“ELABORATION OF THE EAST MEDITERRANEAN MOTORWAYS OF THE SEA MASTER PLAN”
DELIVERABLE 6.2
“REPORT ON FINANCIAL INVESTMENT AND TIME PLANNING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EAST MEDITERRANEAN MOTORWAYS OF THE SEA” DECEMBER 2009
Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction...... 8 1 MoS projects financing...... 11 1.1 Overview of MoS services ...... 11 1.2 Sources of financing of infrastructure investments...... 15 1.3 Source of financing of MoS services ...... 31 1.4 Other sources of financing ...... 37 1.5 Summary of the main sources of financing...... 42 2 Investments and time planning for all MoS projects...... 44 2.1 Approach ...... 44 2.2 Financing infrastructure investments, and annual budget for implementation 47 2.3 Services financing and budget for implementation...... 77 3 Investments and time planning: micro level analysis ...... 83 3.1 1st Call for proposals...... 83 3.2 1st Call-Projects description ...... 85 3.3 2nd Call for proposals...... 95 3.4 2nd Call-Projects description...... 96 3.5 Total Infrastructural investments ...... 99 3.6 Financing infrastructure investments ...... 104 4 Public Private Partnership...... 106 4.1 PPP Models ...... 107 4.2 Summary of PPP Models ...... 110 4.3 Combining EU grant funding with PPPs for infrastructure projects...... 113 4.4 PPP applications for MoS projects...... 116 5 Action Plan ...... 118 5.1 Horizontal actions for the development of MoS services ...... 118 5.2 Vertical actions: next steps for each MoS proposals...... 136 5.3 Time planning for the implementation...... 140 5.4 Annual budget for implementation ...... 153 5.5 Monitoring mechanism of implementation...... 157 5.6 Institutional set-up for each MoS project...... 162 5.7 Institutional structure for EC financial support...... 164 ANNEXES ...... 167 Annex I – List of port projects...... 168 Annex II – Application for EU funds ...... 177 Annex III – Initial Promotion Plan ...... 188
Deliverable 6.2 2 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Net new routes in North Europe and in the Mediterranean, 2005–2008 ...13 Figure 1-2 – Main relations among port operations’ stakeholders ...... 17 Figure 1-3 - Marco Polo’s budget allocation to SSS services for each call (M€) ...... 33 Figure 2-1 – Major port clusters and their connections by cargo type ...... 49 Figure 2-2 – Main project categories (%)...... 51 Figure 2-3 – Number of port projects by category and Country...... 52 Figure 2-4 – Total amount of port projects by category and Country (%) ...... 53 Figure 2-5 – Beta parameters by type of project...... 63 Figure 2-6 – Cost Database and Funding Analysis...... 65 Figure 2-7 – Italian infrastructure investments by year and stage of maturity (M€), 2008-2015 ...... 70 Figure 2-8 - Greek infrastructure investments by year and stage of maturity (M€), 2008-2015 ...... 70 Figure 2-9 - Maltese infrastructure investments by year and stage of maturity (M€), 2008-2015 ...... 71 Figure 2-10 - Slovenian infrastructure investments by year and stage of maturity (M€), 2008-2015...... 72 Figure 2-11 - Cypriot infrastructure investments by year and stage of maturity (M€), 2008-2015 ...... 72 Figure 2-12 - Total infrastructure investments by Country and year (M€),2008-201573 Figure 2-13 - Overview of Funding sources (current situation), 2008-2015...... 74 Figure 2-14 - Scenario “Additional EU co-financing for port projects”, 2008-2015 .76 Figure 3-1: Value of projects submitted to the Call for proposals by category and Country (M€) ...... 102 Figure 3-2: Number of projects submitted to the Call for proposals by category and Country ...... 103 Figure 4-1 – Public/Private involvement in PPP Models ...... 112 Figure 4-2 -Financial gap approach ...... 116 Figure 4-3 - Flat-rate system...... 117 Figure 5-1 Stakeholders’ view by transport mode...... 122 Figure 5-2 – Time plan Corridor MoS 1...... 147 Figure 5-3 – Time plan Corridor MoS 2...... 148 Figure 5-4 – Time plan Corridor MoS 3...... 149 Figure 5-5 – Time plan Corridor MoS 4...... 150 Figure 5-6 – Time plan Corridor MoS 5...... 150 Figure 5-7 – Time plan Corridor MoS 6...... 151 Figure 5-8 – Time plan Corridor MoS 7...... 151 Figure 5-9 – Time plan Corridor MoS 8...... 151 Figure 5-10 – Time plan Corridor MoS 9...... 152 Figure 5-11 – Total infrastructure investments by Country and year (M€), 2008-2015 ...... 155 Figure 5-12 – Total infrastructure investments by MoS corridor and year (M€), 2008- 2015...... 156 Figure 5-13 Monitoring and evaluation system...... 160 Figure 5-14 Main stakeholders to be involved in the institutional set-up of a MoS project ...... 163 Figure 5-15 – Institutional set-up for each MoS project according to the TEN-T procedure...... 166
Deliverable 6.2 3 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Maritime routes established and ceased in the 2005 – 2007 period...... 11 Table 1-2: Available co-financing for MoS by TEN-T budget for the TEN-T calls 2007-2012 ...... 25 Table 1-3 – Budget of MoS projects, and estimated required TEN-T co-financing....26 Table 1-4: Eligible regions for Convergence objective (NUTS II), 2007-2013 ...... 27 Table 1-5: Eligible regions for Competitiveness and Employment objective (NUTS II), 2007-2013 ...... 28 Table 1-6: Maximum co-financing ceilings for Convergence objective (ERDF and CF) and for TEN-T budget, 2007-2013 ...... 29 Table 1-7: Co-financing rate for Structural Actions by mode of transport...... 29 Table 1-8 - Marco Polo calls for proposals, 2003-2006 ...... 32 Table 1-9: Available sources of MoS financing , main characteristics (2007-2013) 42 Table 2-1: Main port clusters within the core study area...... 48 Table 2-2: MoS potential connections ...... 50 Table 2-3: : Bottlenecks identified for each MoS corridor and needed investments...54 Table 2-4: Investments needed until 2015 to overcome gaps...... 58 Table 2-5: Beta function “New quay at S. Apollinare” (Brindisi)...... 64 Table 2-6: Funding possibilities by intervention type ...... 68 Table 2-7: Infrastructure investments by Country and by procedural stage (M€), 2008-2015 ...... 69 Table 2-8: Scenario “Additional EU co-financing for infrastructure projects without a secured fnancial coverage”, 2008-2015...... 75 Table 2-9 - Operating costs for a RoRo route...... 79 Table 2-10 - Operating revenues for a RoRo route...... 79 Table 2-11: Cost of a MoS service by main item (%) ...... 80 Table 2-12 - Estimation State aid’s co-financing for MoS services ...... 80 Table 3-1: Main service’s characteristics of the proposed MoS route between Taranto and Igoumenitsa...... 86 Table 3-2: Investments and sources of financing of the proposed MoS route between Taranto and Igoumenitsa (M€) ...... 87 Table 3-3: Main service’s characteristics of the proposed MoS route between Kavala and Limassol ...... 89 Table 3-4: Investments and financing of the proposed MoS route between Kavala and Limassol (M€)...... 90 Table 4-1: Main features in PPP models...... 110 Table 4-2: Main characteristics of hybrid PPP models...... 114 Table 5-1: Action Plan: horizontal actions ...... 119 Table 5-2: Criteria to be met by each project, in applying to the call for proposals.137 Table 5-3: MoS corridors: kind of traffic and future traffic volume estimation...... 141 Table 5-4: “MOS-oriented” projects...... 143 Table 5-5: Bottlenecks identified for each MoS corridor ...... 144 Table 5-6: Total infrastructure investments by MoS corridor and year (M€), 2008- 2015...... 156 Table 5-7: Table of possible indicators to monitor the impact of the Action Plan....158 Table 5-8: Data sources ...... 161
Deliverable 6.2 4 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The main objective of the present document is to provide an effective instrument to implement the results the East Mediterranean Motorways of the Sea Master Plan as a whole. More specifically, this deliverable aims at defining a preliminary investment and time plan, including the identification of possible funding resources, as well as an Action Plan, describing the operative path for the development of the MoS in the Eastern Mediterranean area.
A description of the main sources of financing is initially provided that could be used by the stakeholders to request funding for the port investments and infrastructural needs in terms of hinterland connections. The possible funding sources, such as National/Regional funding, TEN-T, ERDF/NSRF and Cohesion funds, Marco Polo II, national incentives like the Ecobonus, European Investment Bank’s loans, State aid for maritime transport, as well as private capital, are analysed.
Furthermore, an analysis is carried out with the scope to identify the total amounts needed, the time planning and the sources of financing of the required investments to foster the development of the MoS services in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and to fully implement the Master Plan. The methodology followed includes the analysis of port investments and infrastructural needs for hinterland connections, as well as time planning for the implementation. In addition, an analysis of services financing and definition of budget for their implementation is carried out.
The above overall investment needs, are supplemented with a micro-analysis, based on the submitted proposals during the two calls for MoS proposals of East Med MoS. The purpose of this analysis is to present the real case investment scenario of projects most likely to request TEN-T co-funding until 2015.
Regarding the overall required investments for MoS implementation in East Medittranean area, the total amount is 963M€ for the period 2008-2015, of which about 241 M€ are currently without a secured financial coverage. Of the secured investments, totalling 722M€, about 485 M€ are provided by national/regional/local funds committed by Public Authorities, about 118 M€ by ERDF and CF resources, about 14 M€ by TEN-T funds, about 56 M€ by private capital, and the remaining 49 M€ by other funds, which are specified on the basis of available information.
According to the funding scenario presented for the investments without secured financial coverage, port authorities and other stakeholders could request approximately 30 M€ of TEN-T funds and approximately 32 M€ of ERDF/NSRF and CF’s financial support, the remaining 179M€ to be covered by National funds or private capital..
Deliverable 6.2 5 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Thus, basedon the current funds’ allocation, additional European resources must be provided in order to allow Eastern Mediterranean ports to overcome their bottlenecks, so that they could comply with the relevant minimum requirements identified for MoS services. The results of the analysis show a significant involvement of the national funds, mainly from the public sector (both at national and EU level), that can finance the development of the MoS. Also, the gap between current and adequate funding for MoS development can be addressed through a better combination of public and private funds.
Moreover, with regards to services funding, the analysis performed demonstrated that State aid co-financing and Marco Polo co-financing that provide direct funding to transport operators (e.g. ship-owners, road hauliers, etc.), enables them to choose MoS services as mode of transport. This is realized, since such funding will allow them to overcome the substantial financial difficulties concerning the launch, as well as the promotion, of such services. Moreover, financial instruments promoted by Member States could also be useful to promote modal shift from road to maritime transport.
Regarding, the micro-level analysis, this iscarried out for the five MoS proposals submitted under the 1st Call for MoS projects in the East-Med Corridor, as well as the two MoS proposals submitted under the 2nd Call, both launched by the Steering Committee of the “East Med MoS Master Plan” project. The investments included in the Calls, that have been considered eligible for TEN-T co-financing, are described both in terms of value and in terms of number of interventions. A time spanning and funding analysis is also carried out. A total amount of approximately 210M€ of investment.is required, from which 56 M€ could be funded by TEN-T budget.
A classification of possible Public Private Partnership (PPP) schemes in infrastructure projects is carried out, since the use of various PPP schemes may be essential for developing the organisational and financial frameworks for TEN-T projects. The possibility to combine EU grant funding with PPP schemes could be applied to the MoS, which will enable the private sector to financing port infrastructures or superstructures. The most suitable PPP scheme that could be used for MoS terminal is the concession.
Based on the above, an “Action Plan” is developed, aimed at identifying possible lines of intervention and projects in order to promote the development of East-Med MoS and to increase the infrastructural equipment and efficiency of the transport system. Two different types of actions are identified, that is, (a) horizontal actions, including general interventions that can be implemented to improve the overall performances of the MoS services without a focus on a specific route or link, and (b) vertical actions, related to specific activities that have to be carried out in order to implement the MoS project presented by the operators in the two Calls for proposals. The time planning and the annual budget needed to implement the actions identified, are also estimated
Deliverable 6.2 6 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study on the basis of the market needs and bottlenecks to be overcome to enhance the MoS services. Finally a monitoring and evaluating system is defined together with the institutional set-up for a MoS project.
Deliverable 6.2 7 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Introduction
The present document, Deliverable 6.2, constitutes a minor revision of Deliverable 6 “Report on Financial Investment and Time Planning for the Implementation of the East Mediterranean Motorways of the Sea”, with a number of necessary modifications, resulting from: • the third phase of the project, which was based on the extension of the project in accordance with the additional activities envisaged in the Management Plan of Commission Decision C(2008)8785, amending Commission Decision C(2006)6456 of EastMed-MoS and the original Management Plan. • the two projects submitted under the 2nd call of proposals launched by the Steering Committee of the “Elaboration of the East Mediterranean Motorways of the Sea Master Plan”.
Deliverable D6 was prepared by the Project Consulting consortium [PLANET (Lead Partner – Greece), TREDIT (Partner - Greece), PriceWaterhouseCoopers Italy (Partner - Italy) , UL FPP (Partner - Slovenia), PLANHOLD (Partner - Cyprus), PriceWaterhouseCoopers Malta (Subcontractor - Malta), T-Bridge (Subcontractor - Italy) , FORTHcrs (Subcontractor - Greece) , Rete Autostrade Mediterranee (Promoting partner – Italy)], and approved by the Parties of the Project “ELABORATION OF THE EAST MEDITERRANEAN MOTORWAYS OF THE SEA MASTER PLAN”, namely the Hellenic Ministry of Mercantile Marine, Aegean and Islands Policy, the Ministry of Transport of the Italian Republic, the Ministry of Transport of the Republic of Slovenia, the Cyprus Ports Authority and the Malta Maritime Authority.
The modifications and additions to the core document of D6 were carried out by the Technical Assistant. The core objective of Deliverable 6.2 is to provide an effective instrument to implement the results presented in the previous Deliverables1, and of the Master Plan as a whole. More specifically, the deliverable aims at defining a preliminary investment and time planning (including the identification of possible funding resources) and an Action Plan describing the operative path for the development of the Motorways of the Sea (MoS) in the Eastern Mediterranean area.
The main issues developed in the document are:
1 “Designation of MoS in the area” – provides a Report on the state of the art including a market study and a report on the infrastructure and service priority needs and on the requirements for horizontal issues (DEL1), a Call for proposals for MoS projects (DEL2), a Report on the designation of potential MoS links (DEL4). “Evaluation of MoS Projects and Preparation of the East Mediterranean Master Plan” – provides an assessment of the proposals for MoS projects applied in the previous task” (DEL3), the development of the East-Mediterranean Master Plan of the Motorways of the Sea (DEL5.2).
Deliverable 6.2 8 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Assessment of the use of different sources of EU and public funding and of the opportunity for Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives
Estimation of investments needed in order to develop the MoS connections in the East-Med area (both in terms of infrastructural investments and maritime transport services)
Setting up a time profile for the investments necessary for the Master Plan
Drawing a possible “path for implementation” of MoS in the East Mediterranean area. The analysis carried out through this document will aim at identifying a critical path for the successful implementation of MoS, while highlighting the critical issues to be considered and addressed (Action Plan).
A wide range of port projects2 have been analysed on the basis of data coming from specific data collection activities (e.g. Port Authorities, and national statistical offices) and proposals submitted within the 1st and 2nd Calls3 for MoS projects in the East-Med Corridor. The projects have been selected according to their relevance for the development of MoS connections and to their level of maturity (e.g. stage of procedure and sources of funding already identified).
The present document is made of five chapters, developed in order to fulfil the requirements of the Terms of Reference (ToR) and the contents of the Consortium Proposal.
The first chapter “MoS projects’ financing” aims at providing a summary of the main sources of financing that can be used by the stakeholders to fund port investments and infrastructural needs in terms of hinterland connections (e.g. National/Regional funding, TEN-T, ERDF and Cohesion funds, etc.) and MoS services (e.g. Marco Polo II funds, national incentives like the Ecobonus). Further potential sources of funding have also been analysed: European Investment Bank’s financing and State aids for maritime transport.
The second chapter “Investments and time planning: aggregated analysis” aims at identifying the total volume, the time planning and the sources of financing of the investments needed to foster the development of the MoS services in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and to fully implement the Master Plan. According to the ToR (task 3.1) and the Consortium proposal, this chapter is focused on the design and execution of the Master Plan, following the outputs of the Market analysis carried out in the WP1 and the presentation of the Master Plan. The investments identified regard
2 Projects dealing with: port infrastructures (e.g. piers and docks, terminal, yards, buildings and warehouses, logistics and intermodality), land connections (road and rail connections between ports and land networks), new technologies, etc 3 1st and 2nd Call for Proposals, Issued by the Hellenic Ministry of Mercantile Marine, Aegean and Islands Policy, the Ministry of Transport of the Italian Republic, the Ministry of Transport of the Republic of Slovenia, the Cyprus Ports Authority and the Malta Maritime Authority, on the 20th of December 2008 and April 2009, respectively.
Deliverable 6.2 9 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study not only port and land infrastructures and facilities but also MoS services that could be directly financed. Besides, as requested by the ToR (task 3.2) and according to the contents of the Consortium proposal, the funding sources (public funds, loans from World Bank, EIB, private funds, etc) have been investigated for each MoS project on the basis of the special nature of the MoS projects identified.
The third chapter “Investment and time planning: micro-level analysis” presents the five MoS proposals submitted under the 1st Call for MoS projects in the East-Med Corridor, as well as the two MoS proposals (one of which is a extensively revised version of the one submitted in the 1st call) submitted under the 2nd Call. The investments included in the Calls, that have been considered eligible for TEN-T co- financing, are described both in terms of value and in terms of number of interventions. The time spanning and a funding analysis have also been developed.
The fourth chapter “Public Private Partnership (PPP)” describes a classification of possible PPP structures in infrastructure projects, since the use of various PPP models may be essential for developing the organisational and financial frameworks for TEN-T projects. The possibility to combine EU grant funding with PPP for infrastructure projects is also underlined. Besides, a number of case studies of application are presented in this chapter.
The last chapter “Action Plan” aims at identifying possible lines of intervention and projects in order to promote the development of East-Med MoS and to increase the infrastructural equipment and efficiency of the transport system. Two different types of actions have been identified: (1) horizontal actions, concerning general interventions that can be implemented to improve the overall performances of the MoS services without a focus on a specific route or link, (2) vertical actions, related to specific activities that have to be carried out in order to implement the MoS project presented by the operators in the Call for proposals. According to the contractual requirements (task 3.3 of the ToR and the contents of the Consortium proposal), this chapter also includes the time planning and the annual budget for implementation of the East Mediterranean MoS, the definition of a monitoring and evaluating system and the institutional set-up for a MoS project.
Deliverable 6.2 10 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
1 MoS projects financing
1.1 Overview of MoS services
The MoS market trend has been analysed with a specific focus on the maritime operators’ perspective and on the factors that bring them to establish a new route or to cease a MoS service. In order to demonstrate the market attitude to the Motorways of the Sea, the following table summarises the evolution of new and discontinued maritime routes, in addition to the factors that have stimulated the launch or determined the closure of MoS services in the 2005 – 2007 period in Northern Europe (Baltic Sea and North Sea) and in the Mediterranean Sea. The analysis is focused only on the maritime route that represents one leg of the intermodal maritime-based logistics chain identifying an MoS service.
Table 1-1: Maritime routes established and ceased in the 2005 – 2007 period New / Region ceased 2005 2006 2007 Total Notes routes • New market opportunities related to the automotive industry and the development of New 13 7 7 27 logistics • Overall growth in exports from Northern Europe to Russia • The level of service provided by the ship-owner on the routes (e.g. small size of Ro-Ro vessel, frequency, etc) was no longer competitive with Ceased 9 5 6 20 overland connections and other maritime operators. Baltic • High level of competitiveness on specific routes characterised by a limited market • In the 2005 – 2007 period, maritime operators showed a strong will to achieve new market opportunities. More specifically, they have started many new services (27). However, a great Net new +4 +2 +1 7 number of routes have been also ceased (20). routes • The overall balance between new and ceased routes is positive, even if the market looks “mature” and characterised by a high level of competition. • New market opportunities due to the build up to the 2012 Olympics and the huge Thames Gateway. Huge volumes of raw materials are New 6 6 8 20 expected to be transported between Belgium and UK in the next five years. • Replacing the business of a bankrupted ferry company North • End of not profitable services Sea Ceased 5 2 6 13 • Ferry company bankrupt (high level of port fees) • In the 2005 – 2007 period, maritime operators have started several new services (20). However, Net new a great number of routes have been ceased (13). +1 +4 +2 +7 routes • The overall balance between new and ceased routes is positive, even if there is a great competition among operators. East • New services operated by a road haulier company New 1 2 2 5
Deliverable 6.2 11 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
New / Region ceased 2005 2006 2007 Total Notes routes to achieve the market needs with an adequate level of service • New market opportunities due to the opening of new rail-ferry berths Ceased 0 1 2 3 • Lower level of demand than expected Med • In the 2005 – 2007 period, maritime operators did not provide a great number of new services. Only 5 new routes were started while 3 routes were Net new +1 +1 0 +2 ceased in the same period. routes • The market appears to have a high level of maturity even if it does not show a great competition among operators. • New opportunities related to a growing demand New 1 4 3 8 between Italy and Spain and new markets (e.g. Morocco, Tunisia) • The low level of service on specific routes (e.g. Ceased 2 1 0 3 frequency, vessel speed, etc) did not allow to achieve the market needs West Med • In the 2005 – 2007 period, maritime operators did not provide a great number of new services. Only 8 new routes were started while 3 routes were Net new -1 +3 +3 +5 ceased in the same period. routes • The market appears to have a high level of maturity even if it does not show a great degree of competition among operators. New 21 19 20 60 Ceased 16 9 14 39 TOTAL Net new 5 10 6 21 routes Source: Market reports & outlook for ferry, cruise, Ro-Ro and high speed shipping, ShipPax 2008, 2007 and 2006
In the 2005 – 2007 period, 60 new routes were started in Europe to adjust the services supplied by the ship-owners to the increase of demand and to the shift of freight flows to maritime transport from other modes characterised by a greater impact on the environment. On the other side, 39 routes ceased due to changes in transport demand, wrong estimations of the market, high level of competition, etc. However, the balance between new and ceased routes is positive in the analysed period and in 2008 there are 21 routes more than the ones operated in 2005.
The figures above show the existence of a lively market, where ship-owners research new opportunities and profitable services to be provided in order to satisfy the market demand.
The following figure shows the presence of a growing market in the Northern European routes. In the 2005 – 2008 period, 66% of the new routes have been operated within this area, while 24% of these have been started on the West MoS routes and only 10% of the new routes have been operated on the routes in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Deliverable 6.2 12 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Figure 1-1 Net new routes in North Europe and in the Mediterranean, 2005–2008
West Med Baltic 24% 33%
East Med 10% North Sea 33%
Source: PwC Elaboration
There are many factors that have contributed to the development of MoS in Northern Europe (Baltic Sea and North Sea). The increase of trade among the countries in this area and the geographical characteristics of this region represent two key factors in the development of MoS in the area. However, there are also some factors that have fostered growth. More specifically, the Master Plan for the development of the Motorways of the Baltic Sea, carried out between 2005 and 2006, has provided a great help both to Public Bodies and Private operators in analysing, identifying and supporting the selection of new routes. Thus, it created a basis for commercial as well as political decisions.
In September 2005, another project started with the aim of developing the Motorways of the Sea in Western Europe. This project, aimed at preparing, identifying, analysing and supporting the selection of Motorways of the Sea is linked within the corridors of Western Europe. According to the previous experiences, the Master Plan for the development of the Motorways of the Sea in the Eastern Mediterranean will possibly foster further development of the MoS in the ports of the Mediterranean Sea.
Other EU instruments have also been used in Northern Europe and in the Mediterranean Sea to develop the Motorways of the Sea. More specifically, maritime operators applied to the Marco Polo programme4, benefiting from a Community contribution to provide new services which shift freight from long road distances to a combination of short sea shipping and other modes of transport.
In 2004, MoS have also been included in the TEN-T network5 as a priority project of the European Union. The EC contributions are focused on the facilities and infrastructure that constitute the network of Motorways of the Sea in the framework of
4 Marco Polo I: Regulation (EC) No 1382/2003 5 Priority project n°21 of annex III of the TEN Guidelines
Deliverable 6.2 13 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study a door-to-door concept including hinterland accesses linking the port to other elements of the TEN-T network. Projects to be financed are identified following a public call for tenders jointly organised by the concerned Member States. Besides, it is desirable that the MoS project proposals are submitted by a broader consortium, involving also partners such as terminal operators, road hauliers, rail operators, logistics companies, ship brokers, local and/or regional public authorities and infrastructure owners. As a consequence of these guidelines, public bodies and private operators are stimulated to cooperate according to a common development strategy that must take into account the needs of all the stakeholders involved in providing a MoS service.
These instruments can support the development of the Motorways of the Sea because they can contribute to the creation of a network of:
competitive MoS services, in line with market expectations in terms of transport costs, transit time, frequency, reliability, etc
ports characterised by a high level of efficiency, where the road hauliers can find all the necessary equipments and facilities able to guarantee:
• an easy and comfortable stay in the port during the waiting time before the embarkation, and
• a quick and safe access to the road and rail transport network after disembarkation operations.
Within this context, road hauliers would perceive the Motorways of the Sea as a continuous system and would be more attracted by this mode of transport. Thus, the key factor to increase MoS services provided in the Eastern Mediterranean will depend on the implementation of coherent actions able to involve at the same time public bodies and private operators according to a common strategy of development.
Given the review of the market developments drafted above, it can be asserted that the development of the Motorways of the Sea mainly depends on two main key factors:
new market opportunities (e.g. growth of trade between two countries or areas, development of the industrial sector in a region, build up of infrastructures or mega-projects, etc),
actions of the public bodies to stimulate the market and the competition among ports and private operators (e.g. subsidies to start new services or to improve the existing ones, funding to improve port infrastructures, regulation interventions to facilitate Short Sea Shipping, etc).
This chapter aims at providing a summary of the main instruments and sources of financing that can be used by the stakeholders to fund port investments and
Deliverable 6.2 14 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study infrastructural needs in terms of hinterland connections, and new routes, according to a common vision.
1.2 Sources of financing of infrastructure investments
In the past decades, most port infrastructures have been publicly funded, with variable degrees of cost recovery from port users. As ports become more autonomous and increasingly compete across national boundaries, guidelines for State aid and more uniform practices for tariffs setting become desirable.
The financial resources of ports are commonly port dues, leases or licence fees paid by port service providers. Financial support may be provided by the State in the form of grants or direct investments in infrastructures. Public financial support can be justified for common user facilities but in principle not for dedicated ones. However, Motorways of the Sea represent a fundamental mode of transport to increase cohesion among the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean and to shift freight flows from road transport to a more environmentally friendly one. Thus, the strategic role of MoS implies the need to support the development of this mode of transport.
This chapter aims at providing a summary of the main sources of financing that can be used by the stakeholders to fund port investments and infrastructural needs in terms of hinterland connections and new routes within the context of the Motorways of the Sea. More specifically, the following sources have been analysed:
• National/Regional funding
• EU funding
o Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) budget
o ERDF/ NSRF and Cohesion Fund
1.2.1 National and regional funding
The potential for local, regional and national funding of transport infrastructures depends on national legislation overall the study area. A general overview of the institutional/legislative framework, regulating funding allocation for main port infrastructures, follows for each Country of the study area.
Italy
In Italy, Port Authorities have the legal status of public agencies/bodies. They have administrative, budgetary and financial autonomy, according to the Italian Law 84/94. Their main commitments6 can be summarized as follows:
6 art. 6, Law 84/94.
Deliverable 6.2 15 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
planning, coordination, control and promotion of commercial and industrial activities,
maintenance of common parts (open to all users),
port’s planning
administration of port areas and quays. Port Authorities can allocate port areas, equipped or not, in concession to private undertakings carrying out commercial and industrial activities against the payment of a “concession fee”7,
granting authorizations to private undertakings to carry out their port activities.
Port Authorities do not directly manage any port business (cargo loading and unloading, terminal operations, etc.), which must be operated by private companies. According to Law 84/94, the financial resources of the Port Authorities needed to develop port infrastructures8 are obtained by:
royalty rents on State areas and port quays and concession contracts with private operators to carry out terminal operations, and technical-nautical services;
tax revenues on loaded and unloaded freight,
national/regional/local contributions,
EU funds
other.
However, Law 84/94 does not fully allow Port Authorities to achieve a financial autonomy and it leaves to the Central Government an important role to distribute financial resources among ports and to develop port infrastructures. In the past 14 years, Law 84/94 has been amended many times with the purpose of allowing Port Authorities to achieve financial autonomy. However, this important goal has not yet been achieved and at the moment there is a great debate in Italy to redraft the law in order to guarantee financial autonomy to Port Authorities.
The following figure shows the main stakeholders involved in the port activities and their economic and operating interactions according to Law 84/94 and some important changes to this law introduced in 20079 with the aim to increase the financial autonomy of the Port Authorities. More specifically, since 2007, the Port Authorities can collect not only concession fees from the terminal operators, as defined by the
7 Concession of maritime public domains is regulated by the Navigation Code (article 36 and following) and generally has a more than one year duration. 8 The main infrastructural investments (e.g. maritime channels, breakwaters, wet-basins, basins and equipped quays, as well as dredging interventions) are included in the port Master Plan and in the Operating Plan. 9 Financial Act 2007, Law 27 December 2006, no. 296 paragraph 982.
Deliverable 6.2 16 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Law 84/94, but also taxes on goods and mooring services that have to be paid to access to a port. Only port taxes are collected directly by the Central Government.
Figure 1-2 – Main relations among port operations’ stakeholders
Central Government
Public funds
Port Authority
Concession fee Port infrastructure Port taxes
Terminal Operator Maritime access
Charge Handling service
Shipping line/freight
Besides, according to Law 413/98, Port Authorities can also contract liabilities or carry out financial activities in order to funding port interventions through their own funds.
Greece
Funding of port infrastructure has traditionally been provided by port dues, charges for services rendered, rents of leased space, own funds of port corporations, state funds and, occasionally, by EU funds (e.g. Cohesion Fund) and bank loans.
On 10 October 2007, the European Commission approved an Operational Programme (OP) for Greece for the 2007-13 period. The "Improvement of Accessibility" programme falls within the framework laid out for the Convergence objective and has a total budget of around €4.976 billion. Community assistance through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund amounts to some €3.7 billion, which represent approximately 18.45% of the total EU money invested in Greece under the 2007-13 Cohesion Policy.
The OP "Improvement of Accessibility" includes interventions related to the modernisation of the existing infrastructure and services of the transport system
Deliverable 6.2 17 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study aiming at substantially improving the accessibility level of the country’s regions, as well as of its international interconnections (complete trans-European road and rail networks, develop missing routes and regional axes, ensure balanced development of the different transport modes).
The OP is structured along Priority Axes which are separated into two large groups depending on the main funding source, European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund. Priorities 3 and 9 are related to the improvement of maritime transport. In particular, Specific Objective 4 of Priority 3 refers to the “Participation of the suitable Greek ports for the development of the Motorways of the Sea of the Mediterranean”.
For the achievement of the goals of the two abovementioned Priorities related to maritime transport and ports development, both National and EU funds will be made available. National public funds amount to 36.5 million Euros and EU funds to 105 million Euros.
An ambitious investment program for Greek ports’ development has been planned (consisting of about 6 billion Euros, half to be covered by EIB loans and the other half by state funds), covering a ten years period (2006-2015). The program concerns:
construction and improvement of infrastructure and superstructure
purchase of modern mechanical equipment,
information technology projects,
personnel training programs,
other.
With this purpose, a Financing Protocol has been signed between the Merchant Marine Ministry and the European Investment Bank (EIB), according to which the Bank will provide loans for investments in ports up to the amount of 3 billion Euros. The loan conditions are favourable, since an attractive and stable rate of interest is foreseen, while there is a loan duration of 25 years and a grace period of seven years. The financing depends on the viability of each individual project. To take full advantage of the EIB resources and support the implementation of the investment plan, the Ministry intends to hire a consultant.
Within the context of the 2006-2015 port development plan, it is foreseen that the private sector will contribute significantly to the development of the ports and the improvement of port infra- and superstructure. The contribution of the European Investment Bank to the 2006-2015 port development plan will facilitate and encourage the participation of investors from the private sector. Many leading firms have already expressed an interest in relevant projects and therefore a strong participation of the private sector is to be expected.
Deliverable 6.2 18 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
It is foreseen that the private sector will contribute significantly to the development of ports and to the improvement of port infrastructure and superstructure.
A Government’s decision recently allowed to finance the implementation of full ISPS Code security measures in the twelve main Greek ports, with private funds, according to a PPP scheme.
Furthermore, the forthcoming liberalization of the port market in Greece is expected to increase significantly the opportunities for private sector’s involvement in port investments.
Slovenia
Port infrastructures can be owned by the Republic of Slovenia, local communities or private entities, according to Slovenian law. The same applies for real estate within the port area. The Republic of Slovenia and/or local communities transfer management and development duties of port infrastructures to port operators granting a concession. The ports can be financed with funds by the Slovenian Government, local communities or private companies.
The Port of Koper is the only port which handles all Slovenian cargo throughputs. The port functions as a clear intermodal node connecting sea, railway and road traffic. Rail has a strong position in the port’s hinterland land connections (approx. two thirds of all port throughput). The port is crucial in handling Slovenia’s overseas cargo flows. In addition it serves as a major entry point for transit flows.
The company Luka Koper d.d. which acting as port administrative body and operator of the port of Koper at the same time is mainly owned by the state (51% of shares). At the end of the 2007, the Company had 13,367 shareholders. At year-end, the 10 largest shareholders owned 75.89% of all shares of the port company Luka Koper d.d.
Further development of the port of Koper is expected in line with the growth of transport demand. This is realised through capacity expansion (new piers and berthing facilities), increased warehousing capacity and the construction of a second railway track from Koper to Divača (part of TEN-T priority axis). A European-energy terminal was formally opened in 2004 and further expansion with a third pier (mainly containers) is planned in the near future.
The most important documents of long-term development planning in the field of transport in Slovenia are:
Resolution on Transport Policy of the Republic of Slovenia;
National Motorway Construction Programme in the Republic of Slovenia;
National Programme for Development and Maintenance of State Roads in the Republic of Slovenia;
Deliverable 6.2 19 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
National Programme of the Slovenian Railway Infrastructure;
Resolution on the National Programme of the Maritime Transport Development in the Republic of Slovenia;
National Airport Infrastructure Programme.
The National Motorway Construction Programme in the Republic of Slovenia was adopted, whereas other national programmes are drafts.
Beside the documents listed, it is necessary to consider also the Spatial Development Strategy of the Republic of Slovenia (SDSS) that represents, together with the Development Strategy of the Republic of Slovenia (DSS), a comprehensive document for directing of development and a basis for the harmonization of sector policies. The purpose of the Spatial Strategy is better spatial integration and sustainable spatial development in Slovenia.
Main investments in port infrastructure in the following years will consist of:
adjustment of Koper port management to European legal-economic conditions by granting suitable concessions;
construction of the new port capacities using one of the forms of public private partnership;
connection to road and railway infrastructure of the Pan European V corridor.
construction of the third pier.
Malta
The Malta Maritime Authority is a Government authority establish by legislation. One of its main functions is that of being the port authority for all ports in Malta and therefore regulates port functions and operations. However, it does not carry out commercial activities.
All cargo and passenger handling facilities and the provision of port services has been contracted out to private operators. Investments may be carried out both by the Authority and the private operators depending on the contractual arrangements entered into between both parties.
All EU environmental legislation is applicable to Malta. All port development projects have to draw up environment impact assessments and all such projects have to be approved by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority. Coastal and port navigation rules implement the IMO and EU legislation in respect of safety, security and environmental issues.
Deliverable 6.2 20 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Valletta Gateway Terminals, a joint venture between Portek Group of Singapore and Tumas Group of Malta was established in 2006 after it was awarded a 30-year concession agreement to operate and manage the Grand Harbour Terminals.
Malta Freeport Corporation Ltd was set up in 1988 to administer the affairs of the Malta Freeport. Through the legislation of the 1989 Malta Freeport Act, Malta Freeport Corporation constituted the Freeport Authority. This Authority acts as a regulator, investor and landowner in the Freeport Zone.
The Corporation, trying to develop the area into a fully fledged operational and commercial Freeport, developed a container terminal which is now a leading Mediterranean transhipment hub port. The terminal operating company, Malta Freeport Terminals Ltd was eventually privatised in 2004 and is now owned by the CMA-CGM Group (‘MFT’). MFT is fully responsible for all port investments during its 65-year concession period and it is obliged to ensure that Malta Freeport Terminals remain a common-user facilities allowing different clients to avail themselves of the Port’s services.
The fact that socio-economic activity in Malta depends primarily upon maritime freight and the increasing importance of passenger transport by sea, highlights the critical importance of investments in Malta’s seaport infrastructure and in adequate connectivity to the European Motorways of the Sea. Malta's Operational Programme I ('Investing in Competitiveness for a Better Quality of Life') Priority Axis 3 aims to optimise the connectivity of the Maltese islands, both domestically and internationally. This Priority Axis aims to reach two main objectives:
1. To improve journey-time reliability and road safety through upgrades to parts of the TEN-T road infrastructure;
2. To improve maritime accessibility (also inter-island) by upgrading TEN-T ports and related infrastructure.
In a bid to enhance merchandise trade capacity and stimulate additional economic competitiveness, according to this priority, funding is to be channelled into the refurbishment and upgrading of existing port infrastructure. The initiatives under this priority are expected to include the upgrading of basic port infrastructure such as breakwaters and quays in the Marsaxlokk and Valletta harbours.
Cyprus
The Cyprus Ports Authority (CPA), a public autonomous organisation under the supervision of the Minister of Communication and Works, administers all Cypriot seaports.
The CPA owns all Cypriot ports and lighthouses and its main role is to regulate the provision of port services, as well as to provide commercial, financial and port services. Its main activities are:
Deliverable 6.2 21 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
planning, development and management of port infrastructure,
licensing of port land and provision of port services (except for stevedoring),
licensing for provision of port services and activities that take place within the port’s area,
offering facilities such as pilotage, towing and mooring of ships,
providing quay cranes for loading and unloading of cargo,
receiving, storing and delivering cargo such as containers, general cargo, etc.
The activities of the CPA are two-fold. According to the legal framework governing it, it operates as the administrative organization of Cypriot ports, which on the one hand has a public role incorporating administration, construction and management of port infrastructure and on the other engages in activities of commercial value relating to the coordination and control of port services offered. The Authority is the main investor in Cypriot ports, although a large part of very remunerative port activities are carried out by the private sector, as for example the management of container terminals and stevedore activities. Despite this, private sector investment in ports is of the order of 5%.
Strategic goals of the Authority are to attract as much transhipment trade and cruise passengers as possible and afford service to the Cypriot trade at the lowest possible cost. In the framework of its strategy, the Authority aims at developing from an operator to a landlord and regulator of port services in line with the general policy followed within the European Union. This development is taking place smoothly and gradually so that the port industry can continue to serve society and the country’s economy unimpededly and effectively and with respect to its immediate environment.
In Cyprus, the main financing methods for port projects consist of:
1. Funding from TEN-T
New passenger terminal
The CPA promotes the construction of a new modern passenger terminal at Lemessos Port following an international architectural tender. The construction is expected to be completed in 2011. The total budget will be 17 million euros (VAT excluded), of which 1.6 million euros will come from the TEN-T budget.
Cyprus Ports Master Plan
On November 2008, the EC decided to fund the study under the title “Cyprus Ports Master Plan”, which includes:
Deliverable 6.2 22 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
9 A study for the optimal use of resources and installations of the Cyprus Ports;
9 A feasibility study for the extension of the port and the quay of Lemessos;
9 A feasibility study for the estimation of dangerous goods transfer at the industrial Port of Vasilko.
The amount of the EU funding is 468,459 euros.
2. Funding from Cohesion Fund (2007-2013)
The CPA has submitted a number of proposals for funding at the Cohesion Fund for the period 2007-2013. These proposals concern Lemessos Port dredging, strengthening of the existing quay as well as the construction of 500 meters new quay.
All the above projects have been included in the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) and in the relevant Operational Program for the Development and Competitiveness for the new programming period 2007-2013 and it is expected that they will be co-funded by the Cohesion Fund.
1.2.2 EU funding: TEN-T, ERDF and Cohesion Fund in 2007-2013
The Community can provide funding for the planning and implementation of port projects within the context of the MoS, through different financing instruments that have been analysed in this paragraph:
TEN-T,
ERDF, and
Cohesion funds.
Besides, a change and/or the carrying out of ancillary infrastructure (necessary and sufficient infrastructures to achieve the goals of port investments and infrastructural needs in terms of hinterland connections), including freight-passenger installations, can be financed under the Marco Polo II Programme, as described in detail in paragraph 1.3.1., where it is also indicated what is covered by the Programme and at which percentages.
TEN-T Budget line
The TEN-T initiative aims at enhancing sustainable mobility for people and goods and at integrating all modes of transport, with due account of the relative advantages of each mode, according to the TEN-T Guidelines10 and the related amendments11.
10 Decision No 1692/96/EC
Deliverable 6.2 23 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
MoS projects within the framework of TEN-T are selected in two stages. First, MS issue a joint call for proposals to the industry and the public sector for MoS projects. Successful projects from these calls are then submitted for co-financing to the European Commission in the yearly TEN-T calls for MoS projects.
TEN-T funds show different percentages of co-financing, depending on the kind of project that have to be considered (not on the Country involved).
Within the context of the TEN-T call for proposal for projects in the field of the Motorways of the Sea, particular attention is paid to hinterland connections and links between sea ports and dry ports, in particular those with relatively lower external costs, such as inland waterways and rail transport.
Investments’ financial support under the TEN-T financial regulation can be given to the following categories of items:
Infrastructure - port infrastructures, infrastructures for direct land and sea access12 as well as inland waterway and canal infrastructures13, etc.,
Facilities - electronic logistics management systems, facilities to ensure and enhance safety and security, facilities to simplify administrative and customs procedures , facilities for icebreaking and dredging operations14, etc.,
Start up aid related to capital cost (limited to 2 years),
Support for preparatory studies.
