Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Green Paper on Sea ports and maritime infrastructure'
C 93/20 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 4. 1999 Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Green Paper on Sea ports and maritime infrastructure’ (1999/C 93/04) THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, having regard to the European Commission’s Green Paper on Sea Ports and Maritime Infrastructure (COM(97) 678 final); having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 15 December 1997 to consult the Committee of the Regions, under the first paragraph of Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the subject; having regard to its decision of 15 July 1998 to instruct Commission 3 for Trans-European networks, transport, information society to prepare the opinion on the subject; having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 331/98 rev. ), rapporteur Mr Laan, adopted by Commission 3 on 27 November 1998; having regard to its earlier opinions on: — Towards a new maritime strategy (CdR 137/97 fin) (1); — The pan-European dimension of transport policy (CdR 253/97 fin) (2); — Spatial planning in Europe (CdR 340/96 fin) (3); — The proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision amending Decision No 1692/96/EC as regards sea ports, inland ports and intermodal terminals as well as project No 8 in Annex III (COM(97) 681 final — 97/0358 COD — CdR 101/98 fin) (4); having regard to the preparatory work of the study group (members: Mrs Scott, Mr Bree, Mr Cummins, Mr Ervelä, Mr Gustâv, Mr Jensen, Mr Laan (president), Mr Lamberti, Mr Niederbremer, Mr Pella, Mr Pericu, Mr Sauwens, Mr Suijkerbuijk and Mr Walsh); having regard to the discussions of the conference on the Future Prospective for European Ports held by the European Commission in Barcelona on 7 and 8 May 1998 and those of the seminar on Ports and Maritime Infrastructure in Europe: the Committee of the Regions’ approach, held by the COR in Dublin on 26 November 1998, at its 27th plenary session of 13 and 14 January 1999 (meeting of 14 January) unanimously adopted the following opinion. 1. Introduction The Committee of the Regions welcomes the 1. 1. publication of the Green Paper on Sea Ports and Maritime Infrastructure. In this way the Commission is signalling the great importance of this link in the transport chain, which up to now has received insuf- ficient attention in the debate on a European transport policy and Trans-European Networks. The discussion now in progress between European institutions, port authorities, port operators and firms in the maritime (1) OJ C 379, 15. 12. 1997, p. 60. (2) OJ C 64, 27. 2. 1998, p. 67. (3) OJ C 116, 14. 4. 1997, p. 1. (4) OJ C 373, 2. 12. 1998, p. 20. industry, as well as trade unions and other organizations representing the social interests of the sector is also wholeheartedly welcomed. 1. 2. The Committee of the Regions believes that EU sea ports should contribute to the sustainable development of the Community, both from an ecological and economic point of view. The European Union’s sea ports are also border posts of the Union, with all the health, security and economic considerations this involves. They are also an integral part of the Union, in which European law fully applies. 1. 3. The Committee of the Regions therefore endorses the view that sea ports are vitally important factors in EU competitiveness and that they are important centres of regional, economic and social development. Ports are 6. 4. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 93/21 not only a link in the transport chain; they are also economic entities in their own right. They handle more than 90 % of the Union’s trade with third countries and approximately 30 % of intra-EU traffic, as well as facilitating the movement of more than 200 million passengers each year. They also make an important contribution to local and regional economies and employment. Efforts to improve the competitiveness of overseas trade must therefore be given priority. And competitiveness is strengthened by an efficient transport system, and here the sea ports play a central role. They are ideal locations for industrial activities which are dependent on the import of large quantities of low-value raw materials and the export of semi-manufactured goods. In this way sea ports make a significant contri- bution to the EU’s added value and to employment both in coastal regions and inland. The small sea ports, in collaboration with the larger ports, play a crucial role, to the benefit of the EU economy and sustainable development. This is true to an even greater extent of small sea ports in remote areas of the Community. — the creation of facilities — should, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, remain a matter for the parties involved at national level: business and the local, regional and national authorities. European involvement should be mainly restricted to setting and monitoring equal conditions for fair competition (see also appendix). Policy on European ports and maritime infrastructure should be aimed at achieving an optimum allocation of passenger and goods traffic flows in the coastal regions. The Committee of the Regions therefore wel- 1. 6. comes the Commission’s new initiatives insofar as these contribute to a level playing field. Efficient operation of the market will promote the integration of sea ports into the trans-European multimodal infrastructure net- work. In this way a European ports policy will contribute to the balanced development of a European transport network. 1. 