SEPTEMBER 2008

OPTIMAR

— Benchmarking strategic options for

European shipping and for the European

maritime transport system in the horizon

2008-2018FINAL REPORT

SEPTEMBER 2008

Research and consultancy

SEPTEMBER 2008 In co-operation with:

Planet AISLive

Dynamar Global Insight

ShipBiz International Fundación Valenciaport

SAI-Institute of Shipping Analysis

Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay Research 0

Content Introduction.................................................... v Summary........................................................ vi Global growth, trade and seaborne transport ........ vi European regions and their ports .......................viii Major ship markets and the EU interest.................x Other European shipping actors .......................... xi Signals of future change .................................... xi SWOT analysis ................................................ xii Year 2018 scenarios......................................... xii Strategic recommendations.............................. xiv 1 Global trade and seaborne transport...... 1 1.1 Main drivers for global trade .......................4 1.2 Liquid bulk seaborne trade ....................... 10 1.3 Dry bulk seaborne trade........................... 20 1.4 General cargo seaborne trade ................... 28 1.4.1 Container cargo............................................... 29 1.4.2 Roro cargo...................................................... 44 1.4.3 Other general cargo ......................................... 49 1.5 Passengers............................................. 49 1.6 Motorways of the sea............................... 55 1.6.1 Advantage of sea transportation........................ 56 1.6.2 Roro, Ferry bridges .......................................... 58 1.6.3 Services in operation........................................ 59 1.6.4 Ropax services ................................................ 59 1.6.5 The development of services............................. 60 1.6.6 In the future ................................................... 61 2 European regions and their ports ......... 62 2.1 Eastern Mediterranean ............................. 68 2.1.1 Eastern Adriatic Sea & Malta ............................. 69 2.1.2 Greece, Turkey & Cyprus .................................. 72 2.1.3 Black Sea ....................................................... 75 2.2 Western Mediterranean & the Atlantic arc ... 79 2.2.1 Iberia (Spain, Portugal) .................................... 79 2.2.2 France & Italy ................................................. 85 2.3 The North Sea area ................................. 90 2.3.1 United Kingdom/Ireland ................................... 90 2.3.2 Benelux (Netherlands, Belgium) ........................ 96 2.4 The Baltic Sea region (BSR).................... 102 2.4.1 Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland.............103 2.4.2 East Baltic (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania & Poland) .111 2.4.3 Russia ...........................................................118 2.4.4 Germany .......................................................119 3 Major ship markets and the EU interest126 3.1 Oil tanker............................................. 137 3.2 Chemical tankers .................................. 141 3.3 LPG tankers.......................................... 143

3.4 LNG tankers..........................................146 3.5 Bulker..................................................148 3.6 General cargo .......................................153 3.7 Container .............................................155 3.8 Vehicle.................................................163 3.9 Roro . ....................................166 3.10 Ferry ...................................................169 3.11 Cruise ..................................................174 3.12 Offshore ...............................................178 3.13 Service.................................................181 4 Other European shipping actors ......... 184 4.1 Ports and operators................................185 4.2 Maritime works......................................188 4.3 Shipbuilders..........................................189 4.4 Ship repair............................................190 4.5 Marine Equipment..................................191 4.6 Maritime services...................................192 4.6.1 Class societies................................................192 4.6.2 Ship brokers ..................................................193 4.6.3 Marine insurance ............................................194 4.6.4 P&I (Protection and indemnity) ........................195 4.7 Finance ................................................195 5 Signals of future change..................... 197 5.1 Technology ...........................................197 5.1.1 New materials ................................................197 5.1.2 New sustainable sources of energy ...................198 5.1.3 Information and communication technology.......198 5.2 Human resources...................................199 5.2.1 Availability and quality of crew .........................199 5.3 Globalisation .........................................200 5.3.1 Trade barriers ................................................200 5.3.2 The role of multinationals, location of economic

activity ..................................................200 5.4 Trust and security..................................201 5.4.1 Terrorism ......................................................201 5.4.2 Regional conflicts............................................201 5.5 Environment .........................................201 5.5.1 Global warming ..............................................202 5.5.2 Consumers’ perceptions of sustainability ...........202 5.6 Regulations...........................................202 5.6.1 Greenhouse gas emissions regulations ..............202 5.6.2 Pollution & other emissions regulations .............203 5.6.3 Transport mode taxation .................................203 5.6.4 Container Shipping Conferences .......................203 5.7 Safety..................................................204

Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay Research Page 1

5.8 Demographics and poverty ..................... 205 5.8.1 Ageing populations .........................................205 5.8.2 Migration of large populations ..........................205 5.9 Economic power and economic growth ..... 205 5.9.1 Transition of economic power from US/EU to Asia205 5.9.2 Development in Russia ....................................206 5.10 Possible classification and clustering of drivers

of change ...................................... 206 6 SWOT ................................................. 209 6.1 Port, logistic systems ie the EU industry and

society .......................................... 209 6.1.1 Liquid cargo ...................................................210 6.1.2 Dry cargo ......................................................210 6.1.3 Container ......................................................210 6.2 The European ship operators .................. 212 6.2.1 General .........................................................212 6.2.2 Oil tanker ......................................................212 6.2.3 Chemical tankers............................................212 6.2.4 LPG tankers ...................................................213 6.2.5 LNG tankers...................................................213 6.2.6 Bulk carriers ..................................................213 6.2.7 General cargo ships ........................................214 6.2.8 Container carriers ...........................................214 6.2.9 Vehicle carriers (roro) .....................................214 6.2.10 Roro ...............................................215 6.2.11 Ferry . .............................................215 6.2.12 Cruise . ...........................................215 6.2.13 Offshore vessels .............................................216 6.2.14 Service..........................................................216 6.3 The European member states’ Maritime

Administrations .............................. 216 7 Year 2018 scenarios........................... 217 7.1 Scenario storylines ................................ 217 7.1.1 Asian Phoenix ................................................218 7.1.2 Break point ....................................................218 7.1.3 Global Fissures...............................................219 7.2 Scenarios & key elements....................... 219 7.2.1 Global macro-economics..................................219 7.2.2 Global trade...................................................220 7.2.3 States versus markets.....................................220 7.2.4 Oil ..................................................221 7.2.5 Gas . ...............................................222 7.2.6 Coal . ..............................................223 7.2.7 Carbon policies...............................................224 7.3 Scenarios & EU policy ............................ 225 7.3.1 The money maker...........................................226 7.3.2 The money maker ++ .....................................227 7.3.3 Bunker price struggle ......................................228 7.3.4 Transition to sustainability ...............................229 7.3.5 Seriously troubled waters ................................230

7.3.6 Scenario: Short sea shipping opportunities ........231 7.4 Test of the drivers of change against the

scenarios .......................................232 7.4.1 New materials ................................................232 7.4.2 New sustainable energy...................................232 7.4.3 ICT . ...............................................233 7.4.4 Availability and quality of crew .........................233 7.4.5 Trade barriers ................................................233 7.4.6 Role of multinationals, location of economic activity

............................................................234 7.4.7 Terrorism ......................................................234 7.4.8 Regional conflicts............................................234 7.4.9 Global warming ..............................................234 7.4.10 Consumers’ perception of sustainability .............235 7.4.11 Greenhouse gas emissions regulations ..............235 7.4.12 Pollution & other emissions regulations .............235 7.4.13 Transport mode taxation .................................236 7.4.14 Freight conferences ........................................236 7.4.15 Safety and security.........................................236 7.4.16 Ageing populations .........................................237 7.4.17 Migration of large populations ..........................237 7.4.18 Transition of economic power from US/EU to Asia237 7.4.19 Russia...........................................................238 8 Strategic recommendations................ 239 8.1 Description of recommendations ..............239 8.1.1 External relations ...........................................239 8.1.2 Short sea shipping..........................................240 8.1.3 Port infrastructure investment fast-track ...........240 8.1.4 Transition to sustainability ...............................241 8.1.5 Availability and quality of crew .........................242 8.1.6 EU and the IMO..............................................243 8.1.7 Transport policy .............................................243 8.1.8 State aid .......................................................244 8.1.9 Competition in ports .......................................244 8.1.10 Safety ...........................................................245 8.1.11 ICT standards ................................................245 8.1.12 Security ........................................................246 9 Appendix I – Ships in ports (AIS live) 247 9.1 Crude oil tanker, port calls in EU 2007 ......247 9.2 Products tanker, port calls in EU 2007 ......248 9.3 Chem/Prod tankers, port calls in EU 2007..249 9.4 Pure chemical tankers, port calls in EU 2007250 9.5 LPG tankers, port calls in EU 2007............250 9.6 LNG tankers, port calls in EU 2007 ...........251 9.7 Bulker, port calls in EU 2007 ...................251 9.8 General cargo, port calls in EU 2007.........252 9.9 Container, port calls in EU 2007...............253 9.10 Vehicle, port calls in EU 2007 ..................254 9.11 Roro, port calls in EU 2007......................254 9.12 Cruise, port calls in EU 2007 ...................254

Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay Research 2

10 Appendix II – Cargo in ports (Eurostat,

Dynamar) ........................................... 255 10.1 Belgium............................................... 255 10.2 Bulgaria............................................... 255 10.3 Cyprus ................................................ 256 10.4 Germany ............................................. 256 10.5 Denmark ............................................. 259 10.6 Estonia ................................................ 260 10.7 Spain .................................................. 261 10.8 Finland ................................................ 264 10.9 France................................................. 266 10.10 United Kingdom .................................... 268 10.11 Greece ................................................ 272

10.12 Ireland.................................................274 10.13 Italy . .....................................274 10.14 Lithuania ..............................................279 10.15 Latvia ..................................................279 10.16 Malta ...................................................280 10.17 Poland .................................................280 10.18 Slovenia ...............................................280 10.19 Netherlands ..........................................281 10.20 Portugal ...............................................282 10.21 Romania...............................................283 10.22 Sweden................................................283 11 Approach............................................ 286

© Lloyd’s Register - Fairplay Ltd, 2008

Figures Figure 1: The Lloyd's Register-Fairplay Research approach........... 1 Figure 2: Illustration of trade and transport modes .......................... 3 Figure 3: Total world seaborne deep sea trade, million tonnes ....... 4 Figure 4: Total world seaborne deep sea trade, million tonnes, index: 1985=100............................................................................... 5 Figure 5: Total world seaborne deep sea trade, index: 1985=100, container separated.......................................................................... 5 Figure 6: Relation GDP growth in percent and US$ 2006 over 2005......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 7: Real GDP development in influential non-EU countries ...8 Figure 8: Real GDP development in major EU15 countries............. 8 Figure 9: Real GDP development is some high growth EU27 countries........................................................................................... 9 Figure 10: World total liquid bulk trade by commodity ................... 11 Figure 11: Oil price forecasts; 2007 US$ per tonne ....................... 12 Figure 12: Russian gas supplies to Europe by regional destination....................................................................................................... 15 Figure 13: Norwegian gas supplies to Europe by regional destination...................................................................................... 15 Figure 14: Total European gas supplies ........................................ 16 Figure 15: LNG imports into Europe by source.............................. 16 Figure 16: % of Liquid bulk exports 2008 and 2018....................... 17 Figure 17: % of liquid bulk exports 2008 and 2018 by commodity.17 Figure 18: % liquid bulk imports 2008 and 2018 ............................ 18 Figure 19: % Liquid bulk imports by commodity 2008 and 2018.... 19 Figure 20: EU port liquid bulk throughputs by direction, million tonnes............................................................................................. 19 Figure 21: World total dry bulk trade commodity............................ 21 Figure 22: World wide coal demand in million tonnes per region...22 Figure 23: World wide available coal supply by region .................. 23 Figure 24: Supply/demand balance coal per region....................... 23 Figure 25: Top ten grain exporters ................................................. 24 Figure 26: Dry bulk exports, destination share 2008 and 2018...... 25 Figure 27: Dry bulk export .............................................................. 26 Figure 28: Dry bulk imports to Europe 2008 and 2018 .................. 26 Figure 29: Dry bulk imports to Europe by commodity, % share 2008 and 2018 ........................................................................................ 27 Figure 30: EU port dry bulk throughputs by direction, million tonnes....................................................................................................... 28

Figure 31: EU port general cargo throughputs by type, million tonnes ............................................................................................ 29 Figure 32: Global containerized trade............................................ 30 Figure 33: EU port containerised cargo throughputs by direction, million tonnes ................................................................................. 41 Figure 34: EU port roro cargo throughputs by direction, million tonnes ............................................................................................ 45 Figure 35: Trailer volumes on major roro & ropax services in the Baltic Sea region............................................................................ 45 Figure 36: Industrial roro shipping systems, Finland-Baltic Sea region ............................................................................................. 46 Figure 37: Industrial roro shipping systems, Finland-North Sea region ............................................................................................. 47 Figure 38: Industrial roro shipping systems, Sweden-Baltic & North Sea regions.................................................................................... 48 Figure 39: Trailer volumes on major roro & ropax services in the North Sea region............................................................................ 48 Figure 40: Trailer volumes on major roro & ropax services in the Mediterranean................................................................................ 49 Figure 41: EU port other general cargo throughputs by direction, million tonnes ................................................................................. 49 Figure 42: Trailer traffic development, North Europe..................... 51 Figure 43: Passenger traffic development, Northern Europe ........ 52 Figure 44: A typical Speed - Power/consumption curve for a fast ferry................................................................................................ 61 Figure 45: EU port throughputs 2006 by direction, million tonnes . 63 Figure 46: EU port throughputs 2018 by direction, million tonnes . 63 Figure 47: EU port throughputs 2006, intra- vs extra-EU trade, million tonnes ................................................................................. 64 Figure 48: EU port throughputs 2018, intra- vs extra-EU trade, million tonnes ................................................................................. 64 Figure 49: Top 20 European dry bulk ports 2006 .......................... 66 Figure 50: Top 20 European liquid bulk ports 2006....................... 66 Figure 51: Top 20 European container ports 2006 ........................ 67 Figure 52: Large ports in Croatia ................................................... 70 Figure 53: Major ports in Malta ...................................................... 71 Figure 54: Large ports in Greece ................................................... 73 Figure 55: Ports in Cyprus ............................................................. 75 Figure 56: Large ports in Bulgaria.................................................. 75 Figure 57: Major ports in Romania................................................. 76 Figure 58: Port troughput in Romania 2006, thousand tonnes ...... 76

Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay Research iii

Figure 59: Modal split of the Spanish trade in 2006....................... 80 Figure 60: Major ports in Spain ...................................................... 81 Figure 61: Oil refineries in Spain.................................................... 81 Figure 62: Modal split of the Portuguese trade in 2006 ................. 83 Figure 63: Major ports in Portugal .................................................. 84 Figure 64: Modal split of the French trade in 2005......................... 85 Figure 65: Oil refineries in France.................................................. 87 Figure 66: Modal split of the Italian trade in 2006 .......................... 87 Figure 67: Major ports in Italy......................................................... 88 Figure 68: Refineries in the vicinity of Italian ports......................... 89 Figure 69: Coal power plants in the vicinity of Italian ports ............ 90 Figure 70: Major ports in the United Kingdom................................ 92 Figure 71: Southampton port terminals.......................................... 93 Figure 72: Ports in Ireland.............................................................. 95 Figure 73: Major ports in the Netherlands...................................... 96 Figure 74: Port of Rotterdam.......................................................... 97 Figure 75: Port of Antwerp ............................................................. 99 Figure 76: Ports in Belgium.......................................................... 100 Figure 77: The localisation of Gent port facility ............................ 101 Figure 78: Major ports in Sweden ................................................ 105 Figure 79: Large ports in Finland ................................................. 107 Figure 80: Major ports in Denmark............................................... 110 Figure 81: Major ports in Estonia ................................................. 111 Figure 82: Ports in Latvia ............................................................. 114 Figure 83: Major ports in Lithuania............................................... 115 Figure 84: Major ports in Poland .................................................. 117 Figure 85: Major ports in Germany .............................................. 121 Figure 86; Port of Hamburg.......................................................... 122 Figure 87; Bremerhaven terminal in Port of Bremen................... 123 Figure 88: Movements in the strategy of shipping ....................... 126 Figure 89: Total world fleet development from 1976 and onwards, no ................................................................................................. 127 Figure 90: Total world fleet development from 1976 and onwards, dwt................................................................................................ 127 Figure 91: Total world fleet development from 1976 and onwards, gt..................................................................................................... 128 Figure 92: World fleet development, flag states, aggregated gt... 128 Figure 93: World fleet development, flag states, gt in per cent .... 129 Figure 94: World fleet according to country of owner, aggregated gt..................................................................................................... 129 Figure 95: World fleet development, country of owner, gt in per cent..................................................................................................... 130 Figure 96: World fleet according to country of operator, aggregated gt .................................................................................................. 135 Figure 97: World fleet development, country of operator, gt in per cent............................................................................................... 135 Figure 98: EU interests in the shipping world, number of ships ...136 Figure 99: EU interests in the shipping world, dwt capacity......... 136 Figure 100: EU interests in the shipping world, gt capacity ......... 137 Figure 101: The strategic types of oil carriers .............................. 138 Figure 102: Oil tanker fleet, million dwt ........................................ 139 Figure 103: VLCC and Suezmax world scale rates ..................... 139 Figure 104: Product tanker indices .............................................. 140 Figure 105: EU interest in the oil tanker shipping segment.......... 140 Figure 106: Chemical tanker strategic types................................ 141 Figure 107: Chemical tanker fleet, million dwt ............................. 142

Figure 108: Chemical tankers group operators............................ 143 Figure 109: LPG tankers strategic positions ................................ 143 Figure 110: LPG tanker fleet, million cbm.................................... 144 Figure 111: LPG tanker freight rates............................................ 145 Figure 112: LPG tankers group operators ................................... 145 Figure 113: Strategic type of LNG shipping................................. 146 Figure 114: LNG tanker fleet, million m³ ...................................... 147 Figure 115: LNG tankers by group operators country ................. 148 Figure 116: Strategies of Bulker shipping.................................... 149 Figure 117: Bulker fleet, million DWT .......................................... 150 Figure 118: Large bulk carrier freight rates.................................. 151 Figure 119: TC rates for bulkers .................................................. 152 Figure 120: Group operators in the Bulker sector........................ 152 Figure 121: Strategies of General cargo shipping ....................... 153 Figure 122: General cargo fleet, million DWT.............................. 154 Figure 123: Group operators country, General cargo ships ........ 155 Figure 124: Strategies of Container shipping............................... 156 Figure 125: Container fleet, thousand teu.................................... 158 Figure 126: Container freight index.............................................. 161 Figure 127: Container ship charter rates ..................................... 162 Figure 128: Country of domicile group operators of container ships..................................................................................................... 163 Figure 129: Strategies of car carrying shipping ........................... 164 Figure 130: Fleet vehicle carriers, thousand CEU ....................... 165 Figure 131: Group operators COD for Vehicle carriers................ 166 Figure 132: Strategies for roro shipping....................................... 167 Figure 133: Ro-ro fleet, thousand lane metres ............................ 167 Figure 134: Ro-ro charter rates.................................................... 168 Figure 135: Operator country for roro ships................................. 169 Figure 136: Ferries in the strategic shipping graph...................... 170 Figure 137: Average speed for ferries 1976-2007 ....................... 171 Figure 138: Ferry fleet development, number of pax................... 172 Figure 139: Ferry fleet development; lane metres ....................... 172 Figure 140: Group operators, country of domicile, passenger capacity........................................................................................ 174 Figure 141: Cruise fleet in the strategic types of shipping graph. 175 Figure 142: Cruise fleet development, lower berth ...................... 176 Figure 143: Cruise fleet control by country, measured in lower berth..................................................................................................... 178 Figure 144: Strategic type of shipping, Offshore.......................... 179 Figure 145: Offshore fleet, numbers ............................................ 179 Figure 146: Offshore fleet development, dwt ............................... 180 Figure 147: Offshore market rates ............................................... 180 Figure 148: The control of the Offshore fleet, measured in no .... 181 Figure 149: Strategies of shipping, Service sector ...................... 182 Figure 150: Service, fleet, number............................................... 183 Figure 151: Control of the service fleet, by country, measured in no..................................................................................................... 183 Figure 152: Terminal portfolio for some of the large terminal operators...................................................................................... 187 Figure 153: Subjective classification & clustering of drivers of change ......................................................................................... 207 Figure 154: Real average annual light, sweet crude oil prices in the three scenarios ............................................................................ 222 Figure 155: The six scenarios...................................................... 225

Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay Research iv

Tables Table 1: GDP based on purchasing power parity per capita, current prices, US$....................................................................................... 6 Table 2: World ten largest liquid bulk export countries .................. 10 Table 3: World ten largest liquid bulk import countries .................. 10 Table 4: Europe outbound trade by region..................................... 16 Table 5: Europe outbound trade by commodity ............................. 17 Table 6: Europe inbound trade by region....................................... 18 Table 7: Europe inbound trade by commodity ............................... 18 Table 8: Intra-European seaborne liquid bulk trade 2006, million tonnes............................................................................................. 20 Table 9: Top 15 countries: total dry bulk trade (metric tonnes)...... 21 Table 10: Export trade by region of destination ............................. 24 Table 11: Intra-European dry bulk seaborne trade 2006, million tonnes............................................................................................. 28 Table 12: Global containerized trade ............................................. 30 Table 13: Transpacific US – Far East ............................................ 31 Table 14: Imports to the US from Far East .................................... 32 Table 15: Exports from the US to Far East .................................... 32 Table 16: North Europe/Mediterranean – Far East (FEFC) ........... 33 Table 17: Europe – Far East .......................................................... 33 Table 18: Container balance, Europe – Far east ........................... 33 Table 19: Europe – North East Asia............................................... 34 Table 20: Europe – South East Asia .............................................. 34 Table 21: Trans Atlantic (Europe – North America) ....................... 35 Table 22: Europe – US East Coast ................................................ 36 Table 23 Europe – US West Coast ................................................ 37 Table 24: Europe - Africa ............................................................... 40 Table 25: North European major transhipment ports ..................... 43 Table 26: Modal split at main European ports................................ 43 Table 27: Mediterranean major transhipment ports ....................... 44 Table 28: The ferry capacity divided over the world....................... 50 Table 29: Ferry traffic figure in 2007 .............................................. 51 Table 30: Routes that is known to have ceased in 2007................ 52 Table 31: Routes known to have started in 2007........................... 52 Table 32: Cruise passengers, share of number of pax, nationality and destination............................................................................... 53 Table 1; Examples of Mediterranean services and their character 60 Table 33: Total outwards and inwards port volumes 2006, million tonnes............................................................................................. 65 Table 34: Top 15 European ports by port traffic, no of calls & aggregated dwt............................................................................... 68 Table 35: Port throughput in Croatia 2006, thousand tonnes ........ 71

Table 36: Port throughput in Slovenia 2006, thousand tonnes...... 71 Table 37: Port turnover at Malta, 2006, thousand tonnes.............. 72 Table 38: Port turnover in Greek ports in 2006, 1,000 tonnes....... 72 Table 39: Port turnaround at Cyprus, 2005 thousand tonnes and container teu 2006 ......................................................................... 75 Table 40: Port throughput in Bulgaria 2006 ................................... 76 Table 41: Port throughput in Spanish ports 2006 1,000 tonnes .... 80 Table 42: Port turnaround in Portugal, 2006, thousand tonnes ..... 83 Table 43: Port throughput in French ports 2005, thousand tonnes and 2006 teu .................................................................................. 86 Table 44: Port throughput in Italian ports 2005, thousand tonnes and 2006 teu .................................................................................. 88 Table 45: Port turnover in the UK 2006, thousand tonnes............. 91 Table 46: Port turnover in Ireland 2006, thousand tonnes............. 95 Table 47: Port turnover in the Netherlands 2006, thousand tonnes....................................................................................................... 96 Table 48: Port turnover in Belgium 2006, thousand tonnes........... 98 Table 49: Port turnover in Sweden 2006, thousand tonnes......... 103 Table 50: Port turnover in Finland 2006, thousand tonnes.......... 106 Table 51: Port turnover in Norway 2006, thousand tonnes ......... 108 Table 52: Port turnover in Denmark 2006, thousand tonnes ....... 110 Table 53: Port turnover in Estonia 2006, thousand tonnes.......... 112 Table 54: Port turnover in Latvia 2006, thousand tonnes ............ 115 Table 55: Port turnover in Lithuania 2006, thousand tonnes ....... 116 Table 56: Port turnover in Poland 2006, thousand tonnes .......... 117 Table 57: Port turnover in Germany 2006, thousand tonnes....... 120 Table 58: Comparison between owned, operated and flag for tonnage in different countries/regions of the world ...................... 131 Table 59: Who operates a country’s/region’s owned tonnage..... 132 Table 60: Who owns a country’s/region’s operated tonnage....... 132 Table 61: Ownership and the flags in k gt.................................... 133 Table 62: Ownership and the flag, % share in gt ......................... 134 Table 63: Consortia and alliances................................................ 157 Table 64: Growth prediction for 2008........................................... 161 Table 65: Container terminal takeovers ....................................... 188 Table 66: Deliveries 2005-2007 from European yards (ex naval) 189 Table 67: Current orderbook for European yards, April 2008 (ex naval) ........................................................................................... 190 Table 68: Maintenance, repair and conversion, turnover, million Euro ............................................................................................. 191 Table 69: Scenario GDP growth figures ...................................... 220

Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay Research v

Introduction

In 2007, the Commission's Directorate General for Energy and Transport (DG TREN) decided to conduct a study in view of formulating possible future EU policy options for maritime transport. This study should be prospective in nature and focus on trends and plausible shipping scenarios in the horizon 2008-2018. Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay Research has been leading the consortium of companies that have produced this report. All companies have contributed to the final report. Dynamar BV has contributed specifically to the sections about container shipping, Global Insight France (SA) to the sections about liquid and dry bulk and ShipBiz International to the sections about roro, ferry and cruise. SAI – the Institute of Shipping Analysis has been involved in the description and analysis of the activities in the Baltic Sea region. Planet S.A. has done the same for the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea, and Fundación Valenciaport of the Western Mediterranean including the Atlantic south of the North Sea. AISLive has contributed with AIS-data on ships movements which have formed a valuable input to the understanding and analyses. Professor Tor Wergeland of SAI has been a significant contributor, particularly to the sections about signals of future changes, SWOT-analyses, scenarios and strategic recommendations. Outside the consortium, Eurostat has provided comprehensive ports data and Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) have provided the basic three scenarios which then have been further adapted to this study. Several consultative meetings have been held with the national maritime administrations of the EU and Norway and with a group of high level shipping experts. Further, there have been consultations with representatives from the sectors of shipping, ports, ships equipment manufacturers and academic institutions. In accordance with the tender specification, this report is divided into four parts;

• Part A: Geographical distribution and evolving patterns of seaborne trade,

• Part B: Signals of future change in shipping,

• Part C: SWOT analysis,

• Part D: Shipping scenarios and strategic recommendations.

There are two major issues that are addressed in this report;

1. By 2018, the shipping transport services available to the European industry should at minimum be just as efficient, reliable and sustainable as today. This includes that there should be sufficient transport capacity available and that the port and port hinterland capacities should be able to cope with the anticipated cargo volumes.

2. By 2018, the shipping industry should at minimum be just as competitive and have an equally strong, or better, position on the global markets.

For the two major issues, factors are to be identified that could jeopardize or strengthen the efficiency, reliability and sustainability of; the shipping services, the availability of tonnage supply and the adaptation of port & hinterland capacities. To address the requirements set out above and to meet with the terms of reference to this report, the disposition of the report is focusing on the goods flows, the ports and the shipping markets and for the purpose of this report crucial parts of the maritime cluster. All forecasts presented are produced for a baseline scenario. These forecasts are later used as benchmarks in the impact analyses of the alternative scenarios. Part A of the report is covered in chapters 1 to 4. In chapter one the global trade and seaborne transport are described. Among the findings in this chapter, it could be highlighted that container volumes grow at a high pace, but the shipped quantities are still much higher in the bulk sectors. Chapter two covers the European regions and their ports. The regions’ characteristics are described and the differences between them are evident. The plethora of ports is displayed given the strategic asset that many of them represent. Chapter three describes the major ship markets and the EU interest. The fleet growth in many segments is striking. It is also noteworthy that EU member states’ ship registers are decreasing in relative terms.

Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay Research vi

Chapter four is looking at the other shipping related sectors in Europe and their dependence on the shipping sector. Part B of the report is covered in chapter 5 signals of future change, which forms a platform for the following SWOT analysis in chapter 6 (Part C). Some major findings in the SWOT analysis are over supply in many shipping segments, no foreseen port capacity problems for bulk handling, but rather for container handling. Part D is covered in chapter 7 “Year 2018 scenarios” and chapter 8 “Strategic recommendations”. A number of key elements that are put into the context of the three basic scenarios.

Thereafter are the three basic scenarios divided into two different policy scenarios, thus leading up to a total of six scenarios. These six scenarios are presented in a foreseen news format some time in the year 2018. In section Test of the drivers of change against the scenarios are the 19 drivers, identified earlier in the report, tested against the six scenario storylines. The strategic recommendations in the final chapter are the authors’ conclusions derived from the steps and analyses described in the previous chapters of the report.

Summary

Global growth, trade and seaborne transport

The large differences in economic performance and growth between the countries of Europe can be attributed to differences in economic structure, degrees of liberalisation and economic policies. These differences are likely to encourage labour mobility between member states of the EU. Economic differences can also be viewed as a significant asset, if the various parties are able to gain mutual benefits from cooperation and thus enhance development. The following figure illustrates the relation between real GDP growth in percent and the corresponding growth in US$ for the year 2006. The exceptional growth percentages for Latvia and Estonia that year are striking, but given the relatively small size of those economies that growth is small in absolute terms (US$). The growth is still important to those countries, but for the European continent as a whole it is of minor importance.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0

Real GDP percent growth 2006

GD

P gro

wth

in c

urr

ent

US$ B

illio

n

EU15EU27 excl EU15USARussiaChina

Source: IMF

ItalySpain

U.K.

France Germany

LatviaEstonia

Poland

As a comparison three countries of high significance to the EU have been plotted in the

graph; the USA, Russia and China. The USA and China are large trading partners to the EU. So is Russia, but with a more limited product mix. When it comes to the seaborne trade the bulk volumes dominate clearly, accounting for some ¾ of the tonnes of goods carried in deep sea trade. Early estimates amount to about Bn6.9 tonnes carried in deep sea trades 2007, whereof Bn2.6 tonnes of liquid bulks, a little less major dry bulks and about Bn1.7 tonnes of general cargo. Trade grows steadily over time, which the illustration highlights. It should be noted that trade normally grows even in periods of business contraction, however at a lower pace. It takes major recessions to produce negative growth in trade. Over the entire period containerised trade has grown at an average annual rate of ten per cent. Meanwhile has the general cargo category excluding containers hardly grown at all and over the last three years it has decreased significantly. The container has taken over a substantial part of shipments from the general cargo vessel segment and general cargo ships are today rarely employed in deep sea operations.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Mill

ion

tonn

es

Forecast

Liquid bulk

Dry bulk

General cargo

Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay Research vii

• In our Liquid bulk seaborne trade the baseline growth forecast looks at an average annual growth rate of 2% per annum.

• Russia and North Sea remain the main source of oil supply to Europe up to 2018.

• The average annual oil prices is parked at historically high levels.

• Inwards volumes will continue to dominate port handling in EU27.

Saudi Arabia continues to remain the worlds largest exporter of liquid bulk tonnes, in 2007 Saudi Arabia exported over 722 million (metric) tonnes of liquid bulk goods (the majority of which was crude petroleum). Western Africa is increasing in importance, especially for Europe. On the import side the United States and Japan are the top two importers of liquid bulk commodities. For both countries crude petroleum is the largest liquid bulk import cargo. • In our dry bulk seaborne trade scenario Far

East continues to be main driver for global dry bulk trade.

• Ores and coal the largest bulk commodities. • Americas are the largest sources for

European imports. • NW Europe is the largest import region. Overall dry bulk commodities include the following; coal, iron ore & steel, grains & cereals, sugar, oil seeds & soy beans, animal feed, bauxite, zinc, alumina, nickel, aggregates, salt, phosphate & fertilizers, and scrap material. Global dry bulk trade has enjoyed strong average annual growth in the past four years at 6.0%, thanks in part to strong demand for bulk commodities in China's rapidly growing market. Growth in the dry bulk market will slow to 3.1% growth in the next five years (2008-2012) before slowing to 2.3% annual growth over the long-term forecast (2012-2018). China was one of the largest bulk commodity importers from the world in 2007 and despite expected slower growth from China and from the bulk shipping markets, China will remain one of the largest importers in 2018. Japan, South Korea, the United States and Taiwan are also among the top five bulk commodity importers in the world. Brazil will be one of the largest bulk commodity exporters in 2007 with over 364 million dry bulk shipping tonnes exported. Like China's imports, Brazil's exports are also expected to slow somewhat in the medium to long-term. • Our view of the general cargo seaborne

trade is that containerized cargo will grow at an annual average of 7% (tonnes) and 8% in

teu. Cargo handled in the roro-system is forecasted to about 5% p.a. Other general cargo is forecasted to grow slowly.

• Far East continue to be the main source for containerized cargo.

• Roro is used mostly for intra-European volumes. Vehicle trade forms the exception.

The total general cargo handling in the EU27 ports amounted to 1.3Bn tonnes in 2006, which was more than the total dry bulk and less than the total liquid bulk handling that year. Close to half of the volumes was cargo in containers, a third was cargo on roro ships and the remaining 19% was “other” general cargo. The latter category consists mainly of break bulk. The global containerized trade increased by 10.5% in 2007. Globally about 125 million full teu have been carried according to the latest estimates. Over the last 27 years the container trades grew with 9.2% on average per year. The last 10 and 5 year the growth was on average 9.8% and 12% respectively. For 2008 a drop in growth has been estimated to a level of 8% after which the trade outlook becomes much more unclear but growth could pick-up again at a more than 2-digit level on the positive perspective.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Tota

l tra

nspo

rted

full

teu,

199

5-20

09

Source: Dynamar. Forecast LRFR.

Forecast

Average 12% growth p.a.


More negatively would be the scenario that global trade will be faced the prolonged effect of a deeper financial crisis when growth of around 6-7% are to be expected. • Passenger transport is diverse but smaller

ferries fulfil an important short distance, urban transport function – quite often for passenger transports only (without cars).

• Trend wise shift towards cargo in the ropax sector; particularly in North Europe.

• European cruises forecasted to expand strongly.

Passengers are carried all over the world most in ferries but also in cruise ships. The ferries are life lines for many remote places and the transport work they do is thus very important. The cruise

Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay Research viii

passengers are more important for the communities that they visit since the passengers tend to spend a good amount of there. Deep sea offshore production grows in importance. The European competence is renown and will continue to be in demand. The port traffic is set grow substantially over the years to come to the benefit of all port related service activities; tugs, dredgers, pilotage salvage & rescue to mention but a few.

European regions and their ports • In general there are vast differences

between the European regions and the port volumes follow population density.

• Bulk ports are located nearby power plants and refineries.

Next figure illustrates the port throughputs in 2006, divided on major cargo type, direction and EU region. A number of observations can be made from this graph; Liquid and dry bulk cargoes dominate – about two thirds of the total volumes handled, much of it in the North Sea region and Western Mediterranean. Inwards and outwards volumes of bulk cargoes are imbalanced – inwards volumes are much higher, whereas volumes in containers are fairly balanced, which may come as a surprise. This is due to the higher weight of outwards cargo. Roro cargo is fairly balanced. This is natural since the absolute majority of this cargo is intra-European.

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Inw

Outw

Inw

Outw

Inw

Outw

Inw

Outw

Inw

Outw

Liquid

bulk

Dry

bulk

Conta

iner

Roro

Oth

erG

ener

alca

rgo

North Sea Atlantic Baltic Sea West Med East Med Black Sea Overseas Rivers

Million tonnes. Source Eurostat.

In our baseline scenario the situation in 2018 will have changed as follows. The overall volumes handled in EU27 ports have grown from 3.7Bn tonnes in 2006 to 5.3Bn tonnes. This means that the infra-structure has to be able to handle 1.6Bn tonnes more than today. The fastest growing cargo category is foreseen to be cargo in containers. The average annual growth rate, based on tonnes of cargo, is forecasted to be 7%.

Cargo in the roro system is also expected to grow fast, at around an annual average of 4.5%. In the following graphs, the volumes have been divided to reflect cargo bound for/from ports within the EU27 (intra-EU trade) and cargo from/for other regions (extra-EU trade). First 2006 are presented and then the forecast for 2018.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Liquid

bulk

Dry

bulk

Conta

iner

Roro

Oth

erG

ener

alca

rgo



2006

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Liquid

bulk

Dry

bulk

Conta

iner

Roro

Oth

erG

ener

alca

rgo



2006

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Liquid

bulk

Dry

bulk

Conta

iner

Roro

Oth

erG

ener

al

carg

o


Million tonnes. Forecast by LRFR.

2018

Extra-EU volumes dominate the bulk and container cargoes both now and then. An important share of extra-EU liquid bulk volumes are imports from Russia. Intra-EU liquid cargo volumes are substantial following the intensive short sea shipments of refined oil products from the refineries. Roro traffic is largely used for short sea shipments, with the exception of vehicle carriers such as pure car carriers. Roro traffic is expected to grow in intra-EU trade, largely either to relieve road congestion or to support the forest and steel industries in Sweden and Finland. The table presents the total port handling in all the EU27 countries including both domestic and intra-European trade. In total, inwards and outwards volumes are unbalanced. There are significant differences on country levels and even more so in individual ports. The ports in Estonia and Latvia have much higher outwards volumes in absolute terms (tonnes). If seen in relative terms, then Lithuania and Poland make the list as well. Countries with a substantial inwards volume overshoot are the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, U.K. and France.

Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay Research ix

Region Country Outwards InwardsDenmark 43.5 52.6Sweden 78.4 82.6Finland 47.0 56.0Estonia 41.7 6.1Latvia 49.2 6.6Lithuania 19.0 8.5Poland 33.1 19.8Germany 120.4 178.9Netherlands 118.7 360.8Belgium 94.1 124.4Ireland 11.2 25.9United Kingdom 213.7 356.7France 95.9 239.8Portugal 19.7 45.5Spain 117.1 301.0Italy 157.0 342.0Slovenia 5.0 10.5Malta 0.2 3.3Greece 55.5 76.7Cyprus 1.3 5.9Bulgaria 11.3 16.3Romania 22.1 24.3Total 1,355.3 2,344.1

Source: Eurostat Italics=2005

E M

ed &

Bla

ck

Sea

Balti

c S

ea R

egio

nN

Sea

, UK

& Ir

elan

dW

Med

&

Atla

ntic

arc

The 20 largest dry bulk ports in Europe is presented below. Rotterdam is by far the largest port followed by Hamburg. The imbalance between inwards and outwards cargo is striking.

Hamburgmingh

Dunkerque

Taranto

Gijon

Gent

Riga

C

Ravenna

Tees-Hartlepool

Tarragona

Liverpool

London

Iijmuiden

Immingham

Constanta

Antwerp

Rotterdam

IN

OUT

Amsterdam

Marseille

C

Narvik

The major liquid bulk ports in Europe are illustrated in next figure.

Rotterdam

IN

OUT

HamburgAmsterdam

Antwerp

Rotterdam

OUT

IN

Bergen

Marseille

Wilhelmshaven

Le Havre

Tees-Hartlepool

AntwerpMilford Haven

Forth

Southampton

Trieste

Immingham

Augusta

Sullom Voe

Algeciras

London

Bilbao

Göteborg

Brofjorden

Cartagena

Rotterdam and Marseille are large ports for the handling of inwards cargo, while Bergen (Mongstad) in Norway is a large loading port. Container handling is a more balanced activity if measured in tonnes, which is the data behind next figure. This is only half the story though since empty containers also have to be handled. Rotterdam, Hamburg, Bremerhaven, Antwerp, Gioia Tauro, Algeciras and Felixstowe are all large container ports. Many of these ports also are transhipment hubs for containers that are carried by feeder vessels to the port of destination.

Rotterdam

Hamburg

Antwerp

Bremerhaven

Algeciras Gioia Tauro

Valencia

Felixtowe

Barcelona

Pireus

Le Havre

Las PalmasGenova

Southampton

London

Gothenburg

x

La SpeziaxMarseille

x

Zeebrügge

x Constanta

x

OUTIN

The table below illustrates the 15 largest ports 2007 in terms of number of port calls and in terms of aggregated dwt of the ones that AIS-live cover with their antennas. The figures do not include ferries, since the tables would be completely dominated by ferry crossings at short distances then. The enormous importance of Rotterdam and Antwerp for central Europe becomes very clear.

Port No calls Port dwt

Total 279,820 Total 2,780Other 528 174,547 Other 528 1,493

1 Rotterdam 26,633 1 Rotterdam 420.52 Antwerp 14,877 2 Antwerp 159.33 Hamburg 10,761 3 Hamburg 83.14 Zeebrugge 5,875 4 Fos 75.85 Bremerhaven 5,708 5 Amsterdam 71.56 London 4,951 6 Immingham 67.47 Barcelona 4,698 7 Le Havre 58.88 Immingham 4,520 8 Dunkirk 55.89 Le Havre 4,396 9 Teesport 55.4

10 Amsterdam 4,175 10 IJmuiden 46.811 Piraeus 4,145 11 Wilhelmshaven 45.712 Teesport 4,107 12 Tarragona 39.213 Gothenburg 3,980 13 Genoa 37.114 Felixstowe 3,302 14 Milford Haven 35.415 Riga 3,145 15 Barcelona 35.1

Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay Research x

Major ship markets and the EU interest

• In general the most shipping segments will have strong fleet growth until 2018.

• The EU operators’ share of world fleet control has been unchanged over the last 30 years.

• Over the same period the EU flagged share of the fleet has decreased by a third.

The major conclusion is that the supply will be enough in general (even if it always can be short supply deficiencies in short periods) but maybe too large in some fleets, which itself can distort the markets. The next graph illustrates the world fleet development of ships larger than 100gt going in international traffic over time. The most numerous sectors is the general cargo and the service ships.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

2006

2009

2012

2015

2018

Tota

l Wor

ld fl

eet,

num

ber o

f shi

ps, 1

976-

Service

Offshore

Yacht

Cruise

Ferry

Roro

Vehicle

Container

Other Dry

General Cargo

Bulker

Other Tanker

LNG

LPG

Chemical Tanker

Oil Tanker

2008-04

Forecast

The best overall measure for the merchant fleet is dwt. In dwt the oil tankers and bulkers becomes the largest by quite a margin. When measuring in dwt the passenger carrying fleets of ferries and cruise ships becomes very small or rather invisible and that of course do not reflect their importance in the shipping as a whole, not the least since the actually is carrying the most valuable cargo – the passengers. Thus when measuring for instance port fees or a nations weight in the IMO the gross tonnage (gt) often is used. The figure shows the fleet development measured by the gt.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018

Tota

l Wor

ld fl

eet,

milli

on g

t, 19

76-

Service

Offshore

Yacht

Cruise

Ferry

Roro

Vehicle

Container

Other Dry

General Cargo

Bulker

Other Tanker

LNG

LPG

Chemical Tanker

Oil Tanker

2008-04

Forecast

Still bulkers and tankers are dominating but container ships and especially passenger ships gains in importance. There are many ways of defining the importance of a country or a region of countries in the shipping world. The mostly used three decades ago where the register, or more commonly known word – the flag state of the individual ships. In the recent 30 years the EU27 countries flagged fleet of ships has grown from 118M gt to 162M gt or by 37%, but given that the world fleet at the same time has grown from 400M to 800M gt or 100% the EU27 share has decreased. This is illustrated here where the red line shows the downward slope for the fleet of EU flagged ships from a share of 30% in 1978 to 20% now.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Tota

l wor

ld fl

eet,

Flag

g re

gist

er, 1

978

and

onw

ards

, mill

ion

gt, s

hare

in %

Mid East

Other Asia

Singapore

Japan

Hong Kong

China

Rest of World

Liberia

Marshall isl.

Bahamas

Panama

Other Americas

USA

Other Europe

Norway (NIS)

Norway

Other EU27

Germany

Italy

UK

Malta

Cyprus

Greece

Another, measure of the importance of a country or a shipping region is the amount of owned tonnage. Opposed to the flag the gt development in an EU27 perspective has been a lot better over the recent 30 years with an approximately 32% share of the world fleet at the starting point and 33% in 2007. The reason that the European share are as high now is credited to the very positive development in Germany the recent decade.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Tota

l wor

ld fl

eet,

Ow

ner,

1978

and

onw

ards

, % b

ased

on

GT

Unknown

RoW

Mid East

Other Asia

South Korea

Singapore

Japan

China

C & S America

Bermuda

Canada

USA

Other Europe

Switzerland

Norway

EU27 other

Italy

Germany

Denmark

UK

Greece

If a comparison is made between the ownership, operation and flag of tonnage is made some countries has substantial differences – they are highly concentrated on just owning or operating a ship. Germany stands out in the crowd if measured in gt with at least 41.5M gt owned but not operated tonnage. Denmark for instance operates a lot more tonnage than they own.

Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay Research xi

The ownership of the ship and the flag state traditionally were closely linked but that is not the case today. However, the flag state today has little in common with who decides of a ship or where the money for the operation goes and this comes for the ownership as well. Thus the group operators country becomes interesting since that is the highest possible level of decision making. Here the EU 27 has hovered just above 30% since the 80s as illustrated by the red line.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Tota

l wor

ld fl

eet,

Ope

rato

r, 19

78 a

nd o

nwar

ds, %

bas

ed o

n G

T

Unknown

RoW

Mid East

Other Asia

South Korea

Singapore

Japan

China

C & S America

Bermuda

Canada

USA

Other Europe

Switzerland

Norway

EU27 other

Italy

Germany

Denmark

UK

Greece

In number of ships this means that companies within EU countries controls 23% or 17,581 commercial ships larger than 100gt of the world fleets 77,517 ships as Figure 24 illustrates. Out of the 27 EU countries there is only Hungary that does not have any merchant ship in their control but also the Check Republic, Slovakia and Austria are small and have one digit numbers.

Total fleet, 788M gt. Group operator (Region/country; M gt, share in %)

UK; 39; 5%

Greece; 78; 10%

EU 27; 256; 32%

Unknown; 10; 1%RoW; 8; 1%

C&S America; 31; 4%Mid East; 33; 4%

N America; 71; 9%

China; 106; 14%

Japan; 106; 13%

Other Asia; 95; 12%

Other Europe; 72; 9%

Denmark; 38; 5%

Germany; 25; 3%

Italy; 16; 2%France; 15; 2%

Other 20; 44; 6%

2008-01-01

83% of EU

In gt the EU share is larger, at 32% or 256M gt of the total 788M gt as illustrated above. The largest country in the world is China ahead of runner up Japan. Greece find itself at the third spot by an impressive 10% of the total gt. UK is the second largest country in EU by 5% as have Denmark.

Other European shipping actors

Europe’s maritime sector is a world player as shown in the earlier chapters. Shipping and logistics, shipbuilding, and related services and fields, ranging from cargo handling and coastal

tourism to off-shore energy fields, fishing and aquaculture provide about 5 million jobs across Europe. Coastal tourism account for a fair share of these. Some 70% of shipping-related jobs are onshore – in shipbuilding, naval architecture, science, engineering, electronics, cargo handling and logistics. Commercial shipping and port operations account for a third of the economic value of the maritime cluster and are seen as important new growth areas for employment, notably in the field of logistics. Many ports have become major economic and employment hubs, driving local and regional development on the basis of maritime-related industries such as high-tech shipbuilding, ship-broking, cargo handling and port services, offshore energy, fisheries, and marine research. The economic importance of the maritime cluster in Europe is indicated by the European Metalworker’s Foundation who have stated that their sector’s 1.3 million employees together generate value added totalling €70 billion. A similar assessment presented by the European Sea Ports Organisation arrives at an employment figure of about 2.5 million people and an added value of about €111Bn.

