Mainport Rotterdam By David B. Letteney, Executive Director Most Americans, when they think of the Netherlands, think of Amsterdam as "quaint", "picturesque" a "cultural center", "architecturally unique." If they have never been there, they tend to think of Rotterdam as an old, industrial smokestack city with lots of ships, barges and trucks and not much in the way of culture and architecture. While the popular perception of Amsterdam is largely correct, nothing could be further from the truth so far as Rotterdam is concerned! Rotterdam was founded in 1340. Its position on the Maas River, a tributary of the Rhine, made it a natural location to develop trade by water along the European coastline, across the North Sea to England and, in the 17th century, the new world and Dutch colonies in Southeast Asia and Latin America. Its growth over the centuries was largely as an industrial and port city while political life was assigned to the Hague and Amsterdam was the cultural capital. World War II and the bombing of the city center gave the city fathers an opportunity to dramatically alter the character of the city during reconstruction. The central portion, that most heavily devastated, was redesigned to be open and airy, with some 75 per cent of the area devoted to public spaces and parks. Rebuilt roads were very wide with open verges to enhance the feeling of roominess. Business sections were separated from residential areas. Innovative designs of both office and apartment buildings has won many architectural awards. Yet, not all is new. Many old and architecturally significant buildings were preserved: The Schieland House, built in 1665 for a wealthy merchant, now houses the historical museum. The White House, Europe's first skyscraper and its tallest building until the 1920's survived the destruction and is another example of pragmatic preservation. A walk anywhere through the residential, commercial and business districts reveals museums, a ballet, opera,casino, theater, excellent restaurants and world-class night clubs. And don't worry about language. Nearly everyone in the country speaks fluent English. There's never a problem getting around. Public transport is superb! Whether its trains, metro, buses or trams, they are clean, airy and fast with courteous and helpful conductors and operators. The principal reason for Rotterdam's attractiveness and prosperity is that "its business is business" as they say. While its geographic location is ideal for its development as the most important port in Europe, it did not just achieve that imminence by happenstance. In the second half of the 19th century a Rotterdam trader by the name of Lodewijk Pincoffs badgered and cajoled an indecisive City Council until they agreed to allow expansion of the port to the south bank of the Maas river. This coincided with the digging of a new canal called the New Waterway to the North Sea. In the period 1873 to 1905, eight new harbors and the Wilhelmina Pier were built. New roads, railroads and bridges provided access to the harbors. All of this coincided with the growth of the Ruhr Valley steel industry, chemical plants along the Rhine and the industrial revolution in England. Rotterdam now occupied an enviable spot in European trade: an important origin and destination port for Dutch trade (although Amsterdam was at least as important) a transshipment port for coastwise and North Sea trade and the ocean terminus for Rhine barge traffic extending all the way to Switzerland. Its position made it a magnet for industry, notably for oil refineries and associated businesses. An historical note: Wilhelmina Pier, which is currently being redeveloped as office space, upscale apartments and cruise ship pier was the departure point for most Dutch immigrants to the U.S. for many years. The redevelopment plans after World War II included a long range view Rotterdam's position in world trade. In terms of port development it was recognized early on that the old harbor areas were obsolete and by the mid-seventies, marine activities were moving to virgin land areas to the west, to Maasvlakte and Deltaport serving the oil industry and container shipping as well as the newest "Distripark," home of Reebok's European warehousing and distribution center. This careful planning and development process, the wholehearted participation and encouragement of the government and the strong work ethic of the Dutch people have combined to form a critical mass of economic activity for the country as a whole, centered on Rotterdam. Further impetus for growth has resulted from the formation of the European Union, the opening of borders between countries in the Union and continuing construction of new infrastructure such as the Rhine-Main-Danube Canal linking Rotterdam to the Black Sea , new highways and port expansion. In 1997, infrastructure projects around the port, including doubling of the main railway line and expansion of major chemical plants together with an improving European economy resulted in a record 307.3 million tons of cargo passing through the port, a 5.2 per cent increase over 1996. 