4. The Green Paper states that the onward march of globalization, the European internal market and the impact of the information society make it necessary to enhance the efficiency of ports and to improve port and maritime infrastructure. The COR believes that the creation of an efficient transport system should essen- tially be left to market forces, provided that guarantees of public health and safety are maintained. The dynamic interaction of market forces maintains a transport system which makes an optimum contribution to the economy of the European Union and coastal and inland regions. Free competition under equal conditions can be achieved on the one hand by guaranteeing equal rules with regard to the supply of labour, workplace safety, working conditions, environmental protection, external security and border controls, and on the other hand by ensuring that all European port users carry the cost of port facilities and services equally. 2. Policy establishing conditions 2. 1. The Green Paper’s policy provisions establishing conditions are basically limited to rules on sea shipping. The Green Paper does not deal in the broader sense with matters such as protection of the environment, workplace safety and conditions, external security and border controls, although differences in the laws in these areas, and in their implementation, and the unequal treatment of the basic rights of European citizens have a major impact on conditions of competition between port operators and firms using ports. Efforts are needed to bring uniformity to the law in Europe. Environment 2. 2. Environmental pollution does not stop at fron- tiers. The effects of pollution on human health and the environment are in principle the same in all countries. Effective protection of the environment requires a cross-border approach, at least at EU level, but also including co-operation with non-EU countries. As environmental protection measures may have a consider- able impact on production costs, a common European approach also contributes to the operation of the market. 1. 5. In order to ensure that the sea ports operate as efficiently as possible for the EU and coastal and inland regions, the European Union needs a policy setting out basic conditions: a coherent system of rules, which are possible to implement, on the use of port infrastructure (beginning with transparency with regard to the costs and revenue arising from port operation) and regarding the areas mentioned in point 1. 4. For the same reasons, policy setting out basic operating conditions for ports Atmospheric deposition and discharges from 2. 3. rivers and drainage canals are the main sources of marine pollution. Discharges from ships also contribute. The dumping of waste from ships, a practice with a long history and a common business practice entailing no cost, is now no longer accepted (Marpol Treaty). The measures intended to counter the dumping of waste at C 93/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 4. 1999 sea — the Green Paper links this with the improvement of the availability and quality of waste reception facilities in all EU ports — need to take account of this. In accordance with the ‘no special fee’ principle, the Committee of the Regions proposes that the cost of collecting waste from shipping be recovered in accordance with the user-pays principle, which is applied in most ports in Member States and in maritime nations outside the EU. 2. 4. The Committee of the Regions feels that any European environmental initiatives on shipping should follow the non-binding international agreements made in the framework of the IMO and that no attempt should be made to translate these into binding Community legislation (see Opinion on the Communication entitled Towards a new maritime strategy). Applying additional or stricter conditions to this activity which spans the globe would be wide of the mark. Port state control, embodied in a memorandum of understanding, is the appropriate instrument for applying these laws. Rapid implementation and equal application of this memor- andum throughout the European Union would promote the effectiveness of this instrument and free competition under equal conditions between European ports. 2. 5. A constant flow of large volumes of goods between two points is a necessary condition for the development of multimodal transport and short sea shipping. Only then is the provision of frequent (short waiting times) transport services offering a large loading capacity (coastal and inland waterway vessels and trains) economically viable for the operator and attractive to the user. Sea ports are a place where constant, high-volume goods flows converge. As interconnection points for intermodal transport and short sea shipping, sea ports can thus make an important contribution to an environmentally sound transport system (see also point 3. 10). The Committee of the Regions notes that the 2. 6. Green Paper makes no mention of the following aspects of environmental protection in ports, on which agree- ments are needed at European level. — Quality of dredging mud and storage and/or pro- cessing of contaminated dredging mud (see also point 3. 7) — Approach to the use of marine anti-fouling paints containing tributyltin, on which agreements are being/have been reached at the IMO; — Use of disinfectant gases (methyl bromide/phos- phine) for pest control on some sorts of cargo; — Handling of dangerous substances by warehousing and transhipment firms (skills); — Prevention of nuisances in the form of noise, dust and odours; — Control systems for management of ship-generated waste. 2. 7. The Committee of the Regions recognizes that the regional and local authorities can make an important contribution to responsible management of the port environment. Ports generally lie on river estuaries or drainage canal outfalls. Where fresh water from inland waterways meets salt sea water and the flow of water is halted, suspended particles are deposited. And with them any contaminants which have entered the water upstream. In order to prevent silting, ports have to be periodically dredged. The resulting dredging mud is often so contaminated that dispersing it in the environment (dumping at sea) is not acceptable. It has been shown that a large proportion of port-bottom contaminants are brought in by river or waste water. The Committee therefore calls on the European Commission to adopt measures to protect surface water throughout the Union. Working conditions and safety in the workplace 2. 