Authors: Dr. Athanasios Pallis, Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue and Dr. Theo Notteboom

The setting up, planning, development, and daily functions of ports are subject to public policies and can be part of a geopolitical agenda.

CHAPTER CONTENTS

1. Multi-level Port Policy Making

Governments are usually responsible for establishing, developing, and operating ports to facilitate trade, transforming the seaside into facilities where goods are loaded and unloaded. This role encompasses not only port ownership, including the management of wharves and jetties, but also regulatory functions. Seaports are critical infrastructure allowing trade and the movement of goods and persons, with governance and regulation being a matter of public interest. Ports are multifaceted economic arenas that create economic, social, and environmental value at microeconomic (individual firms), meso (sectoral), and macro (economies) levels and are contributors to economic prosperity. Typically, the government or a specialized agent oversees a port and manages related politics to safeguard the public interest.

Over the last three decades, port governance reforms have resulted in an increasing disassociation of public actors from the management and operation of ports in many countries. However, the public interest in organizing, planning, and regulating port activities remains. This takes shape either through public policies (de)regulating ports or through broader initiatives, such as transportation, competition, environmental, and economic policies that shape the port sector and related activities.

Intergovernmental organizations devoted to maritime issues, such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and supranational institutions, such as the European Union (EU), develop initiatives that shape how ports are organized, developed, and managed. This is due to the international character of ports and their significance in facilitating global maritime trade and the associated supply chains. Along with the spatial and functional expansion of port services and the linked supply chains, trade expansion and globalization have reformed the scale of problems and their solutions, generating further interest in adopting related policies at a broader scale.

As ports evolve into clusters (ecosystems) of economic activities, port authorities, service providers, entrepreneurs, and stakeholders have established associations to represent their interests and shape the content of port and port-related public policies. Port policies and related decision-making are evolving through interactions among public and private actors. These interactions happen at multiple levels.

2. National Policies for Ports

A. Themes for national port policies

National-level authorities are involved in developing national port policies aiming to advance the establishment, planning, development, and organization of ports to ensure that the development of the industry serves the public interest. Such responsibilities often lie with regional authorities (e.g., municipal or state level) or city authorities. This depends on the traditions of each country as regards both the organization of ports and the formation of the policy. Federal states tend to delegate such control to the state or municipal level, while more centralized governments create national regulatory agencies having direct oversight.

Government agencies develop initiatives to reach different targets:

Economic contribution. The contribution of ports to the local, regional, and national economy, as well as to social cohesion.
Externalities. The minimization of any externalities produced by ports, and environmental protection in line with the applicable legislation.
Service level. The uninterrupted availability and provision of reliable and quality services to ships, passengers, cargoes, the users of the port, and the general public without discrimination.
Exemptions. The presence of any exemptions foreseen within the applicable legislation.

The themes of the policy initiatives developed by the competent national authorities include:

Definition of the port system detailing the ports and the related maritime and hinterland infrastructure and connections.
Policy formulation, including the definition of the role of the public and private sectors in port governance and operations, and the setting of priority targets.
Legislation encompasses the design of laws, regulations, and decrees, as well as the competition and monitoring of their implementation.
International relations with representation in international forums, negotiations, and agreements.
Investment and financial affairs, including assessment and potentially financial support for investment projects of national importance.

An additional theme is port planning, with the competent authorities commonly responsible for:

Designating port zones and establishing priorities for the creation of new ports in areas under their jurisdiction.
Defining property rights for port land and areas of water where the port develops.
Authorizing planning and, in some cases, executing part of the planned infrastructure.

Many port-related government decisions are contingent on the physical and human geography of the local area. The ownership and property rights of the port land and waterside areas are illustrative examples. To develop a port, construction work includes breakwaters, quays, piers, anchorage areas, customs, large storage areas, and warehouses. Waterfront real estate and water areas are often not privately owned. Some port facilities extend into the water, often substantially, such as for land reclamation. In most countries, jurisdiction over the waterfront and the water cannot be private. There is no legal recognition of exclusive ownership rights by any third party (public or private). Thus, the government controls ownership and the designation of areas for port development. Public authorities establish property rights, grant land concessions, and authorize port construction.

Depending on the role of the state in the economy, public control may extend to the construction of infrastructure. Elsewhere, the role of public authorities also includes the daily management of the port and even operations. The latter is most common in smaller, secondary, or local ports. Alternatively, in a few cases, such as the UK, even the land on which the port is developed and operates is owned by the operating companies. These companies develop the port solely based on the priorities they set.

