Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Port Competitiveness and the EU ‘Port Services’ Directive: the Case of Greek Ports

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Maritime Economics & Logistics Aims and scope

Abstract

The European Union (EU) institutions have discussed but failed to agree on a proposal for a ‘port services’ directive that would introduce free market access to port services provision. This paper examines the impact that this EU policy initiative could have on Greek ports. A reform towards port devolution has characterised the national port policy since 2002. The paper analyses the responses of the first post-reform CEOs to a questionnaire on the draft EU proposal, in order to establish whether this temporary EU policy failure would work in favour of Greek ports. The research findings suggest that the adoption of an EU regulatory framework would reinforce the quality of services provided by Greek ports and advance an essential restructuring of the Greek port system, on the condition that it takes into account the specific local characteristics. By linking these results to the existing literature on port competitiveness and the current structures of Greek ports, the paper explains why Greek port authorities have endorsed a positive approach to the general aims of the proposed directive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The first post-reform generation of CEOs managed the Greek ports from 2001 until the end of 2004. The prelude had been the appointment of the two first ever CEOs in the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki (Dr H Psaraftis and Mr S Theofanis, respectively), in turn the result of the first batch of port reforms and the transformation of these ports in public corporations (1999). A second post-reform generation of CEOs replaced the first one, following a process that started in 2004 and concluded in early 2005. The research was conducted during the period September – December 2003.

  2. In the absence of a publicly available official Greek stance, most CEOs agreed to participate in the research on the condition that information provided would be held in confidence and reported only in aggregate form. Hence, only aggregated data are reported. For the list of the CEOs that have participated see Appendix B.

  3. The Conciliation Committee had 30 members: 15 members of the European Parliament and 15 representatives from the Council of Transport Ministers. It was co-chaired by Mr Renzo Imbeni, Vice-President of the European Parliament and Mr Guido Viceconte, Italian State Secretary for Infrastructure and Transport.

  4. The decision (October, 2004) of the government of Malta to give the green light to CMA – CGM for a 30-year concession of Malta Freeport Terminals is one of the latest examples. CMA – CGM will operate Malta Freeport Terminals mostly through Portsynergy, a joint CMA CGM/P&O Ports subsidiary, according to the principle of a common user terminal providing equal and fair access to all shipping companies.

  5. Newspaper Express, ‘Interventions in container terminals are essential’ (in Greek), 8.10.2004; the views of the trade unions representing masters, mates and seafarers are not different: Newspaper Express, ‘Modernisation of port infrastructure is essential’ (in Greek), 19.1.2005.

  6. See the interview of the Chairman of MSC Hellas in: Newspaper Naftemporiki, ‘We would invest in the Port of Piraeus if..’ (in Greek), 21.3.2005.

  7. Newspaper Express, ‘Container terminals: Decrease of big companies activities in Greek ports’ (in Greek), 26.10.2004.

  8. Newspaper Naftemporiki, ‘The Greek Ministry of Mercantile Marine plans up to 10 billion Euros investments in ports’ (in Greek), 1.3.2005.

  9. Cf. the views of the first ever CEO of the Port of Piraeus: Psaraftis, HN (2004), ‘Port of Piraeus SA: critical crossroads?’ (in Greek), Naftika Chronica, Issue No 75, December 2004.

References

  • Baird, AJ . 2002: The economics of container transhipment in Northern Europe. International Journal of Maritime Economics 4: 249–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltazar, R and Brooks, M . 2001: The governance of port devolution. A tale of two countries. Proceedings of the 9th World Conference of Transport Research, (CD-format), 2001.

  • Barros, CP and Athanasiou, M . 2004: Efficiency in European seaports with DEA: Evidence from Greece and Portugal. Maritime Economics and Logistics 6: 122–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, MR . 2004: The Governance structure of ports. Review of Network Economics 3: 168–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the EU (CEU). 1997: Green Paper on seaports and maritime infrastructure. Com (97)678, final, 10 December 1997.

  • CEU. 2001: Reinforcing quality services in Sea Ports: a key for European transport. Com (2001)35, final, 13 February 2001.

  • CEU. 2004a: Proposal for a Directive of the European Council and the European Parliament on market access to port services, Com (2004)654, final, 13 October 2004.

  • CEU. 2004b: Proposal for a Directive on Services in the Internal Market, Com (2004)2, 13 January 2004. CEU: Brussels.

  • Chlomoudis, CI and Pallis, AA . 2002a: European Port Policy: Towards a Long-term Strategy. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chlomoudis, CI and Pallis, AA . 2002b: Trends in investments in Port infrastructure in the Mediterranean countries: Convergence or divergence to EU policies? Spoudai 52: 65–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chlomoudis, CI, Karalis, VA and Pallis, AA . 2003: Port reorganisation and the worlds of production theory. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 3: 77–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullinane, KPB and Song, DW . 2001: The administrative and ownership structure of Asian container Ports. International Journal of Maritime Economics 3: 175–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De, P and Ghosh, B . 2003: Causality between performance and traffic: An investigation with Indian ports. Maritime Policy and Management 30: 5–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Transport (DoT). 2002, www.dot.uk., DoT: London.

