As regards projects of the second type—notably projects of wider benefit—this is
largely construed by the EU as projects extending beyond just a discretely defined
locality or specific ports. For example, projects extending over a larger geographical
area; subject always to their relevance to the MoS priorities—including funding for
“the deployment of LNG bunkering infrastructure for ships at a wider regional scale,
system of using shore-side electricity, icebreaking, dredging operations, setting up
common IT systems, traffic monitoring and management or electronic reporting
systems”
51 in the wider region.
The author’s survey of the projects funded under the last few MoS calls
52 has
revealed that the EU have prioritised those projects which involve at least two ports
located in different Member States—where two ports are involved they are so-called
core ports or one core and one comprehensive port.
53 There should also be at least
one maritime undertaking in the project mix and ideally, transport operators from the
hinterland. On that premise, the project application stands a better chance where
terminal operators, freight forwarders, supply chain undertakings and shipping
agents are also part of the consortia. Interestingly the MoS scheme does not
necessarily expect all members of the [extended] consortia to be applicants for the
grant; it suffices that they demonstrate that, as stakeholders and users, they are
supportive of the project as a whole.
54 Moreover, it should be emphasised that as
an EU wide funding scheme, it must abide by the no-discrimination principle.
55 Any
infrastructure or facility which is co-financed must thus be available to all users on a
non-discriminatory basis.
The wider benefit criterion is an important conditionality. Ships which are the
beneficiary of financial support
56 from the EU will be required to contribute to
objectives of the co-funded actions in the EU area for at least 5 years after the project
end date.
Returning to the Green Shipping Guarantee Programme, co-financing too features
quite prominently. Its technical thresholds are different to those required by the MoS.
The co-financing rates are as follow:
– Up to 50% of debt financing on new vessels.
– Up to 100% of green components of retrofitting operations.
The GSGP’s financing is fixed with a ceiling of EUR 750 million. The guarantee
might be said to be a form of funded risk participation with the EIB offering a
guarantee to back senior debt, in the main but where appropriate, it could also extend
51 Ibid.
52 See reports of the projects funded since 2006 at https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europefacility/cef-transport/cef-transport-motorways-sea#2016%20mos.
53 For a list of the core ports and comprehensive ports, please see https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/
transport/files/modes/maritime/ports/doc/2014_list_of_329_ports_june.pdf.
54 Ibid; hence, letters of support from the industry and user groups would be viewed positively.
55 Art 18, TFEU generally.
56 The project of which must be infrastructure related, see above.
Legal Aspects of Green Shipping Finance: Insights from the European. . .
145
largely construed by the EU as projects extending beyond just a discretely defined
locality or specific ports. For example, projects extending over a larger geographical
area; subject always to their relevance to the MoS priorities—including funding for
“the deployment of LNG bunkering infrastructure for ships at a wider regional scale,
system of using shore-side electricity, icebreaking, dredging operations, setting up
common IT systems, traffic monitoring and management or electronic reporting
systems”
51 in the wider region.
The author’s survey of the projects funded under the last few MoS calls
52 has
revealed that the EU have prioritised those projects which involve at least two ports
located in different Member States—where two ports are involved they are so-called
core ports or one core and one comprehensive port.
53 There should also be at least
one maritime undertaking in the project mix and ideally, transport operators from the
hinterland. On that premise, the project application stands a better chance where
terminal operators, freight forwarders, supply chain undertakings and shipping
agents are also part of the consortia. Interestingly the MoS scheme does not
necessarily expect all members of the [extended] consortia to be applicants for the
grant; it suffices that they demonstrate that, as stakeholders and users, they are
supportive of the project as a whole.
54 Moreover, it should be emphasised that as
an EU wide funding scheme, it must abide by the no-discrimination principle.
55 Any
infrastructure or facility which is co-financed must thus be available to all users on a
non-discriminatory basis.
The wider benefit criterion is an important conditionality. Ships which are the
beneficiary of financial support
56 from the EU will be required to contribute to
objectives of the co-funded actions in the EU area for at least 5 years after the project
end date.
Returning to the Green Shipping Guarantee Programme, co-financing too features
quite prominently. Its technical thresholds are different to those required by the MoS.
The co-financing rates are as follow:
– Up to 50% of debt financing on new vessels.
– Up to 100% of green components of retrofitting operations.
The GSGP’s financing is fixed with a ceiling of EUR 750 million. The guarantee
might be said to be a form of funded risk participation with the EIB offering a
guarantee to back senior debt, in the main but where appropriate, it could also extend
51 Ibid.
52 See reports of the projects funded since 2006 at https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europefacility/cef-transport/cef-transport-motorways-sea#2016%20mos.
53 For a list of the core ports and comprehensive ports, please see https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/
transport/files/modes/maritime/ports/doc/2014_list_of_329_ports_june.pdf.
54 Ibid; hence, letters of support from the industry and user groups would be viewed positively.
55 Art 18, TFEU generally.
56 The project of which must be infrastructure related, see above.
Legal Aspects of Green Shipping Finance: Insights from the European. . .
145