Funds provided are grants for studies or works, grants for works in the framework of availability payment schemes, interest rate rebates on loans, a financial contribution to the provisioning and capital allocation for guarantees to be issued by the EIB on its own resources (Loan Guarantee Instrument for TEN-T), risk capital participation for investment funds or comparable financial undertakings, a financial contribution to the project-related activities of joint undertakings.
The projects that aim at receiving financial support from the TEN-T budget line must be proposed or supported by at least two MSs. Beneficiaries of TEN-T funds can be: MSs or several public or private undertakings or bodies, several international organisations, a Joint Undertaking (with the agreement of all MS directly concerned).
Starting from 2007 up to 2013, the TEN-T budget line should be able to reach the following maximum co-financing rates15:
11 Decision No 1346/2001/EC, Decision No 884/2004/EC, Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006. 12 Art.12a (2) of the TEN-T Guidelines. 13 Art. 12a (3) of the TEN-T Guidelines. 14 Article 12a (2) of the TEN-T Guidelines. 15 Regulation (EC) No 680/2006.
Deliverable 6.2 24 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
20 per cent of the total cost for priority domestic projects
30 per cent of the total cost for cross-border projects
50 per cent for studies
It must also be considered that for 2007-2013 the TEN-T budget line cannot exceed € 8 billion (of which 310 M€ for MoS), therefore the real co-financing rate should be reduced accordingly.
The following table shows the available TEN-T funding programmed for MoS for the 2007-2013 period:
Table 1-2: Available co-financing for MoS by TEN-T budget for the TEN-T calls 2007-2012
Calls for tender Budget (M€)
October 2007 20 October 2008 30 October 2009 85 October 2010 100 October 2011 50 October 2012 25 Total 310
Source: European Commission, 2008
Regarding the amount of investments for which co-funding could be requested from TEN-T, this is estimated as follows and presented in the following Table:
the total budget identified for MoS projects is 963 M€, as derived from the Projects’ database presented in detailin Annex I. The database lists 105 port projects, identified by selecting the most relevant projects for MoS taking into consideration all the bottlenecks in all the relevant ports for MoS in the Eastern Mediterranean region up to 2015.
the amount of such budget with no secured financial coverage is approximately 241 M€. For this amount, it is assumed 20% co- financing by TEN-T for works and 50% for studies. These co-funded percentages are applied to the total amount of port investments and infrastructural needs in terms of hinterland connections without financial coverage.
A possible funding scenario for covering the amount required for port projects without secured financial coverage (about 241 M€) has been fully developed in paragraph 2.2.5 by applying a reasonable percentage of co-financing for port projects eligible for EU co-financing
Deliverable 6.2 25 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Table 1-3 – Budget of MoS projects, and estimated required TEN-T co-financing Budget of MoS projects Possible TENT-T co- Budget of MoS projects Possible TENT-T co- without financial financing for studies (M€) financing for works (M€) coverage (M€) (M€) 963,7 241,1 48,2 2,4
Source: Deliverable 6
The same phase or element of a project cannot receive aid from different sources of Community funding (e.g. projects receiving funding from SF or CF cannot benefit from the TEN-T budget line), except for:
funding for different phases of a project (e.g. study and construction of an infrastructure)
funding for different geographical sections.
It is important to stress that an infrastructure project or a facility services (start-up aid) funded by the TEN_T budget line, cannot be funded also by Marco Polo, while State funding remains possible.
ERDF and Cohesion Funds in 2007-2013
The new 2007-2013 Cohesion Policy is characterized by three objectives:
“Convergence”: aims at promoting growth-enhancing conditions and factors to support the convergence of less developed Member States (MSs) and regions. In EU-27, this objective concerns 84 regions (in 17 MSs) with per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) lower than 75 % of the Community average, and another 16 regions with a GDP only slightly above the threshold, due to the statistical effect of the larger EU regions (regions in phasing-out).
The total budget foreseen for the Convergence objective is € 282.8 billion, (equal to 81.5 % of the total budget of SF); of which € 69.5 billion are reserved for the Cohesion Fund (involving 15 MSs).
Regional Competitiveness and Employment: outside the Convergence regions, it aims at strengthening competitiveness and attractiveness, as well as employment. In the EU-27, 168 regions will be eligible, within these, 13 regions represent “phasing-in” areas and are subject to special financial allocations due to their former status as “ex-Objective 1” regions.
The amount of € 55 billion, of which € 11.4 billion is for the “phasing-in” regions, represents about 16 % of the total allocation. Regions in 19 Member States are concerned with this objective.
Deliverable 6.2 26 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
European Territorial Cooperation: it will strengthen cross-border cooperation through joint local and regional initiatives, trans-national cooperation aiming at integrated territorial development, and interregional cooperation and exchange of experience.
All EU regions and citizens are covered by one of the existing 13 transnational cooperation areas; € 8.7 billion (2.5 per cent of the total allocation) available for this objective is split as follows: € 6.44 billion for cross-border, € 1.83 billion for transnational and € 445 million for inter-regional cooperation.
Over the Convergence and the Competitiveness and Employment objectives the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) supports transport investments, including TEN-T, to promote intermodal systems and reduce environmental impacts through a more balanced modal split.
The following table shows the beneficiary regions and countries of SF in the East Mediterranean area, in 2007-2013:
Table 1-4: Eligible regions for Convergence objective (NUTS II), 2007-2013
Country Code Beneficiary region ITF3 Campania ITF4 Puglia Italy ITF6 Calabria ITG1 Sicilia ITF5 Basilicata (phasing-out) GR11 Anatoliki Makedonia, Thraki GR14 Thesslia GR21 Ipeiros GR22 Ionia Nisia GR23 Dytiki Ellada Greece GR25 Peloponnisos GR41 Voreio Aigaio GR43 Krit GR12 Kentriki Makedonia GR13 Dytiki Makedonia GR30 Attiki Slovenia SI00 Slovenia Malta MT00 Malta
Source: European Commission, 2008
Deliverable 6.2 27 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Table 1-5: Eligible regions for Competitiveness and Employment objective (NUTS II), 2007-2013
Country Code Beneficiary region
ITC1 Piemonte ITC3 Liguria ITC4 Lombardia ITD3 Veneto ITD4 Friuli-Venezia-Giulia ITD5 Emilia-Romagna Italy ITE1 Toscana ITE2 Umbria ITE3 Marche ITE4 Lazio ITF1 Abruzzo ITF2 Molise ITG2 Sardegna GR24 Sterea Ellada Greece GR42 Notio Aigaio Cyprus CY000 Cyprus
Source: European Commission, 2008
Countries eligible for Cohesion Fund (CF) support are MSs whose GDP is less than 90 % of the Community average and who are following a programme of economic convergence. Beneficiary countries in the East Mediterranean study area are: Greece, Malta, Cyprus and Slovene.
The maximum co-financing rates of ERDF and CF are listed following:
Convergence Objective: between 75 per cent and 85 per cent of public expenditure (up to 85 per cent for remote regions)
Competitiveness and Employment Objective: between 50 per cent and 85 per cent of public expenditure (the ceiling is raised by 85 per cent for remote regions)
European Territorial Cooperation Objective: up to 75 per cent of public expenditure
Cohesion Fund: 85 per cent of public expenditure
The European sources of financing (ERDF/CF and TEN-T) are summarized in the following table:
Deliverable 6.2 28 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Table 1-6: Maximum co-financing ceilings for Convergence objective (ERDF and CF) and for TEN-T budget, 2007-2013
Convergence objective TEN-T Country Priority domestic Cross-border ERDF CF projects priority projects Italy 75% 20% 30% Greece 85% 20% 30% Malta 85% 20% 30% Cyprus 85% 20% 30% Slovenia 85% 20% 30%
Source: European Commission, 2008
The co-financing rate can vary for different projects and among countries, depending on general criteria that contribute to fulfil EU aims (e.g. enhancement of employment, environmental protection, etc.). Infrastructures, which can generate high revenues16, can usually benefit of an EU contribution not higher than 40 per cent (in CF countries it can be at maximum equal to the 50 per cent).
The study “Scenarios, traffic forecasts and analysis of corridors on the Trans- European Network”(TEN-STAC) -, funded by the European Commission and published in 2004, suggests average co-financing rate for Structural Actions by mode of transport.
The following table shows the average estimated co-financing rates, obtained analysing projects funded during the programming period 1994-1999.17, both for SF and CF.18
Table 1-7: Co-financing rate for Structural Actions by mode of transport
Mode % EU contribution
Rail 38% Road 37% Ports 36% Other/Mix 30%
Source: Study TEN-STAC, 2004
16 It means revenues that are at least the 25 per cent of the total cost of the investment. 17 Usually have been adopted the highest between the ones of Structural and Cohesion Fund, increased by 5 points of percentage, the increase being explained as an augmented effort of the EU to finance TEN-T priority projects with respect to previous experience on generic transport projects. 18 It has been assumed to adopts as average rates, the highest between the ones of SF and CF showed during the programming period 1994-1999, increased by 5 points of percentage (the increase being explained as an augmented effort of the EU to finance TEN-T priority projects with respect to past experience on generic transport projects).
Deliverable 6.2 29 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
The same operation can be financed with two different Community financial instruments if the part of the operation funded by the Funds (SF or CF) has an overall clearly separate and distinguishable "eligible amount". This could be achieved, for example, by having different projects or parts of projects in the same operation, where one or parts of one project would be funded by the Funds (within an operational programme) and the other(s) would be funded by other Community instruments.
The co-financing of expenditure by SF and CF and another Community financial instrument must comply with the following criteria:
same eligible cost of a project cannot be funded by more then one EU source of financing. An expenditure co-financed by the Funds shall not receive assistance from another Community financial instrument19;
expenditure, under each Operational Programme adopted by the Commission, can only be supported by an amount of Community funding (only from the Funds) and an amount of national funding (public expenditure on its own or in conjunction with private expenditure).20
Another Community financing instrument may not replace national public or other equivalent expenditure needed to comply with the Community principle of additionality.
Eligible expenditures are only those that occur between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2013. Specific rules for eligibility of expenditure are established at national level except where the specific rules of the Fund state otherwise.21
19Ref.: Article 54(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. Community financial instruments are the Funds, the programmes and other actions for specific assistance created by Community legislation and funded by the budget of the European Communities – for example LIFE and the Framework Research Programme - while the loans from the European Investment Bank (EIB) and from other loan instruments do not fall within the definition of Community financial instruments. 20 For example an Operational Programme with a Community co-financing rate of 75 per cent will be made up of 75 per cent funding from the Funds (and no other Community funding), and 25 per cent national counterpart (either public expenditure on its own or in conjunction with private expenditure). 21 This is different from the 1994-1999 and the 2000-2006 periods where the rules were set at Community level.
Deliverable 6.2 30 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Best Practice for ERDF and Cohesion Fund 1. Railway and canals for the port of Chioggia (1997-1999) Chioggia stands out as a key Italian port, due to its privileged location on the Adriatic. It is only a few knots away from the city of Venice. In addition, it is located at the mouth of a network of rivers and canals, including the Po, the Brenta and the Adige rivers. However, in the early 1980s, Chioggia was declining slowly but steadily. The financial resources needed to adapt the Port of Isola's infrastructure to the requirements of multimodal transport were lacking. t the end of the 1980s, the Italian Ministry for Public Works opted to build a new port on the Val de Rio site. Trading activities were to be located there, while the old port would be confined to fishing and tourism. After the first terminal was built in 1993, the new port project received financial support from the ERDF. Chioggia put on a fresh spurt. During the first phase of ERDF assistance (December 1996-December 1998), the Val de Rio site acquired a second terminal measuring 28 000 m2, with 517 m of multimodal quays, 2 km of rail links, a warehousing area of 3 000 m2 and 2 km of canals of 5 m deep. The second phase, which was completed at the end of 2000, pursued the process, providing a further warehousing area of 8 000 m2 with 1.5 km of rail links. When it was completed in 2002, the new port of Chioggia was equipped with the most advanced multimodal systems. Total cost Phase 1 (1994-96): EUR 9,6 M€, Phase 2 (1997-99): about 10 M€ EU contribution Phase 1 (ERDF): about EUR 6,8 M€, Phase 2 (ERDF): about 3 M€
2. The Port of Piraeus (1993-1999): construction and equipment of a second unloading terminal ("Eleftherios Venizelos") and construction of a ring road. The European Union has long contributed to the extension and modernisation of the port of Athens, starting with the first enlargement begun in the 1980s part-financed by the Integrated Mediterranean Programmes. But the situation has since developed and European Union aid (from the Cohesion Fund since 1993) has concentrated on two aspects: construction and equipment of a second unloading terminal ("Eleftherios Venizelos") and construction of a ring road. Specifically, grants from the European Union have been used to complete a second quay 900 metres long and to purchase 36 lifts and 5 bridge-cranes for containers. The road link comprises 8,5 km of expressway which connects the two parts of the port (passengers and goods) as well as to the city and the motorways leaving Athens. This road is strategic because it makes it possible to ensure effective intermodality while relieving the growing congestion caused by motor traffic in the harbour area. Total cost : 97,5 million Euros EU contribution (Cohesion Fund): 45 M€
1.3 Source of financing of MoS services
According to Communication C(2004) 43, the Commission recognises that launching Short Sea Shipping services may be accompanied by substantial financial difficulties which the Member States may wish to attenuate in order to ensure the promotion of such services. Funding new MoS connections, in compliance with state aids’ rules
Deliverable 6.2 31 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
(par. 1.4.1) is the most direct way to support maritime transport operators and to develop MoS itself.
The following funding instruments have been considered:
Marco Polo II funds;
National funding (e.g. Ecobonus).
1.3.1 EU funding: Marco Polo II
Marco Polo Programme is an instrument for financial assistance aiming at stimulating the competitiveness of combined transport modes, in order to reduce road congestion and improve the environmental performance of the whole transport system by shifting international increase in road freight traffic off the road.
In the 2003-2006 period, four consecutive calls for proposals were launched within the Marco Polo I Programme, with an overall budget of about 102 M€ and a committed budget reserved for concluded contracts of about 74 M€. The following table summarizes the main outputs from the Programme’s implementation:
Table 1-8 - Marco Polo calls for proposals, 2003-200622
Topic call 2003 Call 2004 call 2005 Call 2006 Available budget (M€) 15 20,4 30,7 35,7 Committed budget (M€) 13 20,4 21,4 18,9
Number of proposals received 92 62 63 48 Number of eligible proposals 87 59 60 48 Number of concluded contracts 13 12 15 15 Number of contracts cancelled before ending 2 2 0 n.a. Average amount of subvention per contract (M€) 1,0 1,7 1,4 1,3
Planned freight to be shifted (in billion tkm) 12,4 14,4 9,5 11,5 Environmental benefit (M€) 204 324 245 241
Source: Evaluation of the Marco Polo Programme (2003-2006), Ecorys - 2007
The following figure (Figure 1-3) shows how much of the total assigned Marco Polo’s sources has been allocated each year to two different project categories: Short Sea
222005 and 2006 budgets include the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and European Economic Area (EEA) contribution of 0,6 M€ for 2005 and 0,721 M€ for 2006.
Deliverable 6.2 32 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Shipping (SSS) and MoS projects that are included within Modal Shift actions, and other projects23.
The SSS/MoS projects have been well represented in the 2003 and 2005 calls but fully disappeared in the 2006 call. Two main reasons can be found:
new SSS/MoS services have been started in the most attractive24. European corridors with the highest levels of demand, therefore raising competition concerns for new SSS services promoted on the same corridors,
the funding sources have been reviewed only for high risk investments in new or upgraded MoS services. High load factors are needed to operate a solid business and even small reductions in the load factor can result in major losses.
Figure 1-3 - Marco Polo’s budget allocation to SSS services for each call (M€)25
25,0
20,0
15,0 9,8 13,0
10,0 7,4 18,9
5,0 10,7 8,4 5,6 0,0 2003 2004 2005 2006
SSS projects Other projects
Source: Deliverable 6
Marco Polo II Regulation (EC n. 1692/2006) entered into force in December 2006. The new Programme is broader in scope than Marco Polo I, both in terms of country coverage and type of actions included in the programme: it has a budget of 400 M€ for the 2007-2013 period. It provides financial supports to MoS actions achieving a door-to-door service, shifting freight from long road distances to a combination of short sea shipping and other modes of transport. Actions of this kind are innovative in
23 Other projects: Rail projects included within Modal Shift actions and all other projects included within Learning actions and Catalyst actions. 24 The most obvious SSS projects are the ones in corridors where the old road leg is significantly longer then the maritime leg. 25 The first draft list of selected projects from the 2006 call included 3 SSS projects but all three projects withdrew unilaterally from contract negotiations.
Deliverable 6.2 33 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study terms of logistics, equipment, products and services rendered. They imply high quality and frequent transport services, move frequently very large volumes of freight and include, preferably, the use of the most environmentally friendly transport modes, such as inland waterways and rail for hinterland freight transport and integrated door-to-door services.
The new Programme continues to address the issue of constricted international road freight transport through short-term (mainly 3-4 years) practical logistics services projects. The nature of the programme, providing risk-reducing subsidies to market driven services through Public-Private Partnerships, remained.
Funding resources are available for transport services: the proposal must mainly concern transport services or logistics concepts in the market place while infrastructure26, research or study projects are not eligible.
The financial support must involve the territory of at least two MSs (also the territory of one MS and the territory of a close third Country) and it covers costs arising only in the territory of the MS. In contrast with the TEN-T, no separate budget has been set aside for the MoS initiative. Consequently, all project proposals from the various actions compete for the same budget and funding priorities are determined in accordance with the Marco Polo evaluation criteria.
The financial assistance is defined referring to the tons-km shifted (initially €/500 ton- km) with a maximum indicative subsidy threshold of € 1,25 billion ton-km or € 2,5 million. Costs are eligible only if incurred after the submission date of the application (even if the action starts earlier).
The Programme supports different types of action, of which the two innovative action types are listed below:
MoS actions - any innovative action directly shifting freight from road to short sea shipping or a combination of short sea shipping with other mode of transport,
Traffic Avoidance Actions – any innovative action integrating transport into production logistics to avoid a large percentage of freight transport by road without adversely affecting production output or workforce.
MoS actions that aim at receiving financial support from Marco Polo II must comply with the following criteria:
subsidy rate up to 35 per cent of the total expenditure (including preparatory measures and ancillary infrastructure),
maximum subsidy of € 1 per 500 t-km shifted27,
26 Except for ancillary infrastructures. 27 Except for preparatory measures and ancillary infrastructure.
Deliverable 6.2 34 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
minimum subsidy threshold € 2.5 million (at least 1.25 billion tonne-kilometres),
duration up to 5 years.
Actions supported from Marco Polo II may also include a change and/or the carrying out of ancillary infrastructure (necessary and sufficient infrastructures to achieve the goals of actions), including freight-passenger installations, if the following funding rules are observed:
infrastructure works are completed within 24 months after start of action,
transport service or traffic avoidance starts within 3 months after the completion of the works,
other EU funding, especially TEN-T funding, is excluded for the same infrastructure item,
total aid granted (state aid and EU funding) does not exceed 50 per cent of eligible costs.
A Marco Polo II grant may be given in addition to other public funding (also TEN-T), as long as this does not constitute illegal state aid, and as long as the combined public subsidy does not exceed the maximum subsidy rate of eligible costs, equal to 35 per cent. Moreover, a Marco Polo grant cannot cover the eligible costs of an action that is already Community funded.
The main eligible direct costs for Marco Polo funds, are:
the cost of temporary or permanent staff assigned to the action and employed by the beneficiary,
travel and subsistence allowances for staff taking part in the action,
the purchase cost of the equipment (new or second-hand)28,
costs of consumables and supplies.
Mobile assets, like ships, barges, locomotives, train wagons and loading units, are eligible in the same condition as equipment costs, if they are mainly used for performing the action and fulfilling the general conditions of eligible costs.
The possible maritime transport services among the ports included within the main identified six MoS corridors29 can apply for Marco Polo’s financial support up to 2013, thorough the calls issued every year. Infrastructural investments can be funded if they are coherent with the criteria defining ancillary infrastructures.
28 Only the portion of the equipment's depreciation corresponding to the duration of the action and the rate of actual use for the purposes of the action may be taken into account by the Contracting Authority. 29 Paragraph 2.2.1.
Deliverable 6.2 35 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Among the calls for proposals analysed in DEL3, the new proposed maritime transport service Ancona-Koper could receive financial support through the Marco Polo programme.
Best practice Marco Polo
1. Marocco Seaways: Short sea shipping service that connects the ports of Genoa (Italy), Barcelona (Spain) and Tangiers (Morocco) with weekly departure on fixed days (use of a roll-on roll-off mixed goods passenger type ship with wide cargo capacity) – 2004.
GNV’s plan is to offer an alternative for truckers shipping textiles and fruit from Morocco than going via de Algeciras route and then driving via the bust coastal highway.
Community contribution: 1,8 M€.
2. RORO-ESPERANCE: RoRo ferry North Spain – North France characterized by daily ferry services with three vessels for trailers between the ports of Santander (ES) and Dunkirk (FR) – 2005.
1.3.2 New concepts: the Ecobonus
Another available instrument to financing maritime operators through state aid is the “eco-bonus”30 introduced by the Italian Government to promote modal shift from road to maritime transport. The initiative aimed at supporting a better distribution of goods’ flow and at reducing road congestion.
The subsidy acts as a discount on the maritime route for all road hauliers that choose the maritime transport instead of road. Any European company of road haulage (alone or in cooperation with other companies) can benefit from this bonus shipping its own cargo (with or without driver) by sea instead of by road. The total amount of the contribution, which is granted by the Italian Ministry of Transport, can never be greater than 20 percent of the official shipping fare of single sea route (the discount percentage becomes 30 percent for new sea routes).
Road hauliers have the opportunity to be receive the subsidy for other sea routes, beside those included in the list defined by the Italian Government, if these routes don not replicate the existing ones. The application process for subsidies is set up by a Ministry of Transport's Decree. Road hauliers are the beneficiaries of these grants, and according to the payment system they have to apply for the subsidy by January 31 of the year following the year they applied for the “eco-bonus” contribution, and have fulfilled the mandatory criteria.
30 This concept has been already analysed in detail within the DEL1 (Volume II).
Deliverable 6.2 36 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Napoli – Palermo – Cagliari
SNAV is experiencing the Ecobonus effect starting a freight line from Napoli to Palermo with a connection to Cagliari, complementing it’s existing Ro-pax service and the Company has chartered its ITALRORO 2 for the service.
Livorno - Trapani
Ustica Lines have been serving the small Ustica islands north of Sicily for many years with hi speed and conventional ferries. Anticipating the success of the Ecobonus scheme, the line has taken over the route from Livorno to Trapani using the Ro-ro MARCO M.
1.4 Other sources of financing
MoS are also eligible for funding under the European Investment Bank (EIB) and can in some regions benefit from State aid.
1.4.1 State Aid
Public financial support can impact on competition both within and between ports. This includes support for the financing of inland transport connections.
It is up to the Commission to determine in which cases public financial support constitutes State Aid and when this is justified.
The legal framework for State Aid is usually established through guidelines. For ports these would be set out in a formal communication which describes the range of acceptable measures relating to different features of a port. Nevertheless ports would be obliged to notify the Commission of draft schemes, which would be assessed on their merits.
Communication C(2004) n° 43 on State Aid ensures the promotion of services that aim at improving the intermodal transport chain and decongesting roads.
Financial aid granted under this scheme must observe the following criteria:
the aid must not exceed three years in duration and its purpose must be to finance a shipping service connecting ports situated in the territory of MS,
the service must be of such a kind as to permit road transport to be carried out wholly or partly by sea, without diverting maritime transport in a way which is contrary to the common interest,
the aid must be directed at implementing a detailed project with a pre-established environmental impact, concerning a new route or the upgrading of services on an existing one with no more than one project financed per line and with no renewal, extension or repetition of the project in question
Deliverable 6.2 37 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
the service must be commercially viable after the period in which it is eligible for public funding.
Moreover, the funding allocation cannot be:
up to 30 per cent of operational cost of the service and/or
up to 10 per cent of purchase of trans-shipment equipment.
In view of the problems likely to be caused by the discrepancy in support for MoS between Community programmes and State aid guidelines when MS also decide to support MoS projects through State aid, the Commission services are still evaluating whether to harmonise the Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport with the more recent Marco Polo and TEN-T programmes.
A new Communication from the Commission providing guidance on State aid complementary to Community funding for the launching of the Motorways of the Sea has been published on 11 November 2008 (ref.: 2008/C 317/08). Such communication states that: “….in the absence of Community funding for start-up aid or for the part not covered by Community funding, the Commission will authorise State aid to investment with a maximum intensity of 30 % and a maximum duration of two years to projects corresponding to Article 12a of Decision 1692/96/EC...”.
According to the new Communication, State aid is allowed in the absence of Community funding, or to the extent not covered by Community funding, for the following purposes:
for the start-up of Marco Polo II MoS projects with a maximum intensity of 35 % of operational costs and a maximum duration of five years. The same will apply to projects selected under Marco Polo II but for which funding is finally provided through the ERDF or the CF;
for investments with a maximum intensity of 30 % and a maximum duration of two years to projects corresponding to Article 12a of Decision 1692/96/EC and selected in accordance with the procedure laid down in Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks. The same will apply where the Member States decide to fund the project through the ERDF or the CF.
Start-up aid may not exceed the above-mentioned duration and intensity, irrespective of the source of funding. Aid can not be cumulated with public service compensation. The Commission also recalls that the same eligible costs cannot benefit from two Community financial instruments.
Deliverable 6.2 38 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
1.4.2 EIB loans
The European Investment Bank (EIB) can provide support for MoS projects either through loans or the Loan Guarantee Instrument for TEN-T projects (LGTT). The various financial services offered by the EIB to support different kinds of projects, depend on eligibility and project category. More specifically, investment projects are usually financed through:
Global loans: credit lines made available for banks, leasing companies or financial institutions, which lend the proceeds for small or medium-scale investment projects meeting the Bank's criteria. Here local authorities or SME31s can get support for new capital investment projects worth up to 25 million euro, undertaken by SMEs or, in the case of small infrastructure projects, by local authorities, (e.g. investments in advanced technologies, environmental protection and water supply, etc). It is possible to apply directly to one of the intermediary banks and financing institutions, operating at the national, regional or local level;
Individual loans: applicants can be both from the public and private sectors, including banks. The project’s topic is a matter of agreement. If the amount required exceeds 25 million Euros and up to 50 per cent of the investment costs, the capital investment project has to be agreed directly with the EIB.
31 Small and Medium Enterprises (SME)
Deliverable 6.2 39 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
ROTTERDAM PORT SECOND MAASVLAKTE-TEN
On 17 July 2007, the EIB approved a loan facility of 900 M€ for the Maasvlakte 2 project. This consisted of the extension of the Rotterdam port and industrial zone area right on the North Sea offering deep-sea-related container facilities and sites for the chemical processing industry and distribution services. The construction of Maasvlakte 2 would start in the autumn of 2008. The new port and industry area would measure 2000 hectares and offers room for expanding container activities, but also for the chemical industry and distribution. Industry showed great interest in establishing itself on Maasvlakte 2. It was expected that the first terminal would be operational in 2013 and that around 2033 Maasvlakte 2 would be fully commissioned. Construction of Maasvlakte was estimated to cost 3 billion €. The financing structure comprised own resources, (capital, shareholder loans, cash flow) as well as debt finance. Debt finance was a key condition for a favourable Final Investment Decision for the Rotterdam Maasvlakte 2 project. The approved EIB facility aimed at fulfilling a significant part of this key condition.
The project was part of Rotterdam’s mid-term master plan, which had been subject to an SEA (Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment). The project itself had been subjected to two full Environmental Impact Analyses (EIAs), focusing on the construction works and on the use of the reclaimed land during operation. Significant environmental effects of the sand extraction from the seabed had been identified and full mitigation/compensation measures had been put in place. The project had received the green light from the European Commission.
EIB funds financed the first phase of the project covering the construction of the external maritime seawall works and the respective internal basic infrastructure. After completion, the new port extension would have two new container terminals with a handling capacity of approx. 4.2 million TEU (Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit), occupying a total surface of 150 Ha respectively and operating 2 km of quays.
Loan Guarantee Instrument for TEN-T (LGTT)
The LGTT is an innovative financial instrument set up and developed jointly by the European Commission and the European Investment Bank aiming at facilitating a larger private sector involvement in the financing of TEN-T.
The new instrument will partially cover the high levels of revenue risk in a project’s early operating stages – “rump up period” -, improving significantly the financial viability of the project. The financial mechanism will enhance the credit quality of the senior credit facilities, thereby encouraging a reduction of risk margins applied to senior loans to the project. These savings should surpass the cost to the borrower of the guarantee, resulting in a financial value-added for the project.
The capital contribution provided to the LGTT is equal to € 1 billion (€ 500 million each from the EC and the EIB). The stand-by liquidity facility guaranteed should not normally exceed 10 per cent of the total amount of the senior debt (up to 20 per cent in exceptional cases e.g. high traffic volatility during the ramp-up period with strong indication of stabilised traffic and acceptable debt service capacity post ramp-up) and the total amount guaranteed is subject to a maximum ceiling of € 200 million per project.
Deliverable 6.2 40 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
1.4.3 Private capital
Private capital has been considered as a source of funding for relevant MoS projects when available data project showed a certain percentage of private contribution on investment costs.
Various sources of public and private investment would need to be mobilised and combined to help MoS’ establishment. Coordination and clarity should be improved between these different funding sources: PPP analysis (paragraph 2.3) aims at giving some suggestions in this direction.
1.4.4 Private / user funding
It is assumed that a project has a potential for user financing of the investment costs if the total amount of user financing exceeds the total operating and maintenance costs over the lifetime of the project, so the users actually contribute to financing the investments (or part of the investments) including financing costs.
Generally, the possibility for user financing of a specific project depends on a number of specific characteristics such as:
the level of traffic, and its link to the level of user charges which is a result of willingness to pay for transport and availability of alternatives (e.g. un-tolled roads);
the level of operating, maintenance and investment costs;
the level of competition from other modes and routes;
the level of risk associated with the project;
compliance with the existing financing regime in the country, as the project competes with the existing infrastructure.
User financing has not been considered to implement the Funding database because of the lack of substantial financial data concerning user financing for most of the projects analysed.
Deliverable 6.2 41 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
1.5 Summary of the main sources of financing
The following table summarises the characteristics of the main sources of financing for MoS projects. In particular, it must be specified that the sources of financing listed below are not additive for the same part of a project:
Table 1-9: Available sources of MoS financing , main characteristics (2007-2013)
Description TEN-T Guidelines Marco Polo II ERDF Cohesion Fund State Aid
Applicant MS Companies MS/Regions MS Companies
1. Infrastructures Infrastructures and facilities + Transport services + ancillary Large scale infrastructures and Large scale infrastructures and Focus 2. Services start up aid for capital costs infrastructures related equipments (PO items) related equipments (PO items) 3. Equipment Cohesion among MS with focus on Development of MoS and Objective Modal shift – Cohesion Modal shift Regional development actions on transport and intermodal transport environment 1. up to 75% of public 1. Up to 20% for priority domestic expenditures in Objective Up to 35% of total expenditure 1. up to 30% of operational costs projects (up to 30% for cross- "Convergence" Funding intensity (including preparatory measures Up tp 85% of expenditures 2. up to 10% for transhipment border projects) 2. up to 50% in Objective and ancillary infrastructure) equipment 2. up to 50% for studies "Competitiveness and Employment"
Duration 2 years for start-up aid Up to 5 years Not defined Not defined Max 3 years
An infrastructure item or a facility A service or a logistic item funded funded by the TEN-T Regulation Relationship with by Marco Polo cannot be funded The same eligible cost cannot The same eligible cost cannot cannot be funded by Marco Polo other Funds By TEN-T nor by ERDF and CF. receive double funding receive double funding nor by ERDF and CF. State State funding remains possible funding remains available
1. Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 1. Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 1. Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 32 Reference Regulation (EC) No 1692/2006 Communication C(2004) 43 2. TEN-T Guidelines 2. Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 2. Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006
32 A new Communication from the Commission providing guidance on State aid complementary to Community funding for the launching of the Motorways of the Sea has been published on 11 November 2008 (ref.: 2008/C 317/08).
Deliverable 6.2 42 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Description TEN-T Guidelines Marco Polo II ERDF Cohesion Fund State Aid
1. Italy: about 2,5 bln € 2. Greece: about 736 M€ 8 bln € (of which 310 mln € for Budget33 400 mln € 3. Cyprus: about 51 M€ Not defined MoS) 4. Slovene: about 241 M€ 5. Malta: about 143 M€
Marocco Seaways: Short sea shipping service that The Port of Piraeus: construction Short Sea Shipping service connects the ports of Genoa and equipment of a second between ports of Italy (Genoa, (Italy), Barcelona (Spain) and Railway and canals for the port of unloading terminal ("Eleftherios Examples Piombino, Taranto, Livorno), Tangiers (Morocco) with weekly Chioggia Not defined Venizelos") and construction of a Portugal (Aveiro, Setubal), Spain departure on fixed days (use of a (1997-1999) ring road (Marin, Huelva) – 2006 roll-on roll-off mixed goods (1993-1999) passenger type ship with wide cargo capacity) – 2005 1. Cyprus: national territory (phasing in) 2. Malta: national territory (convergence regions) 3. Slovene: national territory (convergence regions) 1. Cyprus: national territory 4. Greece: Anatoliki, Makedonia, (phasing in) Thraki, Thessalia, Ipeiros, Ionia 2. Malta: national territory Nisia, Dytiki Ellada, (convergence regions) Peloponnisos, Voreio Aigaio and Applicability All core study area's Countries All core study area's Countries Kriti (Convergence objective); 3. Slovene: national territory EU Member States Kentriki, Makedonia, Dytiki (convergence regions) Makedonia and Attiki (Statistical 4. Greece: Epirus, Thessaly, phasing-out); Sterea Ellada, Eastern Macedonia, Ionian islands, Notio, Aigaio (Phasing-in) Western Greece, Peloponnesus, 5. Italy: Campania, Puglia, Crete and North Aegean Calabria and Sicilia (convergence objective); Sardegna (phasing-in), Basilicata (phasing-out), remaining regions (competitiveness objective)
Source: European Commission, 2008
33 ERDF and Cohesion Fund budget is a rough estimation based on data collected from National/Regional Operative Programs in reference to planned resources for transport interventions.
Deliverable 6.2 43 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
2 Investments and time planning for all MoS projects
2.1 Approach
This chapter aims at identifying the amount and the time planning of the investments necessary to foster the development of the MoS services in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea with specific respect to a full implementation to the Master Plan.
Accordingly, the investment and cost addressed in this chapter are the ones foreseen either in the proposals analyses and in the national planning documents of the Member States. A further analysis has been carried out in order to assess further investment needs in the medium term.
A MoS service is not a maritime route between two or more ports but a door-to-door service that comprises all the transport legs including land transport. Thus, the full success of MoS depends not only on the maritime infrastructures (berths, yards, parking area, etc) but also on the port’s accessibility with the road and rail networks.
Port projects must be considered not only in relation to specific port’s contexts but in a wider perspective according to an overall perspective that includes groups of investments between two or more port clusters in different countries. Besides, the evaluation of the necessary investments to develop the MoS must take into account not only the data on planned projects by individual Port Authorities in different countries but also the relationships between these investments in more than one country within the context of port clusters defined on the basis of the flow of goods among the countries included in the study.
The analysis takes into consideration all the bottlenecks in all the relevant ports for MoS in the Eastern Mediterranean region (20 ports in all the core study area). The inland connections to ports from primary national transport infrastructure have been also analysed. A survey has been done in order to collect from the Port Authorities all the information related to the relevant projects planned in order to overcome the bottlenecks up to 2015. The selected time horizon allowed at identifying the main port investments planned in the short-medium term in order to provide enhanced infrastructures, services and hinterland connections for MoS according to the port operators and users’ needs.
The shape of port projects curve (Figure 2-12, Figure 5-11 and Figure 5-12) shows a downgrading trend up to 2015 due to the progressive completion of single interventions.
This does not imply that the investments needed to enhance the MoS services will be reduced in the next years.
On the contrary, givent that the investments encompassed in the following analysis will be completed in the estimated time horizon, further investments and
Deliverable 6.2 44 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study financing must be planned in order to address upcoming needs related to increase of traffic or specific local conditions. Such investments will have to be included in national planning in order to be included subsequently in the MoS financing budget.
Further investigation of these aspects, related to MoS investment planning after 2015 will be presented in the Policy Recommendations, encompassed in subsequent deliverables of this Study.
At that stage it will be necessary to draft a new and updated version of the present analysis, and the list of relevant port projects will have to be updated in the next years in order to include the new port investments that will reach a good level of maturity after 2015.
As far as this study is concerned, a list of 105 port projects has been defined by selecting the most relevant projects for MoS up to 2015.
Thus, the analyses covers the whole transport chain relevant to MoS services. More specifically, the following categories of projects are included according to the Minimum requirements for MoS described in Deliverable 5.2 (DEL5.2):
Port hinterland connection
Land-side terminal and quay
Sea-side terminal and quay
ICT projects
The methodology followed in order to identify the volume and the time planning of the investments necessary to foster the development of the MoS services encompassed the following two activities:
Analysis of port investments and infrastructural needs in terms of hinterland connections and time planning for the implementation
Analysis of services financing and definition of budget for their implementation
The first task has been developed according to the following approach:
Data collection on investment expenditures, foreseen investment expenditures and available sources of financing on all transport infrastructures within the geographical scope (for each of the countries involved in the core study area). For each project/intervention, the following data have been collected:
• type of project,
• overall investment cost,
Deliverable 6.2 45 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
• scheduled completion date and start of works,
• countries involved,
• remaining investment (2008 onwards),
• available sources of financing (e.g. public/private, TEN-T, CF, etc)
Analysis of the project’s technical characteristics in terms of:
• degree of relevance of the project to fulfil the overall goal of development of the MoS;
• maturity of the project according to the degree of technical completeness of a project candidate to receive funding (e.g. sufficient progress of the authorizations and granting procedures, are required for the project’s implementation, sufficient progress of the supporting – technical studies required, etc);
define a time profile of the investment costs necessary for the development of the selected interventions. More specifically, according to the type of infrastructure, the time span of the construction could present a different tendency in terms of distribution of the costs over the time necessary for the construction of the infrastructure itself.
split the investment cost among the different sources of funding analysed in the previous section.
A project database has been implemented, based on data coming from national official sources (e.g. Port Authorities’ Triennial Operating Plans 2007-2009/2008-2010, direct surveys to Port Authorities’ operators and “Infrastructures” Annex to Financial and Economic Programming Document 2007-2013, in Italy).
On the basis of interviews to the Port Authorities all the fundamental investments needed to satisfy the market within the time horizon of the study (2015) have been identified. The projects have been selected on the basis of their maturity (e.g. percentage of financial coverage, stage, etc), feasibility and relevance to MoS services. The full list of investments included into the Study is provided in Annex I – List of port projects.
From 2008 to 2015, 105 relevant port projects for MoS services have been identified for a total investments of about 963 M€. Some of these port projects do not have yet a full financial coverage with a financial gap of about 240 M€.. The selected projects concern all the journey legs that identify an integrated transport chain: the analysis includes port investments and infrastructural needs in terms of hinterland connections (land transport).
Deliverable 6.2 46 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
These projects are relevant not only to overcome the current bottlenecks that impede the start-up of new MoS services, but also to improve the quality level of the nodes and transport links used by transport operators that currently provide well developed MoS services.
Thus, the selected projects will allow improving the overall quality of current MoS services by reducing the transit time from ports to road networks, increasing comfort and safety of the parking areas, allowing to reduce road congestion in the port area, improving the connection from the port to the railway networks, etc.
The possibility to improve not only infrastructural needs but also the overall quality of MoS services can be enhanced through the co-financing of the Marco Polo II Programme that provides financial supports to MoS actions achieving a door-to-door service, shifting freight from long road distances to a combination of short sea shipping and other modes of transport.
Port and land infrastructures represent a fundamental condition that has to be fulfilled to allow a coherent development of MoS. However, MoS can be incentivised also by providing direct funding to the transport operators (e.g. ship-owners, road hauliers, etc) that intend to use this mode of transport. Thus, the main funding possibilities for new MoS connections and for the upgrading of the existing ones have been analysed: two hypotheses of MoS actions’ funding for the 2007-2015 period have been formulated (par. 2.3), a first one on possible State aids’ co-financing and a second one on possible Marco Polo's co-financing.
2.2 Financing infrastructure investments, and annual budget for implementation
2.2.1 Main ports of call on the Motorways of the Sea corridors
The analysis carried out in Deliverable 5.2 (DEL5.2) – “East Mediterranean Master Plan of the Motorways of the Sea” – has identified potential relevant MoS routes among eleven major port clusters over the Eastern Mediterranean area. All the selected routes have been subjected to logical tests and the expert opinion of the members of the consortium in order to be fine tuned. The results led to the designation of nine MoS potential connections that have been split between the following two categories:
Category A: proposals submitted by the industry during the call procedure,
Category B: new/ alternative potential MoS connections that seems to guarantee critical masses as well as filling in market “gaps” in terms of services’ availability.
The eleven major port clusters identified in the study area are showed in the following Table (2-1) and Figure (2-1). These clusters are related to the:
Deliverable 6.2 47 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Ro-Ro market (accompanied and non-accompanied);
container feeder market.
