10/19/2014. Analysis of existing Border-crossing agreements.

Transcription

1 PRESENTATION OF THE TA: TRACK B AND C TASKS Progress Railway Working Group, October 2014, Belgrade prepared by Tatjana Mirkovic Klaus Uhl According to the ToR, the global objective of the project is to: to support the implementation of the Strategic Work Programme of the South East Europe Transport Observatory (SEETO) with the aim of fully integrating South East Europe into the European Transport market. The specific objective is to implement the following project tasks: improved data collection and analysis mechanism, support the implementation of the Railway Addendum to the MoU, advise on harmonisation of transport related border-crossing procedures, support to improving road safety auditing programmes of the regional participants. Description and analysis of the corridors/routes, terminals and border crossings on the flagship axes. Analysis of the socioeconomic costs and benefits stemming from establishment of freight corridor. The assessment of the quality of the service on the entire corridor and terminals. Determination of non-physical barriers which affect the continuity of transport flows. Action plan What to do (measures to be undertaken)? What is the expected results (what will the benefits be to improve the international transport in the region)? What is the best practice/ are the benchmarks (examples from the region or from the European Union)? Who does it (the responsible institution/agency that should be the leader for the implementation)? Who does it with whom (which are the competent institutions/agencies that should be consulted? Until when (a tentative timeframe)? Performance indicators if available Cost estimates for the actions if available Analysis of existing Border-crossing agreements. Fact-finding Mission to the border-crossings and to ports and bi-modal, tri-modal terminals on the Flagship corridors. 4 Workshops 1 st WS held in Brussels on nd WS held in Belgrade on

2 Conducted visits: Inland Terminal in Sarajevo BCPs BIH/CRO (Brod, Samac, port of Samac) BCPs SER-CRO (Batrovci; Sid) Ports of Bar, Vlore and Durres BCPs MNE/ALB, ALB/KOS; MNE-SER Port of Ploce, BCPs Metkovic/Doljani Since last RWWG meeting: BCPs MKD/SER; MKD/GRE Joint Crossing Point SER/KOS; Kosovo inland terminal; BCPs ROM/SER; SER/BUL Ports of Koper, Trieste and Rijeka Visits to be conducted : Port of Novi Sad; Port of Penzevo; Beograd Ranzirna (shunting station) Port of Thessaloniki Port of Piraeus, Port of Constanta Un-used building for border police and customs (EU funding) In 2014: 1 pair of international passenger; 3 pairs of local trains; 2 freight trains in 24h The terminal is rather a scrap yard than a terminal. 2

3 No more joint control on moving train. BUL border police and customs no longer at Dimitrovgrad! Private railways entering station Vrsac are the following: GFR, DBS, CTV, TRC, TFG, STI, MARFA (state company). CRO/BIH BIH/CRO CRO/SER SER/MKD MKD/GRE HU/SER SER/BUL SER/MNE (Ploce) (Samac) MKD/KOS Trains/month Lorries/month Theoretical number of container train/month Theoretical number of container train/day At present no of trains/day At present (in lorry equivalent): Present market share of rail (%): In 2013: 18 Mill tons; containers In 2013: TEU (max capacity is TEU/year) Major port for Serbian market. In 2013: TEU (max capacity is TEU/year) 3

4 Legislative (need for BCA according to EU legislation, Protocols ) Technical (missing parking space for trucks on BCP, new lane for trucks, fences for railway border stations, lightning of control area, ) Organizational (inspections not on BCP or only during day time, not enough staff for checking of trains ) Existing BCA are not in conformity with EU legislation with exception of MKD-KOS and MNE-ALB Significant decrease in international passenger trains and freight trains (more than 75% since 2009) but more than doubling of lorries and buses. Technical improvements of some BCPs (road + rail) needed (parking, phyto-sanitary installations, customs clearance terminals, fencing) No joint controls among border authorities (single window) except MNE-ALB on road. No electronic transmission of data between Customs and Railways and among railways (infrastructure managers, railway undertakings) SEEDS Systematic Electronic Exchange of Data (only for Customs on road BCPs and only between regional countries not with EU countries). NCTS for road is about to be implemented, for rail still in preparation phase. Customs procedures. Absence of IT based document handling at regional customs offices. Rail sector does not provide performance data (T&T). N.B.EU rail freight corridors do it. Infrastructure (road + rail) is a major bottleneck. Ports are main feeders for Flagship Corridor! Public sector is not challenged: State owned enterprises do not learn from past mistakes. Such mistakes do not lead to pressure to correct. Lack of trust hampers cooperation. Forwarders have a bias to a particular mode. Attractive by-passes are: Ports of Hamburg, Koper, Rijeka, Piraeus, Truck transport via Italy ( with ferry boat between Brindisi and Igoumenitza) and the motorway to Istanbul. Transit traffic provides opportunities for regional logistics operators. O/D traffic provides opportunities for both regional logistics operators and shippers of freight (= senders and receivers of consignments). Cosco: safety by rail, in particular when it comes to the carriage of dangerous goods, and security of shipments matter. 4

5 Rail should shift from supply driven approach ("this is what I can offer take it or leave it") to a demand driven service. ( I will do my best to offer a customer-oriented solution ). Develop cooperation between shippers, carriers and forwarders to generate the critical transport mass necessary for international train services. Low carbon is an issue playing in favour of maritime and rail transport Implementation of laws Lack of knowledge at institutional level (that implement the laws) No process improvement (no IT at border) Bad management of infrastructure (e.g. not enough open lanes at border) Nonsense projects from perspective of private operators No corridor management (no flagship corridor management) No market access to rail networks No investment observation by private sector (check of necessity or right periodisation) No cleaning of Danube river and Sava Bad rail and road connections into the hinterland No IT, No Tracking and tracing No location of real market for containers Thank you for your attention! 5