Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the SouthEastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus Base year 2011 and outlook 2030 Final Report

Bremen, Dec. 2012

Client:

Prepared by: Institut für Seeverkehrswirtschaft und Logistik Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics Universitatsallee 11/13 28359 Bremen Germany phone: +49-421-22096-0 fax: +49-421-22096-77 http://www.isl.org

Your contacts: Michael Tasto e-Mail: [email protected] direct call: +49-421-22096-73 Sönke Maatsch e-mail: [email protected] direct call: +49-421-22096-32

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

Content INTRODUCTION

6

1 THE AMBER COAST PORTS’ ZONE OF INFLUENCE AND THE COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE

7

2 ANALYSIS OF THE AMBER COAST CONTAINER TRAFFIC

11

2.1 2011 AMBER COAST CONTAINER FREIGHT FLOWS

11

2.2 COUNTRY PROFILES AND MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS 2.2.1 Estonia 2.2.2 Latvia 2.2.3 Lithuania 2.2.4 Poland 2.2.5 Belarus 2.2.6 Ukraine (Northwest) 2.2.7 Germany (Northeast) 2.2.8 Denmark

14 16 16 17 17 18 19 19 20

3 FORECAST OF CONTAINER TRAFFIC FLOWS UP TO 2030

21

3.1 FORECAST OF MACRO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS

21

3.2 FORECAST OF TOTAL CONTAINER TRAFFIC DEMAND PER COUNTRY

23

4 INNOVATION AND MODAL SHIFT SCENARIOS

25

4.1 SHIFT SCENARIO

25

4.2 INNOVATION SCENARIO

28

CONCLUSIONS

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

30

III

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

Tables Tab. 1 Amber Coast ports included in the analysis and their TEU lo-lo traffic 2011

11

Tab. 2 Country Profile Estonia

16

Tab. 3 Country Profile Latvia

17

Tab. 4 Country Profile Lithuania

17

Tab. 5 Country Profile Poland

18

Tab. 6 Country Profile Belarus

19

Tab. 7 Country Profile northeast Germany (Baltic Seaports)

19

Tab. 8 Country Profile Denmark

20

Tab. 9 Average real GDP-growth rates of Amber Coast economies 2000-2011, 2011-2030

21

Tab. 10 2011 and 2030 container demand of Amber Coast hinterland economies serviced by Amber Coast ports, long-term growth factors and forecast CO2 emission of hinterland transport

23

Tab. 11 2011 container demand of Amber Coast hinterland economies serviced by Amber Coast ports, 2030 handling potential (status qou) versus shift scenario, forecast CO2emission of hinterland transport 26 Tab. 12 2011 container demand of Amber Coast hinterland economies serviced by Amber Coast ports, 2030 handling potential (status qou) versus innovation scenario, forecast CO2-emission of hinterland transport

28

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

IV

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

Figures Fig. 1

Amber Coast Ports’ zone of influence and major metropolitan areas

7

Fig. 2

Direct calls of deepsea liner services in Gothenburg and Aarhus

8

Fig. 3

Direct calls of deepsea liner services in St. Petersburg and Gdansk

9

Fig. 4

Direct calls of deepsea liner services in St. Petersburg and Gdansk

9

Fig. 5

Breakdown of “lo-lo” maritime container trading partners of major Amber Coast Ports 2011, “officially reported” versus estimated effective partners

12

Effective maritime trading partners in “Lo-Lo” container traffic of major Amber Coast Ports 2011

13

Fig. 7

Estimating the effective container demand of a country

15

Fig. 8

Real GDP growth forecast for Amber Coast (and Amber Coast hinterland) economies 2011-2030

22

Fig. 9

Amber Coast port container handling demand by hinterland countries 2011 and 2030 container handling potential

24

Fig. 6

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

V

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

Introduction In this study, the Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics (ISL) analyzes the container traffic flow through ports in the southern and south-eastern Baltic Sea regions (“Amber Coast”) with respect to its origin and destination in the hinterland as well as the effective container demand of those hinterland markets. This analysis of the current traffic flows forms the basis for a forecast of the 2030 container demand potential as well as the evaluation of scenarios considering different aspects such as economic development in the hinterland connections of these ports, regulations for shipping in the Baltic (e.g. SECA) etc. The research is split into the following main steps:  

 

Review of key economic developments in the Amber Coast economies zone of influence (Chapter 1) Status quo analysis of container transport in Amber Coast countries (Chapter 2) o Identification of container freight flows through Amber Coast ports 2011 o Identification of major metropolitan areas generating traffic in the Amber Coastand Amber Coast hinterland-economies Forecast of container demand potential in the hinterland market of the Amber Coast ports in 2030 (Chapter 3) Innovation and modal shift scenarios for the forecast demand potential (Chapter 4)

The study to be elaborated is embedded in ACL work package 4: Sustainable and efficient transport concepts and multi-modal transport chains, which aims at strengthening of sustainable multi-modal transport concepts within an overall logistical structure Baltic Sea Region (EU) / Belarus, meeting the special requirements of areas with low accessibility. ACL is a collaborative logistics project that supports the coordinated development of multimodal Logistics Centres and thus fosters the connection of remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea region.

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

6

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

1 The Amber Coast Ports’ zone of influence and the competitive landscape The zone of influence of the Amber Coast ports not only includes the ports’ immediate hinterland in the Baltic States, Poland, northern and eastern Germany and Denmark, but also to transit countries such as Russia, Belarus or the northern part of Ukraine. In total, the zone of influence covers an area with approximately 150 million inhabitants in nine countries. Fig. 1 Amber Coast Ports’ zone of influence and major metropolitan areas

Source: ISL based on survey and desk research

While the north of Poland and the Baltic States are almost exclusively served by the Amber Coast Ports, they compete with other port ranges in the other regions, namely:      

Northeast of Germany and Denmark: German North Sea ports South Poland: North Range ports, especially German ports West Ukraine: Ukrainian ports and German ports Other Ukraine: Ukrainian ports Belarus: Ukrainian ports Northwest Russia: Russian ports

The competitive position of the Amber Coast Ports vis-à-vis its competitors depends on the costs of the transport chains, which in turn depend on the costs of seaborne transport, the port costs (handling and port dues), and the hinterland costs. For the latter, the distance and the availability of intermodal connections are key factors. Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

