FINAL Sustainability Report 2017

European
Port Industry
Sustainability Report
2017
Rapid Exchange System +

PPRISM
Governance Fact Finding Study

European Port Industry
Sustainability Report 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: MARKET TRENDS AND STRUCTURE INDICATORS ........................................ 5
LINKAGE GDP TO EU PORT TRAFFIC ............................................................................. 6
THE EVOLUTION OF THE GDP MULTIPLIER .................................................................. 7
REGIONAL CONTAINER TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENTS ...................................................... 8
THE TOP 15 CONTAINER PORTS ................................................................................. 10
TOP EU28 TRADE PARTNERS 2016 ............................................................................. 11
EU28 MERCHANDISE TRADE (2016) ........................................................................... 12
EU28 MERCHANDISE TRADE EVOLUTION .................................................................. 13
VESSEL SLOT CAPACITY OF CONTAINERS CARRIERS –JULY 2017 .............................. 14
PERFORMANCE OF CONTAINERS LINES ..................................................................... 15
ALLIANCE MARKET SHARE ON LOOPS ....................................................................... 16
THE EVOLUTION OF PPP FOREIGN ENTRY STRATEGIES ............................................. 17
PROFITABILITY AND RELIANCE ON ASSETS FOR TRADERS ........................................ 18
THE STRATEGIC ROLE OF TRADERS ............................................................................ 19
THE GENERATION OF MED HUBS ............................................................................... 20
TRANSHIPMENT INCIDENCE 2014 .............................................................................. 21
TRANSHIPMENT AND EMPTIES INCIDENCE EVOLUTION ........................................... 22
TRANSHIPMENT INCIDENCE PER REGION .................................................................. 23
GLOBAL CONTAINER HANDLING VOLUMES .............................................................. 24
CONTAINER PORT PROFILES IN EUROPE .................................................................... 25
SECTION 2: SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS ................................................................. 26
PORTOPIA’S MODEL FOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS ....................................... 27
SIMULATION EXAMPLE .............................................................................................. 28
SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY ..................................... 29
THE SAMPLE OF RESPONDENTS ................................................................................. 30
ENVIRONMENTAL MANGAMENT INDICATORS ......................................................... 32
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INDICATORS .......................................................... 34
TOP 10 ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES ....................................................................... 35
SERVICES TO SHIPPING ............................................................................................... 36
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 38
SECTION 4: LOGISTIC CHAIN AND OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ......... 39
LSCI EVOLUTION (EU) ................................................................................................. 40
LSCI EVOLUTION (WORLD) ......................................................................................... 41
TIME SPENT IN PORT (NEW INDICATOR, BASED ON UNCTAD AND MARINE TRAFFIC
DATA) .......................................................................................................................... 42

2

SECTION 5: GOVERNANCE INDICATORS ........................................................................ 48
SEAPORTS REMAIN UNDER PUBLIC OWNERSHIP BUT ARE MOVING TOWARDS
MORE INDEPENDENT BUSINESS-LIKE MANAGAMENT .............................................. 49
Share of commercialized entities through the EU Port authorities ......................... 50
MAIN PORTS SERVICES ARE IN PRIVATE HANDS ....................................................... 51
A GROWING COOPERATION TREND .......................................................................... 52
A STRONGER ‘LICENSE TO OPERATE’ OF PORT AUTHORITIES ................................... 54
Developing the port hand in hand with the local community and key stakeholders
................................................................................................................................. 54
Building a beneficial relationship with employees and the local community ......... 55
Urban ports and societal integration of port activities ............................................ 56
PORT AUTHORITIES ARE FACILITORS AND SUPPORTERS OF THE ENERGY
TRANSITION ................................................................................................................ 57
Ports are main entry points of energy commodities ............................................... 58
Ports are locations for energy production ............................................................... 59
Electricity provision ................................................................................................. 59
Energy management is a key concern of port authorities ....................................... 59
SECTION 6: USER PERCEPTIONS OF PORT QUALITY ...................................................... 61
QUALITY OF PORT INFRASTRUCTURE EVOLUTION (EU) ............................................ 62
QUALITY OF PORT INFRASTRUCTURE EVOLUTION (WORLD) .................................... 63
ABOUT THE ICT TOOL “USERS’ PERCEPTIONS” .......................................................... 66
THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE ......................................................................................... 66
PILOT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ICT TOOL “USERS’ PERCEPTIONS” ....................... 66
Overview of outcomes ............................................................................................. 66
“State of the European Ports” Report ..................................................................... 67
GAP Analysis ............................................................................................................ 84
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 90

3

INTRODUCTION
This report serves as the second Sustainability Report at the level of the European Port Industry.
Following the projects on the development of European wide port performance indicators, such
as PPRISM (see pprism.espo.be) and PORTOPIA (see www.portopia.eu), it consolidates both the
relevant outputs and insights of these projects, but at the same time aims to be much more than
that, integrating data and insights from other sources such as, among others, UNCTAD, OECD,
World Bank, Eurostat, PortEconomics.eu, selected academics and selected private data suppliers.
It is set-up along 6 dimensions, in line with the principles of integrated reporting:
- Market Trends and Structure indicators

- Socio-Economic indicators
- Environmental and Occupational Health, Safety and Security indicators
- Logistics Chain and Operational Performance indicators
- Governance indicators
- User Perceptions on Port Quality indicators
Currently, the report focuses on leveraging existing datasets present within the European Seaports
Organisation (ESPO – the leading trade association for European ports), such as the Rapid
Exchange System for traffic figures, and the ECOPORTS project. The Market Trends and
Structure as well as the Environmental section of the report are thus currently the most developed
sections. For the other categories, we currently refer to other sources, or highlight the
developments underway in the PORTOPIA project.
Finally, we believe the report can grow substantially, integrating insights from the other
stakeholders present within the European port industry such as the trade associations of terminal
operators, the pilots, the tugowners, the boatmen, and other related assocations such as the
AIVP/IACP (International Association of Cities and Ports).
We hope the report can serve stakeholders within and outside the industry to better understand
the major tendencies within the industry, stimulating discussion among stakeholders and leading
to strategic alignment between stakeholders to further enhance the competitiveness of the
European port industry, and keep it in its leading position on a global level.
For more information and background on the various sections of the report, please contact
the PORTOPIA project coordinator (michael.dooms@vub.be) or the following experts:
- Market Trends and Structure indicators (theo.notteboom@uantwerpen.be)

- Socio-Economic indicators (vanderlugt@ese.eur.nl)
- Environmental and Occupational Health, Safety and Security indicators
(rm.darbra@upc.edu, sotiris.raptis@espo.be)
- Logistics Chain and Operational Performance indicators (michael.dooms@vub.be)
- Governance indicators (isabelle.ryckbost@espo.be, laurens.schautteet@espo.be)
- User Perceptions on Port Quality indicators (g.vaggelas@stt.aegean.gr)
4

SECTION 1: MARKET TRENDS AND STRUCTURE

INDICATORS

The market trends and indicators were developed based on the results of work package one of the
Portopia project. The following section presents these main results, which were extracted from a
myriad of data sources like ESPO RES+, the Portopia datacenter, Eurostat, World Bank,
renowned academic authors, etc.
Information can roughly be grouped into three subsections. First, we discuss the macro indicators,
GDP, main traffic evolutions, the impact of China and international trade etc. Second, we discuss
specific trade patterns within the European port system. Third, we zoom in on the changing
surrounding landscape, including the evolution of container alliances and the growing importance
of traders.

5

LINKAGE GDP TO EU PORT TRAFFIC
Annual growth port throughput and real GDP in EU28

6%
4%
2%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
-2%
-4%
-6%
-8%
-10%
-12%
Annual growth total seaborne goods handled (EU28) Real GDP growth per annum (EU 28)
Source: based on data Eurostat
Modest growth in seaborne goods handled
With a total throughput estimated at 3.84 billion tonnes in 2015, the European port system still
ranks among the busiest port systems in the world. The strongest growth figures were obtained
before 2008, partly driven by fast growing container throughput, i.e. an average annual growth
rate of 10.5% in the period 2005-2008 and 7.7% in the period 2000-2005. Because of the crisis,
European ports decreased 12.1% in 2009, and somewhat bounced back in 2010 to 3.67 billion
tons (+5.9% compared to 2009), but over the past few years sustained growth remained difficult,
with a strong 2011 at +2.6%, a relapse in 2012 and 2013 (at -0.8% and -0.5% respectively). The
years 2014 and 2015 showed a modest growth of 1.9% and 1.4% respectively. Since 2012, growth
in seaborne cargo throughput is mostly below real GDP growth.
6

THE EVOLUTION OF THE GDP MULTIPLIER
Real GDP growth, TEU growth and GDP mutiplier for EU28
15% 15
10% 10
5% 5
GPD multiplier
Annual growth
0% 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
-5% -5
-10% -10
-15% -15
-20% -20
Real GDP growth per annum (EU 28)

Growth in container throughput (basis = TEU)
Source: based on Eurostat and Notteboom (2016)

GDP Multiplier (right axis)

Container market shows modest recovery since 2009
The total TEU handled in European ports (EU28) suffered from the economic and financial crisis
which started in late 2008. The year 2009 brought a TEU drop of 14% in the EU port system with
some ports recording even much higher losses (e.g. Hamburg saw a TEU volume drop of 28%).
Since 2012, growth figures in container handling show a modest growth between 2.5% and 5%
per annum, with the exception of 2015.
Comparing TEU growth and GDP growth gives the GDP multiplier. In 2015, this value was
negative given the drop in TEU volumes.
7

REGIONAL CONTAINER TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENTS
Growrh 2007-2016 in million TEU 2.5

Rhine-Scheldt Delta
Greece
2
1.5 Spanish Med Portugal

West Med Hub North Adriatic
1
UK SE Coast Gdansk Bay
0.5
Ligurian range
0 North Germany
Kattegat/The Sound South Finland
-50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175%
-0.5Seine Estuary Growth 2007-2016 in % (basis = TEU)
Black Sea West
-1
Source: Notteboom (2017)
Growth 2007-2016 for multi-port gateway regions in Europe - Growth patterns strongly
differ per port region in Europe
Total container throughput in the EU increased by 13.9% between pre-crisis year 2007 and 2016.
But growth patterns differ per port region.
The Rhine-Scheldt Delta (with Rotterdam, Antwerp and Zeebrugge as main container ports)
handled 24 million TEU in 2016. Compared to 2007, the Delta’s container throughput increased
by 2.47 million TEU or 11.5%. The share of the Rhine-Scheldt Delta in total EU container
throughput shows moderate fluctuations in the 23-25% range since 2007. In 2016, its share
reached 23.4% compared to 23.9% in 2007.
The North-German container ports (initially only Hamburg and Bremerhaven, but since 2012 also
Wilhelmshaven) managed to increase the joint traffic share in Europe from 13% in the late 1990s
to 16.5% in 2007. However, sharp volume drops in 2009 brought the traffic share below 15%. By
2012 the region’s position recovered to 15.8%, but then gradually slipped to 14.6% in 2016. The
North German port system recorded a minuscule growth of 0.6% between 2007 and 2016 to reach
14.94 million TEU in 2016. The Seine Estuary (Le Havre, Rouen) is still below the 2007 volume,
but its stable volume share remained stable in past few years.
8

