ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF THE BELGIAN PORTS: Flemish maritime ports, Liège port complex and the port of Brussels - Report 2011 Paper Documen by Claude Mathys July 2013 No 242 n ï NationalBank OF BELGIUM Eurosystem National Bank of Belgium Limited liability company RLP Brussels - Company’s number : 0203.201.340 Registered office: boulevard de Berlaimont 1 4 - 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 2013 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 2006 - 2011, with an emphasis on 2011. Focusing on the three major variables of value added, employment and investment, the report also provides some information based on the social balance sheet 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. As a result of the underlying calculation method the changes of indirect employment and indirect value added can differ from one another. The developments concerning economic activity in the six ports in 2010 - 2011 are summarised in this table: Changes from 2010 to 2011 Value added Employment Investment Tonnage (in percentages) (current prices) (Full-time Equivalents) (current prices) (metric tonnes) Flemish maritime ports Direct -2 .4 -1.1 -9 .6 + 2.0 Indirect + 2.4 -0 .3 (seaborne) Total -0 .2 -0 .7 Liège port complex Direct + 7.3 + 0.7 + 8.8 + 1.9 Indirect + 14.5 + 1.4 (inland) Total + 10.8 + 1.1 Port of Brussels Direct -1 .2 + 1.1 -1 4 .2 + 10.7 Indirect + 0.0 + 1.9 (inland) Total -0 .6 + 1.5 Belgian ports Direct -1 .6 -0 .9 -8 .7 + 2.1 Indirect + 3.1 -0 .0 Total + 0.5 -0 .4 1 Update of Mathys C. (July 2012), Economic importance of the Belgian ports: Flemish maritime ports, Liège port complex and the port of Brussels - Report 2010, NBB, Working Paper No. 225 (Document series). All figures have been updated. This paper is available at the following address http://www.nbb.be/doc/ts/publications/wp/wp225En.pdf . NBB WORKING PAPER No. 2 4 2 -JULY 2013 After the upturn in 2010, maritime cargo traffic in the Flemish ports continued to rise, albeit at a slower pace in 2011. Direct value added declined in the four ports in Flanders as a whole. Both maritime and non-maritime clusters as a whole were down. The only increase in value added occurred in the port of Zeebrugge. The value added of the non-maritime clusters in each port declined, while in the maritime cluster, the port of Antwerp was the only one to register a steep drop. Direct employment in the Flemish ports as a whole declined during the year 2011. This is true of both the maritime and non-maritime cluster. Only the port of Ghent registered a rise in employment in both clusters. Investment contracted in the Flemish ports as a whole for the third year in a row. The decline in investment was between 7 and 13 percent in the ports of Antwerp, Ghent and Ostend, whereas Zeebrugge recorded a negative rate of one-fifth in its investment levels in 2011. The volume of cargo handled in the port of Liège increased slightly in 2011. Direct value added rose in both clusters, while employment registered a decline in the maritime cluster and a rise in the non- maritime cluster. After falling in 2010, investment picked up again in 2011 in both clusters. The volume of cargo handled at the port of Brussels rose in 2011. Value added in the maritime cluster was up but contracted in the non-maritime cluster. Employment increased in both clusters. The drop in investment recorded since 2009 continued throughout 2011. 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 2011. 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 Mare 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 Rudy Trogh, 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. NBB WORKING PAPER No. 2 4 2 -JULY 2013 Contents Foreword...................................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................2 1 ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF THE BELGIAN PORTS....................................................................... 8 1.1 Traffic in the Belgian ports ............................................................................................................................8 1.2 Competitive position of the Belgian ports ....................................................................................................9 1.3 Direct and indirect value added in the Belgian ports ...............................................................................12 1.4 Direct and indirect employment in the Belgian ports ...............................................................................14 1.5 Investment in the Belgian ports .................................................................................................................. 16 1.6 Demography of the Belgian ports...............................................................................................................17 1.7 Breakdown of the variables by company size .......................................................................................... 19 1.8 Social balance sheet in the Belgian ports .................................................................................................19 1.9 Financial ratios in the Belgian ports .......................................................................................................... 22 1.10 Financial health in the Belgian ports ......................................................................................................... 24 2 PORT OF ANTWERP..................................................................................................................................26 2.1 Port developments .......................................................................................................................................26 2.2 Value added ..................................................................................................................................................27 2.3 Employment .................................................................................................................................................. 30 2.4 Investment ......................................................................................................................................................32 3 PORT OF GHENT........................................................................................................................................ 36 3.1 Port developments ....................................................................................................................................... 36 3.2 Value added ..................................................................................................................................................37 3.3 Employment .................................................................................................................................................. 40 3.4 Investment ..................................................................................................................................................... 42 4 PORT OF OSTEND.....................................................................................................................................45 4.1 Port developments .......................................................................................................................................45