8. The Treaty requires that all EU citizens be able to accept employment anywhere in the Union. Just as the quality of the environment is important for the health of all European citizens, so the quality of working conditions is important for their health and safety. There is a need therefore for the convergence of national laws on working conditions and safety in the workplace. 2. 9. The Council Directive of 6 June 1989 (89/391/ EEC) on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work aims to harmonize the laws on working conditions and workplace safety throughout the European Union. This includes ports. The Council Directive of 29 May 1990 (90/269/EEC) on the minimum health and safety requirements for the manual handling of loads where there is a risk particularly of back injury to workers (fourth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EC) is an example of this. 6. 4. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 93/23 2. 10. The Committee of the Regions notes that the consequences of these existing laws are not discussed in the Green Paper. No mention is made of the safety of workers engaged in the securing of containers, working on top of containers, or using certain kinds of twistlock in order to avoid the need to work on top of containers with the resulting danger of falls (see also Proposal for a Council Directive on minimum safety and health requirements for the use by workers of work equipment for temporary work at height (1), and ILO Treaty 152). It should be noted that in the USA working on top of containers will be banned as of mid-1999, which will oblige shippers to equip their ships with twistlocks, which can be operated on the dock. Border checks Europe’s ports are also Union border posts. 2. 11. And the chain of border posts is of course only as strong as its weakest link. One particularly strong link does not make the chain any stronger. In view of the health, security, tax and economic interests involved, the Committee of the Regions considers that effective and practicable community control procedures are needed. Examples of checks conducted at borders are: — Veterinary checks (animal products), — Plant health checks (plant products), — Checks on payment of taxes (VAT, excise duty), — Checks on illegal imports (drugs and arms). European legislation 2. 12. European legislation may be needed to ensure effective policy and equal conditions of competition, e. g. with regard to environmental protection, working conditions, workplace safety and border checks. When legislation takes the form of a directive equal implemen- tation is in practice not guaranteed. The Committee of the Regions therefore advocates the following: — Clear directives setting out clear guidelines on equal interpretation, so that implementation of European law gives rise to as few directives in national disparities as possible. (1) Doc. No 202/3/97. — Deadlines for adoption to be as short as possible with a view to the maximum possible simultaneity of implementation so that disparities between the dates on which European directives enter into force via national law are minimized. — Convergence on application by national authorities. In order to promote this process of convergence, 2. 13. the Committee recommends that an exchange pro- gramme be established for officials responsible for the application of laws relating to environmental protection, working conditions and workplace safety. Exchanges of officials already take place with a view to uniform application of European laws on veterinary checks. 3. Policy designed to create conditions The port complex 3. 1. European port policy is characterized by a number of agreements, but also differences. A port can be regarded as a complex of basins, quays and commercial areas situated at the centre of a network of public infrastructure consisting of a sea lane for access, infrastructure connecting the port with its hinterland (inland waterways, railways, roads) (2). The network may also include private infrastructure (pipelines, power lines). The complex is designed and equipped to transfer passengers and goods (in some cases after temporary storage) efficiently and safely to another mode of transport. The complex is also designed and equipped to enable goods entering the port to undergo industrial processing there and to leave the port again in another form. These basic activities bring any number of subsidiary activities in their wake (pilotage, land-based control of shipping movements, towage, mooring main- tenance and supply, mediation between suppliers and users of transport services, commerce, financing and insurance). The operation of a port can thus be regarded as the management of a complex of commercial areas developed to serve shipping. The main costs involved in port operation relate to the acquisition and preparation (2) The use of infrastructure is affected by climatic conditions. Thus, ports in northerly waters have to cope with winter icing, and icebreakers are part of port infrastructure. The resulting costs are comparable with the cost of dredging in other ports (see also point 3. 7). C 93/24 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 4. 1999 of the site, the construction of basins and quays, maintenance and administration. The main sources of revenue for port operators are harbour charges and charges for the provision of land. leading local transhipment firm. In other ports transhipment (and thus responsibility for superstruc- ture) is the exclusive domain of private business. In practice there are any number of definitions 3. 