Southern European ports (all indicated in red) are on the rise. This is particularly the case for the
Greek container port system (effect of volume rise of Piraeus), the Portuguese ports (mainly due
to the success in the port of Sines) and the North-Adriatic ports. Before the crisis, the Spanish
Med port region (Valencia, Barcelona, Tarragona, etc..) recorded a growth of its European share
from 4% in 1993 to 6.3% in 2007. By 2016, its share increased further to 6.9% representing a
growth of 1.34 million TEU or 23.6% compared to 2007. Ligurian ports in Italy represent some
4.3% of the total European port volume in the past few years, a decline compared to 6-7%
throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The port system saw a modest growth of 9.8% in the 2007-2016
period.
The 'pure' transhipment hubs in the West Med (Algeciras, Gioia Tauro, Marsaxlokk, etc.) emerged
in the mid 1990s mainly to serve the growing number of Asia-Med services. Combined, these
hubs saw a growth of 12% and 1.2 million TEU in the 2007-2016 timeframe.
In the 2007-2016 period, the UK SE Coast port region added 1 million TEU to its container
throughput. This represents a growth of 14.8%. Felixstowe and Southampton remain the main
gateways in the UK container port system, while Thamesport gradually lost its role as port of call
on the major east-west trade routes. The relatively new London Gateway is starting to have an
impact on competitive dynamics as well.
In the last couple of years, the ports in the Bay of Gdansk are witnessing a healthy growth and an
increasing traffic share in Europe (now 1.9% compared to 0.8% in 2007 and 0.5% in 2004). In
the 2007-2016 period, the Gdansk bay port region added 1.23 million TEU to its container
throughput or a high growth of 173%. This is mainly due to the growth of the DCT facility in
Gdansk. The success of the Gdansk bay port region is in contrast to the modest traffic losses in
the port system at the entrance of the Baltic (Kattegat/the Sound) and South Finland.
The western part of the Black Sea port region recorded a decline of some 640,000 TEU in the
2007-2016 period which represents a traffic loss of some 42%. This development demonstrates
that shipping lines, for the time being, prefer a hub-feeder model in the Med to service the Black
Sea area instead of direct deepsea calls in the Black Sea.
Multi-port gateway regions (% in European T EU traffic )
Gatew ay port
2008 2012 2014 2015
1. Rhine-Scheldt Delta 24.7% 24.1% 23.4% 23.8%
2. North Germany 16.8% 15.8% 15.4% 14.8% Transhipment/i nterli ni ng port
3. Seine Estuary 2.9% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% (transhipment incidence >75% )
4. Portugese Range 1.4% 1.8% 2.4% 2.4%
5. Spanish Med range 6.9% 6.7% 6.4% 6.6% Gatew ay port also handling
6. Ligurian Range 4.5% 4.1% 4.1% 4.4% substantial transhipment flow s
7. North Adriatic 1.6% 1.9% 2.0% 2.2%
8. UK Southeast Coast 7.4% 6.4% 6.8% 7.6%
Finland M ulti-port gatew ay region
9. Gdansk Bay 0.9% 1.7% 2.0% 1.8%
10. Black Sea W est 1.7% 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% 11 (N )
11. South Finland 1.6% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% Sweden (M )
Norway Rauma (O ) M ain stand-alone gatew ay s
12. Kattegat/The Sound 1.9% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% S t-P etersburg

ALL 12 multi-port gateway regions 72.1% 69.0% 68.8% 70.0% T urk u U st-Luga
B ergen
Stand-alone gateways 16.6% 20.2% 20.1% 19.2% O slo S tock holm T allinn S illamae M ain shipping route
W est Med hubs 11.3% 10.7% 11.1% 10.8% Estonia Estonian-Russian
por t r egion
Source : Not te boom (2010; 2016)
12 G öteborg V entspils Latvia
Riga
G rangemouth Russia
A arhus H elsingborg Lithuania
B elfast UK M almö K laipeda
T eesport Den.
Ireland C openhagen
D ublin H ull Belarus
(P ) Lübeck G dy nia G dansk

Liv erpool 1
S zczecin 9
C ork (E ) (L) H am burg
Am ericas (K ) (H ) NL 2
(J) (D ) Poland
8 (I ) (A )
(G ) (B ) Germany Ukraine
(F ) (C )
Belg.
Le H av re
Czech Republic
Rouen Slovakia
B rest 3
N antes-S t-N azaire France

Austria
Hungary
Am ericas Switz. Romania C onstantza

T rieste
B ordeaux K oper 10
V enice Croatia (A) Antw erp
Rijek a
F errol S antander G enoa Rav enna V arna (B) Zeebrugge
G ijon S av ona Bosnia& (C) Ghent
M arseille-F os La S pezia 7
Herz. Serbia B urga
V igo
s
(D) Rotterdam
B ilbao Liv orno Bulgaria
6 (E) Amsterdam
4 Leixoes
Mace. (F) Dunkirk
B arcelona Italy
(G) Southampton
Portugal Spain T hessalonik i Turkey
Lisbon T arragona Alb. (H) Felix stowe
S etubal (I) Thamesport
N aples
V alencia 5 T aranto Greece (J) Tilbury
S ines

C agliari (K) London Gatew ay
S ev illa (L) Bremerhaven
P iraeus
C adiz A lgeciras M alaga Cyprus (M) Kotka
Main shipping route G ioia T auro
(N) Hamina
Middle East – Far East (O) Helsinki

Algeria Tunisia (P) Wilhelmshav en

Morocco M arsaxlok k
Malta
Source: Notteboom (2010; 2016)

9

THE TOP 15 CONTAINER PORTS
Total container throughput in 1000 TEU
Rank Rank Rank 2016 Growth Growth
Port
2016 2015 2007 1000 TEU 2015/2016 2007/2016
1 1 1 Rotterdam (NL) 12,385 1.2% 14.8%
2 2 3 Antwerp (BE) 10,037 4.0% 22.7%
3 3 2 Hamburg (DE) 8,907 1.0% -9.9%
4 4 4 Bremerhaven (DE) 5,487 -1.1% 12.2%
5 6 6 Algeciras (ES) 4,760 5.5% 39.2%
6 5 8 Valencia (ES) 4,722 2.3% 55.2%
7 7 7 Felixstowe (UK) 4,016 -0.7% 20.1%
8 8 - Piraeus (EL) 3,675 9.4% 167.7%
9 9 12 Marsaxlokk (MT) 3,080 0.5% 62.1%
10 11 5 Gioia Tauro (IT) 2,797 9.8% -18.8%
11 10 9 Le Havre (FR) 2,519 -1.6% -4.5%
12 12 14 Genoa (IT) 2,298 2.5% 23.9%
13 14 10 Barcelona (ES) 2,238 14.6% -14.3%
14 13 13 Southampton (UK) 2,037 4.2% 9.0%
15 - - Sines (PT) 1,513 13.8% 908.7%
TOP 15 70,471 2.6% 15.0%
TOP 3 31,329 2.0% 8.6%
Source: Notteboom (2017) based on port authority data
Top 15 European container ports
While in 2015 the top 15 ports still saw a small traffic decline of 1.6% compared to 2014, this
time we have a modest growth of 2%. Barcelona, Sines, Piraeus, Algeciras and Antwerp record
the highest y-o-y growth figures, while Felixstowe, Le Havre and Bremerhaven are the only ports
with a traffic loss in 2016. The top 15 ports combined saw a rather unimpressive 15% increase in
container traffic compared to pre-crisis year 2007. In nearly a decade, four of the 15 ports recorded
container volumes in 2016 which still remain below the 2007 figures. Gioia Tauro and Barcelona
are special cases combining a strong growth in 2016 with 2016 figures well below the 2007
container throughput. Star growers during the 2007-2016 period are found in southern Europe:
Sines (9 times more volume), Piraeus (+168%), Marxaxlokk, Valencia and Algeciras. It mostly
concerns ports which heavily rely on sea-sea transhipment volumes. When it comes to ports with
a much stronger gateway/hinterland orientation, Antwerp and Genoa are the strongest
growers. Only few changes took place when it comes to the ports that made it to the top 15.
Piraeus was not in the top 15 in 2007. In that year, Constantza ranked no. 15 (1.41 mio TEU) and
Zeebrugge no. 11 (2.02 mio TEU). Sines joined the top 15 only in 2016 filling the spot previously
occupied by Zeebrugge (1.56 mio TEU in 2015).

10

TOP EU28 TRADE PARTNERS 2016
Source: based on Eurostat data

China and the US remain most important business partners
The top trade partners in 2016 are for export, the United States with 21% (18% in 2014), China
10% (same as in 2014), followed by Switzerland, Turkey, Russia, Japan, and Norway. For
Imports, China leads with 20% of the total trade value (18% in 2014), followed by the US with
15% and Switzerland with 7%. In the period 2014-2016, Russia lost a position in the top ranking,
both in imports and exports.
11

EU28 MERCHANDISE TRADE (2016)
Source: Based on Eurostat data
Machinery and transport equipment dominate exports and imports also in 2016
Focusing on the distribution per sector, three categories dominate the exports: “machinery and
transport equipment” (43%), “chemicals and related products” (18%) and “manufactured goods”
(10.9%). The import segment is a little more fragmented, however machinery, manufactured
goods and mineral fuels account for 80% of all imports, followed by chemicals (10.8%).
12

EU28 MERCHANDISE TRADE EVOLUTION
Source: Eurostat
EU merchandise trade (in value)
In the last year, the over-performance of exports against imports continued, but stabilized
somewhat. The positive trend of exports against imports is expected to reasonably carry on in the
next years. This shift in the morphology of EU trade flows with other economies should provoke
several adjustments in the volumes and the types of merchandises transiting within European
ports.
13

VESSEL SLOT CAPACITY OF CONTAINERS CARRIERS –JULY 2017
Source: aggregation Aplhaliner data of 13 July 2017
Consolidation and alliance formation in container shipping lead to market concentration
Since 2014, the container shipping industry is witnessing a massive wave of carrier consolidation.
In mid-2014, Hamburg Süd acquired CCNI (Compañía Chilena de Navegación Interoceánica). In
December 2014, the merger between Hapag-Lloyd and CSAV (Companía Sud Americana de
Vapores) was completed. In late 2015, NOL/APL and CMA CGM agreed on the sale of APL
container division to CMA CGM. Early 2016 brought the merger between China Shipping and
Cosco to form China Cosco Shipping Group. Hapag-Lloyd and UASC announce to merge in the
same year. In late 2016, NYK line, MOL and K-Line announced to merge their container activities
to form ONE (Ocean Express Network). In early 2017, Hanjin was formally declared bankrupt.
In April 2017, the European Commission cleared the take-over of Hamburg-Sued by Maersk. In
July 2017, COSCO announced it will acquire OOCL.
The consolidation wave went hand in hand with a massive reshuffling in alliances. In early 2017,
CKYHE, G6, 2M and Ocean Three made room for THE Alliance, Ocean Alliance and 2M.
The latest consolidation wave is having a significant impact on the container carrier ranking. In
2010, the market was still characterised by three mega carriers with fleet capacities above 1
million TEU (i.e. Maersk, MSC and CMA CGM) followed by about 17 global carriers each
having a slot capacity between 200,000 and 650,000 TEU. The carriers outside the top 20 were
all niche players (regional and feeder operators). The graph shows the effect of recent M&A
activity on the container carrier ranking. The group of medium-sized global carriers has virtually
been wiped out. Yang Ming and HMM have become outliers in the new global carrier landscape.
They are challenged to either join the top league through engaging in M&As or to become niche
or regional players. ZIM has opted for the latter path. The latest round in M&A activity and
alliance formation paves the way for a stronger influence of geopolitical factors in container
shipping.