1998 cargo volumes are expected to surpass these levels in spite of heavy competition from nearby Antwerp and the German ports of Bremen/Bremerhaven and Hamburg. The future of Rotterdam is indeed bright, an opinion that is obvious from the enthusiasm and energy of its citizens.   Opinion: Sliding on European Banana Peels By Donald I. Crews This article appeared on the Op-Ed page of the Journal of Commerce, December 5, 1997 and is reprinted by permission. Mr. Crews is an IRTA member and writes and speaks frequently on the world trade in bananas In July 1993, the European Union instituted its banana import regime, putting in place a license system veiled within a tariff that acted like a quota. It was designed to protect banana producers in the former colonies of EU member nations - known as Africa Pacific Caribbean, or ACP, countries - as part of unifying customs practices among EU member nations. And it was supposed to merely replace the earlier single-country restrictions where England, for instance, only imported bananas from its former colonies. But the EU could not resist the opportunity to denigrate competing so-called "dollar" banana producers in Latin America and reduce their share of the EU banana market by whatever means necessary. The World Bank said the EU system "distorts competition, fosters black marketeering, restricts growth, discriminates against efficient producers and removes incentives for inefficient producers to improve." The system foolishly props up the ACP banana producers, who, with the possible exception of Cameroon and the Ivory Coast, cannot produce the volume or quality of bananas that can be economically produced in Latin American "dollar" countries. Even in portions of the regime that appear fair, there is obfuscation. ACP bananas enter the EU duty-free up to a set volume. However, the volume of duty-free bananas is equivalent to the highest export volume ever for each of the ACP countries, essentially making the volume restriction a farce. Dollar bananas enter the EU at tolerable duties up to a set volume. But that volume is 60% to 70% less than the volumes of Latin American bananas that entered the EU in 1992. The duty for dollar bananas above that level is sufficiently onerous to act as a quota. Another element is a complicated licensing system used to allocate dollar banana volumes. This is used to allocate portions of the volume to the various dollar suppliers. But it also has blatantly taken import licenses from traditional dollar suppliers and given them to ACP suppliers as well as European receivers and ripeners who have never had a direct import activity. In most cases, these parties have little interest in using the licenses and instead sell them to dollar suppliers. The license system therefore further penalizes dollar banana suppliers by forcing them to buy back a portion of their market share stolen that's been given to the ACP and European parties for free. The World Trade Organization issued a decision on the European Union's banana regime in May and an appeal decision in August. The decisions oppose the EU banana regime and support the complainant countries - namely the United States, Ecuador, Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras. The WTO decision also has sparked great hope among dollar banana companies and refrigerated ship operators. Some of them believe the decision will lead to a restoration of the pre-regime status. In fact, however, the outcome may be less clear for the following reasons: 1. The WTO has no enforcement powers. It can only request that offending parties bring their practices in line with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and General Agreement on Trade in Services. If offending countries fail to comply, the WTO's only recourse is to permit complaining states to enact countervailing tariffs. One wonders what trades the complainants, especially the United States, are willing to put at risk in a potentially escalating trade battle, to counter the banana regime. 2. The hope and logical expectation that European consumers would rise up against the banana regime has not happened. With exception of Germany (with lesser support from Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands), opposition has been negligible. France and England no doubt welcome having the entire EU pay to support their former colonies, although the cost to European consumers would be far lower even if direct subsidies were paid to the ACP countries. 3. The EU is much more adept at bureaucratic games than the complaining nations. Twice prior to the scheduled hearing, the EU blocked the complaint even being presented to a panel. They are unlikely to give up easily. The have in fact tightened enforcement of the banana regime since the WTO's appeal decision. 