By Elena Vasquez

The Dutch Cabinet has rejected caps on foreign ownership of Dutch container terminals, with Infrastructure and Water Management Minister Vincent Karremans telling the House of Representatives that limiting overseas equity is "not opportune under the current circumstances."

Three of Rotterdam's major container terminals already sit in foreign hands, a map the Cabinet chose not to redraw.

What is the Rotterdam ownership map?

The Cabinet's investigation catalogued the operators already on the ground:

• APMT II — owned by Danish carrier AP Moller Maersk
• ECT terminals — owned by Hong Kong-based Hutchison Ports
• RWG — a joint venture between DP World and the shipping lines CMA CGM, ONE and HMM

The Dutch review followed a parliamentary push to scrutinize terminals that majority-foreign companies own, sharpened by the geopolitical unrest of recent years, the minister's letter said.

Why did the Cabinet say no?

The Cabinet weighed four criteria before concluding against a ceiling: the measure's effectiveness, its impact on the competitiveness of Dutch ports, legal certainty for investors, and country neutrality.

That balance tipped against a percentage cap. Karremans framed the choice as an investment-climate question, not a posture shift. The Cabinet will not introduce "such a restriction on property ownership," the letter stated.

What replaces a cap?

The Cabinet is not stepping back from maritime security, Karremans stressed. Three tools will carry the load.

The Cabinet will expand the list of critical components in the maritime sector. Operators on the expanded list will face "a duty of care and a reporting obligation to protect themselves against all-hazard threats, including economic threats," the minister wrote.

The Cabinet also wants the Vifo Act, formally the Investment, Merger and Acquisition Security Assessment Act, to apply to terminals. A foreign acquirer will now face a national-security review on each deal.

Existing EU instruments targeting harmful outside influence at member-state ports remain in play, Karremans added.

What does this mean at the deal table?

The ruling preserves optionality for the operators already in Rotterdam. The Dutch government will not impose a ceiling on further consolidation or stake transfers by Maersk, Hutchison, DP World, CMA CGM, ONE or HMM.

Foreign investors gain a clearer signal. The Cabinet has kept port concession rules and property law predictable, the language Karremans used to defend the no-cap stance.

For shippers and forwarders routing through Rotterdam, the decision changes no contracts. Existing terminal leases and throughput agreements continue under current terms, with the screening burden shifting to the acquisition layer rather than the operations layer.

What is the policy trajectory?

The live file now sits inside the Vifo Act. Each future foreign acquisition of a Dutch terminal above the screening threshold will pass through an Investment Assessment review, and the Cabinet retains a discretionary national-security veto.

Berlin invoked that equivalent discretion in 2022, when German authorities scaled back COSCO's 35% Hamburg bid to 24.9%. Dutch officials now hold the same screening lever, without a percentage ceiling above it.