14

PERFORMANCE OF CONTAINERS LINES
Source: BCG analysis based on annual reports
Freight rates at the root of alliances
The alliances were mostly caused by the pressure on the freight rates, reducing EBIT margins and
forcing scale increase. As can be observed, CMA CGM and Maersk Line are the scale leaders,
allowing for the best revenues and optimal utilization of economies of scale. SITC and Wan Hai
are niche players, generating large margins but lower revenues. The remainder is ‘stuck in the
middle’ and is faced with an up or out scenario.
15

ALLIANCE MARKET SHARE ON LOOPS
Source: Alphaliner Weekly Newsletter, volume 2017, issue 14
Three alliances dominate the main East-West trade routes
Between 2015 and Q2 2017, four alliances were operational in the container shipping market:
2M, Ocean Three, CKY(H)E and G6. The merger of China Shipping and Cosco to form China
Cosco Container Lines (COSCOCS) and the acquisition of APL/NOL by CMA CGM were the
first major market changes signalling major changes in the current alliance structure. Since Q2
2017, three major shipping alliances are active on the main east-west trade routes; the 2M alliance,
the Ocean Alliance and THE Alliance. The Ocean Alliance operates the largest fleet capacity on
the trans-Pacific trade, while 2M is market leader on the Europe-Far East trade.
16

THE EVOLUTION OF PPP FOREIGN ENTRY STRATEGIES
Source: Parola et al., 2013
Land side terminals gaining market power through expansion
As widely acknowledged by scholars and practitioners, international terminal operators (ITOs)

have profoundly accelerated their process of overseas expansion in many geographic regions. As
a result, a handful of players take the lead of this market, provoking an increasing consolidation
from the supply side. Currently, the top 5 ITOs approximately control over the 40% of the overall
port throughput worldwide. The graph above depicts the relative importance and evolution of the
two PPP foreign entry strategies in the container port industry during the 1990–2010 periods.
17

PROFITABILITY AND RELIANCE ON ASSETS FOR TRADERS
Source: Meersman, Rechtsteiner and Sharp (2013)
Traders gaining market power via vertical integration
The commodity trading landscape has changed extensively over the past years. After World War
2, large trading companies, which used to dominate primary commodity trade throughout the 20th
century, have undergone vast structural changes. The mutation of largely single-line commodity
traders into multi-commodity traders now span the entire spectrum of commodities that enter
world trade. Today, growing global profit pools, rising profiles of industry leaders and lower entry
barriers have attracted a large number of players to the commodity trading market. The graph
above presents an overview of the reliance on assets of some of the most important traders: while
there is still a significant group of pure traders, quite a few traders have vertically integrated their
activities and became asset-based, even controlling key storage facilities and assets.

18

THE STRATEGIC ROLE OF TRADERS
Source: Meersman, Rechtsteiner and Sharp (2013)
Growing strategic role of traders in cargo and port routing (oil)
Traders are playing a key role in all the stages of the process, which relate to the entire liquid bulk
supply chain. They manage the highest crude and clean petroleum products. Gunvor Glencore,
Trafigura, Vitol, Mercuria, and investment banks such as Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan have shares
or hire storage farms. Also minor traders have quotas in storages. The impact of the traders in the
flows of oil products through EU ports surely will depend on the internal oil demand and if the
EU will overcome the crisis. If the EU won’t recover, the EU flows will be small and maybe tank
storages will remain in overcapacity.
19

THE GENERATION OF MED HUBS
Source: Parola (2013)
North African ports put pressure on Med range
The Mediterranean ports are experiencing the fierce competition of newcomers located in North
Africa, which find their competitive advantage in the following factors: a) cost advantages (lower
cost of space and very low wages); b) “legislative” advantages (simplified administrative
procedures for FDIs, governmental incentives, etc.); c) geographical position advantages (lower
diversion distance respect to the trunk route Suez/Gibraltar); d) physical advantages (deep-water
terminals with large backyard spaces).
20

TRANSHIPMENT INCIDENCE 2014
Source: Portopia calculation based on Drewry (2014)
Med ports still largest transshipment incidence 2014
In 2013, the Med transhipment ports gained a substantial amount on their Northern counterparts.
This comes as container shipping lines have been rationalising their service networks and
replacing direct services to and from West Africa with transhipment from ever larger east-west
mother ships passing through the Mediterranean. Gioia Tauro, Marsaxlokk and Algeciras have
more than 90% transhipment. The Northern ports of Hamburg, Rotterdam and Antwerp are all
below the 40% mark.
21

TRANSHIPMENT AND EMPTIES INCIDENCE EVOLUTION
Global transshipment & empties incidence
The 1980 till 2000 saw a sharp rise in transhipment incidence, mostly due to the rise of the pure
transhipment hubs like the West Med ports. Post 2000, a stabilization occurred with slower
growth margins and a transhipment incidence levelling around 25-28%. The global transhipment
incidence factor in 2014 registered 27.6% and has steadily retreated from a peak of 28.3% in
2008. The empties incidence, denoting the amount of empty containers has remained between
20% and 25% for the past 25 years.
22

TRANSHIPMENT INCIDENCE PER REGION
East regions transshipment, West regions lose transhipment
The transhipment evolutions are strongly region dependent. As we can see from the figure above,
the Western regions were faced with a small decline in transhipment: North West Europe -2.3%,
West Med -2.8%. Their counterparts to the East outperformed them slightly, with growths in the
Baltic region of 0.4% and the Black Sea region of 2.6%.

23

GLOBAL CONTAINER HANDLING VOLUMES

Stable evolution with small transshipment rise
Absolute global volumes of container handling grew steadily over the past 10 years. If we
compare 2004 to 2014, we find total handling +87%, full handling +79%, empty handling +118%,
transhipment +93%. In relative amounts, transhipment grew faster than the other groups pre-2000,
whilst stabilizing in the last two decades.
24

CONTAINER PORT PROFILES IN EUROPE
East regions gain transhipment, West regions lose transhipment
North Italian ports and UK ports are predominantly involved in gateway functions. The load
centres are situated in the Hamburg-Le Havre range; Barcelona and Valencia act as mixed ports.
For these nodes, traditional gateway functions did not exclude the development of transhipment
activities, which provide further business opportunities for increasing total throughput volumes
and provide bundled services (combining gateway handling with transhipment) to main
customers. A longitudinal analysis shows that the ports protagonist of transhipment in Europe
remain the same within the overall period.
25

SECTION 2: SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS

From a historical perspective, socio-economic impact indicators such as, inter alia, employment
and value added have been important criteria to justify and show the economic contribution of
port development to local communities as well as different levels of government. Whereas the
communication of these impacts to local communities principally serves the creation of societal
acceptance of port activity, the studies on which this communication is based on play a more
important role as the competent governments use the outcomes as criteria for budget allocation
of public infrastructure funds as well as the granting of permits allowing the port authority and
the port firms to operate. In other words, port performance in terms of creation of employment
and value added are important indicators to convince stakeholders of the necessity of port
development and operations in their region or country.
Out of PPRISM, two relevant socio-economic indicators were identified by European ports: direct
employment and direct added value, to show the contribution of ports to the European economy.
Moreover, the need for further harmonization was identified as well as the fact that only a few
ports report on employment and added value at a structural basis. At present, only ca. 10
individual ports (Belgium, Netherlands, Germany) are able to present annually updated, and
reliable figures on the employment and gross added value created within the area they manage,
in some cases these data are managed externally. As a result, in order to provide aggregated
figures on the EU-level, short-cut extrapolations are needed.
For employment, based on PPRISM data and updates of the sample, we extrapolated in 2014 that
direct employment in port areas amounts to approx. 1,1 million full-time equivalents (FTE). This
figure comprises both cargo handling and other activities in the port area such as industry, trade,
logistics, land transport services.
Within these 1,1 million FTE, based on our data in Belgium and The Netherlands, around 40% is
linked to cargo handling activities (as well as related activity taking place in the port, such as
agents, tugs, repair, shipbuilding etc) - this is also considered the "maritime cluster".
Based on the above and accounting also the indirect employment (i.e. supply of products and
services to directly concerned firms in the port area), leading to a total impact of 2,5 million FTE
(direct plus indirect), we could state that 1 FTE in the maritime cluster - or jobs related directly
to the transfer of cargo (i.e. total of 400.000 to 450.000 FTEs) - supports at least 4 other jobs in
the wider region (approx. the remaining 2 million FTE) either in the port area i.e. the industry /
distribution / logistics / land transport, or outside the port area e.g. suppliers of maintenance
services etc. not located in the port area.
Within this area of performance, the aim of the PORTOPIA project is to provide ports with a
direct employment and direct gross added value estimation tool, allowing more ports to report on
these indicators based on a scientifically valid method, based on proxy indicators related to the
amount of cargo (for maritime related employment) and the land use (for non-maritime related
employment).

26

PORTOPIA’S MODEL FOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS
Source: PORTOPIA Deliverables
Estimation models need to take into account port specificities
An estimation model developed based on ‘smart proxies’ can overcome the issue of data
shortages, and provide a solution to the need for these figures. Leveraging the extensive datasets
from two best practices, i.e. the historically exhaustive datasets on 8 core TEN-T ports from
Belgium and the Netherlands, general multipliers for port related activities were identified.
For these best practices, see:
http://havenmonitor.nl (in Dutch, version 2015)
https://www.nbb.be/doc/ts/publications/wp/wp283en.pdf (in English, report June 2015 on the

year 2013)

27

SIMULATION EXAMPLE
Source: PORTOPIA Deliverables
Final steps in rendering the estimation model are underway
While the research on the estimation model has shown good fits with the direct employment for
the maritime cluster, larger differences between the estimation and actual employment reported
has been observed for the non-maritime cluster (e.g. petrochemical industry, energy, associated
logistics, etc.). Additional work will be done:
Inclusion of dry ports that are located close by the port (e.g. Italian example).
The estimates can be improved through the inclusion of port profile variables. The
research team is looking into the potential indicators for further implementation.
The model estimates quite well the node function related employment (i.e. the
maritime/transport cluster), based on the traffic related variables. For the location
function related employment (such as industry), we still look for correlating variables.
Currently we look at land use as proxy. Over the next period in time the data for land use
for the Dutch and Belgian ports will be collected, after which we will statistically test the
method for applicability to other ports in Europe.
28

SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, SAFETY AND

SECURITY
This section presents the updated results for the year 2017 of the European ports’ environmental
performance. Selected benchmark performance elements are introduced and discussed. The data
on these indicators are obtained from the responses of 91 EU ports to the EcoPorts SDM, a tool
developed for identifying environmental risk and establishing priorities for action and compliance
(http://www.ecoports.com/).
Initially, the section introduces the sample of the respondent ports, mentioning the number of
ports by country that contributed to the exercise, their geographical location and their size.
Secondly, the results of the indicators are provided, being structured in the four categories of the
PORTOPIA environmental indicators: i) environmental management indicators, ii)
environmental monitoring indicators, iii) top environmental priorities and iv) services to shipping.
The 2017 results are then compared with those from 2016, 2013, and variations and trends over
time are highlighted. Finally, some conclusions are drawn.

