1. Maritime policy and intermodality
In the course of this study, various ideas have been put forward for Community action within the scope of the common transport policy and with the specific objective of promoting the European merchant fleet. These ideas will be re-examined and developed in the following sections.
First of all, it should be pointed out that the crucial phrase in the preceding paragraph is within the scope of the common transport policy. Maritime transport is an integral part of this sector of the economy, whose role is to ensure the mobility of persons and goods and where the services provided depend on competition between companies, both public and private, and also on infrastructures which, unlike the companies, are mostly publicly owned.
The common transport policy, as conceived by the Community, is geared towards achieving sustainable mobility by means of an intermodal system which includes maritime transport. As already mentioned, operators in the sector complain that maritime transport is somewhat marginalized in measures to promote intermodality. It is not appropriate in this document to decide whether such complaints are justified or not. Instead, it should be made clear that the best way to promote the efficiency and competitiveness of the Community fleet and European shipowners at world level is essentially to integrate maritime transport into a Community transport system. This should take place in various ways.
At a physical level, progress has been made in developing combined transport, with the increased use of containers and improved port handling equipment. Nevertheless, certain legal and administrative problems still remain: freedom of access to port services - an essential condition for the provision of competitive port services - and simplification of customs and control procedures for goods and persons.
All this raises the question of interoperability, through an efficient intermodal transport system which facilitates transhipment from one mode of transport to another (or, more generally, from one vehicle to another). To achieve this type of integration, the times and routes of the different vehicles need to be coordinated in order to minimize delays. This will involve overcoming legal and administrative restrictions, as well as increased use of technology: management and control of traffic through telematics and satellites and, no less importantly, data transfer systems for monitoring freight from place of origin to place of destination by different transport modes.
Sea/river transport is an example of multimodal integration. It allows goods to be carried inland with a minimum number of transhipments. The various forms of short sea shipping also have an important role to play in the process of integration.
The companies involved in maritime transport would almost certainly benefit from combining together to provide a comprehensive transport service through coordination of the different modes.
Integrated maritime transport services within a multimodal transport system would make it possible to use waterborne transport instead of more polluting types of traffic, which would be preferable from an environmental point of view. Increased use of shipping would also lead to lower management costs and greater competitiveness on the part of Community shipping.
2. Competitiveness of Community maritime transport
Community shipping is less competitive not because it provides an inferior service, but because of the lower operating costs of other merchant fleets due to lower taxes, wages and levels of social security provision, as well as laxer procedures for enforcing international safety and environmental rules. These problems can be dealt with at international level by more effective implementation of the international rules, as well as through a reduction in Community operating costs.
The international aspects will be considered in the next section; here, we shall deal with cost reduction. Most importantly, if maritime transport were to be properly integrated in an intermodal system, users would choose this particular mode in preference to road and rail transport. This would allow a better use of transport capacity, leading to economies of scale and a reduction in the unit cost of transport.
In addition, harmonization of equipment (120) would contribute towards a reduction, albeit a modest one, in ship construction costs and depreciation. The same results would be achieved through cooperation over ship design.
A reduction in personnel costs might be achieved through research and development in the field of marine automation technology. However, any reduction in crew numbers must be compatible with the relevant IMO rules.
In terms of fiscal considerations and personnel costs, European Union harmonization of the rules on registration, which has replaced the EUROS project as far as future Community legislation is concerned, will benefit Member States if it allows them to keep or establish secondary registers that are competitive with open registers. This is a somewhat sensitive issue because of its implications for employment and the likelihood of non-Community personnel being recruited. However, if secondary registers lead to some ships registered under flags of convenience being repatriated, the extra jobs created by a larger number of ships could compensate for a smaller Community quota.
As a last resort, the cost gap can be reduced by state aid, which must be allocated according to criteria laid down at Community level to avoid distortions of competition within the Community. State aid has wider implications, however, including the problem of the ageing of the Community fleet. This is a situation requiring vast sums of money, which could be raised either through increased competitiveness leading to a higher rate of return, or through special financing arrangements or construction aid.
This is an issue which affects some Member States more than others. In some, credit facilities for the maritime sector are far from straightforward, and this, regardless of the tax arrangements, can deter investment in the sector and restrict its competitiveness. Any problem associated with the banking system, however, affects all the other economic sectors - not just maritime transport - by interacting with the real economy to reduce efficiency.
3. International aspects
Competition, safety and the environment are very sensitive issues because of their effect on international law in relation to national sovereignty and the exploitation and development of marine resources. As is always the case with economic issues at international level, there is a conflict of interest between the industrialized countries, which are free market oriented (121), and developing countries which are seeking to protect their own maritime markets. It has already been described (122) how, in the context of the Montego Bay Convention, the non-industrialized countries tried to limit the concept of the high seas in order to retain control over resources in the widest possible area. The same countries also tend to limit the use of their own ports as ports of origin or destination to liner shipping flying the flag of the terminus states. When these countries also have open registers, they are enthusiastic defenders of flag state control against port state control, since under the latter regime, the advantages they derive from evading safety and environmental controls are substantially reduced.
Such evasion could be virtually eliminated through the extension not only of port state control, but also of coastal state control to ships in transit. The possibility of extending these powers to the high seas has already been dealt with in connection with Eurorep (123). At present, however, port state control only applies to ships in port, while coastal state control can be exercised where there has been a serious incident.
Concerted action by the Community in order to change international shipping law in this way will doubtless be difficult, although it could secure the support of most, if not all of the industrialized countries by promising to make shipping safer and more environmentally friendly. Flags of convenience would also lose one of their most powerful attractions. It should also be borne in mind that the alternative to such diplomatic action, namely prohibiting access by ships not complying with certain international rules to the ports of a major commercial power, might be a strong unilateral incentive to overall improvement (124).
On a purely commercial level, the resumption of multilateral transport negotiations in the context of the Uruguay Round by 1 January 2000 - the deadline set on 29 June 1996 when they were suspended - is crucial in order to avoid an increase in protectionist measures. Although the parties present when the negotiations were suspended agreed to limit restrictive measures to those necessary for self-defence, this is not really an adequate guarantee.
4. The maritime industries
In including maritime transport in the common transport policy, the linkage between maritime transport and the maritime industries, particularly in terms of shipbuilding and equipment manufacturing, should not be ignored. For the latter, the proposal for a directive (125) is an important step towards improving safety, reducing equipment costs for ships and strengthening competitiveness, not least that of European equipment manufacturers in the global market, through a standardization of quality products, guaranteed by a Community mark.
For its part, the shipbuilding industry will have to forgo the benefits of state aid which it is currently enjoying and make good the deficit by means of increased competitiveness on the international market, where the lower labour costs of some extra-Community countries are giving them a competitive advantage over Community companies. The best way to achieve this goal is by safeguarding the future of shipbuilding in Europe through a renewal of the Community fleet. This will resolve one of the problems facing maritime transport, as well as the problem of competitiveness in the shipbuilding sector.
FOOTNOTES
120. See Chapter IV, section 7.
121. The word oriented is used because some adopt a different stance and even create barriers against some maritime transport on environmental grounds.
122. See Chapter II, section 2.
123. See Chapter IV, section 9.
124. This was precisely what the USA did in 1990 when it denied access to its ports to tankers without segregated ballast tanks, as provided for in the relevant IMO resolution (see Chapter IV, section 9).
125. See Chapter IV, section 7.
European Parliament: 09/1996