European Parliament rejects port directive

European Parliament rejects port directive    The European Parliament Wednesday, as anticipated, overwhelmingly rejected for the second time in less than two years, the port services directive with 532 votes against, 120 in favor, and 25 abstentions.
   The European Union’s Port Package II proposed to end monopolies on cargo handling by terminal companies, and to permit shipping firms to appoint independent contractors to load and unload vessels.
   On Monday, dockworkers across Europe protested against the draft bill, with 24-hour strikes and approximately 6,000 people joining a march in Strasbourg outside the EU Parliament building, which erupted into chaos with violent clashes.
   “This result voices Parliament’s concern that the draft commission text still does not meet the need for a clear legal and legislative framework for community ports. Key issues such as transparent state aid and other supports to ports and fair competition between ports should be reconsidered with the involvement of Parliament and all those represented in the sector,” the EU said in a statement.
   Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot said he would consult the college of commissioners before deciding whether to withdraw the proposal.
   “We do not consider this as a day of victory as we were never against the idea of an instrument on port services as such,” said Giuliano Gallanti, chairman of the Brussels-based port lobby group European Sea Port Organization (ESPO). “However, it became very clear to us after the vote in the Transport Committee in November that there was no steady political basis for the directive, and the risk was very high that something incoherent and counterproductive would have come out in the end. The fact that the controversial directive is now off the table gives us the possibility to have a fresh start and look at the development of a more coherent European policy framework for our ports.
   “If we want our ports to be ready to accommodate the ever-increasing growth in cargo traffic, we must have clear rules on financing of new infrastructure and more legal certainty with regard to the application of environmental rules. It now takes more than 10 years before getting clearance on vital infrastructure projects, which is simply unacceptable.
   “We should perhaps move away from a strict regulatory approach and look for alternative solutions, such as a code of good practice or interpretative guidelines on the application of the rules of the treaty. Important is that we have a framework which supports port development, ensures a level playing field and emphasizes the role of the port authority,” Gallanti said.