29

THE SAMPLE OF RESPONDENTS

As mentioned, 91 ports participated in this assessment from 21 different countries. Table 1 below
provides the list of EU countries represented, the number of participating ports of each country
and the percentage. Spain and the United Kingdom are the countries that have more ports
represented, 12% each one, followed by France with 11% of ports.
Table 1: List of countries represented in the sample and the number of participating ports
Country Number of ports Percentage
Spain 11 12%
United Kingdom 11 12%
France 10 11%
Netherlands 9 10%
Germany 7 8%
Greece 7 8%
Sweden 4 4%
Norway 4 4%
Denmark 4 4%
Italy 3 3%
Croatia 3 3%
Ireland 3 3%
Finland 3 3%
Latvia 2 2%
Jordan 2 2%
Portugal 2 2%
Turkey 2 2%
Romania 1 1%
Estonia 1 1%
Morocco 1 1%
Lithuania 1 1%
Figure 1 shows the geographic settings of the contributing ports. It demonstrates that the sample
is reasonably well balanced concerning the location of the ports.
30

Figure 1: Geographical characteristics of the sample
Another characteristic of the sample that is studied is the tonnage of the contributing ports, in
terms of millions of tons handled per year. Figure 2 demonstrates that most of the ports are small
(<5 million tons) and medium (5<15 million tons) sized.
Figure 2: Tonnage characteristics of the sample
Below, the results of the different indicators are presented according the aforementioned
categories. The performance of 2017 is compared, whenever it is possible, with the performance
obtained in the Sustainability Report 2016 (Puig et al, 2017) and with the ESPO review carried
out in 2013 (Puig et al, 2015).

31

ENVIRONMENTAL MANGAMENT INDICATORS

This section provides the results of the environmental management indicators. These are 10
indicators that provide information about the management efforts that influence the
environmental performance of the port. Table 2 below shows the percentage of positive responses
to each of these 10 PORTOPIA indicators in the review of 2013, 2016 and 2017, so the variations
over time are demonstrated.
Table 2: Percentages of positive responses to the environmental management indicators

2013 2016 2017 % change
Indicators
(%) (%) (%) 2013-2017
A Existence of an Environmental Management System (EMS) 54 70 70 +16%
B Existence of an Environmental Policy 90 92 97 +7%
Environmental Policy makes reference to ESPO’s guideline
C 38 34 35 -3%
documents
D Existence of an inventory of relevant environmental legislation 90 90 93 +3%
Existence of an inventory of Significant Environmental Aspects
E 84 89 93 +9%
(SEA)
F Definition of objectives and targets for environmental improvement 84 89 93 +9%
G Existence of an environmental training program for port employees 66 55 68 +2%
H Existence of an environmental monitoring program 79 82 89 +10%
I Environmental responsibilities of key personnel are documented 71 85 86 +15%
J Publication of a publicly available environmental report 62 66 68 +6%
The results demonstrate that the existence of an Environmental Policy is the indicator that has a
higher percentage of positive response. Practically all the participant ports have defined an
Environmental Policy. This percentage of positive response has increased +7% since 2013. The
second highest percentages are the existence of an inventory of relevant environmental legislation,
inventory of SEAs, and definition of objectives and targets, with 93% of positive response. The
last two indicators increased 9% compared to the results published in 2013. The ranking is
followed by the indicator of the existence of an environmental monitoring program. It is also
interesting to point out that the indicator on the existence of an EMS has increased from 54% in
2013 to a 70% in 2017. As it can be seen, almost all the indicators have improved with respect to
2016.
On the basis of these ten indicators, PORTOPIA has developed the so called Environmental
Management Index. This is calculated on the basis of a specific weighting applied to the
significance of these key environmental management components.
It is argued that this index is particularly appropriate since it is a measure of competence and
capability to deliver the environmental imperatives. The Environmental Management Index is
calculated by multiplying the weightings associated to each environmental management indicator
(see table 2 and formula below) to the percentage of positive responses. In other words, the final
score is calculated by applying the following formula:
32

Environmental Management Index = A*1.5 + B*1.25 + C*0.75 + D*1 + E*1 + F*1 + G*0.75 +
H*1 + I*1 + J*0.75.
Where the value of each letter is the percentage of positive response divided by 100 (e.g. A is 0.7
in the results of 2017 as showed in table 2). The resulting index for the performance of the port
sector in 2013, 2016 and in 2017 is provided in Table 3.
Table 3: Environmental Management Index in 2013 and 2016.

2013 2016 2017
Environmental Management Index 7.25 7.72 8.08
The index value has increased year-on- year, following the trends of the environmental
management indicators (see Table 2).
Another significant point to highlight within this Sustainability Report is the number of ports that
are EMS certified to an internationally recognised standard. A total number of 64 ports out of the
91 are EMS certified, 47 of them under ISO 14001, 6 under EMAS, and 26 ports have achieved
the PERS certificate. The total number of certifications is in fact more than 64 because some ports
are certified under more than one system. Figure 3 presents the results of the EMS certificates
broken down into categories.
Figure 3: Distribution of the EMS certificates
The figure shows that more than a half of the certified ports (56%) are only ISO 14001 certified.
It is followed by a quarter of ports (25%) that are only PERS certified. It continues then with the
ports that are double certified with PERS and ISO 14001 (9%) and with the three EMS certificates
(6%). There is a minority of ports that are either only EMAS, or ISO 14001 and EMAS (2% each
case). The positive, significant trend for the sector is that increasingly more port authorities are
openly demonstrating their environmental credentials and transparency of action through
independent, third-party review and audit.
33

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INDICATORS
The second category of indicators are focussed on the environmental monitoring programs of
European ports. These indicators provide the percentage of ports that monitor selected
environmental issues. The percentages of positive responses are given in Table 4, listed in
descending order based on the results obtained in 2017. The results obtained in 2013 and 2016
are also provided in the table below:
Table 4: Percentage of positive responses to environmental monitoring indicators

% change
Indicators 2013 (%) 2016 (%) 2017 (%)
2013-2017
Waste 67 79 88 +21
Energy consumption 65 73 80 +15
Water quality 56 70 75 +19
Water consumption 58 62 71 +13
Air quality 52 65 69 +17
Sediment quality 56 63 65 +9
Noise 52 57 64 +12
Carbon Footprint 48 47 49 +1
Soil quality 42 44 48 +6
Marine ecosystems 35 36 44 +9
Terrestrial habitats 38 30 37 -1
In 2017, waste has been pointed out as the most monitored issue, as in 2013 and 2016. There has
been an increase of 21% of ports monitoring this aspect in the last 4 years. It is followed by energy
consumption (that increased +15% since 2013), water quality (rising +19%) and air quality (+17%
since 2013).
Marine ecosystems and terrestrial habitats are the issues that have a lowest percentage of ports
monitoring them. As it can be seen, all the indicators have more positive responses in 2017 than
in 2016.
34

TOP 10 ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES
The third section provides the update of the Top 10 environmental priorities of the European port
authorities. It is an interesting exercise that has to be brought up to date regularly because it shows
the current issues that are at stake for the port sector and their evolution. This data is important as
it identifies the high priority environmental issues on which ports are working and sets the
framework for guidance and initiatives to be taken by ESPO. The 2017 exercise comes to
complement the results of the previous ESPO/EcoPorts surveys that initiated back in 1996. The
issues that appear consistently year over year are mapped with the same colour in order to easily
identify them.
Table 5: Top 10 environmental priorities of the port sector over years.

1996 2004 2009 2013 2016 2017
Port
Garbage /
1 Development Noise Air quality Air quality Air Quality
Port waste
(water)
Dredging: Garbage/ Port Energy Energy
2 Water quality Air quality
operations waste Consumption Consumption
Dredging Dredging Garbage / Energy
3 Noise Noise
disposal disposal Port waste Consumption
Relationship
Dredging: Dredging:
4 Dust Noise with local Water quality
operations operations
community
Dredging: Garbage/ Port Dredging:
5 Dust Noise Ship waste
disposal waste operations
Port Relationship Relationship
Garbage/ Port
6 Development Air quality with local with local Ship waste
waste
(land) community community
Port Port
Contaminate Hazardous Energy Dredging:
7 development development
d land cargo consumption operations
(land related) (land related)
Relationship
Habitat loss /
8 Bunkering Dust Dust Water quality with local
degradation
community
Port Port Port
Traffic
9 Development Development development Dust Ship waste
volume
(land) (water) (land)
Ship Port
Industrial Dredging: Climate
10 discharge Development Water quality
effluent operations change
(bilge) (land)
35

Most of the priorities of the 2016 top-10 remain in the top-10 of 2017. There are some changes
in the order of priorities and a new entrance for the first time to the top-10, Climate Change (which
as a category under EcoPorts covers energy efficiency, GHG emissions reduction and adaptation).
There are now three emissions related issues reported in the top-10 priorities, i.e. Air Quality,
Energy Consumption and Climate Change. This shift reflects efforts made by ports to address the
challenges of climate change, the energy transition policies already being implemented to fulfil
the objectives of the Paris Agreement, and increased awareness about the exposure of ports to
extreme weather events. In the case of Dredging operations and Water quality, importance rose
in priority whilst Garbage / Port waste, Ship waste and Relationship with local community moved
down the priority scale. However, it is important to point out that waste was reported to be the
issue most monitored by ports in 2017 (table 4).
Air quality remains the number one priority of the European ports, as in 2016 and 2013. This is
fully in line with the maintenance of air quality as a top priority also of the EU policy agenda and
the various ongoing regulatory measures that include the introduction of the global 0.5% sulphur
cap on marine fuels in 2020, the introduction of the IMO NOx Tier III requirements for vessels
built from 1-1-2021 onwards operating in the North and the Baltic sea (NECAs), the
implementation of the Sulphur Directive and the new National Emission Ceilings Directive.
Energy consumption also remains as the second priority issue of the European ports. Since 2009,
the importance of energy consumption raised year over year as it can be seen in table 5. One of
the reasons for this increase is, of course, the direct link between energy consumption, and the
carbon footprint of the ports and Climate Change. Noise remains as the third concern by priority
and its importance has also grown smoothly since 2004.
Another interesting fact is that there are two issues that have appeared consistently in the priority
list of the port sector over the last 20 years, although they are not in the top positions of the table.
These issues are port development (land) and dredging operations.
SERVICES TO SHIPPING
The last section provides the results on the category ‘services to shipping’. It comprises three
indicators on the efforts made by the port authorities in order to facilitate a greener shipping.
PORTOPIA considers that it is timely and topical to monitor the current status and evolution of
some key services that ports may choose to provide such as the provision of Onshore Power
Supply, the provision of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) bunkering facilities and the differentiation
of port charges in order to reward greener vessels visiting the ports. Hence, and as a result of
coordinated effort by PORTOPIA and EcoPorts, the EcoPorts SDM checklist was updated back
in spring 2015 in order to allow for data collection in these key three areas. The figures below
update the performance of the sector on this issue. It should be noted that in 2016 only 61 ports
reported on these topics whereas in 2017, the participating ports increased to 91. Therefore, the
results may reflect a slight decrease due to the wider sample of the respondent ports taken into
account and not due to a real decrease in services offered by ports. In fact, in absolute figures, the
ports offering for example Onshore Power Supply (OPS) have increased from 32 (2016) to 44
ports (2017). The same happens for the rest of the questions.
36