Table 2-1: Main port clusters within the core study area34
Cluster Area Countries Ports/Core study area
Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, CL 1 EMR-Middle East Limassol Israel, Egypt
CL 2 Aegean and Black Sea Turkey -
CL 3 North Black Sea - -
CL 4 EU Black Sea Romania, Bulgaria -
Kavala, Thessaloniki, CL 5 North Aegean Sea North Greece Alexandroupolis, Volos
CL 6 Central/South Aegean Sea Central/South Greece Piraeus, Korinthos
CL 7 Ionian Sea West Greece Igoumenitsa, Patras, Corfù
Augusta, Catania, CL 8 Central Mediterranean Sicily, Malta Marsaxlokk, Valletta Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia CL 9 South Adriatic, Balkan - & Herzegovina Ancona, Chioggia, CL 10 North Adriatic North Italy, Slovene, Croatia Monfalcone, Ravenna, Trieste, Venice, Koper
CL 11 South Adriatic South Italy Bari, Brindisi, Taranto
34 The main ports have been showed only for the core study area.
Deliverable 6.2 48 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Figure 2-1 – Major port clusters and their connections by cargo type
Deliverable 6.2 49 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
The following Table summarise the nine potential MoS corridors and the related relevant connections identified into the DEL5.2:
Table 2-2: MoS potential connections
Clusters (CL) Ports/Core study area MoS Connection Cluster A Cluster B Cluster A Cluster B
South Adriatic Italy MOS 1 Ionian Sea (CL7) Igoumenitsa Taranto (CL11)
East-Middle East Northern Aegean MOS 2 Limassol Kavala (CL1) (CL5)
Northern Adriatic MOS 3 Ionian Sea (CL7) (CL10 a: Trieste, Igoumenitsa Koper Monfalcone, Koper)
Northern Adriatic Igoumenitsa- MOS 4 (CL10 b: Venice, Ionian Sea (CL7) Venice Patras-Korinthos Chioggia) Northern Adriatic Northern Adriatic MOS 5 (CL10 c: Ancona, (CL10 a: Trieste, Ancona Koper Ravenna) Monfalcone, Koper) East-Middle East Central/South MOS 6 Limassol Piraeus (CL1) Aegean Sea (CL6) Northern Adriatic Northern Adriatic MOS 735 (CL10 b: Venice, (CL10 a: Trieste, Venice Koper Chioggia) Monfalcone, Koper) Central Mediterranean MOS 8 Ionian Sea (CL7) Patras Catania (CL8a: Augusta, Catania ) Central Northern Adriatic Mediterranean MOS 9 (CL10 b: Venice, Malta Venice (CL8b: Valletta, Chioggia) Marsaxlokk )
Within this document the main port investments and transport needs in terms of port hinterland connections, both under construction or planned up to 2015, aiming at increasing the RoRo/RoPax and/or container feeder market shares, have been analysed using data from national official sources, as clarified at the beginning of this chapter.
Most of the ports included in the identified clusters36 are developing or are planning to implement the relevant investments to increase their traffic, mainly through the enhancement of infrastructures and facilities within the port area and the further development of road and railway connections to/from the port area.
35 The potential MoS connection also includes the port of Split within the wider study area. 36 Except for Korinthos, Marsaxlokk and Piraeus.
Deliverable 6.2 50 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Ancona, Venezia, Taranto, Igoumenitsa, Kavala, Koper, Limassol and Patras are also directly involved in the call for proposals launched by the Parties in charge of drafting the Master Plan for the East Mediterranean MoS.37
The Port projects database (Annex I – List of port projects - of this document) shows the most relevant investments in infrastructures and facilities, under construction or planned, for each port included within the East-Med MoS Master Plan’s development.
The total estimated value of port investments and infrastructural needs in terms of hinterland connections, on-going and/or planned, from 2008 up to 2015 amounts to about 963 M€.38
In the five countries of the core study area almost the 80% of the projects is related to infrastructures, respectively the 49,2% of projects deal with Piers and docks, the 19,6% with road connections, the 5% with dredging and the 3,9% with railway connections. Terminals (8,7%), squares, buildings and warehouses (5,5%), and equipment (5,3%) categories also attract relevant investments.
The remaining projects deal with, logistics and intermodality (1,3%), plants and equipment (1%), new technologies (0,3%), safety and security (0,2%) and studies (0,1%).
Figure 2-2 – Main project categories (%)
study; 0,1% plants and equipment; infrastructures and 1,0% new technologies; 0,3% equipment; 5,3% dredging; 5,0% Logistics and terminal; 8,7% intermodality; 1,3%
squares, buildings and piers and docks; 49,2% warehouses; 5,5%
safety and security; 0,2%
road connection; 19,6%
railway connection; 3,9%
Source: Deliverable 6
37 Igoumenitsa: Adriamos, Taranto-Igoumenitsa, Two sea project, Igoumenitsa-Koper. Taranto: Taranto-Igoumenitsa. Ancona: Two seas project. Koper: Two seas project and Koper-Igoumenitsa. Patras: Adriamos. 38The total cost of the project included in the analysis amount to 1.100 M€. However, some projects started before the 2008 and will be completed into the time horizon of the study. About 136 M€ out of 1.100 M€ have been spent before the 2008.
Deliverable 6.2 51 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
2.2.2 Main results of the aggregated analysis
According to the MoS concepts, a list of 68 relevant projects to develop the MoS in the Eastern Mediterranean area has been identified (see Annex I)39. This list includes projects with a good level of maturity both in terms of administrative/procedural status and of financial coverage (total or partial funds).
Moreover, a list of 41 projects, of which the total cost is less than 2 M€, has been considered in order to complete the project’s Database, mainly related to plants and equipments.
The following figures (2-3 and 2-4) summarise the number and the total amount in percentage terms of port projects, by Country and by main categories of investment.
In the ports included into the study, the infrastructure projects represent the main category of investment. More specifically, due to the growth in the Ro-Ro market in the last years, a huge amount of resources have been invested in the construction of new piers and docks. The investments on-going and planned to develop the MoS are mainly focused on the construction of new piers and docks (25% of total number of projects), as well as new facilities and equipment (18,3%). The growth of the Ro-Ro market has also produced some congestion effects and bottlenecks on the road links between the ports and motorways. In order to overcome this problem, projects to enhance land accessibility have been also taken into great account in the ports of the core study area (16 projects are currently on-going or planned in the core study area). Ports are also providing some efforts to develop projects dealing with the implementation of new technologies (6,7%) in order to improve the communications among the stakeholders and simplify the administrative procedures.
Figure 2-3 – Number of port projects by category and Country
n 16,0
14,0
12,0
10,0
Number of interventio 8,0
6,0
4,0
2,0
- Italy Greece Malta Slovene Cyprus dredging plants and equipment logistics and intermodality piers and docks railway connection road connection safety and security squares, buildings and warehouses terminal infrastructures and equipment new technologies study Source: Deliverable 6
39 Annex I summarises the main data and information related with the projects identified.
Deliverable 6.2 52 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Also in terms of economic value the infrastructure projects represents the main category of investment. More specifically, the construction of new piers and docks represents 49,2% of the total amount of the investments included in the analysis, while projects dealing with road connections represent 19,6% of total costs. Besides, ports are also providing some efforts to develop projects dealing with the enhancement of terminal areas (8,7%) and squares, buildings and warehouses (5,5%).
Figure 2-4 – Total amount of port projects by category and Country (%)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% Italy Greece Malta Slovene Cyprus
dredging plants and equipment Logistics and intermodality piers and docks railway connection road connection safety and security squares, buildings and warehouses terminal infrastructures and equipment new technologies study
Source: Deliverable 6
On the basis of the relevant port projects identified up to 2015 and according to the Minimum requirements for MoS40 and related indicators defined within (DEL5.2) - “East Mediterranean Master Plan of the Motorways of the Sea” -, the existing gap between the market needs and the current infrastructure situation has been compared with the investment planned to overcome the current bottlenecks.
The following table provides a description of the main bottlenecks that need to be overcome in order to guarantee a MoS service in East Med port clusters with an adequate level of quality. The total amount of investments planned from 2008 to 2015 in order to overcome these bottlenecks, is also listed in the Table by main port Cluster.. A detailed description of the bottlenecks is provided in Deliverable 5.2 The
40 In order to satisfy this concept, a MoS chain (composite maritime-terrestrial chains) can be analysed through a minimum acceptable QUALITY BASIS of the provided transport services on the various chain links. The Quality Basis should represent a minimum acceptable quality level to be attained (quality targets or so called Minimum requirements fo MoS), against which design standards and performance levels have to be adapted regarding the areas of : infrastructure, installations and equipment, operations (shipping, port, haulage), externally provided services, information flows and documentation. Within DEL5, Minimum requirements for MoS were developed by categorizing them in terms of performance quality for each link and interconnection.
Deliverable 6.2 53 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study projects required to overcome the bottlenecks are described in Annex I - List of port projects.
Table 2-3: : Bottlenecks identified for each MoS corridor and needed investments
Investments Clusters (CL) Main bottlenecks planned up to 2015 MoS Description Corridor Cluster Cluster Cluster A Cluster B Cluster A Cluster B A B Taranto - Congestion on the road connection with the A14 - Low quality of the rail connection to the railway network - Lack of connection between quays and operating areas
Igoumenitsa Bari - Need to enhance - Lack of adequate parking areas road connection and Ro-Pax flows Lack of adequate interferences among Ionian - quay’s and entry between urban and Ionian Sea South Adriatic Sea/West MoS 1 channel’s draught port traffic 126,4 167,8 (CL7) Italy (CL11) Greece and Interferences South Adriatic - Patras Italian ports between railway - Need to enhance system and urban areas dedicated to viability RoRo traffic - Traffic congestion within the port
Brindisi - Need to complete the road accessibility to the port - Lack of railway connection
Alexandroupolis - Congestion on the road connection to the Egnatia motorway - Lack of handling equipment and equipped parking Lo-Lo flows Limassol areas among EMR- - Need to enhance - Lack of adequate Middle East road port quay’s and entry Countries accessibility channel’s draught East-Middle Northern MoS 2 (mainly Lack of dedicated 136,6 66,1 East (CL1) Aegean (CL5) - Cyprus) and RoRo quays and Kavala Greece via parking areas - Lack of a direct North Aegean - Lack of adequate railway connection Greek ports quay’s draught - Limited parking and waiting areas - Lack of adequate quay’s draught
Volos - Lack of adequate parking and waiting areas
Deliverable 6.2 54 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Investments Clusters (CL) Main bottlenecks planned up to 2015 MoS Description Corridor Cluster Cluster Cluster A Cluster B Cluster A Cluster B A B Trieste - Need to improve the road connection between the port and the road network - Lack of parking and Ro-Ro flows waiting areas for Northern among western trucks Adriatic (CL10 Greece and the Ionian Sea Need of a new MoS 3 a: Trieste, Eastern See MoS 1 - 126,4 264,5 (CL7) RoRo terminal Monfalcone, segment of the
Koper) North Adriatic Monfalcone ports - Need to improve parking and waiting areas
Koper - Low extension of piers in the port Venice - Congestion on the Mestre bypass - Lack of road connection with the RoRo/RoPax Ro-Ro flows Northern terminal among Greece Adriatic Need to enhance Ionian Sea and the Central - MoS 4 (CL10 b: parking and See MoS 1 140,8 126,4 (CL7) segment of the Venice, waiting areas North Adriatic Chioggia) ports Chioggia - Lack of a direct connection with the road network - Lack of adequate quay’s draught Ancona - Lack of a direct road link with the highway Ro-Ro flows - Lack of adequate Northern among the quay’s area Adriatic Northern Western and
MoS 5 (CL10 c: Adriatic (CL10 the Eastern See MoS 3 32,6 264,5 Ravenna Ancona, a: Koper) segment of the Need to develop Ravenna) North Adriatic - the intersection ports with SS16 - Difficulties to manage the railway service Piraeus - High congestion on the port direct access to the road Central/South Ro-Pax flows East-Middle network MoS 6 Aegean Sea among Greece See MoS 2 136,6 16,6 East (CL1) Lack of adequate (CL6) and Cyprus. - areas dedicated to RoRo traffic - Lack of dedicated suitable RoRo quays
Deliverable 6.2 55 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Investments Clusters (CL) Main bottlenecks planned up to 2015 MoS Description Corridor Cluster Cluster Cluster A Cluster B Cluster A Cluster B A B
Ro-Ro flows along the Adriatic Northern connecting Adriatic Northern North Adriatic MoS 7 (CL10 b: Adriatic (CL10 See MoS 4 See MoS 3 140,8 264,5 ports (and the Venice, a: Koper) Western Chioggia) Balkans in the wider study area) Augusta - Congestion on the road port network
, Catania Central - Congestion on Ro-Pax flows Mediterranean road north access Ionian Sea between MoS 8 (CL8a: See MoS 1 to the port 126,4 131,1 (CL7) Greece and Augusta, Need to enhance Sicily - Catania ) the railway connection - Lack of equipped parking areas and interferences among different traffics Lo-Lo flows Central among Malta Northern Valletta Mediterranean and the North Adriatic (CL10 Lack of MoS 9 (CL8b: Adriatic ports - See MoS 4 18,1 140,8 b: Venice, adequate Valletta, (with a possible Chioggia) quay’s length Marsaxlokk ) extension to the Black Sea)
Source: Deliverable 6
The planned investments, analysed in detail within this chapter, demonstrate that ports within the East Mediterranean area will be able to overcome the main bottlenecks (identified by the Gap analysis) without planning new infrastructures (e.g. piers and docks, parking and quay’s area, hinterland road and railway connections, etc.). Investments already planned or under construction are sufficient to allow selected ports to achieve acceptable Quality levels for MoS services.
However, there are ports that still show severe deficiencies concerning MoS services until 2015: hinterland connections remain poor, mainly with respect to railway transport, port areas dedicated to Ro-Ro traffic are not adequate for MoS needs, ICT systems adopted for port operations and administrative issues are not widespread among ports. The gaps for each port to be present until 2015are summarized as follows (according to paragraph 4.1 of Deliverable 5.2):
Deliverable 6.2 56 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Kavala shows the lack of a direct railway connection to the hinterland
Alexandroupolis needs to upgrade the existing railway connection and shows the lack of handling equipment and equipped parking areas
Igoumenitsa shows the lack of an adequate railway connection to the hinterland
Patras has no railway connection of port terminals
Piraeus shows a direct access to the road network often highly congested and the lack of adequate areas and suitable RoRo quays dedicated to RoRo traffic
Augusta shows the lack of a direct road connection with the national network
Ravenna has difficulties to manage the railway service
Brindisi needs to complete the road accessibility to the port and shows the lack of railway connection with the national network
Ancona shows the lack of adequate quay’s area
Venezia needs more parking and waiting area for MoS
Bari shows traffic congestion within the port area
Chioggia shows the lack of adequate quay’s draught
Moreover, Alexandroupolis, Kavala, Volos Igoumenitsa, Patras, Piraeus, Catania and Brindisi need to develop a dedicated ICT network. Besides, there are also other port investments (currently characterised by a low level of maturity) and infrastructural needs in terms of hinterland connections that could contribute to increase the number of ports in each cluster that achieve the criteria set by the Minimum requirements for MoS. The value of the investment shown in the following table represents only an estimation based on:
the size of the investment (e.g. length of a road connection), and
the type of investment itself (e.g. new road)
Deliverable 6.2 57 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Table 2-4: Investments needed until 2015 to overcome gaps
Country Port cluster Type of investment Value (m€)
Road improvements - port of 3,5 Alexandroupoli (internal port road network) Handling equipment and equipped parking North Aegean (CL 5) areas – Ports of Kavala, Volos & 6 Alexandroupoli 4,2 ICT – Ports of Kavala, Volos & (1,4 for each Alexandroupoli port) Central/ South Aegean Road Connection – port of Corinth 4 Greece and Italy (CL 6) ICT – Port of Piraeus 1,4 2,8 Ionian Sea (CL 7) ICT – Port of Igoumenitsa and Patras (1,4 for each port) Quays and parking area – Port of Ancona North-Adriatic (CL10) 27 and Venezia Central Mediterranean Road connections – Port of Augusta 15 (CL8a) ICT – Port of Catania 1,4 Road connections – Port of Brindisi 34 South Adriatic (CL11) ICT – Port of Brindisi 1,4 Total 100,7 Source: Deliverable 6
IC&T port investments
The quality of a MoS service/route does not depend only by the quality of each single leg of the transport but it is strongly affected by the integrations and linkage of all the transport legs. ICT platforms work as a good tool to achieve this goal and integrate the communication systems of all the stakeholders involved in the transport chain of a MoS service (e.g. Port Authorities, customs, ship-owners, road hauliers, etc). Besides, ICT systems can have also an important role to guarantee adequate level of safety and security in all the legs of the transport.
The budget needed to implement an ICT depends on many factors, for instance: • Number of stakeholders (port authorities, transport operators, ship-owners, road hauliers, etc) to be integrated in a single communication system; • Number and type of services to be provided to the stakeholders; • etc
Thus, on the basis of desk research and experience, the budget needed to implement a new ICT platform can be in a range between 0,3 M€ and 1,4 M€: this range can be applied for IT projects developed within a single port context, for instance
Deliverable 6.2 58 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study the installation and the implementation of a port management information system or the implementation of a container terminal management system.
Moreover, the development of wider e-freight (ICT) and Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS), that aim at integrating several actors (e.g. Port Authorities, road hauliers, ship-owners, etc.) among many ports, needs a larger commitment in terms of budget needs: for instance, ACCESS, the Advanced Contact Centre for the enhancement of the European Short-sea Shipping, needs an investment of about 10 M€41 to be implemented.
Within the port projects included in the database, there are 5 projects42 concerning IC&T and 2 projects on safety and security, promoted by the ports of Venezia, Kavala, Patras, Igoumenitsa and Koper. All these projects show a total cost lower than 2 M€, according to the data collected. Besides, in Greece, there is also relevant project concerning port security43.
In Cyprus, the Port Authority deployed CyPOS, which is considered a modern IT system in order to address all port activities and work processes in Limassol port, connecting port with Nicosia Head Office and main business and state stakeholders and services. CyPOS integrates 20 different modules (13 of them related to port and cargo handling activities), serving separately the above parties according to their work necessities.
In Greece, ICT applications within ports are available only for the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki to manage container handling services. The associated Ministry allocated funds for a homogeneous ICT penetration in all major Greek ports but the project is still presenting low maturity.
An investment of 340 M€ is expected to be allocated to implement the ISPS Code among 12 Port Authorities (PAs) in order to enhance Safety and Security among Greek ports and to boost the level of ICT penetration among the ports.
In Italy, all the ports included within the North Adriatic cluster have implemented (at least partially) some ICT solutions for Ro-Ro/Ro-Pax and/or container traffic. Ancona, Bari and Taranto have also on-going and/or planned investments in order to develop ICT solutions able to enhance and make easier their traffic flows, that could be available in the short term (e.g. Bari took part to the GIPSY project in order to develop a Greek Italian multimodal platform for freight and passengers transport flows among the ports of Bari, Brindisi, Igoumenitsa and Patras, while Taranto promoted the New.Ton project in order to enhance intermodal transport among Italy, Greece and Turkey). However, the ports of Catania and Brindisi still show a persisting gap regards the availability of adequate ICT systems dedicated to MoS services. The
41 Source: Deliverable 6 42 That taken together amount to about 5 M€. 43 This project has not been included within the Cost Database because it is aimed at enhancing the overall port security and it is not specific for the Ro-Ro traffic.
Deliverable 6.2 59 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study estimated total budget needed to enhance the lack of effective ICT networks among the above mentioned ports can change from a minimum value of 0,9 M€ to a maximum value of 4,2 M€.
In Malta, the ship navigation activities of the Port of Valletta are supported by a Vessel Traffic System while the system PortNet Malta supports vessel clearance documentation (its implementation has resulted in a reduction in the handling of manual forms). A Container Terminal Management System is planned to be implemented by 2011. The estimated budget for this intervention is €250,000 excl. VAT, which amount is expected to come from private funding.
The port of Marsaxlokk has advanced technology in place for container tracking, yard and ship planning, container and equipment control (Navis Sparcs, Navis Express, SMDG-EDIFACT connections, Motorola Digital Communications System.
In Slovenia, the information system of Luka Koper is composed of over 20 subsystems, interconnected to provide complete logistic support and linkage to partners. The system is currently being modernized, which includes a radical reduction in the number of subsystems and their standardization.
2.2.3 Methodology
The methodology adopted to carry out the financial analysis started from the population of a project’s database (Cost database). Then, the investments necessary to support the development of MoS in the East Mediterranean area have been identified.
The main items considered to obtain an effective database for relevant MoS interventions within the geographical scope, are the following ones:
traffic target (RoRo and/or RoPax, container feeder, etc)
data related with on-going and expected investment expenditures,
maturity of the project (under construction, planning, study phase, etc)
start and completion years,
sources of funding already available.
Cost Modelling
The purpose of the model is to spread total investment costs over time, according to the type of infrastructure to be built. This can be done by combining basic engineering knowledge with common economic assumptions on costs distribution through time in transport infrastructure projects. Thus, the model calculates an adequate weighting
Deliverable 6.2 60 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study system to distribute the amount of total investment cost for each intervention on the time duration of the construction. The weights must fulfil the following criteria:
they should present a moderate increase in the first years in order to reproduce the effects of the initial development cost;
they should show a more substantial increase in the third quarter of the construction period, generally the period in which the greatest amount of work is done;
they should indicate a slight decrease in the last year of the construction period, as the infrastructure comes closer to completion and only minor works remain to be done;
the weighting system should be versatile enough in order to reproduce correctly the different types of infrastructures concerned.
As a first approximation, a Generalized Beta weighting system was chosen. A beta weighting system is based on the Generalized Beta distribution that presents the following characteristics: the Generalized Beta distribution has 4 parameters, α, β, ξ and η; α and β are shape parameters, while ξ and η are the lower and upper bounds respectively of the distribution;
the Generalized Beta density function is given by the following formula:
(x − ξ )α −1 (η − x)β −1 f (x) = α +β −1 B(α, β )()η − ξ
where x can vary between ξ and η, (ξ ≤ x ≤ η), ξ must be smaller than η, (ξ < η), and α and β must be positive, (α, β > 0);
the B(α, β) is the Beta function, obtained with the formula:
η B(α, β ) = t α −1 (1− t) β −1 dt ∫ξ the Generalized Beta is unimodal, if α and β are greater than the unity, and this feature can represent adequately the construction cost profile that can be found in real infrastructure projects;
the Generalized Beta distribution is extremely versatile and its shape depends only on the two shape parameters α and β, thus it permits the use of a single simple formula supporting all the construction cost’s characteristics;
if α and β are equal to the unity, the weights obtained are the same for each year, thus also allowing the description of those kinds of projects that present a constant trend of construction cost over time.
Deliverable 6.2 61 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Given that the Generalized Beta distribution is continuous and the formula provided is a mass, or cumulative, function, in order to obtain the Beta weight w for the x-th year of construction, the following formula was used:
w = f (x) − f (x −1) The weights for the years in which the section is completed or its construction has not started are 0.
Once the Beta weights are obtained for each year and for each intervention, they are multiplied by the total investment cost (C). As the sum of the weights for the entire period of construction (in years) n, is 100 per cent, the sum of the yearly investment costs for the construction period is equal to the total investment cost.
Calibration of the Model
The TEN-STAC44 study has been an effective term of reference to obtain a clear understanding of the shape of the construction costs over the construction period because of the wide range of transport infrastructure projects analysed to define consistent shape parameters (α and β) by type of infrastructure.
A distinction among the projects, based on the main type of infrastructures, has been necessary to develop an effective cost model and to find the most suitable weighting system.
Rail and road projects included within the Cost database refer to the development of relevant port connections with the main road and railway axes over all the core study areas. The cost profile of these interventions is shaped with a slight increase in the second or third year of construction.
Maritime interventions constitute the major part of the port projects included in the Cost database. For these interventions, a symmetric weighting system has been assumed, so that it is supposed that construction costs increase evenly in the first half of construction period and decrease in the second half.
The parameters of the weighting system used are summarized in the following table:
44 Study “Scenarios, traffic forecasts and analysis of corridors on the Trans-European Network” (TEN- STAC) -, funded by the European Commission and published in 2004.
Deliverable 6.2 62 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Figure 2-5 – Beta parameters by type of project
Type of project Description alfa Beta
Road 1,3 1
Rail 1,3 1
Maritime 2 2 interventions
Source: TEN-STAC (2004)
Example As an example of the methodology proposed, the intervention “New quay at S. Apollinare” at the Port of Brindisi (Italy) has been chosen. The total cost of the project is C = M€ 19,5, the start of works is scheduled for 2009 and the completion date is 2011.
The parameters selected for maritime infrastructure projects are α = 2 and β = 2, the lower and upper bounds are ξ = 2009 and η = 2011.
The weight can be calculated for every year. For the year 2010 (second year of the construction period) the weight can be calculated as:
w(2010) = f(2010+1) - f (2010) where f(20xx) is the Generalized Beta mass function with parameters α = 2, β = 2, ξ = 2009 and η = 2011 The Generalized Beta mass function calculated in 2010 is,
f(2011) = 0,26 and f(2010) = 0,48
The w(2010) will be 0,48 or 48%. The cost in 2010 can be easily obtained by multiplying the total cost on the overall period by the weight in 2010 (M€ 9,39 = M€ 19,5 × 48%).
The cost profile for the entire construction period is summarised in the following table:
Deliverable 6.2 63 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Table 2-5: Beta function “New quay at S. Apollinare” (Brindisi)
Year 2009 2010 2011 Total Weight 25,93% 48,15% 25,93% 100,00% Cost (M€) 5,06 9,39 5,06 19,50
Source: Deliverable 6
The Cost Database
The construction of the Cost database aims at estimating/modelling a time profile for infrastructural investment costs over a defined time period. In order to do so, the database consists of three complementary parts: a) an input database (input); b) a detailed database with the results obtained for each intervention; c) tables and graphs showing aggregated results.
The input database is structured functionally, with the aim of providing the model with the relevant information necessary to the calculations and to allow an easy and clear access to the information processed in the model elaboration. It is the main source of information for the model and consists of a list of projects.
For each intervention, the main items considered have been the following:
ports where relevant investments for MoS traffic are under construction or have been planned,
a codification of the type of infrastructure (sea, road, rail),
stage of procedure (under construction, planning, other)
number of study years preceding the actual start of construction,
start and end of works (years)
total estimated cost (including studies);
cost of studies
Some columns of the input database are calculated automatically or present default information. In any case, it is always possible to modify the data inserted or to modify the default assumptions. More specifically, it results that:
when data on start and end of works were missing, the average construction period by category has been estimated45 and the starting year of works has been defined
45 In terms of average number of years for each project category defined within the Cost database.
Deliverable 6.2 64 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
according to the stage of procedure of each project,
the number of study years is set by default according to the type of infrastructure concerned, and can be changed in the “parameters” work-sheet. The cost of the studies is calculated by default as a percentage of the total cost, assuming that a constant 1 per cent of total costs is spent yearly in the study period. If the number of years of study is modified, the cost of studies is automatically re-calculated.
The investment to date is obtained as a difference of the total cost of the project and the cost of studies. The role of the detailed databases is to perform the necessary calculation to obtain the projects’ cost profile, and to present for each project the investment cost year by year. The input information are processed in order to obtain the investment time profile, for the entire cost of the project in the time span 2003- 2015 (DB_cost). This detailed output database presents a list of projects for each of which the yearly cost is calculated by using a system of beta weights, obtained according to the information available.
The aim of the synthesis tables and graphs is to make the results of the database more accessible, summarizing the findings according to the relevant aspects arising from the analysis.
The functioning of the Cost database and of the Funding analysis’ structure can be described with the following figure. The Funding analysis is described later in this document.
Figure 2-6 – Cost Database and Funding Analysis
Cost Database Parameters
Cost Database Tables
Inputs Graphs
Funding Graphs Analysis
National Funds EU Funds Private capital Funding analysis Other
Deliverable 6.2 65 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
As far as the Cost Database is concerned, the input list (Input) is processed in the operational database (DB_Cost), where the time profile is actually calculated. The necessary external parameters are provided separately, in order to be easily modified. The investment profile is then aggregated with respect to specific analysis aspects, so as to produce the synthesis table and graphs. The input table and the investment time profiles are part of the inputs that are then developed in the funding elaboration, so that the two analyses performed are linked in a complementary sequence.
The Funding Analysis
The funding analysis developed in this document involved the implementation of the following preliminary activities:
analysis of project’s database,
analysis of different sources of funding countries/regions/projects can benefit of,
estimate of the possible share of the costs to be covered by EU funds.
The aim of this section is to develop the project’s aggregate analysis, estimating the amounts of funding needed from the different applicable financial sources.
According to the specific typology of investment, the most suitable sources of funding are specified in order to adequately match the needs of the investment with the characteristics of the funding source (time of supply, cost, etc), if specific project data on funding are not available. If specific funding data are available for a project, they have been used.
The scope of the funding database is to obtain the amount of financing required to cover all the infrastructure investment costs by year, to identify the possible financial sources and to disaggregate by percentage of co-financing.
The funding hypotheses are developed from the cost database, in terms of input information and some additional information deriving from external inputs.
The main outputs of this analysis are two summary graphs showing:
the current situation in terms of existing sources of funding and
a possible alternative funding scenario according to the available EU Funds for port projects.
The total time investment profile has been calculated in the cost analysis and thus it can be considered at this stage as a given input.
The rationale at the basis of the funding analysis is a disaggregation of the investment profile obtained in the cost analysis, highlighting the funding sources available. What
Deliverable 6.2 66 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study is obtained is a virtual three-dimension table, where it is possible to identify the total investment cost profile, and for each year the financing sources.
A cumulative new table can be found, showing the amount of investment needed to offset the cost expected in a certain year or programming period. The financial sources have been grouped into the following categories, extensively described in Chapter 1. They are listed under each project row as follows:
National/Regional funds: regional transfers, State companies, subsidies, grants, etc.
EU funds. For a better understanding of the financing structure a further disaggregation of this has been done in:
• TEN-T funds
• ERDF and CF
Private capital;
Other (e.g. State Aid, EIB loans).
In order to evaluate how much of the total cost will be obtained from each of these sources of financing, for the time span 2008-2015, as well as on a year-by-year basis, it is necessary to provide the percentage funding breakdown as an additional external input.
It has been assumed that co-financing rates for EU funds are the same along the time period considered, according to the Commission programming period 2007-2013.
The new funding scenario has been determined through the following six steps:
1. analysis of the available data;
2. estimation of additional TEN-T funds - when the project is eligible for TEN-T funds, it has been assumed that this source of financing will be activated.
The co-financing rate has been estimated according to:
9 project’s specific information obtained from available data,
9 TEN-T’s Regulation,
9 maximum foreseen co-financing rates;
3. Estimation of additional ERDF and CF’s co-financing – if the project is under construction or will be implanted within a region / country eligible for ERDF and / or CF, it has been assumed that this source of financing will be activated.
The co-financing rate is estimated according to:
Deliverable 6.2 67 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
9 Project’s specific information obtained from the available data,
9 maximum foreseen co-financing rates.
In case the project lays in an area eligible for both ERDF and CF, it is not possible, at this stage, to identify which of these two types of funds will be activated by the concerned Member State. Accordingly, the simulation will consider an average co-financing rate for the two kinds of funds as a whole;
4. estimation of national funds46 - the Funding Database has been implemented, charging on national resources the share of projects’ costs without financial coverage;
5. check on the eligibility criteria concerning fund-raising from different sources of Community funding.
The following table shows the main available sources of funding by type of infrastructure:
Table 2-6: Funding possibilities by intervention type
Category TEN-T Guidelines Marco Polo II ERDF CF Infrastructures √ √47 √ √ Facilities √ √ √ Transport services √
Source: Deliverable 6
A final consideration concerns the scale of the investment burden: this is too high to be financed only by the public sector alone (ERDF, CF, etc.). Accordingly, the private sector must be used as a source of finance, possibly through PPP schemes.
2.2.4 Annual budget for implementation
The analysis covers the whole transport chain relevant to MoS services: the selected projects include port investments as well as infrastructural need in terms of hinterland connections (land transport). Port investments and infrastructural needs in terms of hinterland connections have been split into two main categories on the basis of their maturity: under construction and planning (where planning includes: feasibility study, preliminary project, feasible project, final project, tender).
46 Including national, regional, local public funds as well as private funds. 47 Only ancillary infrastructures.
Deliverable 6.2 68 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
The following table shows the annual budget (2008-2015) of the port projects included in the cost database split by Country and by main procedural stage:
Table 2-7: Infrastructure investments by Country and by procedural stage (M€), 2008-2015
Country Stage 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Tot
Under construction 41,7 34,6 19,9 9,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,0 105,8 Planning 14,3 17,4 6,6 2,7 1,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 43,0 Greece Total 55,9 51,9 26,5 11,9 1,6 0,3 0,2 0,1 148,4 % GDP 0,02% 0,02% 0,01% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% Under construction 65,8 33,5 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,0 100,3 Planning 42,3 76,2 98,1 124,1 90,5 25,1 12,7 - 469 Italy Total 108,1 109,7 98,4 124,4 90,7 25,1 12,8 0,0 569,2 % GDP 0,01% 0,01% 0,01% 0,01% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% Under construction 1,7 3,8 3,8 1,7 - - - - 11,0 Planning 0,9 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,0 0,1 0,0 6,4 Malta Total 2,7 4,9 4,9 2,9 1,1 1,0 0,1 0,0 17,6 % GDP 0,05% 0,09% 0,08% 0,05% 0,02% 0,01% 0,00% 0,00% Under construction 27,0 26,9 ------53,9 Planning 8,3 13,5 10,5 4,7 2,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 39,6 Slovene Total 35,2 40,5 10,5 4,7 2,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 93,5 % GDP 0,10% 0,11% 0,03% 0,01% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% Under construction ------Planning 18,5 18,5 21,7 17,2 13,3 14,3 15,2 16,0 134,7 Cyprus Total 18,5 18,5 21,7 17,2 13,3 14,3 15,2 16,0 134,7 % GDP 0,11% 0,10% 0,12% 0,09% 0,06% 0,06% 0,06% 0,06% Under construction 136,2 98,9 24,0 11,3 0,4 0,2 0,1 0,1 271,2 Total Planning 84,2 126,7 138,0 149,8 108,5 40,8 28,3 16,2 692,5 Total 220,3 225,6 162,0 161,1 109,0 41,0 28,4 16,3 963,7
Source: Deliverable 6
From 2008 to 2015 total investments, on-going and planned, amount to about 963 M€, of which about 241 M€ are currently without a secured financial coverage. Of these secured investments, totalling 722M€, about 485 M€ are provided by national/regional/local funds committed by Public Authorities, about 118 M€ by ERDF and CF resources, about 14 M€ by TEN-T funds, about 56 M€ by private capital and the remaining 49 M€ by other funds which are specified on the basis of the available information.
Italian ports show the largest investments in terms of number of projects and total value (M€) aiming at enhancing RoRo/Ropax and/or container traffic. This is due mainly to the higher number of ports involved in the MoS with respect to the other
Deliverable 6.2 69 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study countries (eleven ports for Italy, six ports for Greece, two ports for Malta, one port for Slovene and one port for Cyprus). Planned investments, according to the Beta cost function’s distribution, show the highest values from 2009 to 2012.
Figure 2-7 – Italian infrastructure investments by year and stage of maturity (M€), 2008-201548
120,0
Meuro 100,0
80,0
60,0
40,0
20,0
- 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
under construction planning (financed) planning (not financed) planning (not defined)
Source: Deliverable 6
Greek port are mainly characterized by projects under construction, consequently the highest investment values can be noted in the first two years of the following graph (2008 and 2009).
Figure 2-8 - Greek infrastructure investments by year and stage of maturity (M€), 2008-2015
120,0
Meuro 100,0
80,0
60,0
40,0
20,0
- 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
under construction planning (financed) planning (not financed) planning (not defined)
Source: Deliverable 6
48 Planning (not defined) means that data available do not specify if the projects included within this series have financial coverage.
Deliverable 6.2 70 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Malta has two relevant ports for MoS traffic (respectively, Valletta and Marsaxlokk). There are several relevant projects planned and under construction at the two ports49, the bulk of which will be implemented within the first years under consideration (2008-2011).
Figure 2-9 - Maltese infrastructure investments by year and stage of maturity (M€), 2008-201550
20,0 Meuro 15,0
10,0
5,0
- 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
under construction planning (financed) planning (not financed) planning (not defined)
Source: Deliverable 6
The port of Koper (Slovenia) has two relevant projects aiming at enhance RoRo/Ropax and container traffic, one under construction, the other one planned up to 2013:
49 The Freeport in Marsaxlokk is focusing its activity towards container and feeder services in order to enhance its role of a transhipment hub port on the routes between the Far East and the West, whilst moving away from its Ro-Ro/Ro-Pax activity. Significant investments of around 130 m€ are planned to develop the container port in Marsaxlokk. These investments are mainly focused on the transhipment hub and, thus, have not been included in this analysis. However, they would have a bearing on the main flows of goods and relevant MoS corridors that have been identified. 50 The value (Y) axis scale for Maltese port investments is different from those ones used for the other Countries in order to better show the time spanning from 2008 to 2015.
Deliverable 6.2 71 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Figure 2-10 - Slovenian infrastructure investments by year and stage of maturity (M€), 2008-2015
120,0
Meuro 100,0
80,0
60,0
40,0
20,0
- 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
under construction planning (financed) planning (not financed) planning (not defined)
Source: Deliverable 6
The port of Limassol (Cyprus) has three relevant projects, of which one is under construction and the remaining two are planned for 2011, aiming at enhancing container traffic.
Figure 2-11 - Cypriot infrastructure investments by year and stage of maturity (M€), 2008-2015
120,0 Meuro 100,0
80,0
60,0
40,0
20,0
- 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 under construction planning (financed) planning (not financed) planning (not defined)
Source: Deliverable 6
The following graph summarizes total port investments and infrastructural needs in terms of hinterland connections, included in the cost database, by year and by Country.
The identified port projects, on-going and planned, show a downgrading trend up to 2015 because the analysis focused on the main port projects planned in the short-
Deliverable 6.2 72 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study medium term in order to provide enhanced infrastructures, services and hinterland connections for MoS according to the port operators and users’ needs.
The list of 105 port projects defined by selecting the most relevant projects for MoS up to 2015 should be enhanced in the next years in order to upgrade foreseen port investments according to new identified MoS priorities. The upgrading of relevant port projects for MoS will produce changes in the shape of the investments’ curve, shifting forward the declining trend of its profile.
Thus, by no means the following graphs should lead to the conclusion that in the future further investments in MoS will not be necessary. The following graphs show what is the budget burden generated by current or planned investments in the next years. This can be helpful in order to plan new investments given the budget constraints for EU and National Authorities.
Figure 2-12 - Total infrastructure investments by Country and year (M€),2008-2015
250,0 Meuro 200,0
150,0
100,0
50,0
- 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Italy Greece Malta Slovene Cyprus
Source: Deliverable 6
2.2.5 Funding for implementation
The graph below shows the total investments divided by source of funding according to the data collected from each port for the relevant MoS projects, from 2008 to 2015. The funding sources already available for all the selected projects listed in Annex I and analysed in the previous paragraph to define the annual budget for implementation have been taken into account and the total amount of about 963 M€ has been divided by source of financing. According to the available data, projects that
Deliverable 6.2 73 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study do not have a full financial coverage amount to about 241 M€ as already specified in chapter 2 .
Figure 2-13 - Overview of Funding sources (current situation), 2008-2015
250,0 Meuro 200,0
150,0
100,0
50,0
- 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
National/regional/local funds TEN-T budget ERDF and CF Private capital Other sources Lack of financial coverage Not defined
Source: Deliverable 6
On the basis of the analysis carried out on the available sources of funding for MoS projects (chapter 1.2), a funding breakdown has been defined and a funding scenario has been estimated only for the amount of port projects (about 241 M€) without secured financial coverage. Figure 2-14 shows how the remaining amount of about 241 M€ could be funded by additional TEN-T budget or ERDF/CF funds.
Additional funds have been allocated to the projects without financial coverage according to the following criteria:
project’s typology (e.g. infrastructure and facilities projects are eligible for TEN-T budget and/or ERDF and CF’s financial support) and eligibility area,
maximum share of co-financing set up for TEN-T funds,
maximum share of co-financing for ERDF and CF,
total funds available for TEN-T projects both in terms of TEN-T funds and ERDF and CF’s financial availability.
The estimation is based on the following main assumptions:
amount of costs’ data without financial coverage (about 240 M€),
Deliverable 6.2 74 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
budget available for TEN-T projects’ financing from 2007 to 2015, by source of funding (TEN-T budget, ERDF and CF)51,
TEN-T co-financing, ERDF and CF’s financial support have been applied to different port projects,
National funds have been obtained as residual source of funding after applying possible funding percentages on EU funds.52
The possible funding scenario has been developed according to the available data on selected port projects’ lack of financial coverage and the assumptions above defined. A reasonable percentage of co-financing has been applied to port projects eligible for EU co-financing (TEN-T, ERDF and CF)53. The total estimated amount of additional EU co-financing has been split from 2008 to 2015 according to the yearly percentage of the cumulated Beta cost function.54 The following table and figure show the possible estimated funding scenario:
Table 2-8: Scenario “Additional EU co-financing for infrastructure projects without a secured fnancial coverage”, 2008-2015
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total National funds 57,69 36,85 26,44 26,30 17,78 6,68 4,64 2,66 179,04 TEN-T budget 9,63 6,16 4,42 4,39 2,97 1,12 0,78 0,44 29,91 ERDF and CF 10,36 6,62 4,75 4,72 3,19 1,20 0,83 0,48 32,15 Total 77,68 49,62 35,61 35,41 23,95 9,00 6,25 3,58 241,1
Source: Deliverable 6
The analysis does not take into account the Country breakdown because almost all of the uncesured funding from 2008 to 2015, can be mainly attributed to Italian port projects (about 150M€ out of 240 M€) and to the Cypriot port of Limassol (about 90 M€).
According to the presented funding scenario, port authorities and other stakeholders could ask for about 30 M€ of TEN-T funds and about 32 M€ of ERDF and CF’s additional financial support (a 48%-52% split). In comparison with the current funds’ allocation, additional European resources could be provided in order to allow Eastern Mediterranean ports to overcome their
51 Total investments needed on TEN-T projects should be about 330 billion €, from 2007 to 2013. TEN-T budget: 8 billion €, Structural/Cohesion Funds: 44 billion €. Source: European Commission (2008). 52This item includes also other available sources of funding (e.g. private capital, EIB loans, etc.) 53 2,4% of total cost for TEN-T budget and 13,3% of total costs for ERDF and CF. 54 The funding scenario has been implemented according to the coherent percentages of co-financing of Marco Polo II, ERDF and CF.
Deliverable 6.2 75 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study bottlenecks in terms of compliance with relevant Minimum requirements identified for MoS services. A further consideration concerns the possibility that additional EU funding could be useful not only in order to cover the estimated lack of financial coverage for port projects in the East Mediterranean area, but also to mitigate the financial burden laying on public national funds that mainly support relevant port investments and infrastructural needs in terms of hinterland connections. According to this, additional EU co-financing could be extended also to costs of port projects already financed with national public funds55.
Figure 2-14 - Scenario “Additional EU co-financing for port projects”, 2008-201556
60,00 Meuro 50,00
40,00
30,00
20,00
10,00
0,00 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
National funds TEN-T budget ERDF and CF
Source: Deliverable 6
The results of the analysis show a significant involvement of the national funds, mainly from the public sector (both at national and EU level) to finance the development of the MoS. The international contest is characterised by a decrease of public investment as a share of GDP and by the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP)57 that introduced some constraints on governments’ abilities to spend during economic slumps. Consequently investments needed for MoS development could deal with the lack of adequate national public funds. Accordingly, the private sector must be used as a source of finance, possibly through public private partnerships (PPPs).
