COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON PORT-RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES  COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON PORT-RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Venice 6 May 2008 CONCLUSIONS 01/12/2018 picture: courtesy of the Port of Hamburg EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Concept (1/2) Follow-up of the Ports Policy Communication Organised by DG TREN G.2 Ports Policy Unit Close cooperation with ESPO Hosted by the Venice Port Authority +/- 45 participants representing port authorities, terminal operators, the dredging industry, shipowners; absence of environmental NGOs

Concept (2/2) Brainstorming session on port-related environmental issues No discussion on changes in legislation, only on how to implement existing legislation Issues: Birds, Habitats, Water Framework, Dredging, Waste and Air Quality

Messages from stakeholders Birds and Habitats (1/3) Absence of very precise definitions Existence of litigation culture A solid solution for legal certainty is needed More than a guide of (best) practice is needed COM should delimit the definitions contained in the Directives. Directives work with undetermined terms. A common set of standards should be elaborated by COM.

Messages from stakeholders Birds and Habitats (2/3) Problems: delays of projects, extra costs caused by delays (who pays for these?) COM has a certain responsibility to accelerate projects, because otherwise there is no efficient transport policy.

Messages from stakeholders Birds and Habitats (3/3) Recommendations from ESPO (1/2) Responsibility for port authorities: take up the existing recommendations regarding the Birds and Habitats Directives (i.e., ESPO Code of Practice) and take them further Responsibility for the COM: need for more efficiency in the planning process within a reasonable timeframe (is it "yes" or is it "no"?); there are examples of large infrastructure projects in the Netherlands and the UK

Messages from stakeholders Birds and Habitats (3/3) Recommendations from ESPO (2/2) COM should make sure that the Waste Framework Directive and the Environmental Quality Standards Directive take into account that (uncontaminated) dredged material is not waste, including when disposed of on land There should be a connection between the "hard" guidelines on State Aid to ports and the "soft" guidelines on environmental matters

Messages from stakeholders Dredging Exempt sediments from waste through the revision of the Waste Framework Directive According to the European Dredging Association, in many MS maintenance dredging for access to ports is considered as a major project; these are regular projects and should receive licences for longer periods than only for one year Dredging is not the primary source of pollution

Venice outputs for Ecosphère Explaining the added value of the BHD and WFD Explaining the needs of stakeholders: at a certain stage certainty is needed to launch synchronized investments (port + local and hinterland transport +…). The issue is not time scale but the prior knowledge of the duration How to implement key concepts (proportionality, alternative, compensation…). Why minimum levels (appropriate, significant…) have been chosen versus standards ?

Venice outputs for Ecosphère What is the extent of the problem we are discussing ? To plan issues and solutions: need for knowledge on how many 100s or 1000s hectares of extension are needed in EU for the next 15-25 years. Which part for the improvement of the current capacities ? ESPO will deliver figures for October. Two examples: Rotterdam (2500 ha for the next 25 years), Le Havre (2000 ha reserved and earmarked in land planning documents) How to consider the impacts on hinterland ?