Once the jurisdiction and title have been obtained, the placement and construction of ports are decided. Thus, approach channels, breakwaters, maneuvering areas for ships, harbor water areas, and transport links between the port and the hinterland transport network are among the works that are frequently monitored by a public authority. The planning and execution of these works are inherently industrial and commercial activities, and in many ports are detailed in the port-level master plans. Nonetheless, the authorization to undertake the works at particular sites is a governmental action, having regard, in particular, to their consequences for port use and its natural and human environment.

While departments of transportation, or their equivalent, have the primary role in orchestrating these decisions, they rarely do so alone. The decisions require the involvement of additional departments, including finance, environment, spatial planning, civil works, tourism (for passenger/cruise ports), and naval authorities. Port planning requires that the port authority and competent national authorities coordinate all details and the overall investment context, any authorizations needed for investment plans for industrial and commercial port operations, and the potential inclusion of individual projects in national-level financing plans. The authorities responsible for finance draw on their financial capacities to support the decisions. The environmental dimension is increasingly present in all major transport projects, with authorization for any port project required before its commencement.

Public authorities are also responsible for the formulation of the port system, as they define the structures of port governance. In particular, public authorities:

Set the conditions for private providers via decisions expanding (limiting) existing entry barriers into operations.
Regulate corporate and financial relations between the public institutions and port administrations.
Establish port authorities and define whether they will be public, private, or hybrid (at the intersection between public and private) entities.
Create the foundations of port functions and responsibilities by defining the principles of port governance.

Public authorities monitor compliance with port activities, which does not necessarily mean they play any part in performing them. The scope of monitoring is to ensure that activities are carried out in compliance with laws and regulations and contribute effectively to national port policy priorities. In many ports, the public sector maintains a role in providing some nautical services, either because this practice corresponds to the dominant philosophy regarding the role of the state in the economy or because such involvement is considered essential for safety or strategic reasons. A typical example is the provision of pilotage services and their pricing. Dredging and navigational aids, including harbor master responsibilities, are examples of port operations frequently undertaken by public authorities.

B. Competition policies

Competition is a significant issue monitored by public authorities. Government agencies are responsible for monitoring port operations to ensure they comply with current competition rules. In some countries (e.g., South Africa, Greece, Brazil), these responsibilities are assigned to independent regulatory port authorities. In others (e.g., Italy, Portugal), they are assigned to independent regulatory authorities for all transport modes. In many more cases, the designated national competition authorities address related questions, e.g., the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for both inter-port and intra-port competition, the Competition Bureau Canada, and the French Autorité de la concurrence. Given the international character of many competition-related issues, such as public financing, the question of whether this financing should be considered state aid, and concessioning processes, is increasingly on the agenda of international authorities, such as the European Commission.

For an extended period, an active presence of national administrations, or their agents, in daily port activities has been based on the perception of ports and port services as public goods. With shifts in global maritime trade, this dimension has gradually declined. Following port governance reforms, the presence of the state in port operations has been eliminated, and the rights to provide port services have been transferred to the private sector. However, in many parts of the world, particularly developing countries, full-service ports remain under public control, with government agents actively involved in daily operations.

Despite the decision of governments to devolve port operations to third parties, ports remain a sector where politics continues to have a significant impact. The conditions for market access stand as a salient example, with national administrations actively setting entry rules. Government policies aimed at introducing private terminal operations in the container market have led to a concentration of ownership among a few major port holdings. While mergers and acquisitions are usually completed, there are cases in which they have triggered regulatory responses. Besides, creating opportunities for more competition through market entry by lowering the legislative and economic barriers is on the agenda of many national and supranational authorities.

C. Port-related policies

State-level authorities exercise control over some broader issues that affect port operations and developments, such as:

National transport policy concerning the construction and maintenance of transportation infrastructure.
Location of major industries, as part of industrial policies.
Customs and immigration processes.
Safety requirements and minimum conditions for workers.
Environmental and aesthetic factors.
Security and prevention of unlawful acts.

In addition, free trade zones with distribution and warehousing activities, subject to separate taxation regimes, are subject to distinct policies and to their development within port zones or adjacent locations. Public authorities also develop policy and financial initiatives related to aspects of port investment and development plans.

D. The Harbor Master

Harbor Masters regulate vessel navigation in a port, with the primary consideration being the safety of navigation. Most regulatory requirements are set out in the form of port by-laws, general directions, and pilotage directions, as these clearly define the terms of safe navigation.

A range of responsibilities is placed on those who perform the role of harbor master. Differing national traditions and structures account for the variations in job descriptions, which can even exist within a single country. Factors such as the size of the port, its specific function, and how the port is owned and administered also make a difference. There are two primary ways in which Harbor Masters may be appointed. They may be a port employee, or an external appointment, or, as in the USA, an officer of the US Coast Guard.

