EUROPE isn’t taking port infrastructure seriously enough.

That was the message from the Maersk entourage in Croatia, where APM Terminals has officially opened its newest terminal at Rijeka.

The new site will provide a genuine alternative for central European markets that currently rely on northern European majors, though just how far it can penetrate into Europe relies heavily on the upgrading of rail infrastructure.

The likes of Hamburg, Rotterdam and Antwerp have been blighted by congestion this year, thanks to a mixture of strikes, alliance reshuffles and increased demand.

As Keith Svendsen pointed out to me in APMT’s shiny new Rijeka offices, keeping trade flowing is of the utmost strategic importance to Europe. Economies hinge on dependable import and export timelines; delays mean businesses have to increase inventories or cannot provide goods to customers within suitable timeframes.

The concern for Europe is that it loses overall control of its supply chains. If lines begin to use the likes of Tanger Med, Port Said or Jeddah to tranship cargo, then European nations will become dependent on other countries to keep goods coming in.

European governments must start investing in futureproof ports and begin treating them like the critical infrastructure they are, Svendsen and Maersk boss Vincent Clerc repeated in Croatia this week.

Some of you will naturally be thinking that it might just be in Maersk’s interest for governments to start dishing out lucrative and lengthy tenders, or start building roads and rail lines into existing terminals.

And you’d be right. It will undoubtedly benefit Svendsen and Clerc for Europe to start pouring money into ports. The increased scrutiny on Chinese ownership of European terminals also suits APMT. It stands a far better chance at winning competitive tenders if Cosco and China Merchants are discounted from the outset.

But it’s not just Maersk that’s sounding this particular alarm.

The European Parliament recently adopted a resolution on the implications of China’s influence on major ports. Concerns in particular were raised by EU members over the political pressure the German government was put under that led to the approval of Cosco’s stake in Hamburg’s Tollerort.

Nato has also become much more vocal with the ports it has designated as having a key role, should they be needed. Svendsen said Gothenburg, Bremerhaven and Aarhus had all been earmarked by the bloc as strategically important.

Let’s, for now, agree with Clerc and Svendsen that Europe needs more capacity.

It’s not as simple as just chucking an extra crane here and buying some more trucks there. These projects take years to complete, even if the investment is secured as part of a tender process. If not, authorities have to wait for the concession to lapse before it can seek a new operator to put the money in, which can be many years again.

Is the continent therefore at risk of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted?

Chinese state-owned companies are already well embedded in major ports across the continent and, while expansion plans for some of the major hubs are already underway, they will still take a while to complete.

To adapt the cliché somewhat, the best time to start expanding Europe’s ports was probably 10 years ago. The second-best time is now.

Joshua Minchin
Senior reporter, Lloyd’s List

Click here to view the latest Lloyd’s List Daily Briefing