55 If EU co-financing has not already foreseen. 56 The ERDF and CF’s percentage applied for the Additional EU co-financing scenario could be overestimated because the lack of financial coverage concerns mainly port projects promoted by Northern Italian ports that lie within Regional Competitiveness and Employment regions. These regions show possible ERDF co-financing for infrastructural projects lower than Convergence regions. 57 Agreement among European Union member states, introduced in 1997, related to their conduct of fiscal policy.
Deliverable 6.2 76 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Partnership between the public and private sectors in port development is growing and is to be encouraged to make ports more responsive to the market and to enhance their competitiveness through viable investments in infrastructure and equipment, as well as in information technologies. The gap between current and adequate funding for MoS development can be faced through a better combination of public and private funds.
Chapter 4 “Public Private Partnership” of this document presents a classification of possible PPP structures in infrastructure projects, and analyses the possibility to combine EU grant funding with PPP for infrastructure projects.
2.3 Services financing and budget for implementation
The competitiveness of a MoS services is associated with high regularity, reliability and continuity characteristics. Besides, service frequency and punctuality must be high. Continuity of the service throughout all the year must be also guaranteed by the operators. MoS shipping vessels on the other hand must be adequately fast and reliable, particularly in terms of navigational / communications means and mooring flexibility.
The provision of a MoS service characterised by the above performances requires a great effort by the ship-owners. More specifically, the decision to operate a new route between two or more Mediterranean regions which are currently not linked with a MoS service is a very difficult choice to be taken by a maritime operator. The development of a new segment of a business is a very risky operation. Besides, the start-up of a new route is characterised by a relevant economic effort due to marketing and advertising costs, low profits due to the low level of the vessels’ load factor before the route will start to work at full capacity, installation costs incurred by the ship-owner at the ports in question in order to launch the route.
The analysis carried out on the main sources of funding available for MoS projects (chapter 1.3) and, more in general, for ports’ enhancement investments, has revealed that among the most direct ways to finance maritime transport services and, consequently, to give financial support for the start-up and/or upgrading of MoS connections, there are:
State aids that aim at attenuating financial difficulties of ship-owners concerning the start-up of new MoS services within the meaning of Article 1 of EC Regulation n. 4055/86. Allowing financial support to MoS services/routes, the European Commission could aim at improving the intermodal chain and
Deliverable 6.2 77 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
decongesting roads in the Member States (MS) through the promotion of sustainable and safe mobility.58/59
Marco Polo II Programme. It is the main European source of funding for transport services. The programme provides grants to transport service operators to facilitate a modal shift from the road to more environmentally friendly transport systems, such as short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways or to a combination of modes of transport in which road journeys are as short as possible. The idea is to assist supporting intermodal freight transport initiatives and alternatives to road-only transport in the early stages until they become commercially viable.
2.3.1 Methodology
During the first years of operation, a ship-owner starting-up a new MoS service is not able to totally cover operating costs applying market tariffs and to make profits. More specifically, a new service is not able to attract since the first year all the potential demand and the vessel’s load factor (LF) is lower if compared with the LF at full capacity. The difference between the LF recorded during the first years of operation and the LF at full capacity can be considered a start-up cost.
Within this context, the EC can approve state aids in order to attenuate financial difficulties of ship-owners concerning the start-up of new MoS services.60
According to the new Communication from the Commission providing guidance on State aid complementary to Community funding for the launching of the MoS, in the absence of Community funding, or to the extent not covered by Community funding, the Commission authorises State aid for the start-up of Marco Polo II MoS projects with a maximum intensity of 35 % of operational costs and a maximum duration of five years. The same will apply to projects selected under Marco Polo II but for which funding is finally provided through the ERDF or the CF.
Start-up aid to operational costs may not exceed the above-mentioned duration and intensity, irrespective of the source of funding. Aid can not be cumulated with public service compensation. The Commission also recalls that the same eligible costs cannot benefit from two Community financial instruments.
58 A full description of this financial mechanism is already provided within Deliverable 5“East Mediterranean Master plan of the Motorways of the Sea”, (chapter 4.2). 59 The same approach is already adopted within the air transport sector in order to support the start-up of new air routes according to the Community Communication 2005/C 312/01 on “Community guidelines on financing of airports and start-up aid to airlines departing from regional airports”. 60A new Communication from the Commission providing guidance on State aid complementary to Community funding for the launching of the Motorways of the Sea has been published on 11 november 2008 (ref.: 2008/C 317/08). According to that: “…Community support for star-up aid to a project may be granted to the extent it is deemed necessary for the viability of the project. Besides, start-up support is limited to two years with a maximum intensity of 30% to projects corresponding to Article 12aof Decision 1692/96/EC”.
Deliverable 6.2 78 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
These aids will be paid for a limited period and under certain conditions, in order to support the ship-owners with the necessary incentive to create new routes or new schedules to reach the traffic volume which will enable them to break even within a limited time period. The following tables show operating costs (fuel, crew, repairs and maintenance, depreciation/leasing, overheads) and revenues for the start-up of a MoS service that have been estimated according to literature data available for existing RoRo routes:
Table 2-9 - Operating costs for a RoRo route Unit of Cost Max Min Average measure Fuel 60,0 70,5 65,3 € / nm Crew 58.043 66.000 62.022 € / week Repairs and maintenance 20.490 40.000 30.245 € / week Depreciation / Leasing 40.000 45.739 45.739 € / week Overheads61 20% 16% 18% %
Source: Deliverable 6
Table 2-10 - Operating revenues for a RoRo route Unit of Revenue Max Min Average measure Tariff per linear meter per nautical 0,26 0,12 0,19 € / ml nm mile Source: Deliverable 6
If we consider a new MoS service characterised by the following operating hypotheses:
Route length: 130 nautical miles (nm), Type of vessel: RoRo Ship with a capacity of 1.600 linear meters (ml), Frequency: daily departure (50 week per year), the total yearly cost of a MoS service amount to about 14 M€, divided as follows:
61 Calculated in percentage on the other costs.
Deliverable 6.2 79 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Table 2-11: Cost of a MoS service by main item (%)
Item % on total cost Fuel 36,4% Crew 22,2% Repairs and maintenance 10,8% Depreciation/Leasing 15,3% Overheads41 15,3% Source: Deliverable 6
The incentive scheme adopted in this analysis aims at indentifying a discount rate on the fee (or a cluster of discount rate) that the ship-owner should give to the road hauliers in order to increase the demand to be captured and the vessel load factor during the first years. The difference between the full fee and the discounted one will be covered by a state aid. In this way, it would be possible to decrease the loss during the first years.
The following table shows a possible estimation of state aids’ co-financing for the start-up of a MoS service, carried out according to the operating hypotheses defined. The average elasticity of demand to price’s changes for freight’s maritime transport62 has been considered to estimate the tariff discount to be applied for the first three years of activity in order to allow an increase of the load factor and, consequently, of the total yearly revenues.
The financial burden coming out from the tickets’ share sold at lower price, applied for the first three years of activity, has been allocated between the ship-owner (60%) and the state aids’ co-financing (40%).63
A further operating hypothesis has been carried out before proceeding, defining ex- ante the yearly percentage of discounted tickets to be sold.64
Table 2-12 - Estimation State aid’s co-financing for MoS services % of State aids’ Tariff Year discounted co-financing discount (%) tickets € 1 30% -50% 762.048 2 20% -40% 428.652 3 10% -30% 134.479 Source: Deliverable 6
62 Elasticity: -0,8.For instance, a cut in prices of 10% means an increase of 8% in freight’s transport demand. Source: Deliverable 6 63 A similar approach is already adopted within the air transport sector in order to support the start-up of new air routes. 6430% the first year, 20% the second year and 10% the third year.
Deliverable 6.2 80 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Thus, during the first three years of operation, total State aids’ co-financing amounts to about 1,3 M€: total ship-owner’s losses without state aids’ support amount to about 3 M€, whereaw they could be reduced to about 1,6 M€ if public co- financing is available. Consequently, the MoS service could become profitable since the fourth year of operation.
The proposed scheme has some advantages in comparison with the Marco Polo II funding conditions that are related to:
the possibility to allocate a specific budget for new MoS routes while under Marco Polo calls, projects concerning the start-up of new MoS routes must compete with other kind of projects (related to common learning, modal shift, traffic avoidance and catalyst actions) for the same budget
the possibility to propose new MoS routes apart from the port dimension while Marco Polo calls refer only to category A ports,
the absence of a minimum threshold both in terms of project’s costs and modal shift generated, while Marco Polo requires a minimum indicative grant threshold per action of 2,5 M€ or a modal shift of 1.25 billion tonne- kilometres.
A possible estimation of Marco Polo funding for MoS services has been formulated, too.65 The Marco Polo co-financing has been considered for the first two years of activity and the final contribution has been defined according to the average value (about 2,3 M€) estimated on short sea shipping projects financed through Marco Polo from 2003 to 2007.
The estimations for the two funding options (State aids’ co-financing and Marco Polo co-financing) demonstrated how by providing direct funding to transport operators (e.g. ship-owners, road hauliers, etc.) which choose MoS services as mode of transport, could allow them to overcome the substantial financial difficulties concerning the launch as well as the promotion of such services. Funding new MoS connections, in compliance with state aids’ rules is the most direct way to support maritime transport operators and to develop MoS itself.
Moreover, financial instruments promoted by Member States could also be useful to promote modal shift from road to maritime transport. These instruments
65This is just an illustrative example that, possibly, underestimates the effective Marco Polo II financial support, according to the increasing attention that the European Commission is giving to the promotion of any innovative action that directly shifts freight from road to MoS. The same considerations could also be done for the upgrading of existing MoS services according to the principle that Marco Polo provides financial assistance to any innovative action directly shifting freight from road to short sea shipping or a combination of short sea shipping with other mode of transport, both for the start up and the upgrading of MoS services.
Deliverable 6.2 81 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study could, as for the Italian Ecobonus incentive, act as discounts on the maritime route for all road hauliers that choose the maritime transport instead of road.
Deliverable 6.2 82 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
3 Investments and time planning: micro level analysis
The overall analysis carried out in this chapter takes into consideration investments needed and time plan for realisation of the MoS projects that have been submitted to the 1st and 2nd “Call for proposals” on the 20 of May 2008, and the 15th of November 2009, respectively. These port projects have been evaluated as fundamental to operate the new MoS services.
According to the rules described in Chapter 1 for each EU and Member State source of financing, a funding breakdown has been defined. More specifically, EU funds have been allocated on the basis of the following criteria: Projects typology Maximum share of co-financing set-up for TEN-T funds Maximum share of co-financing set-up for ERDF and Cohesion funds Total funds available for TEN-T projects both in terms of TEN-T funds and ERDF and CF’s financial availability. Finally, on the basis of the above hypotheses, one possible funding scenario has been calculated, based on the figures provided, for the MoS services proposed in the submitted projects under the 1st and 2nd calls.
3.1 1st Call for proposals
On 20 December, 2008, the Hellenic Ministry of Mercantile Marine, Aegean and Islands Policy, the Ministry of Transport of the Italian Republic, the Ministry of Transport of the Republic of Slovenia, the Cyprus Ports Authority and the Malta Maritime Authority issued the 1st Call for the submission of MoS project proposals within the East-Med MoS Corridor as defined in the priority project No 21 of the TEN-T Guidelines66.
The objective of the call was to identify possible MoS projects that could contribute to the development of the TEN-T network and become part of the MoS Master Plan of the region. The proposed MoS projects should be of European interest and focus on the development of infrastructure, facilities and services throughout the transport corridor in order to:
facilitate a smoother integration of short sea shipping in the logistics chain,
reduce congestion,
66 The initial deadline for submission of proposals was set for the 20th of February, 2008 and was extended for the 20th of May, after the request from stakeholders for more time in order to prepare their MoS proposals.
Deliverable 6.2 83 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
streamline freight flows,
facilitate an efficient exchange of information and
encourage interoperability and co-modality in the logistics chain.
MoS projects should focus on achieving a door-to-door service, which shifts freight from long road distances to a combination of short sea shipping and other modes of transport, taking into consideration the fact that the following categories of items can receive financial support to investments under the TEN financial regulations67:
facilities and infrastructures open to all users on a non-discriminatory basis (e.g. lights, buoys, beacons, floating pontoon ramps in tidal areas, infrastructure for utilities up to the terminal site, direct land and sea access to port, electronic logistics management systems, information systems, safety and security measures, administration and customs, etc.),
Ways of ensuring year-round navigability (e.g. facilities for dredging, icebreakers and facilities for icebreaking for winter access).
The call issued was articulated in order to:
receive mature proposals for MoS projects that would be supported by the Member States concerned in the framework of various EU financing instruments, in particular the TEN-T and Marco Polo calls for MoS proposals of the European Commission,
receive MoS project ideas that would provide valuable input for the formulation of the East-Med MoS Master Plan that would set the priorities and formulate the viable scenarios for MoS networks in this region.
All project proposals were required at least to provide the mandatory information specified in the Call, to meet the minimum requirements for submission (eligibility criteria) and to display how they would contribute to the achievement of the objectives and priorities of the TEN-T network.
A total of 5 proposals were submitted on the 20th of May. Specifically:
• Igoumenitsa-Taranto
• Kavala-Limassol
• The Two Seas Project
• ADRIAMOS
67 According to the Vademecum issued by the EC in conjunction with the call for proposals TEN-T 2005 and Article 12a of the TEN-T Guidelines.
Deliverable 6.2 84 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
• Igoumenitsa-Koper
The overall method and criteria used to evaluate the above proposals are aligned with the criteria used for the evaluation of proposals in the framework of various EU financing instruments, in particular the TEN-T and Marco Polo calls for MoS proposals of the European Commission.
The proposals’ evaluation has been carried out by representatives of the competent Ministries and Authorities with the assistance of a specialized team of Consultants members of the Consortium implementing the study “Elaboration of the East Mediterranean Motorways of the Sea Master Plan” and by experts from the Technical Assistant’s working team.
The evaluation of the proposals was conducted through the application of a Delphi – Expert Opinion method. Specifically, a panel of experts from each participating country was assigned to undertake an independent evaluation of all 5 submitted proposals. In addition a separate panel of experts from the Steering Committee’s Technical Assistant was also assigned to undertake a parallel evaluation of all proposals. In order to facilitate the evaluation process, a structured evaluation table was prepared, it included the evaluation criteria and weights assigned which was also accompanied by a separate table for the submission of each evaluator’s comments.
3.2 1st Call-Projects description
3.2.1 Taranto-Igoumenitsa The proposal introduces a new RoPax line between the ports of Taranto and Igoumenitsa that aims at taking advantage of the increased trade and economic opportunities expected from the completion of the “Egnatia” motorway that connects Igoumenitsa to Turkey.
The new route will be able to serve the Adriatic, the Ionian and the Black Sea, resulting in trade flows towards the Balkan countries and Turkey, through the Egnatia Motorway. It will also attract traffic moving between Turkey and the EU and can also serve the ports of Thessaloniki and Kavala that are linked to the Egnatia Motorway. The goal is to develop a major axis for the South-Eastern Mediterranean area.
Currently, there is no connection between the ports of Taranto and Igoumenitsa. In addition to the RoPax service, the shipping line between Taranto and Igoumenitsa will also be able to accommodate a ro-ro service. The two ports plan to have the necessary equipment to accommodate unaccompanied trucks and provide logistics services for unloading, stacking and moving cargos from the parking areas in the port domain to the final destinations.
Deliverable 6.2 85 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
It is estimated that between 32.00068 and 33.000 trucks per year69 will be transported by the Taranto- Igoumenitsa maritime route.70.
The maritime route is planned to start by using a ship with a capacity of 150 trucks and it will operate twice a week (sailings from Igoumenitsa Friday and Monday) and from Taranto (Thursday and Sunday).
The major investments planned for the creation of the proposed new MoS route mainly concern:
reclamation activities for the port of Taranto (as part of the enlargement of a quay to be used for the specific route) and
improvements and equipment in the area of Piers 11 and 12 of the port of Igoumenitsa (to be used for the new line).
The following tables summarize the main service characteristics, the financial performances and the sources of funding (Table 3-1) of the project related to the MoS route between Taranto and Igoumenitsa. The investment will start to be remunerative from the first year of operation (even if just for 0,02 M€) and will arrive to achieve a net profit of 2 M€ by the tenth year of operating.
Table 3-1: Main service’s characteristics of the proposed MoS route between Taranto and Igoumenitsa
Ship Financial Proposal Modal shift Loading Time Vessel Speed performances capacity schedule In 2008, 31.312 - 31.895 trucks/year for 16 1st year: revenues tons useful 3 weekly amount to about 10 M€ weight per truck RoPax ship 1.500 linear departures in and the net profit to or 32.476 - (accompanied metres (one fixed days (up Taranto- 0,02 M € 33.080 goods): daily 16,5 knots hundred to five Igoumenitsa th trucks/year for 12 cost of about trucks and/or services per 10 year: revenues tons useful 10.000 € trailers) week during amount to about 14 M€ weight per truck the fifth year) and the net profit to 2 (with an increase M€ of +3% after 2008)
68 16 tons useful weight per truck. 69 12 tons useful weight per truck. 70 both directions, estimate for 2008.
Deliverable 6.2 86 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Table 3-2: Investments and sources of financing of the proposed MoS route between Taranto and Igoumenitsa (M€)
Sources of funding
Proposal Intervention Investment National TEN-T budget Contribution
Reclamation of sediments coming from the dredging activity of the sea soil next to the S. 7,00 4,90 2,10 Cataldo Pier Purchase and installation of four buffers 0,16 0,16 - Portable grantry for swap bodies 0,04 0,03 0,01 Widening and excavation of channel and 4,00 2,80 1,20 protection of coast Construction of 2 RoRo ramps 0,12 0,08 0,04 Taranto- Igoumenitsa Signalling devices on RoRo ramps 0,01 0,01 0,00 Portable fencing of the area behind Pier 11 and 0,04 0,03 0,01 12 for "unaccompanied" freight transport units Port Traffic Management Study 0,05 0,03 0,01 Traffic signalling of the area 0,09 0,06 0,03 Purchase of four tractors 0,20 0,20 - Design and installation of IT platform 0,25 0,18 0,08 Total 11,96 8,48 3,48
The proposal provides a multi-annual perspective of the project well beyond 2013 (up to 2028). The new route is expected to be financially viable and self-sustained in the future. In particular , the following considerations can be done:
Quality of the technical description - the proposal gives full understanding of overall project with good insight into possible outcomes and forecasted traffic to use the route. However, it has to be further improved, mainly with provision of detailed engineering drawings of the proposed hard infrastructure investments both in Taranto and Igoumenitsa sides;
Quality of the proposed investment plan - the proposal includes a complete investment plan that covers the entire operation period. There is a clear indication of what is being requested and the main funding sources have been identified (TEN-T - 30% and National Contribution -70%). However, the investment plan has to be revised so that it focuses on the real investment needs associated to the specific proposed service and its proper needs. Some of the proposed investment items are found not to be fully justified in this sense (for example there is no justification why there is a need for four tractors and four pier buffers in Igoumenitsa Port). Furthermore, cost breakdown structure has to be better
Deliverable 6.2 87 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
developed so that cost eligibility and justification may be effectively examined on an item by item basis
Maturity of the project - the proposal documentation (feasibility study / business plan) demonstrates high level of understanding of critical success factors, good knowledge of demand and traffic volumes and advanced assessment of interventions and costs required.
In general, the proposal satisfies eligibility criteria and is in line with MoS Concept.
The overall quality of the specific proposal was found to be at an acceptable level, since its overall design was supported by sound detailed studies (Market Analysis /Feasibility Study / Business Plan). It provides good level of detail, with sufficient supporting information regarding service description, intermodal connections and forecasts about modal shift (quantitative and qualitative information). However, there are issues that should be improved with further information and more in depth justification. Technical Description quality should be further improved including detailed engineering drawings of the proposed works, so that the technical solution and the economic scope are better enlightened.
The Investment Plan should be revised with better justification of proposed items, focusing on the real investment needs associated to the specific proposed service. he overall proposal maturity is still lacking TEN-T standards. Additional tasks that should be implemented are the following:
1. Socio – economic and environmental impact assessment
2. Elaboration of sea transport based multimodal logistics chain
Finally, it should be noted that the potential of the proposal is not so evident, according to the generic Master Plan analysis, because of the small impact it has in terms of effective modal shift.
3.2.2 Kavala-Limassol The proposed MoS route aims at connecting the new commercial port of Kavala "Philippos B" and the port of Limassol in Cyprus in order to:
shift traffic away from "Egnatia Odos" land motorway, Thessaloniki – Piraeus motorway and partially Bosporus straits, reducing road congestion,
facilitate the transport of regional goods and
increase the accessibility from / to Macedonia, Thrace, Bulgaria and other Balkan regions to / from Cyprus and Middle East.
Deliverable 6.2 88 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
The new route will use a direct container ship line between the two proposed ports. The maritime route is planned to start with two container ships per week with maximum ship capacity of 2.000 TEUs.71
The new service will include the provision of terminal facilities for ship container handling, temporary storage of containers, container stacking handling, power outlets (reefer points) for refrigerated containers and provision of information via port management information systems.
The investments required to start the new container line are outlined only for the port of Kavala and include mainly the procurement of plants and equipment (such as cranes, front lift trucks, reach stacker cranes, tug masters and trailers, etc.) and the implementation of a Port management information system and container management system.
The total estimated costs of the foreseen investments are approximately 19 M€ (30% TEN-T, 70% National Contribution).
The following tables summarize the main service characteristics and their financial sources of the project related to the MoS route between Kavala and Limassol. The proposal submitted to the call did not include a detailed business plan and the financial performances of this service are not available (within Chapter 5 “Action Plan” - par. 5.2, all the missing information of the call in or order to successfully apply for future TEN-T calls are described).
Table 3-3: Main service’s characteristics of the proposed MoS route between Kavala and Limassol
Ship Financial Proposal Modal shift Loading performances Vessel Speed Time schedule capacity Two The target value container of the modal ships per 4.500-5.000 shift is 1.000 week tons with Kavala- TEUs per week, Weekly (maximum 13,5 knots capacity of n.a. Limassol even if 500 TEU service ship 250-300 per week are capacity of TEUs each foreseen at the 2.000 TEUs beginning per month)
71 The targeted quantity of freight is 1.000 TEUs per week - total number load / unloads.
Deliverable 6.2 89 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Table 3-4: Investments and financing of the proposed MoS route between Kavala and Limassol (M€)
Sources of funding
Proposal Intervention Investment National TEN-T budget Contribution
Procurement of mobile crane and installation 3,00 2,10 0,90 Construction of port administration building 0,96 0,96 - Construction of coast guard building 0,96 0,96 - Construction of customs building 1,12 1,12 - Construction of customs warehouses 0,88 0,88 - Entrance checkpoint – Guardroom, 600m2 0,06 0,04 0,02 Entrance gates equipped with security system 0,06 0,04 0,02 Construction of Warehouse 0,70 0,49 0,21 Construction of Shed 0,54 0,38 0,16 Container entrance checkpoint 0,03 0,02 0,01 Blacktop and gravel 0,20 0,14 0,06
Kavala- Fencing, lineation &Signalling 0,10 0,07 0,03 Limassol Installation of electrical power supply for 0,20 0,14 0,06 mobile cranes Electrical substation 1.000 kVA 0,08 0,05 0,02 Electrical lines and points for reefers (60 0,34 0,24 0,10 points) Floodlight, searchlight and monitorship 0,11 0,08 0,03 system with cameras, Procurement of front lift trucks 0,65 0,46 0,20 Procurement of RSCs 1,54 1,08 0,46 Procurement, Installation & Implementation of Port Management Information System 0,40 0,28 0,12 (PMIS) Container Terminal Management Study 0,05 0,03 0,01 Total 11,98 9,57 2,41
The following considerations can be made according to the proposal contents:
Duration of the project - the proposal presents forecasted flows for the port of Kavala up to 2030, but detailed information on project duration is not provided;
Quality of the technical description - well structured proposal, good description of current service, proposed service and modal shift, investments required services planned, as well as capacity of partners to participate. Improvements should be made regarding the technical description of proposed investments (technical specification & characteristics), description of old route and shifting details and description of participating operator’s. It is also noted that the port infrastructure is adequate in terms of current flow but there are problems concerning the
Deliverable 6.2 90 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
operation and organization of the port hinterland area while the port also lacks sufficient long shoring facilities. Therefore the construction of the necessary port infrastructure is a prerequisite for the operation of the new route;
Quality of the proposed investment plan - there is a clear identification of investment needs and founding sources but the section could be improved with financial estimations and an effective investment plan;
Maturity of the project - proposal documentation demonstrates fair level of understanding of critical success factors, fair knowledge of demand and traffic volumes, advanced assessment of interventions and costs required. Further information on traffic volumes shifted and the time framework for the project would have enhanced the proposal.
In general, the proposal satisfies eligibility criteria and is in line with MoS Concept.
The overall quality of the specific proposal was found to be at an average level since its overall design was not supported by a sound and detailed Market Analysis, Feasibility Study and Business Plan. Service description and intermodal connections are analyzed providing some quantitative and qualitative information. However, the proposal lacks the multidimensional analysis / justification provided by a sound feasibility study for the specific route. In addition, further attention and details should have been given with the submission of a cost benefit analysis and a project investment plan.
The overall proposal maturity is lacking TEN-T standards. Additional tasks that should be implemented are the following:
1. Market Study and Feasibility Analysis
2. Investment Plan
3. Enhanced Technical Analysis
4. Socio – economic and environmental impact assessment
5. Business Plan
Finally it should be noted that there is significant potential for the Kavala – Limassol maritime route as derived from the Generic Master Plan Analysis (between the port clusters in which Kavala and Cyprus belong).
3.2.3 The Two seas project
The proposal aims at enhancing East Med MoS’ flows through the opening of a new MoS route between Ancona and Koper and the enhancement of an existing MoS services between Ancona and Igoumenitsa. It also aims at connecting the East Med
Deliverable 6.2 91 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study basin to the West Med basin through a rail link from the port of Ancona to the port of Civitavecchia.
The project would promote cargo flows originating in South-Eastern Europe (Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, etc) and Turkey bound to South-Western Europe and Northern Africa (Libya, Tunisia) and vice-versa.
Furthermore, a new MoS route between Ancona and Koper would allow the interception of flows from Central Europe (Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, etc). These goods are currently moved by road. Through the implementation of the proposed services a considerable modal shift to sea and rail could be achieved with consequent environmental benefits.
The proposal shows a possible average modal shift of 16.400 tkm for each truck shifted from the old all-road routes to the new intermodal routes. The MoS service between Ancona and Koper will be set up with daily departures with a scheduling arranged in order to allow the transhipment of goods to another MoS service or to trains. The train service between Ancona and Civitavecchia (via Foligno) will be arranged according to the scheduling of MoS services available in the two ports. The intermediate stopover in Foligno (Umbria) will allow to widen the service catchment area and then to increase the loading factor.
The train service, the new MoS service between Ancona and Koper and the improvement of the Ancona-Igoumenitsa service (using vessels with a significantly higher loading capacity than those currently operating the route) would allow to boost and optimise MoS flows within the Mediterranean Sea.
The infrastructural investments needed for the creation of the proposed new MoS route have been planned within all the ports involved (such as the development of the Scalo Marotti Area in Ancona, works included in Phase C’ of the Operational Plan of the Port of Igoumenitsa, a new Ro-Ro terminal in the port of Koper).
Furthermore, relevant investments concern:
start up costs for the launch of a MoS Service between Ancona and Koper,
start up of a train service devoted to cargo between Ancona and Civitavecchia,
a significant enhancement of the existing line Ancona-Igoumenitsa.
The proposal satisfies eligibility criteria and is in line with MoS Concept. It provides a good level of detail. Intermodal connections and forecasts regarding modal shift are analyzed in depth providing quantitative and qualitative information. More information on the functionalities of the IT systems as well as the flexibility of port services and the availability of simplified administrative and customs procedures could be provided.
Deliverable 6.2 92 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
An effective evaluation of the project maturity could be realized if the proposal is enriched with the following (based on TEN-T standards):
1. Market Study and Feasibility Analysis
2. Investment Plan
3. Enhanced Technical Analysis
4. Finally it should be noted that the proposal has displayed a good potential according
5. to the Master Plan analysis.
Finally it should be noted that the proposal has displayed a good potential according to the Master Plan analysis.
The following main considerations can be made according to the proposal contents:
Duration of the project - considering that this is a project idea, a detailed milestone plan of the global project was given spanning 2008 to 2012. The multi- annual perspective could be enhanced (the service description regards only expected development of traffic flow in the first five years of operation);
Quality of the technical description – it includes a description of transport/logistics chain shifted to new modally shifted route Ancona-Koper, port facilities and proposed investment, characteristics of the new route and of the existing route Ancona –Igoumenitsa, etc..;
Quality of the proposed investment plan - estimation of investment costs and potential sources of funding have been provided, however the investment plan could be further enhanced through the development of a business plan of the project. Further breakdown of costs and a clearer indication of sources would further enhance the proposals maturity.
Finally it should be noted that the generic Master Plan analysis does not cover the the total length of this MoS corridor, since it covers West Med MoS.In addition, no detailed investment plans are provided.Thus it will not be included in the calculation of the total requited amounts for TEN-T funding for the period until 2015
3.2.4 ADRIAMOS The ADRIAMOS project was originally submitted in the 1st East Mediterranean Motorways of the Sea Master Plan - Call for proposals. Nevertheless, on 31st July 2008, the project Coordinator met with the Technical Committee of the EastMed- MoS programme to discuss the details of the project. Based on the outcome of this meeting, an updated version of the ADRIAMOS Project, with an enlarged partnership consortium that included the port of Koper, was resubmitted under the 2nd
Deliverable 6.2 93 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Call for proposals. To this end, the analysis of the project is presented in Section 3.4.2 in the following.
3.2.5 Igoumenitsa-Koper The proposal introduces a new MoS Ro-Ro line between the port of Koper (Slovenia) and the port of Igoumenitsa (Greece). The new line will be able to serve the Adriatic, the Ionian and the Black Sea, resulting in trade flows towards the Balkan countries and Turkey, through the Egnatia Motorway, which will also attract traffic moving between Turkey and the EU. In addition, the new route can also serve the ports of Thessaloniki and Kavala via the Egnatia Motorway.
The route can constitute a major axis for the South-Eastern Mediterranean area and operate as a maritime gateway for the trading needs of the dynamic economies of Central and Eastern Europe, as both the ports of Koper and Igoumenitsa are situated in a very strategic position, providing connections to the wider area. Presently there is no connection between the two ports.
The new route is expected to serve General cargo with a volume target of 100.000 units transported annually (truck and trailer Ro-Ro traffic). The maritime route can start with a ship of a capacity of 200 units with an estimated service frequency of 3 calls per week.
Planned investments specified for the port of Igoumenitsa include the configuration of a pier and creation of a new port (about 30 acres) with a forecast for the construction of a cargo and Ro-Ro terminal and infrastructure of general and dangerous cargo.
On the other side, the Operational Plan of Koper foresees the following main actions and investments:
Pier I extension and doubling of container terminal handling and storage areas,
construction of a dyke around the area and of a 146.4m long and 34.40m wide quayside, together with a 45m wide hinterland construction,
construction of a new entrance to the port,
Pier III construction dedicated to a new container terminal.
The proposal satisfies eligibility criteria and is in line with MoS Concept. The proposal provides a relatively low level of analysis. It lacks the provision of information such as project duration, description of logistic chains, IT and simplified administrative procedures, detailed service characteristics, flexibility of port services, contribution to safety and security, modal shift estimation, socio-economic impacts etc.
Deliverable 6.2 94 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
An effective evaluation of the project maturity could be realized if the proposal is enriched with the following (based on TEN-T standards):
1. Market Study and Feasibility Analysis
2. Investment plan
3. Enhanced Technical Analysis
4. Socio-economic & environmental impact assessment
5. Business Plan
According to proposal contents the following main evidences can be given:
Duration of the project - the duration of the project is not clearly elaborated. Time span until 2013 presented for Koper, however more details in relation to Igoumenitsa investments have not been presented;
Quality of the technical description - the technical description of the project is not sufficient and a number of issues e.g. modal shift, logistics chain description etc. need to be more thoroughly addressed, supported and justified;
Quality of the proposed investment plan - the overall description just refers to the configuration of a pier and creation of a new port (about 30 acres) with a forecast of the construction of a cargo and Ro-Ro terminal and infrastructure of general and dangerous cargo (budget: 20.000.000 €). This description is not complete and should be further developed.
Finally it should be noted that the generic Master Plan analysis does not display substantial potential for the proposed route, and thus it will not be included in the calculation of the total requited amounts for TEN-T funding for the period until 2015.
3.3 2nd Call for proposals
In April 2009, the Hellenic Ministry of Mercantile Marine, Aegean and Islands Policy, the Ministry of Transport of the Italian Republic, the Ministry of Transport of the Republic of Slovenia, the Cyprus Ports Authority and the Malta Maritime Authority launched the second call for proposals with regards to the MoS in the East Mediterranean area. The call was addressed to consortia consisting of at least two ports/port terminals from two different Member States (one of which should be one of the five participant countries, Greece, Italy, Slovenia, Cyprus and Malta) and maritime transport operators located in any EU Member State. These were invited to submit Motorways of the Sea project proposals, as defined in the priority project No 21 of the TEN-T Guidelines
The 2nd call was also intended for MoS proposals to be evaluated and, if positively approved, included in the East Mediterranean Master Plan. Thus, the MoS projects
Deliverable 6.2 95 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study that would be considered mature could be further submitted by the respective countries for TEN-T co-funding, in one of the TEN-T call for proposals.
The main objectives of the call were the following three: a) identify MoS projects that will and become part of the MoS Master Plan of the East Mediterranean and contribute to the development of the trans-European transport network. b) positively evaluated MoS proposals, can be further submitted to the TEN-T and Marco Polo Call for Proposals for co-financing c) record the needs of the market (bottom –up approach) and thus develop the Master Plan of the MoS according to these needs
The proposed MoS projects should be of European interest and focus on the development of infrastructure, facilities and services throughout the transport corridor in order to: • improve existing maritime links or establish new viable, regular and frequent maritime links for the transport of goods • reduce congestion, • improve access to peripheral and island regions and States, • streamline freight flows, • facilitate efficient exchange of information and • encourage interoperability and co-modality in the logistic chain.
Furthermore, project proposals should be able to demonstrate how they will contribute to the achievement of the objectives and priorities of the trans-European transport network.
It was encouraged that the consortium partnership included a broad range of partners involved in the door-to-door logistic chain, including ports, shipping companies, terminal operators, road haulers, rail operators, logistics operators, ship brokers, local and/or regional public authorities and infrastructure owners, other transport infrastructure managers, etc. It was also encouraged that project proposals included partners from neighboring third countries to provide the extension of the proposed MoS to these countries.
The following two proposals were submitted on the 2nd call due date:
• Eleusis- Barcelona • Adriatic Motorways of the Sea - ADRIAMOS
3.4 2nd Call-Projects description
Deliverable 6.2 96 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
3.4.1 Eleusis- Barcelona
The proposal introduces a new viable, regular and frequent maritime route between the Port of Barcelona and the Greek port of Eleusis (notably the area of Athens), with a view to create a new door-to-door logistic chain and shift current freight transport between the Iberian peninsula and Greece, and between the Iberian Peninsula and Greece's neighbouring countries, from road to sea.
It was estimated that the new service linking Eleusis and Barcelona will achieve a 386.765.000 tkm/year shift from road to sea.
The maritime route is planned to start using one of two types of vessels, with a capacity of 1500 and 1850 (R45 units, i.e standard vehicle dimensions L:4.50 x W:1.70 x H:1.45), operating initially once a week increased to twice a week after a period of six to twelve months, based on market demand.
Apart from the maritime service, the main investments planned for the creation of the proposed new MoS route are the following:
Improvements of infrastructure and services in the terminal used by the maritime services in the Port of Barcelona and Eleusis
Improvement of the accessibility to the terminal in the Port of Barcelona.
A telematic network between both ports of Eleusis and Barcelona, in order to guarantee a secure documents exchange system
The following tables (Tables 3-5 and 3-6) summarize the main characteristics of the proposed service, as well as the main investments envisaged with related sources of funding of the project proposed MoS route between Eleusis and Barcelona. The investments planned for the port of Barcelona are not included in the Table 3-6, since the port is included in the WESTMOS Master Plan. In addition, the maritime service related cost is included as 50% of the total cost, since this will be divided between EAST and WEST Med MoS.
Table 3-5: Main service’s characteristics of the proposed MoS route between Eleusis and Barcelona
Ship Financial Proposal Modal shift Loading Time Vessel Speed performances capacity schedule
Deliverable 6.2 97 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
One service AEGLI/ weekly 386.765.000 OCEANIS No information given Barcelona- 1500/1850 increased to 2 tkm/year shift (DNV) trip cost 20/20.5 knots on estimated annual Eleusis (R45 units) services a from road to ship of around revenue week after 6- 204.000 € 12 months
Table 3-6: Investments and sources of financing of the proposed Eleusis-Barcelona Project (M€)
Sources of funding
Proposal Intervention Investment MARCO TEN-T budget POLO
Temperature control and electricity for 0,0125 0,0125 regrigerated truckd
Construction of control gates 0,21 0,21
Control room 0,035 0,035
Software check-in 0,035 0,035
Eleusis Fence 0,0389 0,0389 Security Cameras 0,039 0,039
Lighting 0,0700 0,0700
Surfing 0,05 0,05
Fenders 0,035 0,035
Total 0,52 0,52
Vessel purchase, port taxes, stevedoring, Maritime 6.8 1 5,8 bunkers, operating costs (50% of total)
3.4.2 ADRIAMOS The ADRIAMOS project aims at fostering and further developing the MoS Corridor between the north Adriatic range of ports and the Greek port cluster, by creating a sustainable and reliable network of ports to guarantee an efficient and effective transport system based on intermodal solutions. The project will support the transport of trailers, containers and bulk cargo by Ro-Ro ships along the axis: Venice – Koper – Igoumenitsa/Patra.
The main investments will be realized in the ports of Venice and Koper. Nevertheless, the project proposal includes the implementation of an open and interoperable Port Community Information System platform, in the ports of Igoumenitsa and Patra.
In more detail, for the Port of Venice, the intervention regards the construction of a new Ro-Ro terminal in the southest part of the former industrial site of Marghera. The new terminal will host all the RO-RO vessels calling at the port of Venice and will
Deliverable 6.2 98 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study play a central role as logistic park, where collection and distribution of goods loaded and unloaded from the vessels will take place.
In the Port of Koper the intervention includes the creation of a new RO-RO berth for loading and unloading of cars, which are stored in the vicinity of the berth area in the Port of Koper.
Finally, the implementation of a Common and Integrated Port Community System and Security System jointly with the port of Venice, is envisaged for the Ports of Igoumenitsa and Patra.
The following table 3-7 summarizes the main investments envisaged and the sources of funding of the ADRIAMOS project.
Table 3-7: Investments and sources of financing of the proposed ADRIAMOS Project (M€)
Sources of funding
Proposal Activity Investment National Project TEN-T Contribution Promoter budget
MoS terminal 24 - -
Fusina logistic platform cold ironing system Venice 138 accessibility to - 72.6 41.4 terminal re-adaptation of Malamocco-Marghera canal Koper new floating pontoon 43.42 - 33.4 10.02
Igoumenitsa port community and 2.2 - 1.54 0.66 Patra security system 24 107.54 52.08 Total 183.62
3.5 Total Infrastructural investments
The following table shows only the investments on infrastructures and facilities/services planned within the six proposals submitted during the two calls, that aim at obtaining TEN-T financing over the 2007-2013 period.