4. The decisions by both the original and appeal panels sanction the EU bid to give preferential treatment to bananas from the ACP countries. They also permit duty-free entry of ACP bananas up to the highest volumes, while subjecting dollar bananas to some form of a tariff. Changes however, may still occur. The greatest force working to modify the EU's banana regime is not the WTO's decision. It is internal. The cost of propping up the ACP countries is a great financial burden that is inducing some EU members to recommend a change in their support policies toward former colonies. A potentially more cost-effective method to assist the ACP countries would be a steady decline in direct subsidies in conjunction with programs to help the ACP countries develop alternative trade in high value, exotic produce such as red bananas that better suit the ACP countries. If pressure for these changes grows, which is far from certain, the impact would be far greater than the WTO's decision could ever be.   News Briefs Culled from various magazines, newsletters, the Internet and the Federal Register. In the competition between container and breakbulk shipping modes, we have one of the latter instituting a container service while one of the former is selling off its container vessels but retaining its breakbulk interests. Specifically, Danish operator J. Lauritzen has begun a fully containerized service between the West Coast of South and North America. Three 500 TEU ships will be employed on 10 day frequency. Lauritzen will interline in Long Beach with OOCL for Asian destinations. Meanwhile, the Vestey group will sell its 11 Blue Star container ships and associated container equipment to P&O Nedlloyd while retaining its interest in Star Reefers, a 36 ship breakbulk fleet. There's a certain irony here: In the early '90's, P&O Containers Ltd assumed full control of Overseas Containers Ltd and purchased most of the assets of Associated Container Transportation thus obtaining the lion's share of the Australia-New Zealand/Europe trade. Blue Star purchased ACT's Australia/U.S. trades. Last October the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture published a final rule establishing new procedures for the purpose of establishing regions, rather than only countries, for the purpose of importation of animals and animal products into the United States. All countries of the world will be classified into one of six categories for each restricted disease agent, ranging from negligible to high risk and unknown. In addition, and this can be of importance to ocean carriers, both break bulk and container, under certain conditions, meat and other animal products prohibited entry into the United States can now be unloaded and reloaded at the port of arrival. Also from the Federal Register, APHIS is proposing to amend its export certification regulations to provide for the establishment of a program under which non-government facilities could become accredited to perform specific laboratory resting or phytosanitary inspection services that could serve as the basis for the issuance of a Federal phytosanitary certificate, export certificate for processed plant products or phytosanitary certificate for re-export. This limited privatization would replace tests and inspections conducted by public employees. Also in the news are legislative moves to increase USDA's power to order the recall of contaminated meats and poultry and to levy civil fines. Meanwhile, interest in expanding the use of irradiation in poultry and extending the process to meat is growing. In December the Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule which authorizes "the use of ionizing radiation for the control of food-borne pathogens in poultry." While the use of irradiation in poultry has been authorized since 1990, this notice confirms its use and deals with a number of safety and environmental issues raised by opponents. A companion rule, issued at the same time, allows the use of irradiation to control food-borne pathogens in meat and also to extend product shelf life. [If any Newsletter reader wants a copy of these notices, contact the IRTA office at (732) 767-9200.]   IRTA Board of Directors Bob Mirone, Mirone & Shields Marcia S. Holland, Journal of Commerce Peter G. Read, West of England Shipowner, Ins. Ted Schroeder, Schroeder Overseas Services George N. Proios, Lyons, Skoufalos, Proios & Flood Paul V. Zottoli, Mediterranean Shipping Company Joseph Carone, Hapag-Lloyd America Inc. John Chagin, Pacific Seaways, Inc. Kip Hinkle, Power Pool Plus Cynthia Kane, Dept. of State, State of Delaware Herbert E. Lane, Champion Motor Freight Corp. John LaRue, Port of Corpus Christi Dirk Lehmenn, KSW Systems Sheldon Meyer, Journal of Commerce Henl: Jan Mulder, Hudig &Beder John L. Murphy, Journal of Commerce Kevin Murphy, Port of Tacoma Barbara J. Pratt, Sea-Land Service, Inc. Joseph strain, Jacksonville Port Authority Peter Vickers, P.F. Vickers & Associates   Some of the Program Highlights: Perspectives on claims from Asia, North Africa, Europe and North America technological Developments in Agriculture and transport and many other new and previously unexplored topics.