Signals of future change

To make SWOT analysis and scenarios for the EU27 shipping industry 19 signals of future change were chosen. Some of the 19 drivers are more likely to happen simultaneously with other drivers, hence the clustering below.

TechnologyID 1: New materialsID 2: New sustainable

sources of energyID 3. ICT

Human resourcesID 4: Availability and

quality of crew

EnvironmentID 9: Global warmingID 10: Consumers’

perceptions of sustainability

RegulationsID11: Greenhouse gas

emissionsID12: Pollution , emissionsID 13: Transport mode

taxationID 14: Container shipping

conferences

GlobalisationID 5: Trade barriersID 6: The role of

multinationals, location of economic activity

Trust and securityID 7: TerrorismID 8: Regional conflicts

SafetyID 15: Safety

Demographics and poverty

ID 16: Ageing populations

ID 17: Migration of large populations

Economic power & growth

ID 18: Transition of economic power from US/EU to Asia

ID 19: Development in Russia

Another approach is to classify the drivers along two dimensions: The degree to which the outcomes of the drivers are uncertain and the degree of impact the driver is likely to have on shipping.

Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay Research xii

LOW

D

egre

eof im

pac

tH

IGH

LOW Degree of uncertainty HIGH

LOW

D

egre

eof im

pac

tH

IGH


4

6 10

12

16

18

19

15

14

8

9 3

5

11

2

13

1 17

7

SWOT analysis

• In general the SWOT analysis reveals that there will be over supply in many shipping segments; good news for shippers, bad news for ship operators.

• No port capacity problems for bulk handling.

• Port capacity constraints for container handling.

One of the main tasks of this project is to analyse if the EU ports and infrastructure can cope with the development that is expected up until 2018, and if not, suggest what the EU can do about it. Since the conditions differ widely on the infrastructural side both among regions and among the cargo types this summary focus on the large three commodity groups, liquid, dry and containerised cargo. The perspective is from an industry/society point of view and not a competition view from or in between the ports themselves. The analysis are for large regions and seen aggregated overall and thus the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats could differ much for individual member state ports. For liquid cargo there is a good balance between port facilities and demand outlook, but for LNG. The ship capacity will be plenty. When it comes to volumes the dependence of Russia is very high. Potential volumes find itself among renewable liquid fuels. Also for dry cargo the balance is good between port facilities and demand outlook in general and the ship capacity will be plenty. Here new volumes from the former Soviet Union are a potential and a threat would be that Russia would like to cater for their cargo in own ports. In a port/society view the container system will have enough ship capacity and networks will continue to develop favourably but the business is space demanding and several ports have

problems to find the needed space. For individual ports the restructuring of the networks means both a threat and an opportunity. New potential volumes are transhipment of Russian cargo. For the European ship operators many things differ in between the segments and that is highlighted in the main report but many things could be applicable in several sectors. The perspective is the one of an averaged sized EU member state company (ship owner or operator). On the positive side they have generally high competence in all operational aspects. On the negative side there will be an actual shortage of officers in the world in the future and this looks even worse in an European aspect since here the life at sea seems less attractive today compared with shore side alternatives. In general there are both opportunities and threats in the large fleet growth and the following restructure that will affect many of the market segments – highlighting the cyclical aspects of the market were timing in the purchase and sale price of the ship as an asset are crucial. Potential for most markets are to be find in Asia and Russia, with China being the largest driver. The European member states’ Maritime Administrations are active in international fora but they are not good enough in cooperating. Many of the national registers are not attractive enough – for various reasons. Increased cooperation and harmonisation could enhance the attractiveness of EU registers which is an opportunity. The threat is that the economic control of the world fleet shifts towards Asia and thus their register becomes clearly larger and more important.

Year 2018 scenarios

The scenarios in this chapter are to a large extent built on the extensive, continuous scenario work done by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA). The geo-political, macro-economic and energy market parts of their scenarios form the foundation for the shipping related parts of the scenarios produced for this report. The critical questions raised in the formulation of the scenarios are in; Asian Phoenix: How is the rise of Asia altering the global balance of power? What does it mean for geopolitics and the energy industry? What will happen to the competitiveness of European industries? What is the effect on containerized cargo?

Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay Research xiii

Break Point: How high can oil prices rise? What would it take to drive average annual oil prices above $120 per barrel? How would the world react? Where will Europe source its supply of energy? What will be the impact for the transports of energy products and further to the oil, gas and coal carrier segments? Global Fissures: How would a world faced with a sustained slowdown in global economic growth and integration affect energy demand and long-term investment in the energy industry? How will such a slow down in activity match the anticipated growth in the supply of tonnage? These three main scenarios are divided upon a perspective where the EU policy stays as is or if it is changed and the following six scenarios are established.

Asian Phoenix Global FissuresBreak Point

EU policy:

Present

Pro-active

Money maker

Money maker++

Bunker pricestruggle

Transition tosustainability

Seriously troubledwaters

Short sea shippingopportunities

The 19 signals of future change are tested against the six scenario storylines according to if they are important for the scenario outcome and in what direction they affect shipping. New materials; Over the scenario period, the impact of new materials is low in all but the transition to sustainability scenario where the development provides incitements for a rapid introduction of new, light, strong, anti-fouling materials. New sustainable energy; This is only an issue in the Break Point scenarios, where a large scale transition to renewable energy sources would have a dramatic influence on the demand for petroleum shipments. Biofuels also need to be shipped, but distances are foreseen to be much shorter. ICT; In Money-maker ++, a global standard is assumed to be introduced. In the Short sea shipping opportunities scenario, a European standard is expected to be launched. In most scenarios, the impact is seen as positive. The only negative aspect is the lack of standards. Availability and quality of crew; In the most negative market development scenarios (Bunker price struggle and the two Global fissures scenarios) the availability of crew will not be a

restraining factor due to the lack of employment for the ships. In contrast, crew availability becomes a troublesome issue in the more positive scenarios, particularly in Money-maker, where the absence of new policy measures are not supplementing/ matching the industry’s own efforts. Trade barriers; The removal of trade barriers has a positive impact on the demand for, primarily deep sea shipments. The opposite is valid for the Global fissures scenarios, where protectionist moves have a direct negative impact on the same activities. In the short sea shipping opportunities scenario, the negative impact on deep sea shipments is cushioned somewhat by a positive development of short sea shipments. The impacts affect different actors in many cases though. Role of multinationals, location of economic activity; This driver is strongly influenced by the type of scenario. In the positively oriented Asian Phoenix scenarios, the multinationals act as described in the positive paragraph above and in the Global fissures as in the negative. In the short sea shipping opportunities scenario, deep sea operators are not fairing well, while the outlook for short sea operators is fairly positive. This is due to the expected allocation of production resources closer to consumption areas. Terrorism; The introduction of balanced pro-active measures, coupled with enhancement of compliance with existing measures have the potential of reducing both the risk for and the harmful effects of terrorist attacks. Extreme measures could have a negative effect on efficiency. All measures will add to costs somewhere, but to various degrees. Regional conflicts; Regional conflicts have the potential to harm trade relations and thereby demand for transport of goods to and from the countries concerned. These threats form part of the Break point and Global fissures scenario storylines. In the Asian Phoenix scenarios, it is the absence of major conflicts that is the reason for the positive evaluation. Global warming; Shipping is recognized as both a contributor and a saviour. In the positive set of scenarios shipping comes out well, while the potential introduction of really strong measures would be the cause of serious problems for the majority of the industry – particularly deep sea shipments of energy (LNG possibly excluded) and medium to high speed shipments of containers and vehicles. The drama is a product of the Break point scenarios.

Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay Research xiv

Consumers’ perception of sustainability; Large scale changes in consumer preferences could lead to a significant impact on the type of goods transported and the distribution pattern of the same. In the Transition to sustainability scenario, policies taken are aimed at punishing non-preferred fuels. This would lead to a quicker, but more painful restructuring of shipping activities. Greenhouse gas emissions regulations; Regulations introduced could span from exempting all shipping activities from any type of punitive regulations, fees or taxes to levying the same heavy across-the-board. As for any other environmental issues, the impact would be within the Break point scenarios. Pollution & other emissions regulations; The emissions to air and water of harmful substances such as particular matters or sulphur are local to regional in their physical impact. In a wider perspective and seen over a longer period of time, the overall impact on shipping should be marginal. Transport mode taxation; The relative competitiveness of short sea shipping vis-à-vis land transport alternatives would increase significantly and thereby boost the shift of cargo. Once an established preferred modal choice, the continued development is secured. The Break point and Global fissures scenarios underpin the impact of measures taken. Freight conferences; The removal of antitrust immunity regulations would open up for competition in a wider sense than today. If this is pursued in a Global fissures scenario without supportive balanced measures (for instance non-discriminatory measures) then detrimental price competition will follow. On the other hand could the same development open up for significant short sea shipping opportunities if measures are introduced to support this. Safety and security; Measures introduced in a non-discriminatory and careful way will have limited cost driving effects. The impact is low in all scenarios. Ageing populations; Demographic changes affect the structure of consumer behaviour. This is of interest for the cruise shipping sector, to mention the one with most likely the highest direct impact. This is a driver of low uncertainty of happening and is thus fairly predictable. The overall all impact on shipping is low, with the exception of passenger shipping. The three basic scenarios range from very positive to very negative, but with no impact of pro-active measures.

There is however a connection with a higher impact and that is the ageing group of seafarers. The retirement/recruitment ratio is unfavourable and this is the cause of the imminent problems. Migration of large populations; The gloomier the scenario, the graver is the development of the migration problems. The impact on shipping is generally low. No impact of pro-active measures foreseen. Transition of economic power from US/EU to Asia; The transition of economic and political power as well as technology to the Far East secures the need for shipment of input, intermediate and finished goods across the globe. In the Global fissures scenario this transition is significantly reduced and the impact on shipping is marked. Russia; High growth in Russia and a European focus on all exports and imports is a positive development. Volatile economic and political development, and a changed focus towards Asia is a less favourable alternative.

Strategic recommendations

This chapter contains our strategic recommendations for the European Commission. It is clear that the current shipping policy with the adopted state aid guidelines has been working reasonable well so far. The challenges ahead are however plentiful as highlighted in previous chapters. Some of these challenges can be met by policy changes, removal of existing policies or the introduction of new ones. The areas to address with policies are diverse. External relations. Trade is a fundamental factor for the demand for transport. Some of the cornerstones of well-functioning trade are the free movement of goods and the stability of the business environment for the trade. Maintaining a dialogue is important in all situations, be that in trade negotiations or when faced with regional conflicts. It is recommended that the work in the WTO is continued and that strong efforts are made to strengthen the positions. Multi- and bilateral agreements are second best alternatives that should be pursued in parallel without undermining the work in the WTO. Removal of trade barriers benefit transport and should be encouraged. As for the representation of the EU27 it should be underlined that, seen from a European shipping perspective, it is favourable that EU27 speaks with one voice. Words should be possible to back with

Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay Research xv

demands and if necessary with sanctions in those cases where this is relevant. Short sea shipping. An expansion of short sea shipping activities is necessary to alleviate congestion and reduce the growth of emissions while still servicing growing transport volumes. Overall transport costs are bound to rise over time and we will have to be prepared to internalise external costs at some point in the future. The challenge is to ensure that it is done in a non-discriminatory way.

• Port and fairway fee structures need to be looked at to ensure that short sea shipping is not discouraged in any way.

• The importance of the success of the maritime space without barriers is underlined. The efforts made should continue with the highest possible ambition.

• Preserving the large number of smaller ports is essential when the short sea shipping network is to expand and land transport distances are to be minimized.

• The efficiency and costs for modal shifts ie. the sea to rail or road interface is key to the success of short sea shipping. This has been addressed in the programmes Pilot Actions for Combined Transport (PACT), the MarcoPolo and the Motorways of the Seas. All three programmes were/are fairly pragmatic in their approach. This should be supplemented with basic research and innovation on cargo modes, cargo handling and logistic solutions with the aim at finding solutions that cut lead times, transport and handling costs.

Port infrastructure investment fast-track. There is a mounting need for investments in ports in Europe, particularly for the handling of containers and liquefied natural gas (LNG). The latter involves the allocation and construction of regasification facilities. It is recommended that the procedures for environmental assessments and all related approvals that are in practice in the EU today are assessed and reviewed. The aim should be to establish procedures that cut the overall lead time significantly without giving in to any of the environmental demands. Transition to sustainability. The IMO has set the guidelines for reducing the emissions from shipping activities. The time frame is surprisingly short in the perspective of a ship owner’s ability to take any major actions with the exception to switch to better quality fuels. Theoretically, one good option for the ship owners is to fuel their vessels with natural gas (NG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG), which would reduce the emissions to levels far below the requirements. From an

emissions point of view that would position sea transports as the cleanest mode of transport. It is recommended that a research programme is set up that is focusing on energy use for ships, bunker fuels or other types of fuels, propulsion systems, coatings and supply chain efficiency. Availability and quality of crew. The supply of seafarers have been raised by several instances of the maritime cluster as of growing concern. This is a combination of attracting young people to the maritime sector, ensuring quality of education and retaining those already within the sector. The latter is not so much about keeping seafarers within the maritime cluster, quite the opposite. Few are leaving the cluster, but there is a demand from shore based, maritime related activities for experienced seafarers that competes with the option of staying at sea. Recruitment is first and foremost an operational responsibility for the employers ie the ship owners/operators/managers. It is up to them to ensure that the job offer as such is attractive enough. Factors at play here are of course salaries, working conditions on board, time at sea vs time at home, communication possibilities on board and much more. There is however more to the issue that needs to be addressed. We recommend that a policy package is launched containing;

• Commissioning of a study of the perception among young people in Europe of how a career at sea is. The results of the study should be guidance for the final formulation of a policy on recruitment supporting measures.

• Joint EC and industry PR campaign about the advantages of a career at sea.

• An inventory is made of the capacities, capabilities, content and qualities of the maritime education offered in EU27 today. If lack of capacity and/or insufficient quality then this should be addressed quickly.

• A support scheme for apprenticeship onboard. Taking onboard apprentices could be claimed to be the industry’s own responsibility, but there are a few issues that need to be addressed to take onboard an apprentice (cabin, food, safety training etc).

• Soft loans for students.

EU and the IMO. Decision in the IMO are generally taken by consensus, which largely contributes to the slow decision process. Real voting is a rare event, but the underlying voting power is still highly important for the ratification of regulations for shipping. By the enlargement to 27 member states, the EU influence in the IMO has increased. However, the

Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay Research xvi

ship operators in the member states have maintained their share of world fleet control, whilst the EU flagged fleet has decreased by a third over the past thirty years. The value of EU member states to speak with one voice in international forums such as the IMO is debated. The standpoint in this report is that it is powerful to represent a consensus view of the EU27. Doing so would enhance the chances of getting necessary and/or preferred decisions ratified in the IMO. We are talking about decisions on safety, security and environmental impact. The recommendation is twofold;

• Work for a consensus presentation in the IMO, preferably via a permanent EU representation. As second best alternative, or a step on the way, preparatory work for a consensus view to be presented by the member states with the effect of “one voice”.

• Work for the replacement of ratification based on flag by ratification based on the fleet defined by the country of residence of the company issued with a Documents of Compliance (DOC) for the ships as defined by the IMO.

Transport policy. Transportation of goods is a necessity for a well functioning economy. In the future it will be increasingly important that the transport sector contributes to a sustainable economic development by delivering cost and energy efficient solutions in an environmentally friendly way. This will in general imply more costly transportation, and then it will be more important that transportation is viewed in the perspective of a total, intermodal chain. In the future it will be a demand for the best supply chains from a total cost perspective. It is recommended that a major study is commissioned to estimate the total costs of the use of the various modes of transportation, including all the indirect costs related to infrastructure investments, wear and tear, congestion and bottleneck problems, energy use, emissions of harmful substances etc. On the basis of such a study it should be a political challenge to device a tax system for the transport sector that creates a level playing field. If such a system is established, the market mechanisms will find the optimal supply chains. The Greening Transport Package is a positive initiative in this context. State aid. There are various forms of support to maritime activities currently in place under the state aid guidelines. These have been developed over time and the practice of, for instance, tonnage tax is generally considered successful.

Some argue that it is very important that member states preserve their right not to introduce some of the measures. Seen in broader perspective and over a longer period of time, questions could be raised over the rationale of special treatment for certain industries, such as shipping. Seen in a 2018 perspective, there is no need to revisit any of these support schemes or special treatments. Most of them could be said to have functioned well. Competition in ports. The opening up for competition in the provision of port services has been proposed and rejected over the years. This apparently is a difficult issue that nevertheless needs to be resolved in one way or the other. The recommendation is that the work with a port package is restarted, possibly with a revised approach. Safety. There is always more that can be done and measures already taken need to followed through and updated. The functions of Port State Control and that of EMSA are important for the control and management of compliance. This concerns the quality of ships, but could well be considered to be extended to cover also the crews competence, not just their certificates. The recommendation is that focus of attention is given to studies of safety culture and how compliance is perceived and met in the different cultures. The ambition is to have a uniform interpretation of the conditions for compliance. The result from this study should lead to a revision of the safety measures if deemed necessary. ICT standards. In order to promote the development and utilisation of safe digital navigation, improved communication between ship and shore-based administrations, the EU27 (member states or via the EC) should actively work for the establishment of global standards. A sub-objective is to work for the establishment of a European standard. Security. There is always more that can be done and measures already taken need to followed through and updated. Regulations already in place should be perused and compliance controlled. As with safety, it is recommended that studies are undertaken on how compliance is perceived and met throughout the Union. This is a burning issue given the fairly recent expansion of the number of member states. Göteborg September 2008 Christopher Pålsson & Niklas Bengtsson Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay Research

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

1

1 Global trade and seaborne transport

SUMMARY • Container growth outpaces other cargoes

• Cargo volumes still higher in the bulk sectors

• High volume of intra-European bulk cargo trade

• Containerisation of general cargo will continue

The figure below illustrates the analytical approach used by Lloyd's Register - Fairplay Research in this report. The approach has been influenced by the works of Dr Samuel A. Lawrence, Professor Michael E. Porter, Dr Ignacy Chrzanowski, Professor Tor Wergeland, Dr Per Frankelius and Dr Martin Stopford as well as the SAI business concept.

Legal frameworkPolitics, Policies, Form of government

Production factorsLabour, Capital, Material

TechnologyTechnical solutions, Innovations

EcologyGlobal, Regional, Local

Social factorsReligion, Ethnology, Ethics

StructureActors, Ownership, Management

StrategiesLow cost, Differentiation, Cyclic adaptation

Products & servicesMarket segments, Production factors

Capacity utilisationDemand & Supply

Economic growthGlobal, Regional, Local

TradeGlobal, Regional,

Local

Businessenvironment

Demand for transport

Market

Figure 1: The Lloyd's Register-Fairplay Research approach

Changes in demand for seaborne transport capacity are a function of economic growth and international trade, which in turn result from changes in the business environment. The effects of changing demand for seaborne transport capacity depend on how the markets are organised; the market structure, strategies used to meet demand and products and services developed to meet demand, as well as the different components of utilisation.

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the business environment for the European shipping industry. It also analyses in greater detail the trade and transport development to, from and within Europe of the major seaborne cargoes and passengers.

Global trade and seaborne

transportG

lobal trade and seabornetransport

2

The business environment includes an extensive list of factors with varying impact on trade and the demand for transport. The most relevant factors are briefly mentioned in the following.

• International, regional, bilateral and national rules and regulations which set the framework for business.

• Policy making within for instance the International Maritime Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the European Union or in individual countries could in a relatively short period of time change the business conditions. Fairly recent examples are the accelerated phase out of single hull tankers, the elimination of tax-free sales and the Container Security Initiative.

• The political development affects stability, business conditions, willingness to take financial risks, long-term goals, interest and exchange rates. The importance could be illustrated by the situation in countries/regions such as Russia, the Middle East, the Far East (relation between China, Taiwan, North Korea, South Korea).

• Traditional business cycle analysis, which largely is based on the analyses of production, consumption and prices of labour, capital and commodities.

• Technical achievements, which often lead to stepwise development and could for instance lead to transport technical innovations, solutions to environmental issues, port handling improvements and could even open up for new trade.

• Environmental issues grow in importance and affect the business conditions for the transport industry in several ways. This could be directly via the energy consumption and the following emissions to air and water. Anti-fouling and ballast water treatment are other examples of direct effects. Indirect effects could be that the conditions for trade are changed.

• Social issues could affect stability in the same way as political issues and thereby have an impact on production and trade. Besides affecting stability, social issues also have influence on people’s consumption and travel behaviour which also have an impact on production and trade.

The development of the business environment as described above sets the conditions for the economic growth and trade on all levels; nationally, regionally, internationally and globally. For most countries, the components of economic growth are dependent on the development in other countries. The degree of political openness in individual economies as well as the extent of that country’s involvement in international trade decides to what extent development in the surrounding world spreads to the economy. Few economies in the world today are completely independent from the international development. International trade often forms an important element of an economy. Trade development could boost economic growth, but inversely could strong growth in the domestic economy lead to increased international trade. Both domestic and international trade form the demand for transport capacity. The goods category and trade relation decide which transport modes that form the transport alternatives. The structure of each of the shipping transport sub-markets influences the way the market responds to changes in the business environment and in the demand for transport. Is the supply or the demand side for that particular market concentrated to few and dominating actors or are there a plethora of

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

3

actors. Is there a large degree of interaction between the actors for instance via horizontal or vertical integration. The strategies employed by the actors on the market also affect the reaction to changes. Do the actors mainly compete with prices and are those with the lowest cost position in the premium position or is it more a question of product or service differentiation. The ability to timely adapt the transport capacity to changes in business cycles is another road to go. A blend of the three alternatives is common, particularly if the actors are involved in more sub-markets than one.

Export cargo Import cargo

Liquid bulk• Crude oil• Oil products• Chemicals• LNG• LPG• etc

Dry bulk• Iron ore• Coal• Grain• Minerals• Metals• Forest prod’s• Cement• etc

General• Containers• Break bulk• Trailers• Trucks• Cars• etc

Domestictransportmodes

Road vehicle

Train

Pipeline

River/lake vsl

Air carrier

Sea vessel

Domestictransportmodes

Road vehicle

Air carrier

Internationaltransportmodes

Liquid bulk carrier• Oil tanker• Chem tanker• LNG tanker• LPG tanker• Special tanker

Dry bulk carrier• Ore strengthened• Standard bulk carrier• General cargo carrier

General cargo carrier• Container ship• General cargo ship• Vehicle roro ship• Roro ship• RoPax ship

Pipeline

Air carrier

Road vehicle• On road only• Via bridges/tunnels• Via roro ship• Via ropax ship

Train• On rail only• Via bridges/tunnels• Via roro ship• Via ropax ship

Liquid bulk• Crude oil• Oil products• Chemicals• LNG• LPG• etc

Dry bulk• Iron ore• Coal• Grain• Minerals• Metals• Forest prod’s• Cement• etc

General• Containers• Break bulk• Trailers• Trucks• Cars• etc

Train

Pipeline

River/lake vsl

Sea vessel

Figure 2: Illustration of trade and transport modes

In order to meet with the demand for transport capacity, various products and services have been developed over time – ranging from standardised to highly specialised. This is an ever on-going evolutionary process. The relation between supply and demand (capacity utilisation) sets the conditions for the formation of prices in the short term and the capacity cost level in the longer term. Both the short and long term effects of the capacity utilisation affect the strategic behaviour of the actors on the markets especially the dis-/investment decisions. Seen over a longer term and on a global scale, there is a relation between growth in GDP, international trade, seaborne transports and shipping fleet growth.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

4

1.1 Main drivers for global trade

Figure 3 displays the development of the transoceanic trade. The bulk volumes dominate clearly accounting for some ¾ of the tonnes of goods carried in deep sea trade. Early estimates amount to about Bn6.9 tonnes carried in deep sea trades 2006, whereof Bn2.6 tonnes of liquid bulks, a little less major dry bulks and about Bn1.7 tonnes of general cargo. Trade grows steadily over time, which the illustration highlights. It should be noted that trade normally grows even in periods of business contraction, however at a lower pace. It takes major recessions to produce negative growth in trade.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Mill

ion

tonn

es

Forecast

Liquid bulk

Dry bulk

General cargo

Figure 3: Total world seaborne deep sea trade, million tonnes

Over the 1985-2004 period, average annual growth in seaborne trade was 3.4% based on tonnes carried. Figure 4 illustrates the indexed development over that period for liquid bulk, dry bulk and general cargo. As the figure illustrates, general cargo has on average grown at a rate twice as high as those for liquid and dry bulks. General cargo includes minor bulk cargoes, vehicles, palletised and containerised cargo to mention the major categories. The container as a transporting unit has opened up new markets for many companies all around the globe. The attraction of sending batches of containers to almost any remote place on Earth at a decent cost rather than having to charter an entire ship, which obviously craves a lot larger volumes, goes a long way in explaining the success of the containerised system.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

5

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Inde

x 19

85=1

00, b

ased

on

tonn

es

Forecast

Liquid bulkDry bulk

General cargo

Figure 4: Total world seaborne deep sea trade, million tonnes, index: 1985=100

In the following graph, containerised trade has been extracted from the general cargo curve. The effect is striking; over the entire period containerised trade has grown at an average annual rate of ten per cent. Meanwhile has the general cargo category excluding containers hardly grown at all and over the last three years it has decreased significantly. These diverging developments are of course interlinked. The container has taken over a substantial part of shipments from the general cargo vessel segment and general cargo ships are today rarely employed in deep sea operations. It should however be emphasized that general cargo vessels fulfil a very important feedering function, particularly in the Far East, but also in the Baltic.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Inde

x 19

85=1

00, b

ased

on

tonn

es

Forecast

Liquid bulkDry bulk

General cargoexcl containers

Containerised cargo

Figure 5: Total world seaborne deep sea trade, index: 1985=100, container separated

The large differences in economic performance and growth between the countries of Europe can be attributed to differences in economic structure, degrees of liberalisation and economic policies. These differences are likely to encourage labour mobility between member states of the EU. Economic

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

6

differences can also be viewed as a significant asset, if the various parties are able to gain mutual benefits from cooperation and thus enhance development. Table 1 lists the vast differences in gross domestic product (GDP) per capita between the European countries spreading from US$ 2,892 in for Albania in 2006 to US$89,923 for Luxembourg the same year according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF predicts double digit annual growth rates up to the year 2013 for many of the countries with low GDP per capita. The predictions are in current prices, but this should nevertheless mean improved purchasing power for most of them. Growing economic activity almost always lead to increased trade, which in turn further strengthens economic activity – a positive development indeed. Table 1: GDP based on purchasing power parity per capita, current prices, US$

Country 2006 2013Average annual

growth 2006:2013Luxembourg 89,923 150,554 8.2%Ireland 51,800 88,806 7.9%Norway 50,203 65,526 4.0%Netherlands 41,046 64,983 6.7%Finland 39,828 65,147 7.3%Austria 39,190 63,696 7.1%Belgium 37,614 57,306 6.1%France 36,706 57,230 6.4%Denmark 35,896 43,897 3.4%Germany 35,433 54,284 6.1%Sweden 34,865 46,132 4.4%United Kingdom 33,351 43,452 4.1%Italy 31,802 47,070 5.6%Spain 27,951 45,926 7.4%Greece 24,157 45,592 9.4%Cyprus 23,779 41,977 8.2%Slovenia 19,021 38,175 10.3%Portugal 18,418 29,843 6.9%Malta 15,716 26,853 7.9%Czech Republic 13,933 29,509 11.8%Estonia 12,353 29,542 14.2%Hungary 11,206 21,426 8.9%Slovak Republic 10,357 26,145 14.8%Croatia 9,666 20,727 11.5%Poland 8,959 16,824 9.9%Lithuania 8,768 23,736 15.6%Latvia 8,760 24,006 17.3%Turkey 7,760 12,911 8.0%Russia 6,923 25,091 21.6%Romania 5,668 17,135 18.2%Serbia 4,271 10,251 14.5%Bulgaria 4,120 12,149 16.9%Bosnia and Herzegovina 3,105 6,254 10.9%Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of 3,102 6,814 11.5%Albania 2,892 5,944 10.8%Source:International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2008 On the whole, the economies of the more recent members of the EU (that enlarged the union from EU15 to EU27) are smaller than those of the EU15. Poland forms the exception and Luxembourg, that is part of the EU15, is smaller than several of the new member states.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

7

However, all new member states are growing fast and several of them faster than the EU15 countries. It is important to be aware of the differences in magnitude. Figure 6 illustrates the relation between real GDP growth in percent and the corresponding growth in US$ for the year 2006. The exceptional growth percentages for Latvia and Estonia that year are striking, but given the relatively small size of those economies that growth is small in absolute terms (US$). The growth is still important to those countries, but for the European continent as a whole it is of minor importance. Most of the EU15 countries are growing at much lower paces, but since the economies are larger that growth turns into significant absolute figures. As a comparison three countries of high significance to the EU have been plotted in the graph; the USA, Russia and China. The USA and China are large trading partners to the EU. So is Russia, but with a more limited product mix.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0

Real GDP percent growth 2006

GD

P gro

wth

in c

urr

ent

US$ B

illio

n

EU15EU27 excl EU15USARussiaChina

Source: IMF

ItalySpain

U.K.

France Germany

LatviaEstonia

Poland

Figure 6: Relation GDP growth in percent and US$ 2006 over 2005

The IMF predicts lower, but still high growth up to 2013 for both Russia and China. As for the USA a severe drop in growth is forecasted for 2008 and 2009 before activity picks up again to peak above the three percent level in 2011.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

8

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Rea

l G

DP a

nnual

per

cent

chan

ge

ChinaRussiaUnited States

Source: IMF

IMF forecast

Figure 7: Real GDP development in influential non-EU countries

In the post 9/11 years the major EU15 economies recovered well. Growth rates seemingly have turned downwards and this and next year are now believed to be years of slow growth by the IMF. If so, both the EU and the US will face a period of low economic growth. The impact of such a coincided development on trade and the demand for seaborne transport usually is quite heavy.

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Rea

l G

DP a

nnual

per

cent

chan

ge

SpainUnited KingdomGermanyFranceItaly

Source: IMF

IMF forecast

Figure 8: Real GDP development in major EU15 countries

The fast economic growth figures seen in many of the new member states leading up to EU27 is predicted by the IMF to slow down but to be parked at around the five percent level. The economic downturn in the EU15 and the USA will have an impact on these countries as well and in 2008/2009 growth will be lower.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

9

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Rea

l G

DP a

nnual

per

cent

chan

ge

LatviaEstoniaLithuaniaRomaniaPolandSlovak Republic

Source: IMF

IMF forecast

Figure 9: Real GDP development is some high growth EU27 countries

The development of intra-EU trade lays the foundation for an economic region, but commodity trade alone cannot unify a market. Rather, the intensification of integration is reflected in the increased mobility of factors of production. Foreign direct investments (FDI) significantly promote the formation of new networks and lead to a long-term convergence and integration of the national economies. FDI can be described as an indicator of more formalised international integration of economic systems. The importance of FDI for the economies in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland for example is evident considering their investment needs. The supply of domestic capital for investments has been limited as have domestic savings. Fresh capital flows into the region due to the privatisation of former state owned enterprises have been important but have waned as the privatisation processes have slowed down. Estonia has been a successful recipient of foreign direct investments, when looking at per capita data. In absolute figures, Poland has been more attractive to foreign investors than Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, because of its size and natural resources. In Poland, much of the FDI have occurred in the manufacturing industry, such as transport equipment. In the Mediterranean region the inflow of FDI has grown significantly this decade. Figures produced by ANIMA Investment Network and UNCTAD and analysed by the Economist reveal that some US$Bn 51 were invested in the region in 2007. The source of this money is largely from Europe, but the North American share has shrunk over the years while the oil-rich Gulf states’ share has grown. Ports are one of the target areas. The Tanger Med project in northern Morocco is one example.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

10

1.2 Liquid bulk seaborne trade

• Baseline growth forecast looks at an average annual growth rate of 2% per annum.

• Russia and North Sea remain the main source of oil supply to Europe up to 2018.

• Average annual oil prices parked at historically high levels. • Inwards volumes will continue to dominate port handling. Saudi Arabia continues to remain the worlds largest exporter of liquid bulk tonnes, in 2007 Saudi Arabia exported over 722 million (metric) tonnes of liquid bulk goods (the majority of which was crude petroleum). Western Africa is projected to increase its liquid bulk exports to the world from over 227 million in 2007 to well over 278 million tonnes in 2008. The top 10 exporters of liquid bulk commodities are given in the graph below. Table 2: World ten largest liquid bulk export countries

Export Country, Million tonnes 2008 2012 2016 2018Saudi Arabia 734 769 788 794Other Arabian Gulf 489 526 545 555Other Region 396 441 467 475Venezuela 275 298 315 323Western Africa 223 250 270 279Other Northern Africa 194 214 227 232Russia 133 160 184 197United Arab Emirates 131 139 149 152United States 80 89 96 98Mexico 102 100 96 95 On the import side the United States and Japan are the top two importers of liquid bulk commodities. For both countries crude petroleum and natural gas are among the top three liquid bulk goods that these countries imports, with crude petroleum being the largest liquid bulk import (in tonnage terms). Table 3: World ten largest liquid bulk import countries

Import Country, Million tonnes 2008 2012 2016 2018United States 594 621 636 643Japan 312 320 324 325Other Region 315 351 382 397Taiwan 292 304 311 313India 236 284 314 324China 251 335 399 433South Korea 189 204 215 219Germany 179 187 191 193Other Europe 104 109 113 114Canada 86 88 90 91 Crude petroleum continues to dominate the world liquid bulk trade market. Over 2.3 billion metric tonnes of crude oil were traded worldwide in 2007. However, as crude oil prices continue to rise, natural gas and 'other liquid bulk' products are also forecast to increase over the next 10 years.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

11

0500

10001500200025003000350040004500

Met

ric T

ons

(Mill

ions

)

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Other Liquid BulkOil ProductsNatural GasCrude PetroleumChemicals

Figure 10: World total liquid bulk trade by commodity

Crude Petroleum

After a further downward revision, U.S. GDP growth is forecast at 1.5% for 2008, Global Insight is cutting its 2008 demand growth forecast by 0.2 million barrels per day (b/d). Our overall 2008 demand growth forecast, reflecting International Energy Agency (IEA) upward adjustments to 2007 demand, is now reduced to 1.0 million b/d from 1.3 million b/d. We are projecting lower demand growth in countries within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), primarily in North America, but also in Asia-Pacific and Europe. The deteriorating economic outlook poses still greater downside risks to demand, although strong growth in non-OECD countries, particularly China and the Middle East, does balance some of these risks. OPEC production was largely unchanged in January when compared against December 2007. Reductions in Nigerian and Iraqi oil production were largely offset by increases in output from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Angola. Having seen production steadily increase through the latter half of 2007, Iraqi oil production was reduced through January because of pipeline problems in the north as well as more security issues. Nevertheless, Iraqi production still averaged in excess of 2.2 million b/d according to initial estimates, and our estimate for production in 2008 remains at 2.1 million b/d, although this is subject to downside risks. Gasoline spreads in Europe and the United States continued to weaken. Prices were volatile as products followed crude, but gasoline fell more sharply and rose more slowly, with crack spreads in Europe briefly moving into negative territory. Weakness in the Atlantic market meant exports to the United States. were low, and gasoline in storage at Rotterdam increased significantly. Distillate spreads held up better on both sides of the Atlantic, but products’ refining margins overall remained slim as product demand in OECD countries was sluggish. Crude Oil Prices The oil price forecast has been increased because rapid price rises at the beginning of 2008, largely resulting from non-fundamental factors, have produced a higher-than-expected price path. Prices are, however, expected to weaken in the second half of the year because demand will likely weaken further as new supplies come on-stream. Financial market factors have

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

12

become key price drivers while the prospect of an improving balance has been largely neglected by oil markets. The volatility in the market makes it difficult to predict the timing of price moves, but fundamentals will ultimately have a say in bringing prices down before the end of the year, and most likely before the end of the third quarter. Risks to the forecast exist on both the upside and the downside. A further assault by speculative investors in futures markets cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, despite the resilience of crude prices over the past 14 months, there are now more downside risks to the forecast than there have been for some months. Fundamentals continue to point to an improving balance, with weak refining margins in Europe, North America, and Asia the first sign of faltering demand. Although Asian growth remains strong, government moves to reduce subsidies may slow the pace of growth, and a deeper U.S. economic downturn than currently expected will ultimately slow Chinese and Indian growth rates later in the year. There is also a greater risk of a very sharp price fall later in the year the longer prices remain at higher levels (if not supported by actual supply/demand trends). High prices in February make it difficult for OPEC to cut in March, and this will simply add to the projected second-quarter stock build. In the medium and long terms, demand growth will be slower than the historical rate owing to further fuel substitution, high prices, and rising efficiency standards. Growth will be concentrated in Asia and in the transport sector. Non-OPEC conventional crude and natural gas liquid (NGL) output is expected to reach a plateau within the next decade before beginning a slow decline. Nevertheless, increasing contributions from biofuels, Canadian Heavy, and later in the period, shale oil, will soften the impact of an increasing reliance on OPEC. OPEC members are expected to add substantially to capacity, driven by individual national interests, and the spare capacity margins will rebuild. Prices are thus expected to be around flat in nominal terms but to decline in real terms. New refinery capacity is expected to ease tightness in product markets over the next few years, and price spreads to crude oil will narrow.

Oil Price Forecasts (U.S. dollars per tonne)

0100200300400500600700800900

1000

06Q

1

06Q

3

07Q

1

07Q

3

08Q

1

08Q

3

09Q

1

09Q

3

10Q

1

10Q

3

Naphtha Diesel Gasoil LSFO HSFO

Figure 11: Oil price forecasts; 2007 US$ per tonne

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

13

Natural Gas Market

Gas markets are facing tougher market conditions as prices increase, competition from other fuels mounts, and the policy environment is less benign. Global Insight expects the first two items to shift back in favor of gas in the medium to long term, but the latter remains a potential fly in the ointment. Energy security of supply remains at the top of the European policy agenda. If anything, it has become more pronounced. Within Europe, national champions are being promoted, the producer consumer dialogue has broken down, and nationalization upstream is increasing. All sides have a vested interest in greater integration, but flexibility is the new watchword. Global Insight's forecast assumes that the policy debate will change in favor of gas, but this is now a major risk to the forecast. Gas-to-gas pricing could emerge in the medium to long term through the increased use of spot markets to price flexibility/short-term supply. If these markets become sufficiently liquid, and as imports originate from further away with less swing in the contract, so pricing may shift to indices linked to these hubs. Longer term, this could be a driver reducing gas prices toward the long-run marginal cost (LRMC) of supply. European gas demand is expected to continue growing at around 10 billion cubic metres (bcm) per year between 2006 and 2030, from around 574 bcm in 2006 to over 820 bcm by 2030 (figures based on total primary gas demand). Nevertheless, the forecast growth for gas in this year's report is lower than for last year's; the previous Global Insight forecast anticipated volumes growth closer to 15 bcm per year over the forecast period, up to 920 bcm. The power sector, nevertheless, remains the primary source of incremental gas demand growth (around 64% of the 250 bcm additional annual demand between 2006 and 2030). Turkey, Italy, and Iberia together account for one-half of the increase, and with the Balkans, the European Mediterranean region accounts for 63% of the increment. Germany also shows strong growth, with an additional 30 bcm by 2030 (12% of the European total), while the United Kingdom is expected to grow by less than 4 bcm. A major risk is that high gas prices relative to coal will further limit the realization of the gas-to-power potential. This risk may be more important where gas is expected to replace existing coal units. Refurbishment of these coal units may be economically more attractive, thus removing a sizable slice of the potential gas market (approximately 70 bcm by 2030), especially in the Central and Western European markets. Other risks to the forecast include a lack of market access and a shift away from more competitive markets. Market concentration remains a problem, with European markets dominated by a few large players owned by a select group of shareholders. The German market is critical to the success of liberalizing the European gas markets. An independent regulator has been introduced, while a new transport pricing model and the removal of long-term distribution contracts hold out the possibility for greater change to come. Europe is becoming increasingly dependent upon gas imports, with self-sufficiency declining from 55% in 2006 to around 29% by 2030. Norwegian, Algerian, and Russian gas will become much more important, accounting for 64% of total European supplies by 2030 compared with 49% today. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) has an important role to play. Imports are expected to rise from 60 bcm (2006) to an estimated 100 bcm just after 2010 and to 140 bcm by 2020, where it remains. As a share of total imports, LNG will rise from around 20% in 2006 to 25% in 2020, but because total import

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

14

dependency will grow rapidly, the LNG share of all new supplies required over the period is around 30%. LNG imports will predominantly come from Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, and Qatar. The increased role of LNG in Europe and the United States raises the prospect of some resource competition, with initial effects already apparent. Arbitrage in a growing Atlantic Basin market will play a role, at least on a seasonal basis, and a number of major oil and gas companies are positioning themselves to benefit. Some European regions (the British Isles, Iberia, and Italy) are facing a tight supply position. Any delays to new capacity will make meeting demand difficult. Nevertheless, in the medium term, the potential for excess supply capacity could emerge. Furthermore, if volumes accompany the infrastructure, they will pressure long-term oil-indexed prices. Planned major infrastructural developments will continue to ensure the key position of gas in the European energy portfolio. In addition to major new LNG import facilities, particularly in Italy and the United Kingdom, a number of new pipelines of strategic significance are under construction or are in the planning stage. Europe Supply and Trade To meet inland demand, Europe is going to become heavily dependent on gas imports, which are expected to rise, after exports are netted off, from 259 bcm in 2006 to 587 bcm by 2030. Nevertheless, lower gas demand in this forecast means that projected imports into Europe will be around 78 bcm (12%) below last year's expectation. Total indigenous European gas production is expected to remain around the current level of 330 bcm until 2009, before declining to 240 bcm by 2030. Currently, imports into Europe represent 45% of supply and will exceed 50% by 2010, thereafter rising to account for more than 70% by 2030. Algeria and Russia are the main external supply sources to Europe, and will remain so; Algerian and Russian supplies virtually double from a combined 207 bcm (36% of the total) in 2006 to 407 bcm (49%) by 2030. In total, non- Russian and non-Algerian imports are expected to grow from more than 50 bcm today to around 180 bcm by 2030. Countries such as Spain and Portugal have managed to diversify supply sources by building LNG storage, but reliance on Algeria will continue after the inauguration of the Medgaz pipeline in 2009. A number of new supplier nations are emerging to become important LNG sources. These include Egypt, Qatar, and Nigeria, as well as Algeria itself. Additional LNG volumes are also expected to be initiated from Libya, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Trinidad. LNG imports are expected to rise from 60 bcm (11% of supplies) to an estimated 140 bcm in 2020. In 1990, LNG accounted for only 13 bcm (4% of supplies). As a share of total imports, LNG will rise from around 20% in 2006 to 25% in 2020, but because total import dependency will grow rapidly, the LNG share of all new supplies required over the period is over 30%. LNG imports will predominantly come from Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, and Qatar. The likelihood of a significant Atlantic Basin LNG market developing will increase because the United States is also looking to LNG to meet its growing import needs. This may link prices as spot trades from existing supplies unconstrained by contract destination clauses can be expected to provide short-term competition, but new LNG supplies will still require long-term contracts to underwrite investments.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

15

New facilities (liquefaction trains and tankers) will be sized and oriented toward one or more markets. In our view, North African suppliers will favor the European markets when it comes to long-term contracts, while Latin America and West Africa will prefer the U.S. market, as will the Barents Sea LNG. A number of European regions are facing a tight supply position in the next couple of years (the British Isles, Iberia, and Southern Europe). Import capacities are approaching full capacity, providing little flexibility to meet winter peak demand.

Figure 12: Russian gas supplies to Europe by regional destination

Figure 13: Norwegian gas supplies to Europe by regional destination

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

16

Figure 14: Total European gas supplies

Figure 15: LNG imports into Europe by source

Europe Outbound Trade Table 4: Europe outbound trade by region

Origin Region, 1,000 tonnes Destination Region 2008 20012 2016 2018Europe China 2,429 3,490 4,520 4,975Europe Eastern Europe 10 12 14 15Europe Japan 1,021 1,089 1,124 1,134Europe North America 90,274 89,274 88,706 87,980Europe Oceania 207 229 249 259Europe Other Europe 501 525 521 511Europe SE Asia 2,781 2,937 3,014 3,030Europe South America 6,825 7,271 7,493 7,537Europe West Africa 3,803 4,477 5,066 5,339 North America continues to be the leading recipient of European liquid bulk exports in 2008, followed by South America and West Africa. However, by 2018, North America's share is projected to decrease, and China will be closing in on West Africa in third place. China's share will increase from 2% to 5% over the next 10 years.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

17

2008 Liquid Bulk Exports

North America84%

West Africa4% China

2%Japan

1%

Oceania0%

South America6%

SE Asia3%

2018 Liquid Bulk Exports

North America79%

Oceania0%

SE Asia3%

South America7%

West Africa5%

China5%

Japan1%

Figure 16: % of Liquid bulk exports 2008 and 2018

More than 80 percent of liquid bulk exports from Europe in 2008 are to the North America. Approximately 56 percent of these exports are to the United States and 44 percent to Canada. By 2018 North America's share of European liquid bulk exports is projected to decrease to 79 percent. China will pick up some of this lost market share. Table 5: Europe outbound trade by commodity

Origin Region, 1,000 tonnes Commodity 2008 2012 2016 2018Europe Chemicals 7,516 8,917 10,258 10,885Europe Crude Petroleum 50,196 49,419 49,165 48,623Europe Natural Gas 2,584 2,801 3,136 3,285Europe Oil Products 46,707 47,246 47,147 46,949Europe Other Liquid Bulk 849 922 1,000 1,036 Crude petroleum continues to be the largest European export, followed by oil products and chemicals. Crude petroleum exports are expected to decline through 2018, while the share of oil products will remain steady. The top destination for all three products is North America.

2008 Liquid Bulk Exports by Commodity

Chemicals7%

Natural Gas2%

Oil Products43%

Other Liquid Bulk1%

Crude Petroleum47%

2018 Liquid Bulk Exports by Commodity

Chemicals10%

Natural Gas3%

Oil Products42%

Other Liquid Bulk1%

Crude Petroleum44%

Figure 17: % of liquid bulk exports 2008 and 2018 by commodity

Crude petroleum exports are projected to decrease from 47 percent in 2008 to 44 percent in 2018. In contrast to this the share of chemical exports is expected to increase from 7 percent in 2008 to 10 percent in 2018.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

18

Europe Inbound Trade Table 6: Europe inbound trade by region

Origin Region, 1,000 tonnes Destination Region 2008 2012 2016 2018

China Europe 1,183 1,339 1,513 1,602Eastern Europe Europe 9,485 11,307 13,386 14,335Japan Europe 133 132 134 136North America Europe 31,166 30,978 30,711 30,640Oceania Europe 159 169 180 186Other Europe Europe 92 97 99 100SE Asia Europe 5,689 6,367 7,127 7,545South America Europe 20,089 21,609 22,883 23,548West Africa Europe 45,758 46,755 47,655 47,914 The top three origin regions for liquid bulk imports to Europe are West Africa, North America, and South America. North America's volume of liquid bulk exports to Europe is projected to decrease slightly throughout the forecast period.

