Authors:
Enric Pons Agustí
Senior Analyst, CETMO
Sergí Saurí Marchan
Director, CENIT
Date: 05.02.2026
Reading: 7 min.
In March 2025, the Secretariat of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM), with the support of the MEDports Association, commissioned CENIT and CETMO to carry out a comprehensive Study on Governance Models of Mediterranean Ports. This work, whose results were presented in Barcelona in December 2025, brings together for the first time a harmonised overview of how the main ports of the region are organised, regulated and financed.
The study analyses port governance through three interconnected layers: the national legal and institutional framework, the management model of Port Managing Bodies (PMBs) and their economic‑financial model. This three‑level approach makes it possible to understand not only who takes the main strategic and regulatory decisions, but also how port authorities operate in their day‑to‑day work and to what extent they enjoy managerial and financial autonomy. The analysis draws on desk research, a structured survey sent to MEDports members and national maritime experts, and targeted interviews with key stakeholders from public administrations and port authorities.
From an institutional viewpoint, the study shows that national laws define the structure of port systems, the allocation of responsibilities and the role of the Highest Competent Body (HCB) in each country. Depending on the case, this role may be exercised by a ministry, by a specialised public agency or directly by one or more port authorities. These HCBs usually set system‑wide objectives, approve or supervise investment and financial programmes, and in some countries frame the ranges for port tariffs and commercial policies, which results in ports operating within clear state‑defined boundaries but with different degrees of autonomy.
Within this framework, the dominant organisational scheme in the Mediterranean is the landlord model, where PMBs focus on planning, developing and maintaining infrastructure, while private operators provide most terminal and cargo‑handling services under long‑term concessions. Basic infrastructure is predominantly publicly owned, generally by the state, whereas land can be owned either by the central administration or by the PMB itself, a factor that the study links to greater room for manoeuvre in business development and in emerging activities such as energy and environmental services. In functional terms, PMBs continue to prioritise traditional strategic fields such as integration into logistics chains, port accessibility and support to key industries, but they are progressively increasing their involvement in energy‑related roles and environmental sustainability, albeit unevenly across the region.
From the economic‑financial perspective, the report identifies three broad revenue models depending on the degree of state contribution to port finances. In all of them, port dues remain the backbone of own revenues, complemented mainly by concession fees and other operating income, while public transfers and national port funds gain weight in systems where ports receive substantial budgetary support. Cost structures also differ: some PMBs show very high shares of operating expenditure, whereas others rely more on outsourced services, with different combinations of internal staff costs and contracted external services.
To move beyond qualitative descriptions, the study builds several functional indices that combine information on planning, investment, commercial, environmental and energy‑related functions. These indices reveal that ports with higher traffic volumes tend to assume more fully long‑term strategic functions, enjoy greater commercial autonomy and show higher involvement in energy and sustainability activities, partly in response to their greater environmental footprint. Business‑related functions are, in general, highly developed in most PMBs, while energy and sustainability dimensions present more variability and lower average maturity. The analysis also suggests that PMBs owning port land tend to reach higher levels of involvement in both business and emerging functions than those where the land remains directly under state ownership, for similar traffic levels.
In terms of recent trends, the Mediterranean does not follow a single trajectory but shares a clear move towards stronger participation of national and international private actors in the management of terminals and services. Reforms in several countries combine, in different proportions, processes of decentralisation, corporatisation and privatisation, with the aim of improving efficiency, attracting investment and reinforcing the competitiveness of Mediterranean ports in global logistics chains.
This study shows that port governance models in the Mediterranean are diverse and respond to the interaction between the legal‑institutional framework, the PMB management model and the economic‑financial model that shapes their autonomy and capacity for action. The main conclusions of the study are shared below.
Role of the administration and legal framework
The study confirms that the administration plays a prominent role in the governance of Mediterranean ports, either as the highest-level body setting objectives, financial programmes and commercial policies for the port system, or as a source of financial support for infrastructure development. This role is supported by national regulatory frameworks that define the structure of the port system and the Highest Competent Body (HCB), as well as their functions in terms of objectives, investments, commercial coordination and information exchange.
Management models, guiding principles and ownership
In terms of management models, the dominant model in Mediterranean countries is the landlord model, in which the PMB plans and develops the infrastructure, while the operation of terminals and services for ships and goods falls mainly to private operators through long-term concessions. The balance between the public and private sectors is reflected in the dominance of a mixed guiding principle that combines the general interest and profit maximisation, followed by the promotion of the general interest. It should also be noted that ownership of infrastructure is mainly public and exercised by the state administration, while land ownership is divided almost equally between the administration and PMB.
Guiding principle of the PMB. Source: CETMO-CENIT
Ownership model of the PMB. Source: CETMO-CENIT
Strategic functions, autonomy and competitiveness of PMBs
Strategic functions continue to focus on traditional tasks —integration into the logistics chain, storage, accessibility for basic industries and passenger transport— while functions linked to energy and sustainability are considered increasingly important but not yet relevant at a strategic level. Infrastructure construction remains an intrinsic and priority function, although the report treats it in a cross-cutting manner.
