Europe’s Ports at a Strategic Crossroads

Isabelle Ryckbost: Indeed, the onshore power supply (OPS) requirements foreseen under the AFIR Regulation require ports to make substantial investments by 2030. Without public funding, these investments can hardly be realised, as even with public support, there is no viable business case for OPS, certainly not in the short term.

Ports therefore hope that the funding envelope under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) will remain sufficiently robust to support these investments. An important issue is the current obligation for ports to combine a CEF grant with a bank loan (the so-called "blending obligation"), which creates difficulties when applying for funding, precisely because obtaining a bank loan is challenging in the absence of a sufficient business case.

Ideally, we would also like to see funding from the Innovation Fund and EU ETS revenues directed towards the development of OPS in ports. While the technology itself might not be considered innovative, we believe that the scale at which OPS needs to be deployed requires considerable innovation, particularly in connecting and upgrading electricity grids.

Furthermore, the upcoming European Competitiveness Fund and Member States' National and Regional Partnership Plans should provide sufficient opportunities to support these investments.

Regarding operational costs, ESPO supports the proposals under the new network charge Regulation, which would allow Member States to grant reductions in network charges to specific groups. We would like ports and their users to be included among these beneficiaries.

Overall, the key challenge is ensuring that users cover at least the full operational costs (OPEX), in line with the polluter-pays principle.

Isabelle Ryckbost: Ports have increasingly developed into major industrial clusters that require significant amounts of energy while simultaneously acting as producers or facilitators of energy.

One of the main challenges is the growing demand for electricity grid capacity, not only for OPS but also for the broader electrification of ports and the businesses operating within them. Moreover, electricity is essential for producing clean energy carriers. Ports hosting these activities therefore face additional electricity demand.

Permitting procedures are another significant bottleneck. In many ports, lengthy permitting processes slow down infrastructure development, hampering progress and potentially discouraging investment.

Finally, ports face increasing spatial constraints. Their evolving roles, particularly in facilitating the energy transition, require additional space for new infrastructure and activities. Ensuring sufficient space for these developments is therefore becoming an increasingly pressing challenge.

Isabelle Ryckbost: More than ever, European seaports must combine their primary role as vital gateways for trade, positioned at the crossroads of supply chains and acting as economic engines, with their increasingly crucial role as enablers of military mobility and preparedness.

Any measures facilitating military transport must therefore strike an appropriate balance between military requirements and the continuity of civilian and commercial activities.

ESPO strongly supports the objective of simplifying and harmonising cross-border military movements across all transport modes, including maritime transport, through the concept of "Military Schengen". Smoother cross-border military transport towards the hinterland would also help free up port space more quickly, limiting disruptions to commercial operations and civilian supply chains.

Given their strategic importance, ports can be particularly vulnerable and must be effectively protected and supported. Identifying ports as Strategic Dual-Use Infrastructure (SDI), for which a basic level of protection must be guaranteed, represents an important step in this direction.

However, a clear division of responsibilities between Member States, port authorities and port operators, reflecting their respective competences, remains essential to ensure effective implementation, legal certainty and a fair allocation of obligations and costs. This division should be further defined in close cooperation with the sector.

Finally, given their growing importance for energy security and port operations, hydrogen facilities, OPS installations, battery storage systems and electrical infrastructure should be recognised as critical infrastructure and integrated into broader resilience and security assessments. These assessments must also address emerging risks, including hybrid threats, malicious drone activities and sabotage.