2008 Liquid Bulk Imports

China1%

North America30%

SE Asia5%

West Africa45%

Oceania0%

South America19%

Japan0%

2018 Liquid Bulk Imports

China1%

North America27%

South America21%

West Africa44%

Oceania0%

SE Asia7%

Japan0%

Figure 18: % liquid bulk imports 2008 and 2018

In 2008 West Africa is projected to have a 45 percent share of liquid bulk imports to Europe. Followed by North America with a share of 30 percent and South America with a share of 19 percent. Both North America and West Africa are projected to lose some of their market share of liquid bulk by 2018. West Africa will see a very modest decrease from 45 percent in 2008 to 44 percent in 2018. North America will see a more noticeable decrease in its share from 30 percent in 2008 to 27 percent in 2018. Table 7: Europe inbound trade by commodity

Destination region Commodity, M tonnes 2008 2012 2016 2018Europe Chemicals 7 8 10 10Europe Crude Petroleum 75 76 76 76Europe Natural Gas 8 9 10 10Europe Oil Products 18 19 20 21Europe Other Liquid Bulk 6 7 8 9 Crude petroleum is the primary liquid bulk import to Europe. By 2018 Europe is projected to import over 76 million tonnes of crude petroleum, the majority of these imports originate in West Africa.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

19

2008 Liquid Bulk Imports by Commodity

Chemicals6%

Natural Gas7%

Oil Products16%

Other Liquid Bulk5%

Crude Petroleum66%

2018 Liquid Bulk Imports by Commodity

Chemicals8%

Natural Gas8%

Oil Products16%

Other Liquid Bulk7%

Crude Petroleum61%

Figure 19: % Liquid bulk imports by commodity 2008 and 2018

With increasing crude oil prices and supply side restrictions the share of crude petroleum in Europe's liquid bulk imports is projected to decrease from 66 percent in 2008 to 61 percent in 2018. Chemicals, other liquid bulk commodities and natural gas are projected to increase incrementally by 2018, as the search for alternative energy sources intensifies. Figure 20 illustrates the actual and forecasted liquid bulk throughputs in the EU27 ports for 2006 and 2018. The inwards volume dominance is apparent and not surprising. The largest volumes are handled by ports in the North Sea region (including UK/Eire) and in the Western Mediterranean. Volume growth in the North Sea region is forecasted to amount to 80M tonnes and in the Western Mediterranean to 66M tonnes.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

Nort

hSea

Atlantic

Baltic

Sea

Wes

tM

edEas

tM

edBla

ckSea

Ove

r-se

asRiv

ers

Inw Outw

Million tonnes. Source Eurostat. Forecast by LRFR

Figure 20: EU port liquid bulk throughputs by direction, million tonnes

Liquid bulk intra-European trade

In 2006, total intra-European seaborne trade (excluding inland navigation) of liquid bulk cargoes amounted to close to 1B tonnes. This has been derived from trade data produced by Global Insight. Crude oil and refined oil products accounted for the absolute majority of volumes. Gas includes liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquid petroleum gas (LPG). Substantial parts of the gas trade are transported in pipelines from the offshore gas fields and further within Europe.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

20

Table 8: Intra-European seaborne liquid bulk trade 2006, million tonnes

TotalIntra-Europe 978Chemicals 145Crude Petroleum 308Gas 89Oil Products 361Other Liquid Bulk 75

Source: derived from Global Insight trade data

1.3 Dry bulk seaborne trade

• Far East continues to be main driver for global dry bulk trade. • Ores and coal the largest bulk commodities. • Americas are the largest sources for European imports. • NW Europe largest import region. • Growth forecasted to around 2% p.a. on average up to 2018. Overall dry bulk commodities include the following; coal, iron ore & steel, grains & cereals, sugar, oil seeds & soy beans, animal feed, bauxite, zinc, alumina, nickel, aggregates, salt, phosphate & fertilizers, and scrap material. Global dry bulk trade has enjoyed strong average annual growth in the past four years at 6.0% (CAGR 2004-2008), thanks in part to strong demand for bulk commodities in China's rapidly growing market. Growth in the dry bulk market will slow to 3.1% growth (CAGR) in the next five years (2008-2012) before slowing to 2.3% annual growth (CAGR) over the long-term forecast (2012-2018). China was one of the largest bulk commodity importers from the world in 2007 and despite expected slower growth from China and from the bulk shipping markets, China will remain one of the largest importers in 2018. Japan, South Korea, the United States and Taiwan are also among the top five bulk commodity importers in the world. Brazil will be one of the largest bulk commodity exporters in 2007 with over 364 million dry bulk shipping tonnes exported. Like China's imports, Brazil's exports are also expected to slow somewhat in the medium to long-term. Between 2008 and 2012, dry bulk exports from Brazil are expected to grow at 3.4% (CAGR) before slowing to 2.7% (CAGR) between 2012 and 2018. On a commodity specific basis, global ore trade grew significantly at a compound annual rate of 10.5% between 2004 and 2008, but is expected to see growth fall to 1.9% between 2008 and 2018. With regards to grain, its growth was slightly slower than that of ore trade over the last four years with a growth rate of 7.1% (CAGR). However, the long-term outlook is better with anticipated growth of 2.5% (CAGR). The Figure below illustrates expected growth for these commodities.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

21

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,5004,000

Met

ric T

ons

(Mill

ions

)

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Other bulkcommoditiesOres

Grain

Coal

Figure 21: World total dry bulk trade commodity

Table 9: Top 15 countries: total dry bulk trade (metric tonnes)

Country, M tonnes 2008 2012 2016 2018China 489 582 664 703Australia 433 462 490 504Japan 404 412 419 423Brazil 334 379 421 442

United States 326 349 372 383Canada 148 154 160 163Indonesia 139 151 161 166

Western Africa 72 84 96 102Colombia 72 86 98 104Russia 71 85 97 104Germany 71 76 82 85Mexico 64 70 74 76Italy 60 62 65 66Argentina 57 65 74 78Malaysia 56 61 65 66 The top 15 countries in terms of total dry bulk tonnes traded are given in the table above, from these figures it is clear that China will continue to dominate in terms of demand for dry bulk goods. Within Europe Germany and Italy are the top traders of dry bulk commodities. China's astounding economic growth has recently and will continue to propel demand for dry bulk products in the short to medium-term. The nation's growing construction and energy demands make it a prime importer of major and minor bulk commodities, including coal, iron ore & steel. However, just as many economists believe that China's economy is unsustainable, so too is its past import growth for bulk commodities. Global Insight anticipates a decline in China's iron ore & steel growth rate, falling from 6.8% (CAGR) between 2000 and 2005, to 6.4% (CAGR) between 2005 and 2025. The growth rate between 2004 and 2008 will be the highest, before slowing to annual rates of around 2.7% between 2020 and 2025. Interestingly, China is also the largest exporter of iron ore & steel and will remain as such through 2025. Coal The global coal market has witnessed impressive growth since 2004, growing at an average growth rate of 4.5% per year (CAGR 2004-2008). Such growth is largely fueled by growth in China, as 2/3 of China's growing energy needs are

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

22

supplied by coal. Despite China's growth, there are other players in the global coal market. Australia is the largest exporter of coal, more than doubling exports of the second largest exporter, Indonesia, with 274 million tonnes shipped in 2007. Columbia is the third largest coal exporter with over 66 million tonnes exported in 2007. Japan is the world's largest importer of coal and imported 60% of its coal from Australia in 2007. Other significant importers of coal include South Korea, Taiwan and the United States. The world's major coal exporters and importers are expected to retain their current ranks over the next 10 years, indicating the maturity of these export markets and the strong hold Australia has on global coal shipping, particularly among other Asian coal importers. The development of clean-burning coal technologies may help secure the future for coal's growth in the long-term, but much investment is needed to bring these technologies to fruition. As such, current forecasts do not explicitly capture these technologies. Under Global Insight's most recent forecast, growth is expected to slow in the short and long-term forecast with total coal dry bulk tonnage growing a total of 4.5% between 2004 and 2008. Similarly, compound annual growth between 2008 and 2018 is expected at 2.0% per year.

Figure 22: World wide coal demand in million tonnes per region

In 2007, European demand shrank as less coal was taken into the British Isles and Scandinavia despite increases everywhere else. Japan’s failing nuclear plants lead to more demand, while India and China grew only marginally. Modest growth is expected in 2008 as demand growth in general terms is expected to soften. Early losses of availability from both Australia and China are unlikely to be made up in 2008 because infrastructure is constrained in Australia and China will probably need the coal internally. Over the remainder of the period, growth will return except in Japan, where recovering nuclear performance should decrease demand for coal.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

23

Figure 23: World wide available coal supply by region

Throughout the short term, supply appears to growing faster than the demand, so prices should be some easing. While Poland and China continue to decline, China’s reduced capacity is partially offset by increased availability from Vietnam. Another year of substantial increased capacity from Indonesia is expected in 2008, but thereafter the increases are lower before capacity eventually begins to decline. Theoretically, South Africa should have considerably more capacity than is being shown, but it is thought that there will not be adequate mine capacity to meet the growth in rail/port capacity during this period. Russia will see steady growth, as will Australia, but the quantities are hardly considered large for a country that already exports in excess of 110 million tonnes (mmt) of steam coal. Colombia’s real growth will take place in 2011–12.

Figure 24: Supply/demand balance coal per region

In theory, the available capacity would appear to be easing, but as has been experienced, some of it has not been used or made available. In South Africa, for example, Ingwe Coal has not developed capacity to fill its export quota entitlement. Meanwhile, infrastructural constraints have curtailed theoretical Australian export capacity. Elsewhere, the Chinese, with both capacity and export licenses, have failed to ship to these levels, and although U.S. capacity

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

24

was available, its use did not begin until late in 2007. While the immediate future looks okay, actual capacity probably will not catch up with the theoretical capacity until 2010. Another chart is provided that eliminates some of the tonnage that could be considered available only in theory and may not be backed up with actual tonnages. On this basis, supply could be tight until 2010 with a consequence on prices. Grain Three countries the United States, Australia and Argentina make up over 58 percent of the world grain exports. Total seaborne trade of grain is around 275Mt, a figure which has only recently been reached with the trade having been steady at around 200 Mt for the best part of two decades. Weather remains the single biggest determining factor in availability albeit that modern strains of wheat and coarse grain are now bred for their resistance to drought and rainstorms.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Met

ric T

ons

(Mill

ions

)

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

IndiaThailandBrazilFranceRussiaChinaCanadaArgentinaAustraliaUnited States

Figure 25: Top ten grain exporters

On the import side there are numerous small to medium-size importers. These often include grain exporters – for example Canada imports from the United States and the United States imports from Canada; also there is the extensive intra- European grain trade. The trade from one year to the next will largely depend on the success of the harvest and the underlying demand in the country. China, for example, is the world’s largest producer of wheat but is also an active importer due to its burgeoning demand for grain. Other Bulk Commodities Most of these commodities can be related to a combination of one or more other industries. For example food-related commodities and fertilizers are clearly related to underlying demand for grain. This, in turn, is a function of world population and changing consumer preference.

Europe Outbound Trade by Region Table 10: Export trade by region of destination

Origin Region, 1,000 tonnes Destination region 2008 2012 2016 2018Europe China 11,268 12,730 14,143 14,800Europe Eastern Europe 77 85 87 88Europe Japan 1,248 1,259 1,257 1,252Europe North America 19,538 20,182 21,435 22,074Europe Oceania 923 969 1,017 1,040Europe Other Europe 227 243 255 259Europe SE Asia 8,706 9,430 10,466 10,962Europe South America 15,097 16,689 18,234 18,969Europe West Africa 12,007 14,648 17,355 18,631

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

25

The top three destination regions for European dry bulk exports are North America, South America, and China. The volume of European dry bulk exports is expected to increase from approximately 69 million tonnes to slightly more than 88 million tonnes.

2008 Dry Bulk Exports

China16%

Japan2%

North America29%

Oceania1%

SE Asia13%

South America22%

West Africa17%

2018 Dry Bulk Exports

China17%

Japan1%

North America26%

Oceania1%

SE Asia12%

South America22%

West Africa21%

Figure 26: Dry bulk exports, destination share 2008 and 2018

In 2008, North America's share of European dry bulk exports is expected to be 29 percent. However, North America's share of European dry bulk exports is projected to decrease in 2018 to 26 percent. As North America's share of exports decreases West Africa's share of European dry bulk exports is projected to increase noticeably from 17 percent in 2018 to 21 percent in 2018.

Europe Outbound Trade by Commodity Origin Region Commodity, 1,000 tonnes 2008 2012 2016 2018

Europe Coal 2,196 2,415 2,552 2,607Europe Grain 5,962 6,199 6,658 6,846Europe Ores 5,443 5,712 6,055 6,209Europe Other bulk commodities 55,489 61,909 68,983 72,412 Outside of 'other dry bulk commodities', grain continues to dominate dry bulk exports, followed by ores and coal. The top destination for grain exports from Europe in 2008 is West Africa, while the top destination for ore exports from Europe is China. This trend is projected to continue through 2018 as China continues to demand increasing amounts of raw materials to feed its manufacturing industry.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

26

2008 Dry Bulk Exports by Commodity

Coal3%

Ores8%

Other bulk commodities

80%

Grain9%

2018 Dry Bulk Exports by Commodity

Coal3%

Ores7%


82%

Grain8%

Figure 27: Dry bulk export

Grain and Ore exports are both projected to decrease by 1 percent between 2008 and 2018. This decrease in market share will be picked up by 'other dry bulk commodities' which will increase from 80 percent in 2008 to 82 percent in 2018.

Europe Inbound Trade by Region Origin Region Destination Region, 1,000 tonnes 2008 2012 2016 2018

China Europe 11,715 13,625 15,283 16,092Eastern Europe Europe 14,471 17,523 20,448 21,920Japan Europe 1,062 1,129 1,222 1,279North America Europe 78,269 79,822 81,361 82,153Oceania Europe 44,755 45,728 47,502 48,501Other Europe Europe 224 254 285 301SE Asia Europe 24,694 25,912 26,971 27,473South America Europe 179,826 196,055 212,080 221,104West Africa Europe 20,890 20,875 21,725 22,462 Dry bulk imports to Europe are lead by South America, followed by North America and Oceania. South America is the single largest exporter of dry bulk goods to Europe. In 2008, South America is expected to export more than 179 million tonnes of dry bulk goods to Europe; by 2018 this will increase to over 221 million tonnes.

2008 Dry Bulk Imports

China3%

North America22%

Oceania12%

SE Asia7%

South America50%

West Africa6%

Japan0%

2018 Dry Bulk Imports

China4%

North America20%

Oceania12%

SE Asia7%

South America52%

West Africa5%

Japan0%

Figure 28: Dry bulk imports to Europe 2008 and 2018

South America's share of dry bulk goods to Europe is expected to increase from 50 percent in 2008 to 52 percent in 2018. As South America's share of

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

27

imports increases North America's share of dry bulk imports is projected to decrease from 22 percent to 20 percent in 2018.

Europe Inbound Trade by Commodity Destination Region Commodity, 1,000 tonnes 2008 2012 2016 2018Europe Coal 123,791 135,318 144,336 148,660Europe Grain 15,061 16,383 17,664 18,281Europe Ores 140,305 141,232 145,223 148,428Europe Other bulk commodities 96,748 107,991 119,654 125,916 The majority of dry bulk commodities to Europe are ores. The volume of ores imported to Europe is expected to increase from approximately 140 million in 2008 to over 148 million in 2018.

2008 Dry Bulk Imports by Commodity

Coal33%

Ores37%


26%

Grain4%

2018 Dry Bulk Imports by Commodity

Coal33%

Ores34%


29%

Grain4%

Figure 29: Dry bulk imports to Europe by commodity, % share 2008 and 2018

While the volume of ore imports is projected to increase, the share of ores when compared to other dry bulk imports is expected to decrease from 37 percent in 2008, to 34 percent in 2018. As ores lose market share, 'other dry bulk commodities' will increase their market share of dry bulk imports from 26 percent in 2008 to 29 percent in 2018. In 2006 the total port throughputs of dry bulk cargoes amounted to 0.9M tonnes. By 2018 these volumes are forecasted to have grown by 0.3M tonnes. The largest volumes are handled in the North Sea region (incl UK/Eire) and the inwards volumes accounted for almost ¾ in 2006. However, in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea inwards and outwards volumes are almost balanced.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

28

0 100 200 300 400 500

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

Nort

hSea

Atlantic

Bal

tic

Sea

Wes

tM

edEast

Med

Bla

ckSea

Ove

r-se

asRiv

ers

Inw Outw


Figure 30: EU port dry bulk throughputs by direction, million tonnes

Dry bulk intra-European trade

The intra-European seaborne trade with dry bulk cargo has been derived from trade data produced by Global Insight. The total volume of loaded and discharged cargoes amounted to 410M tonnes in 2006. This excludes inland navigation. Coal, grain and ores accounted for 94M tonnes, while other bulk commodities such as sand, gravel, cement, steel and forest products amounted to 316M tonnes. Table 11: Intra-European dry bulk seaborne trade 2006, million tonnes

TotalIntra-Europe 410Coal 24Grain 35Ores 35Other bulk commodities 316

Source: derived from Global Insight trade data

1.4 General cargo seaborne trade

• Growth forecast of containerized cargo (tonnes) at an annual average of 7%. Cargo handled in the roro-system forecasted to about 5% p.a. Other general cargo forecasted to grow slowly.

• Far East continue to be the main source for containerized cargo. • Roro mostly for intra-European volumes. Vehicle trade forms the

exception. The general cargo handling in the EU27 ports amounted to 1.3Bn tonnes in 2006, which was more than the total dry bulk and less than the total liquid bulk handling that year. Close to half of the volumes was cargo in containers, a third was cargo on roro ships and the remaining 19% was “other” general cargo. The latter category

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

29

consists mainly of break bulk, but it is believed to also contain a fair share of dry bulk and containerised cargoes as well1.

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

Nort

hSea

Atlantic

Baltic

Sea

Wes

tM

edEas

tM

edBla

ckSea

Ove

r-se

asRiv

ers

Container Roro Other general cargo

Million tonnes. Source Eurostat. Forecast by LRFR.

Figure 31: EU port general cargo throughputs by type, million tonnes

Growth of general cargo volumes are generally strong, but this is on the aggregated level. If the general cargo segment is disaggregated into containerised, roro and other general cargo then marked differences in growth rates are revealed.

1.4.1 Container cargo

The global containerized trade is expected to have increased by 10.5% in 2007. Globally about 125 million Full teu have been carried according to the latest estimates. Over the last 27 years the container trades grew with 9.2% on average per year. Considered over the last 10 and 5 year the growth was on average respectively 9.8% and 12%. For 2008 a drop in growth has been estimated to a level of 8% after which the trade outlook becomes much more unclear but growth could pick-up again at a more than 2-digit level on the positive perspective. More negatively would be the scenario that global trade will be faced the prolonged effect of a deeper financial crisis combined with over-capacity and that several years of moderate growth of around 6-7% are to be expected. Early April, the IMF has reduced it’s growth figures downwards for the global economy from 4.1% to 3.7% the lowest growth figure since 2002. The growth in the US was now estimated to a 0.5% growth in 2008 versus the 1.5% projection in January 2008. For the Euro zone the growth figures were altered to a low 1.3% versus their previous growth estimation of 1.6% in January 2008. When this growth pattern would prevail the lower trade scenario is the more likely scenario.

1 When the cargo is statistically classified by the ports, it is believed that containers

and dry bulk cargoes carried on general cargo ships are registered as general cargo.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Tota

l tra

nspo

rted

full

teu,

199

5-20

09

Source: Dynamar. Forecast LRFR.

Forecast



Figure 32: Global containerized trade

Table 12: Global containerized trade

High scenario Low scenario Average Hsc Average LscYear Full TEU Full TEU Growth % Growth %1980 11,400,000 11,400,000 1985 16,800,000 16,800,000 9.5% 9.5%1990 25,700,000 25,700,000 10.6% 10.6%1995 41,200,000 41,200,000 12.1% 12.1%1996 45,200,000 45,200,000 9.7% 9.7%1997 49,000,000 49,000,000 8.4% 8.4%1998 50,900,000 50,900,000 3.9% 3.9%1999 55,400,000 55,400,000 8.8% 8.8%2000 60,500,000 60,500,000 9.2% 9.2%2001 63,100,000 63,100,000 4.3% 4.3%2002 70,700,000 70,700,000 12.0% 12.0%2003 81,700,000 81,700,000 15.6% 15.6%2004 92,100,000 92,100,000 12.7% 12.7%2005 102,000,000 102,000,000 10.7% 10.7%2006 113,200,000 113,200,000 11.0% 11.0%2007 125,100,000 125,100,000 10.5% 10.5%

2008* 135,200,000 132,606,000 8.1% 6.0%2009* 150,000,000 141,888,420 10.9% 7.0%

*estimate In this section the main trades are displayed, all data is sourced from Eurostat unless otherwise specified. The analysis consists of only FULL teu trades between nations based on the direct port of calls, determined by a full service analysis. Therefore this analysis is to provide the full teu trade excluding transshipment. The main East West trades can be divided into

Transpacific o US – Far East (PIERS)

Europe - Far East (Eurostat and FEFC) o Europe – North East Asia o Europe – South East Asia

Transatlantic o Europe – South East Asia (Eurostat and PIERS)

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

31

Other East West trades Europe – Middle East (Eurostat) Europe – Indian Sub continent (Eurostat) Europe Australasia (Australia / New Zealand) (Eurostat)

The north South trades cover: Europe – Latin America (East Coast South America, West Coast South

America and Caribbean) Europe – Africa

After this follows Intra European trades For comparison purposes, on some trades, data is displayed resourced for PIERS or the FEFC. Differences are due to the different collection methods and in case of Piers due to the countries- grouping for certain regions. Note on PIERS data: North Europe includes Russia. Israel is Mediterranean, incl. Med Coast Morocco (But for 2005 and 2004 Israel belonged to Middle East and Morocco to Africa). Blacksea ports are included in the Med but excludes Russian ports. Lithuania is part of the Mediterranean according to Piers! Spain is allocated full to Mediterranean. France is split between North Europe and Mediterranean

Transpacific US – Far East

The transpacific trade US – Far East has been the most voluminous trade in the world for many years. When however the East European countries and the Black Sea are counted into the European trade as described in the previous section then the latter trade had overhauled the US trade in 2006 marginally. The US – Far East trade is best described by data sourced from PIERS. Because this institute recently has reconfigured it regions and reallocated countries to certain regions, this information only carries consistently back to 2004. The total US – Far East trade was 17.4 mln TEU in 2006 accompanied by a growth of 9% compared to a growth of 12% in 2005. In 2007 the growth fell to 5% due to the slowdown of the US economy. Table 13: Transpacific US – Far East

Imports & ExportsShare 2006 2005 2004

North Asia 87%USWC 75% 11,439,621 10,479,971 9,406,927USG 1% 222,940 177,629 100,296USEC 23% 3,499,887 3,162,310 2,751,031Total North Asia 100% 15,162,448 13,819,910 12,258,254

10% 13%

South Asia 13% 2006 2005 2004USWC 74% 1,638,698 1,561,346 1,429,609USG 1% 12,544 6,573 10,670USEC 26% 568,358 560,549 509,109Total South Asia 100% 2,219,600 2,128,468 1,949,388

4% 9%

Total US - Far East 100% 17,382,048 15,948,378 14,207,642Growth 9% 12% The imports into the US are by far the largest trade direction with 12.8 mln full TEU. The imbalance was 8.2 mln TEU in 2006 or 64% of the largest trade direction. Due to the economy slows down in the US the growth of the import

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

32

fell to about 1% in 2007. In 2006 this was still 9% and in 2005 it was 12%. In 2006 nearly 74% of the entire trade consisted of imports. Table 14: Imports to the US from Far East

Imports to USShare 2006 2005 2004

North Asia 87%USWC 77% 8,576,054 7,817,906 6,993,547USG 1% 161,467 129,017 65,468USEC 22% 2,433,656 2,216,644 1,871,384Total North Asia 100% 11,171,177 10,163,567 8,930,399

10% 14%

South Asia 13% 2,006 2,005 2,004USWC 74% 1,199,223 1,131,377 1,038,079USG 1% 8,627 4,590 7,374USEC 25% 407,799 399,096 341,471Total South Asia 100% 1,615,649 1,535,063 1,386,924

5% 11%

Total US - Far East 100% 12,786,826 11,698,630 10,317,323Growth 9% 13% The exports from the US also slightly fell in 2006 to 8% compared to 9% in 2005. In 2007 due to the weakening of the US Dollar the exports improved again, thus also reducing the large imbalance in the trade. Table 15: Exports from the US to Far East

Exports from USShare 2006 2005 2004

North Asia 87%USWC 72% 2,863,567 2,662,065 2,413,380USG 2% 61,473 48,612 34,828USEC 27% 1,066,231 945,666 879,647Total North Asia 100% 3,991,271 3,656,343 3,327,855

9% 10%

South Asia 13% 2006 2005 2004USWC 73% 439,475 429,969 391,530USG 1% 3,917 1,983 3,296USEC 27% 160,559 161,453 167,638Total South Asia 100% 603,951 593,405 562,464

2% 6%

Total US - Far East 100% 4,595,222 4,249,748 3,890,319Growth 8% 9%

Europe-Far East

The Far East to Europe (and vice versa) can be estimated on the basis of the Far eastern Freight Conference (FEFC). For North Europe their members carry around 62% of the entire trade till 20062. In 2007 their share increased to 72%3 due to the addition of the large carrier MSC. The statistics of the FEFC is

2 It was 55% for the Far East - Mediterranean trades in 2006

3 On the North Europe to Far East. On the Mediterranean to the Far East this was 78%.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

33

converted to 100% to create the total trade picture and corrected for the discrepancy MSC caused on the historical figures. Table 16: North Europe/Mediterranean – Far East (FEFC)

TradeNorth Europe / Med. EU -Far East Share Total WB EB Share Total WB EB Share Total WB EB sub-region: % TEU TEU TEU % TEU TEU TEU % TEU TEU TEUNorth Europe (EU) 81% 11,785,000 7,665,000 4,120,000 83% 10,346,000 6,495,000 3,851,000 83% 9,505,000 5,961,000 3,544,000Mediterranean (EU) 19% 2,845,000 2,111,000 733,000 17% 2,194,000 1,525,000 669,000 17% 2,004,000 1,381,000 624,000Total 100% 14,630,000 9,776,000 4,853,000 100% 12,540,000 8,020,000 4,520,000 100% 11,509,000 7,342,000 4,168,000

Growth North Europe 13.9% 18.0% 7.0% 8.8% 9.0% 8.7% 15.7% 16.9% 13.7%Growth Med. 29.7% 38.4% 9.6% 9.5% 10.4% 7.2% -17.9% -21.1% -9.4%Growth total 16.7% 21.9% 7.4% 9.0% 9.2% 8.4% 8.0% 7.2% 9.5%

Note: Based upon carrier volumes to/from EU as provided by Far Eastern Freight Conference recaluculated for entire market

2006 2005 2004

The total trade between the EU and the Far East based on Eurostat gave a similar growth picture but the figures are different due to the different coverage each data set. The FEFC reports in grouping of countries so a distinction between Eastern Europe or other Mediterranean ports is hard to allocate to specific countries. Table 17: Europe – Far East

2006 2005 2004Far East Growth TOTAL Out of EU In to EU TOTAL Out of EU In to EU TOTAL Out of EU In to EUcountry 06/'05 In and Out (Eastbd) (Westbd) In and Out (Eastbd) (Westbd) In and Out (Eastbd) (Westbd)

North East Asia China incl. Hong Kong 21% 6,417,000 1,643,000 4,774,000 5,305,000 1,310,000 3,995,000 4,002,000 1,123,000 2,879,000 Japan 7% 975,000 509,000 466,000 915,000 514,000 401,000 1,019,000 559,000 460,000 Korea (North) 0% - - - - - - - - - Korea (South) 1% 680,000 313,000 366,000 672,000 324,000 349,000 678,000 332,000 347,000 Russia Asia 0% 1,000 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 - Indonesia -37% 128,000 51,000 77,000 204,000 76,000 129,000 220,000 91,000 129,000

North East Asia Total 16% 8,201,000 2,517,000 5,684,000 7,097,000 2,224,000 4,873,000 5,920,000 2,105,000 3,815,000 South East Asia Brunei Darussalam 0% - - - - - - - - -

Cambodia 0% 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 - 1,000 Macau 0% - - - - - - - - - Malaysia 4% 1,121,000 352,000 769,000 1,077,000 406,000 671,000 939,000 348,000 591,000 Myanmar -50% 1,000 - 1,000 2,000 - 2,000 1,000 - 1,000 Philippines -53% 8,000 3,000 5,000 17,000 5,000 12,000 16,000 6,000 10,000 Singapore 20% 2,839,000 1,244,000 1,595,000 2,363,000 1,030,000 1,333,000 2,194,000 908,000 1,286,000 Taiwan -1% 594,000 251,000 343,000 600,000 275,000 325,000 667,000 331,000 336,000 Thailand 1% 99,000 20,000 80,000 98,000 12,000 86,000 64,000 12,000 52,000 Vietnam -35% 31,000 7,000 25,000 48,000 7,000 41,000 32,000 7,000 24,000

South East Asia Total 12% 4,695,000 1,876,000 2,818,000 4,207,000 1,736,000 2,471,000 3,915,000 1,614,000 2,301,000 Grand Total 14% 12,896,000 4,393,000 8,503,000 11,304,000 3,960,000 7,344,000 9,835,000 3,719,000 6,116,000

To/from EU countriesFar East sub-region

The total trade between the EU and the Far East grew in 2006 at 14% to a total of 12.9M FULL teu. This growth was down on 2005 figure of 15%. North Asia including China takes the majority of the trade of about 63% and the remaining is South Asia. North Europe has a share of 81% of the total North Asia trade and 19% is traded by the Mediterranean. On South Asia, North Europe’s share is 83%. For whole of the Far East North Europe transports 82% and the remainder is done by the Mediterranean ports. The imbalance of the trade is large with overall nearly 48% in 2006. Table 18: Container balance, Europe – Far east

Imbalance Europe - Far East 2006 2005 2004North East Asia in TEU 3,167,000 2,649,000 1,710,000

in % 56% 54% 45%South East Asia in TEU 942,000 735,000 687,000

in % 33% 30% 30%Total in TEU 4,110,000 3,384,000 2,397,000

in % 48% 46% 39% China dominated the scene with an overall trade share in 2006 of 50% of the Europe - Far East volumes (56% on the total westbound cargo). The country’s share increased from 47% share in 2005 and 41% in 2004. Singapore is the second largest trading partner with 22% of the trade volumes in 2006. Their share remained stable over the last three years.

North East Asia

North Asian trade with the EU showed a growth of 16% in 2006. The Mediterranean grew by 19% whilst North Europe grew by 15%. The Mediterranean trade with North East Asia was around 1.5M teu. The main Mediterranean ports in this trade are Valencia, Barcelona, Genoa and Piraeus. The North European trade with North East Asia was around 6.7M teu. The

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

34

main ports in this trade are Hamburg, Rotterdam, followed at distance by Felixstowe. Table 19: Europe – North East Asia

To/from With 2006 2005 2004European Union Growth TOTAL Out of EU In to EU TOTAL Out of EU In to EU TOTAL Out of EU In to EUport 06/'05 In and Out (Eastbd) (Westbd) In and Out (Eastbd) (Westbd) In and Out (Eastbd) (Westbd)

North East Asia Koper 80% 18,000 3,000 15,000 10,000 3,000 7,000 6,000 1,000 5,000 Constanta >100% 13,000 1,000 12,000 5,000 1,000 4,000 1,000 - - Piraeus 18% 150,000 19,000 131,000 127,000 16,000 111,000 12,000 12,000 - Thessaloniki -63% 19,000 3,000 16,000 52,000 14,000 38,000 4,000 3,000 1,000 Cagliari >100% 16,000 3,000 13,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 6,000 - 6,000 Genoa >100% 233,000 114,000 119,000 113,000 44,000 68,000 83,000 41,000 42,000 Gioia Tauro -48% 15,000 1,000 15,000 29,000 8,000 22,000 34,000 10,000 24,000 La Spezia 30% 79,000 8,000 71,000 61,000 23,000 38,000 68,000 33,000 35,000 Leghorn >100% 6,000 2,000 4,000 3,000 1,000 2,000 5,000 2,000 2,000 Marsaxlokk 11% 10,000 - 10,000 9,000 - 8,000 4,000 1,000 3,000 Naples 24% 31,000 8,000 23,000 25,000 3,000 21,000 23,000 4,000 19,000 Trieste 31% 63,000 22,000 40,000 48,000 19,000 29,000 39,000 18,000 20,000 Algeciras 13% 141,000 25,000 116,000 125,000 38,000 87,000 89,000 44,000 45,000 Barcelona 6% 251,000 45,000 206,000 237,000 48,000 190,000 217,000 46,000 171,000 Malaga -50% 3,000 1,000 2,000 6,000 1,000 4,000 - - - Valencia 11% 454,000 74,000 380,000 409,000 68,000 341,000 307,000 55,000 252,000

Mediterranean (EU) Total 19% 1,501,000 330,000 1,171,000 1,259,000 288,000 971,000 896,000 270,000 626,000 Gothenburg 59% 27,000 17,000 10,000 17,000 11,000 6,000 9,000 4,000 4,000 Aarhus 0% - - - - - - 1,000 1,000 1,000 Amsterdam >100% 140,000 43,000 96,000 2,000 1,000 2,000 - - - Antwerp 26% 423,000 242,000 181,000 336,000 200,000 136,000 283,000 183,000 100,000 Bremerhaven 19% 366,000 161,000 205,000 308,000 131,000 177,000 314,000 153,000 160,000 Dunkirk 0% 10,000 1,000 9,000 10,000 - 10,000 8,000 1,000 6,000 Felixstowe 16% 697,000 132,000 564,000 599,000 117,000 482,000 493,000 98,000 395,000 Hamburg 16% 2,269,000 759,000 1,510,000 1,952,000 677,000 1,275,000 1,666,000 679,000 987,000 Le Havre 6% 324,000 103,000 221,000 306,000 100,000 205,000 249,000 92,000 158,000 Marseilles 27% 143,000 28,000 114,000 113,000 40,000 74,000 102,000 40,000 62,000 Rotterdam 4% 1,726,000 564,000 1,161,000 1,659,000 550,000 1,110,000 1,470,000 508,000 962,000 Southampton 3% 399,000 75,000 323,000 389,000 58,000 331,000 361,000 53,000 308,000 Thamesport -19% 17,000 4,000 13,000 21,000 5,000 16,000 35,000 4,000 31,000 Tilbury 0% - - - - - - - - - Zeebrugge 28% 161,000 57,000 103,000 126,000 47,000 79,000 33,000 17,000 16,000 North West Europe (EU) Total 15% 6,700,000 2,187,000 4,513,000 5,838,000 1,936,000 3,902,000 5,024,000 1,834,000 3,190,000

North East Asia Total 16% 8,201,000 2,517,000 5,684,000 7,097,000 2,224,000 4,873,000 5,920,000 2,105,000 3,815,000

Europe (EU)

South East Asia

The South Asian trade with the EU showed a growth of 12% in 2006. The Mediterranean grew by 12% whilst North Europe grew by 11%. The Mediterranean trade with South East Asia was around 0.77M teu. The main Mediterranean ports in this trade are Algeciras, Genoa, and Barcelona. The North European trade with South East Asia was around 3.9M teu. The main ports in this trade are Rotterdam, Hamburg, followed at by Antwerp. Table 20: Europe – South East Asia To/from With 2006 2005 2004

European Union Growth TOTAL Out of EU In to EU TOTAL Out of EU In to EU TOTAL Out of EU In to EUport 06/'05 In and Out (Eastbd) (Westbd) In and Out (Eastbd) (Westbd) In and Out (Eastbd) (Westbd)

South East Asia Koper 50% 6,000 3,000 3,000 4,000 2,000 3,000 2,000 - 2,000 Constanta -80% 1,000 1,000 - 5,000 1,000 4,000 4,000 - 4,000 Piraeus 14% 81,000 20,000 61,000 71,000 14,000 57,000 - - - Thessaloniki >100% 6,000 3,000 3,000 1,000 1,000 - - - - Cagliari >100% 9,000 1,000 8,000 2,000 - 2,000 1,000 1,000 - Genoa 99% 139,000 58,000 81,000 70,000 31,000 39,000 59,000 27,000 32,000 Gioia Tauro 58% 84,000 29,000 55,000 53,000 11,000 42,000 43,000 14,000 29,000 La Spezia -29% 45,000 11,000 34,000 63,000 14,000 49,000 49,000 15,000 34,000 Leghorn -25% 15,000 7,000 9,000 20,000 9,000 11,000 13,000 6,000 7,000 Marsaxlokk -33% 2,000 - 2,000 3,000 - 3,000 2,000 - 2,000 Naples >100% 12,000 3,000 9,000 6,000 2,000 4,000 5,000 3,000 2,000 Trieste -18% 9,000 8,000 1,000 11,000 5,000 6,000 10,000 6,000 4,000 Algeciras -12% 178,000 61,000 117,000 203,000 48,000 155,000 175,000 31,000 144,000 Barcelona 2% 113,000 32,000 81,000 111,000 30,000 82,000 94,000 25,000 69,000 Malaga -67% 1,000 - - 3,000 2,000 1,000 - - - Valencia 15% 70,000 18,000 52,000 61,000 17,000 45,000 61,000 20,000 41,000

Mediterranean (EU) Total 12% 772,000 255,000 518,000 687,000 185,000 501,000 520,000 150,000 370,000 Gothenburg 53% 55,000 34,000 22,000 36,000 18,000 18,000 43,000 26,000 17,000 Aarhus 0% - - - - - - - - - Amsterdam >100% 92,000 22,000 70,000 9,000 7,000 3,000 - - - Antwerp 3% 603,000 352,000 251,000 584,000 340,000 244,000 482,000 282,000 201,000 Bremerhaven 0% 217,000 108,000 109,000 216,000 110,000 106,000 213,000 130,000 83,000 Dunkirk 0% 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 - 1,000 Felixstowe -10% 219,000 57,000 162,000 242,000 86,000 156,000 255,000 94,000 162,000 Hamburg 10% 960,000 418,000 542,000 872,000 368,000 503,000 805,000 341,000 464,000 Le Havre 4% 234,000 75,000 159,000 224,000 87,000 137,000 221,000 82,000 138,000 Marseilles 21% 123,000 55,000 68,000 102,000 39,000 62,000 102,000 39,000 64,000 Rotterdam 10% 964,000 350,000 614,000 878,000 380,000 497,000 931,000 385,000 546,000 Southampton 28% 291,000 81,000 210,000 228,000 58,000 171,000 242,000 54,000 189,000 Thamesport -25% 27,000 11,000 16,000 36,000 13,000 23,000 50,000 12,000 38,000 Tilbury -17% 5,000 - 5,000 6,000 - 6,000 12,000 - 12,000 Zeebrugge 54% 131,000 59,000 72,000 85,000 44,000 41,000 36,000 18,000 17,000 North West Europe (EU) Total 11% 3,922,000 1,621,000 2,301,000 3,520,000 1,551,000 1,970,000 3,395,000 1,464,000 1,931,000

South East Asia Total 12% 4,695,000 1,876,000 2,818,000 4,207,000 1,736,000 2,471,000 3,915,000 1,614,000 2,301,000

Grand Total 14% 12,896,000 4,393,000 8,503,000 11,304,000 3,960,000 7,344,000 9,835,000 3,719,000 6,116,000

Europe (EU)

Trans Atlantic (Europe-North America)

The Trans Atlantic market with about 6.14M full teu has its dominant leg on the East Coast of the US. This trade has about 58% of the total Transatlantic market followed by Canada Atlantic with a market share of 22% and

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

35

USGulf/Mexico of 15%. The total Trans Atlantic trade grew only by 1% in 2006 compared to 8% in 2005. The total growth was down due to the slowdown of the Canadian trade, which fell by 11% in 2006. The main trade on the US East Coast grew by 4% whilst the US Gulf Mexico trade grew by 9%. Table 21: Trans Atlantic (Europe – North America)

2006 2005 2004Far East Growth TOTAL Out of EU In to EU TOTAL Out of EU In to EU TOTAL Out of EU In to EUcountry 06/'05 In and Out (Westbd) (Eastbd) In and Out (Westbd) (Eastbd) In and Out (Westbd) (Eastbd)

Canada Atlantic Canada, Atlantic -2% 1,104,000 534,000 570,000 1,132,000 525,000 607,000 781,000 433,000 348,000 Canada, other -50% 2,000 2,000 - 4,000 4,000 - 13,000 10,000 3,000 Canada, Great Lakes -37% 230,000 155,000 75,000 365,000 210,000 155,000 472,000 241,000 231,000

Canada Atlantic Total -11% 1,336,000 691,000 645,000 1,502,000 739,000 763,000 1,266,000 684,000 582,000 Canada Pacific Canada, Pacific North West 0% 10,000 4,000 5,000 10,000 3,000 7,000 9,000 3,000 6,000

Canada Pacific Total 0% 10,000 4,000 5,000 10,000 3,000 7,000 9,000 3,000 6,000 US East Coast US North Atlantic 5% 2,101,000 1,240,000 861,000 2,008,000 1,192,000 816,000 1,641,000 1,005,000 636,000

US South Atlantic 4% 1,453,000 776,000 678,000 1,393,000 786,000 607,000 1,361,000 717,000 644,000 US Great Lakes -76% 8,000 6,000 2,000 34,000 15,000 18,000 116,000 68,000 48,000 US, other 31% 17,000 12,000 5,000 13,000 11,000 2,000 38,000 30,000 8,000

US East Coast Total 4% 3,580,000 2,035,000 1,545,000 3,448,000 2,005,000 1,443,000 3,156,000 1,820,000 1,336,000 US/Mexico Gulf Mexico 14% 282,000 193,000 88,000 248,000 191,000 58,000 256,000 183,000 73,000

US Gulf 8% 602,000 295,000 307,000 556,000 294,000 262,000 563,000 305,000 259,000 US Puerto Rico -3% 36,000 23,000 12,000 37,000 25,000 11,000 32,000 24,000 8,000

US/Mexico Gulf Total 9% 920,000 512,000 408,000 841,000 510,000 331,000 851,000 512,000 339,000 US West Coast US, Pacific South West 3% 230,000 148,000 82,000 223,000 139,000 84,000 279,000 173,000 106,000

US, Pacific North West 14% 67,000 35,000 32,000 59,000 33,000 26,000 49,000 30,000 18,000 US West Coast Total 5% 297,000 184,000 113,000 282,000 172,000 110,000 327,000 203,000 124,000

Grand Total 1% 6,143,000 3,426,000 2,717,000 6,083,000 3,429,000 2,653,000 5,608,000 3,221,000 2,387,000

To/from EU countriesFar East sub-region

Canada, Atlantic

The trade between Europe to Canada Atlantic fell slightly in 2006 by 3% to 1.1M Full teu. Most of the trade is with North Europe (88%) and 11.5% by the Mediterranean. The remainder is carried between this market and the Iberian Atlantic ports. Antwerp is by far the most important port, followed at distance by Hamburg and Liverpool.

Canada, Great Lakes

The great lakes market is a niche market with about 230,000 teu. Deepsea carriers transfer their containers on smaller ships and smaller specialized carriers carry the main part of the trade. The trade with 230,000 teu is not very significant and dropped considerably in 2006. Bremerhaven is the European port with the largest volumes on this trade.

Canada, Pacific

Due to the long sailing distance through the Panama Canal, this trade is of none significance in the container trade.

US East Coast

The US East Coast is the main trade on the Atlantic market with about 58% of all volumes to from North America or 3.6M teu in 2006. The trade grew by 4% mainly due to the increased trade from the Mediterranean (+11%). This compared to 9% growth in 2005. The share of the Mediterranean became 20% in 2006 but North European ports carried most of the containers, having a share of 78% in 2006. The main North European ports were: Antwerp, Bremerhaven and Rotterdam. In the Mediterranean the most important ports were: La Spezia and Valencia.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

36

Table 22: Europe – US East Coast

To/from With 2006 2005 2004European Union Growth TOTAL Out of EU In to EU TOTAL Out of EU In to EU TOTAL Out of EU In to EUport 06/'05 In and Out (Eastbd) (Westbd) In and Out (Eastbd) (Westbd) In and Out (Eastbd) (Westbd)

US East Coast Piraeus -17% 19,000 11,000 8,000 23,000 13,000 10,000 1,000 - 1,000 Genoa -8% 56,000 34,000 22,000 61,000 41,000 20,000 70,000 43,000 27,000 Gioia Tauro 41% 86,000 59,000 27,000 61,000 18,000 43,000 108,000 25,000 82,000 La Spezia 9% 140,000 126,000 14,000 129,000 120,000 8,000 84,000 80,000 4,000 Leghorn -16% 47,000 32,000 15,000 56,000 35,000 21,000 50,000 33,000 17,000 Marsaxlokk 0% 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 - - 1,000 - 1,000 Naples 19% 25,000 16,000 9,000 21,000 14,000 8,000 30,000 10,000 19,000 Salerno -83% 4,000 4,000 - 23,000 21,000 2,000 34,000 32,000 2,000 Savona 0% - - - - - - - - - Taranto 33% 4,000 1,000 3,000 3,000 - 3,000 4,000 1,000 3,000 Algeciras 40% 70,000 39,000 31,000 50,000 39,000 10,000 94,000 65,000 29,000 Barcelona 6% 115,000 50,000 64,000 108,000 60,000 49,000 99,000 57,000 42,000 Valencia 38% 145,000 77,000 68,000 105,000 57,000 48,000 102,000 56,000 46,000 Cadiz -33% 2,000 1,000 1,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 Tarragona 0% - - - - - - - - -

Mediterranean (EU) Total 11% 714,000 450,000 264,000 644,000 420,000 223,000 678,000 405,000 273,000 Gothenburg 8% 27,000 18,000 9,000 25,000 17,000 8,000 23,000 18,000 5,000 Dublin 0% - - - - - - - - - Antwerp 4% 895,000 420,000 475,000 858,000 410,000 448,000 682,000 319,000 363,000 Bremerhaven 32% 704,000 409,000 295,000 535,000 324,000 211,000 486,000 299,000 187,000 Dunkirk 0% 1,000 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 - 2,000 1,000 1,000 Felixstowe 1% 115,000 49,000 66,000 114,000 55,000 59,000 104,000 50,000 55,000 Hamburg -30% 131,000 88,000 43,000 187,000 132,000 55,000 171,000 126,000 45,000 Le Havre -17% 136,000 94,000 42,000 164,000 107,000 58,000 170,000 112,000 58,000 Marseilles 26% 29,000 26,000 3,000 23,000 19,000 4,000 30,000 26,000 4,000 Rotterdam -5% 527,000 299,000 229,000 557,000 321,000 236,000 539,000 315,000 224,000 Southampton -15% 46,000 27,000 20,000 54,000 31,000 23,000 57,000 33,000 25,000 Thamesport -22% 42,000 10,000 32,000 54,000 14,000 40,000 58,000 20,000 38,000 Tilbury 80% 9,000 6,000 3,000 5,000 3,000 2,000 11,000 2,000 8,000 Zeebrugge 0% 1,000 - - 1,000 - 1,000 8,000 3,000 5,000 Bremen -40% 3,000 2,000 1,000 5,000 4,000 1,000 6,000 5,000 1,000 Vlissingen 0% - - - - - - - - - Liverpool -18% 131,000 84,000 48,000 160,000 96,000 63,000 80,000 47,000 33,000 North West Europe (EU) Total 2% 2,799,000 1,533,000 1,266,000 2,742,000 1,535,000 1,207,000 2,428,000 1,374,000 1,054,000

Lisbon 0% 18,000 16,000 2,000 18,000 17,000 1,000 23,000 21,000 2,000 Sines >100% 11,000 9,000 2,000 3,000 3,000 - - - - Bilbao -5% 38,000 26,000 12,000 40,000 29,000 11,000 27,000 19,000 8,000

Iberian Atlantic Total 10% 67,000 51,000 16,000 61,000 49,000 12,000 50,000 41,000 9,000 US East Coast Total 4% 3,580,000 2,035,000 1,545,000 3,448,000 2,005,000 1,443,000 3,156,000 1,820,000 1,336,000

N.American sub-region

US/Mexico Gulf

The direct trade to the US Gulf and Mexico with a total volume of 0.92M teu is mostly served through North European ports. These ports had a market share of 64% or 590,000 full teu. The Mediterranean ports had a market share of 32% and the Iberian ports carried the rest. Bremerhaven is the most important port with 250,000 full teu on this trade in 2006. Obviously the Caribbean ports play a role in the transshipment of cargo to/from this region, volumes stated reflect the direct trade only.