7

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

For seaborne transport, transhipment moves are a major cost factor. Transhipment moves in the west European ports are particularly costly due to high handling costs and port dues, but intraBaltic transhipment such as in Gdansk also increases the total seaborne costs compared with direct connections. The dominant pattern for linking the Amber Coast Ports to intercontinental trade is via transhipment in the North Range ports. Maersk has traditionally been using the port of Gothenburg as an additional hub port and also calls at Aarhus since with one of its Far East services. From 1997 to 1999, Evergreen was also calling directly in Gothenburg, but the operator stopped these direct calls afterwards. Fig. 2 Direct calls of deepsea liner services in Gothenburg and Aarhus 8 7

16000 8

Gothenburg

14000 7

Aarhus

16000 14000

6

12000 6

12000

5

10000 5

10000

4

8000

4

8000

3

6000

3

6000

2

4000 2

4000

1

2000

1

2000

0

0

0

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 No. of Services

0 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Av. ship size in TEU (right axis)

Source: ISL based on MDS Transmodal; February of each year

After the global economic crisis hit the shipping markets in 2009, there was a huge overcapacity in the market. There was a general tendency towards multi-stop strategies to reduce transhipment costs. In early 2010, direct calls to Gdansk and St. Petersburg were introduced.1 While the St. Petersburg service was a specialised service with a high reefer share between South America and Russia using ice-class vessels, Maersk’s direct calls in Gdansk on a Far East service with 8,000-TEU vessels were considered as a fundamental change in the Baltic Sea container market. Since 2011, the largest container ships in service – Emma Maersk and her sister ships – are deployed in this service. Since 2011, MSC provides a direct connection between Latin America and St. Petersburg, but only during the summer season since the service does not use ice-class vessels.

1 The Cargo Levant service connecting Gdansk directly to Pakistan and India was stopped after one year.

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

8

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

Fig. 3 Direct calls of deepsea liner services in St. Petersburg and Gdansk 8 7

16000 8

St. Petersburg

14000 7

Gdansk

16000 14000

6

12000 6

12000

5

10000 5

10000

4

8000

4

8000

3

6000

3

6000

2

4000 2

4000

1

2000

1

2000

0

0

0

0 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 No. of Services

Av. ship size in TEU (right axis)

Source: ISL based on MDS Transmodal; February of each year

While the direct calls in Russia merely improved existing transport chains, the direct calls in Gdansk changed the competitive landscape in Poland’s container market. Rail services to South Poland were introduced, increasing the market share of Polish ports at the expense of the German ports. In addition, Gdansk is now used as a transhipment hub for Russia and Finland, which increases the number of handlings in the Amber Coast without increased demand in its hinterland. For Belarus and the Ukraine, the Ukrainian ports are also relevant competitors. Odessa and Ilichevsk have been on the schedules of several liner services since 2004. In 2008, almost all major operators offered direct services from the Far East to the Ukraine. In 2012, CMA-CGM and Maersk operate a joint service, CSAV Norasia has its own service, and a consortium of five operators (CSCL, K-Line, Yang Ming, PIL, and Wan Hai) offers a third one. Fig. 4 Direct calls of deepsea liner services in St. Petersburg and Gdansk 8000

8

7

7000

7

7000

6

6000

6

6000

5

5000

5

5000

4

4000

4

4000

3

3000 3

3000

2

2000

2

2000

1

1000

1

1000

0

0

8

Ilichevsk

0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 No. of Services

Odessa

8000

0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Av. ship size in TEU (right axis)

Source: ISL based on MDS Transmodal; February of each year

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

9

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

Despite the smaller ships compared to the North Range-Far East trade, the direct Black Sea services offer very competitive rates due to the relatively short distance. When a transhipment move in the North Range is added, the rates to the Ukraine are several hundred US dollars below the rates in the Amber Coast ports. Therefore, the Ukrainian northwest is mostly served by the Ukrainian ports despite being approximately as close to the Polish ports of Gdansk and Gdynia as to Odessa and Ilichevsk. It also gives the Ukrainian ports the possibility to compete for the Belarusian market.

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

10

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

2 Analysis of the Amber Coast Container Traffic Together, the major container ports of the Amber Coast economies handled 3.4 million TEU of Lift-on lift-off (LoLo) container traffic in 2011. This has been partly container traffic destined for the domestic hinterland of the Amber Coast ports, and partly transit traffic of which some transhipment (“seaborne transit”) occurred. A sound analysis of the future development potentials in terms of both volume and alternative routes needs to start with a detailed analysis of the status quo of the container traffic flows. The following two subchapters will analyze Amber Coast container traffic from the point of view of the Amber Coast ports as well as from the point of view of the effective container demand of the Amber Coast countries including the Amber Coast hinterland economies like Belarus and Ukraine. Amber Coast ports included in the analysis and their TEU lo-lo traffic 2011

1,000 TEU Lo-Lo handling

2011

Denmark - Aalborg Denmark - Aarhus Denmark - Fredericia Denmark - Copenhagen Germany - Kiel Germany - Lubeck Poland - Szczecin Poland - Gdynia Poland - Gdansk Kaliningrad - Kaliningrad Lithuania - Klaipeda Latvia - Riga Estonia-Tallin

66.3 432.0 63.2 122.7 31.6 153.1 55.1 616.4 685.6 317.3 382.2 303.0 197.7

Total

3,426.3

4.0 Estonia-Tallin 3.5

Latvia - Riga

3.0 Million TEU

Tab. 1

Lithuania - Klaipeda Kaliningrad - Kaliningrad

2.5

Poland - Gdansk 2.0

Poland - Gdynia

1.5

Poland - Szczecin

1.0

Germany - Lubeck Germany - Kiel

0.5

0.0 2005

Denmark - Copenhagen

Denmark - Fredericia 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Source: ISL 2012 based on ISL Port Database, Ocean Shipping Consultants 2012

2.1 2011 Amber Coast container freight flows From the point of view of the Amber Coast ports, the 3.4 million TEU, which have been handled in 2011 can be categorized into intra-Baltic and extra-Baltic traffic. In this context it is problematic that the regional handling statistics of the Amber Coast ports show a distorted picture of the effective trading partners. A reporting problem common in many ports is that the statistics will often track the last (or next) port the vessel called (or will be calling) as origin (or destination) of the cargo whereas the container may have been on board for longer already (or might stay onboard for another port in the journey). This problem can only be solved with expert interviews that were conducted with ports and selected feeder operators.