2. of a seaport. On the one hand there is a small number of large ports with a large throughput of goods and an international hinterland, which are thus subject to international competition. On the other hand, there are many commercial ports, the main feature of which is an essential regional/local economic and social function, handling passenger ser- vices, fisheries and tourism/recreation, in addition to their role in the handling of goods’ flows (short sea), the scale of which is far from negligible. It should also be noted that a number of ports, located upstream or on canals, also perform a function as sea ports. They also receive seagoing ships and handle overseas goods. The policy to be developed by the EU should take account of the power and the potential of these commercial ports. 3. 3. Port management also varies. The Committee of the Regions considers that in view of the following differences transparency is needed to underpin the development of policy. 1) A number of sea ports in the European Union are run by companies, and the others by public authorities (local authorities, regions, associations of auth- orities). 2) At a number of these ports management and account- ing is handled separately from other public-sector services. In the other cases port management and accounting is part of general government services. 3) A number of port operators receive non-repayable contributions from national government (in some cases up to 100 %) for the construction of port basins, quays and facilities. Other port operators have to finance these investments themselves, at their own risk. 4) Some of the government-run ports have to pay part of their operating profit into government coffers. The operating losses of some other port operators are covered from public-sector funds. 5) A number of port operators offer more than a complex of port basins, quays and other facilities (e. g. port equipment, towage). Some port operators have a substantial interest (up to 100 %) in the 6) The way in which basins, quays and port areas are made available differs. In a number of ports the construction of basins and quays and the preparation of land is done in consultation with the party already using, or about to use, a given area. The price for constructing quays and making land ready for construction is included by the port operator in the price paid by the user for the land. In other cases the construction of basins and quays and the preparation of land is done on the initiative of a port operator wishing to attract a given activity. The allocation of the port facility thus established to the final user is done by public auction. 3. 4. The flow of goods is determined by the business sector. The geographical location of the market and the areas from which raw materials are obtained, together with transport facilities, determine the choice of place of establishment. It is the port operators and the authorities directly concerned who can best follow market trends. For this reason the Committee of the Regions feels that policy designed to create conditions for sea ports — the establishment of facilities — should remain the preserve of the parties involved at national level: business and local, regional and national auth- orities. The subsidiarity principle should of course be applied to policy designed to lay down conditions. Market operation as a structural regulatory instrument 3. 5. The Committee of the Regions is convinced that an efficient transport system can be established only if there is free competition under equal conditions. Dynamic adjustment by free market forces can maintain a transport system which makes an optimum contri- bution to the economy of the EU and coastal and inland regions. Free competition under equal conditions can be achieved by 1) ensuring that laws on care of the environment, safety at work and working conditions, external security and border checks (i. e. policy setting conditions, which has already been discussed) are equal, and 2) by ensuring that users of all European sea ports carry the costs of basins, quays and port areas equally. The Committee of the Regions regards equal allocation of costs to users to be an absolute prerequisite for the operation of the market as a structural regulatory instrument for the supply of port infrastructure in the 6. 4. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 93/25 European Union, although it realizes that, in view of differences in port management, this is not a simple task. The allocation of costs is also complicated by the fact that transport systems account differently for internal and external costs. For example: a port practis- ing excellent but expensive care of the environment could suffer a competitive disadvantage if costs were fully allocated. Account should be taken of the outcome of the debate on the rules on state support for infrastruc- ture. 3. 6. The Committee of the Regions is not in favour of a rigid pricing framework, which the Green Paper suggests is the intention. The Committee would prefer the Commission to draw up guidelines based on Article 92 of the EC Treaty. These guidelines should make it clear what is allowed and what is not allowed with regard to the passing on, or non-passing, on of port infrastructure costs (basins, quays and port areas) (1). Apart 3. 