The Harbor Master is the principal person who typically exercises jurisdiction over the water area of a port or port approach. To exercise this jurisdiction, authority is conferred by national law, regulations, or rules, and these duties encompass legal and operational responsibility for ensuring shipping movements are carried out safely.

From initial information provided by the ship on draft, length overall, and displacement, the Harbor Master will allocate a suitable berth and apply any restrictions necessary for the safe passage of that particular vessel. Ships arriving at a port typically contact the port control or vessel traffic management system station to receive instructions on their arrival plan and stay in the port. This exchange usually involves confirmation of the time the pilot will board and the berth to which the vessel is proceeding. Harbor Masters use local knowledge to inform their decision-making regarding the manner and circumstances in which commercial vessels are permitted to enter and leave their ports.

Geographical configurations of the port, prevailing weather conditions, port water depths, and the height and strength of the local tides are among the factors a Harbor Master considers when formulating an admission policy for commercial vessels entering and leaving the port. Harbor Masters specify their entry requirements in detail, including the safest approaches to the port, the pilot boarding ground, and the advance notifications to be given to the port before arrival. The arrival of a commercial vessel into a port is always a planned event, with notifications issued before arrival.

3. International Port Policies

Policies decided by policy actors go well beyond the boundaries of a single country. Ports serve international maritime transportation and are embedded in global supply chains. Thus, ports share several common concerns and challenges, and addressing them at the local level can neither be effective nor distort competition. An indicative list of these concerns and challenges would include safety and security, labor issues, customs and operational standardization, and competition among the actors involved. International intergovernmental organizations (including United Nations agencies) intervene in areas within their competence. Their regulatory decision and other initiatives have the potential to be more effective than action taken at the national, regional, or local level.

A. International organizations

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is an intergovernmental organization that, since 1948, has developed and adopted regulations, guidelines, codes of practice, and other initiatives that:

Set standards for the safety and security of vessels at sea and ports.
Protect the environment from shipping activities.
Establish a global provision for search and rescue.
Ensure that all seafarers are adequately trained and competent.
Define liability and ensure compensation is available when accidents happen.

Applying IMO conventions is subject to ratification and implementation by as many countries as possible. This ratification depends on national technical capabilities and willingness to apply the conventions. The key conventions ratified by countries representing over 95% of the world’s tonnage already shape the framework within which ports, shipping, and maritime supply chains operate. They include:

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), 1973, was modified by the Protocol of 1978 and by the Protocol of 1997. In 2025, the IMO approved draft amendments to MARPOL/Annex VI establishing a new “Net-Zero Framework” (NZF) combining mandatory emissions limits and a greenhouse gas pricing mechanism for ships, to be formally adopted (if no objections) in an extraordinary session in October 2025 and enter into force (via tacit acceptance) in 2027. Ports will be impacted because shipping emissions, fuel quality, and compliance mechanisms are tied to port–ship interactions (fuel bunkering, port fees, shore power, emissions monitoring).
The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1974, as amended.
The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) as amended, including the 1995 and 2010 Amendments.
The FAL Convention (Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic) requires the implementation of paperless exchange of data in ports via a Maritime Single Window (MSW). From January 2024, the MSW is mandatory in all ports subject to FAL obligations.
Port State Control (PSC), the procedures of which are periodically revised (e.g., the responsible IMO sub-committee on Implementation of IMO Instruments agreed on the resolution “Procedures for PSC, 2025”, which updates and replaces the related 2023 procedures). These decisions impact how port authorities inspect, detain, or respond to non-compliant vessels, as well as how ports enforce IMO conventions (SOLAS, MARPOL, etc.) through port state control.

The International Labor Organization (ILO) has advanced international port labor standards. ILO is the only tripartite UN agency that brings together governments, employers, and workers from 187 member states to set labor standards, develop policies, and devise programs that promote appropriate working conditions. Its port-related activities focus on safety and health, security, training, working conditions, gender issues, and the role of ports in the supply chain. Similar to IMO, the implementation of ILO decisions is subject to their ratification by the participating countries.

Two other international organizations are developing initiatives of relevance. The World Customs Organization (WCO), established in 1952 as the Customs Co-operation Council (CCC), is an independent body whose mission is to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of customs procedures. Since 2004, WCO has developed in collaboration with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) a global Container Control Programme (CCP) to prevent the illicit flow of goods by pooling customs and other law enforcement bodies in coordinating and managing law enforcement responses at seaports in more than 20 countries worldwide.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is an independent, non-governmental international organization with a membership of 166 national standards bodies. It develops voluntary, consensus-based, market-relevant international standards that support the development of a product, the management of a process, the delivery of a service, or the supply of materials. These standards relate to:

Quality management standards to work more efficiently and reduce product failures.
Environmental management standards to reduce environmental impacts, reduce waste, and be more sustainable.
Health and safety standards to reduce accidents in the workplace.
Energy management standards to cut energy consumption.
IT security standards to keep sensitive information secure.

