North Adriatic vs. North Europe myths, facts and truth

Transcription

1 Regional Conference Development of Sustainable Intermodal Transport Jakov Karmelić North Adriatic vs. North Europe myths, facts and truth Rijeka, 4th March 2014.

2 The Vision of NAPA (North Adriatic Ports Association) The NAPA will form a European logistics platform, in particular with regard to servicing the markets of the Far East as well as Central and Eastern Europe. COOPETITION: Cooperate internationally compete internally From To Distance Total CO2 emission Korea North Adriatic 17,400 km 2,595 kg Korea Rotterdam 21,345 km 2,915 kg Difference km 320 kg Carbon emission comparison for 1 container (TEU) with gross weight 18 ton: Shipping one container from Korea to the North Adriatic saves 320 kg of CO2! Source:

3 Desire called Central and Eastern Europe Central and Eastern Europe could be served by several multi-port gateway regions. Inter regions competition Inter port competition Intra port competition

4 Sea distance Shanghai Hamburg: NM Shanghai Rijeka: 9741 NM Source: Source:

5 Inland distance Munchen Hamburg: 771 km Munchen Rijeka: 518 km Source: ntitinerarytype=undefined&caravanehidden=false&vh=car&strvehicle=0&itinerarycartype=0&itineraryfueltype=0&isfavoriseautoroute=false&isavoidpeage=false&isavoidvignette=false&isav oidlnr=false&isavoidfrontiers=false&dtmdeparture=01%2f03%2f2014&distance=km&devise=1.0 EUR&indemnite=&carbCost=1.6&autoConso=6.8&villeConso=6&routeConso=5.6

6 UNCTAD / Liner Shipping Connectivity Index (LSCI) LSCI Rank (World) Germany 90,63 7 Netherlands 88,93 8 Belgium 78,85 10 Italy 66,33 13 Slovenia 21,94 55 Croatia 21,38 58 The table presents the liner shipping connectivity index (LSCI), which indicates a country's integration level into global liner shipping networks. The index base year is 2004, and the base value is on a country showing a maximum figure for The current version of the LSCI is generated from five components: (a) the number of ships; (b) the total container-carrying capacity of those ships; (c) the maximum vessel size; (d) the number of services; and (e) the number of companies that deploy container ships on services from and to a country s ports. Source:

7 World Bank Logistics Performance Index (LPI) Country Year LPI Rank LPI Score Customs Infrastructure International shipments Logistics competence Tracking & tracing Timeliness Germany Netherlands Belgium Italy Slovenia Croatia The logistics performance (LPI) is the weighted average of the country scores on the six key dimensions: 1) Efficiency of the clearance process (i.e., speed, simplicity and predictability of formalities) by border control agencies, including customs; 2) Quality of trade and transport related infrastructure (e.g., ports, railroads, roads, information technology); 3) Ease of arranging competitively priced shipments; 4) Competence and quality of logistics services (e.g., transport operators, customs brokers); 5) Ability to track and trace consignments; 6) Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination within the scheduled or expected delivery time. Source: /C/SVN/2012/C/NLD/2012

8 North Adriatic 2012.: 1,6 mil. TEU Some traffic figures North Europe 2012.: 35,5 mil. TEU Source: %20Rowland-Mds.pdf Markets / Countries NAPA Ports Market Share Rotterdam Hamburg Antwerp Bremen. 11,9 mil. TEU 8,9 mil. TEU 8,6 mil TEU 6,1 mil TEU Source: Stojanovic, M., Poletan., T.: Perspective of the Valorisation of the North Adriatic Area Within the European Traffic Environment Source %20Tomljanovic-LK.pdf

9 Feeder Connections Liner Services by Relation Source: Source: Port of Hamburg Magazine 2/2013

10 Some comparisons North Adriatic Ship to shore cranes Rijeka 4 (2) Koper 8 (5) Trieste 6 (4) Lenght of train 500 met. Size of the biggest vessels: TEU Number of direct liner services to/from Asia: 2 (Maersk / CMA CGM, Evergreen / YML / Hanjin) North Europe Ship to shore cranes Hamburg 4 terminals, 76 cranes Rotterdam 10 terminals, 120 cranes Bremenhaven 3 terminals, 70 cranes Lenght of train 750 met. Size of the biggest vessels: TEU Number of direct liner services, worldwide: 109

11 Why? Why North Adriatic? Geographic position shorter distances and transit time adventage (for Over Suez cargo) Reduced environmental impact Why North Europe? High maritime connectivity High terminal productivity High frequency of rail and barge services Home for distribution centers (reexporting activities) Gateway position with T/S flows Scale economies reduced unit costs (bigger ships, trains )

12 P3 (Maersk, MSC, CMA CGM) projected services Asia North Europe Asia - Mediterranean 8 fixed day weekly services 88 vessels 1,2 mil. TEU capacity 126 weekly calls 44 ports of call 5 fixed day weekly services (2 servises to West Med., 1 service to East Med., 1 service to Black Sea, 1 service to Adriatic) 52 vessels 0,7 mil. TEU capacity 97 weekly calls 38 ports of call

13 P3 (Maersk, MSC, CMA CGM) projected services Asia North Europe Asia Adriatic Source:

14 P3 (Maersk, MSC, CMA CGM) projected services North Europe East Coast NA Mediterranean East Coast NA No direct service from Adriatic! Source:

15 North Adriatic what to do? Build land transport infrastructure railway with the train lenght of 750 met. Introduce rail freight liberalisation Build terminals with 15 met. depth Modernize terminals with more berths and modern cranes (increase productivity) Attract more direct liner services (for all continents) Develop shortsea and feeder networks Develop network of inland distribution centers. Comparative advantage turn into a competitive advantage!

16 Thank you!