Table 6: Percentage of positive responses to services to shipping indicators

Indicator 2016*(%) 2017 (%)
Is On-shore Power Supply (OPS) available at one or more of the
53 48
berths?
If YES, high voltage? 20 19
If YES, low voltage? 47 40
Does the port offer differentiate dues for “Greener” vessels? 62 51
Is Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) bunkering available in the port
22 22
today?
*This percentage is calculated only with 61 ports whereas the 2017 is done with 91 ports.
The results regarding the provision of OPS require a careful interpretation. The overarching
question “do you provide OPS?” encompasses both the provision of high and low voltage
installations. In reality, in the big majority of cases, high voltage OPS is required in order to be
used by commercial seagoing vessels. There are however few exceptions (e.g. ports of Stockholm
and Helsinki) where low voltage OPS is also used by commercial ROPAX vessels. Despite
therefore, the surprising 48% of respondent ports that provide OPS in their port (either high or
low voltage), the appropriate figure to be used in order to set the 2017 baseline for the provision
of OPS for commercial vessels is the one that describes the provision of high voltage OPS. Almost
one out of five of the 91 respondent ports have high voltage OPS installations. The low voltage
figures mainly relate to inland and domestics vessels as well as auxiliary vessels (e.g. tugs and/or
other port authority vessels).
Table 6 also confirms that offering differentiated port charges to reward greener vessels is an
already established practice in half of the respondent ports (51%). This is a voluntary practise by
port authorities that choose to go further than controlling their own environmental impact and
encourage a positive change of behaviour on the vessels performance side. Environmentally
differentiated port charges are encouraged and promoted through the ESPO “Green Guide;
towards excellence in port environmental management and sustainability”.
The outcomes regarding LNG show that one out of five respondent ports can already provide
LNG bunkering regularly or upon request. It is interesting to follow the evolution of this baseline
figure in the years to come also in relation to fulfilling the requirements of the directive on
alternative fuels infrastructure as regards the provision by ports of LNG bunkering facilities by
2025.
37

CONCLUSION
This report demonstrates that, based on a survey of the EcoPorts Network, the majority of EU
ports are working actively to protect the environment with the aim of achieving sustainable
development of European ports and harbours.
The results demonstrate that in general there has been an increase in the effective performance of
the sector regarding the existence of environmental management components, and in terms of
monitoring environmental issues. The evidence for these positive results is the rise in the number
of ports having an Environmental Policy, the increase of the Management Index and the
investments in conducting more monitoring in aspects such as waste or energy consumption.
This update of the top-10 environmental issues is an important review for the port sector in Europe
because it identifies the high priority issues common to the sector on which ports are working,
and sets the framework for guidance and initiatives to be taken by ESPO. Air quality remains at
the top of the priorities together with Energy consumption, Noise and Water quality, while a third
emissions related priority, Climate Change, enters the top-10 for the first time.
Finally, the benchmark performance of the port services to shipping indicators has been updated
with the results of the 91 responses in 2017. Although it seems that there has not been a raise in
the percentage performance of these indicators in absolute values there has been an increase for
all of them. In any case there is room for further improvement and focus may be given on those
issues in the upcoming years.
The extent to which port authorities are actively influencing shipping to become ‘green’ is
indicated by the increasing number of ports offering a range of options including fee reduction
(against a range of criteria) and specific possibilities such as OPS. Indicators of the
implementation of these options have only recently been introduced into the response database
and it is widely acknowledged that the issue of port provisions for ‘Green Shipping’ will become
increasingly significant in the near future.
38

SECTION 4: LOGISTIC CHAIN AND OPERATIONAL

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The research by the PORTOPIA project builds further upon PPRISM and has developed
following indicators, of which the concepts have been tested, but are lacking a structural supply
of data to become permanently available. This is due to (1) raw data controlled by private parties,
and not freely or ‘open’ available (2) the high and unreasonable cost to manually compile the
datasets. In sum, the implementation of these indicators, while very relevant, necessitates the set
– up of partnership with external data suppliers.
More particularly, the following indicators were targeted, of which currently only the THC index
had led to satisfactory results (in terms of implementation):
Connectivity indicators:
--- Ro-Ro Connectivity Indicator

--- Maritime Connectivity Indicator
--- Intermodal Connectivity Indicator
Cost indicators (under the form of indices):
--- Port Dues

--- Terminal Handling Charges (THC)
Congestion indicators:
--- Maritime Fluidity: tested within 2 ports based on AIS data provided by
MarineTraffic --- Road congestion
Currently, further work is ongoing on the development of a port productivity indicator.
The full results of the research and development phase of these indicators are available on
www.portopia.eu (or by contacting directly the PORTOPIA contact persons, see the
introduction).

In this section, we introduce two indicators based on UNCTAD data and re-interpreted by
PORTOPIA:
- The Liner Shipping Connectivity index (LSCI)
- Time spent in port (based on UNCTAD and Marine Traffic Data)

39

LSCI EVOLUTION (EU)
Source: PORTOPIA based on UNCTAD (2017)
Larger container ships and volumes in Baltic, Black sea and Adriatic.

Europe’s LSCI has relatively improved by 50% since 2004. Regions outperforming the European
average are Scandinavia and the Baltic countries, the Black Sea countries, and the Adriatic
countries. This evolution shows the increasing volumes and ship sizes calling these regions. While
the North-West European countries have the highest LSCI in absolute terms (see
http://unctad.org/en/pages/publications/Review-of-Maritime-Transport-(Series).aspx), they were
still able to improve liner shipping connectivity, but at a slower pace given the maturity of their
ports. During the last 2 years, connectivity in North-West Europe and the Mediterranean has gone
downwards, most probably due to consolidation in the market and resulting rationalization of port
calls by container lines.
40

LSCI EVOLUTION (WORLD)
Source: PORTOPIA based on UNCTAD (2017)
EU outperforming US and Canada, following pace of BRICs.
While Europe’s evolution in terms of liner shipping connectivity improvement is similar as the
BRICs and the Asia Pacific countries over the long term, it is better than the evolution of the US
and Canadian ports. This might be due to the scale increases of vessels, which poses issues for a
number of North-American ports, as well as the “double-dip” crisis of 2008/2011. The “Nearest
Competitor” group is composed of Morocco, Turkey and the Russian Federation and are
considered fierce competitors to Europe’s peripheral regions such as the Black Sea and East Med,
the Iberian Peninsula and the Baltic, as evidenced elsewhere in this report. We see very significant
growth for this group, and while the previous figure also showed considerable growth in Europe’s
peripheral regions such as the Baltic and the Black Sea, this might raise further competitive
challenges in the future, e.g. in the West Med due to the presence of development in North Africa
(Tangier Med, others). In 2017, most regions show stable or even declining liner shipping
connectivity. This is based on market based developments such as the scale increase of vessels,
and consolidation in the container liner shipping market through mergers and acquisitions, as well
as alliances, leading to rationalization of port calls and deployed capacity. In particular remote
and peripheral locations might suffer from this evolution.
41

TIME SPENT IN PORT (NEW INDICATOR, BASED ON UNCTAD
AND MARINE TRAFFIC DATA)
Since 2017, and its launch of the 49th Review of Maritime Transport (RMT), UNCTAD offers
global figures, on a country level, of the indicator ‘time spent in port’. While the indicator does
not take into consideration e.g. average ship size or call size per country, given the number of data
points, it provides a basic indication of port efficiency across the logistics activities in the ports.
Due to its collaboration with and support from UNCTAD, PORTOPIA calculated EU aggregated
figures, as well as for the EU subregions. Likewise, a comparison of the EU with other world
regions is offered, both on a general level, as well as per shipping market.
PORTOPIA hopes to include yearly figures in the future, showing longer terms evolutions, and
in collaboration with UNCTAD and Marine Traffic, improve the value of the indicator for ports
and related decision-makers.

EUROPE GENERAL TOTAL - Average Dwell

Time in days (annual median)
SCBAL 0.96
ATL 1.06
EUROPE 1.06
NWE 1.11
MED 1.23
ADR 1.26
BLACK SEA 2.37
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

Source: PORTOPIA based on UNCTAD and Marine Traffic data (2017)
Black Sea lagging in terms of time spent in ports
Within Europe, across all shipping markets, time spent in port amounts to ca. 1 day. While
Northern and Atlantic EU regions show a slightly better performance than Southern EU regions,
the Black Sea region could be considered as an area to improve the performance of this indicator.

42

EUROPE Bulk Carriers - Average Dwell Time

in days (annual median)
SCBAL 2.40
EUROPE 2.76
NWE 2.96
ATL 3.04
MED 3.42
ADR 3.84
BLACK SEA 5.80
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00


EUROPE Container Ships - Average Dwell

SCBAL 0.61
MED 0.63
ADR 0.67
ATL 0.67
EUROPE 0.68
BLACK SEA 0.73
NWE 0.75
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80


Across Europe, container ships spend in general less than 1 day for a port call. Here, North West
Europe appears to have a lower performance, but as the data do not correct for ship and call size
(significantly larger e.g. in the Hamburg-Le Havre range), we can conclude that overall, EU ports
offer quite standardized performance offers to container ships.
This also suggests that port competiveness for container handling will also depend on fluid and
sustainable hinterland access.

43

EUROPE Dry Cargo/Passenger - Average

Dwell Time in days (annual median)
NWE 0.65
ADR 0.74
ATL 0.77
EUROPE 0.77
SCBAL 0.83
MED 0.98
BLACK SEA 2.05
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

$

EUROPE Gas Carriers - Average Dwell Time

BLACK SEA N/A

SCBAL 0.70
NWE 1.06
EUROPE 1.07
ATL 1.11
MED 1.21
ADR 1.80
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00


EUROPE Tankers - Average Dwell Time in

days (annual median)
ATL 0.86
SCBAL 0.88
NWE 0.98
EUROPE 0.99
MED 1.07
ADR 1.54
BLACK SEA 1.76
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

44

GLOBAL General Total - Average Dwell Time

EUROPE 1.06
ASIA-PACIFIC 1.35
NORTH-AMERICA 1.62
BRIC 1.88
NEAREST COMP. 1.99
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

As a world region, across shipping markets, the EU ports on average provide the lowest time
spent in ports. Obviously, the results need to be interpreted with care as Japan, the best performer,
is aggregated within the Asia Pacific region, where a large spread exists between countries.

GLOBAL Bulk Carriers - Average Dwell Time

NORTH-AMERICA 2.15
ASIA-PACIFIC 2.29
BRIC 2.66
EUROPE 2.76
NEAREST COMP. 3.89
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00


45

GLOBAL Container Ships - Average Dwell

ASIA-PACIFIC 0.65
EUROPE 0.68
BRIC 0.83
NORTH-AMERICA 1.07
NEAREST COMP. 1.12
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

For container ships, when time spent in port is concerned, EU ports are at the level of the ports in
the Asia-Pacific region, and performing significantly better than BRIC, North America and the
Nearest Competitors.