Ports have been certified with ISO 9001:2008 for the quality management of container, terminal, passenger, and cruise terminals. The same certification applies to specific services, including cargo loading and unloading, mooring, and fewer public procurement and port work cases. A growing number of port authorities and terminal operators have been certified under ISO 14001 for their environmental management systems. Following the pandemic and the rise in cyberattacks, ports and terminal operators have started adopting ISO 28000, which focuses on security and supply chain resilience (e.g., DP World, PSA), and ISO 27001, which emphasizes digitalization and cybersecurity (e.g., Singapore, Rotterdam). To manage the energy transition to shore power, hydrogen, LNG, etc., some ports have also adopted ISO 50001 (e.g., Piraeus was certified in 2023 and Antwerp-Bruges in 2024). However, the major contribution of standardization, with far-reaching implications for ports and beyond, has been the standardization of the containers that are transported. Standardization enabled the expansion of the containerized seagoing transportation of goods. The usage of standardized containers resulted in a vast reduction in shipping costs. It enabled many previously isolated countries to enter global trade, selling their products on the world market and importing goods.

Main Physical Characteristics of ISO Containers | Port Economics, Management and Policy — Standard sea container dimensions

B. Supranational port policies: European Union

Economic and political integration in Europe, notably the setting up of a single European market in the 1990s, increased the interdependence of European ports that had historically developed in their own diverse ways, even when located in the same country. This interdependence intensified due to other factors, including economic globalization, containerization, the expansion of transshipment, logistics, and value-added facilities, technological advancements, and the integration of maritime trade in supply chains. The scale and scope of these developments gradually pushed the national boundaries of port policy-making. Since the early 1990s, the search for a long-term European Port Policy (EPP) has produced a mix of non-legislative and legislative measures. Both successes and failures mark this search, as does the associability of port community stakeholders seeking to influence the complex EU policy-making process.

The cornerstone of these initiatives is a regulation on market access to port services and the financial transparency of ports (Regulation 2017/352). Adopted in 2017, it established entry rules for various port services (bunkering, cargo handling, dredging, mooring, passenger services, port reception facilities, pilotage, and towage) across 329 European ports. The regulation lowers legislative entry barriers, provides existing and potential port service providers with a level playing field, reduces administrative burdens, and enhances transparency in financial interactions. It established the freedom to provide services subject to minimum requirements, conditions for limiting the number of providers, public service obligations, and the presence of an internal operator.

Financial transparency and autonomy in the use of public funds are enhanced by requirements such as separate port accounts, transparent and non-discriminatory port service charges, the autonomy of port managing bodies to set port infrastructure charges, and the obligation to inform users of the tariffs for port infrastructure charges. Reduction of legal uncertainties is also advanced through the application of broader rules (e.g., a concession directive) and the modernization of applicable state aid rules. The regulation is the outcome of a discussion that lasted 16 years, highlighting both the international dimension of port competition and the difficulties in advancing (de)regulatory measures applying to ports in multiple (in this case, 27) countries, as ports vying for traffic shares differ in many ways (markets, governance, geography, rules of entry for third parties).

Beyond this rule, which targets enhancing EU port competitiveness, EU policies aim to improve hinterland connections. The strategic planning of the transport system on the continent involves developing public co-financing for an integrated Trans-European Transport Network, which includes a comprehensive list of 329 ports, with a sub-list of 104 core ports. The development of both comprehensive and core EU ports is considered vital to the competitiveness of the European economy, including improvements in port hinterland connections. European policies aimed at enhancing maritime safety, improving the relationship between ports and the environment, and ensuring maritime security are also in place. The list of emerging themes includes initiatives advancing digitalization. In all cases, when international rules are in place (e.g., safety and security), the emphasis is on their proper implementation rather than on new regional initiatives.

The European Union has also endorsed initiatives to advance the energy transition in seaports. In the context of the “Fit for 55” initiative, designed to cut net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 (vs. 1990), the Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR), adopted in 2023, sets binding targets for the supply of shore-side electricity at TEN-T seaports. The regulation specifies that seaports should ensure the provision of a minimum shore-side electricity supply for seagoing container ships and seagoing passenger ships. The requirement is based on port activity levels and must be met by the end of 2029. Shore-side electricity, also known as on-shore power supply (OPS), avoids the use of auxiliary diesel generators for operations and other services while ships are at berth, thus reducing emissions and noise. In its current implementation, OPS is not designed to address the issue of high pollutant emissions during the cold start of ship engines in ports and their subsequent impact on local air quality. The AFIR regulation also sets targets for the supply of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the TEN-T core seaports. This regulation aims to increase the uptake of low- and zero-carbon fuels in maritime transport by requiring a progressive reduction in the GHG intensity of the energy used on board ships.

