The following is an AI-generated summary of the five Learning Labs held during the “Ports in Transition” conference of the MAGPIE and PIONEERS projects on 17 September 2026.
The Learning Labs from our concluding conference were organised around the five priorities of the EU Ports Strategy: “Competitiveness & Innovation”, “Energy Transition, Sustainability & Clean Industries”, “Protect & Secure Ports”, “Access to Finance & Investment”, and “Social Cohesion, Skills & Quality Jobs”. Taken together, the discussions pointed to the same issue from five different angles: much of the technology is already available, from digital twins and batteries to hydrogen-powered vessels, but finance, regulation, coordination and skills have not yet caught up. Dive in below to relive the discussions and lessons from our afternoon at Ports in Transition.
The first session, “Access to finance”, proved our point well. There, ZES (Zero Emission Services) and CINEA led the discussion, and the general feeling was that more money alone would not solve the problem. Inland shipping is moving towards zero-emission operations, but retrofitting an existing fleet remains expensive, and banks still see much of the investment as risky. Esther Poortstra of ZES put the problem rather neatly: “We need all actors in the value chain to move together” and get through the “valley of death” between a promising project and an economically viable system. The discussion called for a level playing field for battery vessels, operational support, state guarantees, and banks willing to take a longer view. Thiago Tavares of CINEA stressed that “projects such as PIONEERS and MAGPIE reinforce the message that the question is no longer whether innovative solutions can work. We have seen that they can. The real question is how we make them the new normal.” He also highlighted that “EU funding helps to take innovation from research to demonstration and de-risk deployment – but scaling requires predictable investment, viable business models, and commitment from industry and other levels of government.” The discussion underlined that while public funding plays a critical role in supporting early-stage innovation and reducing initial risks, the private sector is essential to bringing solutions to market and scaling them up. At the same time, the question of where public support should end and market uptake should take over remained unresolved.
The session on Competitiveness & Innovation showed the same gap between what technology can do and what ports can deploy. Case studies from Barcelona, Antwerp and other ports covered digital twins, vessel tracking, energy-matching tools and emissions modelling. The technology itself was generally not seen as the main obstacle. As one participant put it, “Technology is there; it is about the people taking the decision and governing the direction of the technological, innovational implementations.” Data governance was a recurring issue, particularly where business strategies, operations and client information were involved. There was broad support for some form of trusted data-sharing framework, although its practical design remained unclear. The same issue appeared in the discussion on scaling: digital tools may work in one port, but data structures, IT architectures and operating models vary significantly between them. Larissa van der Lugt of EUR UPT (Erasmus University Rotterdam) summed up the wider challenge: “Innovation should not follow a sequential path from idea via pilot to scaling up. Thinking about scaling and its requirements should be part of the pilot.” She also noted that collaboration usually starts when there is a threat or an opportunity, but that it remains hard work.
The discussion on Energy Transition, Sustainability & Clean Industries, with EDP (Energias de Portugal), TU Delft (Delft University of Technology) and FIER (FIER Automotive & Mobility), returned to the same question of coordination. Electrification, hydrogen equipment and energy-matching tools already exist, but each terminal operates in its own context. Regarding shore power, Mathijs De Laet of PSA summed it up simply: “Each terminal is slightly different, so solutions need to be tailored to each terminal.” André Lisboa of EDP pointed to the uncertainty surrounding demand, prices, technologies and energy carriers, making it difficult to define one clear pathway. Jeroen Pruyn of TU Delft was equally direct: “Technology is not the issue; collaboration between innovators and legislators is needed to move forward.” Rob Kroon of FIER described the port as an increasingly interconnected energy system and argued that a shared energy roadmap should not be understood as one collective masterplan, but as “a continuous process for improving individual and collective investment decisions”. Grid congestion came up repeatedly, as did the absence of clear business cases for some forms of cooperation. The message to the EU was therefore less about funding individual technologies than about creating the infrastructure and framework in which they can be deployed.
“Protect & Secure Ports” approached greening from the angle of resilience and security. DeltaPort (DeltaPort Niederrheinhäfen) gave the example of low Rhine water levels forcing a shift towards rail, illustrating how diversification can reduce both operational and environmental risks. Smaller ports brought the discussion back to relationships and local knowledge. Peter van Wijlick of Venlo captured this in a rather good metaphor: “When you plant something, and you give it attention, give it water, it grows. And more importantly: keep giving it attention.” Jaime Filipe Puna of Sines made the same point in more practical terms, stressing the need to work together, make stakeholders aware of what they are doing, and ensure that the right people are involved. The role of port authorities was therefore less about directing everything themselves than about keeping the different actors engaged over time. The requests to the EU were straightforward: more funding and regulation that is clear enough to support investment and deployment.
The final Learning Lab, on Social Cohesion, Skills & Quality Jobs, opened with the question of how innovation and automation will affect the people working in ports. The discussion was less about jobs simply disappearing than about the skills required changing. Khalid Tachi of EICB (Expertise- en Innovatiecentrum Binnenvaart) argued that “Jobs will not necessarily disappear, but their nature will change, with workers increasingly taking on monitoring and supervisory responsibilities.” Arthur Cormier of UITP (International Association of Public Transport) added that “Automation can help fill growing workforce gaps, but it will also have to be accompanied by reskilling and training to support the transition.” The discussion also returned to the risks faced by early adopters. Khalid pointed to LNG as a case in point: “establishing the regulatory framework took years, but the policy direction had changed by the time it was in place.” There was broad agreement on retraining existing workers and strengthening links with schools and training providers. A Duisburg example brought the issue down to earth: one vacancy attracted far more applicants once it was presented as an IT position rather than a dockworker job.
Running through all five Learning Labs was a common thread: much of the technology developed through MAGPIE and PIONEERS is already available, or close to it. What is holding deployment back is more often governance, coordination, trust and the surrounding regulatory and financial framework. Funding remains part of the answer, but so do patience, clearer rules, local coordination and the ability to work across organisational boundaries. Where things did move forward, it generally came down to people knowing who to call, meeting regularly and keeping different interests aligned rather than relying on a single plan on paper.