US West Coast

Due to the long sailing distance through the Panama Canal, this trade has hardly any significance in the container trade. The trade with about 300,000 teu is roughly one third of the Europe USG Gulf direct trades.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

37

Table 23 Europe – US West Coast To/from With 2006 2005 2004

European Union Growth TOTAL Out of EU In to EU TOTAL Out of EU In to EU TOTAL Out of EU In to EUport 06/'05 In and Out (Eastbd) (Westbd) In and Out (Eastbd) (Westbd) In and Out (Eastbd) (Westbd)

US West Coast Piraeus -33% 2,000 2,000 - 3,000 3,000 - - - - Genoa 0% 2,000 1,000 1,000 - - - 1,000 - 1,000 Gioia Tauro 0% - - - - - - - - - La Spezia 0% - - - - - - - - - Leghorn -69% 4,000 3,000 2,000 13,000 10,000 3,000 17,000 12,000 4,000 Marsaxlokk 0% - - - - - - - - - Naples 0% - - - - - - - - - Salerno 0% - - - - - - - - - Savona 0% - - - - - - - - - Taranto 0% 1,000 - 1,000 - - - - - - Algeciras 0% - - - - - - 4,000 4,000 - Barcelona 31% 17,000 16,000 1,000 13,000 13,000 - 19,000 16,000 3,000 Valencia 10% 22,000 13,000 9,000 20,000 13,000 7,000 24,000 15,000 9,000 Cadiz 0% 1,000 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 - Tarragona 0% - - - - - - - - -

Mediterranean (EU) Total -2% 51,000 37,000 14,000 52,000 40,000 11,000 68,000 49,000 19,000 Gothenburg 0% - - - - - - - - - Dublin 0% - - - - - - - - - Antwerp -43% 4,000 4,000 - 7,000 7,000 - 12,000 8,000 3,000 Bremerhaven 40% 109,000 72,000 37,000 78,000 51,000 26,000 73,000 48,000 25,000 Dunkirk 0% - - - - - - - - - Felixstowe 0% 9,000 9,000 - 9,000 9,000 - 10,000 9,000 2,000 Hamburg 20% 18,000 18,000 - 15,000 14,000 - 17,000 17,000 - Le Havre 40% 7,000 5,000 2,000 5,000 4,000 1,000 18,000 15,000 3,000 Marseilles 0% 6,000 6,000 1,000 6,000 6,000 1,000 7,000 6,000 1,000 Rotterdam -32% 43,000 24,000 19,000 63,000 35,000 28,000 61,000 33,000 28,000 Southampton 0% 9,000 2,000 7,000 - - - - - - Thamesport -17% 35,000 3,000 32,000 42,000 4,000 38,000 34,000 5,000 29,000 Tilbury -33% 2,000 - 2,000 3,000 - 3,000 6,000 - 6,000 Zeebrugge 0% - - - - - - - - - Bremen 0% - - - - - - - - - Vlissingen 0% 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 - 1,000 - - - Liverpool 0% - - - - - - 20,000 12,000 8,000 North West Europe (EU) Total 7% 244,000 144,000 100,000 228,000 130,000 98,000 257,000 153,000 105,000

Lisbon 0% - - - - - - - - - Sines 0% - - - - - - - - - Bilbao 50% 3,000 2,000 - 2,000 2,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 1,000

Iberian Atlantic Total 50% 3,000 3,000 - 2,000 2,000 1,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 US West Coast Total 5% 297,000 184,000 113,000 282,000 172,000 110,000 327,000 203,000 124,000

Grand Total 1% 6,143,000 3,426,000 2,717,000 6,083,000 3,429,000 2,653,000 5,608,000 3,221,000 2,387,000

N.American sub-region

Europe-Middle East

The East West trade Europe – Middle East was about 2.65M full teu in 2006. The trade grew by 9% in 2006 compared to 12% in 2005. The trade is rather equally divided between the East Med part (27%), the Red Sea (24%) and the Persian Gulf (37%). The remainder is by Oman and Yemen both (12%) outside the two seas.

East Mediterranean

The East Med as part of the Middle East consists of the countries Israel, Beirut, Syria and Lebanon. These countries used to trade mostly with EU Mediterranean ports. However in 2006 the trade through the north European ports became larger than the traditional trade. In 2006 the North European ports traded 416,000 teu a market share of 58%. This was mainly caused by the up-swung of the volumes through the port of Antwerp4. Other important ports are Hamburg and Piraeus. Red Sea The Red Sea trade of about 625,000 teu is equally divided between Med. ports and North European ports. The most important ports are Hamburg, Gioia Tauro, Antwerp, Bremerhaven and Algeciras.

Persian Gulf

The Persian Gulf trade of about 1M teu is by two third traded from the North European ports and for one third traded from the Mediterranean ports. The most important ports are Hamburg, Leghorn (Livorno) and Felixstowe.

4 It should be marked that the port of Antwerp has problems assigning the

origin/destination of containers.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

38

Middle East, other

The other trade with the Middle East consist of trade with mainly Oman and Yemen. This trade is about 323,000 teu. About 36% is trade with Med. Ports and 63% with North European ports.

Europe-Indian Sub Continent

Another important trade on the East West lanes is the trade with the Indian Subcontinent (including Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh). The trade consisted of 1.1M teu in 2006 with most of it with India (58%) and Sri Lanka (38%). Due to the drop in the volumes to Pakistan and Bangladesh this trade showed no real growth in 2006. However the growth on the countries of India and Sri Lanka were both into two-digit growth levels. The majority of the trade with the Indian subcontinent is carried through North European ports (76%). This trade grew by 4% whilst the Mediterranean trade (24% share) fell by 10% in 2006.

Europe-Australasia

The trade with Europe is dominant by the fruit and meat trades, of which today large shares are carried by refrigerated containers. Australia (67%) has the largest share in this trade followed by New Zealand (22%). The trade fell by 35% in 2006. Tilbury and Rotterdam are the most important ports in this trade.

Australia/New Zealand

North European ports dominate on this trade, Tilbury and Rotterdam are the most important ports in this trade.

Oceania

The trade with Ocean is due to the long distance really of none significance. The total amount was around 26,000 teu in 2006

Europe-Latin America

The Europe Latin America trade encompasses the Caribbean trade (28%), The East Coast South America trade (61%) and the West Coast South America (12%). The total trade of 7.4 mln Full TEU increased by 7% compared to 11% in 2006. The East Coast South America trade is the largest trade with 61% share and grew by only 4% in 2006. Brazil is the most important country and with 3.47 mln TEU, it covers nearly half of this North South trade. Argentina is the second most important country with a total of 840,000 full TEU or 11% of the total trade. The two smaller regions of this trade the Caribbean and the West Coast South America (WCSA) the regions with the strongest growth. The Caribbean grew by 11% and the WCSA showed a growth of 12% in 2006. This was respectively 2% and 18% in 2005. The several hubs or pivot ports serve the Caribbean islands, the East Coast of Central America and the North Coast of the South American Continent. The countries with these hub ports dominate the trade with the Caribbean. The most important countries are Trinidad and Tobago (Port of Spain), Bahamas (Freeport), Jamaica (Kingston), Venezuela (Cartagena), Panama (Colon) and Dominican Republic (Caucedo). An overview of the ports with a dominant transhipment share in Latin America is provided in the following overview on The Europe – Caribbean trade was around 2 mln full TEU in 2006 and grew by

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

39

11%. In Europe the Caribbean is served mostly through North European ports (74%), the remainder through Mediterranean ports. The most important port is Rotterdam with 466,000 TEU followed by Le Havre (342,000 TEU). Thereafter the ports of Hamburg, Valencia, Antwerp all are in the range of about 170-200000 full TEU. Rotterdam showed an increase of 19% in volumes in 2006 and therefore outperformed the trade average 11%. Of the major ports in this trade it was Hamburg that lost volumes. This port decreased by 13% in 2006.

East Coast South America

The European trade with the East Coast South America is about 4.5 mln TEU and grew by 4% in 2006. About 64% is carried through North European ports (2.9 mln TEU) and 36% through Mediterranean ports (1.6 mln TEU). Whilst the trade with the Mediterranean ports declined with 1% the North European ports increase by 7% in 2006. The most important ports in this trade are Antwerp (1 mln TEU), Hamburg (0.79 mln) and Rotterdam (0.62 mln). Algeciras is the most important port in the Mediterranean with 0.4 mln TEU (primarily for onward transhipment into the Mediterranean), followed by Valencia.

West Coast South America

The West Coast South America is served through the Panama Canal. As such the container vessels are limited to a width of 32.2 meters corresponding to a capacity of around 4300 TEU5. Due to the distance and the smaller ship sizes the trade is less voluminous than the East Coast of South America. The total trade was 860,000 full TEU in 2006 and increased by 12%. Chile is the largest country in this trade having a share of about 50% or 456,000 TEU. From a European perspective about 74% is carried through North European ports with as most important ports Rotterdam and Hamburg. This trade increased by 8% in 2006. Valencia is the largest port in this trade with the West Coast South America. The Mediterranean ports increased their trade with 24% in 2006.

Europe-Africa

Low drafted ports in Africa with several ports lacking quay side gantry cranes characterize the trade between Europe and Africa. This results in the usage of small and geared containerships upto a range of about 1,500 TEU capacity. Several operators use also Multi purpose or Ro-Ro ships. The total trade was 7.5 mln full TEU in 2006 and grew by 4% in 2006 (9% in 2005). The African market is divided into:

North Africa (East and West Mediterranean) West Africa East Africa & Red Sea Southern Africa

In the following paragraphs the several parts of this market are discussed.

5 The largest and newest Panamax ships passing through the canal in 2008 are 5100 TEU.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

40

Table 24: Europe - Africa

2006 2005 2004Africa Growth TOTAL Out of EU In to EU TOTAL Out of EU In to EU TOTAL Out of EU In to EUcountry 06/'05 In and Out (Southbd) (Northbd) In and Out (Southbd) (Northbd) In and Out (Southbd) (Northbd)

East Africa Comoros (Ind.Ocean) 0% - - - - - - 1,000 1,000 - Kenya -25% 46,000 21,000 25,000 61,000 28,000 33,000 101,000 50,000 52,000 Madagascar (Ind.Ocean) 19% 31,000 13,000 18,000 26,000 12,000 14,000 28,000 12,000 16,000 Mayotte (Ind.Ocean) 18% 13,000 7,000 6,000 11,000 6,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 6,000 Somalia 17% 7,000 7,000 1,000 6,000 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 - Tanzania -23% 10,000 6,000 4,000 13,000 7,000 6,000 16,000 11,000 5,000 Zambia 0% - - - - - - - - - East Africa Total -8% 108,000 53,000 54,000 117,000 58,000 59,000 158,000 79,000 78,000

East Med. Egypt other -57% 3,000 1,000 3,000 7,000 1,000 6,000 13,000 - 13,000 Egypt, Mediterranean 2% 1,979,000 1,015,000 964,000 1,940,000 1,052,000 888,000 1,441,000 766,000 674,000 Libya -4% 47,000 45,000 3,000 49,000 46,000 3,000 52,000 50,000 2,000 East Med. Total 2% 2,030,000 1,060,000 970,000 1,996,000 1,099,000 897,000 1,506,000 816,000 690,000

Red Sea Djibouti -47% 8,000 3,000 4,000 15,000 6,000 9,000 18,000 9,000 10,000 Egypt, Red Sea -31% 18,000 14,000 4,000 26,000 17,000 9,000 34,000 21,000 13,000 Eritrea 0% - - - - - - - - - Sudan -30% 7,000 6,000 1,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 7,000 3,000 Red Sea Total -35% 33,000 24,000 10,000 51,000 28,000 24,000 63,000 37,000 26,000

West Africa Angola 40% 140,000 138,000 2,000 100,000 99,000 2,000 94,000 92,000 1,000 Benin 47% 166,000 136,000 30,000 113,000 96,000 16,000 79,000 61,000 18,000 Cameroon 9% 178,000 98,000 81,000 163,000 89,000 73,000 145,000 84,000 61,000 Cape Verde 10% 23,000 22,000 1,000 21,000 20,000 1,000 20,000 19,000 1,000 Congo, Dem Rep. -6% 17,000 15,000 1,000 18,000 16,000 2,000 16,000 15,000 1,000 Congo, Republic 54% 43,000 38,000 5,000 28,000 24,000 4,000 26,000 24,000 2,000 Equatorial Guinea 71% 29,000 28,000 1,000 17,000 16,000 1,000 20,000 20,000 - Gabon 8% 43,000 34,000 9,000 40,000 30,000 10,000 38,000 30,000 8,000 Gambia 9% 24,000 21,000 4,000 22,000 20,000 2,000 24,000 22,000 2,000 Ghana 8% 243,000 184,000 60,000 225,000 172,000 52,000 226,000 157,000 69,000 Guinea 6% 54,000 47,000 7,000 51,000 40,000 11,000 53,000 45,000 8,000 Guinea Bissau -17% 5,000 5,000 1,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 5,000 4,000 1,000 Ivory Coast 1% 299,000 134,000 165,000 296,000 133,000 163,000 359,000 157,000 201,000 Liberia -15% 17,000 16,000 1,000 20,000 15,000 5,000 16,000 12,000 4,000 Mali -100% - - - 2,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 - Mauritania -20% 32,000 25,000 7,000 40,000 31,000 9,000 35,000 28,000 7,000 Morocco, Atlantic 9% 551,000 387,000 165,000 507,000 365,000 142,000 523,000 364,000 160,000 Morocco, other 0% 1,000 - - 1,000 - - 1,000 - - Niger 0% - - - - - - - - - Nigeria 30% 488,000 391,000 97,000 374,000 306,000 67,000 353,000 255,000 98,000 Sao Tome and Principe 50% 6,000 5,000 - 4,000 4,000 - 5,000 5,000 - Senegal -29% 204,000 170,000 34,000 287,000 213,000 74,000 206,000 153,000 52,000 Sierra Leone 0% 14,000 13,000 1,000 14,000 12,000 2,000 14,000 14,000 1,000 St. Helena 0% - - - - - - - - - Togo 17% 102,000 76,000 26,000 87,000 62,000 25,000 78,000 57,000 21,000

West Africa Total 10% 2,680,000 1,982,000 698,000 2,432,000 1,768,000 664,000 2,336,000 1,619,000 717,000 West Med. Algeria -12% 448,000 418,000 30,000 510,000 479,000 31,000 546,000 516,000 30,000

Morocco, Mediterranean 0% 1,000 - 1,000 - - - 1,000 - 1,000 Tunisia -4% 379,000 261,000 118,000 394,000 265,000 129,000 398,000 272,000 125,000

West Med. Total -8% 828,000 680,000 148,000 904,000 744,000 161,000 945,000 789,000 156,000 Southern Africa Mozambique -12% 15,000 10,000 5,000 17,000 9,000 8,000 21,000 18,000 4,000

Namibia 0% 17,000 5,000 12,000 17,000 4,000 13,000 12,000 4,000 8,000 South Africa 7% 1,778,000 933,000 845,000 1,666,000 874,000 792,000 1,544,000 774,000 770,000

Southern Africa Total 6% 1,811,000 948,000 862,000 1,701,000 887,000 813,000 1,577,000 795,000 782,000 Grand Total 4% 7,489,000 4,747,000 2,742,000 7,201,000 4,584,000 2,618,000 6,585,000 4,135,000 2,449,000

To/from EU countries

Africa sub-region

North Africa, West Mediterranean

The North African trade is about 2.8 mln TEU or 38% of the entire trade. It covers the African coast of the West Mediterranean (29%) and the East Mediterranean (71%). The largest country in this trade is Egypt with almost 2 mln TEU. However with the recent installed new capacity in Tangier, Morocco it can be expected that the West Med. will rapidly increase their market share in future. The West Med. has a relative low volume of 0.8 mln TEU mainly served through Mediterranean ports covering about 82%. The North European ports handled only 18% of this trade but they increased their share in 2006 with a volume growth of 16%. Overall the trade fell by 8% in 2006 due to the decrease of Mediterranean ports trade with this region. The largest ports on this the West Mediterranean are Marseilles and Valencia.

North Africa, East Mediterranean

The East Mediterranean consists mainly of volumes to and from Egypt (Port Said & Damietta). In 2006 the volumes were about 2 mln TEU. The North European ports handled most for these volumes, about 1.1 mln TEU. However the trade with North European ports fell by 4% in 2006 compared to 11% rise by the Mediterranean ports.

East Africa and Red Sea

The East Africa & Red Sea market with Europe is very small, only 108,000 TEU. The trade passes through the Suez Cannel, which does allow large ships but the East African countries still are draft restricted thus this trade again is

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

41

characterized by small sized ships. Mediterranean ports do about fifty percent of the market. The Europe - East Africa/Red Sea trade is really of none significance with only 24,000 TEU in 2006.

West Africa

The West African market encompasses all countries between and including Morocco in the North till Namibia in the South. This market was around 36% of the total Europe – Africa market or 2.7 mln TEU in 2006. Nigeria with 0.49 mln TEU was the largest country in the trade (Moroccan Atlantic excluded) followed by Ivory Coast ( 0.3 mln TEU) and Ghana (0.24 mln TEU). The trade grew by 10% in 2006 (4% in 2005) mainly through the growth of the large amount of smaller countries in this trade. The Mediterranean has the largest share in the market (56%) and the North Europe has a share of 44%. Both regions showed an increase of resp. 8% and 14% in 2006.

Southern Africa

The South African market covers South Africa, Namibia and Mozambique. The trade with the European Union was 1.8 mln full TEU in 2006 and grew at 6%. South Africa has the largest share in this market nearly 98%. The North European market with a share of 84% dominates this trade.

Port throughputs

Containerised cargo is the star of the growth rate league. The pace has been high for years. The forecasted average annual growth rate of 7% based on cargo tonnes over the 2006 to 2018 period is actually lower than before. Still these are high figures leading to more than a doubling of the cargo volumes over the period.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

Nort

hSea

Atlantic

Baltic

Sea

Wes

tM

edEas

tM

edBla

ckSea

Ove

r-se

asRiv

ers

Inw Outw


Figure 33: EU port containerised cargo throughputs by direction, million tonnes

Intra-European trades

Containerised regional cargo in Europe -referred to by short sea carriers as “intra-Europe domestic cargo”. It is characterized as cargo moving between European ports and includes the feedering. The analysis is split between Intra North Europe, the Intra Mediterranean, the two biggest regional markets and

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

42

the market between these regions, the North Europe Mediterranean. A great part of the trade really consists of transhipment volumes and these volumes are always prone to change when carriers decide to reorganise their service patterns. In that sense these trades are high-risk trades as volumes may change to other ports quite easily. The Intra North European market grew by 9% in 2007 (8% in 2006) to about 8.4 mln TEU. The Intra Mediterranean market grew by 5% in 2007 (3% in 2006) and the North European market grew by 9% in 2007 (11% in 2006). Overall the entire region showed a growth of 7% in 2007 (6% in 2006).

(in Full TEU) 2005 2006 2007Intra North Europe 7,150,000 7,722,000 8,400,000Intra Mediterranean 8,304,000 8,518,000 8,986,000North Europe – Med. 2,533,000 2,804,000 3,047,000Total Trade 17,987,000 19,044,000 20,433,000Source: Dynamar

Intra European trades

Intra North European markets

With 8.4 million Full TEU carried in 2007, the Intra North European market corresponds to 41% of the total intra European trades. On the Intra European trade cargo is predominantly moved in 45’ pallet-wide containers. That equipment can hold the same number of Euro-pallets as the 13-metre road trailers, populating Europe’s high (and other) ways. The -converted- around 200,000 TEU of this container-type can therefore compete successfully with road transport. However, this does not exactly help the logistics of the estimated 5.5 million TEU of maritime containers circulating in North Europe as feeder box. ISO-standard 20’ and 40’ maritime containers lack the advantages of 45’ non-ISO palletwide box and are therefore not popular for the use of intra-Europe domestic cargo. Hence, a large number of containers returns empty to the transhipment ports without any contribution to the costs involved. With two exceptions, the eight 2007 takeovers in intra-Europe shipping mainly concerned ferry-type and other non-container operations. Europe’s largest feeder operator Unifeeder was acquired by an investment fund; Cyprus-based Lemisoller took over Baltic Container Line (BCL) to merge it into its subsidiary IMCL, operating feeder services between the North Continent (ports in the Netherlands and Germany) and southern Baltic (Denmark, Poland, Lithuania). Two of the largest Intra-(North) Europe container operators are domiciled in remote Iceland (around 300,000 inhabitants): Samskip and Eimskip. Another important player is DFDS Container Line of Denmark, which can integrate cargo operations with the dense DFDS freight ferry system. Rather than port-to-port those companies offer an extensive network of intermodal intra-Europe door-to-door container operations, penetrating deep into mainland Europe. The main transhipment port in North Europe is Hamburg with a volume of 3.8 mln TEU mainly for volumes to and from the Baltic Sea and Russia. The total transhipment volume of the major ports is estimated at nearly 11.6 mln TEU.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

43

Table 25: North European major transhipment ports

(in 1,000 TEU) 2004 2005 2006 T/S share TS VolumeHamburg Germany 7,004 8,088 8,862 43% 3,811Rotterdam Netherlands 8,292 9,287 9,601 28% 2,688Bremerhaven Germany 3,448 3,699 4,409 46% 2,028Antwerp Belgium 6,064 6,488 7,019 27% 1,867Le Havre France 2,132 2,057 2,130 28% 596Felixstowe UK 2,675 2,800 3,080 12% 370Zeebrugge Belgium 1,196 1,408 1,640 14% 230Total T/S 11,589Source Dynamar

North European Major Transhipment ports

Landside modal split at some of Europe's main container ports is as follows: Table 26: Modal split at main European ports

Port Country road % rail % barge %Antwerp Belgium 57 10 33Zeebrugge Belgium 60 38 2Dunkirk France 33 55 12Le Havre France 86 8 6Bremerhaven Germany 52 45 3Hamburg Germany 67 31 2Amsterdam Netherlands 45 8 47Rotterdam Netherlands 55 12 33Felixstowe UK 72 28 0Thamesport UK 77 23 0Southampton UK 72 28 0Source: Dynamar

Intra-Mediterranean

In 2007 the Intra Mediterranean market kept 44% of the total regional trade with a volume of 8.9 mln TEU. In November 2007, 36 vessel-deploying carriers operated more than 150 dedicated services within the Mediterranean, consisting of the West Med including North Africa, the East Med including the Adriatic and Levant, as well as the Black Sea. Some 250 ships provide nearly 200 weekly sailings. Operations (incidentally) carrying boxes between Mediterranean ports but having a destination and/or origin outside of Mare Nostrum are not included. On basis of annualised capacity, with a share of 32% MSC is by far the largest carrier, followed by genuine intra-Mediterranean third party feeder operator UFS (15%). Considering the transhipment shares at the main Mediterranean hubs and corrected for relay moves, Dynamar’s 2007 “The (All) Intra-Mediterranean Container Trade” estimates the share of feeder boxes in the total intra-Med trade at nearly 60% of the total around 8.9 million TEU. One of the two container terminals at totally new Tangier-Med Port (Morocco, Tangier, on the south of Strait of Gibraltar) opened for business in September, operated by APM Terminals. The second one, of a Eurogate/Contship Italia-led consortium furthermore encompassing CMA CGM and MSC, is to follow soon. As Morocco’s containerized import/export is still rather modest and mostly handled at 170-nautical miles southwest Casablanca, there is little doubt that transhipment will be their main trade, in competition with opposite

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

44

Algeciras in particular. Maersk Line shifted various services to Tangier at the expense of Cagliari, now left without any mainline services. There are eleven dominant transhipment ports (those handling more than 50% transhipment) in the Mediterranean. In 2007 the largest transhipment port was Algeciras with 2.9 mln TEU transhipped followed closely by Gioia Tauro with 2.8 mln TEU. The total transhipment volume of the major ports is estimated at nearly 16.4 mln TEU, from which 74% is performed by EU ports. However both Port Said as well as the new facility at Tangier will challenge the EU transhipment markets in future. Table 27: Mediterranean major transhipment ports

(in TEU) 2004 2005 2006T/S share TS VolumeAlgeciras Spain 2,937 3,180 3,245 89% 2,888Gioia Tauro Italy 3,261 3,161 2,938 95% 2,791Malta Freeport Malta 1,461 1,309 1,485 93% 1,381Barcelona Spain 1,917 2,078 2,318 37% 857Piraeus Greece 1,542 1,395 1,399 59% 825Valencia Spain 2,145 2,398 2,612 31% 810Taranto Italy 763 717 892 90% 803Constanta Rumania 386 768 1,014 70% 710Cagliari Italy 525 659 726 90% 653Malaga Spain 97 248 451 69% 311EU ports 12,030Port Said Egypt 825 1,522 2,654 92% 2,441Istanbul Turkey 1,395 1,527 1,851 39% 722Damietta Egypt 1,148 1,130 818 78% 638Beirut Lebanon 390 465 594 51% 303Haifa Israel 1,043 1,123 1,070 22% 234Non EU ports 4,338Grand Total T/S 16,368

Mediterranean Major Transhipment ports

1.4.2 Roro cargo

Roro cargo is a diverse cargo category since it encompasses almost everything but bulk handling. Most of the modes listed below could in turn carry various type of goods. Some modes are sometimes used in combination. To mention a few;

• Containers of all sizes – 20’, 40’, 45’, high cubes, SECU boxes (Stora Enso Container Unit),

• Cassettes, flats • Swop-bodies, semi-trailers, mafi trailers, trailers and trucks, • Cars, SUVs and buses.

Roro traffic is largely an intra-European business with the exception of the long haul carriage of new vehicles. Roro vessels are to a significant extent used in short sea shipping. Growth over the forecast period is set to an annual average of 4.5%. A brief distinction between roro and ropax/ferries is found in footnotes 6 and 7 on page 55.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

45

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

Nort

hSea

Atlantic

Bal

tic

Sea

Wes

tM

edEast

Med

Bla

ckSea

Ove

r-se

asRiv

ers

Inw Outw


Figure 34: EU port roro cargo throughputs by direction, million tonnes

The roro and ropax operation in Europe is substantial. There are a number of natural, geographical and cultural hinders. Using sea transports to bridge these hinders result in a cost efficient and relatively fast short cut of the transports that also discharge traffic from the roads. The roro/ropax services are vital for the communication and trading in the region. In the following illustrations only services transporting more than 20,000 trailers per year have been illustrated. In addition there are ferry services which are pure passenger and/or car transport services. The following focuses on the freight part of the operations.

Gdynia

Gdansk

Baltijsk

Klaipeda

Liepaja

Rostock

Grenå

Malmö

Ventspils

Sassnitz

Ystad

KarlshamnKarlskrona

Rönne

Swinoujscie

Umeå

Vasa

Riga

Paldiski

ÅboNådendal

Grisslehamn

Eckerö Helsingfors

TallinStockholm

Kapellskär

Nynäshamn

VisbyOskarshamn

0-5- 160 000- 400 000- 800 000

- 1 600 000- 3 200 000

- 1 200 000

- 4 800 000- 6 400 000> 6 400 000

5-1010-3030-5050-75

75-100100-200200-300300-400

>400

1,000 trailers pr year ~ tons

Travemünde

Trelleborg

Helsingborg

Fredrikshamn

Göteborg

Kristiansand

Strömstad

Oslo

SandefjordLarvikBrevik

Helsingör

Kiel

- 80 000

Year 2007

Aarhus

Hanstholm

Hirtshals

Kalundborg

Figure 35: Trailer volumes on major roro & ropax services in the Baltic Sea region

The number of roro/ropax services is high counting more than 200 lines whereof most employ more than one ship. When the eastern part of the Baltic opened up in 1990 links were established to facilitate the communication between the countries.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

46

Some traditional seaways have been converted to bridges between Denmark and Sweden (Öresund Link 8.5 nm) and in domestic Danish routes. Plans are to link Denmark with Germany Rødby-Putgarten (10 nm) in the same way. However the link Gedser - Rostock (26 nm) will reportedly continue to be serviced by roro/ropax vessels. In addition to the roro & ropax traffic and container feeder systems in Europe there are substantial industrial shipments using large roro ships. The industrial products form the base transport demand which move in the north-south direction. The load carriers (mafis, cassettes etc) are often used as terminal to terminal carriers for third party cargo in both directions. The return cargoes are vehicles, industrial and consumer products in containers or on trailers. Some of the return cargo is destined for Russia. The products are shipped by road or rail to Russia. A few effects of this operation are that the stripping of containers is made in Finland. Some of these containers are then used for the export of Finnish products. However, many of them have to be repositioned to other ports and countries where there is a need for empties.

Ham

ina

Hank

o3/

w

Raum

a

GdyniaLübeck

Hels

inki

MalmöAarhus

Kotk

a

Rostock

Turk

u/Pa

nsio

Kotka-Lübeck-Göteborg 2 ships

Hanko-Lübeck - Gdynia 4 ships

Lübeck-Helsinki-Kotka-Hamina1 ship

Finnish Industrial shipping systemsBaltic Sea

3 ships:TranspaperTranspulpTranstimber3/W

Kemi

Uleåborg

To Gothenburg

Gdynia - Helsinki 1 ship

Aarhus-Malmö-Helsinki- Gdynia1 ship

Pansio-Lübeck 1 ship

Gothenburg

Halmstad

Oslo

CPH

Helsinki-Copenhagen-Malmö-Halmstad-Oslo1 ship

Rauma-Kotka-Gdynia 2 ships

Lübeck Hamina 1 ship

Pansio- Rauma- Rostock-Lübeck 1 Ship

Helsinki-Aarhus-Malmö 1 ship

Rostock-Hanko1 ship

Helsinki-Kotka-Lübeck-Turku-Malmö1 Ship

Figure 36: Industrial roro shipping systems, Finland-Baltic Sea region

Lübeck is an important hub port. Finland has traditionally a breakpoint here. From Lübeck the products are distributed by rail to southern Europe and by road to Germany and the inner of Europe. In a shipping system from the northern part of the Gulf of Bothnia products are shipped via Gothenburg, were they meet with products from southern Finland and with products from Sweden. These products are split on the North Sea transport systems distributing them to Tilbury in the UK and Zeebrügge in Belgium. Most of these systems are built up on regular weekly services employing one or two ships.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

47

Ham

ina

Hank

o

Raum

a 2/

w

LübeckBremerhaven

Helsi

nki

Aarhus

Kotk

a

Rostock

Turk

u/Pa

nsio

AntwerpTerneuzen

Hamina-Hanko-Antwerp-Terneuzen2 Ships

Rauma-Hanko-Antwerp1 ship

Hamina-Kotka-Rauma/Bremerhaven-El Ferrol2 ships

Gävle

Vlissingen/FlushingKiling-holme

El Ferrol

Turku-Gävle-Killingholme-Vlissingen1 ship

Le Havre Kotka-Rouen-Port Jerome1 ship

Tilbury

Kotka-Rostock-Tilbury1 ship

Bilbao

Kotka-Helsinki-Hanko-Bilbao-Antwerp-Terneuzen1 ship

Immingham/Hull

Ruma-Immingham1 ship

Hamina -Kotka-Lübeck-Amsterdam-Tilbury2 ships

Amsterdam

Helsinki-Hull-Immingham-Amsterdam-Hamina-Hanko-Tilbury2 ships

Finnish Industrial shipping systemsNorth Sea

Figure 37: Industrial roro shipping systems, Finland-North Sea region

There are also vehicle roro carriers distributing new cars from the major car hubs to the import ports in Europe. One hub is Zeebrügge. Kotka in Finland is one import port through which a lot of cars for the Russian market are transited. The Swedish forest industry runs a more dedicated service. In lack of the transport demand of consumables, which comes by containers or the short ferry services, most of the tonnage has a void cargo hold on the return trip. Some services will do a stop for the discharge of trailers, from Rotterdam to Helsingborg, or cars from Germany to Södertälje. The ships will carry supplies and raw materials to the own industry, but on the whole there is a substantial open transport capacity on the northbound leg. The Swedish fleet as well as the Finnish carry high ice class to be able to force the ice in wintertime. The main part of the products are destined for the European market. It is distributed from the continental ports to the clients by inland waterway barges, rail or road. The roro/ropax services across the North Sea are mainly liner services connecting Finland and Sweden to the North Sea continental coast and the UK. These transports are fairly balanced with break bulk products of steel and forest products out and consumer products on the return trip. Combinations with container feedering services becomes increasingly of interest and are being looked at. One issue is the repositioning of empty containers in the Baltic Sea region to the northern parts where there is a deficit of empties.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

48

Gdynia1/w1/w

Hallstavik 3/w

Braviken

Chatham1/w

Umeå 2/wUmeå 2/w

Sundsvall 2/wSundsvall 2/w

Iggesund 2/wIggesund 2/w

Helsingborg1/w

Rotterdam2/w

Tilbury2/w

Container feeder1/v

OrtvikenÖstrandObbola

3 ships

FartygstypSeeland

Husum 2/wHusum 2/w

Kemi

Uleåborg

Lübeck 3/w

Lübeck 2/w

Kotka

Piteå-Haraholmen 1/W

BalticborgBothniaborg

Bremen

TerneuzenSherness

Harwich

Turku

Bremerhaven1/w

1/w1/w

1/w

1/v

Industrial services on Sweden

2 shipsHelenaViolaGorthon

Figure 38: Industrial roro shipping systems, Sweden-Baltic & North Sea regions

0-5- 160 000- 400 000- 800 000

- 1 600 000- 1 200 000

5-1010-3030-5050-75

75-100100-200

1,000 trailers pr year ~ tons- 80 000

Year 2007

ImminghamHull

Esbjerg

GentZeebrügge

RamsgateOostende

Caen

PooleCherbourg

Portsmouth

Rosyth

Le Havre

Calais

Dover

1.3M by fixed link1.9M by sea

CainryanLarne

Dublin

Holyhead

PembrokeFishguard

Rosslare

Liverpool

Rotterdam

Harwich

- 3 200 000- 4 800 000- 6 400 000> 6 400 000

200-300300-400

>400

othenburg

Figure 39: Trailer volumes on major roro & ropax services in the North Sea region

The roro & ropax services in the Mediterranean Sea are generally characterised by long routes with high occupancy. There is a substantial demand for services from the islands. The domestic services in Spain, Italy and Greece are substantial.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

49

There are several long hauls in the eastern part of the Mediterranean, such as the 1,200 nm Trieste-Istanbul service. The unstable condition on the Balkan Peninsula, particularly in the past, has created a demand for transports between Italy and Greece. This traffic is growing and the types of ferries used are often fast and with large capacity.

Figure 40: Trailer volumes on major roro & ropax services in the Mediterranean

1.4.3 Other general cargo

Growth of the remaining general cargo category is predicted to an annual average of 1%. The anticipated existence of containerised and bulk cargoes within this “other” segment supports the rate which otherwise would have been somewhat lower.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

2018

2006

Nort

hSea

Atlantic

Baltic

Sea

Wes

tM

edEas

tM

edBla

ckSea

Ove

r-se

asRiv

ers

Inw Outw


Figure 41: EU port other general cargo throughputs by direction, million tonnes

1.5 Passengers

• Smaller ferries fulfil an important short distance, urban transport function – quite often for passenger transports only (without cars).

• Trend wise shift towards cargo in the ropax sector; particularly in North Europe.

• European cruises forecasted to expand strongly.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

50

Passengers are carried all over the world most in ferries but also in cruise ships. The ferries are life lines for many remote places like islands and the transport work they do is thus very important. The cruise passengers are more important for the ports/communities that they visit since the passengers tend to spend a good amount of money at every stop.

Ferries

There are ferries all over the world, but due to the structure of coastlines they operate in relatively confined areas. Europe is typically ferry intense and so is Japan. The Pacific border between USA and Canada is also showing quite a number of ferries due to the many islands surrounding the big cities of Seattle and Vancouver. The Caribbean holds a potential, but still there are surprisingly few ferries. The archipelagos of the Philippines invite for the usage of ferries, several of which are imported from Japan. In Indonesia, the coastal ferry market started to grow considerably, but has to a large extent already been replaced by low-cost airlines. South America and Africa holds only a small portion of ferry services, whereas in Australia and New Zealand, the ferry services count just a few, but on the other hand those are quite significant. It is fair to say that in general, ferries can switch between various areas of operations, hence there is an active second hand market. But the Asian routes are a bit different. In the Philippines, several of the ferries are converted so that a large part of the car decks is used for overnight accommodation in bunks. And the Japanese are fairly small when it comes to passenger facilities, as they are merely used for the transportation of the vehicles. Once they are sold and especially if they are sold to Greece, they are extensively converted when it comes to the superstructure decks, while at the same time making use of their often exquisite hull forms with advanced speed and very good vehicle capacity intake. We assume that there will be some positive development in the Red Sea, now that focus has been put on safety and ultimately then on newer vessels. The planned USD 3-billion and 15km-long suspension bridge over the Gulf of Aqaba will take years to materialise. Table 28: The ferry capacity divided over the world

Share of total ferry capacity (1,000gt+) measured in: Region Number Lanemeter Beds GT Average ageBaltic 17% 18% 25% 22% 15North Sea 10% 16% 10% 15% 13Mediterranean 33% 37% 43% 37% 21North America 9% 4% 2% 5% 31South America 1% 0% 0% 0% 30Persian Gulf 2% 1% 3% 1% 34Japan 12% 13% 9% 9% 15South East Asia 14% 9% 8% 9% 27Pacific 1% 1% 1% 1% 22Other 1% 0% 0% 1% 28 There are many types of ferries, mostly depending on the length of the trips they cater for. On short distance crossings, the ferry is utilised during day hours and there is no need for any overnight accommodation at all. On medium distance crossings, typically around 6 hours, they are most frequently used during daytime however at least portion of their crossings are overnight, with some need for sleeping accommodation. On long distance crossings, typically more than 12 hours, they are frequently used for night-time

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

51

crossings, where the overnight capacity is actually setting the capacity constraints. More details about the structure of the ferry market can be found in chapter 3.10 Ferry. ShipPax gathers statistics from ferry operations world wide and even though it never will be complete it captures the majority of the activities in the more developed parts of the World. For 2006, ShipPax recorded a total figure of close to 1.63Bn passengers, 214 million cars, 735,000 buses and 31.8 million trailers carried on 6.6 million crossings. Table 29: Ferry traffic figure in 2007

Year 2007 PAX CARS BUSES TRAILERS TRIPSAmerica 323,366,453 79,826,204 52,963 2,446,360 814,230Baltic 215,824,548 79,354,323 332,325 8,679,469 3,899,592Inland Lakes/Rivers 10,078,932 1,697,318 6,936 90,704 63,106Mediterranean 423,715,378 33,121,293 67,389 7,632,111 811,160North Sea 97,451,151 19,963,252 259,619 11,406,704 310,911Pacific 29,095,930 959,337 0 493,543 101,490Red Sea & Persian Gulf 8,413,346 1,153,671 4,095 59,006 4,143South East Asia 546,275,114 2,890,164 8,677 4,020,073 634,113Total 1,654,220,852 218,965,562 732,004 34,827,970 6,638,745

Source: Shippax Information Since the data probably is far from complete when it comes to, for instance, certain parts of Asia, we can only but assume that the real figures for these are much higher. Looking at the North European routes it is evident that the trailer volumes have grown quite substantially over the recent six years as illustrated in Figure 42. In 2007 the increase was lower in the Baltic compared to the North Sea contrary to the years before.

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Shippax information

Year

ly g

row

ht,

%

Baltic North Sea

Figure 42: Trailer traffic development, North Europe

For the passenger volumes, recent fixed links have had a negative effect on some core corridors with high volumes. North Sea has a tendency of slipping behind past volumes, with no increases any of the years 2002 – 2006. As can be noted from Figure 43 is that the passenger and car development correlates very well at the respective regions.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

52

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Shippax Information

Year

ly g

row

ht,

%

North Sea, Pax North Sea, Cars Baltic, Pax Baltic, Cars

Figure 43: Passenger traffic development, Northern Europe

From the development graphs presented you can conclude that it is the trailer traffic which is the driving force behind current ferry development. Table 30: Routes that is known to have ceased in 2007

Region Trade Route Operator Notes

Baltic EST-FIN Sillamäe-Kotka Saaremaa Laevakompanii Vessel sold

North Sea GBR-SPA Portsmouth-Bilbao Acciona Trasmediterranea Started only in 2006

North Sea GBR-IRE Swansea - Cork Swansea Cork Ferry Could not find substitute to ferry sold

Mediterranean ALG-SPA Oran-Alicante Acciona Trasmediterranea

Mediterranean ALG-SPA Ghazaouet-Nador Acciona Trasmediterranea Vessel sold

Mediterranean GRE dom Killini-Zakynthos ANEZ Lines Vessel laid up subject to regulations

Mediterranean GRE-ITA Patras-Igoumenitsa-Brindisi Maritime Way Chartered tonnage in 2006

Routes ceased 2007

The ferry network is changing its pattern after market demand all the time. Above the routes that ceased in 2007 are presented and below the ones known to have started up. Table 31: Routes known to have started in 2007

Routes new 2007Region Trade Route Operator Notes

Baltic SWE dom Grankullavik-Visby Destination Gotland fast ferry service

North Sea FRA-GBR St Malo-Jersey/Guernsey HD Lines fast ferry service

North Sea FRA-GBR Le Havre-Newhaven Louis Dreyfus Line seasonal

Mediterranean SPA dom Valencia-Palma Acciona Trasmediterranea Previously operated

Mediterranean GRE dom Piraeus-Paros-Mykonos-Samos-Ikaria Kallisti Ferries j/v Corsica Ferries+Spanos

Mediterranean ITA dom Livorno-Trapani Ustica Lines

Mediterranean MOR-SPA Tarfaya-Puerto del Rosario-Las Palmas Armas

Mediterranean ITA-SPA Livorno-Barcelona Grimaldi Ferries

Mediterranean ITA dom Genova-Porto Torres MOBY Lines

Mediterranean ALB-ITA Durres/Vlore-Otranto Veronica Line

Mediterranean TUR dom Istanbul-Bursa Istanbul Deniz Otobüsleri fast ferry service

Mediterranean POR dom Setubal-Troia Atlantic Ferries newbuildings

Mediterranean TUR dom Bodrum-Istanbul Cruise & Ferry Lines Deniz

Mediterranean MOR-SPA Al Hoceima-Malaga Redouan Ferry

America USA dom Honolulu-Kahului/Nawiliwili Hawaii Superferry fast ferry service

Cruises

Cruise shipping has changed significantly over the years, from transoceanic liners to the development of the cruising concept vessels starting after WWII. By the mid 1960’s airlines were winning market shares and transoceanic liner services started to fade. Here we can see some similarities with the ferries current competition with low cost airlines on shorter routes. To gain an understanding of the relatively modest size of the cruise industry; the number of available cabins onboard all active cruise liners add up to approximately 181,000 cabins world-wide. This is a bit above the hotel room capacity of Las Vegas. The relevance of such a comparison may seem far

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

53

fetched but the main competition comes from alternative ways of spending your leisure time. Resorts and other land based attractions form a substantial part of this competition. Approximately 61% of all cruise passengers are Americans and 64% of all cruising activity is in America, while 29% are European passengers with 24% of the activity in Europe. Based on CLIA statistics the average annual passenger growth rate since 1980 is described as 8.1 per cent per year. This is no doubt an achievement in itself. In 1980, 1,431,000 passengers were cruising with CLIA members; in 2005 they were 9.1 million Americans and 2.4 million foreigners. These 11.5 million passengers can be compared with ShipPax’s total of 15.4 million passengers, counting all world-wide deep-sea cruise operators with at least one ship in deep-sea trade. As mentioned, there are additional activities in the Baltic, but especially so also in Asia, which no trade associations can pick up. Table 32: Cruise passengers, share of number of pax, nationality and destination

2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002Cruise passengers 17,780,179 16,931,718 16,708,552 15,434,340 13,845,956 12,921,785Growth 5.0% 1.3% 8.3% 11.5% 7.2% 35 568.0%

By NationalityAmerican Pax 61% 61% 59% 60% 61% 1%European Pax 29% 27% 29% 27% 28% 5%Other Pax 10% 12% 12% 12% 11% 0%

By DestinationAmerica 63% 58% 61% 64% 62%Europe 27% 24% 27% 24% 25%Asia 7% 8% 9% 10% 9%Other 3% 2% 2% 2% 3%

Source: ShipPax Information It is interesting to compare the ferry and cruise industries as individual tourist segments. In 2007, there were 1.65Bn ferry passengers, while there were a mere 17.8M cruise passengers. In absolute terms that makes the ferry industry much bigger. Still, by assuming that most ferry passengers are onboard a ferry crossing for an average of 2 hours – the majority of the passengers are believed to be on short crossings. That adds up to 3.3Bn ferry passenger hours. If the average length of a cruise is some 7 days, the multiplication process arrives at 3.0Bn cruise passenger hours – not far away from what the ferry industry performs. River cruising is an important segment. Such activities are found on major navigable rivers on most continents, the Nile, Rhine and Danube probably being the most intense. But as the river cruise vessels are specifically built for its purpose, not transparent with the other fleet as they are not built to international class registry and not able to navigate on open sea, we deem this category of ships falling aside of the broader cruising industry. It would also have a “devastating” effect on statistics for the deep sea activity in as much as an extensive fleet with little capacity would hold back average figures. In order to facilitate further expansion, more destinations and ports-of-call are required. The capacity joining in the Caribbean basin for the winter season is simply too much, and jeopardise the ticket revenues. We saw some definite indications of that in 2006, when especially Carnival was warning about the yield there. However, none are so exposed to Caribbean than the core Carnival brand itself, but even so, the company performed well on an overall basis. Destinations in the southern hemisphere need to come forward, especially in South America, which is easily reached from the normal winter grounds. Red Sea was on the verge to develop into a more substantial winter alternative before the attacks on the US on September 11, 2001. Now, the popularity of

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

54

cruises in these waters has vanished, especially for brands with American passengers. Australia is too far away to constitute a real alternative, and Africa is still lacking much of the needed infrastructure and political stability. Within regions being popular for cruising, alternative ports are also needed. We will of course continue to see some ever popular hubs, but between those, the alternative ports are much needed for the sake of the passengers. Once a passenger have visited three or four capitals, he or she needs a small port in between to “breathe”! In being a created market, the traffic volume increase in cruising is quite substantial and has been around 10 per cent for several years, the effects of September 11 not accounted for. However, with the increasing prices to build new tonnage, the capacity additions is not in par with the demand and we may expect a somewhat reduced increase to approximately 6 per cent over the next years. Should the Asian shipbuilders turn their interest towards the high end cruise ships, then prices for these vessels may develop in a more attractive direction, at least from a ship owner’s perspective, and the number of newbuildings may be more than what currently is predicted. The interest taken by STX in Aker indicates that this may be realised. The demand for cruise products in Europe has increased considerably and the capacity placed in Mediterranean and Baltic is increasing more than in any other major market. Actually, the capacity is now decreasing in the Caribbean during the summer. It comes as an effect of Europeans cruising more intensively, and cruise ships being more price competitive to travel in Europe when the USD is quite weak. However, given the 2008 increase one may expect a price war in Europe which short-term may result in yields going down, probably resulting in a less increase in 2009 and 2010. The effect of the bunker prices may see many companies producing new products with shorter destinations, resulting in less speed required. Instead of offering 7-day cruises from Venice to Istanbul and back, perhaps the vessels may turn in Greece. More calls in Croatia could for instance be introduced in the schedule then. Another offering could be to make the 7-day program in one direction. This could be a way to take advantage of the availability of low cost airlines. There may also be an increase of shorter cruises in Europe, a development which occurred in Caribbean several years ago. On the other hand, American passengers “collect” destinations, so what all of this really says is that the scope of services is set to widen. For European ports which want to become a "hub" base, investments in cruise terminal facilities will be needed unless already done. The perception of the cruise shipping trade is a delicate matter. It has been an “all-inclusive” offering, but today much of the discussions are focusing on onboard revenue. Second or third time passengers notice the price increases and may start to look at the alternatives. Some may take the step to the luxury class, but no large volumes are expected here. The Mediterranean and northern Europe belong to the established summer markets. We have already seen the first “Christmas cruises” in the Baltic Sea, but this feature has the potential for further growth. The same goes for niche markets such as the Gulf of Bothnia and the waters around the British isles. The latter may receive some extra attention following the upcoming Olympics in London. In the Mediterranean ports in Croatia are expected to come more into focus. A similar development is foreseen in the Black Sea provided that the recent

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

55

unrest in Georgia does not escalate. Political stability is also key to a pending positive development in the ports of North Africa. This also includes the absence of bureaucratic difficulties such as the sudden introduction recently of foreign exchange regulations in Libya which followed the first cruise vessel calls there.