Table 3-8: Total Investments of proposals’ MoS projects
Deliverable 6.2 99 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Total MoS Proposal Project Ports cost Category corridor (M€) Reclamation of sediments coming from the dredging activity of the sea soil Taranto 7,0 Facilities for dredging next to the S. Cataldo Pier Port facilities, e.g. Portable grantry for swap bodies Igoumenitsa 0,04 equipment available to all users Widening and excavation of channel Water protection Igoumenitsa 4,0 and protection of coast measures Port facilities, e.g. Construction of 2 RoRo ramps Igoumenitsa 0,12 equipment available to all users Taranto- Lights, buoys, beacons;
Igoumenitsa Signalling devices on RoRo ramps Igoumenitsa 0,01 floating pontoon ramps in tidal areas Portable fencing of the area behind Pier Port facilities, e.g. 11 and 12 for "unaccompanied" freight Igoumenitsa 0,04 equipment available to transport units all users Port Traffic Management Study Igoumenitsa 0,05 Studies Lights, buoys, beacons; Traffic signalling of the area Igoumenitsa 0,09 floating pontoon ramps in tidal areas Design and installation of IT platform Igoumenitsa 0,25 Information systems
Total 11,3
Port facilities, e.g. Kavala- Procurement of mobile crane and Kavala 3,0 equipment available to Limassol installation all users Entrance checkpoint – Guardroom, Kavala 0,06 Port infrastructures 600m2 Entrance gates equipped with security Safety and security Kavala 0,06 system measures Construction of Warehouse Kavala 0,70 Port infrastructures Construction of Shed Kavala 0,54 Port infrastructures Safety and security Container entrance checkpoint Kavala 0,03 measures Port facilities, e.g. Blacktop and gravel Kavala 0,20 equipment available to all users Lights, buoys, beacons; Fencing, lineation &Signalling Kavala 0,10 floating pontoon ramps in tidal areas Installation of electrical power supply Kavala 0,20 Port facilities for mobile cranes Electrical substation 1.000 kVA Kavala 0,08 Port facilities Electrical lines and points for reefers Kavala 0,34 Port facilities (60 points) Floodlight, searchlight and monitorship Safety and security Kavala 0,11 system with cameras measures
Procurement of front lift trucks Kavala 0,65 Port facilities, e.g. equipment available to
Deliverable 6.2 100 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Total MoS Proposal Project Ports cost Category corridor (M€) all users
Procurement of RSCs Kavala 1,54 Information systems Procurement, Installation & Implementation of Port Management Kavala 0,40 Information systems Information System (PMIS) Container Terminal Management Kavala 0,05 Studies Study
Total 8,06
Port facilities, e.g. RoRo vessels loading and unloading Koper 3,2 equipment available to quay ramps all users New truck terminal at the main Koper 2,5 Port infrastructures entrance A new quayside with buffers Koper 13,8 Port infrastructures New main entrance to the port linking Infrastructure for direct Koper 1,50 the port with the highway land access Port facilities, e.g. two new railway trucks for loading of Koper 1,50 equipment available to trailers, semi-trailers and swap bodies Two-seas all users project and 30.000 m2 of fenced and illuminated Koper 2,50 Port infrastructures Koper- parking areas Igoumenitsa Port facilities, e.g. 2 Ro-La loading ramps Koper 0,01 equipment available to all users Offices and mobile office in container Koper 0,01 Port infrastructures IT systems Koper 0,10 Information systems Safety and security Investments in security Koper 0,04 measures Configuration of a pier and creation of Igoumenitsa 20,0 Port infrastructures a new port (about 30 acres) Total 45,2 MoS terminal of Fusina Logistics Adriamos Platform Implementation of cold ironing system for new MoS terminal Venice Port infrastructures 41,4 Improvement of road connection between road network and road terminal Readaptation of Malamocco-Marghera Canal in proximity of the new terminal Construction of new floating pontoon Koper 10,02 Port infrastructures for RO-RO vessels Development of port community Igoumenitsa Information systems system and security system 0,66 Development of port community Patra Information systems system and security system
Deliverable 6.2 101 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Total MoS Proposal Project Ports cost Category corridor (M€) Total 52,08 Lightening Eleusis 0,07 Port infrastructures Control gates-security Eleusis 0,38 Port infrastructures Eleusis- Automatic plate number recognition Eleusis 0.035 Port infrastructures Barcelona software Control room Eleusis 0.035 Port infrastructures Total 0.52
According to the proposals’ contents, a list of 48 projects coherent with the TEN-T eligibility criteria has been identified. The following Figures show the identified projects in terms of value and number of interventions, by Country and by main category of investment:
Figure 3-1: Value of projects submitted to the Call for proposals by category and Country (M€)
30
25
20 dredging plants and equipment safety and security intermodality 15 road connection Meuro squares, buildings and warehouses piers and docks study 10 terminal new technologies
5
0 Italy Greece Malta Slovenia Cyprus
Source: Deliverable 6&Technical Assistant Estimations
Deliverable 6.2 102 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Figure 3-2: Number of projects submitted to the Call for proposals by category and Country
18
16
14
12 dredging plants and equipment safety and security 10 intermodality road connection squares, buildings and warehouses 8 piers and docks study terminal Number of interventions 6 new technologies
4
2
0 Italy Greece Malta Slovenia Cyprus
Source: Deliverable 6&Technical Assistant Estimations
Deliverable 6.2 103 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
3.6 Financing infrastructure investments
The investments included in Taranto-Igoumenitsa and Kavala-Limassol proposals, as well as those in the two projects submitted under the 2nd call (ADRIAMOS and Eleusis-Barcelona) have been split on a yearly basis according to the methodology described in chapter 2 (par. 2.2.3). The remaining proposals have not been considered in the development of the funding analysis because of the poor degree of maturity still characterizing the submitted projects.
The following table (3-9) shows the yearly annual budget (2009-2013)72 of two of the proposals of the 1st call, Taranto-Igoumenitsa and Kavala-Limassol, as well as the two proposals of the 2nd call. ADRIAMOS and Eleusis-Barcelona.
Table 3-9: Total required funds of MoS proposals, (M€), 2009-2013
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Taranto-Igoumenitsa 3,1 4,3 2,2 1,5 0,2 11,3 Kavala-Limassol 0,3 5,3 2,4 0,0 0,0 8,0 ADRIAMOS 18,36 36,72 55,09 73,45 183,62 Eleusis-Barcelona - 0,73 1,47 2,2 2,93 7,32 Total 3,40 28,69 42,79 58,78 76,58 210,25
Source: Deliverable 6& Technical Assistant Estimations
According to the rules described in Chapter (par. 1 1.2) for each EU and MS source of financing, a funding breakdown has been defined. More specifically, EU funds have been allocated on the basis of the following criteria:
Projects typology
Maximum share of co-financing set-up for TEN-T funds
Maximum share of co-financing set-up for ERDF and Cohesion funds
Total funds available for TEN-T projects both in terms of TEN-T funds and ERDF and CF’s financial availability.
The time spanning for the funding analysis has been obtained by applying the percentage related to the TEN-T co-financing (20% for priority projects) to the time profile of the cumulated cost function. National73 public and/or private funds have been estimated as a residual source of funding.
72 The first year is 2009 instead of 2008 because of it is too late to apply for TEN-T call 2008. 73 All national, regional and local funds.
Deliverable 6.2 104 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Moreover, in the Two Seas project a new Ro-Ro terminal with accompanying infrastructure and investments is planned in the port of Koper for a total amount estimated at about 25,2 M€.
In the Igoumenitsa-Koper proposal the project cost estimated amount to 20 M€ related to the configuration of a pier and the creation of a new port (about 30 acres) with a forecast of the construction of a cargo and Ro-Ro terminal and infrastructure of general and dangerous cargo, in Igoumenitsa.
The TEN-T co-financing can be estimated applying to the total cost percentage of 20% related to priority projects. National public and/or private funds have been estimated as a residual source of funding.
Table 3-10 – TEN-T co-financing required
TEN-T co-financing National budget Project promoter Total cost (M€) (M€) (M€) Taranto- 9,1 11,3 2,3 Igoumenitsa Kavala-Limassol 8,0 1,6 6,4 ADRIAMOS 183,62 52,08 24 107,54 Eleusis-Barcelona 7.32 1.52 Total 210,25 55.98 39.5 107.54
Source: Deliverable 6& Technical Assistant Estimations
Furthermore, the Two Seas, (Ancona-Iogumenitsa, Ancona-Koper) and Eleusis- Barcelona projects intend to apply for Marco Polo II support (35% of service cost) in order to obtain financial support for the maritime transport services promoted in the proposals:
Two Seas project
• New MoS route Ancona-Koper (estimated yearly cost: about 14,8 M€)
• Existing MoS route Ancona-Iogumenitsa (estimated yearly cost: about 40 M€)
Eleusis-Barcelona project .(estimated 5,8M€)
Deliverable 6.2 105 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
4 Public Private Partnership
In the last years, the European contest has been characterised by a decrease of public investment as a share of GDP and by the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP)74 that introduced some constraints on governments’ abilities to spend during economic slumps. Consequently investments needed for MoS development could deal with the lack of adequate national public funds. Accordingly, the private sector must be used as a source of finance, possibly through public private partnerships (PPPs).
Public Private Partnerships (PPP) are risk-sharing relationships between a public agency and a private sector’s entity, with the aim of carrying out infrastructure projects or providing services to the public. Contrary to other concepts with private involvement such as privatisation or subcontracting, in a PPP there is balanced sharing of risks and responsibilities.
The advantage of this kind of structure is that it makes for a better spread of the risk, lower borrowing costs, particularly at the launch of the project, and a transparent management structure. Above all, it encourages the private sector to sign up for the public service aspect of projects and the public sector to be better aware of which business services can help making a project profitable.
The European Union is trying to get greater private-sector involvement in the funding of the TEN-T, by encouraging the development of PPPs. The Commission is keen for the private sector and private capital to be brought into projects as soon as possible, at the planning stage. Clearly, the better the risks are understood and spread, the greater the chances will be of bringing the private sector on board: it is thus the job of the public sector to minimise the political and legislative risks and those entailed in scheduling the project, whilst the private sector will bear the risks of planning, financing, construction and traffic.
The EU’s legislative framework is not specifically designed for PPPs, but for general contract and concession schemes.75
Furthermore, the new TEN-T Financial Regulation includes instruments to promote PPPs, such as the Loan Guarantee instrument in which the EIB is a risk-sharing partner for infrastructure PPP. The risk capital participation is another financial facility that aims at promoting private investments in infrastructure projects.
At national level, PPP expertise centres are organised as separate entities or as government agencies, and provide detailed information on national rules and procedures for PPP trajectories.
74 Agreement among European Union member states, introduced in 1997, related to their conduct of fiscal policy. 75 The Commission aims at implementing a new regulatory framework for PPP in the area of public procurement law.
Deliverable 6.2 106 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
PPPs in transport infrastructural projects generally involve concession or Build- Operate-Transfer (BOT) contracts, which usually entail a mix of construction, operation, commercial and financial issues.
The long-term accessibility of funds for infrastructure managers is often not guaranteed, as it often depends on the chosen national framework and on political choices. It is therefore important that all financing opportunities, including PPPs, are explored to create a basis for execution of as many infrastructure projects as possible.
The possibility to grant public contributions for PPPs deals with the potential reduction of harmful emissions, if it takes large numbers of road vehicles off the roads.
The RoRo operator Grimaldi, for instance, calculated that, by taking into consideration the larger RoRo vessels entering on the sea route Salerno-Valencia in 2010, it will be able to load 296 trailers with a CO2 emission level of 752 kg per trailer76, compared with the 2.003 kg per trailer’s emissions that would have occurred if the same amount of cargo had been moved by road.
CO2 emissions, converted into monetary values77, represent a strong reason to justify public contributions on PPPs concerning MoS that aim at promoting maritime transport instead of road transport.
4.1 PPP Models
This part of the document presents a classification of possible PPP structures in infrastructure projects, as the use of various PPP models may be essential for developing the organisational and financial frameworks for TEN-T projects.
Under PPP arrangements, private sector contractors become long term providers of services rather than simply upfront asset builders, combining the responsibilities of designing, building, operating and, possibly, financing assets in order to deliver the services needed by the public sector. As a result, central and local government agencies become increasingly involved as regulators and focus resources on services’ planning, performance monitoring and contract management, rather than on the direct management and delivery of the services.
Relevant PPP structures and relationships, moving from minimal to maximal private sector involvement, are described following:
Public Procurement Model (Traditional Financing)
76 Over a 30-year period. 77 According to methodologies applied to the calculation of main costs of transport.
Deliverable 6.2 107 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
This is the traditional public procurement model, which governments have relied on to develop their infrastructure systems. With this approach designated government agencies, such as a ministry or a public authority, are vested with the responsibility of developing infrastructures. These agencies typically elaborate master plans prioritising needs and then arrange the financing, design, and construction of individual projects. Once a project is completed it is then operated and maintained by the agency, together with the other assets under its care.
Under the traditional public procurement model, government agencies can use the services of the private sector for the design and construction, with the awarding of individual contracts made on a competitive basis. However, the participation of the private sector does not usually extend beyond these functions.
Within the Model there are various ways to involve the private sector. One is the Contracting Model, in which a contract is arranged with a private party to design and build a public facility. The facility is financed and owned by the public sector, but the agreement allows the transfer to the private party of the design and construction risk. As a result, this model does not attract private finance.
BOT Model
Under the BOT (Build, Operate, Transfer) Model a contract is arranged with a private or publicly owned project company, to design, build and operate a facility for a defined period, after which the facility is handed back to the public sector. The facility is financed and owned by the project company from completion and throughout the contract period. The key driver is transfer of the operating risk, design and construction risks to the private sector. The extent of the Government support / guarantees depends on the project’s cash flows and rates of return.
In this joint venture type of PPP there is a joint commitment of the public and the private sector throughout the project’s life-cycle. Both public and private parties share the responsibility, the risks and the financing to the extent of their shares in the projects.
The BOT model implies the transfer to the private sector of operating risk in addition to design and construction risk. As a result, the model may not attract private finance and commit the public sector to providing long-term finance. However, if risk sharing between public and private sides is adequate, it is likely to reduce investment costs and the project’s delivery period.
The financial funding may be as follows:
Public sector: EU funds, National funds, Local funds;
Private sector: IFI Debt, Commercial Debt, Private Equity.
Deliverable 6.2 108 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Concession-type of PPP (DBFO-BOOT)
In a pure concession model, the private sector takes on all (100 per cent) of the investment. Instead of sharing project risks, public and private parties divide ex -ante the identified risks by contractual arrangements about responsibilities, risks and financing.
Concession types are most common in the current PPP practice. The following two are the possible structures of concession models:
DBFO;
BOOT Model.
DBFO Model
Under the DBFO (Design, Build, Finance and Operate) Model a contract is signed between a government body and a private party, responsible to design, build, finance and operate a facility for a defined period, after which the facility reverts to the public sector. The facility is owned by the private sector for the contract period and it recovers costs through public subsidies. This model allows the use of private finance and the transfer of design, construction and operating risks to the private sector. The project’s financing in the DBFO Concession may be as follows:
Public sector: EU, National Funds, Local Funds;
Private sector: IFI Debt, Commercial Debt, Private Equity.
Funding guarantees may be required to fund the project. The Public sector may provide grants and/or subsidies, but it remains a minority investor.
BOOT Model
Under the BOOT (Build, Own, Operate and Transfer) Model a contract is arranged with a private party to design, build, finance and operate a facility for a defined period, after which the facility reverts to the public sector. Under this scheme, the private sector acts as the infrastructure manager throughout the contract period and it is the unique financier of the infrastructure. Accordingly, the sources of financing for the facility are as follows: Private Sector, EU, National/Local Government, IFI Debt, Commercial Debt, Private Equity.
Deliverable 6.2 109 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
BOO Model
Under the BOO (Build, Own and Operate) Model a contract is arranged with a private party to design, build, finance and operate a facility. The facility is owned by the private sector and it recovers costs from user charges. The Model’s key drivers are the use of private finance and the transfer to the private sector of the design, construction and operating risks. The possible financial sources, raised by the private sector, as it is the unique financier and owner of the facility, may be as follows: Private Sector, EU, National/Local Government, IFI Debt, Commercial Debt, Private Equity.
Funding guarantees may be required.
4.2 Summary of PPP Models
The following table and diagram summarize the main features of the above-mentioned PPP Models, to be considered as the rationale in identifying the appropriate case study for each PPP model.
Table 4-1: Main features in PPP models
PPP Type Application Financing
Public Sector as the funder, using: - Capital projects with small - operating requirement - EU Funds Traditional Financing National/Local Funds Contracting Model - Capital projects when the public - sector wishes to retain operating - IFI Debt responsibility - Commercial Debt
Public and Private Funding: Public Sector: - Projects that involve a significant - EU Funds operating content BOT Model - National/Local Funds - Particularly suited to water projects Private Sector: - IFI Debt - Commercial Debt Public and Private Funding: Public Sector: - EU Funds - Projects that involve a significant - National/Local Funds DBFO Model operating content Private Sector: - Particularly suited to roads - IFI Debt - Commercial Debt - Private Equity Private Sector as the funder, using: - Projects that provide an - EU Funds opportunity for the introduction - National/Local Funds BOOT Model of user charging - IFI Debt - Particularly suited to roads - Commercial Debt - Private Equity
Deliverable 6.2 110 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
PPP Type Application Financing
Private Sector as the funder, using: - Projects that provide an - EU Funds opportunity for the introduction - National/Local Funds BOO Model of user charging - IFI Debt - Particularly suited to airports - Commercial Debt - Private Equity
The private sector involvement in financing port and other infrastructure works involves sophisticated tools for financing these facilities and legal conditions to be satisfied strictly by the project. The private sector evaluates its participation in port infrastructure and superstructure projects based on the following elements:
Expected yield
Adequate debt/equity financing structure
Strong sponsorship
Solid legal contracts
Transparent legal framework
Fair and open bidding procedures
Credible feasibility analyses (technical, institutional, financial, economic, and environmental)
Funding large infrastructure investments in greenfield port projects is more risky because of certain complicating factors, including:
The large proportion of necessary equity contributions due to the high risk associated with long construction and payback periods
The difficulty of projecting future traffic volumes
The capital-intensive nature of the investments
The continuing risks associated with operations, such as a refusal of requests for tariff adjustments, changes in tax policy, or introduction of new handling techniques that make existing facilities obsolete
The following diagram shows the level of involvement and the consequent risk undertaken by the public and private sector in each PPP model
.
Deliverable 6.2 111 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Figure 4-1 – Public/Private involvement in PPP Models
Public involvment Private involvment
Traditional Public Build-Operate-Tranfer Design-Build-Operate- Build-Own- Build-Own- Sector (BOT) Transfer Operate-Transfer Operate Procurement (DFBO) (BOOT) (BOO)
Public Owner/ Public Owner/ Private Public Owner/ Public Owner/ Public Owner Private Operator/ Financier Public Owner Concessionaire Owner FinancierOperator/ Financier Financier Private Concessionaire Operator Contractor O Contractor O Operator p p e e Contractor r r Operator Contractor Engineer Engineer Operator a a Engineer Contractor t t o o Engineer Engineer r r
Traditional Financing BOT Model Concession Schemes BOO Model
Public Sector
Private Sector
Deliverable 6.2 112 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
4.3 Combining EU grant funding with PPPs for infrastructure projects
EU grants are defined by Council Regulation (EC) 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the ERDF, the ESF and the CF. The common objectives of these European Funds are:
Structural Funds attributed by the European Commission to Public Administration can extend their financing capacity carrying out the additional role of EU funds. The intervention of a private entity to carry out an infrastructure project represents a substitution role. Combining PPPs with EU funds can allow a higher financing capacity for infrastructure projects without increasing the Public Administration’s contribution. Hybrid PPP is a partnership between a public and a private entity when levering EU structural funds, so combining private capital and EU grants.
Examples of hybrid PPP models are:
Private Operation and Maintenance: the construction phase is clearly separated from the operating and maintenance phase, with two different contracts (a tender for suppliers and a tender for operators). EU grants may only co-finance capital expenditures. Design Build Operate (DBO): the public entity discharges the duties of the construction and the operating and maintenance phases on a private entity, but remains the only entity to bring capital expenditure to the partnership. EU grants may only co-finance capital expenditures.
Parallel Co-finance of Capital expenditures: the public entity discharges the duties of the construction and the operating and maintenance phases on a private entity, and also allows the private entity to bring capital expenditure to finance a part of the construction phase. EU grants may only co-finance the remaining part (the one not financed by the private entity) of the capital expenditures.
Joint Finance of Capital expenditures: the public entity discharges the duties of construction and operations phases on a private entity, and also allows the private entity to bring capital expenditures to the whole partnership. EU grants may only be used to co-finance capital expenditures.
Grant Co-financing of Availability Payments: the public entity devolves to the private entity nearly all the responsibilities, including construction, operation, maintenance and financing of the project. The private entity is paid for its responsibilities during the operation and maintenance phase in the form of availability payments. The European Commission intervenes to pay availability payments linked to capital expenditures and public entities will finance the remaining part of availability payments, i.e. the availability payments linked to operating expenditures.
Deliverable 6.2 113 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
The following table summarizes the main characteristics of the above mentioned hybrid PPP models.
Table 4-2: Main characteristics of hybrid PPP models
Private Operation and Parallel Co-finance of Grant Co-financing of Design Build Operate Joint Finance of Capex Maintenance Capex Avail. Payments
Eligible beneficiaries for European Public Entity Public Entity Public Entity Public Entity Private Entity Grants Eligible expenditure for grant co- Capex (via availability Capex Capex Capex Capex financing payments)
Tender criteria suitable for PPP Regulation (EC) N°1083/2006 articles 37 to 41 define the tender criteria independently of the PPP model
Public Entity (exceptionally Asset ownership Public Entity Public Entity Public Entity Private Entity Private Entity)
Timing of the PPP relating to the At the beginning of the Tender process must take Tender process must take At the beginning of the No particular difficulty grant process whole contract (constr into account the private into account the private contract with agreement on & operation) construction financing payments scheme Private Entity: contractor Private Entity: fund raiser, Private Entity: fund raiser, Private Entity: fund raiser, Private Entity: contractor (2X) contractor (2X), contractor contractor, asset owner, Role of the key stakeholders in PPP Public Entity: contracting Public Entity: contracting Public Entity: contracting Public Entity: contracting fund beneficiary and grant terms authority, fund raiser, fund authority, fund raiser, fund authority, fund raiser, fund authority, fund raiser, fund Public Entity: contracting beneficiary, asset owner beneficiary, asset owner beneficiary, asset owner beneficiary, asset owner authority
Financing and operating Financing and operating Operating revenue risk Risk Allocation revenue risks remain on the revenue risks remain on the High level of risk transfer High level of risk transfer remains on the public entity public entity public entity
Reporting issues
Audit issues Common issues to all PPP models
Tax issues
Deliverable 6.2 114 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Combining EU grant funding with PPPs is not the best solution for all projects, however, it is still worth to be considered, especially in the following cases:
some EU funds are available, but not enough to finance the whole investment. It is reasonable to consider public funds first, since they are “free”, and so their use makes the cost of financing cheaper than in the case of a PPP. Therefore, blending them will be most suitable especially for very large, capital intensive projects, the type of project makes it most suitable to use the advantages of the PPP structure and, for example, to transfer several risks on to the private partner (e.g. construction, availability or traffic risk) or use a private partner’s experience in the implementation and management of this type of projects. In such situations, in order to use the private partner’s experience it is necessary to allow him a return on equity investment. On the other hand, the use of some EU funding could lower the overall cost of financing, PPP seems to be a good solution, but support (also political and institutional) of the EU would be an advantage in order to start the works. Therefore EU funds may be mainly used to co-finance the preparatory works and hence bring the project to life, the project is well prepared at the beginning of the budgetary period so that the procurement process to choose the private partner (including negotiations) and the construction will easily end before the final date for the project’s budgetary period. A project that aims at being financed in the form of blending EU grants with PPP should:
fulfil the EU funding criteria (be in line with the requirements of a particular priority axis), be attractive for private investors potentially interested in a PPP project, have a proper timeline, allowing to be implemented within a financial horizon, so that the procurement, negotiations and construction would easily fit into one programming period. Large PPP projects take a long time to implement, and if they are to be co-financed by EU funds, they must be really developed and prepared at the beginning of the budgetary period, fiting into a financial horizon. It is recommended to analyse how the additional time necessary for starting the project will impact, not be too advanced. There are several rules relating to EU funds (e.g. procurement requirements, promotion requirements) that must be respected in order to receive the EU funds. The risk of procedural problems should be mitigated, in order to ensure the payment of funds, be supported by a financial analysis and a CBA, attesting this form of financing as the best solution for this project, including a state aid analysis, which may have an impact on the level of co-financing.
Deliverable 6.2 115 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
The new rules for Revenue-Generating Projects (article 55 of EC Regulation 1083/2006) provides that for PPP projects, which by definition must produce revenues in order to be financially viable, a financial gap approach has to be adopted. According to this approach, the grant rate must be applied to the eligible expenditure calculated as the investment cost minus the discounted net revenue generated by the project.
Figure 4-2 -Financial gap approach
DISCOUNTED PROJECT REVENUE *
Funding Gap Year 0 Year 10 Year 20 Year 30 Invest. Costs + Revenue Opex Investment Costs (Year 0 Capital Investment)
DISCOUNTED PROJECT OPERATING COSTS (Opex) *
* Net Revenue = Revenue – Operating Costs
In most revenue generating projects which may be structured as PPPs, the private sector would only be willing to fund investment up to the amount matched by the discounted net revenue stream (e.g. by using loan or equity funding with the expectation of repayment, with suitable return, from the net revenues of the project). Therefore any private funding may be considered to be “matched” against the net revenue generated by the project, and not be part of the financing gap.
4.4 PPP applications for MoS projects
At EU level, there are currently no application of PPP schemes for financing MoS projects. With respect to other type of traffics (e.g. bulk, container, etc), MoS services do not usually require high level of investments in types of facilities & equipment to service vessels and move cargo. More specifically, the accompanied traffic of a MoS service requires good hinterland connections, a fast access to the port area and quays, some space close to the embarking /disembarking berths and some services for the drivers. However, in the recent years, something is changing. More specifically, two main trends can be highlighted:
concentration of traffic in a limited number of ports that can guarantee: fast access to the national road and rail networks, good services for drivers (ferry terminals, parking areas, quick access to the port area), etc; increasing in the percentage of non-accompanied traffic that requires some additional services with respect to the accompanied traffic.
Deliverable 6.2 116 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
In the port characterised by a relevant number of MoS services and a high percentage of not accompanied traffic, there is the possibility to provide additional intermodal transport services (e.g. promote the intermodal transport from ship to rail). In this case, more investments would be need in order to develop intermodal terminals in the port area to manage the Ro-Ro traffic. Thus, PPP schemes could be applied to involve the private sector to financing port infrastructures or superstructures. The most suitable PPP model that could be used for MoS terminal is the concession. More specifically, the schemes described below are the most common ones:
Lease: • Flat-rate lease. The general characteristics of this system/contract are: a specified sum of money (usually for infrastructure) is to be paid for a specified period of time, lease is a fair return of the value of the property, inflation adjustment of the lease is optional (but recommended). Figure 4-3 - Flat-rate system
Infrastructures (e.g. quays, basins, land)
Private companies Superstructures (e.g. stevedoring, ware housing, (e.g. pavement, rail Port Authority transport, industrial, € tracks, cranes, repair/maintenance, service sheds, equipment, Flat rate (€) companies and customs) etc.)
The lessee pays for use of land and for right of berth
• Shared revenue lease. The main characteristics are: lease computed on the basis of a minimum lease plus a compensation (often referred to as ‘Royalty’) per move (preferably) on a decreasing scale, a model may be a combination of a fixed and variable Royalty (based on performance), the lessee guarantees a minimum annual compensation, inflation adjustment. BOT schemes. A contract is arranged with a private or publicly owned project company, to design, build and operate a facility (e.g. a rail terminal) for a defined period, after which the facility is handed back to the public sector.
Deliverable 6.2 117 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
5 Action Plan
The Action Plan aims at identifying possible lines of intervention and projects in order to promote the development of the East-Mediterranean Motorways of the Sea and to increase the infrastructural equipment and efficiency of transport systems. Two different types of actions have been identified:
horizontal actions (par. 5.1), concerning general interventions that can be implemented to improve the overall performances of the MoS services without a focus on a specific route or link.
vertical actions (par. 5.2), which are related to specific activities that have to be carried out to implement the MoS project submitted under the call for proposals issued on 20 December 2007
The Action Plan is necessary to enhance the competitiveness of MoS services in the Eastern Mediterranean and pursue EU, Member States and Port Authorities’ goals in terms of economic growth and job creation. More specifically, it can contribute to foster dialogue among the stakeholders, overcoming current bottlenecks (physical and administrative ones), facilitating access to EU sources of financing, etc..
The time planning (par. 5.3) and the annual budget (par. 5.4) needed to implement the actions identified have been than estimated on the basis of the market needs and bottlenecks to be overcome to enhance the MoS services.
Once the proposed actions are implemented, it is important to monitor their impact, in order to verify their implementation and the extent to which they are fulfilling their objectives. Thus, the Action Plan needs an implementation monitoring mechanism (par. 5.5) to find out where discrepancies in respect to the actions’ goal are and what they are due to, for instance: the problem definition has not been accurate, objectives are not relevant and/or attainable, parties do not have a full comprehension of the policy or are not able to implement it, etc.
5.1 Horizontal actions for the development of MoS services
The horizontal actions aim at achieving general objectives very important at EU, national and local level. More specifically, the following actions have been identified to promote the development of the MoS:
Enhance awareness and understanding of market opportunities among transport operators in the Eastern Mediterranean area.
Increase the competitiveness of the MoS services (e.g. enhancing infrastructure capacity, improving multimodal transport, reducing administrative costs on
Deliverable 6.2 118 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
business and price levels, innovation and technological development to improve competitiveness, etc);
Social cohesion and improvement of environmental sustainability (impacts on safety and security, impacts associated to the adoption of a “green Minimum requirements for MoS”, etc)
The following table shows ten main goals that could be fulfilled by the Action Plan. For each goal, the relevant actions and the instruments to achieve it are also presented.
Table 5-1: Action Plan: horizontal actions
Main No Goal Action Instruments Objective
Implement Institutionalise the dialogue comprehensive among the stakeholders and promotion plan provide for annual reporting on: Creation of a promotion centre for Financial instruments to the Eastern Promotion of support the MoS Mediterranean MoS: Fostering development Motorways of the 1 dialogue and Sea diffusion of best New market practices opportunities for the Master Plan (to be stakeholders (e.g. Port updated annually) A Authorities, ship- owners, road hauliers, Annual workshop for etc) MoS in the Eastern Mediterranean Best-practices Web-site
Set up a programme to Overcoming the Develop a statistics data establish an EU Port partial lack of system for MoS services Data Framework, 2 information based on voluntary statistics involving potential about MoS contributions from industry data providers (e.g. services on freight transport Port Authorities) Enhance awareness
Improve direct routes Enhancing between main MoS corridors Finance port projects B 3 infrastructure (e.g. parking areas, quays, with EU funds (annual capacity facilities, land connections, calls for proposals) etc)
Marco Polo II Programme Improving Finance investments to 4 multi-modal develop rail-sea intermodal National sources of transport transport financing for the development of combined transport Increase competitiveness in
Deliverable 6.2 119 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Main No Goal Action Instruments Objective
Port Authorities of Member States could promote calls Fostering the for tender in order to grant Calls for tender for 5 launch of new public contribution to ship- new MoS routes routes owners for the launch of new MoS routes among Member States’ territory.
Establish a single window Multimodal waybill and one-stop administrative Single transport shopping for administrative document procedures in all modes Simplification dealing with a MoS service. One-stop-shop 6 of customs procedures Promote electronic Separation of area in submission of port to split passenger documentation and data and freight flow to requirements for import and Schengen and to non- export of goods. schengen zones
Promote harmonization of information systems among Implementation of Developing e- the stakeholders involved in pilot projects to freight (ICT) the provision of services develop an integrated 7 and Intelligent related to the MoS (Port system to include: port Transport Authorities, ship-owners, authorities, road Systems (ITS) forwarders, road hauliers, hauliers, ship-owners etc)
Promote service and Setting minimum standards Green MoS corridors 8 environmental applicable to "green" labels, Promote ISO 14.000 quality including for verification. certification certification
Security Minimum C Risk analysis and design of requirements for MoS a comprehensive supply (e.g. ISPS Code78, Enhancing chain security programme operation of VTMIS79 9 freight transport for MoS services security system in port) Promote education and Statistics and reporting training on incidents Improvement of environmental environmental of Improvement sustainability and social cohesion
Overcoming hampering Evaluation of the impact effects for the Implementation of a D 10 produced by the proposed development of monitoring system actions the MoS services MoS services’ services’ MoS effectiveness
78 International Ship and Port facility Security Code 79 Vessel Traffic Management and Information System
Deliverable 6.2 120 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
A) Enhance awareness
The dialogue among the stakeholders appears to be the most important driver to improve productivity on MoS routes. This can be achieved through the implementation of a comprehensive Promotion Plan supported by the establishment of Promotion centres created by public bodies to implement the promotion plan, disseminate information, and generally help operators on different issues such as:
Existing EU funds and incentives;
Market overview and trends;
Best-practices.
Statistics and information availability represents a key factor of success for private operators. More specifically, a well-functioning system for gathering statistics is a precondition for good planning by the private sector. However, even if statistics help to satisfy the needs of policy makers, marketing departments and transport modellers, the filling in of questionnaires costs much time and imposes significant costs to the industry.
Within this context, public bodies could play a central role in collecting the relevant data and then disclosing the main outcomes to the private operators by means different tools (e.g. annual reports, web-site, etc). An initial outline of a promotion plan including promotion activities already planned can be found in Annex III.
The promotion of MoS among East Med Countries needs to institutionalise the dialogue among the stakeholders and provide periodic reporting on main MoS’ developments. There are several instrument to be considered in order to develop promotional activities, for instance:
Implement comprehensive promotion plans,
Creation of a promotion centre for the Eastern Mediterranean Motorways of the Sea (that interacts with national focal points)
Annual workshops for MoS in the Eastern Mediterranean
Web-site
Other
The implementation of an effective Promotion Plan (including advertising, conferences/events, media relations, web-site, etc.) needs an average yearly budget of about 0,6 M€80.
80 Source: Deliverable 6. Main cost drivers: Events/Conferences ,Publications, Advertising, Media relations, Web-site, logos.
Deliverable 6.2 121 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Moreover, the institutional set-up of a promotion centre for the East Mediterranean area needs an yearly budget of about 1,3 M€81 (whereas a national promotion centre needs an yearly budget of about 0,5 M€).
B) Increase in competitiveness
The competitiveness of MoS services depends on many factors. From the operators’ point of view, an efficient service of transport can be provided once physical and administrative bottlenecks are overcome. More specifically, the stakeholders’ position has been evaluated on the basis of a survey carried out by DG TREN in December 2006 (“Bottlenecks’ exercise”).
Concerning the MoS services, the analysis of the contributions from the bottlenecks’ exercise provided the following main results:
Maritime transport: the main bottlenecks are related to infrastructure (capacity and/or congestion), administrative procedures, policy and regulation;
Intermodal transport: stakeholders complained about the presence of bottlenecks because of administrative burdens and infrastructure inadequacies (missing routes, scarce capacity and/or congestion)
Figure 5-1 Stakeholders’ view by transport mode
1. Infrastructure 1.Infrastructure 1. Administrative / 1. Infrastructure 1. Policy / regulation a. Capacity/ procedures, a. Missing links 2. Infrastructure congestion a.Physical bottlenecks 2. Infrastructure b. Interoperability a. Missing links 1. Administrative / b.Capacity / a. Missing links c. Capacity/ b. Capacity / procedures, congestion b. Capacity / congestion congestion 80% 2. Policy / regulation 2.Policy / regulation congestion 2. Policy / regulation 3. Administrative 70%
60%
50%
40%
Frequency 30%
20%
10%
0% Maritime transport Inland Waterways Intermodal Railway Road Transport Training ITC Equipment Interoperability Administrative / procedures Capacity / congestion Policy / Regulation Infrastructure
Source: Preparatory study for an impact assessment on an EU Freight Logistics Action Plan, 2007
81 Source: Deliverable 6. Main cost drivers: Staff, Location (lease), Advertising, Promotion material, Web-site, Information events.
Deliverable 6.2 122 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
According to the MoS concept, physical bottlenecks concern:
Port capacity (berths dedicated to RoRo, availability of parking areas for accompanied and unaccompanied traffic, etc)
Land accessibility (connections between ports and land networks):
• Road transport is currently predominant, as most transport operations begin and end with it. Ports rely on road transport for up to 65-70% of cargo movement by land. Thus, it is fundamental to provide easy access, flexible opening times, safe and secure parking space and sufficient storage space for goods awaiting transport.
• Railways are essential to connect ports to their hinterlands in a safe, economic, environmentally friendly and reliable way. Rail transport is often seen as a public service rather than a commercial one. There is a general need for better railway infrastructure in ports to improve the quality and capacity of the available land transport.
Carriers and forwarders favour ports with efficient and appropriate surface transport connections, ports which are less congested and where goods can go through very quickly. Thus, there is a great need to fund both at EU and National levels the port infrastructures necessary to overcome the types of bottlenecks listed above in all the countries included in the core study area.
The analysis carried out within the Deliverable II – Chapter 9 “Logistics Initiatives and Business/Commercial Activities influencing the future patterns of cargo flows” – already shows how ports are deeply interrelated to the development trends of logistics and to transport issues. Key elements for port competition include the provision of value added port logistic services (distribution centre, logistics hub), the establishment of dry ports and port networking, the maximum reduction of port contribution to the transport generalized cost of the chain, and the improvement of traditional port services.
The development of MoS services depends not only on efficient hinterland connections and port infrastructures but also on information and communication technologies (ICT). If connections between ports and transport networks are crucial to reach the market, ICT is fundamental because it allows different modes of transport to synchronize their activities, improving competitiveness, quality of service, punctuality and efficiency in transport. ICT/ITS applications’ contribution to improve the dynamics and efficiency of MoS service includes:
simplifying administrative procedures, providing e-based solutions for creating a “paperless environment”.
enhancing infrastructure use and intermodal efficiency;
Deliverable 6.2 123 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
improving vehicle (rail, road, ship) and container utilisation;
tracking and tracing;
security compliance;
There are still several problems hampering a broad diffusion of ICT/ITS applications in MoS services, which can be summarized as follows:
the MoS service organization itself, often dominated by SME82s’ operators acting to optimise their own processes (lack of coordination, lack of an intermodal chain’s view);
different technological standards exist;
ICT/ITS equipments’ cost threshold is still too high for SMEs;
administrative procedures at all levels are heterogeneous, not standardized, hampering the standardization of the systems (e.g. customs).
This leads to:
lack of coordination, which can be overcome by SMEs’ system integration;
lack of systems standardization, which can be overcome by promoting research and trial activities;
lack of communication between operators, which can be overcome by the definition of a minimum data set (for customs procedures, security controls, environmental risk management, etc.) to be contained in a single transport e- document.
The diffusion of ICT/ITS is without any doubt a precondition for the creation of efficient MoS routes. Up-to-date technologies, in fact, are necessary to support the infrastructure management and allow passengers and freight traffic’s coexistence, increasing capacity, to a given extent, also in the absence of new infrastructure investments.
More reasons supporting the positive impact of ICT/ITS’ tools implementation were considered in dealing with administrative compliance and customs simplification which mainly need the use of information systems. The creation of a paperless environment as well as the savings in time and costs are deeply linked with a broad diffusion of such systems, with a new design of all the related procedures.
It shall be reminded that ICT/ITS’ tools diffusion must be accompanied by training measures for the workforce. A sub-categories for this action is the development of a regulatory framework for standardisation of information and technology.
82 SME = Small and Medium Enterprises
Deliverable 6.2 124 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
As mentioned above, administrative costs for compliance with the new developed standards will result in higher administrative costs for SMEs and business operators, while costs related to financing measures will only apply to public authorities (alternatively, the EU and Member States).
It must be mentioned, anyway, that the increased requirements for operators regarding the information to provide, and which should be readily available, will result in an increase of administrative burdens for business operators.
As anticipated, administrative procedures can also be a bottleneck limiting the development of MoS services. For instance, intra-EU feeder, Short Sea Shipping and MoS services are treated like international traffic and presently the necessary information has to be submitted through different agencies, each with its own specific procedures and forms. Because of the existence of many different security systems, the information is not always provided in a common, understandable and interoperable language. The only standard model for detailed data exchange and mapping is the one of the World Customs Union. The IMO FAL Convention provides a set of forms for carrying out the formalities of vessels when arriving in or departing from a port. Directive 2002/6/EC requires all Member States to recognise these forms and the categories of information they contain as a sufficient proof that a ship has fulfilled the reporting formalities for which the forms are intended.
The customs burden in ports for vessels and cargo coming from or bound to EU countries should not be any heavier than the one applied to land transport. In fact, at the moment shippers and shipping lines frequently change ports because different Member States implement the same EU legislation in different ways: this affects the competitiveness of several EU ports.
The Single Window concept will refer to a single electronic entrance point at which economic operators will supply information required by customs and by other services involved in border control. The operator may carry out from this single entrance point of his choice any customs transactions in the Community, even if the movement of goods involves different Member States and regardless of the place where their goods enter or leave the Community.
Electronic customs also entail the creation of a One Stop Shop, which refers to the combined performance of customs controls and other controls such as veterinary and environmental controls so that goods are checked by all authorities at the same time and at the same place.
Separation of areas in ports
Another useful measure would be the physical separation in ports of areas reserved to short sea shipping (in particular for Container traffic and Ro/Ro traffic). One or more piers could be exclusively dedicated to vessels performing intra-EU short sea shipping, with special administrative offices for going through the administrative
Deliverable 6.2 125 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study procedures. The benefit of this measure would be a more rational management of port traffic and a speeding up of vessels’ turn around times in ports.
An example can be drawn from the regulatory framework applicable to passenger ferries operating between two Schengen Member States. The Italian port of Bari has scheduled passenger ferry lines with Croatia, Montenegro, Albania and Greece. Such ferries operate from two different piers: one reserved for EU Schengen countries (Greece) and one for non-EU, non-Schengen countries (Albania, Croatia, Montenegro). The pier for Schengen countries has no physical separation from the rest of the port area and passengers and vehicles can easily embarked and disembarked with no controls. On the contrary, in the pier for non-Schengen traffic, the area is fenced and passengers and vehicles do not have free access to the port area. They first have to go through customs and passport controls. A similar system could be set up for vessels performing Short Sea Shipping, for instance holding the Licence for an “Authorised Regular Service”, with dedicated terminals and services.
There is a disadvantage of economies of scale and (only in some cases) high infrastructure costs, but there are also several benefits to be considered, in particular:
elimination of the problem of priority given to deep-sea vessels;
ships no longer suffering from delays could offer optimized and faster round trips;
smaller ships used in shuttle services that call only at few ports have shorter dwelling times and can offer a higher frequency;
port and ship operators could focus on pallet-wide European containers and other load units for compatible ships.
One-stop administrative shops for traders.
Setting up administrative desks in ports, where to go through all administrative procedures would allow for faster administrative operations and for a reduction of costs for ShipMaster.
The Single Window concept has been defined at UN level as a “system that allows traders to lodge information with a single body to fulfil all import or export-related regulatory requirements”83.
The establishment of one-stop administrative shops inside port areas would have a greatly beneficial effect for short sea shipping. Currently, vessels need to interface with several parties in ports, in order to carry out the required administrative procedures. This has an important influence on costs, the speed of goods handling process and the system’s overall reliability. Establishing a single desk, where all paperwork would be dealt with, would be highly beneficial.
83 European Commission, DG TAXUD, Working Document TAXUD/1241/2005 – Rev.5, “Single Window at Community Level”, page 5
Deliverable 6.2 126 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
The advantage of a one-stop-shopping setting would be the speeding up of administrative procedures and the time reduction in carrying out the formalities for ships and cargoes. Moreover, a framework would be established, in which transport operators and agents responsible for processing documental formalities would be able to carry out all procedures at the same time with a single administrative counterpart. The actions that would need to be taken are both at EU and at national level. Indeed, Member States should adopt a legal framework to regulate one-stop-shopping services, with coordination at European level. Hence, the stakeholders involved are the European Commission, individual port administrations, customs, veterinary departments, maritime health, etc.
It is obvious that this Measure would be coupled with that of electronic data transmission, whereas information would be exchanged between vessels and authorities in an electronic format as much as possible. Another by-Measure is that of organising “one-shot inspections”, by which all the authorities that need to board the ship in port (e.g. veterinary, phytosanitary, environmental, health, safety etc.) for inspections would do it in a coordinated way and at the same time. In this way delays would be reduced and vessels’ turnaround times improved.