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

11

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

In order to identify the actual trading patterns, ISL has decomposed the total incoming and outgoing traffic based on three types of sources:   

plausibility checks to identify type of traffic (e.g. full/empty splits by direction)2 schedules of shipping lines operating between the respective ports expert interviews (e.g. shortsea operators, ports) about the transport flows3

The following figure indicates the maritime trading partners of the Amber Coast ports grouped by trading areas according to the Eurostat statistics and according to the revised ISL estimates for the year 2011. Fig. 5 Breakdown of “lo-lo” maritime container trading partners of major Amber Coast Ports 2011, “officially reported” versus estimated effective partners 2.500

2.500

reported by Eurostat

revised by ISL 2.000

1,000 TEU

1,000 TEU

2.000 1.500 1.000

500

of which Feeder traffic

1.500

Transhipment

1.000

500

0

0 North Range

Deepsea / Other Europe

IntraBaltic

North Range

Deepsea / Other Europe

IntraBaltic

Source: ISL based on Eurostat (left) and own research

A further problem is that a lot of the traffic handled in the Amber Coast ports is regularly feeder traffic from North Range or other Baltic ports, which effectively blurs the identity of the trading partners. The analysis of the maritime traffic needs to start with a revision of the strongest segment, the “North Range” market. The North Range traffic of the Amber Coast ports is slightly underestimated in the official figures to be close to 1.89 million TEU in 2011. After inclusion of some wrongly reported intra-Baltic volumes (see below), ISL estimates the total North Range traffic of the Amber Coast ports to be slightly in excess of 1.95 million TEU. This traffic is mostly feeder traffic being shipped from/to deepsea- origins/destinations and being transhipped in the Hamburg-Le Havre-range. As far as this traffic is concerned, no official information regarding the differentiation into feeder trade and intra-European trade is available. The split presented in the

2

The prevailing import surplus in container traffic to the Amber Coast ports helps to identify the traffic type. If, for example, some 4,000 empty TEUs are moved from Tallinn to St. Petersburg, this is most probably not the result of shortsea trade, but resulting from deepsea imports. Whether they were actually transshipped in St. Petersburg (e.g. empty reefer containers for the direct South America service) or only indicated “Russia” because St. Petersburg is the next port of call of the service needs to be identified in a second step. Next to the full/empty split, the direction of traffic is also relevant. Large amounts of containers transported e.g. between Denmark and Sweden on the one hand and Amber Coast ports on the other are in fact feeder containers from/to Gothenburg or Aarhus. Containers moved between Amber Coast ports and ports further to the East are either intra-Baltic shortsea trade or feeder from an Amber Coast hub port.

3

The feedback of seven experts was used for the estimates: three from the ports/terminals, two liner operators, and two regional experts (hinterland).

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

12

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

figure is based on a regular survey conducted by the ISL among a large sample of European shortsea operators. According to this recently updated research for 2011, 1.79 million TEU can be identified as containers transhipped in the North Range ports and only 0.16 million TEU can be classified effectively as intra-European shortsea trade. This feeder traffic also contains some containers which are transhipped a second time. The volume which appears unlikely at first is estimated to be 0.13 million TEU (handling in Amber Coast ports counted twice) and mostly takes place in the port of Klaipeda.4 Hence out of a total volume of 1.95 million TEU traffic with the North Range ports, 1.88 million TEU have been traffic for the hinterland of the ports. Fig. 6 Effective maritime trading partners in “Lo-Lo” container traffic of major Amber Coast Ports 2011

Source: Institute of shipping economics and Logistics, ISL North European Container traffic model, ISL port Data base, Eurostat. Danish port include Aalborg, Aarhus, Fredericia, Kobenhavns Havn, German ports include Kiel, Lubeck.

The Deepsea/Other Europe traffic segment is slightly underestimated in the Eurostat statistics. This market for direct calls in Amber Coast economies on long distance services has recently seen a boost, when Maersk decided to route one of its Far-East-Europe services towards Gdansk, and thus basically shifting containers that were in previous years feedered (or transited on hinterland routes) via North Range ports to Poland from the “North Range bar” of the diagram to the Polish ports. There is and was much debate about the economic feasibility and viability of calling directly into the Baltic versus transhipping the containers and ISL research suggests that this is only possible (or at least strongly benefits) if two conditions are met: first of all a very large market

4

Though there were no direct deepsea calls in Klaipeda in 2011, MSC was using vessels of up to 4,400 TEU to connect Klaipeda with its “Home Terminal” Antwerp and Bremerhaven. There are plans to use Klaipeda for direct deepsea calls in future.

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

13

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

position is required on the side of the ocean carriers (which can be assumed as given in the case of Maersk)5 and second, container ships must not be in short supply, which is basically granted since 2009 and probably will be throughout 2012 and 2013. In most other cases and as of now, there seem not yet enough containerized cargoes available justifying these direct connections on a large scale.6 This might however change with the anticipated market growth. In 2011, the deepsea/other Europe segment was approximately 0.64 million TEU, of which only 0.48 million TEU have been destined for the hinterland of the concerned ports and the remaining volumes have been transhipment containers. During the next decade, ISL expects some two to three major deepsea lines with direct calls in the Baltic Sea (see Chapter 4). The hub ports will most likely be Gdansk and Klaipeda. The last segment is the intra-Baltic container traffic. According to Eurostat figures this traffic comprises 1.04 million TEU in 2011. After review of the statistics and interviews among experts from the port and shipping industry, this traffic volume is adjusted to 0.84 million TEU. Out of these containers, 0.34 million TEU are feeder containers, mostly stemming from the direct calls but also partly from North range ports, requiring for operational carrier reasons a second transhipment in the Baltic. Another segment of this “intra-Baltic” traffic is effectively also feeder traffic of deepsea lines calling in Aarhus or Gothenburg to the Southern Baltic (0.23 million TEU in 2011). Effective “intra Baltic” trade in ISO containers according to ISL analysis can only be found in the German Baltic Sea ports (0.18 million TEU) and Poland (0.08 million TEU). That intra Baltic container trade (not traffic) is so small may be a surprising finding for industry outsiders. It becomes more plausible however when one takes into account the very well developed ferry network, linking the Baltic Sea economies almost on a daily basis on most routes. Compared to the standardized truck transport, the container here often has disadvantages in both pricing and quality of transport. It can thus be concluded from the analysis carried out that the Amber Coast container ports perform a vital function for linking the Amber Coast economies with the global trade, whereas Baltic intra-regional trade in manufactures and semi-manufactures is taking place mostly on the RoRomarkets.

