From Green Deal to Clean Industrial Deal

During the previous Commission, the Green Deal dominated the agenda, targeting net-zero emissions by 2050. Ports found themselves thrust into a new role, no longer solely multimodal hubs but key players in Europe’s decarbonisation. With fossil fuels still moving through ports as cargo, the transition to greener energy flows—offshore wind, hydrogen, ammonia—brings new complexity. Unlike oil or coal, these new energy sources require conversion, storage, and specialised infrastructure. Ryckbost cites the merger between the Port of Antwerp and the Port of Zeebruges as an answer to the need to step up the role of ports as sustainable energy hub.

The new Commission is building on the Green Deal with the Clean Industrial Deal (CID), seeking to balance decarbonisation with competitiveness. “Europe now understands that decarbonisation must go hand in hand with maintaining Europe’s economic strength,” Ryckbost explains.

Ports in the Age of Resilience and Defence

A newer, perhaps less expected role has emerged in recent years: ports as strategic assets in Europe’s military and security landscape. The invasion of Ukraine, rising geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, and concerns about NATO’s cohesion under a shifting U.S. political climate have underscored the need for European self-reliance.

“Covid showed how ports are critical to resilience—keeping food, medicine, and essential goods moving,” Ryckbost notes. “But the war in Ukraine showed that ports are among the first targets in a conflict.”

The strategic role now includes troop and military cargo movement. This requires port authorities to work closely with military planners, who often operate with different priorities. Infrastructure such as reinforced roads, bridge clearances, and suitable RoRo ramps for tanks all become critical. Yet, the challenge is space: military demands, energy transition infrastructure, and commercial functions all compete for limited port real estate. In times of crisis, military authorities expect immediate access.

Although a list of strategic ports exists, it is classified. Ryckbost stresses the importance of ensuring redundancy: “If a major port like Rotterdam is temporarily or partially unavailable due to military operations, other ports must be ready to keep Europe’s economy moving.”

Cybersecurity and hybrid threats add another layer, reinforcing the need for ports to build flexible, buffer capacity. “We must plan for more than what we need on paper,” Ryckbost warns.

A Role in Energy, Not as Fuel Suppliers

While ports must prepare for future fuels such as methanol and ammonia, Ryckbost is clear: “A port is not a petrol station.” The sector’s experience with LNG has shown the risks of putting too many eggs in one basket. Despite substantial investment, LNG uptake has often lagged due to pricing.

This also applies to shoreside electricity (OPS). “We support OPS, but it must be used. It’s an expensive investment.” Two main issues arise: grid capacity and cost. With increasing electricity demand, prioritisation may become necessary during peak periods—raising the question of whether ships will be high enough on the priority list of member states.

From 2030, passenger ships must use OPS in European ports unless equipped with alternative net-zero technologies. Ferry routes will be particularly affected. “Operators will have to accept that electricity comes at a cost,” says Ryckbost.

Moreover, the rollout of OPS is not without delays, as equipment manufacturers and installers face capacity challenges.

Navigating European Funding and Governance

The shift in policy and responsibilities also complicates ESPO’s advocacy work. Previously dealing primarily with DG MOVE (Mobility and Transport), ESPO must now engage with a wide range of directorates—energy, defence, climate, and more. “People in transport understand ports. But we must now explain their specificity to many others,” Ryckbost observes.

Another concern is funding. Proposals to allocate transport investment budgets to national portfolios risk diluting port infrastructure funding. “If you leave it to Member States, priorities will differ. One might favour agriculture, another ports.” She advocates for European-level funding mechanisms. Ports have to be seen as cross-border nodes. Moreover, transport is a network industry, . investments should be coordinated, if not, these do not make sense. Ferry routes—like Tallinn-Helsinki—are a good example; Investments in greening (e.g. OPS) on one side will not work if the corresponding investments are not being made on the other side.

The defence dimension may prompt renewed interest in an EU-level transport budget, but the outcome remains to be seen. We will know more mid-July, when the Commission issues its first proposals.

Flexibility and Forward Planning

Ryckbost concludes with a message of pragmatism and foresight. “We’ve had the luxury of not thinking about military use for decades. But we are now in a grey zone—neither peace nor war. Ports must be flexible, and policy must give them breathing space to adapt and be agile.”

Despite the weight of these new responsibilities, Ryckbost remains optimistic about Europe’s recognition of the vital role ports play. “Covid showed our resilience. Ports turned cruise terminals into storage areas, provided backup services, and kept going. Now we need the respect, resources, and legislative support to keep fulfilling that role.”