A best-practice example is provided by Finland. This country has a single window system, called “PortNet”, serving both the vessel-related data exchange and the cargo- related data exchange. The system does not incorporate only the network intended for ports and ship agents, but supports also the SafeSeaNet (SSN) network, including AIS. PortNet covers all the ports of Finland and acts as a single window for all port administrative formalities, in all Finnish ports. Each and every ship calling at a Finnish port has to provide information regarding its timetable, route, cargo, any hazardous cargo and maritime fees.
Enhanced electronic data transmission
Integration of the existing networks for monitoring sea traffic and for customs clearance and the integration of the SafeSeaNet system would allow for faster turnaround times for vessels in ports; thus for less costs.
Several vessel traffic monitoring systems are currently in place in the European Union, or are about to be implemented. Each one fulfils a different objective.
Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) are ship-borne transponder systems designed for maritime safety and collision avoidance. Vessel Traffic Services (VTS)84 are systems intended to establish maritime safety in particular areas of dense shipping. They are primarily operated in ports and in coastal regions where there is an increased risk of collision. Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) is a messaging system for security purposes, mandatory for vessels of over 300 GT in international
84 The VTS infrastructure consists of a station onshore where the staff maintains a picture of the local maritime traffic. It uses radar and communication links with ships by VHF radio, fax or phone. This system is designed for the safety of the larger ships;
Deliverable 6.2 127 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study voyages. The regulation entered into force on 1 January 2008 and the LRIT system will be operational with respect to the transmission of LRIT information by ships from 30 December 2008.
There are also several other networks for sharing information on vessels’ traffic between Member States, such as SafeSeaNet, a system to exchange information to prevent pollution and accidents at sea. All data about vessels and traffic are stored in MS databases, with index information stored in the European Index Server (EIS). This is hosted by the European Commission. The MS data that have to be accessible via SSN include: Port notifications, Dangerous goods notifications, AIS reports, MRS reports, Alert notifications, Waste notifications and Security notifications.
However, one of the main shortcomings is the fact that these networks are often not integrated with each other.
Hence it would be useful to carry out an integration of AIS, VTS and Safe Sea Network systems. The integration of the maritime surveillance systems will provide a much more enhanced tool for the monitoring of vessels and traffic tracking. This would ease administrative procedures of ships entering or leaving ports, as well as customs procedures. Indeed, customs authorities will be certain of the EU-origin of the vessel and will clear the goods much more swiftly.
In addition, it would be useful to set up an integration of port information systems, to reduce the use of paper documents and thus speeding up port operations of vessels. About 40% of ports still uses paper-based documents, often as a duplicate of information already provided in an electronic format. A wider use of electronic information technologies, the automation of entry processes and the link of different information systems could produce a considerable time economy.
There are some efforts already made in this direction, especially with regard to customs procedures. In order to increase practical co-operation and co-ordination among national customs authorities in South Europe, under the framework of the Customs 2002 programme it has been established a network called ODYSSUD85.
A possible reference best practice is provided by the PortNet system86, developed by the Finnish Maritime Authority. It is an ICT system, where telecommunications and an information system are combined together. The user interface for the PortNet system is Internet-based. The main user groups for the system are the Customs, Port Authorities, Ship Agents, Stevedoring Companies, Maritime Administration, Vessel traffic operators, and the Frontier guard. The Finnish Maritime Administration is the host of the PortNet system that is used nationwide for vessel traffic in Finland. Each
85 ODYSSUD: contact group of customs managers in the major EU southern ports of Barcelona (Spain), Marseilles (France), Trieste (Italy) , Piraeus (Greece), Koper (Slovenia), Marsaxlokk (Malta) and Limassol (Cyprus). 86 Cfr. Single Window Implementation, The experience of Finland, Rolf Backstrom (Finnish Maritime Authority), presentation given at UN/CEFACT Symposium on single window standards and interoperability, Geneva 3-5 May 2006.
Deliverable 6.2 128 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study and every ship calling at a Finnish port has to provide information regarding its timetable, route, cargo, any hazardous cargo and maritime fees. The best way to submit this information is the PortNet system. Before its introduction, at the beginning of the 1990s, in Finland there were 6-8 mandatory forms to be completed manually at ships’ arrivals and departures in ports. Most of the information was identical in about 80% of these forms. They were largely distributed by letter, fax or courier to the Custom’s, Maritime, Ports Administration, Port Authority, etc.
Today most of the procedures and document could be managed in electronic form.
Single document for all administrative procedures
Another useful measure for simplifying administrative procedures would be the introduction of a single document, which would be used for all the procedures. Such document, replacing the several documents currently used, would greatly simplify procedures. However, this measure would need to be coupled with that of “one-stop- shopping”, whereby all the administrative procedures can be processed in a co- ordinated fashion amongst the various entities, and with that of electronic data transmission. This “single document”, would contain all the information of the existing documents, cargo-related and vessel-related.
Redundancies would be eliminated, while keeping the same previous information, with a uniform standard form. The benefits of this measure would be to speed up administrative procedures, reducing the time needed to carry out the formalities for ships and cargoes, establishing a framework in which the transport operators and agents responsible for processing documental formalities do this only once and not separately for each authority. Therefore, the use of paper-based documents would be greatly reduced, and better co-ordinated.
Issuing of Pilot Exemption Certificates (PEC)
Member States should create a regulatory framework which permits easier pilotage exemptions for regular shipping services (e.g. allowing operators holding a Regular Shipping Licence to apply for PECs in an easier way). This measure would entail lower costs for short sea shipping operators and faster turnaround times of vessels in ports. The actions required for the implementation of this proposal would need to be taken at national levels and coordinated among national authorities.
Calls for tender for new MoS routes
The initial Call for Tender issued by the Steering Committee on the 20th of December 2007 concerning the submission of MoS project proposals within the East-Med area was a crucial first step in the mobilization of the main stakeholders in the East Med region (ports, operators, logistics providers, etc.) and in initiating a process of closer cooperation and networking among all stakeholders.
Deliverable 6.2 129 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Although there were higher expectations regarding the number and maturity of the proposals received from this call, there are important lessons to be learned from the entire process applied and it is well documented from efforts of other EU MoS efforts (West MoS, Baltic) that the process of mobilizing the stakeholders is a long and continuous effort that has to be tackled in an organized, systematic and focused manner.
Some of the important lessons observed from this 1st call are the following:
1) There is a generally low awareness regarding the concept, goals, opportunities and financing capabilities of MoS in the East Med region. This was evident in all the promotion activities undertaken before and during the call (i.e. Call Conference organized, Consultant interviews with stakeholders, etc.). Even though the call achieved to mobilize part of the stakeholders, it is evident that the promotion and dissemination of information regarding the development of MoS in the region will need to be a continuous and systematic effort in order to be effective. This role, as suggested above, can be undertaken by a Promotion Centre that will have the responsibility to implement a comprehensive promotion plan. The Promotion Centre can represent a “one stop shop” for the continuous dissemination of all information to interested stakeholders.
2) There is generally a low level of targeted market intelligence and market related statistics in the East Med region that hinders stakeholders from identifying and enacting plans to take advantage of trends and opportunities in the market for the development of new MoS lines. This lack of information was one of the contributing factors for the generally low level of maturity of the proposals received in the call. It most probably was also one of the reasons for the generally low interest in the call. A significant step towards improving the market intelligence & statistics in the region is the Master Plan under preparation. The opportunities identified for the development of new MoS lines will provide a valuable input to all interested operators in order to plan future investments. It is obvious though that the Master Plan will not be an effective tool in the long run if it is not updated annually in order to take into account the rapid changes in the business environment of the region (i.e. establishment and/or discontinuation of lines, changes in trade patterns, unforeseen deterrents like petrol prices, ect.). The Master Plan should be a dynamic tool that will guide the market to new opportunities and as such should be supported throughout the planned period for the development of MoS in the region. This responsibility strategically could be undertaken by the Steering Committee and supported by the proposed Promotion Centre.
3) There is a generally low level of information regarding the level of service and the standards utilized for the provision of services in the region (i.e. standards for provision of port services, performance data regarding established maritime lines, ect.). This creates a problem for stakeholders willing to develop new MoS lines
Deliverable 6.2 130 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
since there is no concrete information available to substantiate the improvements in service relating to planned investments and in effect there is no effective way to measure the effectiveness of these investments. The establishment of Minimum requirements for MoS that will quantify key performance indicators (as proposed in the Master Plan) is a first step in achieving the goals set out by the EU for the establishment of MoS lines. But it is only a first step, since maintaining minimum requirementss depends greatly on the ability of operators to measure current performance and to compare that with industry best practice. To achieve this, as already mentioned above, the proposed Promotion Centre would also have to undertake another crucial role of mobilizing the industry (ports & private operators) to collect key performance data and of compiling - disseminating this information. This will enable prospective MoS proposers to focus future proposals for establishment of MoS lines in investments that will actually achieve the objectives set by the EU.
4) There was a general reluctance of private operators to commit themselves into the creation of new MoS lines, mainly due to the high risk perceived for these type of investments and the general lack of effective incentives and support, especially during the start up period. Proposed incentives like the “eco bonus” concept may enable a greater mobilization of the industry for the creation of MoS lines but also more focused incentives (for specific corridors) agreed by the Member states involved may have an even greater impact (as displayed in the West MoS). A more focused and targeted approach for the issue of future calls, where the call focuses on a specific corridor (among those identified in the Master Plan) and takes into account the special market conditions and capabilities of the industry in that specific region, may result in persuading private operators to commit resources in the creation of MoS lines.
Taking into account the above, some suggestions for the improvement of future calls for tenders are the following:
Issue future tenders focused on specific MoS corridors identified in the Master Plan
Agree specific policy incentives, mainly in the form of financial support, among the member states involved in the corridor and include them in the call. This could involve allocating specific government funds to subsidize the new lines for a specific period.
Implement focused and intense promotional activities before and during the call (Conference, road show, direct mail, etc.). Intensify networking activities among stakeholders to help them formulate strong consortiums.
Link the proposal requirements and evaluation criteria to specific Minimum requirements goals based on the Minimum requirements for MoS proposed in the Master Plan. Until an East Med MoS mechanism is set up to measure minimum
Deliverable 6.2 131 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
requirementss (Promotion Centre) the Steering Committee can set as a requirement that the stakeholders involved in the proposal (ports, operators, etc.) submit data substantiating their current levels of quality (this data can be used to set up an initial database to measure minimum requirementss in the future) and include a condition that they are required to commit themselves in the effort that will be undertaken by the Promotion Centre to continuously monitor minimum requirementss in MoS ports. In addition the call could stipulate that a main criteria for approval is the achievement of a 20% increase in the overall quality of the proposed service (20% was the minimum level of increase that produced significant improvements in the assignment run in the Master Plan – KPI scenario).
Set up a pre-submission support mechanism (help – line) in order to clarify issues raised by prospective proposers. This could involve pre-screening of investments planned and general guidance to increase the maturity of the proposals. It should also include dissemination of market intelligence and statistics.
C) Improvement of environmental sustainability and social cohesion
The development of the MoS services must guarantee to the community the respect of specific standards concerning the environment, safety and security.
The analysis carried out within the Deliverable I – Volume II, Chapter 11 “Safety, Security and Facilitation Measures” – gave an overview of the international regulation of Maritime transport that impacts on MoS development in the East-Mediterranean, made of a complex framework of provisions set by the International Maritime Organization (e.g.: SOLAS 1974, MARPOL 73/78, STCW 1978, etc.) and enforced by the European Union Legislation (e.g.: a common Policy on safe seas, ERIKA 1 and 2 Packages, etc.). The European Union also developed a specific package of provisions concerning Ro-Ro ferries and services with the objective to enhance safety and security measures.87
The East-Med EU Countries are aligned with the European and international regulatory framework and implemented the most relevant measures on safety and security issues (included the regulation of Ro-Ro traffic).
The increasing size of ports makes them ever more difficult to integrate into urban environments. At the same time, their size increases their attractiveness as economic growth poles, leading to a further concentration of activities.
However, ports can enhance the environmental performance of freight transport within the Community by promoting the use of shipping, and by influencing the inland modes of transport chosen by international trade.
87 Regulation (EC) No 3051/95, Directive 1999/5/EC, Directive 2002/84/EC, Directive 2003/25/EC.
Deliverable 6.2 132 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Environmental management techniques are progressing, but at a different pace in different ports. Some ports have voluntarily taken on a leadership role, whilst others have followed more reluctantly because of the costs of investing in the necessary technology and equipment. Large ports are more likely to be compliant with international conventions than small ones, which may not have the skills or resources to provide the necessary services.
Economic and environmental interests need to be reconciled through a more effective spatial planning which takes into account the integral role of ports in the logistics chains, the need for accessibility, and the environmental impact of land transport links. The needs of future generations of ships should also be considered as larger ships will have to enter ports during smaller tidal windows in those ports where dredging is restricted, resulting in congestion in the approach channels. Water depth restrictions may also limit the use of inland barges.
Finally, before building new port capacity, the scope for improving productivity of the existing installations should be investigated.
Some actions could be implemented to mitigate the impact of the development of MoS services:
forcing the ships not to use low sulphur fuels to shut down the engines and pay for the electricity provided by the port during mooring, or
differentiating service tariffs on the basis of some features of the ship, such as the fuel used, particulate emission, water treatment/discharge needs, etc., or
differentiate tariffs on the basis of safety levels adopted by the ships (for instance, double hull for oil tankers), etc.
These options may be very effective from the point of view of environmental protection, but could be very difficult to adopt in a mandatory way without creating bias in the competition among ports and transport modes. The inclusion of external costs should also represent a benefit for sea transport, based on the consideration that this transport mode has a lower emission factor per ton of goods transported, compared to other transport mode: thus the external cost of inclusion should not only be limited to the port side.
An example of this kind of option is more likely to be voluntarily adopted by operators, not influencing pricing of port services, but actually allowing ports to save money when the cost and the actions of environmental prevention are at least partially voluntarily borne by ship operators. The requirement to speed up the adoption of double hull oil tankers, under the pressure of oil companies and some national governments, which has been adopted by the EC in Regulations 417/2002(4)/EC and 1726/2003/EC, may be considered as an example.
Deliverable 6.2 133 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Another important countermeasure to be strengthened in ports could be the general “polluters pay” principle, which establishes that any environmental damage must be paid by the party which caused it. The strict adoption of this principle may have some effect in insurance tariffs, both on the side of ship operators or on the side of port administrations, but it is not expected to significantly affect port service pricing.
Another key element to be taken into account for the development of MoS services is related to port security and safety.
A public Port Authority may have certain administrative tasks devolved to it by the State, such as safety and security, and border post functions (customs, immigration, health). Key elements of supply chain security include:
Risk Analysis, which provides the foundation and justification for the implementation of appropriate security measures. The evaluation should include a review of many elements including crime rates, value of assets, effectiveness of law enforcement and the criminal justice system in the place of operation, past incident activity, and the potential for natural/man-made disasters. Once a risk evaluation is completed, a comprehensive supply chain security program can be designed and implemented. Risk analyses should be periodically reviewed and updated to include business/environmental changes.
Physical Security: includes security measures that monitor and control the facility’s external and internal perimeters.
Access Control, in order to prevent unauthorized access to the facilities, conveyances, vessels, aircrafts, shipping, loading docks, and cargo areas.
Personnel Security, which is concerned with the screening of employees and prospective employees, as allowed by the law.
Education and Training Awareness, encompasses education and training of personnel in the security policies and awareness of deviations from such policies, in order to decide the actions to be taken.
Procedural Security, which ensures a recorded and verifiable introduction and removal of goods in to the supply chain. Procedures should provide for the security of goods throughout the supply chain. Contingency procedures should be included within the scope of procedural security.
Information security ensures that the information is protected against the exchange, loss and introduction of erroneous information.
Accident Reporting and Investigations, which ensures appropriate tracking and information coordination capability within an organisation.
Deliverable 6.2 134 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Documentation Processing Security, which ensures that the information is readable and protected against the exchange, loss, or introduction of erroneous information.
Trading Partner Security, which extends supply chain security to suppliers and customers. Communication, assessment, training, and improvement are key components.
Conveyance Security, which provides protection against the introduction of unauthorized personnel and material into the supply chain, including the areas between the links of the supply chain.
Crisis Management and Disaster Recovery: such procedures include advance planning and establishing processes to prepare, coordinate, and operate in extraordinary circumstances.
Supply Chain Security Stakeholders can be identified in:
Trade / Industry;
Governments;
Port Authorities / Terminal Operators.
The industry, in cooperation with Member States, government agencies, standards organizations, port authorities, key trading partners and other entities, is responsible for establishing and implementing supply chain security, in order to guarantee the safety of people, countries, and trades.
Governments, in cooperation with government agencies, standards organizations, port authorities, industry, key trading partners, and other entities, are responsible for establishing or endorsing security guidelines so as to ensure the safety of people, countries, and trades, and for establishing or endorsing the means by which supply chain security representations may be validated.
Port Authorities and terminal operators’ security is designed to protect the port facility and ships, persons, cargo, cargo transport units and ships’ stores within the port facility. Many standards supply chain security elements belong to port authorities and terminal operators.
The Communication of the Commission “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on enhancing supply chain security” [COM(2006) 79] has set out the essential policy lines regarding freight transport security. Legislative measures were proposed as the most realistic and focused approach to enhance security for European freight transport.
Deliverable 6.2 135 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
The goal of the Proposal was to enhance supply chain security in order to provide greater protection for all European freight transport against possible terrorist attacks. In details, the objectives of COM(2006)79 were:
to increase the level of security along the supply chain without impeding the free flow of trade;
to establish a common framework for a systematic European approach without serious problems for the common transport market and for the existing security measures;
to avoid unnecessary administrative procedures and burdens at European and national levels.
The measure proposed aimed at:
establishing a mandatory system requiring Member States to create a security (“secure operator”) Minimum requirements for MoS which can be awarded to supply chain operators when meeting European minimum security levels, thus allowing a mutual recognition of the label on the internal market;
introducing, within the mandatory provisions for the Member States, a voluntary scheme under which operators in the supply chain increase their security performance in exchange for incentives;
making operators in the supply chain responsible for their security performance in European freight transport;
allowing “secure operators” to benefit from facilitations where security controls are carried out and to distinguish themselves from other competitors in the area of security, giving them a commercial and competitive advantage;
allowing regular updating and upgrading of security requirements, including recognised international requirements and standards, through the committee procedure.
5.2 Vertical actions: next steps for each MoS proposals
Five proposals have been submitted under the call issued on 20 December 2007 concerning MoS project proposals within the East-Med area (as defined in the priority project no. 21 of the TEN-T Guidelines).
Taranto-Igoumenitsa and Kavala-Limassol are mature proposals that can be supported under the TEN-T and Marco Polo calls for MoS projects; while ADRIAMOS, the Two Seas project and Igoumenitsa-Koper are project ideas to be further developed in order apply for the above mentioned calls.
Deliverable 6.2 136 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
According to TEN-T calls’ criteria, the following table (5-2) describes the main issues to be developed for both kinds of projects in order to successfully apply for future TEN-T calls.
A scoring system has been defined, showing how much each requirement should be further developed according to proposal’s typology, using the following scores:
Excellent Good Fair Poor Missing
Table 5-2: Criteria to be met by each project, in applying to the call for proposals
Proposals Form/ Document / information to be Criteria Sub-criteria Document provided No. 1* No. 2**
Non-technical summary of the Missing Missing environmental study Environmental Information about the Impact Form B1 - consultation with the Assessment - Missing Missing section 3.3 competent environmental Directive Authorities (85/337): Information referred by Article Missing Missing 9(1) of the Directive Information on actions likely to Annex IIA have significant negative Missing Missing effects on Natura 2000 sites Declaration by the Authority Directive responsible that the action is 92/43EEC not likely to have significant Missing Missing (Natura 2000) and effects on a NATURA 2000 Directive site; 79/409/EEC Annex IIB (Birds Directive) A map at scale of 1:100.000 (or the nearest possible scale) STEP I - Eligibility indicating the location of the Missing Missing action as well as the NATURA 2000 sites concerned, if any. Declaration by the Authority responsible for water Annex IIC management that the project Missing Missing Directive does not damage the state of 2000/409/EEC the water (Water Framework Information required by point 1.7.1. of the application (only if Directive) Form B - the project can have a negative Missing Missing section 3.7 impact on the state of the water)
Deliverable 6.2 137 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Proposals Form/ Document / information to be Criteria Sub-criteria Document provided No. 1* No. 2**
Signature of the MS’ Form A - competent Authority (if the Member state section applicant organisation is a Missing Missing approving A2.4 private undertaking or a public body)
Annual accounts for the last Financial From B1 - financial year in which the Missing Missing capacity88 point 2.1 accounts have been closed analysis) analysis)
Appropriate documents proving Technical Form B1 - experience in carrying out Poor Poor capacity89: point 2.2 actions of such type STEP II – SelectionSTEP criteria (qualitative
Quality of the From B2 - Information on technical and Fair Poor action section 1 financial viability Information on contribution of Project’s From B2 - the action to the TEN-T’s Fair Fair relevance section 4 policy objectives Information on the political commitments taken regarding the implementation of the Fair Poor From B2 - Project Maturity Action and the effective stages section 5 of procedure Information on the need to Missing Missing overcome financial difficulties Information on expected From B2 - Financial viability sources of funding and main Good Fair section 6 financial indexes Information on the main results of the social and economic Missing Missing analysis From B2 -
STEP III – Evaluation criteria (quantitative analysis) Potential impacts section 7 Information on the main results of the environmental analysis Poor Poor and on the potential benefits
*Proposal No 1 – Taranto-Igoumenitsa ** Proposal No 2 – Kavala-Limassol
88 Public and private undertakings and bodies must prove to have the financial capacity to complete the action for which the grant is requested 89 Public and private undertakings and bodies must prove to have the technical and operational capacity to complete the action for which the grant is requested
Deliverable 6.2 138 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
A general consideration concerns the need to better define and characterize the investment costs of all the submitted proposals, taking strongly into account the eligible costs under the TEN-T calls.
The environmental requirements are totally missing in all the submitted proposals: issues concerning Directive 85/337 (Environmental Impact Assessment), Directive 92/43EEC (Natura 2000), Directive 79/409/EEC (Birds Directive), and Directive 2000/409/EEC (Water Framework Directive) have not been analysed.
The same consideration can be made for the socio-economic analysis: an effective impact analysis on socio-economic issues has not been provided by any of the five proposals submitted.
Moreover, ADRIAMOS, the Two Seas project and Koper-Igoumenitsa proposals need to enhance the projects’ financial analysis by giving evidence of the projects’ financial viability (an effective investment plan has not been developed and information on the main financial index are still required).
According to the evaluation criteria, the following detailed information can be provided: Quality of the action: the proposals ADRIAMOS, Two Seas Project and Koper- Igoumenitsa offer poor information in terms of technical and financial viability. The following relevant data/information are not well developed: general description of the action and detailed description of each activity (including intermediate and final results, and milestones); definition of key indicators to be used for monitoring and assessing the progress (physical, quantitative, or qualitative indicators, such as kilometres built, milestones achieved); description of major elements of complexity (institutional set-up, organisational structure, crossing of natural barriers, etc.); description of the results of each feasibility and technical study already undertaken; provision of the results of demand forecast studies. Project maturity: ADRIAMOS, the Two Seas project and Koper-Igoumenitsa are missing information on political commitments and on the effective stages of procedure: specification of the procurement method has been selected for which part of the action and the advancement of the procurement preparation; description of possible problems of a legal/administrative nature which remain to be settled before activities can start (legal proceedings against the building permit, etc); identification of other risks/factors of uncertainty which may affect the implementation (political, institutional, financial, social, technical, etc.). Financial viability: all the submitted proposals provide fair information about specification of the expected sources of financing; on the amount committed of public funds for the action throughout the eligible implementation period and the relevant legal basis, and the modalities of budget allocation and its timing; on private financing source (in particular their commitment (current/future), forms of financing, and timing).
Deliverable 6.2 139 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
On the other side, the description of the financial performance giving the results of the Cost Benefit Analysis (with regard to Net present value and Internal rate of return; etc.), has been fairly developed only in the Taranto-Igoumenitsa proposal.
Potential impacts: the information on the main results of the social and economic analysis has not been provided in all the proposals. The proposals show a lack of data/information on the ex ante evaluations of the action and presentation of the summary of main results (objectives, activities and policy options taken into account) specifying the adopted indicators; description of the main results coming from the socio-economic analysis; etc.. When a social cost-benefit analysis has been carried out the following indicators should be mentioned: internal rate of return, net present value and benefit/cost ratio.
Moreover, the description of results and conclusions of any environmental assessment or study (negative potential impacts and mitigating measures that have been proposed and/or taken) needs to be further developed for all the submitted proposals.
5.3 Time planning for the implementation
The implementation of the horizontal actions identified to improve the quality of the MoS services, must take in consideration both the market needs in terms of demand to be satisfied on each potential MoS corridor and the current quality of the services provided. The main ports clusters in the study area, showed in the following table (5- 3) have been identified within Chapter 5 of Deliverable 1 (DEL1) according to
what are the maritime segments in which each port of the study area is active to, and
with which other ports of the study area every port is cooperating (origin- destination of maritime services by maritime transport segment).
Moreover, the ports clusters have been selected according to the main data on traffic volumes and related projections up to 2015 coming out from the demand analysis implemented in chapter 5, 6 and 7 of DEL1 and in chapter 2 of DEL5.
The geographical proximity of ports and their “positioning” in the overall study area and in relation to the main maritime based intermodal corridors was also considered for creating “functional” clusters of ports in EMR.
The following table shows the main outcomes of the demand analysis. More specifically, port’s groups (clusters) which have the same specialisation, critical masses as well as balanced flows have been identified.
Deliverable 6.2 140 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Table 5-3: MoS corridors: kind of traffic and future traffic volume estimation
Potential market by 2015 Clusters (CL) Market by MoS 2008* (per year both directions) Description Corridor (per year both Cluster A Cluster B directions) Minimum Maximum
Ro-Pax flows among South Adriatic- Italian ports & Ionian Sea/ South Ionian Sea West Greece ports MoS 1 Adriatic 539 ktons** 560 ktns 930 ktns (CL7) Italy (CL11) Indicative link: Igoumenitsa – Taranto
Lo-Lo flows among EMR-Middle East Countries (mainly Cyprus) and Greece Northern East-Middle via North Aegean Greek ports MoS 2 Aegean 588 ktins 660 ktns 1.080 ktns East (CL1) (CL5) Indicative link: Kavala – Limassol
The demand is Northern Ro-Ro flows among western Greece and currently not Adriatic the Eastern segment of the North satisfied by any Ionian Sea (CL10 a: Adriatic ports MoS 3 MoS or 740 ktns 1.260 ktns (CL7) Trieste, maritime Monfalcone, Indicative link: Igoumenitsa-Koper service on this Koper) MoS corridor
Ro-Ro flows among West Greece ports Northern and the North Adriatic ports Adriatic Ionian Sea MoS 4 (CL10 b: 1.598 ktons 1.660 ktns 2.765 ktns (CL7) Indicative link: Venice, Chioggia) Venice- (Igoumenitsa)-Patra-(Korinthos)
The demand is Northern Ro-Ro flows among the Western and the Northern currently not Adriatic Eastern segment of the North Adriatic Adriatic satisfied by any (CL10 a: ports MoS 5 (CL10 c: MoS or 1.805 ktns 2.860 ktns Trieste, Ancona, maritime Monfalcone, Ravenna) Indicative link: Ancona - Koper service on this Koper)) MoS corridor
Deliverable 6.2 141 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Potential market by 2015 Clusters (CL) Market by MoS 2008* (per year both directions) Description Corridor (per year both Cluster A Cluster B directions) Minimum Maximum
The demand is currently not Central/Sout Ro-Pax flows among Greece and Cyprus satisfied by any East-Middle MoS 6 h Aegean MoS or 1.235 ktns 2.055 ktns East (CL1) Indicative link:. Limassol-Pireas Sea (CL6) maritime service on this MoS corridor
Ro-Ro flows along the Adriatic The demand is Northern Northern connecting North Adriatic ports (and the currently not Adriatic Adriatic Western Balkans in the wider study area) satisfied by any (CL10 a: MoS 7 (CL10 b: MoS or 795 ktns 1.325 ktns Trieste, Venice, Indicative link: maritime Monfalcone, Chioggia) service on this Koper) Venice-(Koper)-Ploce MoS corridor
Central Ro-Pax flows between Greece and Sicily Mediterrane Ionian Sea MoS 8 an (CL8a: Not relevant 145 ktns 245 ktns (CL7) Augusta, Indicative link: Patra-Catania Catania )
Central Lo-Lo flows among Malta and the North Northern Mediterrane Adriatic ports (with a possible extension Adriatic an (CL8b: to the Blach Sea) MoS 9 (CL10 b: 600 ktons 665 ktns 1.110 ktns Valletta, Venice, Marsaxlokk Chioggia) Indicative link: Malta - Venice )
* Deliverable 6 ** This flows is related only to the traffic between Italy and Greece without considering the transit traffic Source: Deliverable 6
The development of the MoS services will be fostered by the implementation of technological projects that will enhance administrative procedures and the exchange of information among the stakeholders (e.g. ship-owners, port authorities, customs, road hauliers, forwarders, etc). For instance, some projects that can give a strong contribute are showed in the following table (5-4):
Deliverable 6.2 142 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Table 5-4: “MOS-oriented” projects90
Available Aim of the project Technology Beneficiaries Territoriality languages
Support freight forwarders, information, English, shippers, transport improve and Mediterranean Italian, ACCESS WEB based integrators, rationalise cargo Basin French carriers, logistic flows through and Arabic operators booking, ticketing, Promotion of the role of ports in shippers, transport inter-modal integrators, Italy, Greece, NEW.TON WEB based English transport, as a carriers, logistic Turkey gateway to the operators hinterland Management and control of the freight shippers, transport and passengers integrators, GIPSY transport flows WEB based Italy, Greece English carriers, logistic among the ports of operators Igoumenitsa and Patras. Building the widest possible network of shippers, carriers, SHORT SEA electronic data XML ports, IT providers All Europe English XML exchange within the technology and other interested short-sea parties community
Promotion and information through EUROPEAN an active website All interested SHORT SEA WEB based All Europe English that offers parties NETWORK information on all European SS routes
XML, web- based Streamlining MOS, platforms at MOSES reducing friction the nodes All stake-holders All Europe English elements and the transport links
The competitiveness of the MoS services will be further enhanced by means of increasing infrastructure capacity, improving multimodal transport, and in general overcoming the current bottlenecks that affect the MoS routes. More specifically, the following table provide with a description of the bottlenecks associated to the MoS services identified.
90 A full list of useful projects is already showed within Deliverable I - Volume II, Chapter 10 (Table 10-2).
Deliverable 6.2 143 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Table 5-5: Bottlenecks identified for each MoS corridor91
Clusters (CL) Main bottlenecks MoS Corridor Cluster A Cluster B Cluster A Cluster B
Taranto - Congestion on the road connection with the A14 - Low quality of the rail connection to the railway network - Lack of connection between quays Igoumenitsa and operating areas - Need to enhance parking areas Lack of adequate quay’s and entry Bari South - Ionian Sea channel’s draught - Lack of adequate road connection MoS 1 Adriatic Italy (CL7) and interferences between urban and (CL11) Patras port traffic - Need to enhance areas dedicated to - Interferences between railway RoRo traffic system and urban viability - Traffic congestion within the port
Brindisi - Need to complete the road accessibility to the port - Lack of railway connection Alexandroupolis - Congestion on the road connection to the Egnatia motorway - Lack of handling equipment and equipped parking areas Limassol - Lack of adequate quay’s and entry - Need to enhance road port channel’s draught East-Middle Northern accessibility MoS 2 East (CL1) Aegean (CL5) - Lack of dedicated RoRo quays and Kavala parking areas - Lack of a direct railway connection - Lack of adequate quay’s draught - Limited parking and waiting areas - Lack of adequate quay’s draught
Volos - Lack of adequate parking and waiting areas Trieste - Need to improve the road connection between the port and the road network - Lack of parking and waiting areas for trucks Northern Ionian Sea - Need of a new RoRo terminal MoS 3 Adriatic See MoS 1 (CL7) (CL10 a) Monfalcone - Need to improve parking and waiting areas
Koper - Low extension of piers in the port Venice - Congestion on the Mestre bypass - Lack of road connection with the RoRo/RoPax terminal Northern Need to enhance parking and waiting Adriatic - Ionian Sea areas MoS 4 (CL10 b: See MoS 1 (CL7) Venice, Chioggia Chioggia) - Lack of a direct connection with the road network - Lack of adequate quay’s draught
91 The bottleneck’s categories described in the table include a great range of specific projects that have been planned to overcome the bottlenecks. The projects are described into Annex I - List of port projects.
Deliverable 6.2 144 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Clusters (CL) Main bottlenecks MoS Corridor Cluster A Cluster B Cluster A Cluster B
Ancona - Lack of a direct road link with the highway - Lack of adequate quay’s area Northern Northern
MoS 5 Adriatic Adriatic See MoS 3 Ravenna (CL10 c) (CL10 a) - Need to develop the intersection with SS16 - Difficulties to manage the railway service
Piraeus - High congestion on the port direct Central/South access to the road network East-Middle MoS 6 Aegean Sea See MoS 2 Lack of adequate areas dedicated to East (CL1) - (CL6) RoRo traffic - Lack of dedicated suitable RoRo quays
Northern Northern Adriatic Adriatic MoS 7 (CL10 b: See MoS 4 See MoS 3 (CL10 a: Venice, Koper) Chioggia)
Augusta - Congestion on the road port network
, Catania Central Ionian Sea - Congestion on road north access to MoS 8 Mediterranean See MoS 1 (CL7) the port (CL8a:) - Need to enhance the railway connection - Lack of equipped parking areas and interferences among different traffics
Central Northern Valletta MoS 9 Mediterranean Adriatic See MoS 4 Lack of adequate quay’s length (CL8b) (CL10 b) -
Source: Deliverable 6
The Figures below show the time plan for realisation of the MoS projects by MoS Corridor: Corridor MoS 1 - the objective of the proposed connection is the provision of a new service connection between Greece and Italy that would serve the Adriatic and Ionian Sea in order to alleviate the traffic mainly on the highly congested port of Bari providing an alternative maritime connection through the Port of Taranto with services focused on Ro-Pax, Corridor MoS 2 - the scope of the proposed service will be to provide a regular good quality shipping connection, between EMR-Middle East countries (mainly Cyprus) and Greece (mainly Central and North Greece) & Balkan Area countries (mainly Bulgaria and Serbia) via the North Aegean Greek ports, in order alleviate the congestion firstly in the port of Piraeus and
Deliverable 6.2 145 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
secondly (most importantly) along the E75 road network by means of the modal shift to be created from the road network to maritime transport. The service focus of the proposed connection will be on Lo – Lo, Corridor MoS 3 - the aim of this MoS corridor is the provision of a new connection between western Greece and the eastern segment of the North Adriatic ports since such a connection does not currently exist. This MoS corridor would serve the Adriatic and Ionian Sea and operate as a maritime gateway for Central and Eastern Europe. The service focus of this proposed connection would be on Ro-Ro, Corridor MoS 4 - the aim of this link along the proposed MoS corridor is the enhancement of the connections provided between Greece and the central segment of the North Adriatic ports. This link would serve the Adriatic, Ionian and Aegean and Sea and connect South-eastern Europe with Central and Northeast Europe. The service focus of this proposed corridor connection would be on Ro-Ro, Corridor MoS 5 - the aim of this MoS corridor is the provision of a new service connection between the western and the eastern segment of the North Adriatic ports. This link would serve the Adriatic Sea, enhance the connections between Italy and Slovenia and facilitate the movement of traffic flows with Balkan and Central European countries. The service focus of this proposed connection would be on Ro-Ro, Corridor MoS 6 - the objective of the proposed MoS corridor between the EMR – Middle East & Central/ South Aegean ports clusters, and indicatively the connection between Limassol and Piraeus, is to offer a high quality Ro-Pax service (since such a connection does not currently exist) with prime emphasis to serving the existing passenger demand, mainly between Greece and Cyprus, and secondarily to serve the existing trade flows, mainly between Cyprus and Greece & Balkan countries) which at present are served by the existing maritime connections, Corridor MoS 7 - the aim of this link is the provision of a maritime connection along the Adriatic Sea MoS corridor connecting Northern Adriatic ports with the Western Balkans ports. The focus of this “triangular” connection serving the upper and central part of the Adriatic would be on Ro-Ro, Corridor MoS 8 - the aim of this link is the provision of a new maritime connection along this proposed MoS corridor between Greece and Sicily since at present there is no direct line connecting these two regions. The service focus of this proposed MoS corridor connection would be on Ro-Pax, Corridor MoS 9 - the aim of this corridor is the provision of a new maritime connection between Malta and the North Adriatic ports including an extension to the Black Sea. The focus of this service linking the Adriatic, Aegean and Black Sea would be on Lo-Lo.
Deliverable 6.2 146 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Figure 5-2 – Time plan Corridor MoS 1
Task Nam e Cost 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (Meuro) Q1Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3 Q4 Corridor MoS 1 € 281,20 Port of Taranto € 72,70 Connection port - Motorway A14 € 24,00 Requalification and enlargement of the eastern part € 18,70 quay of Pier S. Cataldo Improve the rail connection of port area with the € 30,00 national rail network Port of Bari € 39,70 Pier S.Cataldo: berths and yards widening € 15,50 West Darsena: new quays dedicated to Ro-Ro traffic € 24,20
Port of Brindisi € 48,40 Maritime s tation: terminal € 10,10 New Quay at S.A pollinare € 19,50 Adaptation ex-warehouse Montecatini € 14,80 Link between S:Apollinare and Cos ta Morena € 4,00 Port of Igoumenitsa € 58,00 Port development phase B € 58,00 Port of Patras € 62,40 First part of the new port € 48,40 Second part of the new port € 14,00
Deliverable 6.2 147 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Figure 5-3 – Time plan Corridor MoS 2
Task Nam e Cost 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (Meuro) Q1Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3 Q4 Corridor MoS 2 € 179,90 Port of Limassol € 124,00 Construction of port's new quay walls at Container € 34,00 terminal by 500 mtrs Vertical Interchange Limasol Port / Limasol Highway € 90,00 new 4 lane motorway P or t of Kaval a € 30,50 Upgrading of freight port € 30,50 Port of Volos € 5,90 New passenger terminal € 3,90 New quay at pier 3 for Ro-Pax services € 0,00 Extension of the external port quay for Ro-Pax € 2,00 services Port of Alexandroupolis € 19,50 Dredging in new port basin & port entry channel € 19,50
Deliverable 6.2 148 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Figure 5-4 – Time plan Corridor MoS 3
Task Nam e Cost 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (Meuro) Q1Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3 Q4 Port of Trieste € 132,00 Adaptation South dock Pier 5 € 6,00 Consolidation of the Terminal on Pier 6 in the New P € 10,00 Waiting area for heavy veichles loading/unloading € 6,00 next to ex Esso area Construction of new berths in the area of Zaule € 90,00 navigable canal Road connection Scalo Legnami with the New Port € 20,00 Port of Monfalcone € 10,00 Restyling mooring for Short Sea Shipping – dock € 10,00 Portorosega Port of Koper € 67,00 Exstension of piers (Pier No.1 is currently used for € 55,00 containers , with prolongation for 160 m it will be used also for Ro-Ro traffic) Construction of a new passenger terminal (The RoPa € 12,00 terminal at the Port of Koper is at a nascent stage, nevertheles s cruis e ves s els bound for the Adriatic a the Mediterranean are already mooring at Koper)
Deliverable 6.2 149 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Figure 5-5 – Time plan Corridor MoS 4
Task Nam e Cost 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (Meuro) Q1Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3 Q4 Corridor MoS 4 € 251,90 Port of Venice € 105,20 Terminal Pier Sali € 31,00 Dredging harbour channels € 17,00 Luminos path to channel access € 2,20 Access to terminal Fusina - Road Elettronica € 4,50 Access to Terminal Fusina - Malcontenta node SS € 3,50 309 (1° stage) Access to Terminal Fusina - SS 309 (2° stage) € 14,00 New wider lane structure from SR 11 up to € 13,50 interconnection SR 11 - SS 309 - SP 81 New wider lane structure from SP 81 up to Casello € 12,00 Borbiago uo to interconnection SR 11 - SS 309 - SP Acces s to Terminal Marittima - "Is ola del € 4,50 Tronchetto" Qualification long connection Street Elettronica € 3,00 Port of Chioggia € 26,30 Harbour warehouses and infrastructures for services € 26,30 to support activities on Motorways of the Sea Port of Igoumenitsa (cfr. MoS 1) € 58,00 Port of Patras (cfr MoS 1) € 62,40
Figure 5-6 – Time plan Corridor MoS 5
Task Nam e Cost 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (Meuro) Q1Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3 Q4 Corridor MoS 5 € 86,00 Port of Ravenna € 19,00 Equipped areas for trucks € 8,00 Bridge on Canal-s hip Candiano € 11,00 Port of Koper (cfr Mos 3) € 67,00
Deliverable 6.2 150 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Figure 5-7 – Time plan Corridor MoS 6
Task Nam e Cost 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (Meuro) Q1Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3 Q4 Corridor MoS 6 € 16,60 Port of Piraeus € 16,60 Central port basin dredging € 7,00 ALON Quay widening € 3,00 Extension of Passenger terminal KANELLOS € 3,50 Equipments (Forklifts) € 1,40 Equipments (Buses) € 1,70 Port of Limassol (cfr MoS 2) € 0,00
Figure 5-8 – Time plan Corridor MoS 7
Task Nam e Cost 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (Meuro) Q1Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3 Q4 Corridor MoS 7 € 198,50 Port of Venice (cfr MoS 4) € 105,20 Port of Chioggia (cfr MoS 4) € 26,30 Port of Koper (cfr Mos 3) € 67,00
Figure 5-9 – Time plan Corridor MoS 8
Task Nam e Cost 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (Meuro) Q1Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3 Q4 Corridor Mos 8 € 224,80 Port of Igoumenitsa (cfr Mos 1) € 58,00 Port of Patras (cfr MoS 1) € 62,40 Port of Augusta € 6,80 Commercial port quays € 6,80 Port of Catania € 97,60 New parking area to trucks and stocking areas and € 3,00 renovation of existing rail track New south port access € 2,60 New basin dedicated to ro-ro and container traffic € 92,00
Deliverable 6.2 151 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Figure 5-10 – Time plan Corridor MoS 9
Task Nam e Cost 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (Meuro) Q1Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1Q2 Q3 Q4 Corridor MoS 9 € 147,10 Port of Valletta € 15,60 Upgrading of Deep Water Quay in Valletta € 11,40 New grade separated link from 13th December road, € 4,20 Marsa to Sea Passenger Terminal, Valletta Port of Venice (cfr MoS 4) € 105,20 Port of Chioggia (cfr Mos 4) € 26,30
Deliverable 6.2 152 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
5.4 Annual budget for implementation
The annual budget for implementation has been estimated on the basis of two main data. The first one is related to the investments planned by each country to achieve the market needs within the time horizon considered in this Study. The second information deals with the existing relationships between these investments in light of the main flows of good and MoS corridors identified in Del1.