Most PMBs have broad planning powers (strategic plans, budgets, multi-year programmes and service area management), especially in ports with higher traffic and significant private participation. In terms of investment, most of the PMBs analysed carry out internal projects, participate in the approval of investment portfolios and promote intermodality, while investment outside the port area is restricted to those ports that can participate in joint ventures or subsidiaries. In the commercial field, the priority objectives are port performance and added value for users and the territory, ahead of the strict profitability of the PMB or private companies, confirming the pre-eminence of market-oriented public service logic.
In line with the landlord model, the setting and collection of fees falls largely to PMBs, although in some countries (such as Spain and Italy) they are limited by ranges set by law or by the HCB. The provision of services to ships and ports is dominated by private operators, with involvement rates of over 80% in most services, which reinforces the role of PMBs as ‘facilitators and regulators’ rather than direct operators. In addition, almost all PMBs actively promote initiatives to improve competitiveness, such as actions in maritime and land access, hinterland connections, administrative simplification, ICT development and Port Community Systems, with levels of involvement exceeding 80-90%.
Nature of ship service providers. Source: CETMO-CENIT
Nature of cargo service providers. Source: CETMO-CENIT
Emerging functions: energy and sustainability
The report identifies considerable scope for development in the emerging functions of energy and sustainability, despite the fact that a significant proportion of PMBs already participate as investors or co-investors in energy projects, as land facilitators or as logistical support. In the environmental field, PMBs mainly play a monitoring and reporting role in areas such as air quality, ship emissions, water quality, noise, waste and dredging, although in areas such as air quality and dredging they also take on planning, regulatory and innovation promotion functions. The definition of specific indices (Energy Function Index and Sustainable Function Index) reveals that there is a group of PMBs with high levels of involvement in both dimensions.
Energy Function vs Sustainability Function. Source: CETMO-CENIT
Economic-financial model: revenue structure and cost structure
The study identified three revenue structure patterns: fully self-financed PMBs, PMBs with low administration contributions, and PMBs with high administration contribution, coexisting under the landlord model. In all three cases, port fees constitute the main component of own revenue, supplemented by concession fees, other operating revenue and, to a lesser extent, financial results or asset sales, while subsidies and national funds for ports carry more weight in models with high public support.
With regard to cost structure, the study identifies at least two patterns: one where operating costs represent between 80% and 100% of the total, and another where operating costs are around 40%. Within operating costs, there is a complementary relationship between spending on human resources and external services. In the absence of a larger sample size to provide greater robustness, models with high private participation could be associated with greater outsourcing, while models with a strong public component would concentrate a higher proportion of personnel costs.
Functional indices and observed patterns
The four defined indices—Long Term Function Index, Private Participation Index, Business Model Function Index and Emerging Function Index—allow for comparison of the degree of functional development of PMBs and relate it to traffic, revenue, efficiency and profitability. The results show that functions linked to the business model achieve very high values in most ports, while emerging functions show greater dispersion and, in many cases, moderate levels of development. Among the clearest patterns, it can be seen that PMBs with higher traffic volumes tend to fully assume long-term strategy functions, that increased revenue is associated with greater commercial autonomy, and that traffic growth is often accompanied by greater involvement in energy and sustainability functions, partly due to increased environmental impacts that require action.
Furthermore, a relevant finding is the influence of land ownership on the functional autonomy of the PMB: when the port authority owns the port domain, its degree of involvement in business functions and emerging functions tends to be greater, for equivalent traffic volumes, than when the land is directly owned by the national administration.
Developments and trends in governance in the Mediterranean
Mediterranean port governance models have evolved with the aim of increasing efficiency, attracting foreign investment and strengthening competitiveness in the global logistics chain.
Processes of concentration and recentralisation (such as the reorganisation of port authorities in Italy or the centralised model in Tunisia), decentralisation and strengthening of the landlord figure (as in France), as well as dynamics of partial or total privatisation of PMBs and terminals (notably in Greece) and the development of large hubs under public-private partnership schemes, such as Tanger Med and Nador West Med in Morocco or the main Egyptian ports, have been identified. Overall, there is no single pattern of evolution, but there is a general trend towards greater involvement of the national and international private sector in the management of terminals and services, combined with public structures that retain regulation, strategic planning and, in many cases, ownership of basic infrastructure.
Developments and trends in Mediterranean port governance. Source: CETMO-CENIT
Furthermore, it should be noted that the top 10 container ports in the Mediterranean share a high degree of autonomy from their respective ministries/governments.
Lack of efficiency-based patterns
Despite the variety of information collected, the lack of consistent and detailed economic data on revenues and costs in several countries prevents the establishment of solid relationships between functional categories and efficiency or operational profitability parameters. Correlation tests between efficiency (operating costs/traffic) or operational performance (revenue/costs) and the various functional indices have not yielded conclusive patterns, partly due to the limited sample size and partly due to the high degree of heterogeneity in traffic composition (containerised, liquid and solid bulk, passengers and cruise ships). Further study of these relationships requires working with larger samples, allowing for disaggregation by traffic type, as well as more complete financial data that allows for a more robust link between governance and performance.
The use, reproduction or dissemination of any fragment, text, image or data from this study requires an appropriate bibliographic citation mentioning the promotors, authors and the original source.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay updated about all news and events
