1. COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON PORT-RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON PORT-RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Venice 6 May 2008
CONCLUSIONS
01/12/2018
picture: courtesy of the Port of Hamburg
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

2. Concept (1/2) Follow-up of the Ports Policy Communication
Organised by DG TREN G.2 Ports Policy Unit
Close cooperation with ESPO
Hosted by the Venice Port Authority
+/- 45 participants representing port authorities, terminal operators, the dredging industry, shipowners; absence of environmental NGOs

3. Concept (2/2)
Brainstorming session on port-related environmental issues
No discussion on changes in legislation, only on how to implement existing legislation
Issues: Birds, Habitats, Water Framework, Dredging, Waste and Air Quality

4. Messages from stakeholders Birds and Habitats (1/3)
Absence of very precise definitions
Existence of litigation culture
A solid solution for legal certainty is needed
More than a guide of (best) practice is needed
COM should delimit the definitions contained in the Directives. Directives work with undetermined terms. A common set of standards should be elaborated by COM.

5. Messages from stakeholders Birds and Habitats (2/3)
Problems: delays of projects, extra costs caused by delays (who pays for these?)
COM has a certain responsibility to accelerate projects, because otherwise there is no efficient transport policy.

6. Messages from stakeholders Birds and Habitats (3/3) Recommendations from ESPO (1/2)
Responsibility for port authorities: take up the existing recommendations regarding the Birds and Habitats Directives (i.e., ESPO Code of Practice) and take them further
Responsibility for the COM: need for more efficiency in the planning process within a reasonable timeframe (is it "yes" or is it "no"?); there are examples of large infrastructure projects in the Netherlands and the UK

7. Messages from stakeholders Birds and Habitats (3/3) Recommendations from ESPO (2/2)
COM should make sure that the Waste Framework Directive and the Environmental Quality Standards Directive take into account that (uncontaminated) dredged material is not waste, including when disposed of on land
There should be a connection between the "hard" guidelines on State Aid to ports and the "soft" guidelines on environmental matters

8. Messages from stakeholders Dredging
Exempt sediments from waste through the revision of the Waste Framework Directive
According to the European Dredging Association, in many MS maintenance dredging for access to ports is considered as a major project; these are regular projects and should receive licences for longer periods than only for one year
Dredging is not the primary source of pollution

9. Venice outputs for Ecosphère
Explaining the added value of the BHD and WFD
Explaining the needs of stakeholders: at a certain stage certainty is needed to launch synchronized investments (port + local and hinterland transport +…). The issue is not time scale but the prior knowledge of the duration
How to implement key concepts (proportionality, alternative, compensation…).
Why minimum levels (appropriate, significant…) have been chosen versus standards ?

10. Venice outputs for Ecosphère
What is the extent of the problem we are discussing ?
To plan issues and solutions: need for knowledge on how many 100s or 1000s hectares of extension are needed in EU for the next years. Which part for the improvement of the current capacities ?
ESPO will deliver figures for October.
Two examples: Rotterdam (2500 ha for the next 25 years), Le Havre (2000 ha reserved and earmarked in land planning documents)
How to consider the impacts on hinterland ?