7. from the above, port operation also includes storage and/or processing of contaminated dredging mud and administrative costs. There are major disparities in these areas, which affect conditions of competition. Policy should aim to remove these dispari- ties and achieve harmonization. These questions should be entirely a matter for the port operator. — Sea ports have to be regularly dredged. A judgement has to be made on whether the resulting dredging mud can be safely dispersed in the environment (e. g. dumped at sea) or whether it can be re-used, e. g. for building up port land. If neither of these options are available, certain measures have to be adopted (e. g. storage or cleaning of the contaminated mud). The costs associated with this are very considerable and may, depending on whether or not they have to be borne by the port operator, have a considerable impact on conditions of competition between sea ports. The Committee of the Regions calls for the drawing-up of clear rules on the assessment of dredging mud, the dumping of dredging mud in salt and fresh water, the storage and processing of contaminated mud and the allocation of costs. The Committee refers in this regard to the Landfill of waste directive of 23 March 1998. — Administrative costs should also be equally allocated to port users. This would include pension costs, which are a significant part of total staff costs. In a number of cases these costs are actually carried by the port operator. In other cases these costs are covered from public funds. The Committee of the Regions suggests that this question be examined in the framework of social harmonization. — There are currently no reception facilities for ship- generated oil residues in many EU ports. It is vitally important that reception facilities be provided in those ports, and top priority should be given to their funding. Consequently, it is extremely important to promote cooperation between the countries con- cerned with a view to harmonizing the legislation governing control systems for the management of ship-generated waste. All EU ports should adopt a best practice-based approach to environmental and safety concerns. The objective of free competition under equal 3. 8. conditions of course also applies to port services, examples of which are pilotage, control of shipping movements, towage, mooring, stevedore services (load- ing, unloading and storage pending further transport). Port services are provided by both government and the private sector. Where services are provided by government, there should be a uniform European system of allocating costs, as is done with regard to the operation of port infrastructure. Where services are provided by the private sector, this goal may, in the light of European competition law, be regarded as already achieved. 3. 9. With regard to dock labour, the Committee of the Regions would draw attention to the following. In number of ports operational staff are employed by private companies. In other ports (some) operational staff are provided in line with needs by the stevedore companies from an organization which may or may not have legal personality which is responsible for providing dock labour. The Committee feels that the equal cost allocation criterion should also apply to the wage costs of these organizations when workers are under-utilized. (1) One possibility would be to require (possibly in relation to all ports of a certain size) that total revenue from the provision of port basins, quays and land (port charges and income from provision of land) represent at least. % of associated costs (acquisition of land, preparation for construction, construction, maintenance and adminis- tration of port and quays). 3. 10. The Committee of the Regions notes that the Green Paper strongly emphasizes greater port efficiency. The Committee feels that internal efficiency is primarily the responsibility of port operators and private firms C 93/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 4. 1999 working in the port. If the market is allowed to work sufficiently, which the Committee strongly advocates, inefficiencies will be eliminated. The European Com- mission can also promote the efficient operation of the European port transport system by creating a level playing field. coastal areas, while at the same time limiting the damaging effects of transport. A network of small ports is an important precondition for the development of short sea shipping. Regional policy as an incidental/temporary corrective instrument 3. 11. The Committee of the Regions is an advocate of regional economic policy as an incidental/temporary corrective instrument for the structural regulation of the market. This does not detract from the importance of regional policy. The aim is to let the ports play an active role in the EU’s frontier with the rest of the world and to allow ports in remote areas to contribute to the opening-up and development of these areas in the interests of optimum operation of the Community market. The Committee thus recognizes that, whilst the use of resources from the European Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund for port infrastructure may perhaps in principle distort conditions of competition between sea ports (port preference policy), this may be justified by conditions in parts of the EU. The same applies to the use of European funding for intermodal transport interconnection points located in ports. Intermodal transport and short sea shipping can con- tribute to the reduction of road congestion and to the establishment of an environmentally sound transport system. With a view to promoting intermodal transport and short sea shipping via European funding, generic measures aimed at transport operators should be given preference above specific support aimed at intercon- nection points. 3. 12. The Committee of the Regions stresses the importance of sea transport in reducing pressure on the environment. The promotion of sea transport, e. g. within intra-Community transport flows, deserves to be given the highest priority. As stated in the Committee’s Opinion on Spatial planning in Europe this requires ‘intensifying traffic between the major ports and the medium-sized ports by developing coastal shipping and operational frequency on short routes and building up high-speed links’. Good links between remote regions and coastal areas on the one hand, and centrally located markets on the other, are in the interests of the Community. Apart from ensuring well developed short sea shipping, smaller ports also make a contribution to these links in remote regions and coastal areas. Measures are needed to promote sea shipping and thus to safeguard future mobility in Europe. Small ports often contribute to sustainable mobility and to the development of The Committee of the Regions points out that 3. 