  • Drewry. 2002: Global Container Terminals. Drewry Shipping Consultants: London.

  • European Community Shipowners Association (ECSA). 2002: Annual report 2001–2002. ECSA: Brussels.

  • European Parliament (EP). 1999: European sea port policy. Transport Series 106, European Parliament: Brussels.

  • European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO). 2004: ESPO News Plus. 10.27, 13 October 2004, ESPO: Brussels.

  • ESPO and FEPORT. 2002: Joint Statement on the European Commission's Amended Proposal for a Directive on Market Access to Port Services, 15 March 2002, Brussels.

  • European Shippers' Council (ESC). 2001: Response on the Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament and the Council for a Directive on Market Access to Port Services, 25 June 2001. ESC: Brussels.

  • European Transport Workers Federation (ETF). 2002: European dockworkers strongly oppose the port package, 6 June 2002. ETF: Brussels.

  • Farrell, S . 2001: If it ain't bust, don't fix it: The proposed EU directive on market access to port services. Maritime Policy and Management 28: 307–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, DK and Baird, AJ . 1999: Some reflections on port competition in the United States and Europe. Maritime Policy and Management 26: 383–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handley, S . 2003: Transport Policy in the European Union. Palgrave: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haralambides, H . 2002: Competition, excess capacity, and the pricing of port infrastructure. International Journal of Maritime Economics 4: 323–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haralambides, H, Verbeke, A, Musso, E and Benacchio, M . 2001: Port financing and pricing in the European Union: Theory, politics and reality. International Journal of Maritime Economics 3: 368–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heaver, TD . 1995: The implications of increased competition among ports for port policy. Maritime Policy and Management 22: 125–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heaver, TD, Meersman, H and Van de Voorde, E . 2001: Co-operation and competition in international container transport strategies for ports. Maritime Policy and Management 28: 293–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellenic Ports Association. 2003: Greek Ports 2003. HEPA: Thessaloniki.

  • Hoffmann, J . 2001: Latin American ports: Results and determinants of private sector participation. International Journal of Maritime Economics 3: 221–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juhel, MH . 2001: Globalization, privatisation and restructuring of ports. International Journal of Maritime Economics 3: 139–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Langen, PW . 2002: Clustering and performance: The case of maritime clustering in the Netherlands. Maritime Policy and Management 29: 209–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConville, J . 2002: Editorial: EU port policy. Maritime Policy and Management 29: 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Mercantile Marine. 2002: Strategy for a National Port Policy (in Greek). MMM: Piraeus.

  • Moglia, F and Sanguineri, M . 2003: Port planning: The need for a new approach? Maritime Economics and Logistics 5: 413–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, TE . 2002: Consolidation and contestability in the European container handling industry. Maritime Policy and Management 29: 257–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, TE and Winkelmans, W . 2001a: Structural changes in logistics: How will port authorities face the challenge? Maritime Policy and Management 28: 71–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, TE and Winkelmans, W . 2001b: Reassessing public sector involvement in European Seaports. International Journal of Maritime Economics 3: 242–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paixao, AC and Marlow, PB . 2003: Fourth generation ports – a question of agility? International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 33: 355–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallis, AA . 1997: Towards a common port policy? EU-proposals and the industry's perceptions. Maritime Policy and Management 24: 365–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallis, AA . 2002: The Common EU Maritime Transport Policy: Policy Europeanisation in the 1990s. Ashgate: Aldershot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallis, AA . 2003: Strategies to enhance Mediterranean EU Ports Competitiveness. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Maritime Transport and Maritime History, Technical University of Catalonia: Barcelona. pp. 107–120.

  • Peters, HJF . 2001: Developments in global seatrade and container shipping markets: Their effects on the port industry and private sector involvement. International Journal of Maritime Economics 3: 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, R . 2003: Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: The new paradigm. Maritime Policy and Management 29: 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, DW . 2003: Port co-opetition in concept and practice. Maritime Policy and Management 30: 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suykens, F and Van de Voorde, E . 1998: A quarter of a century of port management in Europe: Objectives and tools. Maritime Policy and Management 25: 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 1999: Port Reform Tool Kit. World Bank: Washington, DC.

Download references

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper has been presented at the 2004 Annual Conference of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) in Turkey. Financial support by a Jean Monnet contract in European Port Policy (03/121) has contributed to the completion of this work. We thank the representatives of Greek port authorities and of the Hellenic Ports Association who contributed to this research. The helpful comments of Professor H Haralambides and two anonymous referees motivated improvements to the paper and are gratefully acknowledged. Any remaining shortcomings are the responsibility of the authors alone.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Shipping, Trade and Transport, University of the Aegean, 2 Korai St, Chios, 82 100, Greece

    Athanasios A Pallis & George K Vaggelas

Authors
  1. Athanasios A Pallis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George K Vaggelas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Appendices

Appendix A: List of participant CEOs

illustration

figure a

Appendix B: Questionnaire

General Questions

  1. 1

    What is your general view of the proposals in the Communication and draft Directive?

