State aid exemptions miss the mark

Industry Database

COMMENT: The long-awaited European Union policy on government investments in seaports and airports has both high and low points. The sad part is that the high points are mainly centred around airports, while the seaport part takes the lion’s share of low points, writes Peter de Langen.

At its core, the policy addresses state aid, which distorts the playing field and has harmful economic effects. State aid also obstructs the ‘user pays’ principle and leads on a European scale to subsidies to imports and exports via ports, clearly without rationale. Thirdly, and this is perhaps the least acknowledged facet of state aid, state funding in practice implies governments play a key role in the decision-making on port infrastructure investments, even though this often leads to politically motivated investments in port infrastructure that create limited value for users.

In airports, the shift away from this model is now mostly complete: commercial undertakings (even though in some cases these are government owned) invest in airports based on a business case. The EU regulation re-enforces this principle: state funding for large airports is not allowed, while for smaller airports of up to 3 million passengers per year some funding is allowed, provided that they are not in the catchment area of another airport. For even smaller airports of up to 200,000 passengers, more aid is allowed, especially in view of the aim to secure accessibility to remote regions. In short: a sound approach.

For ports, there is no differentiation according to size, with the aim to ensure that the large European ports compete on an equal footing and that the port infrastructure is fully paid by users. Instead, public funding of up to €150m is exempted from state aid regulation.

Given that infrastructure investments can generally be split into various phases or sub-projects and can take years, creative governments can exempt huge investment sums from state-aid considerations. This gives governments huge freedom to continue to spend taxpayers' money in port infrastructure, even though past experiences suggest there is no basis to assume that this money will be well spent from the point of view of EU citizens.

LATEST PRESS RELEASES

Siwertell road-mobile capabilities added to Ashdod’s sulfur-handling operations

Bruks Siwertell has secured a further Siwertell ship unloader order from Israel’s Ashdod Port Compan... Read more

SANY Boosting Business in Europe for Container Handling Equipment

SANY Europe have had a very busy 1st half of 2019. Several orders have been secured and machines hav... Read more

SOHAR Port Anticipates Potential Business Opportunities

Muscat, July 2019: With several developmental plans underway, including future projects, SOHAR Port ... Read more

BEST - The coolest terminal in the Med

Hutchison Ports BEST terminal in the Port of Barcelona has recently increased its storage and connec... Read more

SFT participates in extensive Tema Port expansion in Ghana

Meridian Port Services (MPS) invested USD 1.5bn to expand the infrastructure of Tema Port in Ghana, ... Read more

LASE opens first office in Australia

LASE announces local presence in Perth, Australia in order to support the growing base of Australian... Read more

View all