2.2 Country Profiles and major metropolitan areas In order to derive the effective container demand of the Amber Coast economies and their hinterland economies, not only the domestic and transit traffic volumes of the Amber Coast ports need to be considered, but also the transit volumes of the Hamburg-Le Havre range or Southern European ports. The following figure illustrates how this effective container demand can be calculated / estimated although a word of care is advised: since the introduction of the European Union, various transit statistics are still available but have become unreliable to an undefined degree. Hence an intensive

5 Currently, traffic with not only the Amber Coast economies but with the entire Baltic Area is treated as a part of the “North Europe”-market by

Ocean carriers. Thus it is aggregated together with the large North European hinterland market, surpassing the Baltic container volume by a factor of four. Hence, in order to achieve a sound utilization of the container vessels as they expand their voyage into the Baltic Sea, containers of equivalent services need to be shifted to the service destined for the Baltic ports. This requires a dominant market position on the side of the Ocean carriers. 6 It is worth pointing out however, that the recently introduced „G6-Alliance“, which reaches a market volume comparable to that of Maersk, did

in fact plan to route one of its Europe-Far East services to Gdansk as well. Presumably over unsettled contract disputes, these direct calls have not yet materialized.

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

14

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

desk research and expert interviews among freight forwarders, terminal operators and shipping lines is required in order to create a comprehensive picture of the regional distribution of container hinterland transport. Especially when it comes to road traffic, often no information other than the total amount of containers transported to and from the ports is available. Fig. 7 Estimating the effective container demand of a country

Example for estimation of local container demand in Country II

Seaports

• TOTAL handling of port no. 3 (domestic port for country II) • MINUS those containers of port no. 3 which have been transit traffic with other countries •PLUS transit traffic from seaports of other countries (here: only from seaport 2) = effective container demand of Country II

3 2 Domestic Traffic

Country II

Country I 1

Country III Source: ISL

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

15

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

2.2.1 Estonia The total container demand generated by the Estonian economy in 2011 stood at 0.07 million TEU. This demand was entirely met through the country’s own port, Tallinn, which handled an additional 0.12 million TEU of transit traffic for Northwest Russia as well. Approximately two thirds of Estonian container demand is generated in the Tallinn metropolitan area. Tab. 2

Country Profile Estonia

Imported/Exported via - Tallinn (of which transit traffic) (B) - via other Amber Coast ports (C2) Total domestic demand: (= A + C -B)

in 1,000 TEU 198 124 0 74

Most active regions - Tallinn others Port handling structure* Total handling (of which) Empty TEU (of which) Laden TEU

Inbound 55% 3% 97%

in 1,000 TEU 44 30 Outbound 45% 46% 54%

Source: ISL *only Tallinn considered

With regard to the traded commodities IHS Global data only assess a structure for the total of the Baltic economies: Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. According to this assessment, fertilizers and pesticides as well as cork and wood account for one third of container unit demand for exports out of the three Baltic States, whereas crude fertilizers and motor vehicle parts together account for one third for container unit import demand. Given the large presence of the fertilizer industry in the port of Tallinn, its share can be expected to be relatively high in Tallinn’s exports. With 84 % in 2011, the truck has the lion’s share in the hinterland modal split, with the remaining volumes being transported by rail (to the transit market of northwest Russia). In February 2012, a new train connection between Tallinn and Kiev was introduced under the brand ZUBR. According to a spokesman of the Estonian Railway company Eesti Raudtee, an additional 1,5002,000 TEU per year are expected on this route.7 2.2.2 Latvia The total container demand of the Latvian economy has met the mile-marker of 100,000 TEU in 2011. Whilst the port of Riga, which received calls from MSC, CMA-CGM, Unifeeder, Teamlines, Containerships and Maersk, handled a total of 0.3 million TEU, about two thirds (0.2 million TEU) have been transit traffic, predominantly (0.18 million TEU) with northwest Russia.

7 See http://www.zubrtrain.net/zubr/

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

16

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

Tab. 3

Country Profile Latvia

Imported/Exported via - domestic ports (A) (of which transit traffic) (B) - via other Amber Coast ports (C2) Total domestic demand: (= A + C -B)

in 1,000 TEU 303 203 1 101

Most active regions - Riga others Port handling structure* Total handling (of which) Empty TEU (of which) Laden TEU

Inbound 54% 3% 97%

in 1,000 TEU 61 40 Outbound 46% 39% 61%

Source: ISL * only Riga considered

With regard to the domestic traffic, 60 % are generated in the Riga Metropolitan area. For the Latvian domestic container demand, the truck has a modal share of 100%. For transit traffic with Russia one in five containers is estimated to move by road, the remaining four boxes moving by rail. 2.2.3 Lithuania In 2011, the Lithuanian port Klaipeda handled 0.38 million TEU. This activity consisted of three almost equal shares:   

0.12 million TEU (counted twice) have been transhipment containers, 0.11 million TEU have been hinterland transit traffic (to/from Russia, Belarus plus special traffic from Afghanistan) 0.16 million TEU have been domestic demand.

Further domestic demand has been met through foreign transit ports, but did not exceed 0.01 million TEU in total, leading to a total domestic demand of 0.17 million TEU for the Lithuanian economy. This demand is mostly generated in the Vilnius and Kaunas area. Tab. 4

Country Profile Lithuania

Imported/Exported via - domestic ports (A) (of which transit traffic) (B) - via land (North range) (C1) - via other Amber Coast ports (C2) Total domestic demand: (= A + C -B)

in 1,000 TEU 382 222 1 8 169

Most active regions - Vilnius - Kaunas others Port handling structure* Total handling (of which) Empty TEU (of which) Laden TEU

Inbound 51% 3% 97%

in 1,000 TEU 51 42 76 Outbound 49% 42% 58%

Source: ISL * only Klaipeda considered

The domestic market of the port of Klaipeda is served by truck, whereby the transit markets have varying shares: Transit traffic with Russia is moving predominantly (90 %) by road, whereas transit traffic with Belarus is moving predominately by rail (80 %). Overall, the modal split in the hinterland of the port of Klaipeda is 78 % truck and 22 % railway.