GLOBAL Dry Cargo/Passenger - Average

Dwell Time in days (annual median)
EUROPE 0.77
ASIA-PACIFIC 1.16
NORTH-AMERICA 1.72
BRIC 1.85
NEAREST COMP. 2.12
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50


46

GLOBAL Gas Carriers - Average Dwell Time

ASIA-PACIFIC 0.81
EUROPE 1.07
BRIC 1.26
NEAREST COMP. 1.37
NORTH-AMERICA 2.07
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50


GLOBAL Tankers - Average Dwell Time in

days (annual median)
EUROPE 0.99
ASIA-PACIFIC 1.32
NORTH-AMERICA 1.44
NEAREST COMP. 1.47
BRIC 2.07
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50


47

SECTION 5: GOVERNANCE INDICATORS

Information on port governance in Europe is historically gathered through a 5-yearly survey,
conducted by the European Seaports Organisation, the so-called “Fact Finding Study”. The ESPO
Fact Finding surveys have developed into a real tool to monitor the evolution of the port
authorities in Europe in terms of governance models and of port concept. The aim of these reports
is to monitor port governance and organisation in Europe and its evolution over time.
The 2016 edition of the ‘Fact-Finding Report’ is the sixth in its kind. Although building on
tradition, the 2016 edition introduces new topics such as Energy developments and Industry in
ports. The reason for adding these new features is the importance for a ‘Fact-Finding Report’ to
capture all the key dimensions of a port beyond its key role in transport. These include nowadays
the role of ports as home or key partners of industrial clusters, the energy transition and the
sustainability of port activity.
The 2016 fact finding study is based on a web-based survey that was sent directly to individual
port authorities. 86 port authorities from 19 EU Member States, Norway and Iceland1 completed
the questionnaire. Together, they represent more than 200 ports and more than 57% of the overall
volume of cargo handled in the European Union.
A number of aspects and trends are highlighted below which were identified when analysing the
results of the two editions of the fact finding surveys 2010-2015 and that were pivotal in the
selection of the governance indicators to be included in WP5:
• Increasing privatisation and commercialisation of port authorities

• Increased cooperation and merging of port authorities, be it top-down or bottom-up
• Decreasing role of port authorities in the organisation, provision and operation of services
to the ships
• More active role of port authorities in hinterland connections and in infrastructure
investments outside the port
• Energy transition and role of port authorities in energy developments in and outside the
ports and role of port authorities in fighting climate change.
• Dependency of port authorities from industrial partners in terms of revenues and
uncertain future of fossil based sectors, chemicals or other traditional sectors based in
ports.
• Port authorities increased efforts on Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives and
reporting, including environmental impacts of port activities, education, job quality, etc.

1 Norway and Iceland are included as EEA members
48

SEAPORTS REMAIN UNDER PUBLIC OWNERSHIP BUT ARE
MOVING TOWARDS MORE INDEPENDENT BUSINESS-LIKE
MANAGAMENT

Figure 4: Ownership of EU port authorities
Even if the large majority of European seaports is under public ownership, many recent reforms
have led to a growing trend of independent port management. This can be easily showed through
a comparison of the results of the ESPO Fact Finding 2010 and 2016.
In 2016, most port authorities in Europe remain publicly owned. Full ownership by the state or
by the municipality remains predominant. Only very few port authorities combine ownership of
different government levels (eg. state-municipality, province-municipality). Mixed public-private
ownership is still very rare and exists only in a few countries. In these cases, the public sector
owns the majority of shares and private shareholders’ participation is rather limited. Port
authorities listed in the stock exchange remain the exception in 2016. Full private ownership,
where the port authority is fully owned by one or more private parties, is characteristic of some
ports in the UK. There are no other fully private ports from other countries in the sample of
respondent ports.
The ownership picture did not change substantially since 2010, despite the financial and economic
crisis and the pressure on Member States’ budgets. EU seaports take a different path than EU
airports, which undergo a clear trend towards more private ownership.

49

Share of commercialized entities through the EU Port authorities
Compared to 2010, more port authorities are structured as independent commercial entities (Ltd-
“Limited Companies”, SA-“Sociétée Anonyme”, GmbH, AB-“Aktiebolag”, Spółka Akcyjna,
etc.) and operate in a commercially-oriented manner. In the Fact Finding Report 2016, they
account for 51% of the respondents. Next, 44% of port authorities are still independent public
bodies with their own legal personality and different degrees of functional and financial
dependency from the public administration.
These two main categories, while operating under different legal forms, may share similar
principles like self-financing, and commercial and entrepreneurial behaviour to increase market
share and to attract private investment. They may also share same levels of influence from public
authorities through participation in the governing board of the port.
Figure 5: Share of commercialized entities through the EU Port authorities

50

MAIN PORTS SERVICES ARE IN PRIVATE HANDS
In European ports, as shown in the ESPO Fact Finding 2016, the operation of the main services
provided to ships is mostly in private hands with the exception of pilotage, which is still under
considerable public influence. Sometimes, the port authority may have an influence on the quality
of certain ship services through the issuing of licences or authorisations, but the port authority
does not always have this competence. The harbour master, whether integrated or not in the port
authority organisation, takes on the coordinator role for the technical nautical services.
Figure 6: Provision of port services to ships
51

Figure 7: Provision of services to cargo
Cargo handling services are in the hands of private operators who are generally granted the use
of port land through lease agreements or public domain concessions. Integrated ports where port
authorities provide a full range of services and other mixed cases are the exception. As shown in
the ESPO Fact Finding 2016, transport services are also provided by private parties in most cases.

A GROWING COOPERATION TREND
Port cooperation aims at increasing the competitiveness of individual ports in joint effort and
offers the potential to manage public and private infrastructure and superstructure investments in
parallel to mitigating the investment risk. Different needs could lead port authorities to cooperate:
a marketing objective, an economic optimization of operations, the exchange of know-how, land
use planning, etc. The intensity of the links established between two or more port authorities can
be variable, from simple partnership to more formal cooperation schemes, leading to shared
commercial strategies, joint promotion or pooling of certain resources (e.g. North Adriatic Ports
Association, Haropa, etc.). The strongest cooperation link is represented by a real merger of two
or several port authorities and the consequent formation of a joint venture company (e.g. Malmö-
Copenhagen, Kotka-Hamina, Umeå-Vaasa etc.). As the Fact Finding 2016 shows, cooperation
and partnerships amongst European seaports represent a growing trend. End 2017 one expects the
completion of another important and cross border merger between the Port of Ghent and Zeeland
Seaports.
52

Figure 8: Partnerships with other seaports, inland ports and dry ports
Figure 9: Number of ports managed by a port authority
More cooperation also leads to another phenomenon: port authorities increasingly manage port
land and infrastructure for several ports in the same country. Since the 2010 edition of the Fact
Finding, merging of neighbouring port authorities happened either bottom-up, as a result of
cooperation between port authorities, or driven by government’s policy.
53

A STRONGER ‘LICENSE TO OPERATE’ OF PORT AUTHORITIES
Meanwhile a new functional role has emerged, which we can best refer to as that of the
‘community’ or ‘cluster’ manager, a functional concept which was mainly developed by De
Langen (2004; 2007). This new function is intrinsically linked to the changing nature of port
communities and stakeholders and has both an economic and societal dimension that corresponds
with the stakeholder pressures.
The community manager function is essentially a coordinating function, meant to solve collective
action problems in and outside the port area, such as hinterland bottlenecks, training and
education, ICT, marketing and promotion as well as innovation and internationalization. It also
aims to shape accommodation between conflicting interests in order to defend the ‘license to
operate’ and ‘license to grow’ of the port.
The economic and societal dimension can meet, for instance in case of port authorities inciting
private operators to engage in sustainable behavior, thus linking up with the landlord and
regulatory functions.
Developing the port hand in hand with the local community and key
stakeholders
Port authorities are in most cases responsible for port development. Producing a port masterplan
is nowadays common practice. According to the ESPO Survey 2016, 64% of port authorities
surveyed have produced a masterplan, of which 78% date from 2010 or were produced after that.
A port masterplan sets out the port’s strategic planning for the medium to long term. It provides
a clear view on how the port will be developed during this time frame and shows the potential
impact on the surrounding community. The time frame covered by port masterplans is generally
long, ranging from 15 to 30 years. The masterplan must therefore be flexible and can be reviewed
and adjusted according to changing circumstances. The port masterplan is a public document
available on the ports’ websites.
A masterplan also provides credibility to the port authority when searching for public and private
investors. Giving key stakeholders the opportunity to raise their concerns and expectations is a
crucial part of the process. For this reason, in the process of producing a masterplan, port
authorities involve public authorities at different levels, citizens, NGO’s and key stakeholders like
port employees, tenants and users.
54

Figure 10: Categories of stakeholders involved in the development of the Masterplan
Building a beneficial relationship with employees and the local

community
Many ports already advertise their corporate social responsibility (CSR) values on their websites
and in their public reports. In this sense, the survey shows that already more than half of the
respondent port authorities (up to 54% of the ESPO Fact Finding 2016 respondents) have a
formalised CSR policy. Of those, two thirds already report on their corporate social responsibility
performance through measurable objectives.
The commitments and achievements are often displayed in the ports’ sustainability reports that
are published (annually) and are available online. Port employees and local communities are the
main beneficiaries of these proactive policies.
55

Figure 11: Stakeholders involved in corporate social responsibility initiatives
Urban ports and societal integration of port activities

Most of the ports surveyed are located in or very close to an urban area (91% of the ESPO Fact
Finding 2016 respondents). Proximity to urban centres may trigger tensions, so port managers
need to proactively manage the city-port relation to secure their “licence to operate and grow”. In
this sense, a majority of port authorities design and implement initiatives to establish good
cohabitation and to make the general public experience and understand the positive effects
produced by the port activity (i.e. employment, added value, wealth creation, taxes paid to the
region, connectivity, etc.).
Finding the optimal balance between port operations, and city developments and well-being is
one of the main challenges of port managers today.
56

Figure 12: Initiatives led by the port authority aimed at improving societal integration
of port activities
To promote societal integration of ports, ESPO created in 2009 an annual award that selects the
best initiative among European ports to enhance the city-port relations through innovative projects
(http://www.espo.be/events#espo-award-2). In 2010, ESPO also developed a Code of Practice on
Societal Integration of Ports2 with recommendations on how to proactively respond to this
challenge.
PORT AUTHORITIES ARE FACILITORS AND SUPPORTERS OF

THE ENERGY TRANSITION
Even if port authorities are not directly a large source of CO2 emissions, they can act as facilitators
and promoters of energy transition for the whole port cluster and stakeholders. As demand for
cleaner energy increases, fossil fuels are gradually being complemented or replaced by
renewable/alternative energy sources. To support the energy transition, many port authorities
have taken up a key role by hosting renewable energy production and promoting its uptake. As
the Fact Finding 2016, 41% of respondent port authorities secure land to generate or support clean
energy, thus fulfilling their traditional role as landlords. 38% of respondents are initiating or
facilitating that investors bring renewable energy production to the port or the region. A smaller
percentage of ports go further and become (co-)investors (16%) or operators (13%) of the
facilities.
http://www.espo.be/media/espopublications/ESPOCodeofPracticeonSocietalIntegrationofPort
s2010.pdf
57

While employment data in this sector is not readily available for most of the ports surveyed (64%),
jobs linked to renewable energy in ports are forecasted to grow considerably in the next five years.
Figure 13: Role of port authority in the production of renewable energy
Ports are main entry points of energy commodities

Energy commodities represent a substantial part of traffic volumes of many European ports. Ports
play a key role in the import, export, storage and distribution of fossil and other energy sources
(crude oil, gas, LNG, coal, biomass, etc.). Developments impacting these commodities such as
EU and government policies, geopolitical problems, price fluctuations, changes in energy
suppliers and demand, etc. are therefore very relevant for the ports’ business and strategy. Most
ports are at the centre of large population concentrations, hence being the main entry point for
energy commodities.
Figure 14: Approximate percentage of energy-related traffic in the port by volume
58

Ports are locations for energy production
Ports are traditional locations for energy production because of the easy access to raw energy
sources. The ESPO survey 2016 shows that 50% of respondent ports have energy production
plants located in the port area. In addition, energy production can also be located right in the
vicinity of the port, which is not captured by the survey. Together with traditional fossil-fuelled
energy plants, ports are increasingly generating sustainable energy with wind and solar, biomass
and waste-based energy production expanding in ports.
Electricity provision
Electricity is a rising cost due to carbon pricing schemes which are currently implemented such
as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), automation and more intensive port operations. 39%
of the respondent port authorities are still electricity providers for the port area, directly or through
a subsidiary company. The electricity is mainly sold on a cost-recovery basis although some ports
do it on profit basis. 31% of respondent ports do not play any role in the provision of electricity
in the port. In some cases, port authorities are owners of the infrastructure grid.
Energy management is a key concern of port authorities