European Port Policy and Port-related Initiatives | Port Economics, Management and Policy — European port policy and port related initiatives

C. Federal Port Policies: North America

In the United States, the federal government is given exclusive jurisdiction over all navigable waterways. However, due to the nature of the federal system, there is no national port authority but a combination of state and municipal port authorities, making policy coordination complex. Early forms of port development and operation were mainly assumed by private companies, particularly railroads. This led to complaints about monopolistic behavior and unfair competitive practices. The public policy response was the establishment of public port authorities in the early part of the twentieth century, particularly as railways led to a gradual deterioration of port facilities due to a lack of investment. A salient example was the creation of the Port Authority of New York in 1921, which firmly placed port infrastructure development and operations in public hands.

Established in 1950, the Maritime Administration (MARAD) is an agency of the US Department of Transportation responsible for the waterborne transportation system. MARAD supports the technical aspects of maritime transportation infrastructure, including ships and shipping, port and vessel operations, national security, environment, and safety. It also maintains a fleet of cargo ships in reserve to provide surge sea lift during national emergencies.

In Canada, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over all forms of navigation, forming a national port authority as early as 1868. Although the federal authority can be granted to private or local interests, the majority of large commercial ports remained under close federal jurisdiction. Port policy shifted in 1998 with the Canada Marine Act, which devolved governance responsibilities of a large number of small ports that had been managed by the Ministry of Transport. Under the Canada Port Authority, the largest seaports are granted a limited degree of autonomy in their development and management. From a policy perspective, American port authorities have more latitude than their Canadian counterparts.

D. National perspectives: China

The past 45 years have brought about significant changes to China’s economic, political, and social landscape. The economic policy changes introduced by Deng Xiaoping in 1978 were followed by a lengthy transition period toward a market-based economy. Chinese national reforms and the transfer of power from the central government to local governments impacted the governance of seaports. The period from 1979 to 1984 was characterized by a centrally planned economic system with strongly centralized decision-making. The combination of insufficient funds for port development and lagging efficiency improvements caused severe port capacity problems in the early 1980s. From 1984 to 2004, the government initiated a decentralization process, with ports ending up under the control of the central and local governments or the local government. The new governance system led to a gradual increase in foreign private investment in Chinese ports, particularly in the container business.

The Port Law of 2004 serves as the cornerstone, characterized by the corporatization of port authorities and the introduction of modern corporate governance principles into the seaport system. This has brought large-scale port cooperation and integration processes at the provincial level, resulting in large ‘port groups’ controlling more than one port. Policy formulation and strategic port planning remain under the responsibility of the central government and the respective provincial governments, so any plans by regional port groups must be approved by these higher authorities.

Other policies are influencing Chinese ports:

The actions of the Chinese government in the area of corporate governance directly impact the functioning of the Chinese seaport system. For example, the fight against corruption has affected administrative processes, reporting practices, and the mobility of government officials, including in ports.
The Central Government initiated the Go West policy in 2000 to revitalize local economies and improve living standards in western China. This policy brought higher throughput perspectives for coastal ports and intensified competition among Chinese ports to serve the growing inland regions.
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) was launched in 2013 to foster economic cooperation from the Western Pacific to the Baltic Sea, breaking the connectivity bottleneck in Asia through infrastructure investments. Chinese seaports are actively developing strategies to capitalize on both maritime and rail-based opportunities brought by the initiative. Furthermore, some provincial port groups are investing in key BRI ports abroad.
The Chinese government initiated a policy in 2013 to develop pilot free trade zones (FTZs) in some coastal port cities. The first FTZ was launched in Shanghai in September 2013. Since 2015, the Chinese State Council has extended the initiative to many other cities. Many FTZs are located in seaport areas and have become a proving ground for the Chinese government to test new economic policies and governance reforms. The experiences gathered through the FTZ policy can serve as input to formulate further nationwide social, economic, and governance reforms.