2.2.4 Poland The total 2011 Polish container trade demand is assessed to be 1.14 million TEU. The largest share (0.90 million TEU) of this volume enters or leaves the country via the domestic ports, Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

17

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

whereby the ports of Gdansk and Gdynia play a dominant role. The share of North Range hinterland traffic has suffered recently due to the introduction of direct calls in Gdansk, but still 0.22 million TEU are moving on hinterland connections between the North Range ports and the Polish economy according to the ISL North European Container Traffic Model. The importance of other non-Polish and non-North Range ports for the Polish container demand is negligible. Tab. 5

Country Profile Poland

Imported/Exported via - domestic ports (A) (of which transit/transhipment traffic) (B) - via land (North range) (C1) - via other Amber Coast ports (C2) Total domestic demand: (= A + C -B)

in 1,000 TEU 1,357 462 220 25 1,140

Most active regions - Upper Silesia - Warsaw area others Port handling structure* Total handling (of which) Empty TEU (of which) Laden TEU

Inbound 49% 22% 78%

in 1,000 TEU 306 254 580 Outbound 51% 27% 73%

Source: ISL *only Gdansk, Gdynia and Szczecin considered

Within Poland, the Upper Silesia area and the Warsaw region are the most important demand generators, accounting for half of the entire Polish demand. In terms of transit traffic, only little land transit volumes are reported by the industry. ISL estimates the total transit traffic of the Polish ports to be slightly less than 0.06 million TEU in 2011, headed for mostly for Kaliningrad, Northwest Ukraine and Belarus. However, with the introduction of the direct calls, the seaborne transit (=”transhipment”) of containers has soared, reaching an estimated 0.4 million TEU in 2011. According to IHS Global data, the largest Polish export container demand is generated in the furniture and fixtures sector along with the chemical sector and its various commodities. Together they account for roughly a quarter of all polish container units exported. Analyzing the structure of Polish TEU imports, fertilizers, fruits and vegetables, motor vehicles or parts of motor vehicles but also synthetic resins and wearing apparel can be found among the top ranking commodities. The modal split of the Ports Gdansk and Gdynia can be analysed in aggregated form, resulting from their geographical proximity. 76 % of containers leave the two largest Polish ports by road, the remaining volumes by rail. Both ports have very little transit traffic compared to their eastern pendants and this demand is met by road. Within Poland, the railway shares are highest (45 %) on the longer distances to the Upper Silesia area and slightly lower (30 %) for the Warsaw area. With regard to the other Polish transport markets, road transport has a dominant share of 90 %. The port Szczecin serves mostly the Polish container demand by road (0.05 million TEU) and to a negligible extent (>0.01 million TEU) also German transit demand. 2.2.5 Belarus The landlocked Belarus economy had an estimated container demand of 0.21 million TEU in 2011. Roughly two thirds of this traffic had their origin or destination in the wider Minsk metropolitan area. 0.07 million TEU of this demand has been met via the Amber Coast ports Klaipeda and the remaining volumes have been transited via Ukrainian ports. The traffic between Klaipeda and Belarus is mostly rail traffic (80 %).

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

18

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

Tab. 6

Country Profile Belarus

Imported/Exported via - domestic ports (A) (of which transit/transhipment traffic) (B) - via Amber Coast ports (C1) - via land (Ukrainian ports) (C2) - via land (North range) (C3) Total domestic demand: (= A + C1 + C2 -B)

in 1,000 TEU 0 0 70 134 2 206

Most active regions - Minsk others

in 1,000 TEU 82 123

Source: ISL

Except for the export of fertilizers and pesticides, no particular export or import industry stands out as key driver of the container demand for the Belarus economy.

2.2.6 Ukraine (Northwest) The container demand of the Ukrainian economy is mostly met trough their domestic ports. As little as 0.02 million TEU have been identified as Amber Coast transit traffic (road traffic in the hinterland of Gdansk and Gdynia) during the research of this project and for the year 2011. Through the 2012 introduction of the ZUBR train (see also country profile Estonia), the Amber Coast ports will have gained market shares and the modal split will include a high share of railway. Generally, the Ukraine is thought to have a domestic container trade demand in excess of 0.67 million TEU in 2011 (IHS Global). Grain as well as Iron and Steel can be found among the top export commodities, whilst synthetic resins accounted for roughly one fifth of all container imports.

2.2.7 Germany (Northeast) The total northeast8 German container demand amounted to 1.21 million TEU in 2011. Most of this demand (1.12 million TEU) was met through the North Range ports, but 0.05 million TEU have been handled in the German Amber Coast ports Kiel and Lubeck. and another estimated 0.04 million TEU in other Amber Coast ports (mainly shortsea traffic). Tab. 7

Country Profile northeast Germany (Baltic Seaports)

Imported/Exported via - domestic Amber Coast ports (A) (of which transit/transhipment traffic)** (B) - via land (North range) (C1) - via other Amber Coast ports (C2) Total domestic demand: (= A + C -B)

in 1,000 TEU 185 135 1,121 40 1,211

Most active regions - Berlin area others Port handling structure* Total handling (of which) Empty TEU (of which) Laden TEU

Inbound 49% 40% 60%

in 1,000 TEU 240 971 Outbound 51% 19% 81%

Source: ISL * only Kiel and Lubeck considered ** including to/from other parts of Germany

The Berlin metropolitan area accounted for 0.24 million TEU of the entire northeast German container demand. IHS Global Data only provides information on the structural composition of

8 New Länder, Berlin, Schleswig Holstein

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

19

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

the entire German container demand which might be offset in the particular small sample which would be handled in the German Amber coast ports. In the hinterland of Kiel, only trucks are used to transport the containers, whereas Lubeck has a rail share of 11 %. Taking into account traffic between all Amber Coast ports and northeast Germany, railway traffic has a share of 13 %.

2.2.8 Denmark Denmark’s total container demand in 2011 stood at 0.58 million TEU. Whilst the Danish Amber Coast ports handled a total of 0.68 million TEU, a large part (0.31 million TEU) of this activity was attributable to transhipment (as well as some transit) trade and the remaining demand was satisfied via other Danish ports (0.09 million TEU) and North range ports (0.12 million TEU). Tab. 8

Country Profile Denmark

Imported/Exported via - domestic Amber Coast ports (A1) (of which transit/transhipment traffic) (B) - other domestic ports (A2) - via land (North range) (C) Total domestic demand: (= A + C -B)

in 1,000 TEU 684 310 90 120 584

Most active regions - Copenhagen - Aarhus others Port handling structure* Total handling (of which) Empty TEU (of which) Laden TEU

Inbound 51% 31% 69%

in 1,000 TEU 233 146 204 Outbound 49% 25% 75%

Source: ISL * only Aalborg, Aarhus, Fredericia, and Copenhagen considered

A little less than two thirds of the entire Danish container demand is generated in the Copenhagen metropolitan and the wider Aarhus area. According to IHS global, key containerized commodities imported in Denmark are furniture, wearing apparel and raw textiles. On the export side, chemicals and various foods (predominantly meat) rank top. With regard to the modal split in the hinterland of the Danish ports, the truck is the only mode for most ports and rail traffic is only of a slight relevance in the port of Aarhus.

