European Port Governance‘The ESPO Fact-Finding Report’

Patrick VerhoevenAmCham Latvia – Riga, 22 November 2011

1

Summary

1. Devolution2. Corporate governance3. Functional autonomy4. Functional pro-activeness5. Investment responsibility6. Financial autonomy7. Concluding observations

2

• Hanse: Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway and Iceland

• New Hanse: Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia• Anglo-Saxon: UK and Ireland• Latin: France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Malta,

Greece, Cyprus and Israel• New Latin: Slovenia, Croatia, Bulgaria and

Romania

3

Responding port authorities per region

4

1. Devolution

5

Ownership of port authorities

6

Frequency of contacts with government

7

National reforms and re-organisations

8

Legal form of port authorities

9

2. Corporate Governance

10

11

Economic objectives of port authorities

End responsibility for appointing top management executive of the PA

12

Average composition of supervisory / governing body, in n° of people

13

Use of public selection procedures to contract out port land

14

Accounting

15

Port authorities subject to taxation

16

3. Operational Profile

17

Direct provision of operational services

18

4. Functional Autonomy

19

Governance of port land

20

Regulator function: Harbour Master

57,3 %Harbour Master is fully integrated in the port authority organisation

21

5. Functional Pro-activeness

22

Clauses generally applied in major contractual arrangements

23

Port authorities issuing own regulations

24

Involvement of PA in actions / initiatives that benefit the entire port community

25

PA involved in societal integration initiatives

26

Strategic partnerships and direct investments with other ports

27

Export of regulatory expertise

28

PA providing services outside their own port(s)

29

6. Investment Responsibility

30

31

7. Financial Autonomy

32

Average income profile PA

33

Legal nature of port charges (PA)

34

Calculation basis of general port dues

35

Port charges – autonomy PA

36

General financial autonomy PA

37

7. Concluding Observations

38

• Most European PA converge towards ‘facilitator’ type • ‘Renaissance’ ambitions PA limited / enabled by

diversity in governance frameworks• Traditional Hanse, Latin and Anglo-Saxon frameworks

explain most of the diversity• New regions ‘in between’ but closer to Latin• Most PA are Hanse or Latin: north-south duality• Size matters (but not always)• Influence EU law and policy: new EU ‘Ports Package’

39

Thank you for your attention

Patrick Verhoeven – Secretary GeneralEuropean Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO)

Treurenberg 6 – B-1000 Brussel / Bruxelles - Tel + 32 2 736 34 63 – Fax + 32 2 736 63 25Email: pverhoeven@espo.be – www.espo.be