Each port’s contribution to the national economy is estimated on the basis of the analysis of its economic, social and financial situation over the period from 2001 to 2006. The three variables concerned in the main developments are value added, employment and investment. This study also highlights the port sector’s indirect effects in terms of value added and employment. The social balance sheet is summarised in two sections: one covering the Flemish maritime ports and the other the Liege port complex. The analysis of the financial results is based on the study of the return on equity, liquidity and solvency ratios, and a synthetic indicator of financial health. 2006 was a very good year for the Flemish ports. Freight traffic reached new record levels in Antwerp, Ostend and Zeebrugge alike. But the port of Ghent also recorded good growth. The main factor behind the strong performance was container traffic. Economic growth has a favorable impact not only on overseas trade but also on river freight traffic. This facilitated a partial recovery in the case of traffic in the Liege port complex. In the port of Brussels on the other hand, the tonnages of cargo loaded and unloaded have been more or less stable in the past two years. Despite the good figures for the volumes handled, the direct value added of the six ports taken together remained stable (- 1.9 p.c. at constant prices). The decline in direct value added in Antwerp was offset by increases in Brussels, Ostend, Zeebrugge, Liege and, to a lesser extent, Ghent. The decline was particularly marked in the Antwerp shipping companies and fuel producers, the Antwerp chemical industry and Ghent metalworking. However, in all ports except Antwerp, the increase in traffic caused the direct value added of the maritime cluster to rise faster than that of the non-maritime cluster. The higher value added in cargo handling was particularly noticeable in Zeebrugge and Ghent. In Ostend, port construction and dredging did particularly well. In the non-maritime cluster, a number of sectors more or less compensated for the decline in fuel production, chemicals and metalworking, more specifically car manufacturing (Antwerp and Ghent), construction (Liege), the energy sector (Antwerp, Brussels, Liege and Ostend), other industry (Ghent), electronics (Ghent and Zeebrugge) and other services (Antwerp, Brussels, Liege and Ostend). Subcontractors more than made up for the stabilisation of the direct effects, so that the total value added increased by 2.9 p.c. (+ 0.9 p.c. at constant prices). Nonetheless, the share of the total value added in Belgium’s GDP dropped from 10.3 to 10.1 p.c. Direct employment in the six ports increased by 1.3 p.c. This expansion was entirely based on traffic growth. It was therefore due to a substantial increase in the workforce in the maritime cluster. Employment in cargo handling actually increased in all six ports, with a dramatic rise in Antwerp and Zeebrugge. But the shipping agents, forwarders and shipping companies also contributed to the good result. Conversely, in the nonmaritime cluster the average number of workers diminished. Declines in construction (Liege and Zeebrugge), chemicals (Antwerp, Ghent and Ostend), car manufacturing (Antwerp and Ghent) and metalworking (Liege) were mitigated to some extent by increases in trade (Antwerp and Ostend) and other services (Antwerp and Ostend). Partly thanks to the Plassendale districts, Ostend is the only port where the numbers employed in the non-maritime cluster increased, actually growing by 7.3 p.c.