The ESPO Environmental Review 20163 revealed that energy consumption is the second
environmental priority of European ports. This demonstrates that port authorities are increasingly
aware that reducing energy use saves money and contributes to CO2 reduction. The survey shows
that more than half of the respondent ports have already established energy targets, among which
two thirds of respondents target the port authority's owned and controlled facilities. Fewer port
authorities extend these targets to all the port operations and facilities. European ports vary in size
and activities. Influencing the energy performance of the whole port can be very challenging.
Therefore, port authorities set up targets and take measures according to their resources available.
The survey captures some key measures put in place by port authorities and their scope.
http://www.espo.be/media/news/ESPO_EcoPorts%20Port%20Environmental%20Review%20
2016.pdf
59

Figure 15: Establishment of targets and key measures related to energy consumption and
efficiency by the port authority

60

SECTION 6: USER PERCEPTIONS OF PORT QUALITY

User or Customer Satisfaction surveys have received increased interest by port authorities
and their stakeholders.
However, a very small sample of ports actually measures the user perceptions on port
quality (infrastructure/services) on an annual basis, based on a variety of methodologies,
and reports on it. E.g., based on the integrated reporting of the Port of Rotterdam, an
overall study of user perceptions, (including the reporting of an overall user perception
(or satisfaction) indicator) is executed once every 2/3 years by this large port (which is
one of the few actually reporting the evolution of user perceptions).
Currently, the only annual data available on perception on quality are situated on the country
level, and are provided by the Global Competitiveness Report (GCR), released annually by the
World Economic Forum (WEF). Within a survey, experts are asked to rate the criterion ‘Quality
of Port Infrastructure’ on a scale from 1 to 7. Also the EU Commission is using this currently as
an indicator on the «EU Transport Scoreboard»: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-
fundings/scoreboard/index_en.htm.
Another source is the Logistics Performance Index (LPI) of the World Bank, which also contains
an infrastructure quality component, alongside other elements of logistics performance such as
customs processes. We also provide a global and European perspective here.
In this version of the report, we discuss the results on both indicators (GCR and LPI) on the
European and the Global level.
Furthermore, we believe the ports deserve better than what is actually provided!
Therefore, we provide an extensive insight into a highly practical data intelligence environment
recently developed by the PORTOPIA consortium, which could lower considerably both the
human and financial burden for port managing bodies to perform user perception surveys, and to
move beyond the generic country approach, providing real value for individual port authorities
(both large and small). Over the last 18 months, interested port managing bodies, and by
extension, their user associations, have been invited to contact the consortium for pilot testing of
this data intelligence environment for port user perception measurement. The actual tool has been
demonstrated at the ESPO conferences in Dublin (June 2016) and Barcelona (June 2017). An
online video is available on the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tByVOJk46DA
61

QUALITY OF PORT INFRASTRUCTURE EVOLUTION (EU)
Source: PORTOPIA based on WEF (2017)
Overall decline of North-West Europe in QOPI indicator.

While progress has been made over the longer term, we observe an overall decline of North-West
Europe and the Mediterranean, while the Adriatic, Scandinavia/Baltic and Black Sea regions have
increased their competitiveness (cfr. also the LSCI evolutions elsewhere in this report). Overall,
with exception of the last year, the European average is steadily rising and significantly above the
Global Average (which is decreasing since 2010), while however showing marked differences
internally in the European subcontinent.
62

QUALITY OF PORT INFRASTRUCTURE EVOLUTION (WORLD)

Source: PORTOPIA based on WEF (2017)
Stability of Europe’s perceived competitiveness.
Here, the figure confirms the steady increase and stable position of Europe’s perceived
competitiveness on the port infrastructure dimension over the long run, while the US and Canada
show a decline, which has stabilized since 2010. The evolutions of the world regions are quite
similar to the LSCI observations, i.e. Europe, Asia Pacific and BRICs following a path of steady
growth, with the largest increase at the level of Europe’s “nearest competitors” (Morocco, Turkey
and Russian Federation). These regions and country groups are nearing in on Europe’s score on
the perception of quality of port infrastructure.
63

EVOLUTION OF LOGISTICS PERFORMANCE INDICATOR (EU)
Source: PORTOPIA based on World Bank (2017)
Steady growth of EU logistics performance but not consistent among regions
The LPI, calculated 2-yearly by the World Bank since 2007, shows an overall increase of EU
logistics competitiveness (on infrastructure and processes), however with marked differences on
progress between regions. Improvements over the longer term are noted for North West Europe,
the Mediterranean, and Scandinavia and the Baltic countries. For other regions, such as the Black
Sea, Adriatic and the Atlantic, despite some improvements, these follow a less consistent path
over the last 10 years.
64

EVOLUTION OF LOGISTICS PERFORMANCE INDICATOR
(WORLD)
Source: PORTOPIA based on World Bank (2017)
Europe remains on the path to improvement; nearest competition declines
The EU Logistics Performance improves in line with the main global regions. The Nearest
Competitors (Turkey, Morocco, Russia) experience a decline during the last period of analysis.
65

ABOUT THE ICT TOOL “USERS’ PERCEPTIONS”
The ICT Tool “Users’ Perceptions” is composed of two elements, each one marking one
distinct phase.
The first phase is the interface used by the ports, it starts with the creation of a campaign with
criteria for a group of markets (Container, Ro/Ro, Dry Bulk, Liquid Bulk, Break Bulk and
Cruise) and ends with the invitations to the ports’ users to respond to each port’s campaign.
The second phase is the interface used by the port users, it starts with the receipt of the port’s
invitation and the actual evaluation in terms of importance and satisfaction of the criteria
that have been sent to them by the ports.
A pilot exercise aimed to launch a real-time exercise, with participants being European ports/
Port Authorities, through the PORTOPIA Service Cloud, that has been designed to Measure
the Port Users’ Perceptions.
THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE

The production of a report on the “State of European Ports” is the ultimate objective of the
pilot exercise. This report contains the (aggregated) results drawn by the replies recorded into the
system, namely the evaluation of all participant ports by their users.
It contains strictly anonymous elements (therefore in an aggregated form) without indicating
neither in a direct or an indirect way any participant port, combined in a way that will
communicate the state of the European port sector in terms of performance, as perceived
through the prism of the port users.
The report is accompanied with a GAP Analysis with valuable and specific guidance for the
participant ports.

PILOT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ICT TOOL “USERS’
PERCEPTIONS”
Overview of outcomes
The outcomes of the pilot implementation of the Users’ Perceptions Measurement ICT Tool as a
part of the PORTOPIA Service Cloud are presented in this section, in an aggregated way. The
system provides the possibility to access an automated aggregated calculation of the overall
picture, ensuring in that way the complete anonymity of the participants.
The overall evaluation is therefore based on the detailed and per market view of two elements
rated per criterion: The satisfaction gained from each type of service and the importance that this
entails for the users.
The following sections present the actual ICT tool pilot implementation’s production of results,
per market and criterion assessed and consist of the “State of the European Ports” Report.
66

The information in which each port has individual access with their log-in details, is, of course,
confidential and solely accessible by its assigned person that possesses the issued credentials.
Each port, therefore, after the launch of each campaign has access to information, compiled and
presented identically with the one that is stated below, with the only difference that our view
refers to the group of the participants, while the port’s view refers to its specific campaigns.
The report, along with a GAP Analysis will be provided, to all participants.
We enclose herewith the “State of the European Ports’” report and the GAP Analysis for several
selected markets.
“State of the European Ports” Report

The report collects and presents the per market information for all criteria that have been selected
by each port, that compiled their campaigns sent to their users. Each criterion has been attributed
a twofold evaluation from the selected by the ports’ groups of port users: in terms of satisfaction,
and in terms of the given importance.
Container Market: Satisfaction and Importance Evaluation
The overall evaluation in terms of users’ satisfaction for the Container Market is at a
satisfactory level.
The satisfaction levels for the Container Market on a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 indicates the
minimum satisfaction and 7 indicates the maximum level of satisfaction, reveal an average of 4
for the whole group of criteria. The lowest satisfaction level (3.5) has been attributed to the (see
Figure 16 and Figure 17).:
• Storage Capacity of Reefer Containers
• Container Storage Cost
• Efficiency of Container Clearance Procedure
• Hinterland Intermodal Connectivity
In parallel, the importance attributed to the criteria, on a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 indicates
minimum levels of importance for the user and 7 the maximum level of importance, the average
given importance reaches level 6, and is smoothly and somewhat evenly distributed across
criteria.

Figure 16: Overall evaluation of Container Market
Importance levels therefore are marked as high for the group of criteria that have been asked to
be evaluated by port users. In terms of port management, this entails that for the container
services, almost everything is significant for the users, from what compiles the Ship-to-Port
interface, to what refers to Port-to-hinterland interface. This justifies the fact that the Container
Market is a highly demanding one in terms of services provided and requires a lot of attention and
detailed organisation, since the chain of services is highly cross-depending from the time that a
vessel calls at a port, to the time that the cargo exits the port’s gate.
67

Overall, the state of services offered from the participant ports on that specific market segment,
are on a satisfactory level from the perspective of the users.
68

69

70

Figure 17: Container Market-Overall Evaluation from Users
71

Ro/Ro Market: Satisfaction and Importance Evaluation
The overall evaluation in terms of users’ satisfaction for the Ro/Ro Market is that this market
segment appears to perform slightly better than the Container Market.
The satisfaction levels for the Ro/Ro market at a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 indicates the minimum
satisfaction and 7 indicates the maximum level of satisfaction move around an average of 4,5 for
the whole group of criteria. The lowest satisfaction level (4) has been attributed to several factors
(see Figure 18 and Figure 19).
In parallel, the importance attributed to the criteria, on a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 indicates
minimum levels of importance for the user and 7 the maximum level of importance, the average
given importance reaches level 6, and is also smoothly and somewhat evenly distributed across
criteria (See Figure 4). Ultimately, criteria referring to inland waterway services have not been
evaluated by the users, since they probably do not apply in the participant ports’ cases.
Figure 18: Overall evaluation of Ro/Ro Market
Importance levels therefore are again marked as high for the group of criteria that have been asked
to be evaluated from port users. In terms of port management, this entails that for the Ro/Ro
related services, almost everything is significant for the users, from what compiles the Ship-to-
Port interface, to what refers to Port-to-hinterland interface.
are on a satisfactory level from the perspective of the users.
72

73

74

Figure 19: Ro/Ro Market – Overall Evaluation from Users

75

Dry Bulk Market: Satisfaction and Importance Evaluation
The overall evaluation in terms of users’ satisfaction for the Dry Bulk Market moves as well at
an average level, revealing the same patterns indicated for the latter two markets, namely
Container and Ro/Ro.
The satisfaction levels for the Dry Bulk market on a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 indicates the
minimum satisfaction and 7 indicates the maximum level of satisfaction moves around an average
of 4,5 for the whole group of criteria.
The Dry Bulk Market reveals a more informative view in comparison with the previous ones, in
terms of unfavourable satisfaction rating:
1. Low levels of satisfaction are expressed in terms of costs. A score of 3 has been attributed
to dredging costs.
2. Initiations towards innovativeness is an also low rated element by the users, combined
with a high importance level.
3. Ports also that operate at the Dry Bulk Market do not seem to pay proper attention to the
diffusion of the dry bulk cargo through rail connections, as these have been performing
low in terms of efficiency and connectivity (3,5).
Regarding the importance attributed to the criteria, on a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 indicates
minimum levels of importance for the user and 7 the maximum level of importance, an average
criteria (See Figure 21). Ultimately, criteria referring to inland waterway services have not been
evaluated by the users, since they do not apply in the participant ports’ cases.

