François Grosdidier, mayor of Metz. Photo Michel Dell’Aiera
–
The mayor and president of the Métropole de Metz does not have at all the same vision of the management of the Lorraine ports and the role of the operator who will be in charge of them. No way for him to repress his doubts
or to surround his questions with a good layer of wooden tongue. He expresses himself frankly, does not hide anything and – you understood it – it moves.
François Pélissier declared: “The mayor of Metz knows very well that we cannot stop the process. »What do you answer him?
François Grosdidier: I find him very arrogant. First, he decides instead of the Mixed Union and the Region with a certainty which does not surprise me, because from the start of the procedure, he let it be known that it was for him. The position I have taken and made known to the Union is that I, in my life, when I launched a call for tenders and had only one response, in general I made it unsuccessful and I wondered why I only had one answer. That was not the Union’s position and I regret it because we are today engaged in a procedure which is not yet over.
I was surprised at the press conference held at the Meurthe-et-Moselle chamber of commerce explaining that it was done when it was not. This confirms an attitude which was to say, very early on – I will remind you again – that the case was folded. I find it unhealthy. I say it and I assume it. It is badly started because, starting from a good idea which was that of a concession – why not? -, we include in a single proposal all the ports of the Moselle. I would point out that this is not the choice that was made in Alsace. On the one hand, the autonomous port of Strasbourg is autonomous as its name suggests. He has a different status. On the other hand, Colmar and Mulhouse left on two distinct structures. We chose a solution that we didn’t necessarily need in Metz because we have sufficient critical size. That said, I don’t mind at all that we are working in synergy with the other ports. It is true that, seen from Rotterdam, frankly, perhaps not from the Vosges to Cattenom but from Metz to Frouard and Illange, we can consider that we are a multi-site port and not necessarily three ports. The approach does not bother me, except that I have a solution which ensures all the ports of their development, according to both their potential and opportunities and not a development that would be biased by territorial interests.
This can be ensured in two ways: either one which, in my opinion, would have been desirable, that is to say that we are in a simple concession and therefore that the Region and Voies Navigables de France, through the union , call on all European operators who could commit to developing and managing our ports. The formula chosen from the start – the imposed solution of a Semop (Single-purpose semi-public company) – sort of corner European investors by telling them “you invest but you don’t decide for yourself”. It is rather likely to cool the European candidates. This is the reason why we end up with a single candidacy, in a procedure which, for me, should have turned out to be unsuccessful. We did not ask ourselves why we only had one answer. Either with Semop – why not? – but in this case, I believe that governance should be balanced between the territories. This is not the case.
François Pélissier says that you did not understand that it is not the CCI 54 which controls the ports. Are you convinced?
People laugh at me saying that. It is clear that it is a subsidiary of the CCI of Meurthe-et-Moselle. It is she who will be in charge and it will also be the Champigneulles platform. And there, I have a double subject. The subject is not only Moselle / Meurthe-et Moselle, it is river, road and iron.
You can specify ?
That is to say that there is competition between the modes of transport. The CCI of Meurthe-et-Moselle has a stronger interest and objectives to develop piggyback or road. It is not an overall management that can conclude contracts, in particular with the SNCF. The CCI 54 subsidiary is also an SNCF network concessionaire and therefore there we are on competitive modes. Me, I want a river operator who develops this activity and who does not have interests in rail or road. And there we don’t have it. This was the ambition that the Region displayed and which would have been of a European dimension. There, we actually have piggyback players to manage our ports. I fear both a territorial imbalance, because it suffices for the common manager of all the ports to decide on a handling price slightly higher in Metz for example than that charged in Frouard, to divert a whole part of the traffic. from one port to another. And I also fear that we will not even develop Frouard but that we are playing the piggyback and road card more than the river. However, I want to draw all the potential of the river. We have a very strong market, even with Ikea which would like to use the river much more and I absolutely don’t want us to be hampered in this development. And the emerging solution is not at all the one that is likely to provide me with all the guarantees
“I fear both a territorial imbalance, because it suffices for the common manager of all the ports to decide on a handling price slightly higher in Metz for example than that charged in Frouard, to divert a whole part of the traffic from one port to another. »Photo The Week
–
Then there are also the investments. We agreed to invest 13.7 million euros in the Metz site. However, I note that the only commitments guaranteed by the banks of candidate CCI 54, are 15 million euros, a sum where there is not the 13 million euros from Metz. However, when I delegate public equipment to a concessionaire for thirty years, I demand that the amount of investment corresponding to the duration of the amortization and the duration of the concession, with the corresponding bank guarantees, be respected. There, the account is not there at all. The port of Metz is being given for thirty years to people who will not necessarily have the concern of developing it. This is my concern.
François Pélissier announces 30 million euros of investments over the duration of the concession …
There is no commitment on the 30 million euros and he does not have the guarantees. When will it be? He’s not going to make the 30 million in the 29th year. These are commitments that are popular. There is only one commitment, and again: we ask for a bank guarantee on 15 million and there is not even a deadline on the commitment of these 15 million. There is a deposit in case it is done but, if it is not, the concession is not shielded. I am at the origin of the Concession of the International Fair of Metz to GL Events. Believe me, the concession contract didn’t turn out that way.
Can the call for tenders be questioned?
Of course, it can be questioned. As long as the union hasn’t looked at all the pieces. I remind you that all the parts had not been provided in full twice on the dates required with all the guarantees, including moreover the question of the port of Illange, namely: depollutions, the transfer of the personnel of the steel industry to the port operator. I’m not on the file, I’m looking at it from the outside, like a member of the port union, but the last time there wasn’t all of that. They transmitted a certain number of documents, but not all, in particular concerning social issues and pollution control which could lead the Union to responsibilities which have not been quantified today. There are a number of outstanding questions. It is up to the Syndicat mixte to do the work with the greatest rigor before deliberating. But I find it a little curious that, from the beginning, François Pélissier considers that it is for him. He has been speaking on behalf of the Region and the union for some time and it continues today.
What remedies do you have?
Listen, I’m not there yet but, in any case, I will use all administrative channels because I consider that there are conflicts of interest in this matter.
–