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

20

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

3 Forecast of container traffic flows up to 2030 For several years prior to the intensive global recession of the year 2009, maritime containers have been the fastest growing loading category for European ports and hence also for hinterland traffic. As a result, great emphasis needed to be put into port development plans in order to keep up with this traffic growth and allow for continuous accessibility of the infrastructure. Whilst the 2009 recession has severely reduced handling volumes along the Amber Coast, the TEU handling statistics of the subsequent years 2009 and 2010 suggest that the container shipping markets have returned to a growth path and while northern and western European containers ports have still been struggling to compensate the 2009 shortfall and have on average only met their previous handling record of 2008, the more dynamic Amber Coast ports have reached a new record already in 2011. One major driver behind the container traffic growth in the Amber Coast ports was the decision of Maersk to propose direct deepsea calls to Gdansk and to use the port as a hub for other ranges in the Baltic Sea. Out of the 600,000 TEU the Amber Coast gained since 2008, 500,000 TEU were handled in Gdansk. As the container ports of these countries perform as gateways for Europe’s emerging economies, an above average growth of container throughput is to be expected. The actual growth potential depends on the expected trade growth on the one hand and – as the example of Gdansk has shown – on changes in the logistics chains on the other hand. The latter will be analysed in Chapter 4.

3.1 Forecast of macro-economic developments According to long term economic growth forecasts of IHS Global, the southern and southeastern Amber Coast economies are set to outperform the economic development in the more mature central and western European economies for the foreseeable future (up to 2030). Tab. 9

Average real GDP-growth rates of Amber Coast economies 2000-2011, 2011-2030 2000 - 2011 2011 2030 Denmark Germany Poland Lithuania Latvia Estonia Ukraine Belarus Russia

0.6% 1.1% 3.9% 4.5% 3.8% 4.1% 4.4% 7.0% 4.8%

1.5% 1.4% 3.6% 4.0% 3.4% 3.4% 4.5% 2.7% 3.2%

Source: ISL based on IHS Global (Aug.’12)

Generally, IHS Global expects long term real-GDP growth rates between 2.7 and 4.5 % for the developing Amber Coast economies respectively their developing hinterland economies Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. The anticipated growth in the period 2011-2030 thereby incorporates the expectation of a gradual slowdown in expansion compared to the 2000-2011 period, which already contains the weak economic period of 2008/2009. Since the demand for container trade is Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

21

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

a demand derived from the economic activity, the above average growth rates expected in the eastern Amber Coast economies imply an above average container demand growth there. Fig. 8 Real GDP growth forecast for Amber Coast (and Amber Coast hinterland) economies 2011-2030 240% Ukraine Lithuania Poland Latvia Estonia Russia Belarus Denmark Germany

220% 200%

Index 2011 = 100%

180% 160%

Amber Coast 'powerhouse' economies

140%

Matured economies

120% 100%

2030

2029

2028

2027

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

80%

Source: ISL 2012, based on IHS Global (forecasts dated August 2012)

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

22

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

3.2 Forecast of total container traffic demand per country In 2011, the Amber Coast ports handled a total volume of 3.4 million TEU. 2.5 million TEU of this traffic had their origin or destination immediately in the hinterland or transit hinterland economies like Russia, Belarus or Ukraine. An additional volume of 0.78 million TEU has been transhipment in the Amber Coast ports (mostly Aarhus and Gdansk) before unloading in other Baltic Sea ports and transport to the respective hinterland economies. In this study, the effective hinterland composition of the Amber Coast ports has been determined by the Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics (ISL). A “status quo”-forecast of container handling demand for the Amber Coast ports was then conducted by weighing the existing container trade flows with the foreign trade development potentials of the respective identified hinterland economies. For the latter, the profound trade forecast expertise of IHS Global was used and long term growth factors for container trade per country have been extracted from the IHS Global databases and applied to the observed trade flows through the Amber Coast ports. The results of these calculations form a capacity-neutral “2030 handling potential”, which is portrayed in the following table. Tab. 10 2011 and 2030 container demand of Amber Coast hinterland economies serviced by Amber Coast ports, long-term growth factors and forecast CO2 emission of hinterland transport Via Amber Coast ports

Hinterland distribution

- Denmark* - Northeast Germany* - Poland - Upper Silesia area* - Poland - Warsaw area* - Poland - All others* - Kaliningrad - Northwest Russia* - Belarus* - Northwest Ukraine* - Latvia - Lithuania - Estonia - other transit markets* Total* Transhipment** Total port Handling

2011 Growth 2030 volume in factor 2011- potential in 1,000 TEU 2030 1,000 TEU

374.0 90.0 240.0 210.0 470.0 110.0 560.0 70.0 20.0 101.0 168.0 74.0 179.0

2.03 2.24 2.77 2.77 2.77 2.99 2.99 2.41 2.79 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.24

759.7 201.6 664.5 581.4 1,301.3 328.5 1,672.5 168.9 55.9 235.5 391.7 172.5 400.9 0.0

2,666.0 774.6 3,440.6

2.60 2.60

6,934.9 2,014.0 8,948.9

Es tima ted CO²emi s s i on of hi nterl a nd tra ns port 2030 s tatus quo (t/1,000 (1,000 t) TEU) 30.9

40.6

31.8

157.5

152.3

229.2

100.6

173.0

205.8

158.2

13.3

40.4

592.4

354.2

29.2

173.1

22.1

395.4

10.1

42.9

32.7

83.6

13.8

80.3

32.8 0.0

81.8

1,267.8 182.8

Source: Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics, growth factors derived from IHS Global * Only those volumes of the respective country demand that are handled in the Amber Coast range ** Transhipment demand within the Amber Coast will most likely be met in Polish and Danish ports as well as in Klaipeda.

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

23

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

The growth factor that was applicable to the transhipment markets has been derived from the weighted demand of the trade flows that add up to the total transhipment of the Amber Coast ports. The fast growing Russian container demand with a growth factor close to 3 between 2011 and 2030 is obviously of key relevance here. This leads to an additional 1.2 million TEU of transhipment resulting solely from demand increases on the current connections. In total, the handling demand of the Amber Coast ports is expected to increase from 3.4 million TEU in 2011 to a volume of 8.9 million TEU by the year 2030. Fig. 9 Amber Coast port container handling demand by hinterland countries 2011 and 2030 container handling potential

Source: Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics * Northeast Germany: Berlin, Schleswig Holstein, New Länder, North Ukraine: Kiev, Lviv, Kharkiv; Northwest Russia: Northwestern and Central Federal District

In 2011, the CO2-emissions of the transport of containers in the hinterland of the amber cost ports add up to an estimated volume of 0.4 million tons. Thereby – resulting from the present modal split and hinterland traffic structure – an estimated 182.8 tons of CO2 was emitted for every 1,000 TEU of hinterland transport. In the status quo forecast, where the traffic flows grow in line with the potential of the individual economies and the market shares remain constant, those CO2-emissions would increase to a total of 1.27 million tons.