13. ports are part of European transport policy and a link in the combined transport chain. In developing Trans-European Networks (TENs) account should also be taken of remote regions. The networks should moreover also extend to countries outside the EU. It is important that the TENs should not only link different modes of transport and national networks, but also operate across borders and not stop at the external frontiers of the EU. The use of funds earmarked for Trans-European Networks (TEN) should, the Com- mittee feels, be restricted to the ‘missing links’ between ports and in hinterland connections. It is essential that any possible distortion of competition be assessed. 4. Conclusions The basic rights of European citizens — health 4. 1. and safety — should be guaranteed equally throughout the Union, in sea ports too. The European Union’s sea ports should contribute to the sustained development of the Community, from both an ecological and economic point of view. The European Union’s sea ports are also border posts of the Union, with all the health, security and economic considerations this involves. They are also an integral part of the Union, in which European law fully applies. Differences in the national 4. 2. laws relating to protection of the environment, workplace safety and conditions, external security and border controls, and in their implementation, and the unequal treatment of the basic rights of European citizens have a major impact on conditions of competition between port operators and firms using ports. Efforts are needed to bring uniformity to the law and its implementation in Europe. 4. 3. The flow of goods is determined by the business sector. An efficient transport system can be established only if there is free competition under equal conditions. Dynamic adjustment by free market forces can maintain a transport system which makes an optimum contri- bution to maintaining the price/quality competitiveness of products on the European market and of European products on the world market. The operation of the for the structural market is a suitable instrument regulation of capacity and quality in the port sector. 6. 4. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 93/27 4. 4. Free competition under equal conditions can be achieved on the one hand by guaranteeing equal rules with regard to care of the environment, workplace safety, working conditions, external security and border controls, and on the other hand by ensuring that all European port users carry the cost of port facilities and services equally. Account should also be taken of natural — geographical and climatic — as well as management/organizational differences. 4. 5. Ensuring that the sea ports operate as efficiently as possible requires from the European Union a policy setting out the basic conditions: a coherent system of rules, which are possible to implement, on the use of port infrastructure (beginning with transparency with regard to the costs and revenue arising from port management) and with regard to care of the environ- ment, safety at work and working conditions, external security and border checks. Policy designed to create conditions for sea ports — the establishment of facilities — should for the same reason remain the preserve of the national operators: business and local, regional and national authorities. The subsidiarity principle should of course be applied to policy designed to lay down conditions. 4. 6. Regional policy, policy on Trans-European Net- works (TEN) and policy to promote intermodal trans- port and short sea shipping should be seen as an incidental, temporary corrective instrument for the structural regulation of the market. Projects receiving funding must ultimately become self-supporting. Regional policy, policy on Trans-European Networks and policy to promote intermodal transport and short sea shipping can distort the operation of the market in the port sector, which is the instrument for the structural regulation of capacity and quality in the sector. Such policy needs to be implemented carefully. It must be ensured that distortion of the operation of the market does not lead to a sub-optimum transport system, which would be damaging to both the environmental and economic interests of the European Union. Via the TENs efforts should be made to forge links with infrastructure in non-EU countries. Brussels, 14 January 1999. The President of the Committee of the Regions Manfred DAMMEYER APPENDIX to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions Policy Policy setting out basic conditions Policy setting out basic conditions Environmental care Safety at work Border checks on: Financing of and charging Regional policy Trans-European Networks Intermodal transport/short sea shipping Port management • Marpol • Manual lifting • Animal products • Transparency of ex- • Cohesion fund • Missing links • Support for trans- • Offer of port basins, • Port State Control • Lashing and unlash- • Vegetable products ing • Working on top of containers • Taxation • Drugs • Arms • Dredging • Cargo disinfection • Hazardous cargo • Noise etc. Structural task penses and revenues • Guidelines for state aid • ERDF • Resider • Pesca • Renaval portation companies (not terminals) quays and sites • Offer of port services Incidental/temporary (corrective) task Structural task for na- tional, regional and lo- cal authorities together with com- private panies European Union Policy makers C 9 3 / 2 8 E N O f f i c i a l J o u r n a l o f t h e E u r o p e a n C o m m u n i t i e s 6. 4. 1 9 9 9