1.6 Motorways of the sea

The freight service in Europe is dominated by the road vehicles, which add to traffic disturbance and pollution. For longer haulage rail and sea transports can be an alternative. In some cases it is the only option. Once the cargo is aboard the ship the marginal cost to take it further by sea and closer to its final destination is low. The transport by rail is often performed over night. The requirement is quite often that the product shall have reached its destination early in the morning. The handling operation is by this focused to a few hours in the morning with a peak in the utilisation and availability of equipment and manpower. During the day, activity is much lower up until the evening when all outgoing units needs to be handled for the overnight transport. This operation is costly and leaves room for improvements. Sea transports are not faced with this type of challenge. It is the transport service to the terminal that has to make the departure time of the ship. Here the challenge lies in the check-in time for the trailers to the terminal. By using pre-arrival check-in and Automatic Identification systems this operation can be very swift and efficient. Regular transport services in intra European relations are mainly performed by the road trailer. The transport systems are adapted to this and the cost and performance of the service is well known. The preference of a road trailer is due to its flexibility and simple handling of goods on and off the trailer. The drawback is the cost of the vehicle, its vulnerability as concerns brakes, support legs, cover and mechanical/electrical functions. All of which must be in good order to pass checks and safety rules on road. The road trailer is used as load carrier on Roro6 ships and Ferries7. In this type of service they are very fast and simple to handle in terminals and on the ships, much because of the fact that these vehicles are built to handle the trailers fast and efficient. The fact that sea transports and shuttle trains in pendulum operation, well utilised are very productive and operate at low cost per km result in an efficient intermodal transport system. However, all transports cannot make use of the advantage of sea or efficient rail pendulum services, and even though the transport is efficient and at low cost the handling of the units, especially on and off the railcars is a potential source of damage to the vehicle as well as to the cargo carried. The trailers onboard the ships produce a certain hazard, as do several other cargo units. However as the trailer often is soft sided, it offers little support for the cargo to meet with the motions of the ship. The same goes for trailers

6 Roro ship is a freight ship having max 12 passengers (drivers) accommodation and

which is built for break bulk stowage on deck or the carrying of road vehicles that is secured to the deck of the vessel.

7 Ferry is a combined passenger freight vessel having one or more decks suitable for freight vehicles and cars

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

56

onboard rail cars and trailer on the road. Bad or lack of securing fixing the cargo to the trailer is the cause of accidents. By increasing the inspection in port terminals and on road this type of incidents has diminished and will continue to do so. Factors that contribute to this, beside the proper education of the terminal operators that prepare the trailer for transport, is that the ships used today on the short sea operation grow in size. Road accidents with trailers are too common. Besides the fact that it causes delay of shipments and damage of property it is one of the worst disturbances of the regular road traffic.

1.6.1 Advantage of sea transportation

The seaborne alternative to road transport is basically a strong one. It is however important to bear in mind that the basic fundamentals have to be in place before a sea transport could be considered; such as a basic cargo volume. Indeed can a new service open up for new goods flows, but that is another issue to that of relieving the roads from cargo volumes. Some time in the future, we are likely to see that the external costs of all transports are internalised. Steps are already being taken in this direction, but the full implementation of this, which is expected to be a dramatic change to the conditions for transport, is not foreseeable within the time frame for this study (up to 2018). Such a development is however expected to benefit seaborne transports. The major savings using road trailer in the sea service, in comparison to a container operation, is that the port infrastructure can be very simple, a terminal surface and a ramp for the vessels to dock at. The terminal surface is plain asphalt top and most of the handling is performed in the terminal by the road driver. The driver delivers the trailer at a parking spot at the side of the ship and picks up an incoming at another nearby parking lot for incoming trailers. The ship operation is performed by terminal tractors when the ship calls the port. Manning is necessary for the securing and unlashing of trailers. The concept is strong. The only operation that beats it is the ferry service where the drivers drive on and off the ship themselves. These ferry services come in two ways, the combined passenger/freight vessel, the Ferry and the Freight vessel with a minor passenger capacity (mainly cabins for drivers, and built for freight, the ropax. The ferry service is either a short pendulum service, day ferries, or it is a longer service with possibility to offer night cabins at a higher rate, night ferries. By volume and productivity the container ship operation is a strong competitor, primarily because of the low cost of the shipping operation. Cargo shipped in transoceanic service will always come by container. The stowage factor of any other type of load carrying unit can never compete with the container. The mass handling of containers and the density of the carried cargo results in an attractive cost of sea transports. The global standard of the container helps to make the use of it almost without limitations. One major issue is the limitations in intra European road transports of containers where restrictions apply to move large 45’ containers cross the borders. On one hand this stimulate to call a port as close to the destination as possible. On the other hand it is not good enough to force the deep sea liner services to call all ports to which containers are addressed as this will be a decision taken in the next step of the logistic chain when the containers are to be distributed from the major container hub port. By this it will cause a feeder transport from the port

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

57

to a nearby port or the cargo will be stripped in the port and moved to its destination by truck at a much higher cost plus one more handling of the cargo in the container. However the container terminals and their infrastructure are expensive. The quay front demands a very strong quay-side to support the heavy cranes that impose huge loads on the structure when handling containers on and off the ships. There has to be electrical-power supply to the cranes demanding canalisation and transformers. The tarmac (tar-penetration macadam) on the terminal must be made by concrete, or a kind of very heavy and sustainable top that endures high axle loads from lifting and turning machines handling containers. As the corner castings on the containers presents a high pressure on the tarmac when stacked, the tarmac has to be of a pressure sustainable material. The container’s location in the terminal must be planned in such way that the handle procedure done in the terminal becomes a natural transport flow. It must include the sea front gantry cranes, the takeaway capacity from the cranes to the stack and the support of receiving/delivery of container to the road/rail. This demands a fleet of vehicles and manning of the operation. The roro vessel on the other hand is an expensive vessel, heavy in its construction as the modern handling demands open pillar free decks to manage for flexibility and to avoid damages. It is also expensive in relation to its goods carrying capacity, if it is loaded with trailers. The Scandinavian forest industry makes use of the roro ships for the distribution of break bulk products. The products are either block stowed on deck (STORO) or on low built load carriers that allows full utilisation of the deck’s load carrying capacity. In this way an area of a trailer will be loaded by a weight that is 45 – 60 tons of payload instead of the 15 – 25 tons on a road trailer. The major difference is the port productivity. Although the heavy load carriers are efficiently handled on and off the ship, the products have to be discharged and uploaded on a road trailer for the distribution. Or, which is the common procedure, placed in a shed to be delivered when ordered by the client. The shipping capacity is used to some extent for return transports, although this is not to the extent that makes a major contribution to the total operation. Often it is less expensive to have the ship coming back to load directly again than to add on costs for calling more ports which adds on service costs, dues and other charges that may not cover the ship’s additional cost of operation. The roro flexibility allows return cargo of various types, size and weight to be shipped in return why it is common to use the ship for smaller deviation, if time allows. The cost of handling cargo in the port is one of the major shipping costs and one of them that decides which port to call. Providing the fairways and the handling facilities are of a standard that allows the ship to be efficiently handled, the throughput cost of the cargo is important. A representative cost in early 2008 for passing a container through a terminal, from “On Deck” to “FOM”8, is about €130 per TEU. In rough figures will a stripping of a container to be loaded up on a vehicle coat about €7 per ton (or pallet). This operation will by this cost about €200 plus the potential damage of the cargo because of the handling. Charges on ships calling at ports are one of the major cost factors that come in addition to sea transports in comparison to other transport modes. Many of 8 FOM, Free On Motor, loaded on a road vehicle or a rail car, or the other way around

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

58

these costs are difficult to eliminate by new methods and by taking advantage of new technology, mainly because of tradition but also because of uncertainties in how it would affect the safety of the operation. Examples of such costs are pilot service, boatswain service, and other port terminal services. The port dues and other related costs lead to road transports as it less expensive to only go to one port with the vessel instead of calling multiple ports and shorten the road transport for the distribution of the cargo. Ship operation still has the disadvantage of the requirement to present documents in the port and go pass customs clearance, procedures which had high priority to be eliminated for road transports and which was highly prioritised when setting up the Common Market. The same goes for infrastructure costs. Until recently this has almost been free for road freight transports while sea transports has to pay for the infrastructure used. The administration of the two transport modes is separate why there can be no simple consideration of the effectiveness and productivity in relation to the cost when making up the national investment budget for the different transport modes.

1.6.2 Roro, Ferry bridges

The preference between direct road transports and using ferry services has been studied and noticed in the recent development of services from Scandinavia to the UK and Continental ports. Although there have been regular services in the relations as long as modern shipping has been in operation two conditions have been noted to affect the service in a positive way. The frequency of the service is important for the use of the link and to attract cargo. Example 1: Volvo in Gothenburg asked for a daily service between Gothenburg and Gent giving 7 calls per week instead of 6. Tor-Line was at the time not willing to open up another service as the running service still had capacity. Volvo guaranteed to cover for the cost of the ship needed to provide the service, an offer that never had to be used as the service had increasing volumes that covered the full cost and more of the service. Stena sold two 1,450 lm Roro vessels and put in two new ones of 2,705 lm each, an increase of capacity by 87% at which the traffic volume increased immediately by 40%. This shows that it is not only a link that is needed to attract the cargo. A demonstration of capacity by the service provider is also necessary to show reliability and capacity to cater for the transport service. The shipper will rather use a more expensive transport than risk one day delay of the delivery. The tale that “goods attract goods” is well known in the ferry service business. High frequency is always of interest and by concentrating the traffic flow on a special route the shippers join forces to keep up the frequency. The industry has realised the value of utilising shipping services why ships today are designed and built for certain relations not only to service the industry but also to give service to third party cargoes and by this increase the utilisation of the transport system and at the same time earn some economy of scale. On the other hand, when the volumes increase there are always opportunities for new services to break their way into the market. There are examples from the North Sea where the competition was fierce during the 80:ties. It ended with a retreat of some services until the old established services had the full control on the market.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

59

1.6.3 Services in operation

There are a number of services acting as MoS services, i.e. running in parallel to the road. Examples are; Stena Line; Gothenburg S – Kiel G, Gothenburg S – Travemünde G: Oslo N - Fredrikshavn DK; Color Line; Oslo N – Kiel G, Fredrikshavn DK – Larvik N; Fredrikshavn DK – Oslo N, Hirtshals DK – Larvik N, Tor Line; Esbjerg – Harwich, Esbjerg – Immingham (Industrial based), Gent – Gothenburg (Industrial based) Cobelfret; Zeebrügge – Gothenburg (Industrial based); with link to Black Line; Kotka – Lübeck – Gothenburg (Industrial based also carrying Russian cargo) and Trans Lumi Line ; Kemi – Oulu – Lübeck – Gothenburg. All of these are industrial based Lines. The third party goods on these services are to the vast majority transferred in Gothenburg to the UK and Zeebügge services. All these services run parallel to major roads and motorways. Some of these services have mainly been built up by the forest industry to give service to third party goods. In this process the operator has clearly found that a condition for the success of the service is to be able to a show a fixed regular service with capacity in order to attract goods. Such service takes about half a year to start up. It starts by smaller forwarders testing the service to see if it is acceptable. When the service is found reliable the major forwarders join the service which by this can be considered as established.

1.6.4 Ropax services

Before 1999 the passenger traffic was a crucial requirement for the ferry traffic in North Europe. The reason was the taxation of alcohols in the Nordic countries. The ferry services earned its money from purchasing spirits at a cost of 30 and sell it onboard to a price of 200 when the price in the countries were 250. The ferry service between Vasa and Umea in the North part of the Bothnia Sea was one of the most profitable services in Scandinavia. The passenger traffic reached 1 million per year. After the abolishment of the tax-free system the passengers almost disappeared to less than 10% of the previous volume. The income from the service aboard disappeared as well and the service had to refocus on freight. The ropax service offers a passenger ship adapted to focus the service on freight cargo. In this way the commercial success of the service falls largely on the freight part. This ensures a healthy development and stability of the service which will not depend on subsidies. The freight traffic in the Mediterranean Sea is increasing. The ships’ services are primarily growing between the continental Europe and the peninsulas in the Mediterranean Sea and also between the peninsulas. This is a clear sign of a shift from road to sea of freight cargo. These freight vessels operated at a moderate speed can by this be regarded as a clear environmental improvement.

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rt

60

Table 33; Examples of Mediterranean services and their character

Service Frequency Ship type CapacityOperational speed Development 2007

Toulon- Chivitavecchia 3/w Sorrento Ropax 172 trail 580lb 19.0 (24.0) kn +35%/13,100 trail/yrChivitavecchia -Barcelona 1/d Cruise Roma 3050lm (225trail) 23.5 (28.0) kn +5%/49,000 trail/yrSalerno-Valencia 3/w

Eurocargo Napoli, Euroferry Malta, Roro 149 trail 50 db 16.5 (19.5) kn +22%/25,000 trail/yr

Livorno - Valencia 1-2/w Setubal Express Roro 2350 lm (170 trial) 14.0 (17.8) kn +60%/11,600 trail/yr In Table 33 some of the services and their capacity, service and development are presented. As can be noticed the new services are growing fast and it seems as the use of sea transports is on its way to be established. The real result will only be visible in a couple of year’s time, when the market has tested the services and found it to be reliable and to have enough capacity.

1.6.5 The development of services

The war on the Balkan has rendered unsafe and damaged roads in the region. The result has been a huge traffic on ferries from Italy to Greece and also all the way to Turkey. The latter means distances on more than 1,000 nm. The service carries naturally mainly trailers, but lorries and passengers with cars are also transported. The service between Italy and Turkey takes 54-60 hrs single trip. The result is a reduction of traffic on the partly bad roads in the area, roads that are unsafe and in need of reconstruction. The sea transport services are built up on pure commercial basis why a new service will open up as soon as a basic demand is there making it commercially viable to operate a service. This can be pure trailer service like the North Sea services, or combined services like the services on the Mediterranean islands covering passenger and freight traffic or traffic over longer destinations where it is time saving to use the ferry service like many of the new and growing Mediterranean services. It is not surprising that the success is decided from how fast and comfortable the service is. The main competition as regards passenger traffic comes from airborne services. However going by air gives certain limitations in carry on luggage. It will also increase the cost on the destination if you have to use other services as rental cars taxis etc. By this it can be profitable and handy to bring you own car, which also is of use on the island. Sea transport services can never compete with airborne transports in transit time. It has been proved in many ways that sea transports are not viable commercially to operate in speeds exceeding 25 knots. None of the Superfast or fast passenger ferries9 built for speed around 30 knots are today operated in more than 23 knots, but for a couple of exceptions; the PSO granted service between the Swedish main land and the island Gotland (28 knots) and some of the Stena Line services cross the Irish Sea(40 knots). The Superfast services between Italy and Greece runs four ships at around 26 knots. Most of the services run under 25 knots. In the Baltic the short service (2 hrs) between Helsinki and Tallin (not enjoying the tax free service but the difference in taxation of sprits make a trip from Finland to Estonia a money saver) is serviced by the new built “Superstar”

9 Ferris that carry freight vehicles or trailers

Glo

bal t

rade

and

sea

born

etra

nspo

rtG

loba

l tra

de a

nd s

eabo

rne

trans

port

61

running at 28 KN to keep a 2 hrs schedule so is her half sister Star running at about 26 KN. This is to keep a crossing time of less than 2 hours. Some ferry services around the Canary Islands runs at 40 knots. But most services at the North Sea and Baltic Sea runs at less than 24 knots. Some exceptions are the Tallink service ship built by Fincantieri and the Color Line service running in 26 knots built by Aker yards Finland. The Color Line service cuts out Norwegian transit traffic on the at times congested motorway E6 passing through Sweden. It will also reduce the traffic on the south Norwegian coastal roads. This reduction of traffic on the Swedish road is estimated at some 70,000 trailers and 350,000 cars per year. The new service will probably make these figures rise.

1.6.6 In the future

The era of fast ships seems to be here. There is a willingness to pay for a fast service (compare air borne services) but it is also a matter of where to find the socio economic benefits in a fast service. The marginal cost of the operation is high. The increase of speed from 24 knots to 30 knots will double the fuel cost and the emissions. In future the speed of the ships will be given more attention. The ferry services will have departures of different characters, slow speed departures and fast speed departures. The cost of the trip will be in relation to the energy consumption and emissions. The cost of fuel on a typical trip has a cost of €4,000 at a speed of 24 knots and €7,000 at a speed of 28 knots. The actual fuel consumption deviations from this hypothetical example could however be substantial.

Figure 44: A typical speed - power/consumption curve for a fast ferry

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

62

2 European regions and their ports

SUMMARY • Vast differences between the European regions

• Port volumes follow population density

• Bulk ports located nearby power plants and refineries

It is important to be aware of the vast differences between ports in Europe. On for instance the ownership and operational structures, we find a significant number of ports where the local government both owns the land, the infra-structure and the equipment, and runs the entire operation of all the services provided in the port. At the other end of that scale there are a number of ports where there is a landlord owner and a number of private interests that provide the services, some of them in competition with each other. Another aspect of the vast span in Europe is to what extent the ports are efficient and up to date with handling equipment, logistic systems, IT and status of the infra-structure including the hinterland connections. A third aspect is to what extent the ports’ capacities are geared to match anticipated demand. A general observation relating to this is that it will be challenging for many container ports over the years to come to be able to provide sufficient capacity. Figure 45 illustrates the port throughputs in 2006, divided on major cargo type, direction and EU region. A number of observations can be made from this graph;

• Liquid and dry bulk cargoes dominate – about two thirds of the total volumes handled, much of it in the North Sea region and Western Mediterranean.

• Inwards and outwards volumes of bulk cargoes are imbalanced – inwards volumes are much higher.

• Cargo volumes in containers are fairly balanced, which may come as a surprise. This is due to the higher weight of outwards cargo (per teu) than of inwards cargo.

• Roro cargo is fairly balanced. This is natural since the absolute majority of this cargo is intra-European, ie it is loaded and unloaded within the EU.

• Ports in the Baltic Sea region handle relatively large amounts of outward bound bulk cargoes.

The purpose with chapter 2 is to describe the infra-structure and the major industries it supports. This is a necessary step in order to understand what is behind the volumes in each region today. Different solutions have been developed over time to meet with the requirements from the industries. Changes for the good of the entire union could prove difficult for a region and this section aims at raising the general awareness and will serve as a platform for the strategic recommendations that will follow later on.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

63

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Inw

Outw

Inw

Outw

Inw

Outw

Inw

Outw

Inw

Outw

Liquid

bulk

Dry

bulk

Conta

iner

Roro

Oth

erG

ener

alca

rgo



Figure 45: EU port throughputs 2006 by direction, million tonnes

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Inw

Outw

Inw

Outw

Inw

Outw

Inw

Outw

Inw

Outw

Liquid

bulk

Dry

bulk

Conta

iner

Roro

Oth

erG

ener

al

carg

o



Figure 46: EU port throughputs 2018 by direction, million tonnes

Figure 46 shows the predicted situation in 2018 according to the baseline scenario on which all volume predictions are built. The major comments to the expected situation at this time are;

• The overall volumes handled in EU27 ports have grown from 3.7Bn tonnes in 2006 to 5.3Bn tonnes. This means that the infra-structure has to be able to handle 1.6Bn tonnes more than today.

• The fastest growing cargo category is foreseen to be cargo in containers. The average annual growth rate, based on tonnes of cargo, is forecasted to be 7%.

• Cargo in the roro system is also expected to grow fast, at around an annual average of 4.5%.

In the following, the volumes have been divided to reflect cargo bound for/from ports within the EU27 (intra-EU trade) and cargo from/for other regions (extra-EU trade).

• Extra-EU volumes dominate the bulk and container cargoes.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

64

• An important share of extra-EU liquid bulk volumes are imports from Russia.

• Intra-EU liquid cargo volumes are still substantial following the intensive short sea shipments of refined oil products from the refineries.

• Roro traffic is nowadays largely used for short sea shipments, with the exception of vehicle carriers such as pure car carriers.

• Roro traffic is expected to grow in intra-EU trade, largely either to relieve road congestion or to support the forest and steel industries in Sweden and Finland.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Liquid

bulk

Dry

bulk

Conta

iner

Roro

Oth

erG

ener

al

carg

o



Figure 47: EU port throughputs 2006, intra- vs extra-EU trade, million tonnes

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Liquid

bulk

Dry

bulk

Conta

iner

Roro

Oth

erG

ener

al

carg

o



Figure 48: EU port throughputs 2018, intra- vs extra-EU trade, million tonnes

In 2006 there were 3.7Bn tonnes of cargo loaded or discharged in the EU27 ports. This includes domestic and intra-European trade. In total, inwards and outwards volumes are somewhat unbalanced where inwards volumes are close to 1Bn tonnes higher than outwards. There are significant differences on country levels and even more so in individual ports.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

65

The ports in Estonia and Latvia have much higher outwards volumes in absolute terms (tonnes). If seen in relative terms, then Lithuania and Poland make the list as well. Countries with a substantial inwards volume overshoot are the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, U.K. and France. When looked at in relative terms then Malta, Cyprus, Portugal, Ireland and Slovenia are there as well. Table 34: Total outwards and inwards port volumes 2006, million tonnes

Region Country Outwards InwardsDenmark 43.5 52.6Sweden 78.4 82.6Finland 47.0 56.0Estonia 41.7 6.1Latvia 49.2 6.6Lithuania 19.0 8.5Poland 33.1 19.8Germany 120.4 178.9Netherlands 118.7 360.8Belgium 94.1 124.4Ireland 11.2 25.9United Kingdom 213.7 356.7France 95.9 239.8Portugal 19.7 45.5Spain 117.1 301.0Italy 157.0 342.0Slovenia 5.0 10.5Malta 0.2 3.3Greece 55.5 76.7Cyprus 1.3 5.9Bulgaria 11.3 16.3Romania 22.1 24.3Total 1,355.3 2,344.1

Source: Eurostat Italics=2005

E M

ed &

Bla

ck

Sea

Bal

tic S

ea R

egio

nN

Sea

, UK

& Ire

land

W M

ed &

A

tlant

ic a

rc

Figure 49 illustrates the 20 largest dry bulk ports in Europe. Rotterdam is by far the largest port followed by Hamburg. The imbalance between inwards and outwards cargo is striking, with the exception of Riga which is a major outlet for bulk cargoes – predominantly cargo from the CIS. The major liquid bulk ports in Europe are illustrated in Figure 50. Rotterdam and Marseille are large ports for the handling of inwards cargo, while Bergen in Norway is a large loading port. There is a refinery in Mongstad just north of Bergen.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

66

Hamburgmingh

Dunkerque

Taranto

Gijon

Gent

Riga

C

Ravenna

Tees-Hartlepool

Tarragona

Liverpool

London

Iijmuiden

Immingham

Constanta

Antwerp

Rotterdam

IN

OUT

Amsterdam

Marseille

C

Narvik

Figure 49: Top 20 European dry bulk ports 2006

Rotterdam

IN

OUT

HamburgAmsterdam

Antwerp

Rotterdam

OUT

IN

Bergen

Marseille

Wilhelmshaven

Le Havre

Tees-Hartlepool

AntwerpMilford Haven

Forth

Southampton

Trieste

Immingham

Augusta

Sullom Voe

Algeciras

London

Bilbao

Göteborg

Brofjorden

Cartagena

Figure 50: Top 20 European liquid bulk ports 2006

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

67

Container handling is a more balanced activity if measured in tonnes, which is the data behind Figure 51. This is only half the story though since empty containers also have to be handled. Rotterdam, Hamburg, Bremerhaven, Antwerp, Gioia Tauro, Algeciras and Felixstowe are all large container ports. Many of these ports also are transhipment hubs for containers that are carried by feeder vessels to the port of destination.

Rotterdam

Hamburg

Antwerp

Bremerhaven

Algeciras Gioia Tauro

Valencia

Felixtowe

Barcelona

Pireus

Le Havre

Las PalmasGenova

Southampton

London

Gothenburg

x

La SpeziaxMarseille

x

Zeebrügge

x Constanta

x

OUTIN

Figure 51: Top 20 European container ports 2006

The table below illustrates the 15 largest ports 2007 in terms of number of port calls and in terms of aggregated dwt of the ones that AIS-live cover with their antennas. The figures do not include ferries, since the tables would be completely dominated by ferry crossings at short distances then. The enormous importance of Rotterdam and Antwerp for central Europe becomes very clear. In appendix I, the port calls are presented for each vessel type and size segment. That table is also supplemented by the average time spent in port based on observations for the full year 2007.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

68

Table 35: Top 15 European ports by port traffic, no of calls & aggregated dwt

Port No calls Port dwt

Total 279,820 Total 2,780Other 528 174,547 Other 528 1,493

1 Rotterdam 26,633 1 Rotterdam 420.52 Antwerp 14,877 2 Antwerp 159.33 Hamburg 10,761 3 Hamburg 83.14 Zeebrugge 5,875 4 Fos 75.85 Bremerhaven 5,708 5 Amsterdam 71.56 London 4,951 6 Immingham 67.47 Barcelona 4,698 7 Le Havre 58.88 Immingham 4,520 8 Dunkirk 55.89 Le Havre 4,396 9 Teesport 55.4

10 Amsterdam 4,175 10 IJmuiden 46.811 Piraeus 4,145 11 Wilhelmshaven 45.712 Teesport 4,107 12 Tarragona 39.213 Gothenburg 3,980 13 Genoa 37.114 Felixstowe 3,302 14 Milford Haven 35.415 Riga 3,145 15 Barcelona 35.1

2.1 Eastern Mediterranean

The East Mediterranean ports can be broadly clustered into three distinctive categories on the basis of their localization and the infrastructures available that determine the type of traffic they can serve. These three large categories are:

• Transhipment hub ports: requiring deep water, cranes capable for the loading/unloading of very large vessels, must be located with minimal diversion from the East-West shipping routes in the Mediterranean such as Marsaxlokk, Taranto, Pireaus, Damietta

• Gateway ports: requiring deep water and efficient loading/unloading infrastructure and their location being close to heavily populated major industrial centres. They could also play the role of a hub port in case the diversion from the main shipping route is not excessive such as Thessaloniki, Haifa, Odessa, Izmir

• Regional ports: characterized by shallow waters, basic loading/unloading infrastructure, a location close to industrial or densely populated areas. Traffic to and from regional ports is usually served by smaller feeder vessels or intra-regional land transport systems such as the majority of ports in South East Mediterranean region.

The East Mediterranean port system, although it is situated pretty close to the global maritime route Far East – Europe, currently enjoys a rather regional than global role, mainly due to lack of modern port infrastructure and facilities. In this respect it is evaluated that the Greek and Turkish ports have lost significant ground in comparison to Italian and Spanish ports, already developed into big transhipment hubs, especially on the container side. Furthermore, this gap seems to continue widening since the liberalization of port services in these two countries is still facing adversities. Currently, within the region the Turkish and Greek ports, although they possess important transhipment potential for the Black Sea region due to their strategic position, they still remain underdeveloped in comparison to potential demand. However, in Greece and mainly in Turkey the main commercial ports are lately moving towards concessions to private operators, which means that new investment for higher capacity and productivity is imminent.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

69

Competition between them is expected to grow fast. In parallel, Thessaloniki port is expected to maintain a strong competitive advantage for transit traffic from / to landlocked Balkan countries (FYROM, Serbia), and also to Bulgaria and Romania. Within the Black Sea, the Romanian port of Constantza has already an established leading transhipment role for containers which is difficult to be challenged by recent Russian competition plans from Novorossiysk port (new modern container terminal). On the other hand, the new container handling capacity in the Turkish ports of Derince (Marmara Sea) and Zoguldak (Filyos project in the Black Sea) may change the balance (as they are expected to be commissioned by 2010). Regarding liquid bulk, Novorossiysk and Tuapse (Russian Black Sea ports) are leading export ports with plans of huge future development as new oil fields come into play. The Batumi port in Georgia is also expected to be further developed as a deep-sea export port for Kazakh oil and oil products (by KazMunaiGas). The construction of the new oil pipe between Burgas – Alexandroupolis is expected to increase bulk oil traffic within Black Sea (route Novorossiysk – Burgas) with the ports of Burgas & Alexandroupolis acquiring important oil port terminal capacities. Solid bulk traffic is very important for Black Sea ports due to significant cereal exports (Russia, Romania and Ukraine), coal and iron ore (Ukraine). Huge new capacity has already been added (new grain terminal in Novorossiysk port - capacity of 4 mil tonnes /year). Trieste (Italy) and Koper (Slovenia) are strategically positioned EU ports with respect to transit traffic between Central Europe and East Mediterranean / Black Sea. Trieste is already well developed although Koper is gradually developing. Liberalisation of port handling services is progressing at various levels in the region but still at a fast pace, particularly in the ex-soviet transition economies. Private operators have already gained a fair amount of container terminal concessions while few more cases are still pending (eg Greek ports of Piraeus and Salonica). This higher port capacity is expected to rationalise traffic routes and bring down costs. Regarding port environment, safety and security issues, all EU ports are already trying hard and spending heavily in aligning with very strict EU directives on maritime safety and security. Turkish and other Black Sea ports are also similarly committed on the basis of EU regional cooperation and IMO obligations. East Mediterranean and Black Sea seaports are currently in strong need of new capacity and higher efficiency. The developing transit economies in Eastern Europe are expected to provide a growing traffic potential in medium-run for containers, liquid bulk, solid bulk and general cargo.

2.1.1 Eastern Adriatic Sea & Malta

Albania

There are four ports in Albania with an average capacity of cargo traffic around 5 million tonnes per year. The Port of Durres is the principle port in Albania, handling roughly 90 per cent of the country's international maritime trade tonnage and 85 % of all the export and import trade of the country. The actual level of traffic is about 3.1 million tonnes per year. The Port of Durres Authority (PDA) is a legal entity, responsible for all port related activities, i.e., cargo handling, maintenance of

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

70

nautical and port infrastructure and superstructure, equipment and buildings and to carry out loading and discharging operations together with the associated storage and receiving of goods to and from road and rail. Port of Durres handles all types of cargo including dry bulk, break bulk, liquid bulk, general cargo, chemicals, dangerous cargo, containers etc. It consists of imports of various kinds of goods such as wheat, cement, fuels, construction material, foodstuff, containers etc., and exports of minerals like chrome ore, ferro-chrome, scrap, containers etc.

Montenegro

Montenegro, with 290 kilometres of coastline, is home to a number of ports. Port of Bar is the largest one located on the Adriatic Sea and connected to the rest of Europe via the Bar-Belgrade railway. The port is equipped to handle a large volume of container shipments, but Bar's markets, scope and scale of operations changed drastically as a result of the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia and the imposition of economic sanctions. The port of Bar is currently capable of handling around 5 million tonnes of cargo. There are terminals for general, containerised, liquid and bulk cargo.

Croatia

In Croatia, two projects integrate port infrastructure within a vision of expanded regional trade. One is underway in Rijeka, near Slovenia. The other project, in the final phases of negotiation, focuses on Ploče, where Croatia narrows to a sliver and meets Bosnia-Herzegovina’s southern point. Both projects aim to maximize the benefits of Croatia’s proximity to Europe and the Balkans.

Figure 52: Large ports in Croatia

Although the Ploče project is not yet finalized its importance is becoming more and more apparent. Situated just north of the Neretva river delta, Ploče is the entry-point to a trade route (Corridor Vc, in Euro-speak) which links heavy industries in Bosnia and Herzegovina to supplies shipped by sea. These heavy industries, clustered around the Bosnian cities of Mostar, Luka Vac and

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

71

Zenica, have been reorganized, partially privatized and have received foreign investments in recent months. Table 36: Port throughput in Croatia 2006, thousand tonnes

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalDry Bulk 4,014 3,595 7,608Liquid Bulk 7,497 1,610 9,107Other General Cargo 472 958 1,430Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2 2 4Ro-Ro (self-prop) 243 453 696Containers 519 141 660Container (TEU) 58,189 55,351 113,540

HR Total (not incl. TEU) 12,747 6,758 19,504S

ource: Eurostat

The modernization of the port system in Ploče is expected to increase annual traffic volume from 2 million tonnes in 2004 to about 7.2 million tonnes in 2010. At the same time, Croatia’s government hopes it will boost the economic development of Southern Dalmatia, and benefit the Balkans as a whole. The same approach is at work in Rijeka, Croatia’s largest port, second-largest economic centre and third-largest city.

Slovenia

Koper is the sole Slovenian commercial port with good potential to gain transit traffic in the corridor Central Europe – Turkey and Middle East, competing with the Italian port of Trieste. Table 37: Port throughput in Slovenia 2006, thousand tonnes

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalDry Bulk 7,218 2,883 10,101Liquid Bulk 2,077 1 2,078Other General Cargo 79 1,075 1,153Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 4 8 11Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2 4 6Containers 1,122 984 2,107Container (TEU) 112,717 106,253 218,970

SI Total (not incl. TEU) 10,501 4,955 15,457

Source: E

urostat

The port is a transit port for landlocked countries in central Europe, with the majority of its throughput being for Hungary, Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Italy, and rail accounting for a significant part of hinterland traffic. The port expects continuing benefits from regional economic growth and the country’s accession to the European Union in 2004.

Malta

The Maltese port system consists of the two ports of Marsaxlokk (container transhipment hub) and Valetta (multipurpose port).

Figure 53: Major ports in Malta

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

72

The Malta Maritime Authority (MMA) comprises three Directorates having separate and distinct duties and responsibilities, namely the Ports Directorate, Yachting Centres and Merchant Shipping. All sectors of maritime activity in Malta are co-ordinated by the Malta Maritime Authority, which operates a comprehensive maritime centre, adequately supported by administrative, legal, fiscal and infrastructure framework. Table 38: Port turnover at Malta, 2006, thousand tonnes

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalDry Bulk 554 14 568Liquid Bulk 1,839 64 1,903Other General Cargo 142 4 147Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 159 38 196Ro-Ro (self-prop) 17 11 28Containers 637 101 738Container (TEU) 1,248,099 284,821 1,532,920

MT Total (not incl. TEU) 3,348 231 3,579

Source: E

urostat

The Port of Marsaxlokk, situated on the South coast of Malta, consists of a number of terminals that handle containers and bulk petroleum products. It also includes a fishing port and leisure facilities. One of the main terminals is the Malta Freeport Terminal which is a Customs Free Zone and consist of container terminals; an oil products terminal namely Oil Tanking Co.Ltd., and an industrial warehousing facilities. The wet bulk terminals are operated by bunker operators and Enemalta Corporation which is the local operator of energy sources and importer of petroleum products. At Malta Freeport in Marsaxlokk transhipped volumes were reduced in 2005 due to the launch of a direct service between the Far East and Black Sea by China Shipping. In 2004, CMA CGM acquired a 30-year concession to develop the port as a multi-user facility, which is being operated by Port Synergy, the CMA CGM/P&O Ports joint venture.

2.1.2 Greece, Turkey & Cyprus

Greece

The Greek port system consists of two very large ports, Piraeus and Thessaloniki, which operate as S.A. listed on the Athens Stock Exchange, but the capital stock belongs mainly to the State. Ten other significant ports, Kavala, Alexandroupoli, Volos, Kerkyra, Igoumenitsa, Patra, Elefsina, Lavrio, Rafina and Heraklion, which operate as S.A., whereby the Greek state is the only stakeholder. Table 39: Port turnover in Greek ports in 2006, 1,000 tonnes

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalDry Bulk 17,596 20,506 38,102Liquid Bulk 33,938 12,975 46,913Other General Cargo 3,569 2,429 5,997Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,704 2,039 3,744Ro-Ro (self-prop) 9,567 10,270 19,836Containers 10,297 7,321 17,618Container (TEU) 915,040 869,172 1,784,212

GR Total (not incl. TEU) 76,670 55,541 132,211

Source: E

urostat

The importance of the Greek port system stems from a long tradition in shipping, a strong and vital shipping industry and a strategic geographical position in Southeast Europe, connecting European countries with the Middle East, the Black Sea and North Africa.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

73

Figure 54: Large ports in Greece

The Port of Piraeus enjoys increasing passenger and container traffic and it functions as an important maritime gateway between the European Union and the South-eastern part of Europe with approximately 50% of the annual traffic being attributed to the transhipment of containers. The port of Thessaloniki is a port for much of the economic activities of the inland markets beyond Greece. It serves the growing needs of those countries for the import and export of raw material, consumer products and capital equipment. The port is a vital element of the country’s economy while it also plays a substantial role in the effort of northern Greece to be established as an economic centre of the Eastern Mediterranean. The port enjoys a privileged position being located at the crossroad of land transportation networks; East-West via the Egnatia Highway, South-North via the P.A.Th.E. highway network, The European corridors ΙV and X. The Port of Patras is situated in the west of Greece. Because of its geographic position it is a gate for business connections with Italy and with other countries in the Adriatic corridor. Patras is among the largest ports of Greece in terms of international transits of trailers and trucks and of number of passengers. The main destinations outside Greece are the ports of Ancona, Brindisi, Bari and Venice. It is a multi-purpose port which handles different typologies of cargo, general cargo, dry bulk and liquid bulk goods mainly with Ro-Ro traffic. The Port of Igoumenitsa is situated in the west of Greece. It also fulfils an important role as gate for business connections with Italy and with the other countries of the Adriatic corridor. The port of Igoumenitsa mainly serves passenger traffic, connecting Igoumenitsa with Corfu, Patras and Paxi (Greek destinations), as well as major Italian ports, such as Ancona, Venice, Bari and Brindisi.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

74

The Port of Heraklion is situated at the island of Crete and serves mainly the island. Alexandroupolis Port is located at the north eastern part of Greece, near the borderline between Greece and Turkey, facing the Aegean Sea. Also the port is situated at the crossroads of north – south and east – west road and rail routes amongst the East and Middle-East and the Balkans or the rest of Europe. Also, important international road and rail networks pass through the vicinity area of the port, such as Egnatia Odos motorway, while international rail Axis IX from Alexandroupoli to Helsinki is expected to be realised in the near future. In addition, the port constitutes the start / end point of the new oil pipeline Alexandroupoli – Burgas, recently signed, a project that introduces new horizons to the greater area of Alexandroupoli.

Turkey

With a population of around 72 million, Turkey is the biggest individual market in the Eastern Mediterranean, lying at the heart of the Black Sea region (key geopolitical position regarding strategic issues like energy, transport routes to Black and Central Asia etc). Its container transport industry has a good growth potential, thanks to its own booming economy and that of its neighbours, its geographic location as a natural trade gateway between Europe and the East and its ongoing conversion of general cargo to containerised freight. Regarding port ownership, major ports in the country used to be owned and operated by two state institutions, namely the Turkish State Railways (TCDD) and the Turkish Maritime Organization (TDI), functioning as loss-making entities. The seven major commercial Turkish ports (Bandirma, Derince, Haydarpasa, Iskenderun, Izmir, Mersin, and Samsun) used to be under the management and ownersip of Turkish Railways (TCDD). However, during the last two years these ports are under a rigorous privatisation plan (except from the port of Haydarpasa in Istanbul). Already the ports of Mersin and the port of Izmir have been concessionned to major international operators - PSA for Mersin International Port and Hutchison Port holdings for Izmir port. In parallel, private port terminals are developing fast (e.g. Ambarli group of terminals near Istanbul). Main export ports are the ports of Izmir, Mersin and Ambarli (located in main industrial areas of the country) and main import port is the port of Haydarpasa. Regarding type of load type, Mersin Port focuses on Containers and Liquid Bulk, Izmir Port focuses on Containers and Dry Bulk, Haydarpasa Port focuses on Containers and General Cargo, Iskederun Port focuses on Liquid Bulk and Amparli complex of ports on General Cargo and Ro-Ro traffic. Mersin Port has proved to be an ideal transit port for trade with the Middle East, thanks to its position on the Eastern Mediterranean coast of Turkey and its good road and rail links. Izmir port is the largest container port in Turkey. Although the port is equipped with good road and rail connections, its future development is limited due to limited space (proximity to the city area). Future development priorities focus on upgrading the entry channel (to 15m depth and 250m width) and finding 50 ha of additional land space. Container demand is expanding rapidly in Turkey mainly in the ports of Izmir, Mersin and Ambarli. Under the Nationwide Port Development Master

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

75

Plan of 2000, total container traffic was predicted to reach 6m TEU by 2020 but this figure is now expected to be easily surpassed.

Cyprus

The Cypriot port system consists of the ports of Limassol (multipurpose port), Larnaca (multipurpose port), and Vasiliko (oil terminal). Table 40: Port turnaround at Cyprus, 2005 thousand tonnes and container teu 2006

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2005 TotalDry Bulk 1,068 369 1,437Liquid Bulk 2,547 24 2,571Other General Cargo 566 104 670Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 67 36 103Ro-Ro (self-prop) 83 36 118Containers 1,537 697 2,234

CY Total 5,868 1,265 7,134 Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalContainer (TEU) 213,850 142,977 356,827

Figure 55: Ports in Cyprus

2.1.3 Black Sea

Bulgaria

The Bulgarian port system consists of the two seaports of Varna (major port) and Burgas, and of the two riverports of Russe and Lom by Danube River.

Figure 56: Large ports in Bulgaria

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

76

The total cargo turnover passed through Bulgarian sea ports shows slight increase, and for 2005 about 25 million tonnes of cargo was handled and in this grew to over 27 million tonnes in 2006. Table 41: Port throughput in Bulgaria 2006

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalDry Bulk 6,489 4,193 10,682Liquid Bulk 7,586 4,239 11,826Other General Cargo 1,153 1,966 3,119Ro-Ro (self-prop) 186 253 439Containers 834 653 1,488Container (TEU) 60,978 59,394 120,372

BG Total (not incl. TEU) 16,250 11,304 27,554

Source: E

urosta

Liquid cargoes hold the basic share of the increase, but there was growth also in the containers processing. A decrease is recorded only in the general cargos processing – with about 4% in 2005 in relation to 2004. The total cargo turnover passed through Danube river ports in 2005 records serious growth with 23% in relation to 2004, and for the period 2000-2005 the total increase is over 85%.

Romania

Figure 57: Major ports in Romania

The port of Constantza is of capital importance to the Romanian port system due to its key position regarding connection to the Danube River which links two of the main trade poles of Europe - Rotterdam and Constantza - creating a navigable inland waterway from the North Sea to the Black Sea proximity to Pan-European Corridor IV (road and railway), the Pan-European Corridor VII (Danube) and the Pan European Corridor IX (road). Thus, the port of Constantza is the most important seaport of Romania and the fastest growing at the Black Sea with the leading role as a regional container transhipment hub. Since 1st January 2007, it has become a Free Zone area. Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalDry Bulk 8,430 8,465 16,895Liquid Bulk 9,463 5,172 14,635Other General Cargo 1,048 3,906 4,954Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 62 54 116Ro-Ro (self-prop) 3 40 42Containers 5,278 4,485 9,763Container (TEU) 607,222 563,212 1,170,434

RO Total (not incl. TEU) 24,285 22,120 46,405

Source: E

urostat

Figure 58: Port troughput in Romania 2006, thousand tonnes

Two container stevedores operate at Constantza: Socep and DP World, which controls the new CSCT terminal. Of the 768,000 TEU handled by these two stevedores in 2005, some 60% was transhipped to other Black Sea ports,

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

77

leaving about 310,000 TEU to be distributed inland by road, rail, or waterway. Waterway container traffic is almost inexistent, but rail has a share of about 45%. Constantza South Container Terminal (CSCT), the terminal operated by DP World, has increased volumes by more than 450%, achieving around 560,000 TEU in 2005 compared with just under 100,000 TEU in 2004. The quality of the operation meets international standards. Recently, several direct services to/from the Far East have been introduced, including CMA CGM’s Bosporus Express and MSC’s Tiger service, both with vessels over 2000 TEU, and Norasia/Hapag Lloyd and China Shipping/Zim. A new container barge service is also being operated to Belgrade and Russe. CSCT handles a mix of local cargo and trans-shipment cargo for many other countries in the Black Sea region. Barge services linking Constantza and Belgrade have recently been initiated, and there are plans for a rail link between CSCT and Budapest.

Ukraine

The Ukrainian port system consists of 19 seaports of which main ones are the ports of Odessa, Illichivsk and Mariupol. They are mainly exporting ports focusing on exports of metal, ore, coal and cereals. There is currently need of investment in port infrastructure (berth reconstruction, dredging works) and port handling equipment. The existing terminals and handling equipment are limited and problematic, currently working under conditions of overcapacity. At Ukraine’s two container ports of Odessa and Ilyichevsk, nearly all the current throughput is import/export traffic for Ukraine itself, with little transit traffic for Russia, although Ilyichevsk was once the major Black Sea container port for the former Soviet Union. However, in late 2005, Russia’s National Container Company (NCC) took over the management of the Illichevsk Container Terminal. It will be interesting to see whether the terminal’s acquisition by Russia’s leading container terminal operator will lead to a boost in the port’s transit traffic, although an increase in capacity will be needed to permit significant volumes to be moved through the port. Currently, CMA CGM and MSC are major callers, the former direct with its Bosporus Express service and the latter using feeders to/from Constantza. Hamburg Port Consulting took over the operation of the container terminal at Odessa in 2001. In 2004, Maersk returned to the port after an absence, and two new feeder services were introduced by Sea Consortium’s Express Container Line and P&O Nedlloyd. CGM CMA introduced direct services to/from China. Odessa Sea Commercial Port owns a modern passenger terminal with a capacity of 4M passengers per year. However, it currently works under capacity serving only around 200,000 passengers per year.