Figure 20: Overall evaluation of Dry Bulk Market
to be evaluated from port users. In terms of port management, this entails that for the Dry Bulk
Port interface, to what includes Port-to-hinterland interface elements.
are on a satisfactory level from the perspective of the users. Room for improvement is clearly
offered for the elements with low satisfaction evaluation as these stated above.
76

77

78

Figure 21: Dry Bulk Market – Overall Evaluation from Users

79

Cruise Market: Satisfaction and Importance Evaluation
The cruise Market reveals a high evaluation picture, being one of the best performing market
segments from the perspective of the respective services’ users.
The satisfaction levels for the Cruise market on a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 indicates the minimum
satisfaction and 7 indicates the maximum level of satisfaction is given an overall level of 5,5 for
the whole group of criteria. Exceptionally high levels of evaluation have been given to all criteria.
A somewhat average evaluation (4) has been given to “Parking Areas” availability.
Regarding the importance attributed to the criteria, on a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 indicates
minimum levels of importance for the user and 7 the maximum level of importance, an average
criteria (See Figure 23).

Figure 22: Overall evaluation of Cruise Market
to be evaluated from port users. In terms of port management, this entails that for the Cruise
Port interface, to Port-to-hinterland interface.
are on an exceptional level from the perspective of the users.

80

81

82

Figure 23: Cruise Market – Overall Evaluation from Users

83

GAP Analysis
A GAP Analysis is conducted on the aggregated data. This GAP Analysis reveals the difference
between how important the criteria answered have been for the respondents and how satisfied the
respondents are with those criteria. It is a tool for interpretation of the port users’ ratings.
The GAP Analysis finds the gaps between satisfaction and importance and can identify the
priorities for improvement. The results indicate that if the satisfaction bar is shorter than the
importance bar, then expectations are not fully met and there is room for improvement.
The sections below present the GAP Analysis conducted for the overall results and also per port
market. If the score of a service is positive (above zero) then the port users rated the service very
important, but they are not satisfied with the service. In this instance, action is required.
If the mean score of a service is negative (below zero) then respondents rated this service relatively
unimportant, but are very satisfied with the service. In this instance no action is required.
The closer the gap is to zero the better balance there is between importance and satisfaction.

Overall per Market
Large positive gaps are identified (Figure 24) at the Container, Break Bulk and Ro/Ro Market. This
entails that the port users’ perspective is that they consider the services provided by ports for these
specific markets very important, but their overall satisfaction is low. A high priority for improvement is
therefore indicated for these markets in an overall evaluation.
Cruise Market and the Liquid Bulk Market identified with a small positive gap revealing a relatively
important rating at the average of the criteria included compared to low satisfaction. Space for
improvements can also be seen for this market segment.
84

GAP Analysis
Overall
Cruise Market
Break Bulk Market
Liquid Bulk Market
Dry Bulk Market
Ro/Ro Market
Container Market
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Figure 24: GAP Analysis/Overall
Container Market
Large positive gaps are identified (Figure 25) for the majority of criteria consisting the Container Market
evaluation by the port users. The ports’ users’ perspective is that they find these criteria significant, but
their satisfaction is low. Criteria that are identified with these large gaps (from 1 to 2,5) must be
considered as priorities in improvement initiatives by port managers. A small positive gap is shown for
several criteria, whilst a high negative is gap is only attributed for the evaluation of the “Deep Sea
Container Services”, where there is no need for corrective actions.

85

GAP Analysis
Container Market
Quality-efficiency of road transport services
Connectivity to road network
Customs operating hours
Hinterland intermodal connectivity
Efficiency of container clearness procedure
Services for containers (added value services, …
Container storage cost
Number of operational stacking equipment
Storage capacity for reefer containers
Storage capacity for containers
Port safety
Port security
Accuracy of information
Online information
On-time information
Transparency of port charges
Response to regulation changes
Response to innovativeness
Response to users requests
Coordination of port community/stakeholders
Container handling cost
Number of operational gantry cranes
Efficiency of (un)loading operations
Vessel-related port costs
Efficiency (Quality-Cost) of Towage
Efficiency (Quality-Cost) of Pilotage
Efficiency (Quality-Cost) of Waste reception facilities
Efficiency (Quality-Cost) of Mooring
Efficiency (Quality-Cost) of Dredging
Efficiency (Quality-Cost) of Ice-breaking
Efficiency (Quality-Cost) of Bunkering
On-time departure
On-time arrival
Port operating hours
Operational depth
Total length of quays
Number of berths
Feeder container services
Deep-sea container services
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Figure 25: GAP Analysis/Container Market
Ro/Ro Market
The Ro/Ro Market evaluation reveals smaller gaps than the previously presented market of Containers,
although a very high positive gap (at a 2,5 level) is reveled for the “Vessel Related port costs”.
Improvement action is considered essential for that case, following for all other services represented by
the criteria that reveal an additional high positive gap at the scale of 2 (Figure 26).
86

Several criteria have a good balance between satisfaction and importance, giving a 0,5 gap. Action is
not recommended in these cases as a priority, along with the “Dredging Efficiency” which reveals also
a large negative gap.
GAP Analysis
Ro/Ro Market
Quality-efficiency of rail services

Connectivity to rail network (number and …
Efficiency of trailer-truck clearness procedure
Services for trailers-trucks
Number of operational tractors
Trailer-truck storage cost
Storage capacity for reefer trailers
Storage capacity for trailers-trucks
Port safety
Port security
Online information
On-time information
Trailer (truck) handling cost
On-time departure
On-time arrival
Operational depth
Number of berths
Feeder Ro-Ro services
Deep-sea Ro-Ro services
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Figure 26: Ro/Ro Market
87

Dry Bulk Market
The dry Bulk Market does not reveal a satisfying performance given the results of the GAP Analysis.
High positive gaps are identified for most of the criteria that have been evaluated by the port users,
revealing a need for further improvements (Figure 27) Action is considered essential for all criteria that
reveal high gaps between satisfaction and importance, such as the rail – services related, the “Efficiency
of Dredging” and the “Operational Depth”.
GAP Analysis
Dry Bulk Market
Quality-efficiency of rail services
Connectivity to rail network (number and …
Efficiency of dry bulk cargo clearness procedure
Added value services to dry bulk cargoes
Services for trucks (weighting etc)
Number of operational cranes
Dry bulk cargoes storage cost
Storage capacity for dry bulk cargoes
Port safety
Port security
Online information
On-time information
Dry bulk cargoes handling cost
On-time departure
On-time arrival
Operational depth
Number of berths
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Figure 27: GAP Analysis/Dry Bulk Market

88

Cruise Market
The results of the GAP Analysis reveal a smooth picture for all participant ports that operate in the
Cruise Market segment. In general, as seen from the figure that follows (Figure 28) the positive gaps
are not high. Availability of parking areas and the services to passengers are the factors that have been
evaluated as the most unsatisfying, revealing a positive gap at the scale of 1,5. Room for improvement
though is available for the rest of the criteria with positive gaps, whilst at the same time port users seem
quite satisfied with the rest of the services, since a lot of criteria reveal a good balance between
satisfaction and importance, with zero or low negative gaps.
GAP Analysis
Cruise Market
Efficiency of land transport modes
Efficiency of passengers clearness procedure
Services to passengers
Total parking areas
Total available area for passengers
Port safety
Port security
Online information
On-time information
Baggage handling cost
Cruise passengers handling cost
Efficiency of baggage handling operations
Efficiency of passengers embarking/disembarking …
Number of operational passenger terminals
On-time departure
On-time arrival
Operational depth
Total length of the quays
Efficiency of berth allocation system
Number of berths
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Figure 28: GAP Analysis/Cruise Market
89

REFERENCES

Parola, F., Notteboom, T., Satta, G., Rodrigue, J.P. 2013. Analysis of factors underlying foreign entry
strategies of terminal operators in container ports. Journal of Transport Geography, 33, pp. 72-84.

Puig, M., Wooldridge, C., Michail, A., Darbra, R.M. 2015. Current status and trends of the
environmental performance in European ports. European Science and Policy, 48, pp. 57-66.
Puig, M., Michail, A., Wooldridge, C., Darbra, R.M. 2017. Benchmark dynamics in the environmental
performance of ports. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 121, pp. 111-119.

90

FINAL Sustainability Report 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL Sustainability Report 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European

Rapid Exchange System +

It is set-up along 6 dimensions, in line with the principles of integrated reporting:

- Market Trends and Structure indicators

- Market Trends and Structure indicators (theo.notteboom@uantwerpen.be)

SECTION 1: MARKET TRENDS AND STRUCTURE

Annual growth port throughput and real GDP in EU28

Source: based on data Eurostat

Modest growth in seaborne goods handled

Real GDP growth per annum (EU 28)

Source: based on Eurostat and Notteboom (2016)

Growrh 2007-2016 in million TEU 2.5

1.5 Spanish Med Portugal

Source: Notteboom (2017)

N antes-S t-N azaire France

Source: Notteboom (2010; 2016)

Top 15 European container ports

Source: based on Eurostat data

Source: Based on Eurostat data

EU merchandise trade (in value)

Source: aggregation Aplhaliner data of 13 July 2017

Consolidation and alliance formation in container shipping lead to market concentration

Source: BCG analysis based on annual reports

Freight rates at the root of alliances

Source: Alphaliner Weekly Newsletter, volume 2017, issue 14

Three alliances dominate the main East-West trade routes

Source: Parola et al., 2013

Land side terminals gaining market power through expansion

As widely acknowledged by scholars and practitioners, international terminal operators (ITOs)

PROFITABILITY AND RELIANCE ON ASSETS FOR TRADERS

Source: Meersman, Rechtsteiner and Sharp (2013)

Traders gaining market power via vertical integration

Source: Meersman, Rechtsteiner and Sharp (2013)

Growing strategic role of traders in cargo and port routing (oil)

Source: Parola (2013)

North African ports put pressure on Med range

Source: Portopia calculation based on Drewry (2014)

Med ports still largest transshipment incidence 2014

Source: Portopia calculation based on Drewry (2014)

Global transshipment & empties incidence

Source: Portopia calculation based on Drewry (2014)

East regions transshipment, West regions lose transhipment

Stable evolution with small transshipment rise

Source: Portopia calculation based on Drewry (2014)

East regions gain transhipment, West regions lose transhipment

SECTION 2: SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS

Source: PORTOPIA Deliverables

Estimation models need to take into account port specificities

For these best practices, see:

http://havenmonitor.nl (in Dutch, version 2015)

https://www.nbb.be/doc/ts/publications/wp/wp283en.pdf (in English, report June 2015 on the

Source: PORTOPIA Deliverables

Final steps in rendering the estimation model are underway

SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, SAFETY AND

Figure 1: Geographical characteristics of the sample

Figure 2: Tonnage characteristics of the sample

Table 2: Percentages of positive responses to the environmental management indicators

Table 3: Environmental Management Index in 2013 and 2016.

Figure 3: Distribution of the EMS certificates

Table 4: Percentage of positive responses to environmental monitoring indicators

Table 5: Top 10 environmental priorities of the port sector over years.

Table 6: Percentage of positive responses to services to shipping indicators

SECTION 4: LOGISTIC CHAIN AND OPERATIONAL