4. Policy Issues

A. Emissions Control

The need to control emissions has led to an IMO regulatory framework that restricts several fuel options. The IMO is spearheading sulfur emission restrictions in designated Emission Control Areas (ECAs) for SOₓ, NOₓ, and particulate matter (PM), with ports in the respective regions applying stricter controls on ship emissions entering or affecting the port zone. For example, since 2010, in the sulfur emission control area (SECA) of the North and Baltic Seas, the sulfur mass fraction in a vessel’s bunker fuel must be less than 1%. This standard took effect in North America in 2012, with this limit decreasing to 0.5% after 2020. These rules triggered interest in alternative forms of powered vessels. There is considerable interest worldwide in ports using onshore power supplies (cold ironing) and other similar technologies and practices (such as LNG or diesel oil instead of heavy fuel oil or renewable energy sources) to reduce emissions.

Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy — Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping

B. Port security

As in maritime safety, some essential regulations regarding security in trade and transport have been established by the IMO. In 2002, a security-related amendment to the Convention on Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) was adopted, supplementing it with the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code. The initiative changed the way ship and port security is considered. The ISPS Code has two parts. Part A is mandatory for all contracting countries, while Part B contains recommended actions adopted by a few countries.

The ISPS Code established three security levels denoting the need for normal (Level 1), heightened (Level 2), and exceptional (Level 3) security measures. The implementation of the code’s requirements and the respective certification of vessels and shipping companies is the responsibility of the flag state. At the same time, national authorities are responsible for inspecting and certifying proper implementation. These provisions cover all types of ships with a gross registered tonnage (grt) of more than 500, mobile offshore drilling units, and port facilities serving ships engaged in international voyages. Concerning ports, the ISPS Code focuses on the locations of the ship/port interface. Ports must develop a Port Facility Security Plan (PFSP) that outlines the essential actions to prevent or respond to security incidents. They also have to designate a port facility security officer responsible for conducting regular drills, exercises, and seminars related to port facility security. In addition, Part A explicitly references identifying and estimating assets and infrastructures that require protection.

The amended IAMO SOLAS Convention (Chapter XI-2) introduced a new technological security measure for ships. This is the Automatic Identification System (AIS), which enables ships to transmit a unique identification signal for the shore operational centers to monitor routes. Ships are required to have on board a security alert system transmitting to a designated competent authority when activated in emergencies and a Continuous Synopsis Record (CSR) that contains details of the ship, including name, flag, port of registry, IMO number, and owner information.

The Code of Practice on security in ports (latest edition: 2004) is another security-related initiative adopted by IMO jointly with ILO. It provides a guidance framework for developing an appropriate strategy for identifying security threats in ports. The main provisions are:

The development and implementation of a port security policy statement.
The identification and evaluation of critical assets and infrastructures that require protection.
The development of a Port Security Plan, compatible with the ISPS Code for a Port Facility Security Plan.
Training personnel in security awareness.

The WCO Council has adopted the SAFE Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade, an additional international instrument regularly updated to address developments in the global supply chain. The latest (2018) version of the framework focuses on strengthening cooperation between customs administrations through the exchange of information, mutual recognition of controls, mutual recognition of Authorized Economic Operators (AEOs), and mutual administrative assistance. In addition, it calls for enhanced cooperation between government agencies entrusted with regulatory authority over certain goods, such as weapons and hazardous materials, as well as entities responsible for postal matters. The framework also details certain minimum tangible benefits to AEOs.

International standardization also plays a role in enhancing port security. ISO 28004-2:2014 identifies supply chain risk and threat scenarios, procedures for conducting risk and threat assessments, and evaluation criteria for measuring conformity and the effectiveness of security plans following standardized (ISO 28000 and ISO 28004) implementation guidelines. An output of this effort is a confidence rating system based on the quality of the security management plans and procedures implemented by the port to safeguard its security and continuity of cargo operations. The rating system is used to identify a measurable level of confidence (on a scale of 1 to 5) that the port security operations conform to standards for protecting the integrity of the supply chain.

C. International policies for dock labor

The ILO has been involved in the definition and organization of dock labor through two international conventions, which address the role of designated labor pools and the working practices that safeguard the safety and health of port workers. However, the agreed-upon and forwarded ratification by UN member countries of the ILO Convention C137 on the social repercussions of new methods of cargo handling in docks and the ILO Convention C152 on occupational safety and health in dock work has had limited adoption success. The two Conventions were adopted in 1973 and 1981, respectively. The products of international agreements involving both port employees and employers were designed to set the minimum standards for organizing the core elements of port labor. Only 25 signatory countries have ratified each convention.

However, the rules included in these conventions have been incorporated into several international standards endorsed since then. In recent times, the ILO produced relevant codes of practice on safety and health in ports that cover work aspects where goods or passengers are loaded onto or unloaded from ships. The 2016 revision of the non-binding Code of Practice on safety and health in ports represents the most recent major update to port occupational health. It aims to provide guidance to governments, employers, and workers on safe port operations, including hazard identification, training, mechanization, and ergonomics. Although not a decision in the sense of a binding convention, it is influential and often referenced in national port safety policy contexts.