Georgia

Georgia's geographical position makes it an important transport link between East and West (the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea) and North and South (between Russia and Turkey). Trade with its neighbors, both transit and bilateral, is also an important feature of Georgia’s economy. Transit activities generate a direct turnover of more that US$2 billion per year. One of the government top priorities is to develop Georgia’s comparative advantage as a

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

78

transit country by improving its East-West transport corridor (so-called transit corridor). Since East-West transit of oil and by-products is projected to steadily increase over the next years, the Government intends to rehabilitate and modernize its transit corridor and connecting roads. The Government’s policy agenda recognizes transport infrastructure investments as one of the major ways to support the country’s accelerated economic growth. The new Government’s commitment to the transport sector is evident given the substantial increase of funding for transport sector since Rose Revolution in 2003 from the state budget as well as increased resources mobilized from international institutions for rehabilitation of transport infrastructure. Georgia's Black Sea ports provide access to the Mediterranean Sea via the Bosporus. Georgia has two principal ports, at Poti and Batumi, and a minor port at Sukhumi. Although Batumi has a natural harbor, Poti's man-made harbor carries more cargo because of that city's rail links to Tbilisi. Connected with Poti, four miles south, is the oil terminal Supsa which handles a substantial part of oil transport. Construction of Kulevi port is also being considered. The port at Poti primarily handles exports of grain, coal, and ores and imports of general cargo. Batumi's natural port is located on a bay just northeast of the city, at the end of the Transcaucasian pipeline from Baku and is used primarily for the export of petroleum and petroleum products. It is currently owned by KazMunaiGas, the state oil company of Kazakhstan. This follows from the strategic alliance created in 2006 between Batumi Oil Terminal and KazMunaiGas. This fact emphasizes the main role of Batumi as a transit port of Kazakh oil and oil product exports. Sukhumi, capital of the Abkhazian Autonomous Republic, is a small port that handles limited amounts of cargo, passenger ferries, and cruise ships. Imports consist mostly of building materials, and the port handles exports of local agricultural products, mostly fruit.

Russia

Russia’s Black Sea ports, all of which are located in Krasnodar Krai, have increased dramatically in importance since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, when Russia lost numerous ports and billions of dollars of port revenue to new neighbouring countries. In the Black Sea region alone, Russia inherited just four of 17 Soviet-era ports. Competitors in Georgia, Ukraine, and the Baltic countries divert significant amounts of container and bulk traffic. To become competitive to handle the increased traffic expected to flow through the region in the future, Russia's Black Sea ports require significant investment. Russian Black Sea ports currently handle more than one third of Russia’s sea-borne exports in terms of tonnage. Total export cargos were reported at 160 million tonnes in 2006 and are “conservatively” expected to grow to 250 million tonnes annually by 2010. A serious port development program ambitiously envisages doubling the existing export capacities, which are currently strained to the limit and distributed very unevenly along the Russian coast. Novorossiysk is the most important Russian port in the Black Sea, handling significant amounts of the Russian crude oil exports. Crude flows are expected to increase markedly, not least due to volumes from the Tengiz fields in Kazakhstan. Some of these flows are destined for the port of Burgas in

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

79

Bulgaria to feed into the planned trans-Balkan pipeline to Alexandropolis on the Greek Aegean coast. According to the Association of Russian Sea Ports, the port of Novorossiysk, the primary base of NCSP, is Russia's largest in terms of cargo volumes. NCSP is said to be a key southern gateway for a wide range of cargoes to and from Russia with throughput including oil, oil products, timber, grain, fertilizers, ferrous metals, containers, automobiles and general cargo. Nearly half of the containerised imports at the port head to Moscow and other Russian regions. In 2004, the port attracted its first deep-sea service, with the extension of MSC’s Asia/Black Sea service to the port. The service calls at the recently opened NUTEP Terminal, which is jointly owned by NCC and the Delo Group. CMA CGM also moved two feeder services to the new terminal from the Commercial Port terminal. In 2005, Zim and China Shipping started Asia-East Med/Black Sea services calling at Novorossiysk. Other callers at the port include Maersk, CMNI and BCL. Tuapse is Russia’s second largest Black Sea port. Like Novorossiysk, it is a vital route for the export of crude oil. Tuapse’s traditional traffic pattern also includes metals, fertilizers, coal, building materials, and foodstuffs. As trade increases, traffic at Tuapse is expected to double. To accommodate this anticipated growth, the Russian Ministry of Transport has approved a $720 million modernization project for Tuapse.

2.2 Western Mediterranean & the Atlantic arc

A good 1.3Bn tonnes of cargo is handled in the Western Mediterranean region. Volumes in Portugal are significantly lower than in Italy, France or Spain. The French port of Marseille is the largest in terms of tonnes handled, followed by Le Havre (FR), Algeciras (ES), Dunkerque (FR) and Taranto (IT). Italian ports have the highest turnover of liquid bulk cargoes, with the ports of Trieste and Augusta topping the Italian list. Marseille is however the largest individual port with Le Havre as a runner up. Dry bulk handling figures are highest in Spain with the port of Gijón on top even though the turnover in the ports of Dunkerque and Taranto was higher. Container handling on the other hand is the highest in Spain followed by Italy. This is no surprise given the location of the transhipment hubs of Gioia Tauro (IT), Algeciras (ES) and Valencia (ES). Roro cargo volumes are the highest in Italy and are to a large extent non-self propelled volumes passing through the Italian ports of Genova, Livorno, Olbia and Cagliari. The French port of Calais is by far the largest in the Western Mediterranean for self-propelled volumes.

2.2.1 Iberia (Spain, Portugal)

Spain

The geographical situation of the Iberian Peninsula, at the crossing point of the major East-West route and the Europe to Africa axis, together with the dynamism of the Spanish ports, is contributing progressively to the consolidation of the Spanish ports as strategic platforms for shipping and logistics in the South of Europe. In 2006, 70% of the total Spanish trade in weight was transported by sea. The following graph shows the modal split of Spanish trade for export and import flows.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

80

Source: Own elaboration based on the data provided by Estadísticas de Comercio Exterior de España of the Spanish Customs Agency Figure 59: Modal split of the Spanish trade in 2006

The Spanish system of state general interest ports consists of 50 ports managed by 28 port authorities. The Spanish Ministry of Public Works, via the institution “Puertos del Estado”, remains responsible for coordinating and controlling generally the efficiency of these 50 ports and for designing the domestic ports policy. Table 42: Port throughput in Spanish ports 2006 1,000 tonnes

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalDry Bulk 99,020 14,468 113,488Liquid Bulk 123,638 28,882 152,521Other General Cargo 16,727 9,243 25,970Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 4,590 3,949 8,539Ro-Ro (self-prop) 6,646 6,562 13,208Containers 50,342 54,042 104,384Container (TEU) 5,756,911 5,708,261 11,465,172

ES Total (not incl. TEU) 300,964 117,146 418,110

Source: E

urostat

The state general interest ports function according to a landlord model, where the port authority makes available the port infrastructure and regulates its use and the port services are provided by private operators under an authorisation or concession. Several port authorities are developing their ports further in order to make them become logistic platforms where an integrated port community provides a whole range of logistic and transport activities, generating added value for the economy.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

81

Figure 60: Major ports in Spain

Regarding the traffic of liquid bulk, Bilbao, Algeciras, Cartagena, Tarragona, Huelva and Barcelona are top of the list, handling over 10 million tonnes of liquid bulk in 2006. In most cases, the reason behind these large traffics is the existence of an oil refinery in the port premises. A map of the location of oil refineries in Spain is provided in the next illustration. The high correlation between ports specialised in liquid bulk and the capacity of the oil refinery present in their premises is manifest.

2006 DATA

REFINERIES IN SPAIN

Refinery

Capacity (million tonnes ( year)

Cartagena 5.0A Coruña 6.0Puertollano 7.0Tarragona 8.0Bilbao 11.0Tenerife 4.5Algeciras 12.0Huelva 5.0Castellón 6.0ASESA 1.1TOTAL 65.6

Source: Own elaboration according to data from Asociación Española de Operadores de ProductosPetrolíferos (2006) Figure 61: Oil refineries in Spain

Concerning solid bulk traffic, the top ranking ports are Gijón, Tarragona, Ferrol-San Cibrao, Huelva and Valencia. Gijón is a port entirely specialised in handling solid bulk, its two main traded commodities being coal (59%) and iron products (33%). Ferrol-San Cibrao is another port almost totally

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

82

specialised in handling dry bulk, its main traffic being imported coal and iron ore. Tarragona, Huelva and Cartagena are dedicated mainly to handling bulk, including both categories, liquid and dry. The ranking changes considerably when considering container ports. 87% of this most dynamic type of traffic was handled in 2006 by the top 5 ports: Algeciras, Valencia, Barcelona, Las Palmas and Bilbao. These ports play different roles within the container market, as Algeciras is largely a transhipment port whilst Valencia, Barcelona and Bilbao are the main gateways for the imports and exports transported in and out of Spain. Finally, Valencia and Las Palmas combine a dual nature as both serve as gateways and transhipment ports. Conventional non-containerised cargo is handled in a diversity of ports in Spain, the ranking been headed by Barcelona, Baleares, Valencia, Algeciras and Bilbao. Ro-ro traffic, classified as part of non-containerised general cargo (therefore a sub-group of the previous table) is mainly handled by Baleares, Barcelona, Valencia, Algeciras and Sta. C. de Tenerife. The ro-ro throughput for the ports of Baleares and Sta. C. de Tenerife is mostly domestic traffic being transported between the peninsula and the archipelagos. Barcelona, Valencia, Santander and Vigo’s ro-ro traffic can be largely explained as a mix of short-sea shipping cargoes together with import/export cars. Finally, Algeciras, Cádiz and Ceuta’s throughput in this category is mainly derived from cars and trucks using the ferry connections to cross the Gibraltar Strait.

Portugal

Portugal bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the west and Spain to the north and east, is the westernmost country of mainland Europe. Its peripheral location within Europe has historically made it dependent on maritime transport in order to foster the competitiveness of its exported products. In 2006, 61% of the total trade in weight was transported by sea, the percentage for import flows being as high as 70%. The following figures show the modal split of Portuguese trade for export and import flows in weight and in value.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

83

MODAL SPLIT OF PORTUGUESE TRADE -2006 (% OF TOTAL WEIGHT)

Maritime70%

Air0%

Road26%

Other modes4%

Air1%

Road54%

Other modes

1%

Maritime44%

MODAL SPLIT OF PORTUGUESE TRADE -2006 (% OF TOTAL WEIGHT)

Maritime70%

Air0%

Road26%

Other modes4%

Air1%

Road54%

Other modes

1%

Maritime44%

MODAL SPLIT OF PORTUGUESE TRADE -2006 (% OF TOTAL EUROS)

Maritime30%

Air4%

Road63%

Other modes3%

Maritime27%

Air7%

Road65%

Other modes1%

MODAL SPLIT OF PORTUGUESE TRADE -2006 (% OF TOTAL EUROS)

Maritime30%

Air4%

Road63%

Other modes3%

Maritime27%

Air7%

Road65%

Other modes1%

Source: Own elaboration based on the data provided by Instituto Nacional de Estatística I.P. Figure 62: Modal split of the Portuguese trade in 2006

The Ministry for Public Works, Transport and Housing is responsible for defining national strategies regarding ports and sea transport and the coordination and implementation of projects relating to inland waterways and maritime transport. The ports are joint-stock companies created exclusively with public capital. The port authorities are the administrative bodies legally entitled to manage the port land, any possible expansion of these areas, the adjacent canals and respective banks of the Public Maritime Domain. Table 43: Port turnaround in Portugal, 2006, thousand tonnes

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalDry Bulk 15,233 3,924 19,158Liquid Bulk 22,940 7,967 30,906Other General Cargo 2,826 1,961 4,788Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 8 9 16Ro-Ro (self-prop) 184 205 389Containers 4,347 5,648 9,995Container (TEU) 617,700 619,370 1,237,070

PT Total (not incl. TEU) 45,538 19,714 65,252

Source: E

urostat

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

84

Figure 63: Major ports in Portugal

Portugal has five major ports with good deep-sea and short-sea connections: Lisbon, Sines, Leixoes, Setubal and Aveiro. Almost 50% of the total tonnage handled corresponds to the ports of Sines, Leixoes and Lisbon. The port of Sines is the first in liquid and dry bulk traffic. The port of Aveiro is the most important for general cargo traffic. Finally, the Port of Lisbon leads the statistics for container traffic. The five most important ports in 2006 according to the total number of tonnes handled by them were: Sines, Leixoes, Lisbon, Setubal and Aveiro. The top 10 ports are usually ports highly specialised in handling liquid bulk traffic, loading and unloading over 30 million tonnes of liquid bulk in 2006, 50% of the total traffic of liquid bulk handled at Portuguese ports. The following ports may be highlighted for their high activity in this sector: the port of Sines mainly dedicated to unloading liquid bulk and with 60% of the total liquid bulk traffic, Leixoes with a 24% of the total (which in turn represents 56% of total port of Leixoes’ traffic) and following distantly are Lisbon and Setubal, with 4% of the total liquid bulk traffic. In most cases, the reason behind these large volumes of traffic is the existence of an oil refinery or LNG plant in the port premises, in the case of the port of Sines, there is a Gas and Petrochemical Terminal. Regarding the traffic of dry bulk, the top five ports are the following: Sines, Lisbon, Leixoes, Setubal and Aveiro. The ranking changes noticeably when considering container ports. In this category, the top ranking positions are occupied by Lisbon, Leixoes, Sines,

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

85

Caniçal and Ponta Delgada. The three first ports are the entrance gates to the economically strong regions of Portugal: Lisbon as a gateway to the centre of the country, the port of Leixoes for the northern regions and the port of Sines for the southern area. Container traffic is usually not the most relevant traffic for the Portuguese ports, the only exception to this rule being Lisbon with 39% of its total throughput being containerised. The ranking of ports managing conventional non-containerised cargo is: Aveiro, Setubal, Leixoes, Lisbon and Figuerira da Foz. Ro-ro traffic is higest in the ports of Setubal, Leixoes, Porta Delgada, Lisbon and Praia da Vitoria..

2.2.2 France & Italy

France

The French port system, at the junction of Northern Europe and the Mediterranean basin, plays a fundamental role in European logistics. The French transport network in general, including road, rail, air, waterways and maritime nodes and connections, has become increasingly relevant as intra-European trade has developed. The following graph shows the modal split of French trade for export and import flows.

MODAL SPLIT OF FRENCH TRADE-2005 (% OF TOTAL WEIGHT)

Source: Own elaboration based on data provided by Statitiques SitraM-Commerce Extérieur de la France of the Ministère de l´Écologie, du Développement et de l´Aménagement durables Figure 64: Modal split of the French trade in 2005

The geographical location of the French ports confers them a competitive advantage when serving the central European regions, as the French ports are good located. The French port system consists of 8 autonomous ports: Dunkirk, Le Havre, Rouen, Nantes-St. Nazaire, La Rochelle, Bordeaux, Marseille and La Guadeloupe. Three maritime façades can be distinguished:

• The Northern façade, where the ports of Calais, Le Havre, Dunkirk, Rouen and Boulogne are located. The Port of Calais, being the closest to the United Kingdom, is the largest passenger port in continental Europe. Rouen’s proximity to Paris makes it one of the options for supplying the French capital, a function that it shares with the Port of Le Havre. Dunkirk and Le Havre are amongst the largest ports in Europe according to the total amount of tonnes unloaded. Whilst Le Havre-Rouen supply basically the Ile de France region, Dunkirk-Calais-Boulogne are the most natural choice for imports and exports bound for or coming from the North-Eastern French regions.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

86

• The Atlantic façade, where the ports of Bordeaux, Nantes-Saint Nazaire and La Rochelle offer a wide span of frequent services connecting France to other European countries.

• The Mediterranean façade, where the port of Marseille-Fos is located. This port is the largest in France in terms of throughput and its geography positions it as one of the natural gateways to Southern Europe. Quality services are offered from Marseille connecting France to African and Far East countries. Finally, the ports of Nice and Marseille are also important ports of call for the cruise industry.

The autonomous ports are public bodies monitored by the French Ministry of Environmental Affairs, Development and Sustainable Public Works. More than 80% of the total French maritime traffic is handled by the 8 previously listed ports. Table 44: Port throughput in French ports 2005, thousand tonnes and 2006 teu

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2005 TotalDry Bulk 59,169 22,003 81,173Liquid Bulk 150,123 32,151 182,274Other General Cargo 6,252 7,933 14,185Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 644 1,131 1,775Ro-Ro (self-prop) 8,013 14,533 22,546Containers 15,623 18,171 33,794

FR Total 239,824 95,922 335,746

Source: E

urosta

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalContainer (TEU) 2,070,434 2,066,750 4,137,184 Almost 50% of the total tonnage handled corresponds to liquid bulk (180.1 million tonnes). Imports of dry bulk grew by 2.7% between 2006 and 2005, mainly due to increasing inflow requirements of raw materials for steel manufacturing plants and the raising imports of coal for thermal power stations. Contrary to the global trend of increasing containerisation factors, non-containerised cargoes have grown (by 8.9%) between 2006 and 2005 more than container traffic in French ports (by 1.4%). The total tonnage of general cargo handled was 119.2 million tonnes, approximately a third of it being containerised traffic. Regarding the traffic of liquid bulk, the top five are the following: Port of Marseille, Port of Le Havre, Port Atlantique Nantes-Saint Nazaire, Port of Dunkerque (Dunkirk) and Port of Rouen. In most cases, the reason behind these large traffics is the existence of an oil refinery in the port premises. The following figure shows a map of the location of oil refineries in France.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

87

REFINERIES IN FRANCE

2006 DATA

RefineryCapacity

(Barrels per Day)

Gonfreville l'Orcher 343,000Provence 155,000Flandres 160,000Donges 231,000Feyzin 119,000Grandpuits 99,000Port Jérôme-Gravenchon 270,000Fos-sur-Mer 140,000Reichstett 77,000Petit Couronne 142,000Berre L'Etang 80,000Lavera Marseilles 220,000TOTAL 2,036,000

Gonfrevillel'Orcher

Provence

Flandres

Donges

Feyzin

Grandpuits

Port Jérôme-Gravenchon

Fos-sur-Mer

Reichstett

Petit Couronne

BerreL'Etang

LaveraMarseilles

Source: Own elaboration Figure 65: Oil refineries in France

Regarding dry bulk traffic, the top ranking ports are: Dunkerque, Marseille, Nantes-Saint Nazaire, Rouen and Le Havre. 59% of containerised cargo, handled in France was managed by the port of Le Havre. Conventional non-containerised cargo is handled in a diversity of ports in France, the ranking been topped by Calais, Dunkerque, Marseille, Caen-Quistreham and Cherbourg. Ro-ro traffic has been classified as part of non-containerised general cargo. This is the reason why the Port of Calais heads the ranking. The proximity of Calais to the British islands has been the determinant factor for Calais to have become the largest French port in terms of number of passengers and the fourth for commercial traffic. The five most important ports in 2006 according to total number of tonnes handled were: Marseille, Le Havre, Dunkerque, Calais and Nantes-Saint Nazaire.

Italy

The function of the Italian ports and sea transport is crucial for a country like Italy where most trade is transported by sea. In 2006, 57% of the total Italian trade in weight was transported using this mode. The following graph shows the modal split of Italian trade for export and import flows.

Source: Own elaboration based on the data provided by Statistiche sul Commercio Estero of the Italian Statistical Office(ISTAT) Figure 66: Modal split of the Italian trade in 2006

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

88

The Italian ports are managed by 25 port authorities that are public institutions created according to the Law 28 January/1994 n.84. The Italian port authorities have their own public personality and are controlled by the Ministry for Transport.

Figure 67: Major ports in Italy

The total throughput of the Italian ports passed the 500 million tonnes mark in 2006. The top 5 ranking ports by total number of tonnes handled in 2006 are: Genoa, Taranto, Trieste, Cagliari and Augusta. Table 45: Port throughput in Italian ports 2005, thousand tonnes and 2006 teu

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2005 TotalDry Bulk 83,518 15,815 99,333Liquid Bulk 177,906 64,716 242,623Other General Cargo 17,957 10,593 28,550Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 16,285 15,693 31,978Ro-Ro (self-prop) 9,203 9,673 18,875Containers 37,145 40,488 77,633

IT Total (not incl. TEU) 342,014 156,977 498,992

Source: E

urosta

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalContainer (TEU) 4,786,042 4,697,616 9,483,658

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

89

2006 DATA

REFINERIES IN THE VICINITY OF ITALIAN PORTS

Source: Fundacion Valenciaport Figure 68: Refineries in the vicinity of Italian ports

Several ports are highly specialised in handling liquid bulk traffic. Amongst them, the port of Fiumicino, entirely dedicated to loading / unloading liquid bulk, Augusta (95% of its total throughput is liquid bulk), Trieste (80% of its traffic), Cagliari (70%), Gaeta (70%) and Messina (66%). A large proportion of these cargoes are destined for the refineries located in the vicinity of the corresponding ports. Concerning dry bulk traffic, the top ranking ports are: Taranto, Ravenna, Venice, Brindisi and Piombino. The Port of Taranto’s dry bulk traffic corresponds to the loading and unloading of coal and iron and steel products manufactured by the ILVA SpA plant located close to the port. The throughput on this category of the Port of Ravenna is explained by the import flows of iron coils, coke, feldspat and fertilizers. Almost all of the total dry bulk handled by the Port of Venice are flows imported by the companies located in the Venetian industrial area. The most important unloaded commodities in Venice are coal, iron ore and cereals. Two of the previous top ranking ports in this category are almost entirely dedicated to importing dry bulk: three quarters of the total traffic of the port authority of Piombino and 70% of the port of Brindisi is dry bulk. In both cases, most tonnes correspond to import flows of coal to be processed by metallurgic plants located in the nearby areas. The iron and steel plants producing in the Piombino and Isola d’Elba area are Lucchini, Magona d’Italia, Dalmine, Enel, Nuova Solmine, Tioxide and Agriverde. Concerning the metallurgic sector in Brindisi, Edipower SpA is a plant located in North Brindisi that currently uses coal in order to produce 320 MW. In South Brindisi there is a second plant, Enel SpA that produces 660 MW. The following figure shows the location of coal power plants in the nearby area of Italian ports.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

90

2006 DATA

COAL POWER PLANTS IN THE VICINITY OF ITALIAN PORTS

Source: Fundacion Valenciaport using data from Assocarboni (International Association of Coal Operators) Figure 69: Coal power plants in the vicinity of Italian ports

The ranking changes noticeably when considering container ports. In this category, the top ranking positions are occupied by Gioia Tauro, Genoa, La Spezia, Taranto and Cagliari. There is a dual nature in the roles played by these ports: whilst Gioia Tauro and Taranto are positioned as hub ports, Cagliari is aiming at becoming a hub port and is a gateway for Sardinian trade and finally, Genoa and La Spezia are the entrance gates to the economically strong Northern Italian regions. 72% of all general cargo, including both containerised, ro-ro and other type of conventional traffic, handled in Italy was managed by the port of Genoa, Gioia Tauro, Leghorn, Taranto, La Spezia, Napoli, Cagliari, Ravenna, Venezia and Salerno.

2.3 The North Sea area

The North Sea area is here defined as the United Kingdom (UK), Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands. Here we find Rotterdam, the largest port in Europe and the third largest in the world (Shanghai & Singapore are bigger). In the ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp large volumes of transhipment cargo are handled. In the UK there are large import terminals for all types of cargo, particularly containers. Significant roro-volumes are also handled in this region. All in all, there were 1.3Bn tonnes of cargo in the ports in the North Sea area in 2006.

2.3.1 United Kingdom/Ireland

United Kingdom

In 2006 a total of 570M tonnes were handled in UK ports; 214M tonnes were loaded and 356M tonnes were discharged. Of the handled volumes, 138M tonnes was domestic cargo. The international traffic to and from the UK was divided into 161M tonnes of export cargo and 278M tonnes import cargo.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

91

Table 46: Port turnover in the UK 2006, thousand tonnes


GB Total (not incl. TEU) 356,681 213,677 570,358

Source: E

urostat

Liquid bulk represented 43% of the total inward and outward volumes. The majority of liquid bulks was crude oil. 24% of the total port volume was dry bulk. Out of the 132M tonnes of dry bulk cargoes, 57M tonnes were coal and 18M tonnes iron ore. Energy commodities thus dominate the dry and liquid bulk cargo traffic, while iron, steel and forestry products dominate the non-containerised general cargo traffic. 160M tonnes of general cargo were shipped in 12.7M main freight units such as containers (55M tonnes/8Mteus), road goods vehicles, unaccompanied trailers, rail wagons and other cargo modes. Close to 60% of the container goods were shipped in 40’ containers. Of the export volumes, 74% targeted Europe, while 68% of the imports arrived from Europe (45% EU & 23% non-EU). North and Central America is the UK’s most prominent trading partner outside Europe, taking 16% of the exports and 7% of the imports, the same share as for Africa. Within the EU, the Netherlands and France are the largest exporters/-importers of seaborne cargoes from and to the UK, with 23M tonnes of loaded and 26M tonnes or unloaded goods. Norway and Russia are the by far the largest European trade partners outside the EU. In 2006, 32M tonnes of mainly liquid bulk were transported at sea from Norway and 9 to 10M tonnes of bulk cargoes from Russia. 31% of the inward container traffic passes over the Netherlands, while close to 80% of the roro traffic volumes comes from France, the Netherlands and Belgium. The US dominate the UK liquid trade outside Europe. South Africa the dry bulk trade and Asia the container trade. 392M tonnes or 68% of the handled goods were loaded and unloaded in ports in England, 99M tonnes in Scotland, 56M tonnes in Wales and 23M tonnes in Northern Ireland.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

92

Figure 70: Major ports in the United Kingdom

English and Scottish ports dominated the domestic trade with liquid and dry bulk cargoes, followed by ports in Wales. Ports in Northern Ireland, England and Scotland dominate the domestic roro-traffic. 40 out of 80 major UK cargo ports had a turnover of at least 1.5M tonnes in 2006 and are thus qualified to be categorized as TEN-A ports. Ports in Thames and Kent unloaded 76M tonnes and loaded 20M tonnes. The ports in Humber unloaded 72M tonnes and loaded 19M tonnes. From Scotland’s East Coast 54M tonnes were loaded and 20M tonnes unloaded. Grimsby & Immingham, Tees & Hartlepool and London handled 52 to 64M tonnes of goods each, followed by Southampton 41M tonnes, Milford Haven

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

93

and Liverpool 34M tonnes each, and Forth 32M tonnes. All of those are major ports, both for domestic, short and deep sea cargoes. Immingham had in 2006 a total turnover of 66M tonnes. The bulk products dominated the cargo flow being some 47M tonnes, equally divided between dry and liquid bulk. The container turnover was some million tonnes much carried on roro systems. London is the second largest port in tonnes having a total cargo turnover of 58M tonnes, whereof the containerised cargoes represent 14 tonnes. The majority is liquid cargo destined for a refinery. As expected Milford docks is the leading liquid bulk port area with a turnover of 34M tonnes of liquid bulk. Liverpool represents one of the most diversified ports with a total of 34M tonnes split on 9M tonnes of containerised cargoes, 13M tonnes of dry bulk, 4M tonnes of general cargo and 8M tonnes of other cargo. Felixstowe is the largest container port, handling 24M tonnes or 3M teu, 39% of the UK total of 8M teu in 2006.

Figure 71: Southampton port terminals

In Southampton mainly three types of products are handled, cars, containers and oil. The oil terminal is located close to the port entrance while the other activities are located close to the city centre. In total 41M tonnes were handled 2006 whereof 8M in containers equalling 1.5M teu. Southampton being the second largest container terminal also has a high turnover of liquid bulk, about 28M tonnes.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

94

Dover handled 33% of the 7M roro units in 2006. 25M journeys were made by international sea passengers, and 6M accompanied passenger cars were transported to and from the UK.

Ireland

Ireland is one of the European countries that have benefited most of joining the EU. The substantial support in building up the infrastructure has made it possible for industries to establish and invest in production, both in hardware and in services. In 1980s Ireland was largely a farmer country. Today it is a prosperous country where it is popular for entrepreneurs and young people to find and develop new markets. The value of exports has by 2007 increased more than four times the level it had in 1992 and the trade surplus was six times higher, although the surplus had its highest level 2002 being 8 times the level of 1992. Dublin represents the majority of port handling. With 21M tonnes the operation is covering more than half of Ireland’s total port turnover. The types of cargoes are evenly distributed on all categories, except for general cargo. However as Dublin is a major roro port the ferry services probably ship a large part of the GC products. The seaborne traffic is dominated by the ferry services cross the Irish Sea. The freight trailers shipped between Stranraer in Scotland and Belfast on North Ireland and between Holyhead in West Wales and Dun Laoghaire in the southern part of Dublin have declined 11% between 2006 and 2007 or by almost 2,000 units. The total freight trailer traffic is about 1.8M units whereof most of the trailers comes in over Dublin. The total traffic is about equally shared between Northern Ireland and The Republic of Ireland.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

95

Figure 72: Ports in Ireland

The share of trailers that go directly to continental Europe is about 1%, Stena Line, P&O and Norfolkline share 75% of the traffic in equal shares. The total bulk volumes amount to 32M tonnes. The largest ports are Shannon Foynes (by Limerick) 11M tonnes, Cork 8M tonnes, Dublin 7M tonnes and Bantry Bay 1M tonnes. Table 47: Port turnover in Ireland 2006, thousand tonnes

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalDry Bulk 4,124 1,918 6,042Liquid Bulk 9,777 2,608 12,384Other General Cargo 983 254 1,237Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2,743 1,525 4,268Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2,963 1,859 4,822Containers 5,306 3,069 8,375Container (TEU) 583,982 531,600 1,115,582

IE Total (not incl. TEU) 25,895 11,232 37,128

Source: E

urostat

The largest liquid bulk port is Cork 8M tonnes while the majority of the dry bulk is handled in Shannon Foynes with 9M tonnes.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

96

The total no of containers in teu handled in the Republic of Ireland is around 1.2M teu (303k teu is handled in North Ireland). The total volume growth is some 6%. Dublin is the major container port handling as total 744k teu.

2.3.2 Benelux (Netherlands, Belgium)

Netherlands

The Port of Rotterdam is the largest port in Europe in terms of tonnes of cargo or teu handled. It represents diversity as well as size. The major activity is in the industrial side of shipping and industries. As regards passengers services the activity is small.

Figure 73: Major ports in the Netherlands

The Port of Rotterdam is a major transhipment port with direct access to the European continental inland waterway system. Table 48: Port turnover in the Netherlands 2006, thousand tonnes

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalDry Bulk 125,382 18,691 144,073Liquid Bulk 174,098 41,133 215,231Other General Cargo 17,304 8,044 25,348Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 523 614 1,137Ro-Ro (self-prop) 6,244 9,440 15,684Containers 37,243 40,819 78,062Container (TEU) 5,418,166 4,943,089 10,361,255

NL Total (not incl. TEU) 360,793 118,742 479,536

Source: E

urostat

The port has developed over the years; from a central distributor of bulk cargo from all over the world towards more of a supplier to its own hinterland. A larger share of the bulk commodities are now shipped directly to the country of destination than before.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

97

The container traffic is well balanced in incoming and outgoing number of units. This means that deep sea cargo incoming will be distributed and collected in the same system. If they are distributed by feeder they are coming back by feeder traffic. The same applies to the roro cargo.

Oil Habited area

Ferry

Container

Dry Bulk

Roro

Processing industry Trading

Ships’ Yard

Background graphics by the kind permission of

Figure 74: Port of Rotterdam

The Port of Rotterdam is an integrated port structure mixed with industries and housing. The Maasvlakte area is the major exclusive port terminal area although integrated with some industrial sites. Container, Dry Bulk and Oil traffic dominates the turnover and area. Process industries having their own berths are frequent both in the Maasvlakte and the petroleum-haven area. The strength of the port is the good and short approach and fairway system. This enables an uninterrupted traffic at all times. In strong wind conditions the pilots are using helicopter service to enter or leave the ships. The integration of industries seems to be one of the port’s main strengths for the future as this enables not only the exchange of products, but also heat and/or cold processes that reduce energy consumption. A substantial new port project, Maasvlakte II, has started which will secure Rotterdam’s position as a major European container hub. There is a direct access from Port of Rotterdam to the Rhein and the inland waterway system in Central Europe. The Port of Rotterdam had a turnover of 11M teu in 2007 or in total 407M tonnes. The Maasvlakte II extension will increase the port’s capacity by 20% in area and the container handling capacity will treble. The first stage of the new terminal area will be ready 2013. This includes a new seawall which is a part of the construction contract. The Port of Rotterdam’s vision is to clear out the inner older port areas in order to make them less disturbed by shipping activities such as noise. Yet, the inland waterway terminals and the passing traffic to the hinterland must remain. The Port of Ijmuiden is located west of Amsterdam and act as a gateway for some of the docks in the port of Amsterdam. A ferry service between the Port of Ijmuiden and Newcastle operated by DFDS Seaways is located in the west part of the port outside of the locks. Ijmuiden is a major dry bulk port and the major part of the outer port is allocated for the bulk and associated business. Ijmuiden handled about 17M tonnes 2006 and Amsterdam 26M tonnes plus 24M tonnes of liquid bulk. The port has four locks to control the water level in the inner harbours and Amsterdam.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

98

In the Port of Amsterdam there is a number of dry bulk port terminals and liquid bulk terminals. The container turnover increased significantly between 2005 and 2006.

Belgium

The Port of Antwerp is known as a major competitor to the Port of Rotterdam, although Antwerp has a somewhat different service area. If Rotterdam is prioritising the deep sea operators and the feedering services, Antwerp is prioritising the stevedoring function as stuffing and stripping in conjunction to servicing the smaller operators on the odd markets. Table 49: Port turnover in Belgium 2006, thousand tonnes


BE Total (not incl. TEU) 124,386 94,112 218,497

Source: E

urostat

The port is located some 75 km up the river Shelde from the North Sea. Antwerp is a municipal port with cargo handling provided by private companies. It is an important multi-product industrial port covering an area of over 14,000 ha with over 4,800,000m2 of covered storage areas, 45% of throughput is transit cargo. The older part of the port has been made accessible for Panamax vessels. Cargoes include: Petroleum products, ores, coal, steel products, crude oils, cereals, fertilisers, paper and cellulose, sugar and fruit. Bulk cargoes are mainly imports. Imports of crude oil via R.A.P.L. (Rotterdam-Antwerp Pipeline) amounted to 30,739,851 tonnes in 2006. The port turnover shows a port that mainly is concerned in cargoes to the hinterland market, especially energy. The general cargo handling shows a record of transhipments so are the containers.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

99

Oil & Gas Habited area

Ferry

Container

Dry Bulk

Roro

Processing industry Logistics Forwarding

Ships’ Yard

Car terminal


Figure 75: Port of Antwerp

The port is characterised by the large activities of petro- and chemical activities. In addition the container traffic is substantial, with a character of liner services on less frequent destinations. Antwerp is also a major port for car imports/exports. The river Shelde provides the entrance to the port. The major part of the port is located inside locks which limits the ships dimensions. New container terminals are located on the river Shelde and so are some oil tanker berths. Antwerp is extending the port and harbour capacity. The port has direct access to the inland waterway system in Central Europe and thus there is substantial inland waterway traffic sailing on Antwerp. The annual turnover of containers 2007 was 8M teu and the total turnover in tonnes was 183M. Antwerp is known to be a breakpoint for shipments to overseas destinations, like Africa and South America. The port is operated in different areas each having its lock in the entrance to the port area. The port is known for its handling skills, which show in the turnover of break bulk products such as forest products, steel, fruits etc.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

100

Figure 76: Ports in Belgium

The Port of Zeebrügge is mainly known for its imports of cars and is likewise the hub for the distribution of cars from the Far East to Europe. The port also has a container terminal with a turnover of 1.6M teu in 2006. The car imports turnover is about 2M cars per year. The port is also a hub for StoraEnso’s forest industry products, which are distributed to southern Europe and some overseas destinations. The roro products amount to about 3M annual tonnes. The port is accessible with a short approach from the open sea.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

101

Figure 77: The localisation of Gent port facility

The Port of Gent is located on the southern side of Schelde with access via locks and a canal stretch from the sea of around 19 nm. The port hosts dry bulk terminals, roro and car terminals and some liquid bulk terminals. The majority of cargo are containers; 35,000 teu and dry bulk; 17M tonnes. Gent is an example of successful sea-river operations.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

102

2.4 The Baltic Sea region (BSR)

Compared to more central parts of Europe, the Baltic Sea Region faces a number of specific challenges in terms of location on the northern periphery giving long distances, a harsh climate and restricted accessibility. Disparities in per capita production in the area around the Baltic Sea are among the highest in the world and the region includes some of the wealthiest as well as some relatively poor areas of Europe, in some cases bordering directly to each other. EU is the dominating trade partner for all BSR countries. Its share of the individual BSR countries foreign trade in 2006 was 63% for exports and 60% for imports. EU was a more important export market to Poland and Latvia than to the other countries. As a source of imports EU was more important to Latvia, Denmark and Sweden than to the other BSR countries. For trade outside the EU the US was the most important trading partner for the BSR economies, receiving 8% of the total exports and supplying 6% of the total imports in 2006, followed by China and Russia. Their shares of the exports were 3% each and 5 to 6% of the imports. For Germany, Sweden and Denmark the US was the most prominent market for exports outside the EU representing close to 9% of their total exports. Norway was the second most important non-EU exports market for Sweden and Denmark with 9% and 6%, and for Lithuania and Latvia at 3% to 4% of the total. China was ranked the third most important export market for Sweden and Finland outside the EU, and as number four by Germany. Five of the BSR countries ranked Russia as their largest trading partner outside the EU, answering for 7% of their total exports and 12% of their imports. These countries are Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Denmark and Poland. Belarus was also ranked high by Latvia and Lithuania and Ukraine by Poland. In the intra-EU trade between the BSR region and other EU countries Germany dominates. Domestic demand in terms of private consumption is generally lower in the BSR economies relative to GDP than in the EU27 as a whole, but domestic demand grow faster in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania , Poland, Finland and Sweden than the EU27 average. As Germany and Poland have the by far largest populations, they represent the major markets for consumer goods in the region10.

10 European Economy no. 7, 2007/ Office for Official Publications of the EC.

Luxembourg

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

103

2.4.1 Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland.

Sweden

A total of 161M tonnes were handled in Swedish ports with a cargo turnover of >1M tonnes/year in 2006. Another 20M tonnes are handled in ports and terminals <1M tonnes/year.11 Table 50: Port turnover in Sweden 2006, thousand tonnes

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalDry Bulk 13,225 14,444 27,669Liquid Bulk 38,925 23,801 62,726Other General Cargo 4,771 10,831 15,602Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 7,149 8,999 16,148Ro-Ro (self-prop) 14,377 14,441 28,818Containers 4,121 5,849 9,970Container (TEU) 1,038,071 274,229 1,312,300

SE Total (not incl. TEU) 82,568 78,365 160,933

Source: E

urostat

132M tonnes were loaded or unloaded on cargo ships, (incl. 10M tonnes in container ships) and 28M tonnes on Ro-paxes. General cargo is the largest commodity type, with 71M tonnes loaded or unloaded, followed by 63M tonnes of liquid bulk, and 28M tonnes of dry bulk cargoes. Mineral oil is the single largest commodity, answering for 37% of the total volume handled in the ports. Wood products totalled 22M tonnes and other dry bulk 32.6M tonnes, together 34% of the total. Most of the foreign trade is thus related to oil refining, wood and manufacturing industries. Trading companies buying and selling fuels, metals, wood products, construction materials, machinery and chemicals, as well as food are other important actors in the foreign trade. A total of 1,3Mteus were handled in Swedish ports in 2006, 640,100 outwards and 646,300 inwards. 18% of the outward teus were empty and 30% of the inwards teus. Another 2.6M trailers and trucks were loaded or unloaded as well as 111,000 railway wagons and 105,000 tonnes of other roro cargo goods. 474,000 new cars were loaded and 383,000 were unloaded in the ports. The EU countries are Sweden’s major trading partners, particularly the EU countries around the Baltic Sea. Their share of the imports into Sweden was 42% and the corresponding share of other EU countries was 18%. For exports the figures were 39% and 31%. Including other non-EU countries (incl. Russia) in the imports figures, the Baltic Sea region share of the Swedish imports was 72% and that of other European countries 19%. With the non-EU countries included in the exports volumes, their share of total exports increases to 49% and 36%. 82% of Sweden’s imports of mineral oils arrive from the Baltic Sea Region, and 92% of the imports of wood, 68% of pulp and 72% of basic chemicals. 57% of food and cereals are imported from the neighbouring Baltic Sea countries. EU members outside the Baltic Sea Region are major suppliers of fruit and vegetables, unprocessed minerals, vegoils, organic chemicals, medical and pharmaceutical products, rubber, iron and steel, machinery, vehicles etc.

11 SIKA

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

104

Less than 4% of all goods arrive directly from Asia, Australia and New Zealand. The major commodities that arrive are coal, vegoils, fruit, vegetables, seafood, minerals, metal products, vehicles, machinery and consumer goods. Approximately the same volume arrive from South and North America but are mainly mineral oil, coal, wood, metal scrap, ores, iron and steel. The forest industry12 plays a more prominent role in the Swedish economy than is the case in other EU countries, except for Finland. The forest industry accounts for 11–12% of Swedish industry’s total turnover and added value, and for 29% of Sweden’s exports, measured in tonnes. Sweden is the world’s third largest exporter of paper and sawn timber, and the world’s fourth largest exporter of pulp. Sweden’s pulp and paper industry is the third largest in Europe, after Germany and Finland. It plays a decisive role in Europe’s fibre chain via its predominantly new fibre-based production. Swedish pulp exports are important for paper production in countries such as Germany, Great Britain and France. Deliveries from sawmills in Sweden cover around 16% of the consumption of sawn timber products in EU countries, and deliveries from the paper and pulp industry meets just over one tenth of the EU countries’ paper requirements. Other major exports commodities that shape the maritime transport system is the exports of mineral oil, vehicles and machinery, iron and steel. The EU took 75% of Sweden’s exports of mineral oil products in 2006. Most of it to the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Finland, and Poland. Norway is another large market for Swedish exports. Most of the transport is done by chemical/oil tankers, chartered in by the oil companies. The refineries and their port terminals are the basis for the transport logistic systems in the oil business.

12 The Swedish Forest Industries – Facts and figures 2006, Swedish Forest Industries Federation

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

105

Figure 78: Major ports in Sweden

21M tonnes of oil were loaded or unloaded in the port of Göteborg in 2006, and 18.6M tonnes at the Brofjorden Terminal north of Göteborg. The ports of Malmö and Karlshamn handled 5.1M tonnes and 4.6M tonnes respectively, and the ports of Gävle, Oxelösund, Norrköping between 2.5 and 3M tonnes each.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

106

Much of the Swedish exports and imports of merchandise is channelled through the port of Göteborg, Scandinavias largest port. Most of the inter-regional traded goods is shipped in and out of Sweden in containers via the port of Göteborg, and much of the intra-regionally traded goods in roro- or ropax vessels. A total 407,000 teus carrying 2.8M tonnes were unloaded in the port of Göteborg in 2006, and 404,000 teus carrying 3.8M tonnes were loaded. Helsingborg is the second largest container port, followed by Malmö, Gävle, Södertälje and Norrköping. Umeå is the northernmost port in Sweden with regular calls of container vessels, who are also calling the ports of Sundsvall, Kotka (Finland) and Hamburg. The roro- and ropax vessels carried 44M tonnes of general cargo to and from Sweden. Trelleborg is the largest roro port. It handled 8.7M tonnes of such goods, followed by Göteborg 7.6M tonnes, Helsingborg 4.6M tonnes, Malmö 4M tonnes, Stockholm and Kapellskär with 2.5 and 3.0M tonnes each. Malmö is the largest port for imports (242,000) and Göteborg the largest port for exports (229,000) of new vehicles. Halmstad, Södertälje and Wallhamn handles approx 50,000 unints each per year.

Finland

A total of 103M tonnes of seaborne cargoes were transported to and from Finnish ports in 200613. 10M tonnes were domestically traded goods and 93M tonnes foreign traded goods (50M tonnes imports and 43M tonnes exports). 6.6M tonnes of the foreign traded goods were transit goods. Table 51: Port turnover in Finland 2006, thousand tonnes

Dry Bulk 21,623 6,303 27,926Liquid Bulk 20,275 11,889 32,164Other General Cargo 1,974 13,722 15,696Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 3,325 4,660 7,985Ro-Ro (self-prop) 4,041 3,487 7,528Containers 4,772 6,954 11,726Container (TEU) 702,392 688,819 1,391,211

FI Total (not incl. TEU) 56,009 47,015 103,024

Source: Eurostat

Paper is Finland’s largest exports commodity. In 2006 there were 11.4M tonnes exported at sea, followed by 7.4M tonnes of general cargo and 5.4M tonnes of oil products. Other major exports commodities were sawn wood, wood pulp, ores and concentrates, metals and metal manufactures and chemicals at around 3M tonnes each. 9.7M tonnes of general cargo were imported through ports in 2006. This was the largest commodity, followed by 8.8M of mineral oils, and 7.4M of coal and coke. Around 5 to 5.6M tonnes each of crude mineral and cement, ores and concentrates, oil products and timber were imported. Of the 3.8M tonnes of transited goods in Finnish ports, 2.4M were ores and concentrates and 1.2M chemicals on exports. Close to 60% of the imports or 1.6M tonnes were general cargo and 0.8M tonnes metals and metals manufactures. 11.8M tonnes or 12% of the total seaborne cargo to and from Finland was containerised, 16% of the total exports and 9% of the imports. 1,4Mteus were handled in the ports. Of those 1,12M were loaded and 0.29M empty. 11.4M tonnes were transported on 872,000 trucks and trailers onboard roro vessels or ferries to and from Finland. Their share of total export volume was 14% and of the imports 10%.

13 Goods in vehicles and other transport equipment are also included.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

107

EU is the largest discharger of seaborne cargoes from Finland, answering for 88% of Finland’s outward volumes, and it is answering for 65% of the inward volumes. Germany and Sweden are the largest single trading partners, together answering for 36% of the total seaborne cargoes. Other major destinations for the seaborne cargoes within the EU are the UK, the Netherlands, Estonia, and Belgium. The largest trading partner outside the EU is Russia. In 2006 11.7M tonnes of Russian cargo were discharged in Finnish ports, but only 0.2M tonnes of the loaded goods were destined for Russia. Oil dominated the inward volumes from Russia, as well as the volumes from Norway the second largest trading partner outside the EU. The US is the largest export market outside the EU, receiving 2.5M tonnes of Finnish cargoes.

Figure 79: Large ports in Finland

Sköldvik is by far the largest port with a total turnover (domestic and foreign) of 16.1M tonnes of oil, followed by Helsinki and Kotka who are Finland’s largest ports for general cargo with a total turnover of 11.4 and 9,3M tonnes. The port of Kotka is the largest port for paper exports. Naantali is the second largest port for oil trade with 2.5M tonnes in 2006 and Hamina the third largest with 1.4M tonnes. Pori and Kokkola handled 0.8M tonnes of oil each.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

108

Helsinki and Kotka are the two largest container ports representing 30% each of Finland’s total turnover in 2006. Hamina and Rauma are the third and fourth largest container ports. Helsinki is the largest port for truck and trailer transport handling 49% of the total. Naantali, Turku, Hankö handled substantial shares of the rest. A total 16.2M passengers passed the Finnish ports in 2006. 9.2M arrived from or departed to Sweden, and 5.9M from and to Estonia. A little more than 500,000 passengers arrived by cruise vessels. Kotka is the largest transit port for containers, alone answering for 187,000teus of the total teu volume in 2006, followed by Hamina 69,000teus. Helsinki and Hankö handled minor transit volumes. Most of the large ports are located within or close to the Gulf of Finland. The ports along the Gulf of Botnia are often located close to major metal industries e.g the port of Raahe close to the company Rauta Rukki, Tornia close to Outokumpo, Kokkola and Pori close to Boliden. Other ports such as Kotka, Kemi and Oulu support paper producers such Stora Enso, the port of Rauma supports the UPM Kymmene paper works, and the Hankö port Korsnäs. Pori, Raahe, Naantali, Lovisa, Inkoo, Kotka, Kovehar are some of the most important ports for the imports of coal Vessels arriving from abroad made 208,000 calls in Finnish ports in 2006, out of which approx. 150,000 were calls by passenger vessels.