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

24

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

4 Innovation and modal shift scenarios The Amber Coast countries container handling demand forecast of 8.9 million TEU by the year 2030, that was conducted in the previous chapter was based on the assumption that all observed trade flows through the Amber coast economies will grow in line with the potential forecast by IHS Global. For this study, two scenarios have been prepared that take into account possible future changes to the flow of containers through the Amber Coast ports. A “shift scenario”, which is mostly driven by expected market forces, as well as an “innovation scenario”, which assumes political and private action / investment.

4.1 Shift scenario The “shift scenario” that was evaluated is based on the most likely developments that will occur without political intervention and resulting mostly from market developments. The scenario was based on the following assumptions: 





The implementation of the new SECA (Sulphur Emission Control Areas)-rules from 2015 onwards causes some market share losses in the hinterland traffic segment of the Amber Coast ports at the benefit of the hinterland traffic of the north range ports. This mostly applies to traffic with Poland and Denmark though. The results are based on an ISL-Study conducted in 2010, analyzing the impact of the new SECA-rules. For defensive purposes, only modest shifts have been assumed here. The feeder traffic from the North Range ports to most of the Amber Coast ports and direct calls of deepsea vessels are expected to be virtually unaffected by these rules.9 Modal split gravitation-effect: as a result of the forecast demand growth, the higher container hinterland volumes tend to result in a higher share of rail traffic, since economical break-even thresholds for more train connections are met in the long run. At the same time, the frequency on the existing tracks can be increased, which in turn improves the quality of the rail transport and is expected to generate additional demand as well. An additional effect built into the scenario is that the expected increase in energy prices is set to hit the truck traffic comparatively harder since the consumption per TEU-km is highest for road traffic which hence becomes relatively less desirable in the long run. Direct calls from deepsea lines expected to grow in line with market dynamics. The implicit assumption is that with the growth of the regional Amber Coast markets direct calls from deepsea lines could become economically viable in other, currently smaller ports than polish heavyweights Gdansk and Gdynia. At the same time the calling restrictions resulting from physical constraints in the ports and ice on the Baltic Sea gain relevance. Both elements are expected to even out in the medium turn and the share of Transhipment traffic in the Amber Coast ports is expected to remain constant.

The shift scenario in terms of handled containers is portrayed in the following table next to the status-quo forecast. Compared to the status quo forecast, which expects a handling demand of 8.9 million TEU, the “shift-scenario” shows a slightly reduced handling demand of 8.6 million TEU for the year 2030. The demand is reduced basically for Danish and Polish car9 According to Maersk, the E-class ships currently in use on the service calling in Gdansk are already prepared to comply with stricter SECA

regulations with a separate fuel system for low-sulphur fuel. According to ISL’s calculations, the current capacity of the secondary fuel system would even be sufficient as it is today to sail on the current string without any adjustments.

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

25

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

goes in the Amber Coast ports, since it is expected that the land routes in the hinterland of the North Range ports will gain market shares versus to the current operation method of feedering containers from the North range ports to Danish and Polish Amber Coast ports or shipping intra-European shortsea trade on these routes. Tab. 11 2011 container demand of Amber Coast hinterland economies serviced by Amber Coast ports, 2030 handling potential (status qou) versus shift scenario, forecast CO2-emission of hinterland transport Via Amber Coast ports

Hinterland distribution

- Denmark* - Northeast Germany* - Poland - Upper Silesia area* - Poland - Warsaw area* - Poland - All others* - Kaliningrad - Northwest Russia* - Belarus* - Northwest Ukraine* - Latvia - Lithuania - Estonia - other transit markets* Total* Transhipment** Total port Handling

2011 2030 2030 shift volume in potential in scenario in 1,000 TEU 1,000 TEU 1,000 TEU

374.0 90.0 240.0 210.0 470.0 110.0 560.0 70.0 20.0 101.0 168.0 74.0 179.0

759.7 201.6 664.5 581.4 1,301.3 328.5 1,672.5 168.9 55.9 235.5 391.7 172.5 400.9 0.0

618.3 201.6 598.0 552.4 1,160.1 328.5 1,672.5 168.9 55.9 235.5 391.7 172.5 400.9 #BEZUG!

2,666.0 774.6 3,440.6

6,934.9 2,014.0 8,948.9

6,556.8 2,014.0 8,570.8

Es tima ted CO²emi s s i on of hi nterl a nd tra ns port 2030 s hi ft s cena ri o (t/1,000 (1,000 t) TEU) 26.2

42.4

31.7

157.5

133.7

223.6

94.0

170.2

183.0

157.7

13.3

40.4

564.5

337.5

27.7

163.9

22.1

395.4

10.1

42.9

32.7

83.6

13.8

80.3

32.8 0.0

81.9

1,185.7 180.8

Source: Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics (ISL), growth factors derived from IHS Global, shift scenario based on assumptions portrayed in the text. * Only those volumes of the respective country demand that are handled in the Amber Coast range ** Transhipment demand within the Amber Coast will most likely be met in Polish and Danish ports as well as in Klaipeda.

This effect is mainly driven by the implementation of the new SECA-rules coming into effect in 2015 and reducing the competitive advantage of the feeder and shortsea transport on short distances. Previous ISL calculations suggest however, that this development threat for intraEuropean container traffic is mostly restricted to the short routes between the German North Sea ports and Danish and Polish ports. The longer the distances become, the more offsetting become the scale effects of the container vessels in terms of fuel consumption and particularly for traffic between the North Range ports and Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Russia, hinterland traffic will not be a economically (or even practically) viable option for the foreseeable future. The other changes in this scenario become evident in the estimated emissions of hinterland transport of the Amber Coast ports: generally, emissions in the hinterland transport of the Amber Coast ports decline wherever handling volumes are lost to the North Range ports. Other declines can be observed where train connections gain market share versus the road traffic. Compared to the status quo of 2011, the CO2-emissions for every 1,000 TEU transported in the Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

26

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

hinterland of the Amber Coast ports decline to 180.8 t (compared to 182.8). The total CO2emissions are also smaller (1.19 million tons) compared to the status quo forecast (1.27 million tons).