  2. 2

    What is your view of the (a) potential positive effects for your organisation; (b) potential negative effects for your organisation; (c) potential costs to your organisation; and (d) potential benefits to your organisation? Is it possible to provide precise detail and to quantify the effects you anticipate and their likely cost or benefit?

  3. 3

    Do you believe that the Directive can fulfil its objectives as currently drafted? ie, to remove restrictions that hamper access for actual or potential port service operators; to ensure a more systematic application of Treaty rules; to improve the quality of service to port users and help reduce costs; whilst not jeopardising environment or safety? If not, what amendments are required? How might it meet them better?

  4. 4

    Do you believe these are appropriate objectives? If so, will this Directive address these specific problems? If not, where should the focus lay?

  5. 5

    Do you consider that there are problems in the Greek ports relating to access to the market for port services?

  6. 6

    In what respects would the Directive increase the burden of regulation, generally and on your organisation (please give costing if possible)?

  7. 7

    Is it possible to amend the draft Directive to reduce the potential regulatory burden whilst still enabling it to achieve its objectives and if so, how?

  8. 8

    In what way do you consider the impact of this Directive will differ between Greek and EC port sectors? Do you believe that this Directive moves us towards parity with the European port sector? What else is required, as a priority, to establish a level playing field across Europe?

State Aids

  1. 1

    Are you content with the European Commissions decision to rely on emerging case law rather than to issue guidance on state aids? What will this mean in practice for the Greek ports sector?

Impact on Specific Policy Areas

  1. 1

    What is the likely impact on Greek port sector labour force and labour market?

  2. 2

    What are the likely implications for health and safety in ports?

  3. 3

    Should health, safety and environmental considerations be included in the list of limitations on the number of port service providers? If so, why?

  4. 4

    Should self-handling providers (shipping companies) be subject to and comply with EU/national legislation?

  5. 5

    What will be the impact of the Directive on training?

  6. 6

    What will be the impact of the Directive on standards and quality of service?

  7. 7

    Will implementation impact on investment in the Greek port sector?

  8. 8

    What, in your opinion, will be the impact on the Greek economy?

  9. 9

    What impact will it have on regional development?

  10. 10

    Will implementation impact on environmental protection rules in ports?

  11. 11

    What impact will it have on ports serving lifeline ferry routes to peripheral communities?

  12. 12

    Will there be an impact on the structure of the Greek ports?

  13. 13

    Will there be an impact on competition between Greek ports or between Greek ports and their competitors in the EU?

  14. 14

    Will there be benefits for port users? If so, will these be felt by freight customers or passengers or both?

Scope

  1. 1

    Is the proposed list of services to be covered by the Directive appropriate? If not, what services should be added/removed and why?

  2. 2

    Do you believe that the qualifying thresholds are realistic? What, if any, problems will they pose? Should they be higher or lower?

  3. 3

    Should there be thresholds for each category of cargo handling rather than for overall port business?

  4. 4

    Should certain types of cargo/facilities be excluded from the scope of the Directive (eg oil)? If so, on what grounds?

Competent Authority

  1. 1

    Should the role of the competent authority be delegated to the port sector or retained centrally in Government?

  2. 2

    Do you think there should be an independent port regulator?

Market Access

  1. 1

    What is your view of the potential benefits/dis-benefits of increased market access in ports?

  2. 2

    Do you currently limit the number of service providers at your port? If so to what extent and why?

  3. 3

    Would you wish to limit the number of service providers in you port in the future? If so, for all or just some services? Please explain your reasons.

  4. 4

    Do you, or would you in the future wish to provide services at your port? Or at another Greek or EU port?

  5. 5

    Are you aware of any service providers or self-handlers who currently wish to provide a service at your port but are unable to do so?

  6. 6

    Are you aware of any service providers who would wish to provide a service at your port if this Directive were to come into force?

Transparency

  1. 1

    Do you believe that the separation of accounts by service providers will provide positive benefits to port users? Can you specify?

  2. 2

    Do you believe that these proposals will lead to increased transparency in charging for port services? If not, what other areas need to be addressed?

  3. 3

    Do you see practical problems in ensuring separation of accounts?

  4. 4

    Do you think it would be appropriate for existing port auditors to take on the role of independent scrutiny of separation of port service accounts? If not, who do you think should do this and why?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pallis, A., Vaggelas, G. Port Competitiveness and the EU ‘Port Services’ Directive: the Case of Greek Ports. Marit Econ Logist 7, 116–140 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100132

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100132

Keywords

Search

Navigation