Norway

The Norwegian ports handled a total of 183tonnes in 200614, both inland and foreign, including 16M tonnes of transited iron ore. 126M tonnes were loaded, and 56M tonnes unloaded goods. Table 52: Port turnover in Norway 2006, thousand tonnes

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalDry Bulk 17,539 37,993 55,532Liquid Bulk 27,518 71,943 99,461Other General Cargo 5,669 10,305 15,975Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,164 961 2,125Ro-Ro (self-prop) 3,142 2,780 5,922Containers 1,905 2,218 4,124Container (TEU) 277,686 257,611 535,297

NO Total (not incl. TEU) 56,937 126,201 183,138

Source: E

urostat

5.9M tonnes were transported on car ferries. Of the 177M tonnes loaded and unloaded on cargo ships, 108M tonnes were on ships in international traffic and 71M tonnes on ships in national traffic15. Liquid and dry bulk cargoes dominate the port volume. Liquid bulk, mainly crude oil from the North Sea represents more than 50% of the total volume or 99M tonnes, and dry bulk 31% or 56M tonnes. Out of the remaining 28M tonnes of general cargo, 4.1M tonnes were transported in containers, 8M tonnes on roro- or ropax vessels and 16M tonnes on other general cargo vessels.

14 196M tonnes according to Statistisk Sentralbyrå, depending on double counting of

domestic trade volumes

15 Source: Statistisk Sentralbyrå

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

109

Of the loaded goods 72M tonnes were liquid bulk, 38M tonnes dry bulk, and 16M tonnes general cargo, while 28M tonnes were unloaded liquid bulk, 18M tonnes dry bulk and 11M tonnes general cargo. Norway is Europe’s largest oil producer and exported a total of 88M tonnes of crude oil in 2006; 67M tonnes by ship and the remaining by pipeline. 21M tonnes were piped and another 7M tonnes shipped at sea to UK. Another 31M tonnes were shipped to continental Europe, 7.5M tonnes to countries in the Baltic Sea Region, 16M tonnes to North America, and 5M tonnes countries in the Mediterranean region, and 1M tonnes to China. Norway is also an importer of approx. 3.5M tonnes of refined mineral oil, primarily from Sweden, the UK, Denmark and Russia. Among the 38M tonnes of exported dry bulk products, 18.5M tonnes are fertilizers and urea, 5.1M tonnes of chemical products, 3.3M tonnes of steel and metals, 2.3M tonnes of coal, 1.6M tonnes of ores, and Norway exported 4.3M tonnes of fertilizers and raw materials to Germany in 2006, 2.7M tonnes to Denmark and 2M tonnes each to the Netherlands and the UK. Another 1.6M tonnes were exported to the other countries in the Baltic Sea region, including 0.8M tonnes to Poland and 0.3M tonnes to Finland and Sweden respectively. The 1.5M tonnes of metal ores and scrap were exported almost entirely to European countries, 1M tonnes to Germany and the Netherlands, and 0.45M tonnes to neighbouring countries in the Baltic Sea. Germany and the Netherlands, together with the UK, France and Italy were also the major importing countries of non-ferrous metals, Out of 1.45M tonnes of iron and steel 1.1M tonnes were exported to six European countries; Germany, the UK, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark, and another 0.2M tonnes to the US. The exports of other metals totalled 1.8M tonnes, with 0.5M tonnes to Germany and 0.2M tonnes each to France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and the UK. 1.7M tonnes of coal were exported to Spain in 2006. Around 100 to 150,000 tonnes were delivered each to Egypt, Iceland, and Poland. 1.4M tonnes of paper and 0.7M tonnes of pulp were exported, while the pulp was exported mainly to Germany and the Netherlands, together accounting for 0.3M tonnes, the UK was the absolutely largest importer of paper from Norway, in 2006 by 0.4M tonnes, followed by Germany and the Netherlands. Except for Denmark only minor volumes were delivered to the Baltic Sea Region. A total of 11.3M tonnes of general cargoes were exported from Norway and 6.5M tonnes imported. Another 6.5M tonnes were transported domestically. 2.2M tonnes of the exports were transported in containers/lolo, and just 0.1M tonnes in containers/roro, and 1.9M tonnes imported in containers/lolo and 43.000tonnes in containers/roro. 5.9M tonnes were transported on accompanied trucks, and 2.1M tonnes on un-accompanied trailers.

Denmark

In 2006 a total of 96M tonnes of goods were loaded to or unloaded from ships in Danish ports.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

110

Figure 80: Major ports in Denmark

The outward volumes by cargo ships were 43M tonnes, and the inward volumes 53M tonnes. Table 53: Port turnover in Denmark 2006, thousand tonnes

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalDry Bulk 22,399 8,743 31,143Liquid Bulk 12,079 17,914 29,994Other General Cargo 2,947 1,125 4,072Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2,850 3,338 6,188Ro-Ro (self-prop) 9,761 9,992 19,753Containers 2,574 2,391 4,965Container (TEU) 515,795 478,672 994,467

DK Total (not incl. TEU) 52,610 43,503 96,114

Source: E

urostat

The outward and inwards volumes on ferries were close to 10M tonnes each, and a total of 6.2M tonnes of un-accompanied trailers on roro ships. 5M tonnes of containerised general cargo were shipped, almost equally divided between exports and imports. Out of the goods transported by cargo ships, 81% were transported by ships in international traffic, and 19% by ships in national traffic. Of the goods carried by ferries, 77% were on ferries travelling to and from abroad, and 23% on ferries travelling domestic routes. Denmark produces its own oil and gas. All in all 14.3M tonnes were pipelined from the North Sea. Another 2.5M tonnes were imported from Norway. A total of 9.1M tonnes crude oil, and 4M tonnes of mineral oil products were exported by ships, while 4M tonnes of natural gas were pipelined abroad. Another 2.7M tonnes of crude oil were imported, and 5M tonnes of mineral oil products. Sweden is the largest importer of crude oil and mineral oil products from Denmark; in 2006 5.3M tonnes. Finland, UK and the Netherlands imported 1.4M tonnes each. All exports of crude oil were loaded in Fredricia and all imports discharged in the Statoil terminal near Kalundborg. These ports/terminals together dominate the exports of mineral oil products. Copenhagen is by far the largest receiving port of oil products (2M tonnes), followed by the ports of Århus, Aalborg and Fredericia with approx. 800,000 tonnes each,

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

111

15M tonnes of dry bulk cargoes, primarily coal, animal fodder, lime, sand and gravel were imported, while 4M tonnes were exported, mainly scrapped steel, chalk, lime and cement. Coal is the largest single commodity imported to Denmark, but it is unloaded mainly at terminals in close connection with power utilities. Most of the coal is imported from Africa and Eastern Europe, primarily from Estonia, Latvia, Poland and Russia. Small amounts are also imported from the US and Norway. 2.1 M tonnes of iron and steel products, 0.7M tonnes of wood and 0.8M tonnes of other general cargo were shipped to and from Denmark. Metal scrap is exported mainly from the port of Odense, while iron and steel products are imported through the ports of Esbjerg, Kolding, Stålvalseverket in Fredriksborg Amt, and through Copenhagen and Århus. Århus is also an important port for imports of animal fodder and together with Fredericia the main port for imports of agricultural products, while Kalundborg is the major port for exports of agricultural products, Århus is also by far the largest port for inward and outward container transport, with Copenhagen port as the second largest. Esbjerg is the main port for roro-traffic to and from the UK. Significant amounts of roro cargo are shipped through the port of Århus, and also through Aabenraa, Fredericia and Copenhagen. New cars are transited mainly through the port of Copenhagen. Helsingör, Gedser and Rödby are the largest ports for ferry traffic to and from Sweden and Germany.

2.4.2 East Baltic (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania & Poland)

Estonia

The ports in Estonia registered in 2006 a goods turnover of 47.8M tonnes, the highest volume ever.

Figure 81: Major ports in Estonia

The favourable geographic situation at the Baltic Sea between the east and the west has ensured that transit goods represent an important flow for the Estonian ports, comprising 78% of the total volume of goods. More than 90% of the transit goods go from east to west.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

112

Table 54: Port turnover in Estonia 2006, thousand tonnes

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalDry Bulk 568 10,797 11,365Liquid Bulk 1,775 25,761 27,536Other General Cargo 2,999 4,480 7,479Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 31 10 41Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2 0 2Containers 751 631 1,382Container (TEU) 80,432 71,967 152,399

EE Total (not incl. TEU) 6,127 41,679 47,806

Source: E

urostat

While seaborne transit volumes increased 43% from 2000 to 2006, Estonia’s own exports and imports at sea decreased by 13.5%. The exports alone declined by 30%. The lower turnover is due to a strong increase in international road transport. Out of the port turnover of the goods, petroleum products comprised over 56% or 27M tonnes, while the volume of crude oil was less than 0.5M tonnes. The crude oil has been taken to the Russian ports while the expensive petroleum products add to the turnover of the ports of Estonia and other Baltic countries. Major dry bulk commodity types are coal (8M tonnes), wood and fertilisers. The remaining 8.9M tonnes mainly comprised 1.4M tonnes of containerised cargo and 7.5M tonnes of non-containerised general cargo. In statistics from the national statistic bureau in Estonia 3.2M tonnes of this goods is registered to be goods on trailers16. Out of the goods dispatched from Estonia in 2006, 53% (according to the value of the goods) went to EU countries in the Baltic Sea Region, 8% to Russia and 2.6% to Norway. Another 12% went to other EU countries, and 6.6% to the US. Most of the exports to the US was oil products, wood and base metals. Of the goods arriving at Estonia, 58% came from EU BSR, 13% from Russia and 16.3% from other EU countries. Mineral oil dominated cargoes from Russia, from Finland base metals, from Lithuania oil products, and from Sweden base metals and oil products. Estonia has 320 km of navigable inland waterways. The traffic in inland waterways is primarily seasonal and involves mostly pleasure craft activities. The ports of Tallinn, Pärnu, Kunda, and Sillamäe - offer deep waters and good ice conditions. The Port of Tallinn is the biggest cargo and passenger port and holds a leading position in the handling of cargo flows between Russia (as well as other CIS countries) and Western Europe. As a rule, the goods are delivered to the ports of Muuga, Tallinn, Paldiski, Kunda or Pärnu, or taken by road transport to other European countries via Latvia mostly using the Tallinn-Ikla road, or delivered to Russia by the Tallinn-Luhamaa and Tallinn-Narva roads. There are daily ferry links from Tallinn to Helsinki and Stockholm, as well as frequent cargo ferries to Antwerp, Rotterdam Copenhagen, Hamburg, Kiel, Harwich, etc. In 2006 the Port of Tallinn handled about 7 million passengers. 6 million of those were passengers to and from Finland, .0.8 miljoner passengers to and from Sweden. Oil products from Russia account for most of the cargo volume of Port of Tallinn. Major oil product consignors are Kirishi, Rjazan, Jaroslavl, Novopolotsk oil refineries.

16 http://pub.stat.ee

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

113

The cargoes are destined for the USA, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Great Britain and other countries. The oil products can be loaded-unloaded in Muuga Harbour at nine quays. The transit terminal of AS E.O.S. (AS Estonian Oil Service) specializes in re-pouring of Russian and Byelorussian fuel oil. Through a pipeline from E.O.S. terminal fuel oil is pumped to quays in Muuga Harbour, where vessels with the carrying capacity exceeding 100 000 tonnes can be received and loaded. 600 railway tanks per day can be emptied. AS Alexela Terminal is the only oil products terminal in Paldiski. Its core activity includes the organization of the transit of light oil products and oil chemicals. Two quays, where tankers of up to 65,000 DWT are serviced, are at use. Fertilizers constitute the principal commodity handled by the Dry Bulk Terminal operating in Muuga Harbour. It currently handles NPK, NP, ammonium nitrate, urea and DAP/MAP fertilizers, which are mainly transported by rail from the main fertilizer producers in Russia for onward shipment by sea to Central, South and North America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. Fertilizers are handled also, though in smaller volumes and mainly in bagged form. Scrap metal processing is mainly performed in Paldiski South Harbour. Kuusakoski, a subsidiary of Finnish concern Kuusakoski OY, is the Estonian largest waste handling company with the core activity of buying up, handling and export of ferrous and non-ferrous metal. In addition to the aforementioned four major dry bulk cargo groups also gravel, peat and other dry bulk cargoes are transported through Port of Tallinn. Main roads connect Estonia with Russia (St. Petersburg region and Moscow) in the east and with Latvia in the south. The Via Baltica connects Central and Northern Europe with the Baltics.. After joining the EU, the number of road trains crossing the Russian-Estonian border has increased by about 60-70%. As the transport of goods delivered to Estonia as well as the dispatched export, import and goods in transit is mainly organised in a multi-modal17 transport chain (ship-train or train-ship), the capacity of goods in transit and assortment of goods is similar to the trade flows passing the ports. In 2006 international transport by rail comprised 42.8 million tonnes. Out of the international transport, the main part includes Russian transit transport. 91% of the transit transport through Estonia was comprised by the goods loaded in Russia. In order to speed up the container handling, shuttle train traffic will be launched in cooperation of Estonian Railways and Russian Railways to serve container shipments on Tallinn-Moscow route, and via Trans-Siberian railways to Far East and Cental Asia. Most of the traffic is handled by AS Estonian Railways. In order to provide efficient transportation of goods, shuttle trains for containers operate on the Tallinn - St. Petersburg - Moscow - Tallinn route. Estonia’s railway system is directly connected to the Russian railway systems and to the systems of other CIS countries. Via the Trans-Siberian line Estonian’s railway system connects with countries of the Far-East region, ascertaining Estonia’s position as a transit centre. Since 1994, the turnover of road traffic enterprises has been continuously growing. In 2006, 6.5M tonnes international transported goods were transported. The majority of goods are carried by road from Estonia to the

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

114

neighbouring countries, such as Russia, Latvia, and Finland. The majority of goods imported to Estonia come from Finland, Latvia, and Germany. The part of road with the highest density is on the Tallinn- Pärnu-Ikla road at the border of Tallinn. Only a little less traffic can be seen at the border of Tallinn on the Tallinn-Narva road. Despite the relatively high traffic density on some parts of roads, the traffic congestions are not very common in Estonian roads. Maritime transport, inter-urban coach traffic, air traffic, and most of the rail transport is being provided by private enterprises. The major national transport enterprises include AS Tallinna Lennujaam (Tallinn Airport Ltd), AS Tallinna Sadam (Port of Tallinn Ltd), AS Elektriraudtee (Electrical Railways), which is servicing the vicinity of Tallinn, and AS Eesti Raudtee (Estonian Railways), state ownership of 34%, holding the majority of the public railway infrastructures of Estonia. The number of companies operating internationally has increased remarkably over the last few years.

Latvia

A total of 55.8M tonnes were handed in the Latvian ports in 2006. Loaded cargoes totalled 49.2M tonnes and unloaded cargoes 6.6M tonnes.

Figure 82: Ports in Latvia

The strong imbalance between loaded and unloaded volumes is due to the fact that Latvia is the main transit trade route through the Baltic Sea Region. The three main ones Ventspils, Riga and Liepaja are working mostly with transit cargoes, predominantly oil products from the CIS countries to the west, and general cargo in the opposite direction. The dominance of transit cargoes depend on Latvia´s geographically favourable position with the ports being free of ice all year round. There are also seven small ports in Latvia – operating basically as fishing and yacht ports, handling also wood products. Together they handle around 1M tonnes.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

115

Of the total handled volume 2006, 24M tonnes were dry bulk, 23M tonnes liquid bulk and 8.6M tonnes general cargo. Close to 200,000teus were handled in the ports in 2006, and 122,500 roro units. Table 55: Port turnover in Latvia 2006, thousand tonnes

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalDry Bulk 2,264 21,740 24,004Liquid Bulk 2,257 20,979 23,235Other General Cargo 286 4,859 5,145Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 49 20 69Ro-Ro (self-prop) 669 894 1,563Containers 1,069 694 1,763Container (TEU) 107,405 91,471 198,876

LV Total (not incl. TEU) 6,594 49,185 55,780S

ource: Eurostat

Oil products, bulk fertilizers, timber and wood are the major products loaded in ports, mainly destined to countries within the Baltic Sea region. Germany and Lithuania are Latvia’s largest trading partners, together with Estonia and Russia. Latvia exports to countries outside the Baltic Sea Region are very small, except for wood and wood articles, food and agricultural products to the US, the Netherlands, and the UK. Oil products and building materials are imported from Lithuania and Russia, grain and cereal products from the Netherlands, machinery from Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy and Germany, and transport vehicle from Germany, Sweden, Estonia and Finland. The port of Liepaja handles mainly grain, crude oil, and oil products, timber, metals, fertilizers, and Ro-Ro cargoes. While the handling of peat, scrap metals and oil products are increasing, general cargoes were down to 1.4M tonnes in 2006, which caused slump in overall handling figures for the port of Liepaja.

Lithuania

27.4M tonnes of goods were handled in Lithuanian ports in 2006; 19M tonnes loaded and 8.5M tonnes unloaded goods. A total of 14M tonnes were liquid bulk, 7.6M tonnes dry bulk and 5.7M tonnes general cargoes.

Figure 83: Major ports in Lithuania

Of the crude oil and refined petroleum products 12.5M tonnes were transited goods from Russia. Of the general cargo, 1.6M tonnes were transported in containers, and 2.1M tonnes in Ro-ro or Ro-pax vessels.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

116

Table 56: Port turnover in Lithuania 2006, thousand tonnes

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalDry Bulk 1,991 5,599 7,590Liquid Bulk 3,626 10,530 14,155Other General Cargo 620 1,376 1,996Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 703 447 1,150Ro-Ro (self-prop) 488 480 968Containers 1,038 548 1,586Container (TEU) 118,593 112,955 231,548

LT Total (not incl. TEU) 8,466 18,979 27,446

Source: E

urostat

Klaipeda State Seaport is the major port in Lithuania–connecting the Baltic Sea with industrial regions of eastern hinterland (Russia, Byelorussia, the Ukraine and etc.). The main shipping lines to the ports of Western Europe, South-East Asia and the continent of America pass through Klaipeda port. In 2006 Klaipeda Port handled 23.6M tonnes of cargo. The turnover of cargo loaded unto ships totalled 16.92M tonnes, while unloading figures were equal to 6.69M tonnes. Consequently, export cargo constituted 72% of the total turnover amount. 6.8M tonnes of oil products were handled in 2006. The turnover rates of other types of cargo (excluding oil) were 16.8M tonnes, including 5.4M tonnes of fertilizers, 6M tonnes of grain, scrap metal, timber, ferroalloys, sugar and perishable goods, 1.6M tonnes of containerised cargoes, and 3.8M tonnes of roro-cargoes. The biggest influence on the year 2006 result was made by increase in handling of liquids and general cargoes. East-West transport corridor crossing the territory of Lithuania can become one of the main transport links between the European Union and neighbouring countries. The development of East-West transport corridor is among national priorities of the Long-term strategy of Lithuanian transport infrastructure development. The transport corridor‘s implementation increases the stevedoring capacities in Klaipėda State Seaport and railway transportation capacities, as well as the creation of the network logistics centres. This transport corridor belongs to the Northern transport axis linking the EU and neighbouring countries. The axis is recognised by the European Commission as one of the main ones in the region. The European Commission has allocated from EU TEN-T Fund additional sum of 124 million EUR (maximum possible support) for the studies and construction works of European gauge “Rail Baltica” railway. 88.87 million EUR of this sum is allocated for Lithuania. “Rail Baltica” project is among the 30 priority infrastructure projects of the European Union.

Poland

In 2006 53M tonnes of goods were handled in Polish ports in 2006. Out of that 49M tonnes were transported on cargo ships and 4M tonnes on ferries.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

117

Figure 84: Major ports in Poland

The loaded and unloaded volumes on cargo ships were 33M tonnes and 20M tonnes respectively. A total of 13M tonnes were transited cargoes, mainly land-sea transit volumes. Table 57: Port turnover in Poland 2006, thousand tonnes

Cargo Category Inward Outward 2006 TotalDry Bulk 9,101 13,277 22,378Liquid Bulk 3,755 12,208 15,963Other General Cargo 1,394 2,997 4,390Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 989 658 1,647Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2,117 1,774 3,891Containers 2,454 2,230 4,685Container (TEU) 287,987 298,532 586,519

PL Total (not incl. TEU) 19,809 33,143 52,952

Source: E

urostat

Of the 49M tonnes of goods transported by cargo ships, 48M tonnes were transported by ships in international traffic, and 1M tonnes by ships in domestic traffic. The major types of loaded cargoes were 13.3M tonnes of dry bulk goods, 12.2M tonnes of liquid bulk goods, 2.2M tonnes of containerised goods and 0.7Mt of goods carried by un-accompanied trailers, and 3M tonnes of other general cargo. 8.6M tonnes of the loaded dry bulk cargoes were coal and coke, and 1.7M tonnes of agricultural products. Of the loaded liquid bulk, 8.8M tonnes were crude oil and 2.1M tonnes oil products. Of the 5.9M tonnes of general cargo, 2.2M tonnes were containerised cargoes, 0.7M tonnes roro cargoes, and 3M tonnes of other general cargoes. Dry bulk cargoes also dominate unloaded goods in the Polish ports. Half of the total unloaded goods or 9.2M tonnes were dry bulk cargoes, of which 2.4M tonnes agricultural products, and 1.4M tonnes metals and scrap. 1M tonnes of crude oil were unloaded in the ports and 3.9M tonnes of oil products. Out of a total of 4.9M tonnes of unloaded general cargo, 2.5M tonnes were containerised, 1M tonnes were carried by roro vessels and another 1.4Mtonne by other types of general cargo vessels.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

118

The EU is the main trade partner for Polands seaborne exports ands imports of goods. In 2006 64% of all traded goods or 34M tonnes originated from or were destined to the EU countries. Another 3M tonnes were traded with other European countries. Within the EU, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and the UK were Poland’s largest trading partners. Containerised seaborne general cargoes dominate the trade with Germany, followed by dry bulk cargoes. The trade with Sweden is dominated by 3.6M tonnes of roro cargoes. Liquid bulk is the largest commodity in the trade between Poland and Denmark and Poland and the Netherlands. Dry bulk is the largest commodity in the trade between Poland, Finland and the UK. Outside Europe, the trade with Asia totalled 4.5M tonnes, with North America 3.4M tonnes and with South America 3.1M tonnes. While liquid bulk characterize the trade with North America, dry bulk characterize the trade with South America. In Poland there are five ports with a turnover exceeding 1.5M tonnes per year, and another six ports with an annual turnover of less than 200,000 tonnes. Three handled mainly domestic cargoes. The five major ports – Gdansk, Gdynia, Szczecin, Swinoujscie and Police – answer for 99.5% of the total port turnover. Gdansk alone had a turnover of 24M tonnes in 2006, followed by Gdynia at 14M tonnes, closely followed by Szczecin and Swinoujscie with a 9-10M tonnes. The Police port had a 2.5M tonnes turnover. Gdansk alone handles 50% of Poland’s seaborne exports volumes, and the three other major ports handles 10% each. Gdynia is the largest port for unloaded cargoes. In 2006 close to 8M tonnes were unloaded, followed by the other three major ports with around 4M tonnes each. Gdansk is the major transit port in Poland, with 9M tonnes of crude oil and products transited from Russia annually. Gdansk is also Poland’s largest port for exports of coal and coke, with 4M tonnes per year, followed by Szczecin and Swinoujscie with 2.5M tonnes each. Gdynia is the largest port for general cargo, unloading 5M tonnes and loading 4M tonnes a year, with 4M tonnes in containers. Swinoujscie handled close to 5M tonnes of general cargo, and Gdynia 2.2M tonnes, of which 0.6Mtonne in containers. Swinoujscie, which is the largest port for ferry traffic handled less than 100,000 tonnes in containers, while 2.3M tonnes in trucks, and 0.6M tonnes in rail wagons. Gdynia and Szczecin are the major ports for cereals, handling 1.5-1.7 M tonnes per year. Police is the largest port for imports of phosphates. Measured in number of containers, 370,000 units or 582,000 teu’s were handled in the Polish ports in 2006; 461,000 in Gdynia and 789,000 in Gdansk. Of the total number of teus, 126,000 were empty and 456,000 full, equally divided between loaded and unloaded.

2.4.3 Russia

Russia contains the greatest natural resources in the world, and has the consumer and labour potential of a population of 145 million, together with limitless investment opportunities, from high technology to agriculture. However, despite rapid economic growth and other positive features in Russia’s economy in recent years, the obstacles to FDI have exerted a stronger influence than any encouraging factor.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

119

Russia’s investment climate still suffers from a number of serious shortcomings. The general problem seems to be the poor – albeit slowly improving - implementation of reforms. In terms of administrative barriers, research results from SITE show that some of the regions in north-western Russia, i.e. the area nearest to the BSR, are among the worst in this aspect. In Russia, the main areas for investments have been transport and communication, fuel and petrochemicals. In comparison with the new EU-Member States in the BSR, investments in Russia usually aim to satisfy Russian domestic demand, while engagements in the new EU member states are often intended to produce goods and services that are also destined for Western Europe. Russia has a complete range of mining and extractive industries producing coal, oil, gas, chemicals, and metals. However, the focus on the exploitation of natural resources seems to have undermined the necessary diversification and reform of Russian industry. Only a few Russian firms all forms of machine building, consumer durables, textiles, foodstuffs and handicrafts are competitive in international markets. Their industrial production is technologically outdated and very energy intensive; it needs modernisation. Russia has almost all of its industrial centres outside the Baltic Sea Region. One of the richest regions is Tyumen, east of the Ural Mountains, where most of the oil is extracted at present. Only St. Petersburg is in the top ten list of the most important Russian industry areas. There is however an important oil industry area in Murmansk and big forest industry concentration in Karelia in the Baltic Sea Region. Other western regions of Russia directly bordering on the Baltic are relatively undeveloped. However, Russia’s expanding trade with the EU increasingly uses the Baltic Sea Region . Following the dissolution of the USSR, Russia retained only 41 of its previous 92 seaports, and for a number of years the remaining ports suffered from lack of investment and modernisation. Major investments are now taking place, and the Russian federal and regional governments show determination to further rebuild the maritime infrastructure and to increase the volume of international trade through Russia’s own ports, including the Baltic Sea ports. The oil volumes from the Former Soviet Union (FSU) exported via the outlets in the Baltic Sea have been hovering around the 1.5M barrel/day mark or approximately 75M tonnes per year. The vast majority of these volumes (around 63M tonnes) are from the Russian port Primorsk in the Gulf of Finland. Early 2008 volumes out from Primorsk indicate an annual volume around the 70M tonnes mark. Some forecasters put oil production growth for 2009 at 3% for the FSU, but at the same indicating the room for export growth is shrinking. Add to that the expected volume increases for the outlets in the Far East and the growth margin for Primorsk seems limited. Challenging that standpoint is the joint statement in April 2007 by Transneft President and Russia’s Deputy Industry and Energy Minister that the capacity of the Baltic Pipeline System is to be expanded significantly, with a focus on Primorsk.

2.4.4 Germany

As in most other large economies, Germany’s industrial sector has declined in favour of the service sector. However, Germany is still among the world’s largest and most technologically advanced producers of iron, steel, cement,

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

120

chemicals, machinery, motor vehicles, machine tools and electronics, and ships. Major German car manufacturers and huge international German based corporations rank among the world’s largest firms. Steel and iron industry together with chemical industry is still today the backbone of the German basic industry. Almost every possible industrial product is manufactured in Germany. The centre of these industries is, however, outside the Baltic Sea Region, in Southern Germany and in the Ruhr area. Hamburg and Bremen are major port and shipbuilding cities which also have substantial machinery production. Berlin, as the federal capital of Germany, is naturally one of the most important economic concentrations in the country. In 2006 ports in Germany handled 299M tonnes. 92% of the handled volume or 275M tonnes were goods loaded on or unloaded from cargo vessels. 129M tonnes or 43% were liquid and dry bulk cargoes, 111M tonnes or 37% were containerised goods, and 40M tonnes or 13% roro cargoes. Measured in number of teus, there were 15Mteus handled in the ports. 81% of the totally handled volumes were loaded or unloaded in the North Sea ports and 18% in the Baltic Sea ports. The North Sea ports dominate the bulk and containerised cargo handling, while the Baltic Sea ports dominate the Ro-ro traffic. The deep-sea ports at the North Sea are the main entrances for goods traded overseas, and to a large extent for goods transited to and from countries east and north of Germany. Table 58: Port turnover in Germany 2006, thousand tonnes


DE Total (not incl. TEU) 178,856 120,447 299,303

Source: E

urostat

A total of 278M tonnes were shipped between ports and terminals along the rivers. 182M tonnes were transported on the river Rhein, 21M tonnes on the river Elbe, and 51M tonnes in the channels. 2.08M teus were transported on the rivers, 182,000 domestically traded, and 1.9Mteus internationally traded, of which 235,000 teus transited to and from neighbouring countries.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

121

Figure 85: Major ports in Germany

The port of Hamburg is Germany’s largest seaport with a total cargo turnover of 140M tonnes in 2007. 71% or close to 100M tonnes was general cargo. Almost 45 per cent of goods handled are sourced from, or destined for the metropolitan region or have close and long-standing links to the port through logistics chains. Incoming sea traffic: 56 per cent of cargo is local volume destined for the metropolitan region or is logistically committed to Hamburg (outgoing sea traffic: 27.4 per cent). Ties to the port are more frequent in bulk cargo than in general cargo, since the port plays a vital role in supplying raw materials to heavy industry and power stations in the region and hinterland. Port of Hamburg is located on the river Elbe. Although it is possible to ship on Elbe the inland waterway traffic is declining, mainly for the reason of shipping capacity. A commercial river shipping require a vessels size of about 1,000 tonnes to be commercially viable. Port of Hamburg is well structured and dominated by the Container terminals and petrochemical sites with berths. There are also some car terminals. The total container turnover is some 9.9 MTEU. The mix of incoming and outgoing is close to the same number of containers.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

122

Oil & Gas Habited area

Ferry

Container

Dry Bulk

Roro

Processing industry Logistics Forwarding

Ships’ Yard

Car terminal

General cargo


Figure 86; Port of Hamburg

Hamburg is Europe’s largest hub for railborne container transport. The frequency of departures and the network of feeder ships were intensified in recent years. Feeder ships offer an average 25 departures every day. The land bridge between container terminals in Hamburg and Lübeck-Siems provides another link to the Baltic region. Another interesting transport medium for increasing numbers of containers bound to and from Hamburg is inland shipping, which is also used for bulk and hazardous goods. 21M tonnes of goods were transported on the river Elbe in 2006. Last, but not least, the well-developed road network provides good access within the area, and direct connections to the long-distance road network. Port of Hamburg is working closely with the port of Lübeck to plan for the discharge of products addressed to the Baltic Sea area. The port of Hamburg is the main port also for the Polish, Czech Republic, and Slovakia who will depend on German transiting until the Baltic Sea ports and their trading organisations are mature enough to act without German brokers, traders and ports. The Bremen ports remain the second largest in Germany. The port of Bremerhaven is a typical transhipment port. The infrastructure is related to the Western part of German and competes with Rotterdam having about the same distance between the port and the Ruhr area. The port of Bremerhaven is favoured by a short and deep entrance to the North Sea that allows a fast approach. Bremerhaven is situated 32 nautical miles from the open sea. Ships, with a draught of over 12.8 m, are subject to time limitations due to the tide. The port of Bremen, the most southern German sea port, is approximately 60 km further Weser up-stream and is up to 10.7 m draught reachable for sea vessels. The seacargo turnover in the ports of Bremen has more than doubled in the last ten years. The cargo traffic via sea reached a new record of 64.6M tonnes

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

123

in 2006 (+ 19,1% as opposed to 2005). The container traffic reached a turnover of about 4.5 Mill TEU.

Figure 87; Bremerhaven terminal in Port of Bremen

Bremerhaven is located by river Weser and is mainly operating two commodities, containers and cars. The annual volume is roughly 3M cars and 4.5 M TEU containers. The container terminal in Bremerhaven is extended by 1600 m new quay. The new area will give better depth for large ships and increase the handling capacity. The terminal operator is Eurogate. The bulk and conventionally turned over general cargo totalled approximately 19.7M tonnes. The ports of Bremen handle more non-containerised general cargoes than any other German port. The most general cargo turnovers are vehicles and bananas in Bremerhaven as well as steel and forest products in the City of Bremen. With almost 1,6M units the ports of Bremen are the main car turnover harbours in Europe. The European traffic – with 33,2M tonnes – amounted to more than half of the total Bremen turnover. The most important non-European continent is America (16.6M tonnes). The US, with a total of 11.9M tonnes attains the

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

124

highest share of the cargo traffic. The Asian ports reached a quantity of 12.1M tonnes. The container traffic with the People’s Republic of China amounted a total of 3.6M tonnes. The Russian Federation follows in the third place with 3.1M tonnes in the much increased container trade. The infrastructure to the hinterland connections are of paramount importance for the competition of a port. Bremen and Bremerhaven do not only possess an efficient port rail with a network of over 200 km but also an excellent railway connection to the main economic regions in Germany and other European countries. Nearly 50% of the Bremen hinterland traffic is transported by rail, even not considering the regional traffic in Bremen. The rail share in the container long-distance section amounts to two thirds. Road transport is the second largest pillar in the Bremen ports hinterland. Bremen and Bremerhaven boast a good connection to the national and international motorway network, A 1 and A 27. Lübeck-Travemünde is Germany's largest port of the Baltic Sea, trailing Antwerp, Europe's second largest transhipment port for paper and cellulose. Block trains with conventional wagons for transport of forest products connect Lübeck-Travemünde with Italy and France, and combined traffic with the rest of Germany, Italy and Holland. The traffic to and from Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia accumulated roughly 30M tonnes of Baltic transhipment goods in 2006. Over the past few years the port has had an intensive strategic infrastructural development. The port is one of the Baltic’s busiest ro-ro ferry and cruise ship ports with 15 – 20 regular ferry services per day, handling 792,000 trailers/swap bodies, but other main sectors, like vehicle handling are also growing strongly with 232,000 cars in 2006. There are 5 port terminals along the river Trave suited for all types of vessels. The Lübecker Hafen Gesellschaft (LHG) handles nearly all the ports cargo, but the company is selling its port operation which has been separated from the landlord function. The Skandinavienkai is the hub of much of the port’s activity, handling 20M tonnes of the 30.5M tonnes recorded in 2006. The Nordlandkai handles 4M tonnes and the Schlutup and Seelandkai 1.5 to2.0M tonnes each. The Baltic Sea area is presently upgrading the port as well as the land infrastructure to allow increased volumes to be transported to the inner of Europe without having to pass over congested road networks. Lübeck has direct access to the European inland waterway system via Elbe-Lübeck-Kanal. Lübeck is making efforts to increase container handling in co-operation with the port of Hamburg. The port of Hamburg has an inland waterway leading up to Lübeck via Elbe-Lübeck Canal. The canal is being renewed, but the updated canal will not be an alternative to the land transport modes as the dimensions of the canal will not be sufficient to be commercial viable. The port of Rostock has since mid 1990s changed its image drastically and its range of services. Today it is a modern oil harbour. It has facilities for grain, coal, fertilizer and cement, with terminals for the export of timber, scrap and break-bulk. The favourable geographical location, and the easy accessibility both land-side and sea-side, as well as large investments in the infrastructure have all contributed to Rostock’s port becoming the second largest among German Baltic Sea ports.

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s an

d th

eirp

orts

125

Rostock is the number one port for passenger traffic between Scandinavia, Finland, Russia and the Baltic countries and Germany. The ferry port with its terminals for combined cargo, forest products and roll-on/roll-off cargo is the heart of the seaport. Rostock’s cruise ship port in Warnemünde is among Germany’s most preferred ports for cruise tourism. The Port of Kiel recorded passenger totals of more than 1.5 million in 2006. The port’s hub business, ferry traffic with Scandinavia, the Baltic region and Russia, account for more than two thirds of overall handling. Bulk cargo handling and the cruise shipping sector also increased. The Jade Weser Port project is among the most topical North European container port projects. The port is located close to Wilhelmshaven. The 2.7M-teu project recently received a final go-ahead by the authorities. No fixed schedule is yet at hand. The basis for the project is the demand for deeper ports induced by the new container vessels that operates on long distances. Presently the largest vessels have a draught of 16 m when fully loaded to the dwt. Few ports in Europe can accept this size of vessels. The Jade Weser Port project was brought forward as a location because of the good fairway which is moderately used and the available land area that is suitable for a terminal. The fairway is presently used by larger tank tonnage supplying crude oil to the refineries in Wilhelmshaven.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

126

3 Major ship markets and the EU interest

SUMMARY • Strong fleet growth in most large cargo carrying

segments

• EU operators’ share of world fleet control unchanged

• EU flagged fleet decreasing

The major conclusion is that the supply will be enough in general (even if it always can be short supply deficiencies in short periods) but maybe too large in some fleets, which itself can distort the markets. The Strategies of Shipping graph is used to illustrate the different segments of the markets. However, it is not an everlasting situration but rather a still picture on a moving scene. As Figure 88 illustrates, the first thing that happens is an innovation. For a period of time the company behind the innovation finds itself with a monopoly. Then several things could happen to effect how the industry will evolve through the years.

Contract Shipping Industry Shipping

Commodity Shipping Special ShippingBu

sin

ess

Eco

no

mie

s o

f S

cale

Service differentiationSource: “Shipping”, Professor Tor Wergeland and LRF Research

Few suppliersEconomies of scale in fleet

Specialized serviceDifficult second-hand market

Tailor-made customer products

Few suppliersNo economies of scale

Specialized servicesDifficult second-hand market

Direct customer contact

Few suppliersEconomies of scale in fleetFairly homogenous serviceLiquid second-hand marketClose customer relations

Many suppliersNo economies of scaleHomogenous serviceLiquid second-hand marketLittle customer contact

Standardization ConsolidationMarket power

ConsolidationFurther specialization

Niche operation

CopiesOver-contractingCompetition

Monopoly profit

Innovation

Figure 88: Movements in the strategy of shipping

A typical example is the way vehicle carriers have moved to become an industry shipping sector, from having been regular roro ships. There are of course many types of ships and the function they perform could often be drawn from the name of the type, ie an oil tanker carries oil. Figure 89 illustrates the world fleet development of ships larger than 100gt going in international traffic over time. The most numerous sectors is the general cargo and the service ships.

This chapter illustrates the different segments that make up the commercial shipping fleet including the service sector that helps them function. The dynamics of the different submarkets and the role that EU companies plays in these markets is presented. The chapter also illustrates the supply side (amount of tonnage in the respective fleets) of the different markets.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

127

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

2006

2009

2012

2015

2018

Tota

l Wor

ld fl

eet,

num

ber o

f shi

ps, 1

976-

Service

Offshore

Yacht

Cruise

Ferry

Roro

Vehicle

Container

Other Dry

General Cargo

Bulker

Other Tanker

LNG

LPG

Chemical Tanker

Oil Tanker

2008-04

Forecast

Figure 89: Total world fleet development from 1976 and onwards, no

However, since in most sectors numbers is not the best measure given that the market calls for transport capacity and not the number of ships. Then the best overall measure for the merchant fleet is dwt. In dwt the oil tankers and bulkers becomes the largest by quite a margin, but the ships that has increased the most measured in per cent in the recent years, and will continue to do so in the forecast period, is the container ships and the LNG carriers.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018

Tota

l Wor

ld fl

eet,

milli

on d

wt,

1976

-

Service

Offshore

Yacht

Cruise

Ferry

Roro

Vehicle

Container

Other Dry

General Cargo

Bulker

Other Tanker

LNG

LPG

Chemical Tanker

Oil Tanker

2008-04

Forecast

Figure 90: Total world fleet development from 1976 and onwards, dwt

What is clearly visible when using dwt as a measure is that the passenger carrying fleets of ferries and cruise ships becomes very small or rather invisible and that of course do not reflect their importance in the shipping as a whole, not the least since the actually is carrying the most valuable cargo – the passengers. Thus when measuring for instance port fees or a nations weight in the IMO the gross tonnage (gt) often is used. Figure 91 shows the fleet development measured by the gt. Still bulkers and tankers are dominating but container ships and especially passenger ships gains in importance.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

128

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018

Tota

l Wor

ld fl

eet,

milli

on g

t, 19

76-

Service

Offshore

Yacht

Cruise

Ferry

Roro

Vehicle

Container

Other Dry

General Cargo

Bulker

Other Tanker

LNG

LPG

Chemical Tanker

Oil Tanker

2008-04

Forecast

Figure 91: Total world fleet development from 1976 and onwards, gt

There are many ways of defining the importance of a country or a region of countries in the shipping world. The mostly used three decades ago where the register, or more commonly known word – the flag state of the individual ships.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Tota

l wor

ld fl

eet,

Flag

g re

gist

er, 1

978

and

onw

ards

, mill

ion

gt

Mid East

Other Asia

Singapore

Japan

Hong Kong

China

Rest of World

Liberia

Marshall isl.

Bahamas

Panama

Other Americas

USA

Other Europe

Norway (NIS)

Norway

Other EU27

Germany

Italy

UK

Malta

Cyprus

Greece

Figure 92: World fleet development, flag states, aggregated gt

In the recent 30 years the EU27 countries flagged fleet of ships has grown from 118M gt to 162M gt or by 37%, but given that the world fleet at the same time has grown from 400M to 800M gt or 100% the EU27 share has decreased. This is illustrated in Figure 93 where the red line shows the downward slope for the fleet of EU flagged ships from a share of 30% in 1978 to 20% now.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

129

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Tota

l wor

ld fl

eet,

Flag

g re

gist

er, 1

978

and

onw

ards

, mill

ion

gt, s

hare

in %

Mid East

Other Asia

Singapore

Japan

Hong Kong

China

Rest of World

Liberia

Marshall isl.