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

27

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

4.2 Innovation scenario The “innovation scenario” that was evaluated is based on possible developments, that require political actions and/or state and/or private investment. The scenario was based on the following assumptions: 



Increasing share of direct calls in the Amber Coast ports. By supplying attractive supra- and infrastructure expansion as well as low priced handling tariffs, the Amber Coast ports will gain additional direct calls from deep-sea services. The resulting significantly cheaper shipping costs are assumed to be at least partially passed on to shippers, which results in market share gains where competition with other ports is given. International agreement to reduce rail-transit tariffs, (or international railwayprojects with advantages for all concerned parties aimed at the reduction or abolishment of railway-transit traffic barriers of all kinds) are implemented.

In such a benevolent environment, the total handling demand for containers in the Amber Coast ports could increase to 9.9 million TEU by the year 2030 (as opposed to 8.9 million TEU in the “status quo”-forecast). Tab. 12 2011 container demand of Amber Coast hinterland economies serviced by Amber Coast ports, 2030 handling potential (status qou) versus innovation scenario, forecast CO2emission of hinterland transport

Via Amber Coast ports

Hinterland distribution

- Denmark* - Northeast Germany* - Poland - Upper Silesia area* - Poland - Warsaw area* - Poland - All others* - Kaliningrad - Northwest Russia* - Belarus* - Northwest Ukraine* - Latvia - Lithuania - Estonia - other transit markets* Total* Transhipment** Total port Handling

2011 2030 2030 innov. volume in potential in scenario in 1,000 TEU 1,000 TEU 1,000 TEU

374,0 90,0 240,0 210,0 470,0 110,0 560,0 70,0 20,0 101,0 168,0 74,0 179,0

759,7 201,6 664,5 581,4 1.301,3 328,5 1.672,5 168,9 55,9 235,5 391,7 172,5 400,9 0,0

618,3 201,6 747,6 607,6 1.313,3 328,5 1.756,2 185,8 55,9 235,5 391,7 172,5 400,9 0,0

2.666,0 774,6 3.440,6

6.934,9 2.014,0 8.948,9

7.015,3 2.841,6 9.856,9

Es tima ted CO²emi s s i on of hi nterl a nd tra ns port 2030 i nn. s cena ri o (t/1,000 (1,000 t) TEU) 26,2

42,4

31,7

157,5

167,2

223,6

103,4

170,2

208,0

158,3

13,3

40,4

568,1

323,5

29,2

157,1

22,1

395,4

10,1

42,9

32,7

83,6

13,8

80,3

32,0 0,0

79,9

1.257,8 179,3

Source: Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics (ISL), growth factors derived from IHS Global, shift scenario based on assumptions portrayed in the text.

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

28

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus * Only those volumes of the respective country demand that are handled in the Amber Coast range ** Transhipment demand within the Amber Coast will most likely be met in Polish and Danish ports as well as in Klaipeda.

It is still expected here that Danish cargoes will be partially lost to North Range hinterland traffic, but the effect is offset by additional container handling demand in Amber Coast ports for cargoes headed for Poland as well as to containers headed for the transit countries Russia and (to some extend) Belarus, and the Ukraine. As the container demand for the economies of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia is already almost exclusively met via domestic ports, there is relatively little additional market volume to be gained. However as can be seen in the table, compared to the status quo forecast, the long-term transhipment handling demand in the Amber Coast ports is 41 % higher at 2.8 million TEU in the innovation scenario compared to the “status quo”forecast. The transhipment will most likely concentrate in the Polish ports and Klaipeda. This is mainly driven by the increase of direct calls, which (as could be seen in Gdansk) can not only be used to serve important hinterland markets directly, but also neighbouring markets via feeder services. As far as the CO2-emissions of the hinterland transport of containers in the Amber Coast ports are concerned, they will reach 1.26 million tons in the innovation scenario, almost the same amount as in the status quo forecast (1.27 million tons) despite the higher volumes. Generally, the additional container hinterland traffic that is implied in the innovation scenario brings along higher CO2-emissions. However, by active political measures, the train connections benefit super proportionally and in turn dampen the effect from the additional demand. The shift from road to rail concerns first and foremost the transit traffic of Amber Coast ports to Russia, Belarus, and the Ukraine.

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

29

Macro-economic development and multi-modal cargo flows of the South-Eastern Baltic Sea region/Belarus

Conclusions 





Whilst Eurostat statistics report European trading partners for the largest share of the maritime traffic of the Amber Coast ports, the effective intra-European container trade handled in the Amber Coast ports is surprisingly small! Instead, the Amber Coast container ports are a vital interface for the global trade of the Amber Coast economies. The research indicates that the container handling demand in the Amber Coast countries of 3.4 million TEU in 2011 is likely to increase strongly by the year 2030. Depending on the scenario assumptions, a handling activity within a range of 8.6 to 9.9 million TEU is expected, driven mainly by the rapid economic expansion of the economies in the hinterland of the Amber Coast ports. The expected strong demand growth in the Amber Coast range hinterland economies will lead to an increasing volume of direct deepsea traffic in the Amber Coast ports while at the same time, demand for transhipment in the North Range is expected to increase strongly in the next years. Resulting from their proximity to the Kiel canal, the German North Sea container ports are especially set to benefit from this development.

12 10

Amber Coast Ports Container Handling 2011 and Forecast Scenarios 2030 Growth Potential: +161 %

Million TEU

8 6 4 2

8.9 M TEU

8.6 M TEU

2030 handling potential

2030 "shift scenario"

9.9 M TEU

3.4 M TEU

0 2011 handling

2030 "innovation scenario"

Source: ISL 2012, Amber Coast ports included in the analysis: Aarhus, Aalborg, Fredericia, Kobenhavens Haven, Kiel, Lubeck, Gdynia, Gdansk, Szczecin, Kaliningrad, Klaipeda, Riga, Tallinn "Handling potential" based on IHS Global container unit trade forcast on country level, "shift scenario" based on likely developments (mainly SECA), "innovation scenario" based on assumed political and private interaction/investments increasing the potential for direct calls in Amber Coast ports (increase is transhipment driven)



CO2-Emissions in the hinterland transport of the Amber Coast ports are set to develop mainly in line with the traffic demand. Active political measures to shift more containers from road to rail could reduce the growth in CO2-emissions slightly. In the innovation scenario it is assumed that emissions per TEU in the hinterland transport of the Amber Coast ports decline due to a shift of traffic from road to rail.

Amber Coast Logistics - Connecting remote areas in the southern and eastern Baltic Sea Region

30