ms Kyllonen in particular that the maritime sector was not weak. Ports could be seen as the fortresses of Europe. Mr Ten Bos had also noted that the EU had the capacity to become more robust. Was this correct?
Eric Ten Bos underlined the need for good cyber security architecture.
Moderator Lamia Kerdjoudj thanked all participants for their input.
Gunther Bonz, President of FEPORT, thanked all speakers for their participation and closed the conference.