The ILO has also shifted its focus to dockworker training, with the objective of mobilizing governments, port authorities, port operators, and training institutes to establish effective and systematic port worker training schemes. These schemes aim to improve cargo-handling performance, working conditions, practices, safety, and the status and welfare of port workers.

Labor issues have also been part of the European agenda. In recent years, there has been a sectoral social dialogue involving representatives of all different stakeholders, respecting national, regional, and company agreements and systems, on:

Training and Qualifications. Possible creation of European guidelines for the establishment of training requirements while ensuring greater flexibility and performance standards.
Health and Safety. Establish national health and safety requirements by proper enforcement where high standards exist, or raise good practices where standards do not exist.
Gender Issues. Ensure that there are no discriminatory recruitment practices in European ports.
Innovation. Establish a constructive dialogue between employers and employees to address the challenges posed by technological innovation.

5. Ports and Geopolitics

Ports have been linked to geopolitical considerations, as they serve as platforms that project commercial activities and military power. Many ports serve as bases for national navies and, as such, support strategic interests. From the 16th century, ports served as trade hubs within global trade networks, initially supporting colonial empires. Harbor sites were selected based on the protection they could offer and the access they could grant to the resources of a commercial hinterland. Many early port sites were fortified, underlining their contestability. By the late 19th century, maritime shipping routes were well established, with the control of key strategic locations and nearby ports (e.g., Hong Kong, Singapore, Colon, Gibraltar, Port Said).

From the second half of the 20th century, commercial considerations prevailed in geopolitics. With port authorities adopting the landlord model, this opened the door for private terminal operators to set up a portfolio of privately operated terminals. The nature of investments in terminal operations, including the scale of foreign direct investments, the critical infrastructure nature of ports, and the presence of sovereign funds among companies operating port terminals, introduces a geopolitical dimension to port development that was not present before the reforms. In most cases, private terminal operators align with the national geopolitics of the ports they operate. There are occasions when this alignment of foreign direct investments in ports can be subject to contention.

In recent years, ports have been increasingly attracting interest as geopolitical levers, given their typical functionalities in stimulating national and regional industrial development, securing trade and energy needs, and supporting naval capabilities. This makes seaports important focal points in geopolitical considerations, potentially allowing them to act as geopolitical agents that can influence and shape geopolitical debates and actions. Four geopolitical themes directly or indirectly affect seaports.

A. Geopolitics and trade

Geopolitical tensions between major economies can lead to trade decoupling and realignment. This means countries may reduce their dependence on rival nations, fostering or strengthening new trade alliances. Geopolitical events, such as the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, can significantly impact port activity. Additionally, governments might aim for a gradual shift in bilateral trade preferences by prioritizing trade with countries that share similar norms, values, or political systems (trading with friends). Another concept is friendshoring, referring to relocating economic activity to nations with aligned norms and values. To achieve national objectives, governments may employ a wide range of policy instruments, including import tariffs, quotas, import licensing, stricter customs procedures, sanctions, trade defense measures, and favorable treatment of domestic businesses.

The push for selective trade decoupling and realignment is evident in the geopolitics of strategic autonomy. In general terms, strategic autonomy policies aim to empower a nation or region to make independent decisions and act autonomously in key areas, thereby reducing excessive dependence on other countries. Strategic autonomy has a significant maritime dimension. For example, it encourages states to reduce their dependence on fleets owned or operated by rival nations, especially those that are geopolitically distant. To accomplish this, a government may adopt protectionist measures to further develop, strengthen, and safeguard its own national fleet and domestic shipbuilding or impose restrictions on domestic businesses regarding the use of certain foreign flags.

B. Geopolitical aspects linked to investment and ownership in ports

As geopolitical tensions rise, ownership and investment in port areas increasingly come with geopolitical strings attached, affecting a port authority’s ability to welcome specific investors or operators. The rapid increase of Chinese investments in the operation of container terminals and port management through the purchase of majority shares in corporatized port authorities in many different world regions, and the multinational character of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), have, in most cases, turned to a discussion, support, or opposition at the governmental level, rather than a decision taken at port level.

State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) have increasingly joined local and international stevedoring companies, liner shipping companies, and financial institutions as global actors operating, constructing, and, when conditions allow, owning ports. With several countries aiming to enhance their role in international trade or status as economic powers actively advancing it, this strategy heightens the role of geopolitics in the evolution of the global port system. Collectively, these entities are estimated to account for approximately 35–40% of global port throughput. Several of them (i.e., COSCO (China); Port of Singapore Authority International (Singapore), DP World (Dubai), China Merchants Port (China) are among the largest terminal operators in the world. Other significant actors, including Abu Dhabi Ports (UAE) and Shanghai International Port Group (SIPG, China), maintain substantial global portfolios.

