ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF THE BELGIAN PORTS : Flemish maritime ports, Liège port complex and the port of Brussels – Report 2010 Working Paper Document by Claude Mathys July 2012 No 225 National Bank of Belgium Limited liability company RLP Brussels – Company’s number : 0203.201.340 Registered office : boulevard de Berlaimont 14 – BE -1000 Brussels www.nbb.be Editor Jan Smets Member of the Board of directors of the National Bank of Belgium © Illustrations : National Bank of Belgium Layout : NBB Microeconomic Analysis Cover : NBB AG – Prepress & Image Published in July 2012 Abstract This paper is an annual publication issued by the Microeconomic Analysis service of the National Bank of Belgium. The Flemish maritime ports (Antwerp, Ghent, Ostend, Zeebrugge), the Autonomous Port of Liège and the port of Brussels play a major role in their respective regional economies and in the Belgian economy, not only in terms of industrial activity but also as intermodal centers facilitating the commodity flow. This update paper1 provides an extensive overview of the economic importance and development of the Flemish maritime ports, the Liège port complex and the port of Brussels for the period 2005 - 2010, with an emphasis on 2010. Focusing on the three major variables of value added, employment and investment, the report also provides some information based on the social balance and an overview of the financial situation in these ports as a whole. These observations are linked to a more general context, along with a few cargo statistics. Annual accounts data from the Central Balance Sheet Office were used for the calculation of direct effects, the study of financial ratios and the analysis of the social balance sheet. The indirect effects of the activities concerned were estimated in terms of value added and employment, on the basis of data from the National Accounts Institute. The developments concerning economic activity in the six ports in 2009 - 2010 are summarised in this table: Changes from 2009 to 2010 Value added Employment Investment Tonnage (in percentages) (current prices) (Full-time Equivalents) (current prices) (metric tonnes) Flemish maritime ports Direct + 11.2 - 3.5 - 12.0 + 13.6 Indirect + 1.2 - 0.0 (seaborne) Total + 6.2 - 1.6 Liège port complex Direct + 3.4 - 7.1 - 67.0 + 15.8 Indirect - 1.2 + 0.1 (inland) Total + 1.1 - 2.8 Port of Brussels Direct + 2.8 - 0.9 - 8.9 + 9.3 Indirect - 2.5 + 1.3 (inland) Total + 0.1 + 0.3 Belgian ports Direct + 10.2 - 3.7 - 18.8 + 13.7 Indirect + 1.2 + 0.0 Total + 5.8 - 1.7 1 Update of Mathys C. (June 2011), Economic importance of the Belgian ports: Flemish maritime ports, Liège port complex and the port of Brussels - Report 2009, NBB, Working Paper No. 215 (Document series). All figures have been updated. This paper is available at the following address http://www.nbb.be/doc/ts/publications/wp/wp215En.pdf. NBB WORKING PAPER No. 225 - JULY 2012 After the decline seen in 2009, maritime cargo traffic in the Flemish ports reversed the trend and recorded a rise in 2010. Direct value added increased in each of the four ports in Flanders. Both maritime and non-maritime branches as a whole are up. The only decrease in value added occurred in the maritime branches in the port of Ostend and the non-maritime branches of the port of Zeebrugge. Of the six ports, the port of Brussels recorded the strongest growth rate for value added in the maritime cluster, and the port of Ostend recorded the strongest increase in the non-maritime cluster. Direct employment in the Flemish ports as a whole declined during the year 2010. This is true of both the maritime and non-maritime cluster. Except for Zeebrugge, investment decreased in all the Flemish ports. The decline in investment was around 17 percent in the ports of Antwerp, Ghent and Ostend, whereas Zeebrugge recorded a growth rate of more than four-fifths in its investment levels in 2010. The volume of cargo handled in the port of Liège increased in 2010. Direct value added rose slightly, whereas employment registered a significant decline. There were job losses in both maritime and non- maritime branches. In the non-maritime cluster, investment diminished substantially because of a lack of projects. The volume of cargo handled at the port of Brussels rose in 2010. Both value added and employment increased in maritime branches. Value added in non-maritime branches remained steady but employment contracted. The downturn in investment recorded during 2009 continued throughout 2010. This report provides a comprehensive account of these issues, giving details for each economic sector, although the comments are confined to the main changes that occurred in 2010. Key words: branch survey, maritime cluster, subcontracting, indirect effects, transport, intermodality, public investments. JEL classification: C67, H57, J21, L22, L91, L92, R15, R34 and R41. Corresponding author: NBB, Microeconomic Information department, e-mail: [email protected] This paper was made with the technical support and the expertise of Mr Marc Van Kerckhoven. Research results and conclusions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bank of Belgium or any other institution to which the author is affiliated. All remaining errors are ours. The author would like to thank her colleagues from the Microeconomic Information department for their assistance and support. Special thanks go to Messrs Philippe Quintin, head of department at the NBB, and George van Gastel, head of service at the NBB, for their support and their comments on this paper. The advice given by Luc Dresse, advisor in the Research and Statistics departments was also greatly appreciated. NBB WORKING PAPER No. 225 - JULY 2012 Contents Foreword ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 2 1 ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF THE BELGIAN PORTS ............................................................... 7 1.1 Traffic in the Belgian ports ............................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Competitive position of the Belgian ports ......................................................................................... 9 1.3 Direct and indirect value added in the Belgian ports...................................................................... 11 1.4 Direct and indirect employment in the Belgian ports ...................................................................... 14 1.5 Investment in the Belgian ports ...................................................................................................... 15 1.6 Breakdown of the variables by company size ................................................................................ 16 1.7 Social balance sheet in the Belgian ports ...................................................................................... 17 1.8 Financial ratios in the Belgian ports ............................................................................................... 19 1.9 Financial health in the Belgian ports .............................................................................................. 21 2 PORT OF ANTWERP .................................................................................................................... 23 2.1 Port developments ......................................................................................................................... 23 2.2 Value added ................................................................................................................................... 24 2.3 Employment ................................................................................................................................... 26 2.4 Investment ...................................................................................................................................... 29 3 PORT OF GHENT .......................................................................................................................... 32 3.1 Port developments ......................................................................................................................... 32 3.2 Value added ................................................................................................................................... 33 3.3 Employment ................................................................................................................................... 35 3.4 Investment ...................................................................................................................................... 37 4 PORT OF OSTEND ....................................................................................................................... 40 4.1 Port developments ......................................................................................................................... 40 4.2 Value added ................................................................................................................................... 41 4.3 Employment ................................................................................................................................... 43 4.4 Investment .....................................................................................................................................