Besides, the projects identified by the stakeholders to enhance the MoS services have been evaluate on the basis of the following criteria:
degree of relevance of the project to fulfil the overall goals of development of the MoS. The projects should allow to develop a new or upgrade existing maritime transport routes predominantly focussing on freight transport in order to contribute to the reduction of road congestion and to the economic and social cohesion of countries concerned (e.g.: Igoumenitsa port development phase B - finger pier in new port, dredging/widening of port access channel, port sewage network/electromechanical installations, new parking spaces for trucks, schengen area in old port area);
maturity of the project according the degree of technical preparation (e.g. feasibility study, preliminary design, etc.). The project should demonstrate the viability of (the upgrade of) the transport services and the coverage of the door-to- door logistic chain and should take carefully into account existing and potential future bottlenecks (e.g.: new quays dedicated to Ro-Ro traffic on the West Darsena in the port of Bari and extension of piers in the port of Koper - Pier No.1 is currently used for containers, with prolongation for 160 m it will be used also for ro-ro traffic );
impact of the project in terms of road freight that is expected to be shifted as a result of the action’s implementation, effect on competition, socio-economic impact (in terms of cost-benefit analysis) and reduction of external costs across the entire logistic chain (e.g.: improving direct rail connection between the port area of Taranto and the national rail network),
Quality of the project in terms of credibility of commitments, methodology foreseen to monitoring both the progress in implementation and of the effects of the action, overall quality of the transport chain in terms of efficiency of port services, transport services, customer services, etc..
A project database has been filled in with data coming from national official sources (e.g. Port Authorities’ development plan, questionnaires sent to the Port Authorities and other sources). The range of specific projects that have been analysed in order to develop the annual budget for implementation are described into Annex I - List of port projects - and correspond to the project database included in the MoS Corridors, that allowed to define the time planning according to paragraph 5.3. The planned and
Deliverable 6.2 153 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study scheduled investments within the East Med MoS appear realistic, feasible and coherent with the MoS needs. The list of projects is included into Annex I in order to be checked by the SC.
According to the methodology described in the par. 2.2.3 the annual budget for implementation of the main MoS projects has been calculated. A distinction among the projects, based on the main type of infrastructures, has been necessary to develop the cost model and to find the most suitable weighting system in order to obtain a time profile and the related estimated budget by year.
On one hand, the cost profile of interventions required to improve relevant port connections with the main road and railway axes over all the core study areas, is shaped with a slight increase in the second or third year of construction.
On the other hand, maritime interventions constitute the major part of the selected port projects. For these interventions, a symmetric weighting system has been assumed, so that it is supposed that construction costs increase evenly in the first half of construction period and decrease in the second half.
According to the Beta cost function’s distribution, the planned and scheduled port investments and infrastructural interventions in terms of hinterland connections show the highest values from 2008 to 2012.
The following graph (Figure 5-2) summarises, by year and by country, the relevant port investments in infrastructures, hinterland connections, ICT systems, facilities and safety and security listed in Annex I – List of port projects. More specifically, the following investments have been included:
current and proposed MoS related projects reported by participant countries (selected on the basis of their maturity)
projects identified by the stakeholders in the proposals sent to the consortium in response to the call issued on 20 December, 2008, within the East-Med MoS Corridor as defined in the priority project No 21 of the TEN-T Guidelines (chapter 3).
All the information collected to carry out the analysis are related to port projects with high maturity planned in the short-medium term in order to overcome the bottlenecks and enhance the MoS development in the study area up to 2015, as already specified in paragraph 2.1. The selected list of relevant port projects will have to be updated in the next years in order to include the new port investments that will reach a good level of maturity after 2015.
The Gap analysis implemented in chapter 4 of Deliverable 5 already included several port investments currently characterised by a low level of maturity (such as the connection to the national railway network related to the port of Ancona, in Italy), to be upgraded in the future, that could contribute to increase the number of ports in each
Deliverable 6.2 154 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study cluster that achieve minimum quality standards set up for MoS. These investments should be included in the selected project database when further studies will allow them to reach a good level of maturity (in terms of procedures, planning, public commitment, etc.).
By no means the following graphs should lead to the conclusion that in the future further investments in MoS will not be necessary. The following graphs show what is the budget burden generated by current or planned investments in the next years. This can be helpful in order to plan new investments given the budget constraints for EU and National Authorities.
Figure 5-11 – Total infrastructure investments by Country and year (M€), 2008-2015
o 250,0 Meur 200,0
150,0
100,0
50,0
- 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Italy Greece Malta Slovene Cyprus
Source: Deliverable 6
The following table (5-6) and figure (5-3) show relevant port investments and infrastructural needs in terms of hinterland connections by relevant MoS corridor from 2008 to 2015. Some MoS corridors share one port cluster (e.g. cluster 1 is both in the MoS 2 and 6). In this case the corridors and the port investments and infrastructural needs in terms of hinterland connections in these corridors have been merged.
Deliverable 6.2 155 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Table 5-6: Total infrastructure investments by MoS corridor and year (M€), 2008-2015
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total
MoS 192 12,8 25,4 44,1 43,3 21,0 4,3 - - 150,9 MoS 2 / 6 41,2 35,3 25,2 18,9 14,0 14,3 15,2 16,0 180,1 MoS 893 50,5 41,0 8,3 1,7 2,3 0,8 0,7 - 105,3 MoS 994 2,1 4,4 4,5 2,5 0,8 0,9 - - 15,2 MoS 3/ 4/5/795 113,6 119,6 79,7 94,6 70,9 20,7 12,5 0,3 511,9 Total 220,2 225,7 162,0 161,1 109,0 41,0 28,4 16,3 963,7 Source: Deliverable 6
Figure 5-12 – Total infrastructure investments by MoS corridor and year (M€), 2008-2015
250,0 Meuro 200,0
150,0
100,0
50,0
- 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
MoS 1 MoS 2 - 6 MoS 8 MoS 9 MoS 3/ 4/5/7
Source: Deliverable 6
All the MoS corridors 3, 4, 5 and 7 include the ports of one of the two clusters of the North Adriatic and Ionian sea. The ports in these two clusters shows the most relevant port investments and infrastructural needs in terms of hinterland connections. The main investment’s categories (Table 5-5) are: Piers and docks, Road and Railway connection, Terminal, Dredging, Squares, buildings and warehouses among North Adriatic ports and Piers and docks, Infrastructures and equipment among Ionian
92 The series MoS 1 concerns only port investments carried out among South Adriatic Italian ports. The investments related to the Ionian Sea port cluster (CL7) have been allocated in the more relevant (in terms of traffic flow) aggregate series MoS 3/4/5/7. 93 The series B3 concerns only port investments carried out among Central Mediterranean Italian ports. The investments related to the Ionian Sea port cluster (CL7) have been allocated in the more relevant (in terms of traffic flow) aggregate series MoS 3/4/5/7. 94 The series 9 concerns only port investments carried out among Central Mediterranean Maltese ports. The investments related to the Northern Adriatic port cluster (CL10b) have been allocated in the more relevant (in terms of traffic flow) aggregate series MoS 3/4/5/7. 95 The aggregate series MoS 3/4/5/7 concerns relevant port investments on-going or planned among North Adriatic and Ionian Sea Greek ports included also within MoS corridors 1, 8 and 9.
Deliverable 6.2 156 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Greek ports. These MoS corridors show strong interrelationships. More specifically, they share one or more port clusters. Thus, funding port investments and infrastructural needs in terms of hinterland connections related to the port clusters included in these corridors could start useful economies of scale allowing the improvement of minimum requirements on different MoS corridors at the same time.
MoS corridors 2 and 6 are also characterised by a great amount of investments in port infrastructures and land connections (e.g. Piers and docks, Road connection, Dredging and Terminal). Besides, land accessibility is taken in great consideration also in the ports on the MoS corridor 1 that shows relevant investments in road and railway connections as well as piers and docks, terminal and warehouses and equipment. Finally, ports on MoS corridor 8 have focused their investments mainly on port infrastructures (e.g. piers and docks, terminal and equipment).
All the main infrastructure investments, both under construction or planned up to 2015, aiming at increasing the RoRo/RoPax and/or container feeder market shares, have been analysed using data from national official sources, as clarified at the beginning chapter 2.
5.5 Monitoring mechanism of implementation
5.5.1 Core monitoring indicators
Within the framework of the Action Plan’s implementation, it is important to create a monitoring and evaluation system, in order to verify whether the actions are being implemented and to what extent they are reaching their objectives. An effective monitoring and evaluating system enables to find out where discrepancies in respect to the action objectives are and what they are due to, for instance: the problem definition has not been accurate, the objectives are not relevant and/or attainable, the parties do not have a full comprehension of the actions or are not able to implement them, etc. Once the root causes have been identified, it will be possible to adopt corrective measures to re-align the results to the primary objectives. Monitoring- evaluation-causes’ identification-corrections should form an iterative process over the Action Plan implementation.
The definition of a monitoring and evaluating system starts with the identification of key indicators. An indicator can be defined as the measurement of an objective to be met, a resource mobilized, an effect obtained, a gouge of quality or a context variable. The indicators have been identified according to the criteria listed below:
Relevant (closely related to the objectives to be attained);
Accepted (by the staff and by the stakeholders);
Deliverable 6.2 157 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Credible for the non-expert, unambiguous and easy to interpret;
Easy to monitor;
Robust against manipulation.
The following table shows the indicators identified within the context of the MoS Action Plan aimed at monitoring in a quantitative way the impacts of some of the actions proposed in the previous paragraph.
Table 5-7: Table of possible indicators to monitor the impact of the Action Plan
No. Goal Indicator
Number of new projects identified each year to enhance MoS services Number of projects submitted to the call Fostering dialogue and best practices’ 1 for proposals diffusion Number of people working on the implementation of the creation of multimodal promotion centres Number of stakeholders involved in the Overcoming the partial lack of information data collection on a voluntary basis 2 about MoS services Number of people involved in the build-up of a European MoS database Number of projects receiving financial assistance to enhance infrastructure 3 Enhancing infrastructure capacity capacity Variation of transport costs on key corridors Number of projects receiving financial 4 Improving multi-modal transport assistance to improve multi modal transport (e.g. rail projects) Number of projects receiving incentives or 5 Fostering the launch of new routes financial assistance to operate a new services (e.g. Marco Polo II programme)
6 Simplification of customs procedures Variation of the administrative costs
Number of projects receiving financial Developing e-freight (ICT) and Intelligent 7 assistance Transport Systems (ITS) Time saved by transport operators Promote service and environmental quality Number of transport operators that provide 8 certification transport services with “green” label Number of projects receiving financial assistance 9 Enhancing freight transport security Number of people working on the development of European standards
Deliverable 6.2 158 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Besides, there are two useful tasks that could be carried out before implementing a MoS project and, more specifically, in the evaluation phase of a project: the “risk assessment” and the “contingency plans”. Risk assessment - consists in an objective evaluation of risk in which assumptions and uncertainties are clearly considered and presented. Part of the difficulty of risk management is that measurement of both of the quantities in which risk assessment is concerned - potential loss and probability of occurrence - can be very difficult to measure. The chance of error in the measurement of these two concepts is large. A risk with a large potential loss and a low probability of occurring is often treated differently from one with a low potential loss and a high likelihood of occurring. In theory, both are of nearly equal priority in dealing with first, but in practice it can be very difficult to manage when faced with the scarcity of resources, especially time, in which to conduct the risk management process
Contingency plan – a plan dealing with a possible event that could prevent achieving an objective. Contingency plans cover high risk but low probability situations. By anticipating and planning for such events, responses may be designed that can contain the problem based on an identified trigger event. A contingency plan development consists of 6 steps:
9 Define the set of high risk but low probability situations for each objective
9 Identify trigger mechanisms
9 Define consequences to objectives of each event
9 Define responses (in terms of actions that could be taken)
9 Test the plan (simulation, expert opinion, etc.)
9 Interlock the plans
An effective monitoring process requires the identification of key indicators from the beginning of a selection procedure: according to the pre-selected projects detailed in chapter 3 the possibility to monitoring in a quantitative way the impacts of some of the proposed actions required the ex-ante development of a monitoring system from the Steering Committee allowing to follow closely the follow-up actions in order to assess the project objectives’ achievement and eventually define possible adjustments.
5.5.2 Monitoring and evaluation arrangements
According to the Commission’s rules of evaluation (Communication on Evaluation SEC(2000)1051), all programs have to be evaluated on a regular basis. Therefore, the
Deliverable 6.2 159 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study second step after the identification of key indicators consists in implementing a reporting activity that will measure the extent to which policies’ objective have been achieved.
Figure 5-13 Monitoring and evaluation system
Identification of the actions Translation of the Commission’s the Member States should Policy into operative actions to 1 2 undertake to achieve the be undertaken by single Member settled objectives States Action plan Implementation Carrying out of the actions above Gap analysis between objectives and reports’ results CONTROL SYSTEM Identification of possible CONTROL SYSTEM causes Definition of necessary Systematicand 5 3 continuous monitoring of interventions in order to fill the Evaluation Monitoring gaps and realign results to the Member States’ actions in objectives order to evaluate to what Activities planning adjustment extent policy’s objectives Reporting are being pursued
4 Planning Control Periodic elaboration of reports based on the key indicators identified in the Impact Assessment Transmission of the reports to the Commission Source: Deliverable 6
The reporting package should include regular issues and should be designed taking into account the following aspects:
the information should be provided at different levels of analysis
the report should enable a comparison with the previous period
the report should ease the gap analysis with the policies’ objectives
In any case, the implementation of a reporting package is crucial to:
identify what kind of information has to be collected;
define how to collect the data;
analyse the soundness and reliability of the proposed methods and instruments for collecting, storing and processing follow-up data;
define the reports’ structure (level of aggregation, layout)
settle the timing of the issues
Deliverable 6.2 160 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
identify who will be responsible for collecting and organising data
identify the final recipients
ensure that the monitoring system works from the outset and that adequate legal provisions are in place to ensure that data from Member States or third parties will be collected in a reliable and smooth way.
The challenge is to select and to record data that is relevant for the users at different levels. In other words, not all the available information should be transmitted to every level.
The main interest of the European Commission lies in the program and in the priority level, that is, the respective results and impact indicators. Some output indicators, relatively easy to aggregate, can supplement this information.
In order to establish an indicators system, it is necessary to involve future suppliers and potential users of information as much as possible. Already available information and existing monitoring systems should be used, while also clarifying which additional, new indicators should be established in order to better meet information needs. The potential users of information are the stakeholders that have their own areas of responsibilities and, therefore, their distinctive information needs. The following table shows the main providers of information that should be involved in the monitoring process.
Table 5-8: Data sources
Type of provider Provider of information European Commission, Member States, Public Body Ministries of Transport Managing Authority Port Authorities, Port Associations Road hauliers, Maritime cargo liners, Transport and logistics operators Terminal Operators, forwarders, ship-owners Wider public, including citizens’ Education / research organisation organizations
Furthermore, since the implementation of the Commission’s Action Plan depends on the joint efforts of the Member States, it is crucial that the monitoring systems of these States are harmonized so that they can be integrated to obtain an overall vision. It is therefore important that the reporting packages have the same features in terms of data collected, structure, issues’ timing and controls’ procedures. Efforts must be undertaken in order to enhance the level of efficiency in transmitting and exchanging reports.
European data centres for monitoring activity have already been developed: based on such previous experiences, we can assume that the initial cost for
Deliverable 6.2 161 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study setting up a central database amounts to 1,5 M€ (of which about the 17% should cover the annual cost for maintenance).
5.6 Institutional set-up for each MoS project
An appropriate institutional structure is needed to formulate and implement adequately EU and national policies to develop Motorways of the Sea. Considering the global trend of decentralized administration, an institutional structure is required not only at the national level but also at local levels, as well as vertical coordination among different layers of government. The authority of sub-national institutions can vary considerably among countries in the region owing to the differences in their economic and political structure, size, social background etc. In some countries, sub- national governments are given substantial authority for decision-making in their resource use.
Institutional frameworks should be established for each MoS project to support fast and smooth intra-European and Extra-European intermodal cargo traffic. For instance, Port Authorities of two EU countries could co-operate to implement information and data transmission systems for the management and control of freight and passengers traffic in order to develop a specific MoS project. More specifically, an institutional framework for a MoS project should be developed at two level:
- Strategic level: all the stakeholders (public bodies and private operators) should contribute to define:
- The regulatory framework, that aims at defining the relationship among authorities themselves and forms of cooperation among operators (e.g. road hauliers and ship-owners, ship-owners and port services providers, etc);
- Organisation model concerning, for instance, administrative and operational issues (e.g. rules for pilotage, mooring, Ro-Ro terminal management, port access, etc);
- Aspects of cooperation between authorities, intermediate organisations and operators (e.g. I&CT projects, investments, funding services, etc).
- Operational level: which deals with the implementation of operating procedures and I&CT systems concerning the freight management among all the stakeholders
Figure 5-14 shows the main stakeholders that should be involved in the set-up of a strategic and operational plan in order to foster the development of an MoS project.
Deliverable 6.2 162 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Figure 5-14 Main stakeholders to be involved in the institutional set-up of a MoS project
The following box shows an example of international cooperation set up in order to define a communication system dedicated to MoS services:
GIPSY Project
The Port Authorities of Bari, Brindisi, Igoumenitsa and Corfu implemented an information and data transmission system for the management and control of passengers and freight traffic. They defined a Cargo Community System, characterized by a common web portal whose processing structure is functionally distributed and made up of databases and application services interoperable among all the network nodes. The system will utilize the FRAME and ARTIST methodologies, useful for the multimodal transport systems design: all the Short Sea Shipping protagonists along the Ionian-Adriatic route (port authorities, agents, forwarders, travel agencies, auto carriers and passengers) will be able to communicate in a safer and more precise way, thanks to the exchange of messages among the software applications. In addition, the Port Authorities are going to adopt appropriate protocol and documents management systems based on an openwork technological platform to be used by the transport operators.
Stakehoders involved:
Public Bodies: Port Authority of Bari; Provincia di Brindisi; Port Authority of Brindisi, Greek Ministry of Navigation; Port Authority of Igoumenitsa; Port Authority of Patras; Port Authority of Corfu; Prefecture of Tesprotia; Chamber of Commerce of Tesprotia
Private operators: agents, forwarders, travel agencies, auto carriers and passengers
Deliverable 6.2 163 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
5.7 Institutional structure for EC financial support
Within the context of the MoS, the institutional structure for application for financial support from the Trans-European Network Transport (TEN-T) programme96 or Marco Polo programme is defined by EC.
According to Art. 12a of TEN-T Guidelines set up by the European Commission, MoS projects must be proposed by at least two Member States. The projects proposed shall in general involve both the public and private sectors in accordance with procedures which, before aid granted from the national budgets can be supplemented, if necessary, by aid from the Community, provide for a tendering process.
Besides, the EC Regulation No 1692/2006 establishes ‘the Marco Polo II Programme’ in order to reduce congestion, to improve the environmental performance of the transport system and to enhance intermodal transport, thereby contributing to an efficient and sustainable transport system which provides EU added value without having a negative impact on economic, social or territorial cohesion. Actions shall be submitted under a tendering procedure by a consortium of two or more undertakings, established in at least two different Member States or in at least one Member State and one close third country.
Figure below shows the 4 steps of the institutional set-up for a MoS project according to the TEN-T procedure:
STEP 0: in the 2007-2013 TEN-T programme funding decisions are made on the basis of proposals submitted following calls published by the Commission. The calls, in particular, describe in detail the contents required in the proposals, such as general and specific objectives, eligibility criteria, selection criteria, and award criteria.
STEP 1: a MoS project proposal can be submitted either by one or (jointly) several Member States or by one or (jointly) several public or private undertakings or bodies with the agreement of the Member State(s) directly concerned by the project in question. Public or private undertakings or bodies typically can include Port Authorities and or private operators such as ship-owners, road hauliers, etc.
o Proposals to be submitted describe planned activities, information on who will carry them out, how much they will cost, and why they should be supported financially by EU.
In detail each proposal application provide the following information:
96 For detailed guidance please refer to “Granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans- European transport network CALL FOR PROPOSALS 2008, GUIDE FOR APPLICANTS Version 1 - TRANS-UROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK PROGRAMME”
Deliverable 6.2 164 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
o Part A will contain the administrative information about the participants;
o Part B1 will contain the administrative information and the information on the compliance with the Community policy and law;
o Part B2 will contain the technical and financial information about the proposal (including Environmental impact assessment, Financial economic and social viability and Technical specification).
STEP 2: project proposal is submitted to the EC for approval. The Commission evaluates all eligible proposals in order to identify those whose quality is sufficiently high for possible funding. The basis for this evaluation is a peer- review carried out by independent experts.
An internal evaluation Panel of the Commission then compares all of those whose proposals have successfully passed the evaluation stage and prepares the final funding proposal to be submitted to the Evaluation Committee.
The Evaluation Committee assesses the Internal Panel’s proposal and makes a final funding proposal to the Commission.
Then, a final proposal for funding will be submitted to the vote of the TEN-T Financial Assistance Committee, consisting of delegates representing the governments of the Member States, which votes it. Then, the right of scrutiny (droit de regard) of the EP will be launched.
STEP 3: the selected projects through a Commission decision will be granted financial aid. The financing procedure for proposals in the reserve list will only begin if funds become available.
Deliverable 6.2 165 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Figure 5-15 – Institutional set-up for each MoS project according to the TEN-T procedure
Up to now Port Authorities participated under TEN-T calls for MoS and under Marco Polo calls for MoS actions together with consortium of two or more maritime undertakings (ie: the Bari Port Authority participated to the KATARSYS/INTRASYS project - related a new intermodal transport chain connecting Italy to Bulgaria and Romania via road, SSS and railways with a daily service - financed under the Marco Polo call 2008). Looking at the future, Port Authorities can improve their role in order to foster the development of new MoS routes for instance by issuing on their own specific call for tenders for MoS projects (as suggested in chapter 4 of DEL5.2).
Deliverable 6.2 166 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
ANNEXES
Deliverable 6.2 – Annexes 167 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Annex I – List of port projects
Projects included into official sources and/or collected by questionnaires to the Port Authorities
Total Country Port Project's description MoS segment Stage Source of funding cost (M€)
Remaking docks n. 13 and RoRo and/or under National/regional/local I 4,00 14 RoPax construction public funds Ancona railway connection Nuova RoRo and/or under National/regional/local 9,60 Darsena RoPax, other construction public funds Connection port - National/regional/local tender 24,00 Motorway A14 public funds Requalification and National/regional/local enlargement of the eastern RoRo and/or feasible 18,70 public funds and other part quay of Pier S. RoPax project sources Cataldo Taranto Reclamation of sediments National/regional/local coming from the dredging RoRo and/or planning 7,00 public funds and TEN- activity of the sea soil next RoPax T budget to the S.Cataldo Pier Connection of port area National/regional/local with the national rail planning 30,00 public funds network Adaptation South dock RoRo - general preliminary Lack of financial 6,00 Pier 5° cargo project coverage Consolidation of the RoRo - general preliminary National/regional/local Terminal on Pier 6 in the 10,00 cargo project public funds New Port Consolidation of the under National/regional/local container terminal on Pier Container 12,50 construction public funds 7 in the New Port Waiting area for heavy RoRo and/or veichles loading/unloading planning 6,00 n.d. RoPax next to ex Esso area Trieste Construction of new RoRo and/or feasibility Lack of financial berths in the area of Zaule 90,00 RoPax study coverage navigable canal Road connection Scalo RoRo - general feasibility Lack of financial Legnami with the New 20,00 cargo study coverage Port
National/regional/local Lay out mooring area n. preliminary RoRo e RoPax 0,30 public funds and TEN- 57 project T budget
National/regional/local under Upgrading of berth n. 57 RoRo e RoPax 1,50 public funds and TEN- construction T budget
Harbour warehouses and National/regional/local infrastructures for services RoRo and/or Chioggia planning 26,30 public funds (partial to support activities on RoPax coverage) Motorways of the Sea
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex I 168 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Total Country Port Project's description MoS segment Stage Source of funding cost (M€)
National/regional/local Commercial port quays Container Planning 6,80 public funds Augusta National/regional/local Terminal for containers Container Planning 25,80 public funds RoRo and/or under National/regional/local Short Sea Shipping area 10,00 RoPax construction public funds Monfalcone Restyling mooring for RoRo and/or National/regional/local Short Sea Shipping – dock planning 10,00 RoPax public funds Portorosega National/regional/local container and Equipped areas for trucks planning 8,00 public funds (partial bulk Ravenna coverage) Bridge on canal-ship under National/regional/local 11,00 Candiano construction public funds Pier S. Cataldo: berths and RoRo and/or National/regional/local planning 15,49 yards widening RoPax public funds Bari West Darsena: new quays RoRo and/or Under National/regional/local 24,20 dedicated to Ro-Ro traffic RoPax construction public funds RoRo and/or feasibility National/regional/local Maritime station: terminal 10,10 RoPax study public funds RoRo and/or preliminary National/regional/local New Quay at S.Apollinare 19,50 RoPax project public funds Brindisi Adaptation ex-warehouse RoRo and/or preliminary National/regional/local 14,80 Montecatini RoPax project public funds Link between S.Apollinare RoRo and/or feasibility National/regional/local 4,00 and Costa Morena RoPax study public funds New parking area to RoRo and/or trucks and stocking areas National/regional/local RoPax and Planning 3,00 and renovation of existing public funds container rail track RoRo and/or National/regional/local New south port access planning 2,60 RoPax public funds Catania RoRo and/or New basin dedicated to ro- under National/regional/local RoPax and 92,00 ro and container traffic construction public funds container National/regional/local New parking area to RoRo and/or Under 0,90 public funds and TEN- trucks RoPax construction T budget RoRo and/or Venezia Terminal Pier Sali planning 31,00 n.d. RoPax Dredging harbour RoRo and/or planning 17,00 channels RoPax Luminos path to channel RoRo and/or Feasibility 2,20 access RoPax study Access to terminal Fusina RoRo and/or planning 4,50 - Road Elettronica RoPax Access to Terminal Fusina RoRo and/or - Malcontenta node SS planning 3,50 RoPax 309 (1° stage)
Access to Terminal Fusina RoRo and/or planning 14,00
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex I 169 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Total Country Port Project's description MoS segment Stage Source of funding cost (M€) - SS 309 (2° stage) RoPax
New wider lane structure from SR 11 up to RoRo and/or planning 13,50 interconnection SR 11 - RoPax SS 309 - SP 81 New wider lane structure from SP 81 up to Casello RoRo and/or Borbiago uo to planning 12,00 RoPax interconnection SR 11 - SS 309 - SP 82 Access to Terminal RoRo and/or Marittima - "Isola del planning 4,50 RoPax Tronchetto" Qualification long RoRo and/or connection Street planning 3,00 RoPax Elettronica Adaptation and revamping of TRI Terminal (Aosta RoRo/RoPax planning 3,50 dock) Rehabilitation of Fintian RoRo/RoPax planning 3,01 Terminal in Marghera New floating pontoon RoRo/RoPax planning 2,50 ramp
Logis system National/regional/local Venezia for further planning 0,25 public funds and TEN- implementation T budget
Upgrading of Deep Water RoRo and/or under National/regional/local 11,40 Quay in Valletta RoPax construction public funds and CF
New grade separated link from 13th December road, National/regional/local planning 4,19 Marsa to Sea Passenger public funds and CF Terminal, Valletta
National/regional/local RoRo and/or Valletta Breakwater planning 1,07 public funds and TEN- M Valletta RoPax T budget National/regional/local Civil Works on RoRo and/or planning 1,20 public funds and TEN- Laboratory Wharf RoPax T budget Implementation of National/regional/local Container Terminal Other planning 0,25 public funds and TEN- Management System at T budget Port of Valletta Exstension of piers (Pier No.1 is currently used for containers, with RoRo and/or under S Koper 55,00 Private capital prolongation for 160 m it container construction will be used also for ro-ro traffic)
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex I 170 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Total Country Port Project's description MoS segment Stage Source of funding cost (M€)
Construction of a new passenger terminal (The RoPax terminal at the Port of Koper is at a nascent RoRo and/or stage, nevertheless cruise planning 12,00 Private capital and CF RoPax vessels bound for the Adriatic and the Mediterranean are already mooring at Koper) Road access from th enew National/regional/local RoRo and/or entrance to the RoRo planning 5,00 public funds and TEN- RoPax terminal T budget National/regional/local RoRo vessels loading and RoRo and/or planning 3,20 public funds and TEN- unloading quay ramps RoPax T budget National/regional/local New truck terminal at the RoRo and/or planning 2,50 public funds and TEN- main entrance RoPax T budget National/regional/local A new quayside with RoRo and/or planning 13,81 public funds and TEN- buffers RoPax T budget New main entrance to the National/regional/local RoRo and/or port linking the port with planning 1,50 public funds and TEN- RoPax the highway T budget two new railway trucks for National/regional/local RoRo and/or loading of trailers, semi- planning 1,50 public funds and TEN- RoPax trailers and swap bodies T budget National/regional/local RoRo and/or 2 Ro-La loading ramps planning 0,01 public funds and TEN- RoPax T budget National/regional/local Offices and mobile office RoRo and/or planning 1,01 public funds and TEN- in container RoPax T budget National/regional/local RoRo and/or IT systems planning 0,10 public funds and TEN- RoPax T budget Dredging in new port under National/regional/local G 19,50 basin & port entry channel construction public funds Preliminary and Alexandroupolis implementation study for National/regional/local the development of planning 1,00 public funds and TEN- multipurpose port and T budget marina
National/regional/local Procurement of mobile Kavala container planning 3,00 public funds and TEN- crane and installation T budget
Upgrading of freight F(new quay construction, dredging of main port under National/regional/local 30,50 basin, port sewage construction public funds and CF network, electrical wiring network, new breakwater)
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex I 171 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Total Country Port Project's description MoS segment Stage Source of funding cost (M€)
National/regional/local Entrance gates equipped container 0,06 public funds and TEN- with security system T budget National/regional/local Construction of container 0,70 public funds and TEN- Warehouse T budget National/regional/local Construction of Shed container 0,54 public funds and TEN- T budget National/regional/local Container entrance container 0,03 public funds and TEN- checkpoint T budget National/regional/local Blacktop and gravel container 0,20 public funds and TEN- T budget National/regional/local Fencing, lineation container 0,10 public funds and TEN- &Signalling T budget Installation of electrical National/regional/local power supply for mobile container 0,20 public funds and TEN- cranes T budget National/regional/local Electrical substation 1.000 container 0,08 public funds and TEN- kVA T budget National/regional/local Electrical lines and points container 0,34 public funds and TEN- for reefers (60 points) T budget Floodlight, searchlight and National/regional/local monitorship system with container 0,11 public funds and TEN- cameras, T budget National/regional/local Procurement of front lift container 0,65 public funds and TEN- trucks T budget National/regional/local Procurement of RSCs container 1,54 public funds and TEN- T budget Procurement, Installation National/regional/local & Implementation of Port container 0,40 public funds and TEN- Management Information T budget System (PMIS) National/regional/local Container Terminal container 0,05 public funds and TEN- Management Study T budget
National/regional/local Volos New passenger terminal planning 3,90 public funds
National/regional/local New quay at pier 3 planning n.d. public funds
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex I 172 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Total Country Port Project's description MoS segment Stage Source of funding cost (M€)
Extension of the external under National/regional/local 2,00 port quay construction public funds
Bridging over the Ksiria waterstream (improve port National/regional/local under road and rail access by 1,20 public funds and TEN- construction construction of "Ksiria" T budget waterstream bridge) First part of the new port (new quay, new under National/regional/local 48,40 breakwater, various construction public funds and CF superstructure works) Second part of the new port National/regional/local planning 14,00 (two quays, breakwater, public funds and CF Patras land reclamation) National/regional/local Dredging of old port quay under 0,40 public funds and TEN- and main port basin construction T budget
Repair and maintenance of National/regional/local under old port quays & main old 0,60 public funds and TEN- construction basin T budget
Central port basin RoRo and/or 7,00 dredging RoPax RoRo and/or ALON Quay widening 3,00 RoPax Extension of Passenger RoRo and/or Piraeus 3,50 n.d. terminal KANELLOS RoPax RoRo and/or Forklifts 1,36 RoPax RoRo and/or Buses 1,70 RoPax Port development phase B (finger pier in new port, dredging/widening of port access channel, port sewage under National/regional/local Igoumenitsa 58,00 network/electromechanical construction public funds and CF installations, new parking spaces for trucks, Schengen area in old port area) Widening and excavation National/regional/local of channel and protection planning 4,00 public funds and TEN- of coast T budget National/regional/local Logis system for further planning 0,20 public funds and TEN- implementation T budget National/regional/local Construction of 2 RoRo planning 0,12 public funds and TEN- ramps T budget
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex I 173 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Total Country Port Project's description MoS segment Stage Source of funding cost (M€)
National/regional/local Signalling devices on planning 0,01 public funds and TEN- RoRo ramps T budget Portable fencing of the National/regional/local area behind Pier 11 and 12 planning 0,04 public funds and TEN- for "unaccompanied" T budget freight transport units National/regional/local Port Traffic Management planning 0,05 public funds and TEN- Study T budget National/regional/local Traffic signalling of the planning 0,09 public funds and TEN- area T budget National/regional/local Portable grantry for swap planning 0,04 public funds and TEN- bodies T budget National/regional/local Design and installation of planning 0,25 public funds and TEN- IT platform T budget Dredging of Port's basin: Rehabilitation of existing quays and dredging of under National/regional/local container 12,60 port's western basin at construction public funds and CF Port's Container Terminal by 16 mtrs C Limassol Construction of port's new National/regional/local quay walls at Container container planning 34,00 public funds and CF terminal by 500 mtrs Vertical Interchange Limassol Port / Limassol National/regional/local planning 90,00 Highway: new 4 lane public funds and CF motorway
Projects proposed by the Port Authorities in the “calls for proposals”
Proposal Countries Project Ports Total cost
Reclamation of sediments coming from the Taranto- Italy and dredging activity of the sea soil next to the Taranto 7,0 Igoumenitsa Greece S.Cataldo Pier
Portable grantry for swap bodies Igoumenitsa 0,04
Widening and excavation of channel and Igoumenitsa 4,0 protection of coast
Construction of 2 RoRo ramps Igoumenitsa 0,12
Signalling devices on RoRo ramps Igoumenitsa 0,01
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex I 174 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Proposal Countries Project Ports Total cost
Portable fencing of the area behind Pier 11 and Igoumenitsa 0,04 12 for "unaccompanied" freight transport units Port Traffic Management Study Igoumenitsa 0,05
Traffic signalling of the area Igoumenitsa 0,09
Design and installation of IT platform Igoumenitsa 0,25
Procurement of mobile crane and installation Kavala 3,0
Entrance checkpoint – Guardroom, 600m2 Kavala 0,06 Entrance gates equipped with security system Kavala 0,06 Construction of Warehouse Kavala 0,70 Construction of Shed Kavala 0,54 Container entrance checkpoint Kavala 0,03
Blacktop and gravel Kavala 0,20
Fencing, lineation &Signalling Kavala 0,10
Installation of electrical power supply for Kavala 0,20 Kavala- Greece and mobile cranes Limassol Cyprus Electrical substation 1.000 kVA Kavala 0,08 Electrical lines and points for reefers (60 Kavala 0,34 points)
Floodlight, searchlight and monitorship system Kavala 0,11 with cameras,
Procurement of front lift trucks Kavala 0,65
Procurement of RSCs Kavala 1,54
Procurement, Installation & Implementation of Kavala 0,40 Port Management Information System (PMIS)
Container Terminal Management Study Kavala 0,05 Two-seas Italy, Slovene RoRo vessels loading and unloading quay project and Koper 3,2 Koper- and Greece ramps Igoumenitsa New truck terminal at the main entrance Koper 2,5 A new quayside with buffers Koper 13,8 New main entrance to the port linking the port Koper 1,50 with the highway two new railway trucks for loading of trailers, Koper 1,50 semi-trailers and swap bodies 30.000 sqm of fenced and illuminated parking Koper 2,50 areas
2 Ro-La loading ramps Koper 0,01
Offices and mobile office in container Koper 1,01
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex I 175 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Proposal Countries Project Ports Total cost
IT systems Koper 0,10 Investments in security Koper 0,04
MoS terminal of Fusina Logistics Platform Venice
Implementation of cold ironing system for new Venice MoS terminal 41.4 Improvement of road connection between road Venice network and road terminal Italy and Readaptation of Malamocco-Marghera Canal Adriamos Venice Greece in proximity of the new terminal Construction of new floating pontoon for RO- Koper 10,02 RO vessels Development of port community system and Igoumenitsa security system 0,66 Development of port community system and Patras security system Total 52,08 Lightening Eleusis 0,07 Control gates-security Eleusis 0,38 Eleusis- Greece Automatic plate number recognition software Eleusis 0.035 (Barcelona) Control room Eleusis 0.035 Total 0.52
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex I 176 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Annex II – Application for EU funds
How to apply to TEN-T funds
Main legal documents
TEN- T Guidelines (Decision N° 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and the Council, as amended)
TEN- Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks
Multi- annual Work Programme for grants in the field of TEN-T for the period 2007-2013
Annual work programme for grants in the field of TEN-T
Who can get funding
Eligible are project proposals which are submitted by one of the following types of applicants:
one or (jointly) several Member States,
one or (jointly) several public or private undertakings or bodies with the agreement of the Member State(s) directly concerned by the project in question, or
one or (jointly) by several international organisations with the agreement of all Member States directly concerned by the project in question,
a Joint Undertaking within the meaning of Article 171 of EC Treaty with the agreement of all Member States directly concerned by the project in question.
Main sections of the proposals
A proposal has two parts:
Part A – contains administrative information about the participants (TENtec eSubmission),
Part B1 – contains administrative information and the information on the compliance with the Community policy and law (e.g. environment legislation and state aid law),
Part B2 - contains technical and financial information about the proposal.
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex II 177 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
In Part B, applicants have to provide the necessary information useful to evaluate the proposal with reference to the award criteria. The form covers, among other things, the nature and the objectives of the proposed activities, the financial and technical maturity of the proposal, its European added value and the impacts that might be expected to arise from it.
Evaluation criteria and procedure
The proposals are evaluated in terms of three different types of evaluation criteria:
Eligibility criteria – Part A
Under the programme, proposals must relate to one or more of the projects of common interest identified in the TEN-T Guidelines and must obtain the agreement of the Member State concerned.
In accordance with the TEN-T Regulation Art. 7, TEN-T financial aid shall not, in principle, be assigned to projects or stages of projects which benefit from other sources of Community funding. Therefore, in Annex I, all the public or private undertakings or bodies must declare that their application for funding (i.e. the expenditure covered by the application submitted) is not the subject of any other application for funding under the Community budget”.97
• Environmental legislation: all construction activities and studies implying physical interventions are required to demonstrate their compatibility with Community policy on environment. In particular, applicants must state that all relevant environmental, nature conservation and water bodies have been consulted, and that the project complies with: the EIA Directive 85/337/EEC98 and/or the SEA Directive 2001/42/EC99, the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC100, the Birds Directive 79/409/EEC101, and the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC102
In cases where Directive 85/337/EEC is applicable must be provided: the information referred to in Article 9 (1) of the Directive, the non-technical summary of the Environmental Impact Study carried out for the project and the information on consultations with environmental authorities, the public concerned and, if applicable, with other Member States.
In cases where Directive 2001/42/EC is applicable, the applicant must provide an electronic copy of the documentation required by art. 9 (b) of the SEA Directive, the non-technical summary of the Environmental Report carried out
97 Reference: application form part B at the point 7.8. 98 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (as amended by 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC). 99 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. 100 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 101 on the conservation of wild birds. 102 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex II 178 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
for the plan or programme and information on the consultations (with the competent authorities and the public).
The effects on Natura 2000 sites must be analysed. If the project implies activities likely to have a significant negative effect on sites included or which should be included in the relevant national Natura 2000 networks, the Annex II-A must be completed, signed, stamped and dated and the summary of the assessment carried out must be provided. A Natura 2000 map at scale of 1:100.00 indicating the location of the action as well as the Natura 2000 sites concerned must also be provided.
If the project has no impact on Natura 2000 sites, the Annex II-B (declaration by authority responsible for Natura 2000 sites) must be completed (signed, stamped and dated by the competent authority).
In cases where Directive 2000/60/EC is applicable and if the project implies a modification (deterioration or failure to achieve good water status) in the water status, the applicant will complete the questions under point 1.7.1 of Part B1. If the project is not likely to deteriorate the water status, the Annex II-C must be completed (signed, stamped and dated by the competent authority).
• State aid & competition103: all projects shall comply with the art. 87 of the EC Treaty, that is, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.
In order to be compliant to the Treaty, the applicant shall put into evidence that such aid is granted without discrimination, and the following aids, amongst the others, may be considered to be compatible with the common market.
Selection criteria – Part B1
• Financial capacity - Part B1 (point 2.1)
The applicants must provide information about the financial capacity to complete the action for which the grant is sought, by providing their annual accounts for the last financial year.104
• Technical capacity – Part B1 (point 2.2)
103 Point A2.3 of the application form part A. 104 the demonstration of financial and technical capacity does not apply to Member States, joint undertakings within the meaning of Article 171 of the EC Treaty, other public bodies, or international public-sector organisations.
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex II 179 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
The applicants must have provided information about the technical and operational capacity to complete the project for which the grant is sought and must have provided appropriate documents attesting to that capacity (proof of the experience in carrying out actions of the type in question).75
Award criteria – Part B2 (section from 1 to 7)
Each project proposal will be evaluated in an equal manner against the following award criteria (set out in the TEN Regulation, Article 5):
• Maturity
• The need to overcome financial obstacles
• The stimulating effect of the Community intervention on public and private finance
• The soundness of the financial package
• Socio-economic effects
• Environmental consequences and
• The degree of contribution to the continuity and interoperability of the network, as well as to the optimisation of its capacity
• The degree of contribution to the improvement of service quality, safety and security
• The degree of contribution to the internal market and other priorities of the TEN-T
• The degree of contribution to the re-balancing of transport modes in favour of the most environmentally friendly ones
• The complexity of the projects, for example due to the need to cross natural barriers
• Quality of the application
How to apply to Marco Polo Programme II Main legal documents
Regulation (EC) No. 1692/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing the second “Marco Polo” programme for the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system.