BRI has accelerated the internationalization of SOE involvement in ports or port terminals worldwide, triggering ‘global connectivity’ initiatives by other countries or trade blocs. The European Union (EU) has launched the Global Gateway initiative, and the US has introduced the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. Both frameworks focus on partnerships to develop port and logistics infrastructure, mirroring, in part, the objectives of the BRI. Discussions on the potential risks or leverage generated by SOE foreign direct investment in strategic infrastructure, such as ports, have further contributed to politicization. In Europe, the acquisition by a foreign SOE of a minority stake in the smallest terminal at the Port of Hamburg sparked controversy before receiving German government approval in 2023. Similar cautionary measures are included in the EU discussions on closer coordination in screening inbound investments in critical infrastructures, including ports. In the United States, objections to foreign investments in Panama have been present for a decade, even those held by private firms with limited ties to a third state.

The internationalization of terminal operations by operators associated with state interests, such as state enterprises or sovereign wealth funds, will continue to raise geopolitical concerns about ports as elements of national sovereignty. Additionally, there may be concerns that port finance could be utilized as a tool of economic diplomacy, fostering dependencies that can translate into political influence. Finally, government agencies may want to scrutinize foreign port technology and equipment to be deployed in their ports in relation to foreign geopolitical strategy. To eliminate such risks, a state might block the purchase and use of foreign port machinery and technology, thereby developing the capability to collect and transfer sensitive data on shipments, trade routes, and even military logistics. Terminal operators are thus challenged to demonstrate that they deploy state-of-the-art port equipment and technology that, from a geopolitical perspective, does not pose a backdoor security vulnerability.

C. Ports as nodes in geopolitically vulnerable corridors and networks

Geopolitical tensions can make nations reluctant to use critical maritime routes and chokepoints. Seaports located near these strategic chokepoints, such as the Strait of Hormuz, the South China Sea, the Red Sea or Suez Canal area, and the ports at the entrances of the Panama Canal, are especially susceptible to such tensions. States are motivated to preserve or control critical maritime infrastructure, or at least to ensure access to it. Furthermore, many ports are assigned a more pronounced military role and become indispensable to national defense. Their infrastructure, location, and operational capacity can make them a cornerstone of a nation’s defense strategy. Ports near critical trade routes can serve as hubs for naval and other operations to secure international shipping lanes against threats such as piracy and terrorism. Port terminals might be asked to adopt a logistical role in facilitating (large-scale) military operations and exercises.

The Red Sea crisis demonstrates that it is no longer unthinkable for a key maritime artery in the global shipping network to be severely disrupted or even cut off, despite international treaties guaranteeing free passage. In October 2023, a conflict between Israel and anti-Israel groups, such as Hamas (Gaza Strip) and Hezbollah (southern Lebanon), became regionalized. By late November, other Iranian proxy groups, particularly the Houthis movement in West Yemen, initiated attacks on ships transiting the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb from the Indian Ocean into the Red Sea using missiles, drones, and even attempts at boarding. By December 2023, major shipping lines had begun diverting their Asia-Europe traffic through the Cape of Good Hope route, which connects the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. By early 2024, the number of transits through Bab el-Mandeb dropped to half the previously observed volumes (-48%), and the number of transits through the Suez Canal dropped by 37%. The impact on ports along the Asia-Europe route was substantial, particularly along the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. In particular, most regional transshipment hubs experienced a notable decline in port calls as major shipping services were rerouted through the Cape of Good Hope.

D. Ports as potential geopolitical and military targets

Ports can become focal points or even outright targets in geopolitical contestation or conflict. Ports may be targeted in military, paramilitary, or terrorist operations due to their strategic importance. Cyberattacks, in particular, pose a significant threat to seaports worldwide, aiming to cause severe disruptions. Efforts to digitalize ports make such attacks easier to carry out. Today’s geopolitical and global security landscape has introduced new forms of potential sabotage affecting ports. Undersea data and power cables, energy pipelines, commercial port infrastructure, and superstructure have been added to the list of highly vulnerable sabotage targets. Foreign-supplied equipment in ports, such as cranes, surveillance cameras, or automated systems, could be sabotaged or remotely disabled during a geopolitical conflict.

Map Maritime Routes Strategic Passages — Main Maritime Shipping Routes

Chapter 11.1 – Ports, Policies, and Geopolitics