Two recent reports on Europe’s maritime transport sector paint conflicting pictures, raising questions about the EU’s strategic direction—or lack thereof.
The European Court of Auditors’ report, “In Troubled Waters,” reveals stark inefficiencies in container port investments. With oversized infrastructure, carrier alliances exploiting port competition, and ghost terminals left empty after shipping route changes, the audit suggests systemic mismanagement. Meanwhile, the EU’s self-congratulatory Maritime Strategy implementation report (2009-2018) ignores these realities, celebrating unchecked subsidies that enable shipping companies to pit publicly funded ports against each other.
This dissonance demands urgent policy coherence. Here’s how the EU could chart a better course:
1. Define Strategic Purpose
Maritime transport isn’t an end in itself—it’s Europe’s trade circulatory system. Current policy resembles polishing silverware while the house crumbles. Priorities must align with continental needs: energy security (offshore shipping), industrial competitiveness (reliable supply chains), and strategic autonomy (port sovereignty). The fundamental questions remain unanswered: Shipping for what purpose? Moving which goods? Through which methods?
2. Resolve Policy Schizophrenia
The EU’s contradictory approaches—promoting port competition while subsidizing shipping consolidation—have created predictable chaos. Carrier alliances now wield “super-leverage” (Auditors’ term) over fragmented ports. This isn’t accidental but the inevitable result of policies that encourage shipping monopolies to exploit port rivalries. The bubble benefits few: select shipowners and their shareholders.
3. Confront Geopolitical Realities
While the EU debates towage services, global players act decisively. China negotiates ship size limits with Maersk; Europe merely admires mega-vessels’ “impressive” scale. Beijing designates European entry points, acquires strategic ports, and even gets EU funding for connecting infrastructure. Meanwhile, European operators face total exclusion from Chinese ports and domestic shipping markets. The Maritime Strategy’s celebration of this lopsided “cooperation” as “best practice” reveals dangerous naivety.
A Path Forward
2018’s “maritime year” rhetoric missed the mark. What’s needed is holistic supply chain thinking—integrating shippers, smart ports, hinterland connections, and industrial needs. An aspirational vision could be: “Making Europe’s maritime network the world’s most efficient, sustainable, and resilient by 2030.” Achieving this requires:
- Conditioning subsidies on strategic value creation
- Balancing port competition with necessary consolidation
- Asserting reciprocity in global maritime relations
The alternative—continuing current contradictions—will only deepen Europe’s strategic drift in increasingly contested waters.