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex II 180 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Who can get funding
All project participants must be legal persons. They must be privately or publicly owned commercial undertakings. Public law entities engaged in economic activities in accordance with their national laws are entitled to participate.105
These requirements apply also to sub-contractors.
Main sections of the proposals
A complete proposal consists of the following parts in A4-format106:
A one-page project overview (form I.1) that must present the key elements I.1 to I.15, followed by a declaration by the applicant (form I.2), an acknowledgement of receipt (form I.3), completed by the applicant in boxes (a) and (b), and the Joint Letter of intent between the partners (form I.4).
Up to ten single-sided pages of main text (in font size 12),
the annexes to support the claims made in the main text.
Evaluation criteria and procedure
Eligibility criteria
• Uniqueness: the type of action for which a project is proposed must be clearly specified by the applicant
• Transport Services: the proposal must dominantly concern transport services or logistics concepts in the market place, i.e. infrastructure, research or study projects are not eligible
• European Dimension: an action requires at least two undertakings established on the territories of two different Member States, or on the territories of one Member State and a close third country.
• The budget will not finance costs arising outside the territories of the Community or fully participating close third countries.
• Start-up of action: the action must start the proposed service or activity between 1 July 2007 and 1 July 2009.
Specific eligibility criteria for MoS actions
105 Project partners must prove the status of being a commercial undertaking, for instance by providing a VAT number or being listed in the commercial register. 106 All the needed forms may be downloaded from the Marco Polo website: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/marcopolo/calls/2008docs_en.htm
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex II 181 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
• Route: the envisaged road route from which freight is shifted by the action must be situated on the territory of at least two EU Member States or on the territory of at least one EU Member State and a close third country.
• Regarding projects within the EU, only those relating to the category A ports107 as defined in Article 12(2) of the said Decision will be eligible to Marco Polo funding under the MoS actions.
• Duration: the action achieves its objectives within a period of a maximum of 60 months. This period may be extended in case financing of ancillary infrastructure is requested and awarded.
• Threshold: the minimum indicative grant threshold per action is 2,5 M€ or a modal shift of 1.25 billion tonne-kilometres.
Selection criteria
• Financial Capacity of applicants: undertakings must be legally constituted and registered. They, acting alone or in a consortium, must have the financial capacity to give confidence in the action to be supported.
• Technical Capacity of applicants: applicants must have the technical and operational capacity to complete the action to be supported and should justify it with appropriate supporting documents.
• When the action requires reliance on services provided by third parties, they submit proof of a transparent, objective and non-discriminatory procedure for selection of the relevant services.
Award criteria
Generalities: the applicants must demonstrate the credibility and viability of their proposal in describing their capacity (financial, human, technical, commercial) to maintain the proposed activities throughout the project period, and beyond.
• Quantity of freight shifted off the road or quantity of road traffic avoided108: this criterion requires a clear definition and presentation of both the old “road”- route and the new “modally shifted”-route for Modal shift, Catalyst and MoS actions.
In a Modal shift, MoS or Catalyst action, first the entire route should be described (i.e. including the initial freight collection and final distribution leg
107 ports with a total annual traffic volume of not less than 1,5 million tonnes of freight or 200.000 passengers. 108 Calculation of modal shift, traffic avoidance and environmental/social benefits can made with the Marco Polo Calculator, a pre-formatted Excel spreadsheet which is available as a support tool on the Marco Polo website. The proposal should include both the completed file of the Marco Polo calculator.
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex II 182 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
by truck, if any). In a second step it should be shown, which parts of the transport/logistics chain are to be shifted from road to short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways.
The effected Modal shift in a Modal shift, MoS or Catalyst action is to be measured in tonne-kilometres while the effected traffic avoidance is measured in vehicle-kilometres (this is measured in comparing the new quantity of road transport versus the old one).
• Environmental and Social Benefits: environmental and social benefits may have quantitative and qualitative elements and they must be thoroughly described and justified.
The quantitative environmental and social benefits calculation is based on a comparison of the relevant external costs for the old “road”-route with the new “modally shifted”-route respectively “old” transport service with the “new” concept of traffic avoidance. Only benefits achieved on the territory of countries fully participating in the Marco Polo Programme may be used for this calculation.109
• Credibility of the action: the market research or feasibility study results and a business plan coherent with the action described, are fundamental elements to judge the credibility of the proposal as well as the likely utilisation of the service in terms of potential customers (supported by letters of intent, or even better, letters of commitment).
The business plan of every action has to contain a credible and justified financing plan, clearly differentiating eligible and not eligible costs as well as revenues.
• Viability of the action: all actions should be sustainable beyond the project duration. This should be clearly demonstrated in a solid business plan.
• Innovative approach: all actions (except Modal shift actions) have to be innovative.
• Dissemination plan: for all actions (except for Modal shift actions) the results and methods shall be disseminated on the basis of a concrete and detailed dissemination plan.
The following table shows the effective evaluation criteria and thresholds for MoS actions in 2008.
109 these calculations are an essential element for a proposal submitted to this call.
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex II 183 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Table Annex II – Award criteria for MoS actions
Criteria Point range Threshold (A) Quantity of freight shifted off the road 0 to 20 points 12 (B) Environmental & social benefits 0 to 20 points 12 (C) Innovative approach & dissemination plan 0 to 10 points 6 (D) Credibility & viability of action 0 to 50 points 30 Total Score 100 60
Source: Marco Polo II call 2008, Appendix 5
Guidelines for the other sources of financing EIB loans
The layout and contents of documents to be submitted to the EIB applying for funds are the responsibility of the project promoter. Given the range and diversity of potential projects there is no standard documentation and the Bank does not require its borrowers to complete set forms or questionnaires.
As a general rule, it would expect to receive a comprehensive feasibility study. Where this has not been prepared, the project promoter may use its own discretion in compiling as detailed information as possible to permit the technical, environmental, economic, financial and legal appraisal of projects. The following documentation list is intended as a guideline:
General information about the enterprise, its legal status, principal partners and shareholders, organizational structure:
• Enterprise - legal documents covering incorporation, statutes, activities, accounting policies, management, audited financial statements (balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, cash flow statements) for the last three financial years, details of short, medium and long-term liabilities, dividend distribution policy.
• Promoters and principal partners - articles of association, shareholders, activities and audited financial statements for the last three financial years.
• Legal status of the proposed project, relationship with the promoter’s other activities, licences and concessions obtained.
Technical and environmental data:
• general purpose, justification and location;
• technical description (e.g. technology, site and site development, buildings, production and storage plant, general services, transport systems and equipment);
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex II 184 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
• environmental impact assessment, where relevant and appropriate, including reference to relevant laws, mitigating measures to protect the environment, specific studies;
• engineering studies and implementation: consultants (if any), procedures for tendering and awarding contracts, supervision, works schedule and implementation timetable;
• detailed cost estimate itemising site and plant expenditure, provision for physical and price contingencies, interest during construction, initial and start- up expenses, together with a breakdown in foreign and local currencies;
• Operation: raw materials and products, flowcharts, consumption and output levels, managerial staff and workers, management organisation, technical assistance where applicable.
Socio-economic data:
• Market: statistics showing present and forecast trends in supply, demand and prices for project output and significant raw material inputs.
• Marketing: sales policy and organisation, position of company in relation to main competitors, domestic and export sales, pricing policy.
• Jobs created or maintained by the project: permanent and seasonal jobs, professional training, replacement of expatriate staff (if any).
• Data used for calculating the economic rate of return of the project and assessing its contribution to the economic development of the country concerned (balance of payments, public finance, etc.).
• Social impact of the project, availability and type of workforce, salary level, social benefits, security, working conditions. Conformity to national labour, health and safety regulations and to local regulatory requirements.
Financial data:
• Breakdown of project operating and maintenance costs, depreciation and overheads.
• Financing plan for the project and schedule of projected expenditure.
• Projected cash flows, profit and loss accounts, and balance sheets until the project comes fully on stream.
• Estimate of working capital needed and changing requirements over time incorporating the project.
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex II 185 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
• Calculation of the project’s IRR.
• Security and guarantees offered.
Large-scale projects representing an investment of more than 25 M€ are financed via individual loans, concluded by the EIB on its own terms and conditions directly with the investor or with other banks and institutions involved in the financing operation.
On the other side, small and medium-scale ventures, public or private, can be financed by the EIB in the framework of global loans, medium to long-term credit lines that the EIB extends to an intermediary - a bank or a financial institution - who uses the funds to support in turn investment projects of limited scale.
Individual loans – lending conditions
Types of investment: All kinds of infrastructure, power generation and transmission, environmental protection, investment by industrial and service companies, research & development
Beneficiaries: Local authorities, special-purpose groupings and similar, solvent borrowers, public and private companies, banks
Financing framework: Normally up to 50% of the total cost of new projects. No upper limit. Where combined with EU funds, these and EIB funds together may not exceed 70% of project costs (90% in ERDF Objective 1 areas)
Loan period: Usually from 5 to 12 years for industrial projects, 15 to 25 years for infrastructure and energy projects, bespoke terms for very large projects
Interest rate: Fixed rate (with or without review clause) or variable rate. The interest rate consists of the Bank’s cost of funds, plus a small mark-up to cover its administrative costs. The cost of funds is in line with the rates for AAA government bonds
Currencies: Loans may be extended in one or more currencies, including the euro and other EU Member State currencies, as well as the US dollar, the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen
Repayment: Usually equal annual or semi-annual instalments. Bespoke repayment schedules, including grace periods and repayment in a single instalment, are possible
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex II 186 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Global loans – lending conditions
Types of investments: Corporate investments, with a particular interest on those proposed by small and medium-sized industrial and service companies in regional development areas (e.g. investment in advanced technologies, R&D projects, rational use of energy, environmental protection, water supply and sanitation projects, other infrastructure projects).
Beneficiaries: Small and medium-sized enterprises. Larger companies may also be considered in exceptional cases. Local authorities and other public agencies or special-purpose groupings.
Financing framework: Up to 50% of total project cost
Loan period, interest rates, repayment, currencies, guarantees, provisions/fees: Determined by the respective EIB partner bank
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex II 187 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Annex III – Initial Promotion Plan
Introduction
An efficient Promotion plan must ultimately lead to the enhancements of all relative stakeholders knowledge and understanding of the East Med MoS project goals, results and achievements and enhance awareness and understanding of market opportunities for the development of MoS routes among transport operators in the Eastern Mediterranean area. It is therefore important to use the most accurate and efficient procedures, under a comprehensive communication plan, in order to obtain the best results from its implementation.
A comprehensive promotion plan should consist of the following elements:
The specification of an organizational body or a group which will manage the promotion plan and its mission
The planning of the communication strategy steps which must be followed
The definition of the target groups, to which the promotion message will be addressed
The selection of the promotion tools to be used.
The implementation of the plan itself within a specific time-frame.
Objectives of the Promotion Plan
In order effectively implement a promotion plan for the East Med MoS, a relevant organizational body or group responsible for the overall implementation of the plan should be specified. This role can be undertaken initially by the Steering Committee, already set up by the five ministries and authorities involved in the project, since it already has the responsibility for monitoring the effectiveness of the overall project’s results. The Steering Committee can be supported by the Consortium implementing the study for the elaboration of a Master Plan for the MoS in the East Mediterranean area and the Steering Committee’s Technical Assistant, for the duration of their contracts, regarding promotion initiatives already planned (i.e. Internet Site support, Project Final Conference, Project Brochure).
Afterwards the Steering Committee, with the approval of the respective member states, could promote the creation of a promotion centre (possibly with local offices in each participating Member State) for the Eastern Mediterranean Motorways of the Sea that will undertake the responsibility to implement all relative promotion activities for the successful development of the East Med MoS strategy and in addition will
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 188 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study undertake the crucial role of collecting market statistics and information that can be used for planning purposes by the private sector. The operation of this promotion centre could be supported by the five Member States participating in the East Med MoS (EU funding could also be investigated).
The main responsibilities and goals of the promotion centre regarding the implementation of the East Med MoS promotion plan should be:
Dissemination of MoS project’s achievements, priorities and proposals to all stakeholders within the East Med Region.
Increase of experts’ awareness of the MoS developments.
Improvement access to news and information relating to the implementation of project’s results.
Fostering positive relations between Ports and Shipping community members throughout the East Med region.
Encouraging potential investors to invest in shipping activities relating to the development of MoS projects.
Networking – to connect experts and companies to Ministries and Port Authorities of the study area in order to enhance cooperation among them.
Schedule frequent meetings in order to discuss and follow the latest news and developments about the promotion plan and project’s effectiveness.
Support the organization and attendance of the meetings and conferences held in the region relating to the promotion of project’s results.
Definition of the necessary tools to be used for the promotion.
Identification of target groups to which the promotion message to be addressed.
Monitor and control the implementation of the promotion plan within the specific time-frame and budget set.
A crucial first step for the effective implementation of the East Med MoS promotion plan will be the definition of the communication strategy to be applied. The main focus of this strategy should be along the following axes:
Create awareness regarding the MoS concept among all stakeholders (ports, operators, logistics providers, government bodies, etc.)
Inform – educate the market regarding the advantages, opportunities and financing support available for the development of MoS routes in the region.
Create networking links with MoS initiatives in the EU.
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 189 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Communicate new developments, progress and achievements in the development of the East Med MoS.
Disseminate useful and targeted information to stakeholders regarding market opportunities (business intelligence, trade statistics, growth opportunities, ect.) and key performance indicators (monitoring of quality indicators of existing routes and ports involved in the East Med MoS).
With the development of a Promotion Centre for the East Med MoS, the Steering Committee could undertake a more strategic role in this process, by maintaining the responsibility for approving the promotion strategy and overseeing its overall implementation. The Promotion Centre will focus more on elaborating the details of the promotion strategy and implementing it. The elaboration of the Communication Strategy involves the clarification of issues such as:
The selection of the specific target groups, to which the communication is to be addressed. Target group segmentation enhances the effect of communication.
The choice of a targeted message to be communicated in order optimize results and the selection of the correct timing to communicate the message in order to achieve the maximum effect.
The method of communication, specifying the tools and materials to be used for the communication as well as the choice of the means of communication
The method of measuring the effectiveness of the promotion plan.
In order to support the Steering Committee in the implementation of promotion activities already planned within the scope of the MoS Master Plan Study the following paragraphs attempt to identify the main target groups that should be the focus of these promotion activities and to outline the main promotion tools to be utilized. Maintaining an up to date database of all stakeholders involved in the development of the East Med MoS and applying appropriate promotion tools for communication activities will be one of the main responsibilities of the Promotion Centre, once it is established.
Identification of Target groups
The communication target audiences are the groups or individuals at the local, national, or international level with whom the promotion plan for the East Med MoS development seeks to develop a synergy, share information, establish an efficient communication network and promote the development and achievements of the project.
The relative target audiences for the East Med MoS can be classified into distinct categories based on their geographic location, the range/scope of their operations (local or worldwide) and the nature of stakeholder’s activities and services. Thus the
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 190 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study target groups relating to Intermodal transport (Sea – Rail – Road) and connected to the East Med MoS project, can be classified into two major clusters, depending on the scope of their business activities (national and international level) and further segmented into sub categories based on the nature of their activities (market segment). Specifically the following target groups are proposed to be utilized in order to promote the development of the East Med MoS strategy:
International level stakeholders - Dealing with main aspects of Shipping and Port Industry on world wide basis which are operating at each member state:
1. The major Shipping lines, calling ports of the study area
2. The global terminal operators, operating ports of the study area and
3. Major forwarders and logistics providers having activities in the area
National level stakeholders - including each member state’s:
1. Governmental Authorities (Ministries relating to the elaboration of project’s Results)
2. The Port Authorities of all ports included in the proposed MoS corridors
3. Associations or Unions, having members or interests relating to Intermodal transport activities in the study area.
4. Major operators having activities in Intermodal transport, operating at the region.
An indicative list of main stakeholders from each of the East Med MoS member states organized in the above segments of target groups is presented in the following table.
Table Annex III – Indicative List of Stakeholders GREECE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL Shipping Lines • Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) (with operation in Greece) • China Ocean Shipping co., (COSCO) • Maersk Lines, • ZIM lines, • CMA-CGM, • Grimaldi Naples, • China Shipping Co., • Evergreen International Logistics • NYK Logistics providers • Schenker S.A (with operation in Greece) • KNN • DHL • Maersk Logistics International • Goldair Cargo S.A • DSV - ABX NATIONAL LEVEL 1.- Ministries • Ministry of Finance
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 191 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
GREECE • Ministry of Mercantile Marine, The Aegean and Island Policy • Ministry of Transports and Communication 2.- Port Authorities • Piraeus Port Authority • Thessaloniki Port Authority • Patras Port Authority • Igoumenitsa Port Authority • Volos Port Authority • …………………. • (All ports of study area) 3. Relative Associations / Unions Goods producers • Federation of Hellenic Enterprises • Chambers of Commerce and Industry Cargo exporters - importers • Panellenic exporters Association Intermodal Operators (Truck • Hellenic Federation of International road transports – rail operators) Warehouse and Logistic • Association of International freight forwarders & logistics providers Enterprises of Greece • Hellenic Chamber of Transports Association Freight forwarders • Union of Greek Shipowners • Hellenic Chamber of Shipping • Mediterranean cargo vessels Shipowners Union Shipping Lines • Association of Greek passenger Shipping Companies, • Association of Coastal Ferries Shipping agents • International Maritime Union • Hellenic ship agents Association Cargo brokers • Hellenic cargo brokers Association 4. Indicative Operators Freight forwarders • Naftotrade Shipping and Commercial S.A • Neptune Lines • Aegean Shipmanagement • Vassilios N.E • European Cooperation • Syrios N.E • Adriamar Shipping • Mylaki Shipping Agency • SBS Samothrakitis Shipping Ltd Shipping Lines • A.N.E.K Lines • MINOAN Lines • N.E.L Lines • Attica Group • Strintzis Lines • Hellenic Seaways • G&A Ferries Warehouse and Logistic • Imperio-Argo Transport Logistics Services providers • Orphee Beinoglou International Forwarders & Logistics • Mondial (Hellas) International Transport • Intertrans International Transport • DSV - ABX Intermodal Operators (Truck – • Hellenic Railway Organization rail operators) Shipping agents • Allalouf (Hellas) Ltd • GAC World • Global Maritime Agency • China Shipping (Hellas) Agency • Davelopoulos Shipping Agency
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 192 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
GREECE • Empros Shipping Agencies • G.A Callitsis Succrs Agencies • E.Cauchi Shipping agents and Forwarders • Cotzias Shipping Agency • Inchcape Shipping Services • Medcargo Shipping Agency • Neptune Shipping Agency • Prodromos Shipping Agency • Ceres Shipping Agency • Scandinavian Near East Agency • MCCL Shipping and Trading • Hapag-Lloyd Overseas Transport (Hellas) Cargo brokers • Transocean Marine • Fret Trade • Ocean Breeze Goods Producers • TITAN group of companies • Lafarge S.A • S&B Industrial Minerals S.A • Petzetakis S.A • Shelman • Viohalko • MYTILINEOS group of companies • F.H.L Marbles • Vivartia ABEE
ITALY INTERNATIONAL LEVEL Shipping Lines • Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) (with operation in Italy) • China Ocean Shipping co., (COSCO) • Maersk Lines, • ZIM lines, • CMA-CGM, • Grimaldi Naples, • I. Messina • China Shipping Co., • Evergreen Terminal Operators (Global Operators operating ports at study area) International Logistics • NYK Logistics providers • Schenker S.A (with operation in Italy) • KNN • DHL • Maersk Logistics International • Goldair Cargo S.A NATIONAL LEVEL 1.- Ministries • Ministry of Finance • Ministry of Infrastructures and Transport 2.- Port Authorities • Ancona Port Authority • Augusta Port Authority • Bari Port Authority • Brindisi Port Authority • Catania Port Authority • Chioggia Maritime Authority • Special Authority for the Port of Monfalcone • Ravenna Port Authority • Taranto Port Authority
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 193 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
ITALY • Trieste Port Authority • Venezia Port Authority 3.- Relative Associations / Unions Goods producers • Chambers of Commerce and Industry • Confindustria - Confederation of Italian Industry Intermodal Operators (Truck – • Chambers of Commerce and Industry rail operators) • ANEIOA Association of fruit and vegetable exporters ? • Federexport - network of export consortia (CONFINDUSTRIA) • Cemat • Italian Federation of road hauliers (FAI) • Association for intermodal transport (ASSOCOMBI)
Warehouse and Logistic • Italian Association of logistics enterprises, Warehouses, providers Terminal port and airport operators (ASSOLOGISTICA) • Italian Federation of Transports and Logistics (CONFETRA) • Italian Association of Logistics and Supply Chain Management (AILOG) Freight forwarders • National Federation of Forwarders (FEDESPEDI) Shipping Lines • Italian Association of Ship-owners (CONFITARMA) • … Shipping agents • National Federation of Ship’s agents (FEDERAGENTI) • Association Ship’s agents and Air’s agents (ASSAGENTI)
4.- Indicative Operators reight forwarders • EAAMS • FIORINI OMNIA SERVICE • I-BARBON • SIDERSPED • S.A.GE.M. • BRESSANO ALFREDO • DANZAS • DI PAOLO GIUSEPPE • ELLESSE DI LUIGI SIFANNO • RIPERBELLI & C. CASA DI SPEDIZION
Shipping Lines • Tirrenia • Grimaldi • Adria ferries • Venezia Lines • Azzurra Line • Blu Line • SNAV • Grandi Navi Veloci • Alilauro • Ustica Lines Warehouse and Logistic • MSC SHIPPING COMPANY providers • Bartolini • Saima Avandero • Fercam • Cab Log • Arcese Group • Sifte Berti • Savino del Bene
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 194 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
ITALY • Albini e Pitigliani • Cavalieri • Albatrans Intermodal Operators (Truck – • Cemat rail operators) • Hupac… Shipping agents • APL ITALIAN AGENCIES • CEMAR Srl • DEEP SEA AGENCIES Srl • DELTA AGENZIA MARITTIMA Srl • GASTALDI & C. Spa • FINSEA Spa • SCERNI PAOLO Spa • LE NAVI AGENZIA MARITTIMA Spa Cargo brokers • FASULO MARCO • FILIPPO NARDI • ANTONIO CARDILLO • SCOLARO ENRICO SHIPBROKERS • NOLARMA TANKERS Srl • S. TAGLIAVIA & C. • Burke Novi • Banchero e Costa
SLOVENIA INTERNATIONAL LEVEL International Logistics • Schenker providers • Kuehne & Nagel (with operation in Italy) • Panalpina • DHL • Maersk Logistics • Cargo Partner • DSV • Gebruder Weiss NATIONAL LEVEL 1.- Ministries • Ministry of Transportation • Ministry of Environment • Slovenian Maritime Authority 2.- Port Authorities • Port of Koper 3.- Relative Associations / Unions Goods producers • Slovenian Chambers of Commerce and Industry • Primorska Chamber of Commerce Freight forwarders • Slovenian Association of Freight Forwarders Shipping Lines • Slovenian Association of Shipping Lines Shipping agents • Slovenian Association of Shipping Agents 4.- Indicative Operators Freight forwarders • Trade Logistics • Adria Cargo • Fersped • Transmar
Shipping Lines • Splosna Plovba • Trans Europa Shipping Line • Euro Shipping
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 195 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
SLOVENIA • ACK Warehouse and Logistic • Intereuropa providers • Adria Terminali Intermodal Operators (Truck – • Slovenian Railways rail operators) • Adria Transport • Adria Kombi • Niko Transport Shipping agents • Interagent • Tradeways • Centralog • Jadroagent • Agemar • Transagent
MALTA INTERNATIONAL LEVEL Shipping Lines (with operations • Grimaldi Group Napoli in Malta) • Grandi Navi Veloci • Tarros • CMA-CGM • Delmas • ANL • Deutsche-Afrika Linen • Evergreen • Hapag-Lloyd • Hamburg Sud • ZIM Integrated Shipping Services • IRISL • United Arab Shipping Company • Brointermed • Terminal Operators • CMA-CGM • Portek Group International Logistics • DHL providers (with operations in • Schenker S.A Malta) • Kuehne + Nagel • CEVA Logistics • NYK Logistics NATIONAL LEVEL 1.- Ministries • Ministry of Finance • Ministry of Infrastructure, Transport and Communications 2.- Port Authorities & Terminal • Malta Maritime Authority Operators • Malta Freeport Corporation • Malta Freeport Terminals • Valletta Gateway Terminals • VISET 3.- Relative Associations / Unions Goods producers • Malta Federation of Industry • Malta Chamber of Commerce Cargo exporters - importers • Association of Groupage Operators Warehouse and Logistic • Association of Groupage Operators providers • Malta Ships Suppliers Association • Malta Shortsea Promotion Centre
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 196 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
MALTA Freight forwarders • Malta International Forwarders Association • Association of Trailers and Trucks Operators Shipping agents • Association of Ship Agents Cargo brokers • Association of Groupage Operators 4.- Indicative Operators Freight forwarders • Attrans Ltd • Bianchi Group of Companies • Caruana, Carmelo Co. Ltd • Cassar & Cooper Group of Companies • Euro Bridge Shipping Services Ltd • Express Trailers Ltd • Eyre Cargo Services • Falcotrans Ltd • Focal Maritime Services Co Ltd • G M International Services Ltd • Gatt Shipping Services Ltd • Gollcher Co Ltd • Gollcher, O F & Sons Ltd • Kirton & Co Ltd • Kuehne + Nagel Ltd • Manoel Island Yacht Yard • Medsea Shipping Agencies Ltd • Mifsud, H & Sons Ltd • Miles Express Cargo Systems Ltd • Pony Express (Malta) Ltd • Rabelink International Freight • Ripard, John & Son (Shipping) Ltd • S Mifsud & Sons Ltd • Salvo Grima (Freeport Operations) Ltd • Seatrans Shpping Ltd • Sorotto, J B Ltd (Est 1877) • Sullivan Maritime Ltd • Sullivan & Sullivan Ltd • Sullivan, P & A Ltd • Sullivan Shipping Agencies Ltd • Thomas Smith & Co Ltd • Transfreight Ltd • Transpak Overseas Removals Ltd • Triton Logistics Ltd • W J Parnis England • White Brothers Ltd
Warehouse and Logistic • Alpha Oil Services & Trading Ltd providers • Arrigo, Oswald Ltd • Association of Groupage Operators • Attrans Ltd • Bianchi Group of Companies • Cassar & Cooper Group of Companies • Express Trailers Ltd • Falcotrans Ltd • Gollcher Co Ltd • Medsea Shipping Agencies Ltd • Oiltanking Malta Ltd • Pony Express (Malta) Ltd • Salvo Grima (Freeport Operations) Ltd
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 197 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
MALTA • Sullivan Maritime Ltd • Sullivan Shipping Agencies Ltd • Thomas Smith & Co Ltd • Transpak Overseas Removaks Ltd • Triton Logistics LTd • W J Parnis England • White Brothers Ltd
Shipping agents • A C B International Co Ltd • Alpha Oil Services & Trading Ltd • Arrigo, Oswald Ltd • Association of Groupage Operators • Barwil Malta Ltd • Bianchi Group of Companies • Caruana, Carmelo Co Ltd • Cassar & Copper Group of Companies • Euro Bridge Shipping Services Ltd • Falcotrans Ltd • Focal Maritime Services Co Ltd • G M International Services Ltd • Gatt Shipping Services Ltd • Gollcher Co Ltd • Gollcher, O F & Sons Ltd • Kirton & Co Ltd • Malta Motorways of the Sea • M M S 2006 Ltd • Medsea Shipping Agencies Ltd • Melita Marine Ltd • Mifsud Brothers Ltd (DMC, Cruise Services) • Misfud, H & Sons Ltd • Mondial Ship Agency • Ripard, John & Son (shipping ) Ltd • S Mifsud & Sons Ltd • Seatrans Shipping Ltd • Sorotto, J B Ltd (Est 1877) • Sullivan Maritime Ltd • Sullivan & Sullivan Ltd • Sullivan P&A Ltd • Thomas Smith & co Ltd • Transfreight Ltd • Triton Logistics Ltd • Troy Shipping Agency LTd • Virtu Ferries Ltd • W J Parnis England
Cargo brokers • Bianchi Group of Companies • Caruana, Carmelo Co Ltd • Cassar and Cooper Group of Companies • Euro Freight Services • Gollcher Co Ltd • Gollcher, O F & Sons Ltd • M M S 2006 Ltd • Pony Express (Malta) Ltd • Seatrans Shipping Ltd • Sorotto, J B Ltd (Est 1877)
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 198 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
MALTA • Sullivan Maritime Ltd • Sullivan & Sullivan Ltd • Thomas Smith & Co Ltd • White Brothers Ltd • Medsea Shipping Agencies Ltd • S Mifsud & Sons Ltd • Sullivan, P & A Ltd • Triton Logistics Ltd • W J Parnis England
Goods Producers • Foster Clark Products Ltd • Simonds Farsons Cisk Plc • Nylon Knitting Ltd. • Allied Newspapers Ltd. • De La Rue Currency and Security Print Ltd • Actavis Ltd. • Trelleborg Sealing Solutions Malta Ltd. • Toly Products Ltd. • Methode Electronics Malta Ltd. • ST Microelectronics (Malta) Ltd. • Baxter Ltd. • Playmobil Malta Ltd.
Cargo exporters - importers • A & J Co Ltd • Association of Groupage Operators • Cassar & Cooper Group of Companies • Express Trailers Ltd • Falcotrans Ltd • Focal Maritime Services Co Ltd • Gollcher Co Ltd • Gollcher, O F & Sons Ltd • Grazio Vella and Brothers • Kirton & Co Ltd • M M S 2006 Ltd • Medex Container Services Ltd • Medsea Shipping Agents Ltd • Pony Express (Malta) Ltd • Ripard, John & Son (Shipping) Ltd • Sorotto, J b Ltd (Est 1877) • Sullivan Maritime Ltd • Sullivan Shipping Agencies Ltd • Thomas Smith & Co Ltd • Transfreight Ltd • Virtu Ferries Ltd • W J Parnis England
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 199 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
CYPRUS INTERNATIONAL LEVEL Shipping Lines • Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) (with operation in Cyprus) • Maersk Lines, • ZIM lines, • CMA-CGM, • Grimaldi Naples, • Evergreen NATIONAL LEVEL 1.- Ministries • Ministry of Communications & Works 2.- Port Authorities • Cyprus Ports Authority 3.- Relative Associations / Unions Goods producers • Chambers of Commerce and Industry Cargo exporters - importers • Cyprus Exporters/Importers Association • Cyprus Association of International Transport Intermodal Operators (Truck – • Cyprus Forwarders rail operators) • Cyprus Clearing and Forwarding Agents Association • Cyprus Union of Trucks Warehouse and Logistic • Cyprus Forwarders providers • Cyprus Clearing and Forwarding Agents Association • Limassol Licensed Porters Association Freight forwarders • Cyprus Forwarders • Cyprus Clearing and Forwarding Agents Association Shipping Lines • Cyprus Ship Owners Union • Cyprus Chamber of Shipping Shipping agents • Cyprus Shipping Association Cargo brokers • Cyprus Shipping Association 4.- Indicative Operators Freight forwarders • Sarris Shipping Lines • Salamis Shipping Lines • Feeder Networking Shipping Ltd Shipping Lines • Louis Cruise Lines • Salamis Cruise Lines Warehouse and Logistic • Orbit Kazoulis Ltd providers • All Freight Logistics Ltd • GAP Vasilopoulos Ltd • Mavroudes Global Logistics Ltd • Eurofreight Ltd Shipping agents • Phellas Management (Shipping) Ltd • Albo Navigation Ltd • Amathus Aegeas Ltd • Associated Agencies Ltd • Bellapais Shipping Co Ltd • Blue Ice Navigation Co. Ltd • Bomar Maritime Co Ltd • Comarine Ltd • Cyprian Seaways Agencies Ltd • Cyprus Bonded Warehouses & Shipping Co Ltd • Cyprus Shipping Co Ltd • Famagusta General Agency Ltd • Feeder Shipping Agency Network Ltd • Francoudi & Stephanou Ltd • G. Kirzis & Co Ltd • G.A.P. Vassilopoulos Public Ltd • Gulf Agency Co (Cyprus) Ltd
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 200 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
CYPRUS • Hull Blyth Araouzos Ltd • Lavar Shipping Co Ltd • Lionmed Shipping Co. Ltd • M. J. Louisides & Sons Ltd • Manda Navigation Co Ltd • Mantovani Navigation Ltd • Nakufreight Ltd • Orphanides & Murat Ltd • Panship Agencies Ltd • Pantrans Navigation Ltd • S. Ch. Jeropoulos Maritime Ltd • Salamis Shipping Services Ltd • Sarris Shipping Services Ltd • Seagull Navigation Co. Ltd • Seascope Navigation Ltd • Senator Agencies (Cyprus) Ltd • Shiptrans Shipping & Trading Agency Ltd • Shoham (Cyprus) Ltd • Solomonides Shipping Ltd • UMA Marine Agencies Ltd Cargo brokers • As above Goods Producers • Peletico LTD • Vassiliko Cement Company LTD • Lordos Plastics LTD • K.E.O • E.T.K.O • L.O.E.L • S.O.D.A.P Cargo exporters - importers • Cyprus Trading Corp.
Promotion methods – Tools
A crucial factor regarding the effectiveness of the promotion plan relates to the choice of the tools to be used to communicate with the previously identified target groups. The promotion tools are not mutually exclusive, but their communication impact can be significantly enhanced when they are used in combination. Before identifying and finally deciding which tools have to be used for the promotion, it is essential to ensure that the available budget is adequate to achieve the desired objectives. However, the suggested tools for an efficient promotion of the East Med MoS, depending on the available budget, should be:
A. Promotion material (brochure)
A well designed brochure and/or leaflet needs to be produced, providing the concept, goals and the central message for the development of the MoS concept in the East Med region. The promotion material should be available to all participants in conferences / road shows or any other events which will be organized in order promote the MoS concept in the region. The brochure should also be forwarder through direct mail to a selected list of stakeholders in all
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 201 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
member states of the East Med MoS network, in order to increase awareness and inform them of the goals and benefits of the MoS concept. In addition through the use of direct mail, stakeholders can be informed of recent events and developments regarding the development of MoS in the East Med region (i.e. planned road shows, new call for proposals, ect.)
A well designed brochures or leaflet should contain useful and comprehensive information about the project and should focus on informing relative stakeholders regarding:
The central message of the project’s concept
The procedures for MoS project development
Geographical information and maps of the EastMed MoS corridors and ports
Summary statistics relating to import-export trade between the member states of the East Med MoS network and between the ports of the study area.
Summary statistics regarding the means of transport and the volumes of cargoes transported among the East Med MoS ports .
Information regarding the minimum requirementss set for the effective operation of the East Med MoS corridors
Information regarding the potential of the selected MoS corridors (i.e. economic and financial information relating to the import – export trade of the member states in the network)
Summary of the overall strategy for the development of the East Med MoS concept (corridors with potential, ports relating to these corridors, incentivesm ect.).
B. Web – sites
The existing web-site (www.eastmed-mos.eu), which is already running and has supported the dissemination of important information and developments of the project throughout its implementation, is an adequate tool to satisfy the needs of an efficient promotion plan and should continue to be supported throughout the development of the MoS concept in the East Med region.
The web site already provides all details of the MoS concept, the project’s description, the partners involved in the project, news and scheduled events for project’s development and all necessary information to stakeholders about the call for project’s proposals.
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 202 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
The web-site should be continuously updated, enriched and extended, meeting the demands of the promotion plan. The relevant items which should be inserted for this purpose are:
The meetings, conferences, road shows or other events which will be scheduled in the process to present and promote the results of the project to the stakeholders.
The findings of the project’s work packages (Statistics, Economic and Financial items, trading volumes, geographical aspects relating to Intermodal transport within the study area), which are of high value to stakeholders visiting the site.
Presentation of implementation progress, significant milestones, project results and presentation of new opportunities and project proposals in the region.
The dissemination of all relative information regarding the development of existing transport corridors and the operation and expansion of new ones in the region, will serve as an effective and efficient promotion measure in order to enhance stakeholders’ interest in the MoS concept and increase their willingness to participate and exploit existing and new MoS corridors in the region.
C. Publicity
Articles and news releases relating East Med MoS project development and achievements should be prepared and addressed to reputed relative international magazines, trade publications and web sites, in order to further increase awareness to interested stakeholders. This type of promotion will allow the East Med MoS concept to reach major worldwide players in the Shipping and Port Industry’s business that are essential for the development of MoS projects in the region,
Indicatively, some of the most well-known web-sites and periodicals which could effectively reach the International Port and Shipping community, providing them with relative information regarding East Med Mos developments, are the following:
1. Web – Sites
International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH) – www.iaphworldports.org
European Seaports Organisation (ESPO) – www.espo.be
Containerisation International on line – www.ci-online.co.uk
Dynamar – www.dynamar.com
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 203 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
2. Periodicals – Magazines
Fairplay – www.fairplay.co.uk
Containerisation International – www.ci-online.co.uk
Ports Strategy – www.portstrategy.com
Cargo systems – www.cargosystems.net
Port technology International – www.porttechnology.org
Port Development International – www.worldportdevelopment.com
Lloyd’s list and Lloyd’s list Shipping Economist – www.lloydslist.com
Trade Winds – www.tradewinds.no
C.I Freight facts – www.ci-online.co.uk
Dynamar – www.dynamar.com
D. Information events (Conferences / road shows)
Information events will play a crucial role in the effective communication and dissemination of important information regarding the developments of the East Med MoS project. These events allow the targeting of the main stakeholders necessary for the development of the MoS concept in the region. Through these events crucial information can be communicated regarding procedures to submit and finance new projects, potential new routes, possible incentives, ect., allowing for a direct response to all possible queries from stakeholders. The proposed information events, include the following:
1. Main Project Conference: It will be the closing event for the study of the Master Plan and at the same time serve as the main kick off event for the systematic implementation of the overall strategy for the development of the East Med MoS. This event will allow the presentation of the key findings, results, and overall strategy for development of the East Med MoS to all relative stakeholders. The event should include participants from Governmental and State officials, Port authorities, Associations representatives and most importingly stakeholders from the private sector having the operational role in Intermodal transports. Crucial to the success of this event will be the following:
Identifying the appropriate time and convenient place for most participants (a place within the region under study) in order to ensure widespread participation in the event.
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 204 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
Inviting in a timely manner all relative stakeholders (from all member states of the study area) to attend the conference.
Communicating the event through the home web-site and implementing selective publicity actions (news releases in relative web-sites and trade journals – periodicals). Direct communication with selected stakeholders from all member states (either through mail, e-mail or fax).
Providing participants with relevant publications (brochures or leaflets), which have been produced for the purpose of promotion activities.
Collecting the reactions, comments, intentions and interests from stakeholders participating in the event, affecting the project’s further development.
2. Road Shows Events: These events can be used as a focused tool in order to mobilize interested stakeholders (ports included in the selected MoS Corridors, stakeholders operating in each of these regions, ect.) These road shows should have a dual focus: a) Enhance awareness to relative stakeholders of the potential and advantages of developing new and/or enhancing existing routes within the East Med MoS corridors, b) Enable detailed workshops to be implemented with stakeholders that have already shown interest in developing MoS routes in order to give more detailed information regarding the procedures for approval and financing of proposed projects. Following such an approach and in order to achieve a high level of impact from these events, the following measures should be implemented:
A road show should be scheduled for each MoS cluster identified and hosted by one of the ports included in this cluster.
Participants should include the ports within each cluster, regional - local authorities, and stakeholders operating in the specific area. Special care should be given in order to ensure the participation of stakeholders that have already shown interest in developing new MoS routes (submitted proposals in the recent call or showed interest in the Main Conference)
All above promotion measures & tools should be utilized in order to widely communicate the event to stakeholders but focus should be given to local – within the cluster – stakeholders.
The road shows should have sessions for the following: a) overall presentation of the potential of the cluster, b) presentation of the necessary improvements in infrastructure and service levels of involved ports based on the findings of the Master Plan (gap analysis – MoS quality level), c) information session on the methods of financing these projects including possible incentives, d) procedures to mature and implement the projects, e)
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 205 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
separate workshops for mature proposals focusing on improving their chances for EU financing.
Implementation of the Promotion Plan
The implementation of an integrated communication plan, targeting the intermodal transport sector operating within the East Med region, should be done methodically utilizing a specific and comprehensive communication activity schedule, approved by the projects Steering Committee.
The communication activity schedule needs to be implemented in consecutive and prescribed stages, in order to avoid failures or discrepancies in implementation, which could lead to unsuccessful results. Taking into account the proposed promotional measures, an initial communication activity schedule (mainly focusing on activities already planned) has been distinguished into the following Short-term and Medium - term activities:
A. Short- term activities
The short term promotion activities refer to the time period until the end of the current study – period during which the Consortium will support the Steering Committee in implementing the projects communication activities). The specific actions within this time frame are the following:
1. The allocation of a promotion budget from the Steering Committee (Government or EU funds) that will support all communication activities necessary for the development of the East Med MoS Master Plan.
2. Preparation of the East Med MoS Brochure (action undertaken by the Consortium implementing the Master Plan study in cooperation with the Steering Committee)
3. Updating Project Internet Site with all deliverables from the Master Plan study and continuous updating with all new developments and events planned within this period.
4. The organization of the main Conference within November 2008 (action undertaken by the Consortium implementing the Master Plan study in cooperation with the Steering Committee)
B. Medium – term activities
The medium term promotion activities refer to the time period after the end of the current study and until a Promotion Centre is set up (that will undertake the overall responsibility for implementing the promotion strategy) The specific actions within this time are the following:
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 206 Eastern Mediterranean Region MoS Master Plan Study
1. The planning and preparation of the different road shows to be effected in all member states, promoting the achievements of the project locally (also includes all actions necessary to successfully promote the road shows – publicity, direct mail, ect)
2. Support for the continuous operation and updating of the projects internet site (recent news, project implementation progress, milestones, new events planned, new call for proposals, conference results, ect.)
3. Publicity actions in order to inform the market of significant milestones achieved and new events being planned.
Deliverable 6.2 – Annex III 207