Bahamas

Panama

Other Americas

USA

Other Europe

Norway (NIS)

Norway

Other EU27

Germany

Italy

UK

Malta

Cyprus

Greece

Figure 93: World fleet development, flag states, gt in per cent

Another, measure of the importance of a country or a shipping region is the amount of owned tonnage illustrated in Figure 96.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Tota

l wor

ld fl

eet,

Ow

ner,

1978

and

onw

ards

, mill

ion

GT

Unknown

RoW

Mid East

Other Asia

South Korea

Singapore

Japan

China

C & S America

Bermuda

Canada

USA

Other Europe

Switzerland

Norway

EU27 other

Italy

Germany

Denmark

UK

Greece

Figure 94: World fleet according to country of owner, aggregated gt

Opposed to the flag the gt development in an EU27 perspective has been a lot better over the recent 30 years with an approximately 32% share of the world fleet at the starting point and 33% in 2007 as illustrated in Figure 97. The reason that the European share still are as high now is much credited to the very positive development in Germany the recent decade.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

130

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Tota

l wor

ld fl

eet,

Ow

ner,

1978

and

onw

ards

, % b

ased

on

GT

Unknown

RoW

Mid East

Other Asia

South Korea

Singapore

Japan

China

C & S America

Bermuda

Canada

USA

Other Europe

Switzerland

Norway

EU27 other

Italy

Germany

Denmark

UK

Greece

Figure 95: World fleet development, country of owner, gt in per cent

In Figure 60 a comparison is made between the ownership, operation and flag of tonnage is made and some countries has substantial differences – they are highly concentrated on just owning or operating a ship. Germany stands out in the crowd if measured in gt with at least 41.5M gt owned but not operated tonnage. Canada operates a lot more tonnage than they own and so do Denmark.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

131

Table 59: Comparison between owned, operated and flag for tonnage in different countries/regions of the world

Country/ k gt Owner % Operator % Flag %Austria 40 0% 20 0% 25 0%Belgium 7,483 1% 7,051 1% 4,227 1%Bulgaria 1,243 0% 1,199 0% 890 0%Cyprus 7,136 1% 4,833 1% 19,147 2%Czech Republic 3 0% 3 0% 0 0%Denmark 22,049 3% 37,738 5% 9,429 1%Estonia 605 0% 561 0% 377 0%Finland 2,341 0% 3,034 0% 1,544 0%France 8,305 1% 14,846 2% 6,103 1%Germany 66,854 8% 25,406 3% 12,950 2%Greece 80,502 10% 79,547 10% 35,622 5%Hungary 2 0% 0 0% 0 0%Irish Republic 424 0% 393 0% 137 0%Italy 15,653 2% 16,479 2% 13,204 2%Latvia 1,315 0% 1,069 0% 238 0%Lithuania 321 0% 252 0% 360 0%Luxembourg 22 0% 22 0% 948 0%Malta 899 0% 108 0% 26,169 3%Netherlands 8,865 1% 9,248 1% 6,499 1%Poland 1,735 0% 1,757 0% 134 0%Portugal 517 0% 622 0% 1,101 0%Romania 733 0% 755 0% 248 0%Slovakia 6 0% 4 0% 238 0%Slovenia 497 0% 484 0% 1 0%Spain 3,252 0% 3,778 0% 2,641 0%Sweden 6,255 1% 9,396 1% 4,092 1%United Kingdom 26,983 3% 39,449 5% 13,561 2%EU 27 total 264,040 33% 258,056 33% 159,886 20%Norway 25,864 3% 23,230 3% 18,521 2%Switzerland 3,200 0% 18,038 2% 623 0%Other Europe 31,278 4% 30,819 4% 24,508 3%Canada 7,430 1% 16,026 2% 2,819 0%USA 37,464 5% 55,630 7% 15,038 2%C&S America 61,721 8% 31,659 4% 256,835 33%China 100,425 13% 106,814 14% 63,815 8%Japan 115,189 15% 106,869 14% 14,443 2%Mid East 29,897 4% 33,128 4% 11,999 2%Other Asia 84,933 11% 96,037 12% 89,972 11%RoW 21,335 3% 7,788 1% 125,886 16%Unknown 5,495 1% 4,177 1% 3,925 0%Total world fleet jan 08 788,270 100% 788,270 100% 788,270 100% Given previous figure, Table 60 comes as no surprise since it illustrates that most countries actually have operators from the same country as themselves – especially when it comes to the smaller ships and thus the numbers. Here the figures are over 90% more or less with Germany as the large exception with 50%. Seen in gt it becomes even more extreme with just 31% operated under German control and 13% under Danish control.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

132

Table 60: Who operates a country’s/region’s owned tonnage

Owner region/ % owned operated themselves 2 largest share Other op regionscountry no gt op region no gt no gtDenmark 89% 86% Other EU27 3% 3% 9% 11%Germany 51% 31% Denmark 10% 13% 39% 56%Greece 87% 79% North America 2% 5% 11% 16%Italy 92% 82% Denmark 2% 5% 6% 14%UK 85% 74% Other Asia 2% 5% 13% 22%Other EU27 93% 77% UK 2% 7% 5% 16%Other Europe 93% 77% Other EU27 2% 7% 5% 16%North America 97% 86% UK 1% 5% 3% 9%C&S America 71% 33% North America 6% 23% 24% 44%China 95% 88% Other Asia 1% 3% 3% 8%Japan 93% 83% Other Asia 1% 3% 6% 14%Mid East 97% 93% UK 0% 2% 3% 5%Other Asia 98% 88% UK 0% 2% 2% 9%RoW 77% 28% Greece 12% 39% 11% 33% To emphasise the high importance of the German owners in the supply of world ships Table 60 illustrates who owns the ships that a country/region operates. Also here most operated tonnage is owned by owners of the same country/region but Germany is the second largest owner in many places – having as much as 23% of the Danish operated tonnage and 17% of the ones operated by countries in Central and South America. Table 61: Who owns a country’s/region’s operated tonnage

Operator region/ % operated owned themselves 2 largest share Other own regionscountry no gt own region no gt no gtGreece 81% 80% Rest of World 9% 10% 10% 10%UK 77% 51% C&S America 5% 10% 18% 40%Denmark 56% 50% Germany 18% 23% 26% 27%Germany 90% 82% Japan 1% 3% 9% 15%Italy 89% 78% Japan 2% 7% 9% 15%Other EU27 84% 67% Germany 6% 11% 9% 22%Other Europe 88% 65% C&S America 5% 15% 8% 20%Japan 94% 89% China 1% 2% 5% 8%China 91% 83% Germany 3% 5% 7% 12%Other Asia 95% 78% Germany 1% 6% 4% 16%North America 88% 54% C&S America 4% 20% 8% 27%Mid East 92% 84% Germany 2% 5% 6% 11%C&S America 90% 64% Germany 4% 17% 6% 19%Rest of World 95% 77% Germany 1% 6% 4% 17% The ownership of the ship and the flag state traditionally were closely linked but that is not the case today. Table 62 and Table 63 illustrate where the owner of a ship has it registered by country and region. The first table is expressed in absolute numbers, gt and the second is the same but in per cent gt. Of the total world fleet of 788M gt 264M gt are owned by EU27 interests. At the same time only 159.9Mgt has EU27 flag. In the latter table the EU countries’ share of their owned tonnage under their own flag is highlighted, with the two countries (Slovakia and Malta) with more than 75% of its fleet (shaded in gray). The nine countries with 50 to 75% share of their owned fleet in their own register are marked with yellow. The majority of countries find themselves having below 50% of their owned fleet in their own register. At the same time it is illustrated that 50% of the EU27 owned tonnage is registered within EU27 but not necessarily in their own register. Owners from countries outside EU27 have 20% of their owned ships registered in an EU27 register.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

133

Table 62: Ownership and the flags in k gt

Flag

k g

t

Ow

ner c

ount

ry

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Irish Republic

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

EU27 total

Norway

Switzerland

Other Europe

Canada

USA

C&S America

China

Japan

Mid East

Other Asia

RoW

Unknown

Total

Aust

ria21

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

60

00

00

00

00

270

00

00

60

00

08

040

Bel

gium

03,

887

05

00

097

50

1,26

20

00

027

213

461

039

00

035

00

6,67

00

050

00

316

206

00

1022

90

7,48

3B

ulga

ria0

086

60

00

00

00

00

00

015

40

00

039

00

00

1,06

00

00

00

145

00

034

22

1,24

3C

ypru

s0

00

3,62

70

00

082

108

00

00

042

50

032

05

00

06

4,28

526

80

191

00

1,44

625

01

133

775

107,

136

Cze

ch R

epub

lic0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

30

00

00

03

Den

mar

k0

730

349,

039

20

121

016

30

00

126

017

045

73

130

00

712

62,

114

12,4

4776

40

475

321,

294

1,20

547

90

44,

055

1,27

520

22,0

49Es

toni

a0

00

170

368

00

00

00

110

019

014

00

30

00

043

24

03

00

156

00

03

70

605

Finl

and

00

00

00

1,33

70

980

00

00

00

900

00

00

029

95

1,83

010

013

00

476

00

20

110

2,34

1Fr

ance

02

022

20

00

3,28

20

00

110

032

036

160

00

00

00

666

4,55

666

07

00

2,09

346

00

133

1,40

12

8,30

5G

erm

any

07

02,

092

121

165

412

,623

20

730

015

71,

381

672

474

02

085

122

1,10

318

,590

60

1,33

519

201

13,7

8226

30

1099

031

,658

066

,854

Gre

ece

017

50

6,17

138

00

00

26,8

470

325

00

010

,341

00

500

80

01

100

44,0

572

053

60

018

,989

984

047

607

15,2

6513

80,5

02H

unga

ry0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

02

00

00

00

00

02

Irish

Rep

ublic

00

1991

00

00

20

123

00

00

027

00

00

00

043

304

130

50

010

20

00

00

042

4Ita

ly0

00

261

00

370

40

10,7

890

00

678

00

184

02

015

459

6212

,256

980

410

01,

496

00

026

41,

498

115

,653

Latv

ia0

00

20

00

00

30

022

40

021

80

00

00

00

00

447

00

270

024

90

00

259

00

1,31

5Li

thua

nia

00

00

00

00

00

00

023

30

00

00

00

00

00

233

30

00

075

00

01

26

321

Luxe

mbo

urg

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

150

20

00

00

00

118

00

00

04

00

00

00

22M

alta

00

01

00

00

01

03

00

073

20

01

00

00

00

740

00

360

084

00

06

1321

899

Net

herla

nds

415

119

60

05

211

00

10

117

363,

748

02

10

01

219

64,

238

1412

5623

43,

023

103

01

557

677

155

8,86

5Po

land

00

030

10

00

00

00

00

00

368

010

20

02

00

00

773

180

10

044

70

00

049

60

1,73

5Po

rtug

al0

00

20

00

00

00

00

00

147

00

162

00

00

00

312

00

00

019

74

00

02

251

7R

oman

ia0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

324

00

023

00

00

00

554

00

460

066

00

1117

353

733

Slov

akia

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

60

00

06

00

00

00

00

00

00

6Sl

oven

ia0

00

430

00

00

00

00

00

730

00

00

10

00

118

00

40

021

90

00

1214

30

497

Spai

n0

00

158

00

00

00

047

00

023

40

016

70

00

1,34

00

11,

948

00

21

01,

225

00

00

733

3,25

2Sw

eden

00

08

158

013

024

50

00

480

00

621

20

150

00

02,

965

479

4,26

429

80

114

025

152

90

00

616

184

06,

255

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

023

01,

100

00

017

214,

806

029

00

131

788

128

00

06

08

425,

232

12,3

3110

00

3,29

51

396

5,11

639

30

61,

422

3,90

122

26,9

83To

tal E

U27

254,

182

886

14,0

989,

358

371

1,53

64,

683

12,8

3733

,196

123

11,3

2623

536

091

416

,269

5,41

312

373

923

173

11,

491

4,01

610

,007

132,

495

1,66

412

6,24

176

2,14

651

,449

2,50

30

838,

861

58,2

4626

326

4,04

0N

orw

ay0

00

8620

54

168

00

09

00

051

911

60

177

00

022

360

728

2,11

410

,558

091

223

390

4,79

01,

002

00

3,54

02,

400

223

25,8

64Sw

itzer

land

00

05

00

052

00

098

00

045

32

015

00

00

073

698

060

924

00

1,29

80

00

4652

60

3,20

0O

ther

Eur

ope

017

21,

073

10

10

059

21

131

012

3,87

112

04

012

50

00

355,

762

124

013

,420

00

3,43

25

03

684

7,72

612

231

,278

Can

ada

00

039

110

00

00

01

00

029

120

00

00

00

1510

80

02

2,33

443

2,15

32,

379

00

6035

10

7,43

0U

SA0

00

460

00

67

687

130

00

065

220

140

00

011

253

1,12

347

50

9016

411

,629

9,20

139

50

1280

612

,936

634

37,4

64C

&S

Amer

ica

010

092

08

00

161

050

20

1,12

00

04

777

835

04

00

081

40

1,14

76,

302

2,82

10

1,21

32

178

38,1

9996

51

325,

261

6,55

319

561

,721

Chi

na0

170

182

300

043

572

00

531

00

024

20

00

00

00

071

92,

228

2,46

90

460

030

,473

51,0

031

96,

193

7,60

539

810

0,42

5Ja

pan

00

041

80

00

980

00

790

017

950

00

00

00

026

733

400

340

085

,320

2,40

514

,317

35,

931

6,38

819

115,

189

Mid

Eas

t0

00

629

00

016

10

10

110

00

2,28

10

00

016

00

00

3,09

971

029

90

06,

624

206

011

,775

580

7,14

897

29,8

97O

ther

Asi

a0

00

595

00

033

50

00

100

00

618

430

00

00

00

489

2,09

046

017

092

117

,377

1,04

10

057

,421

5,78

223

784

,933

RoW

00

085

00

00

10

545

00

00

077

214

614

20

60

104

360

2,50

425

20

2,07

10

15,

659

1,02

00

613

99,

610

7421

,335

Unk

now

n0

02

208

10

34

3599

06

10

117

730

56

1618

08

28

631

01

137

1130

861

892

125

7745

161

61,

664

5,49

5To

talk

gt25

4,22

789

019

,147

9,42

937

71,

544

6,10

312

,950

35,6

2213

713

,204

238

360

948

26,1

696,

499

134

1,10

124

823

81

2,64

14,

092

13,5

6115

9,88

618

,521

623

24,5

082,

819

15,0

3825

6,83

563

,815

14,4

4311

,999

89,9

7212

5,88

63,

925

788,

270

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

134

Table 63: Ownership and the flag, % share in gt

Fl

ag %

Ow

ner c

ount

ry

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Irish Republic

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

EU27 total

Norway

Switzerland

Other Europe

Canada

USA

C&S America

China

Japan

Mid East

Other Asia

RoW

Unknown

Total

Aust

ria52

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%14

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

66%

0%0%

0%0%

0%15

%0%

0%0%

0%19

%0%

100%

Bel

gium

0%52

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

13%

0%17

%0%

0%0%

0%4%

2%1%

0%1%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

89%

0%0%

1%0%

0%4%

3%0%

0%0%

3%0%

100%

Bul

garia

0%0%

70%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

12%

0%0%

0%0%

3%0%

0%0%

0%85

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

12%

0%0%

0%3%

0%0%

100%

Cyp

rus

0%0%

0%51

%0%

0%0%

0%1%

2%0%

0%0%

0%0%

6%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

60%

4%0%

3%0%

0%20

%0%

0%0%

2%11

%0%

100%

Cze

ch R

epub

lic0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

96%

0%0%

0%4%

0%0%

100%

Den

mar

k0%

0%0%

0%41

%0%

0%1%

0%1%

0%0%

0%1%

0%1%

2%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%1%

10%

56%

3%0%

2%0%

6%5%

2%0%

0%18

%6%

0%10

0%Es

toni

a0%

0%0%

3%0%

61%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

2%0%

0%3%

0%2%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%71

%1%

0%1%

0%0%

26%

0%0%

0%1%

1%0%

100%

Finl

and

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

57%

0%4%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%4%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

13%

0%78

%0%

0%1%

0%0%

20%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

100%

Fran

ce0%

0%0%

3%0%

0%0%

40%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

4%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

8%55

%1%

0%0%

0%0%

25%

1%0%

0%2%

17%

0%10

0%G

erm

any

0%0%

0%3%

0%0%

0%0%

19%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

2%1%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%2%

28%

0%0%

2%0%

0%21

%0%

0%0%

1%47

%0%

100%

Gre

ece

0%0%

0%8%

0%0%

0%0%

0%33

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

13%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%55

%0%

0%1%

0%0%

24%

1%0%

0%1%

19%

0%10

0%H

unga

ry0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%10

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

100%

Irish

Rep

ublic

0%0%

4%21

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%29

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

6%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

10%

72%

3%0%

1%0%

0%24

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%10

0%Ita

ly0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

69%

0%0%

0%4%

0%0%

1%0%

0%0%

0%3%

0%78

%1%

0%0%

0%0%

10%

0%0%

0%2%

10%

0%10

0%La

tvia

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

17%

0%0%

17%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%34

%0%

0%2%

0%0%

19%

0%0%

0%0%

45%

0%10

0%Li

thua

nia

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%73

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

73%

1%0%

0%0%

0%23

%0%

0%0%

0%1%

2%10

0%Lu

xem

bour

g0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%68

%0%

11%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%3%

81%

0%0%

0%0%

0%18

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

1%10

0%M

alta

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%81

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

82%

0%0%

4%0%

0%9%

0%0%

0%1%

1%2%

100%

Net

herla

nds

0%0%

0%2%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

42%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%2%

48%

0%0%

1%0%

0%34

%1%

0%0%

6%8%

2%10

0%Po

land

0%0%

0%17

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

21%

0%6%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%45

%1%

0%0%

0%0%

26%

0%0%

0%0%

29%

0%10

0%Po

rtug

al0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

29%

0%0%

31%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

60%

0%0%

0%0%

0%38

%1%

0%0%

0%0%

0%10

0%R

oman

ia0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

44%

0%0%

0%31

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

76%

0%0%

6%0%

0%9%

0%0%

1%2%

5%0%

100%

Slov

akia

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

100%

0%0%

0%0%

100%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

100%

Slov

enia

0%0%

0%9%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%15

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

24%

0%0%

1%0%

0%44

%0%

0%0%

2%29

%0%

100%

Spai

n0%

0%0%

5%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

1%0%

0%0%

7%0%

0%5%

0%0%

0%41

%0%

0%60

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

38%

0%0%

0%0%

2%0%

100%

Swed

en0%

0%0%

0%3%

0%2%

4%0%

0%0%

1%0%

0%0%

0%3%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

47%

8%68

%5%

0%2%

0%4%

8%0%

0%0%

10%

3%0%

100%

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

0%0%

0%4%

0%0%

0%0%

0%18

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

3%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%19

%46

%0%

0%12

%0%

1%19

%1%

0%0%

5%14

%0%

100%

Tota

l EU

270%

2%0%

5%4%

0%1%

2%5%

13%

0%4%

0%0%

0%6%

2%0%

0%0%

0%0%

1%2%

4%50

%1%

0%2%

0%1%

19%

1%0%

3%22

%0%

100%

Nor

way

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%1%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%2%

0%0%

1%0%

0%0%

1%0%

3%8%

41%

0%4%

1%0%

19%

4%0%

0%14

%9%

1%10

0%Sw

itzer

land

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%2%

0%0%

0%3%

0%0%

0%14

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%2%

22%

0%19

%1%

0%0%

41%

0%0%

0%1%

16%

0%10

0%O

ther

Eur

ope

0%0%

0%3%

0%0%

0%0%

0%2%

0%0%

0%0%

0%12

%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

18%

0%0%

43%

0%0%

11%

0%0%

0%2%

25%

0%10

0%C

anad

a0%

0%0%

1%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

1%0%

0%0%

31%

1%29

%32

%0%

0%1%

5%0%

100%

USA

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%2%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

1%3%

1%0%

0%0%

31%

25%

1%0%

0%2%

35%

2%10

0%C

&S

Am

eric

a0%

0%0%

1%0%

0%0%

0%0%

1%0%

2%0%

0%0%

1%1%

0%0%

0%0%

0%1%

0%2%

10%

5%0%

2%0%

0%62

%2%

0%0%

9%11

%0%

100%

Chi

na0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

1%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%1%

2%2%

0%0%

0%0%

30%

51%

0%0%

6%8%

0%10

0%Ja

pan

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%1%

0%0%

0%0%

0%74

%2%

12%

0%5%

6%0%

100%

Mid

Eas

t0%

0%0%

2%0%

0%0%

1%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

8%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

10%

0%0%

1%0%

0%22

%1%

0%39

%2%

24%

0%10

0%O

ther

Asi

a0%

0%0%

1%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

1%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%1%

2%0%

0%0%

0%1%

20%

1%0%

0%68

%7%

0%10

0%R

oW0%

0%0%

4%0%

0%0%

0%0%

3%0%

0%0%

0%0%

4%0%

0%1%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

12%

1%0%

10%

0%0%

27%

5%0%

0%1%

45%

0%10

0%U

nkno

wn

0%0%

0%4%

0%0%

0%0%

1%2%

0%0%

0%0%

0%3%

1%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%11

%0%

0%2%

0%1%

16%

16%

2%1%

8%11

%30

%10

0%To

tal %

0%1%

0%2%

1%0%

0%1%

2%5%

0%2%

0%0%

0%3%

1%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%1%

2%20

%2%

0%3%

0%2%

33%

8%2%

2%11

%16

%0%

100%

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

135

However, the flag state today has little in common with who decides of a ship or where the money for the operation goes and this comes for the ownership as well. Thus we will in the following present the group operators country since that is the highest possible level of decision making.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Tota

l wor

ld fl

eet,

Ope

rato

r, 19

78 a

nd o

nwar

ds, m

illio

n G

TUnknown

RoW

Mid East

Other Asia

South Korea

Singapore

Japan

China

C & S America

Bermuda

Canada

USA

Other Europe

Switzerland

Norway

EU27 other

Italy

Germany

Denmark

UK

Greece

Figure 96: World fleet according to country of operator, aggregated gt

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Tota

l wor

ld fl

eet,

Ope

rato

r, 19

78 a

nd o

nwar

ds, %

bas

ed o

n G

T

Unknown

RoW

Mid East

Other Asia

South Korea

Singapore

Japan

China

C & S America

Bermuda

Canada

USA

Other Europe

Switzerland

Norway

EU27 other

Italy

Germany

Denmark

UK

Greece

Figure 97: World fleet development, country of operator, gt in per cent

In number of ships this means that companies within EU countries controls 23% or 17,581 commercial ships larger than 100gt of the world fleets 77,517 ships as Figure 98 illustrates.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

136

Total fleet, 77,517 ships. Group operator (Region/country; no, share in %)

EU 27; 17,581; 23%

Other 18; 3,252; 4%

Sweden; 686; 1%France; 962; 1%

Italy; 1,663; 2%

Netherlands; 1,714; 2%

N America; 7,304; 9%

Japan; 7,884; 10%

Other Asia; 16,027; 21%

Other Europe; 8,784; 11%

China; 7,046; 9%

C&S America; 3,976; 5% Mid East; 3,442; 4%

RoW; 2,050; 3%

Unknown; 3,423; 4%

Greece; 3,314; 4%

Denmark; 2,078; 3%

Germany; 2,055; 3%

UK; 1,857; 2%

2008-01-01

82% of EU

Figure 98: EU interests in the shipping world, number of ships

Out of the 27 EU countries there is only Hungary that does not have any merchant ship in their control but also the Check Republic, Slovakia and Austria are small and have one digit numbers. If the transport capacity should be considered dwt is the best measure. In dwt the EU share is larger, at 33% or 382M dwt of the total 1,156M dwt as illustrated in Figure 99. Norway has 29.2M dwt and Switzerland has 27.5M dwt which makes the EES area having 438.7M dwt or almost 38% of the world total fleet. The largest country in the world is China ahead of runner up Japan. Greece find itself at the third spot by an impressive 12% of the total dwt. UK is the second largest country in EU by 6% and Denmark has 4.

Total fleet, 1,156M dwt. Group operator (Region/country; M dwt, share in %)

Other 21; 76; 7%

Italy; 22; 2%

Germany; 35; 3%

Denmark; 50; 4%

UK; 65; 6%

N America; 100; 9%

Other Asia; 137; 12%

China; 162; 14%

Japan; 154; 13%


C&S America; 50; 4% Mid East; 50; 4% RoW; 8; 1%Unknown; 17; 1%

EU 27; 382; 33%

Greece; 135; 12%

2008-01-01

80% of EU

Figure 99: EU interests in the shipping world, dwt capacity

Another frequently used measure is gt, especially ferries and roro ships gets a little more important with that measure, but seen in an overall context dwt and gt basically delivers the same percentage figures as Figure 100 shows.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

137

Total fleet, 788M gt. Group operator (Region/country; M gt, share in %)

UK; 39; 5%

Greece; 78; 10%

EU 27; 256; 32%

Unknown; 10; 1%RoW; 8; 1%

C&S America; 31; 4%Mid East; 33; 4%

N America; 71; 9%

China; 106; 14%

Japan; 106; 13%

Other Asia; 95; 12%


Denmark; 38; 5%

Germany; 25; 3%

Italy; 16; 2%France; 15; 2%

Other 20; 44; 6%

2008-01-01

83% of EU

Figure 100: EU interests in the shipping world, gt capacity

3.1 Oil tanker

Basically the oil tankers carry crude oil from the original source to the refineries and refined products from the refineries. In general all sizes below Aframax (+60,000 dwt) are considered to be product tankers by brokers in the market. In reality, however, there are several oil tankers larger than 100,000 dwt that only carry products, as well as carriers smaller than 10,000 dwt that only lift crude. Crude oil tankers operate in a very commodity-like setting with many suppliers, low economies of scale, homogenous service from different suppliers and a liquid second-hand market. The role of the brokers is very important as they manage the larger parts of the deals done. Thus the crude oil sector is positioned in the lower left corner in the strategic type of shipping graph (Figure 101). As can be noted we have opted to put product tankers more to the middle of the graph, since some of the operators act with longer contracts and in a few cases as industry shippers. The latter is especially true on the North European market but this is spreading around the globe, not the least because the companies in question are spreading.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

138


Commodity Shipping Special Shipping



sin

ess

Eco

nom

ies

of

Sca

le








Produ

ct ta

nker

Crud

e oi

l tan

ker



Figure 101: The strategic types of oil carriers

The total oil tanker fleet counts 7,432 ships, of which 5,471 are smaller than 60,000 dwt. It went through a rough period in the early 1980s (Figure 102) when the fleet shrank by 100M dwt. Only last year did the fleet finally exceed the 1977 total, but by the end of 2011 the fleet will be 100M dwt bigger. We know fairly accurately how much tonnage will be delivered in the next four years, because the yards are more or less fully booked. Hence the enormous deliveries of 163M dwt that we forecast for 2007-11 are fairly certain to materialise. This will be a stunning 25% more than in the previous five years, which itself was a record. Our removal forecast for 2007-11 is clearly affected by the phasing-out of single-hull tankers and the conversions of larger oil tankers to ore carriers. But 52M dwt is still 30% less than in the previous five years. The reason for the relatively modest removal forecast is that the fleet is fairly young if measured in dwt – currently having an average of around 10 years in the size categories larger than 60,000 dwt. Fleet growth will be extraordinary – around 6% yearly until 2011. This is 4% more each year than the average in the previous ten years.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

139

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018

Oil

tank

er fl

eet,

mill

ion

dwt,

1976

-

A 200,000+ dwt B 120 -199,999 dwt C 60 -119,999 dwt D 10 -59,999 dwt E -9,999 dwt2008-03

Forecast

Figure 102: Oil tanker fleet, million dwt

While deliveries will be huge, when it comes to new orders the 2007-11 period will see a more respectable 115M dwt, barely half the orders in the previous period. There were 31M dwt of orders in 2007 recorded so far. As Figure 103 illustrates, the crude tanker market has had many peaks in recent years and is riding one now.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 08

Wor

ldsc

ale

SUEZMAX: W. Africa - US GulfVLCC: Arabian Gulf - EastVLCC: Arabian Gulf - West

Source: Maritime Research Figure 103: VLCC and Suezmax world scale rates

For crude oil tankers, the balance between long- and short-haul matters most. Stagnating non-OPEC supplies in major net importers like the US and Europe increase imports and oil transport from the Middle East, while increasing supplies in Brazil decrease net imports and transport demand. A likely oversupply of standard tonnage makes profit expectations moderate (although rising) in the years to come. Thus most market commentators believe that: • Impending deliveries will put pressure on market rates. With ample

pipeline capacity coming on stream, this seems a good bet.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

140

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 08

Wor

ldsc

ale

PRODUCTS 25'-35': Med/Black Sea - Med/Black Sea

PRODUCTS 35'-60': Baltic Sea - NW Europe

PRODUCTS 25'-35': Baltic Sea - NW Europe

Source: Maritime Research Figure 104: Product tanker indices

Asia is a strong market for product tankers, but despite strong demand growth, market rates have been falling because the Chinese government has increased incentives to reduce gasoline consumption. • True, 2007 ended on a high (Figure 104), but here too the future seems

less bright – especially considering the aggressive supply of new chemical tankers in the next few years.

The EU interest in the oil tanker market is 36% or 119 of the 350M dwt. North America accounts for 14% of the tonnage. The large share of North American control illustrates the large dependence in the US of the oil. Also the Mid east are more represented at 7% than they are in the total shipping world due to the fact that they export some of their oil on own managed keels. In the EU Greece is the largest country with no less than 15% of the total tonnage in the world. Together with UK and Denmark Greece has 82% of the total EU oil tanker capacity. Both UK and Denmark draw upon the fact that they both drills in the North Sea.

Oil tanker fleet, 350M dwt. Group operator (Region/country; M dwt, share in %)

Unknown; 2; 0% RoW; 1; 0%C&S America; 21; 6%Other Europe; 23; 6%

Mid East; 26; 7%

Other Asia; 42; 13%

N America; 47; 14%

Japan; 36; 10%

China; 33; 9%

EU 27; 119; 36%

Greece; 50; 15%

UK; 40; 12%

Denmark; 8; 2%

Other 18; 21; 6%

2008-01-01

82% of EU

Figure 105: EU interest in the oil tanker shipping segment

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

141

3.2 Chemical tankers

The chemical tanker fleet here is defined as both chem/oil ships and more sophisticated pure chemical carriers. The reason for having them as one fleet is that they overlap quite substantially in many sub-markets. The chem/oil ships also overlap market wise with the product tankers already presented and given that it comes as no surprise that this market is organised as them, illustrated in Figure 106.





sin

ess

Eco

no

mie

s o

f S

cale








Other c

hemica

l tanker



“Pure” chemical tanker

Figure 106: Chemical tanker strategic types

The pure chemical tanker fleet transports highly sophisticated chemicals, like acids and sulphuric products, which require that cargo-tanks built in non-corrodible materials, which means that the vessels should be either IMO I or IMO II classed. This is typically a contract shipping market and thus positioned in the left upper corner. Stolt-Nielsen and Odfjell Tankers (other Europe in figure Figure 108) are the main players in the chemical business. Through mergers and acquisition new companies are now closing up in size. This is a major new development, made even more interesting by the fact that these companies often have a background as short-sea operators. A more integrated view of the total business is emerging where short-sea operations no longer stand in the shadow of the deep-sea operations, but a more integrated view of the total business is emerging as an interesting strategy. Industry leaders say that this may well indicate the beginning of a new area in chemical shipping. The chemical tanker fleet has seen tremendous growth in the past five years to 58.8M dwt and 3,953 ships (of which 2,307 are smaller than 10,000dwt, Figure 107), equivalent to 11.1% annually. But if that fleet growth was extraordinary, 2007-11 will see even higher growth, averaging an exceptional 12.3% yearly. Deliveries will amount to 43.4M dwt – fully 70% more than in 2001-06.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

142

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018

Che

mic

al ta

nker

flee

t, m

illio

n dw

t, 19

76-

A 20,000+ dwt B 10 -19,999 dwt C -9,999 dwt2008-03

Forecast

Figure 107: Chemical tanker fleet, million dwt

• Even though the forecast for deliveries is high, the forecast for removals is modest in comparison. Until year-end 2011 a meagre 2.1M dwt will be removed, and that is about the same as in the previous five years.

• Owners have already ordered 627 ships and 13.3M dwt in 2007 (on current figures), in light of which the forecast of 1,666 ships and 35.6M dwt for the whole five years seems rather low. We do believe that this market will stumble in the years to come and this is not good for new orders, which will be 25% down on 2002-06.

4-8% pa, the chemical market has been one of the strongest growing markets. After the Asian crisis in 1997, stable growth was disrupted and the utilisation of the majors’ fleets fell markedly. However, with the reclassification of vegetable oils in 2007, the requirement for pure chemical tankers has shot up from 55M tonnes in 2005 to 145M in 2007. Also refining and fuel regulations and the following industry responses have had their impact on chemical and product tanker markets. The industry phase-out of MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) in the USA has been a contributory factor to high US petroleum product imports. EU biofuels regulations are increasing demand for transport of vegetable oils and ethanol. China’s imports of liquid chemicals account for some 20% of the chemical tanker market and have since 2001 grown each year by 17%. Now the Chinese government’s decision to cut its export tax breaks for major chemical corporations has led to a fall in imports of cargo. The chemical trade from the US to Far East has fallen sharply since June. • Most of this positive news of the past years is a one-off effect, which

makes the future less bright given the enormous inflow of tonnage in the coming years.

• This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the earnings will fall in the next couple of years.

The European operators have control over this segment with EU having 46% of the world total and other Europe (mostly Norway in this particular case) having 14%.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

143

Chemical tanker fleet, 58.8M dwt. Group operator (Region/country; k dwt, in %)

EU27; 27,204; 46%

Denmark; 6,433; 11%

Greece; 6,168; 10%

Italy; 3,566; 6%

RoW; 410; 1% Unknown; 399; 1%C&S America; 934; 2%China; 2,106; 4%

Mid East; 2,188; 4%

N America; 6,712; 11%


Other Asia; 5,701; 10%

Japan; 4,739; 8%

Sweden; 1,884; 3%

Germany; 1,748; 3%

Cyprus; 1,572; 3%UK; 1,500; 3%

Other 14; 4,333; 7%

2008-01-01

84% of EU

Figure 108: Chemical tankers group operators

In EU the largest country is Denmark with 11% of the world fleet ahead of Greece 10%. Italy is third largest with 6%, whereas companies residing in Sweden, Germany and Cyprus all have 3% of the world fleet in their control.

3.3 LPG tankers

The LPG shipping market is the transport of many different products as ethylene, ethane and polypropylene, plus liquefied petroleum gases (butane, propane or blends thereof). Also LNG ships can carry LPG so competition from them is possible. The LPG tanker market is a combination of the contract and industry shipping markets, as the position in Figure 109 illustrates. However, some of the LPG ships also trade on the spot market and they also sometimes compete with product tankers for clean products.





sin

ess

Eco

nom

ies

of

Sca

le


LPG









Figure 109: LPG tankers strategic positions

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

144

Since year 2000 seaborne LPG trade has increased 29%, mainly helped by Indian and Chinese demand for LPG that stands for around half the growth. India is the most important LPG shipping market as growth derives both from increased imports and exports. This year seaborne LPG trade is estimated at 57 Mt, the ammonia trade at 19 Mt and deliveries to the petrochemical industry at 11 Mt, thus totalling 87 Mt. Although the demand of LPG in India and China remains strong, the LPG trade is adversely affected by an increase in imports of LNG into the region. Imports to Japan, South Korea and the US have already slowed as a result. The ammonia market has been the main driver of the MGC and LGC markets. The petrochemical market in Europe and the US has also been strong, attracting tonnage coming out from the Middle-East and South East Asia. The US is relatively new to the international LPG trade, while Japan is one of the largest and oldest players. A few years ago we highlighted the LPG sector as the one tanker sector where orders looked sound and fleet growth would fit comfortably with increasing demand. This is highlighted by the modest and stable fleet growth up until the current fleet of 16.2M m3, at 2-3% yearly in the recent 10-15 years. However, as Figure 110 illustrates, the 7% forecast for fleet growth in the coming years clearly exceeds that level.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018

LPG

tank

er fl

eet,

mill

ion

cbm

, 197

6-

50,000+ cbm -49,999 cbm2008-03

Forecast

Figure 110: LPG tanker fleet, million cbm

The deliveries of LPG tankers, especially in 2009, will be extraordinary. Deliveries until year end 2011 will be 8.6M m3, an increase of 110% over the deliveries in the previous five years. • Tonnage removed in 2002-06 was just short of 2M m3 and the forecast

for the years to come is slightly higher at 2.2M m3. Since fleet growth will exceed market expectations, ordering in 2007-11 should be lower than the 10M m3 ordered in 2001-06. However, the forecast of 4M m3 and 179 ships is more than in the five years 1997-2001. LPG is to some extent a residual of LNG production but is not yet a very fashionable source of energy. But in energy-hungry times, all sources must be exploited. Since 40% of the new supply will be from the Middle East, it will demand shipping tonnage.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

145

Since year 2000 the LPG fleet capacity has increased 17%, 12 percentage points below the growth rate in traded volumes. This caused freight rates to firm in 2006, but as Figure 111 illustrates the rates vary a lot between sizes of the fleet.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

LPG

Tan

ker S

pot R

ates

, 1.0

00 U

S$/m

onth 82' cbm / FR

57' cbm / FR

Source: Fearnleys

Figure 111: LPG tanker freight rates

In early 2008 rates dropped further and now barely cover operation costs. Although supply and demand will increase, the fleet growth rate will be somewhat higher, which will put continued further pressure on freight rates. • With profitability margins set to decline, new vessels ordered at high

prices will at that time face problems in covering costs. Companies based in the EU controls 27% of the total 16.1M m3 LPG tonnage. In this segments China and Japan are the largest individual countries in the world by 22 and 23% respectively.

LPG tanker fleet, 16.1M cbm. Group operator (Region/country; k cbm, in %)

Other 9; 805; 5%

Belgium; 493; 3%

Denmark; 751; 5%

UK; 977; 6%

Greece; 1,349; 8%Other Europe;

1,263; 8%


China; 3,512; 22%

Japan; 3,702; 23%

C&S America; 612; 4% N America; 484; 3% Mid East; 459; 3%

RoW; 14; 0%

Unknown; 54; 0%

EU27; 4,376; 27%

2008-01-01

82% of EU

Figure 112: LPG tankers group operators

In EU the largest country in the LPG sector is Greece and together with UK, Denmark and Belgium they control 82% of the EU fleet.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

146

3.4 LNG tankers

LNG shipping is a pipeline for gas for the countries that not is attached to a real one. Given that a lot of the new gas supplies come from the mid east the number of countries interested of LNG shipping grows every year. In LNG shipping, the majority of the transports are performed by operators very close to the supplier of the gas itself or sometimes the client and hence its position between contract and industrial shipping in Figure 113.





LNG

Bu

sin

ess

Eco

no

mie

s o

f S

cale










LNG





sin

ess

Eco

no

mie

s o

f S

cale










LNGLNG

LNG

Figure 113: Strategic type of LNG shipping

The market is very dependent on political decisions and could be seen as a pipeline but at sea. The reason for the shift downwards in the graph in recent years is that the number of suppliers has increased during the rapid fleet growth. The market that LNG ships support has traditionally been the large power plants but given the large environmental advantages even small scale use of gas has escalated. Most forecasts were very optimistic in the 1990s about natural gas demand as the enthusiasm for natural gas-fired combined cycle power generation took hold. Then, the North American “gas shock” of the winter of 2000/2001 and subsequent North Sea supply problems raised concerns around estimates. However, since gas is better than oil when it comes to CO2, the interest in LNG is growing not only from natural gas-poor countries, such as China, India, Spain and Turkey, but also from natural gas-rich countries such as the US and UK, where traditional supply sources no longer appear adequate to support expected increases in demand. Some of the largest uncertainties involve the demand in China and on the North American Pacific region. Some of the Chinese LNG import plans were formulated before the rise in oil and other energy prices during the early 2000s. Faced with currently high natural gas prices, Chinese buyers have been trying to change the pricing system from one linked to oil to one linked to coal. In addition, Russia has been attempting to sell pipeline natural gas to China in competition with LNG. Even though the market changes, a base-case scenario is that until 2020 Northeast Asia remains the largest market, although

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

147

North America and Europe are growing more rapidly. The three importing regions account for more than 80 percent of world LNG trade, while China and India, though important markets, remain small. In contrast to the supply of natural gas, “commodity supply” LNG is better characterised as “project supply”. The major capital investments or 85% in LNG supply are upstream of the exporting country (mostly the liquefaction train) since the regasification terminals are a lot cheaper than the trains. The LNG fleet of 252 ships or 31.7M m3 (Figure 114) has grown massively in 2002-06. The figures are an astonishing 90% or 13.6% annually. In 2007 the first larger carriers of over 200,000m3 were delivered. However, the most dramatic increase is yet to come. In 2007-2011 the fleet will grow by 120% or 17% yearly.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018

LNG

tank

er fl

eet,

mill

ion

cbm

, 197

6-

200,000+ cbm -199,999 cbm2008-03

Forecast

Figure 114: LNG tanker fleet, million m³

The deliveries to year-end 2011 will be 208 ships of which 60 will be larger than 200,000 m3. Even though numbers in the previous five years were extreme, the 2007-11 period will see almost 60% more tonnage reach the market, or a stunning 33.4M m3. The LNG and LPG markets both grow by supply from Qatar in the coming years. The will be the largest LNG supplier in 2011. • However, given the extreme fleet growth for LNG carriers, markets will

be strained for the owners. The problem for LNG is that politics interfere with supply. The latest (but certainly not the last) project to be delayed is Sakhalin Energy, which was taken from Royal Dutch Shell (in a highly political action) by Gazprom early this year. Shipments might not now start till well into 2009. Completion and certification of the 800km pipeline is the official cause of delay. Sakhalin-2 has already signed long-term contracts for most of its production; 60% will go to Japan and the remainder to South Korea and the US. Delayed crude oil exports from Sakhalin-2 will finally start this year, Sakhalin Energy has also acknowledged. There are difficulties to foresee the geopolitical issues surrounding the natural gas export policies of a number of countries, such as Bolivia, Nigeria, Iran, Russia or Venezuela, and the roles that they will play in LNG supply between now and 2020.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

148

In the period beyond 2010, the greatest contributions to supply will be from North Africa, West Africa and Australia. Southeast Asia, given some of the problems in Indonesia, does not show significant growth. Geopolitical issues that inhibit LNG development are not unique to Russia and the Middle East. Bolivia, Libya, Nigeria and Venezuela have substantial natural gas reserves and have potential LNG projects that are under consideration. But each of them faces geopolitical problems in developing new LNG projects. Nigeria has the largest uncommitted natural gas reserves outside Russia, Iran and Qatar and at least five additional proposed LNG projects. By all indications, Nigeria should be one of the most important future LNG suppliers. • However, despite its short-term political problems, global LNG supply

is projected to more than double to over 500M tonnes in 2006-15, but it could be a rough time until the good times are here.

Companies based in EU has the control over 27% of the LNG fleet and largest of the 7 countries is the UK that itself has 17% of the fleet. World wide the ownerships is largest in Other Asia with 21% of the fleet followed by Japan, RoW and Mid east that have 13,13 and 12% respectively.

LNG tanker fleet, 31.7M dwt. Group operator (Region/country; k cbm, in %)

C&S America; 664; 2%

Unknown; 19; 0%

Other Europe; 1,076; 3%China; 1,225; 4%N America; 1,298; 4%

Japan; 4,241; 13%


RoW; 4,066; 13%

Mid East; 3,663; 12%

EU27; 8,641; 27%

UK; 5,326; 17%

Greece; 1,168; 4%

Belgium; 814; 3%

Other 4; 1,332; 4%

2008-01-01

85% of EU

Figure 115: LNG tankers by group operators country

3.5 Bulker

Bulkers transport most of the commodities that are needed to build up a country – both energy and construction material. In addition they also carry agricultural product, which also is needed for developing countries. The bulkers are probably the most refined cargo carrier of all cargo vessels. Basically we are looking at maximised cargo holds plus propulsion – the optimal solution, beautiful in its simplicity. The vessels are standardised, the second hand market liquid, customer contacts mainly pass through brokers and thus is the entrance barrier to this market segment very low. From this follows that any increased earnings immediately attract the interest from others. There are as many as 1,600 operator groups handling the 7,000 vessel fleet, which is another indicator of the low entrance barrier. Few changes are foreseen other than an expected increase in the Chinese presence.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

149





sin

ess

Eco

nom

ies

of

Sca

le








Large Bulkers



Bulk

ers

< 3

5,00

0 DW

T

Figure 116: Strategies of Bulker shipping

Large bulk carriers are very dependent on steel production, given that the most transported commodity – iron ore – is used with the second most transported commodity – coal – to produce pig iron, which in turn is used for the production of steel. The bulk market is an easy market to enter given that you really need just a ship and a decent enough broker to sell the service. Many of the ships operate on a spot market though long-term charters are also available. The service that the ships offer is very standardised in the different size segments, and the availably of second-hand tonnage usually is high. In the past couple of years second-hand ships have very much come with a premium price following the extreme high earnings in the fleet. In August 2007 the total bulker fleet amounted to 379M dwt – an increase of 13M dwt so far this year. • In the past five years, fleet growth measured in dwt (Figure 117) has

been 4.6%, which is twice the figure experienced in the last 15 or 25 years. However, in the next five years the fleet growth will outpace this massively with an average of 8.7% annually.

The difference in growth in between the size segments will be large, with most of the growth in the Capesize- and +200,000 dwt segment, where the annual growth will reach an average of 20%. Apart from this year, the Panamax bulker fleet will see much more moderate growth up to 2011 with an average annual rate of 3.8%. On the other hand the Handy fleet will have a record growth of almost 10% annually for the next five years.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

150

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018

Bul

ker f

leet

, mill

ion

dwt,

1976

-

200,000+ dwt 100 -199,999 dwt 60 -99,999 dwt 35 -59,999 dwt 10 -34,999 dwt -9,999 dwt

2008-03

Forecast

Figure 117: Bulker fleet, million DWT

This forecast for fleet growth is based on the already contracted deliveries, new contracts and the removals from the fleet. To begin with the forecast for removals is fairly high in the next five years compared with the previous five. Given the very good markets, the removals have been very scarce and thus the number of old ships in the fleet has increased over this time. However, since old bulkers tend to break apart – sometimes literally – when they are too old, there is every chance of more removals in the years to come – regardless of market conditions. The dry bulk fleet average age is very high. With more than 96M dwt or 28% of the fleet having passed 20 years of age, there is a significant recycling overhang. Among Capesize and Panamax bulkers the share of vessels that have passed 20 years is 18%, among Handymaxes 33% and among Handysize or smaller vessels the share is 60%. New contracts in the 2007-2011 period are expected to reach an astonishing 247M dwt, of which 104M dwt have been contracted this year. This means that five-year contracting will exceed 50% of the current fleet if measured in dwt. Soaring imports of iron ore into China are the main factor behind the rising Capesize rates this year. The large Capesize orderbook is not set to affect the freight market until 2008-2009, when large deliveries threaten to oversupply the market. • If no major disruption occurs in the iron ore imports to China,

Capesize market rates will remain strong until then.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

151

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Larg

e bu

lker

rate

s U

S$ p

er to

n (m

onth

ly a

vera

ges)

COAL: CapesizeORE: CapesizeCOAL: Panamax

Source: Maritime Research Figure 118: Large bulk carrier freight rates

The large raw material suppliers have also reacted to the high prices – for example CVRD, the Brazilian mining, logistics and transport giant has chartered five vessels for 20-25 years to help deal with the growing export of iron ore to China. The company will lease five large bulk carriers of 300-388,000 dwt. Eduardo Bartolomeu, the director of Logistics for CVRD, stated: “This is a measure that we are having to undertake to combat the constant increases in the freighting costs from Brazil to China. Today we are paying $50/tonne and this is too much. These ships will be used exclusively for the transport of iron ore.” In early October, several contracts of up to $90/tonne were reported, so this problem seems even worse. • However, when the big chunk of newbuildings reach the market in

late 2009 and 2010 the market is bound to dive steeply and it will not be better off in 2011.

As the short-haul trades between China and Australia are growing and less tonnage is expected to be tied up by port congestion in the next five years, average demand growth for Capesize tonnage is predicted to fall below 5% per year, but the large Super-Capesize vessels (200,000+ dwt) will have higher demand for iron ore transports. The demand for Panamaxes in the steam-coal trade will continue to increase following the opening of new export markets, such as Indonesia and Russia. As the strong global market rates trickled down to regional markets, small dry bulker operators also started to make money last year. Minor dry bulk trade growth in 2006 was dominated by steel and cement exports from China to the US, and by increased exports of forestry products from Brazil and Chile to China, Japan and the US. As prices on Chinese exports are rising, the trade between China and the US is probably going to stagnate.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

152

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Bul

ker,

1-6

mon

th T

ime

Cha

rter

, 1,0

00 U

S$ p

er d

ay (m

onth

ly)

T/C: CapesizeT/C: PanamaxT/C: HandymaxT/C: Handysize

Source: Maritime Research Figure 119: TC rates for bulkers

According to a Platou report, the Chinese domestic coal trade along the coast increased from 2000 to 2006 by 260M tonnes to 385M tonnes – which also underpins the demand for different kinds of bulkers – but it is not so easy to know the full extent of this. • With a strong demand growth in the Chinese domestic trade and a

fairly low tonnage growth rate, Panamax and Super-Handymax freight rates will also be firm in the years ahead.

• But also in this market worse times will follow – given the very large output of ships also in these segments.

In the bulker sector the largest controlling countries are Japan 20%, China 19% and Greece 19%. Both the Asian countries fleet are built up on domestic cargo, whereas the Greek shipping cluster always has favoured to operate bulkers.

Bulker fleet, 388M dwt. Group operator (Region/country; M dwt, in %)

EU27; 129; 33%

Mid East; 7; 2%

RoW; 1; 0%

C&S America; 10; 3%Unknown; 10; 3%N America; 18; 5%

China; 74; 19%

Japan; 76; 20%

Other Asia; 40; 10%


Greece; 73; 19%

UK; 14; 4%

Germany; 13; 3%

Italy; 7; 2%

Other 15; 21; 5%

2008-01-01

84% of EU

Figure 120: Group operators in the Bulker sector

EU in total has control of around 33% of the market and it takes only the fleets controlled from the UK, Germany and Italy in addition to Greece for reaching 84% of the EU tonnage.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

153

3.6 General cargo

The General cargo fleet is the merchant fleet with most ships. It has been in decline during the recent decade but since shipping activity in general and container feeder activity in particular have increased in recent years the interest in general cargo ships has grown too, so the fleet has started to increase again. Commodity shipping means that the main competition factor is price and timing of capacity, ie the ability of adapting your fleet to demand.





sin

ess

Eco

no

mie

s o

f S

cale

Service differentiationSource: “Shipping”, Professor Tor Wergeland







General c

argo



Figure 121: Strategies of General cargo shipping

The general cargo market is very diversified and the operators contain everything from one-ship operators to the Chinese government that holds a fleet of more than 1,000 ships and by this is the largest in the world The business is a truly global one and in our register we have 470 identified operators from not less than 137 countries. Of course with that many ships and the fact that the ships are fairly similar to each other gives a good second-hand market. For regional trades, general cargo ships are very important and in many places in all corners of the world this is the only type of merchant ship that has ever been to the port. The fleet of general cargo ships shrank between 1980 and 2003, as Figure 122 shows. In the last five years annual growth has aggregated to a very modest 0.7%, or 0.1% a year. In the forecast period until year-end 2011 the growth will be comparatively large with a total of 11.3% or 2.2 in yearly average. The general cargo fleet consists of 16,839 ships with a dwt capacity of 77.8M dwt, whereof 1,876 is larger than 10,000 dwt. The latter larger ships stand for 37.8M dwt of the total capacity and most of the forecasted fleet growth in the years ahead.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

154

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009

Gen

eral

Car

go fl

eet,

mill

ion

dwt,

1976

-

10,000+ dwt 10,000+ dwt, 100+ teu -9,999 dwt, 100+ teu -9,999 dwt2007-11

Forecast

Figure 122: General cargo fleet, million DWT

Many general cargo ships are used as feeders for containers. In the feeder sector of containerships – lower than 1,000 teu – the total capacity is around 0.7M teu. The importance of the fleet of general cargo ships with a teu capacity of more than 100 teu is obvious since they together have 1.6M teu. Deliveries to the fleet in 2007-2011 will amount to 1,713 ships, 55 more than in the recent five years. This figure conceals a decrease of 252 in the ones smaller than 10,000 dwt, but a massive increase of 307 for the larger ones. The fleet is quite old but these ships tend to live for a long time – 40 years – if they are well maintained and given that the majority of the dwt capacity resides in ships built 1977 and onwards the removals should be rather modest in the years to come. • The removals until year-end 2011 will stop at 9M dwt, which is almost

30% lower than in the recent five years. In numbers this means 1,269 ships, of which about 899 will be smaller than 10,000 dwt.

• New contracts for general cargo ships in 2007-2011 are forecast at 1,374, down almost 40% from the previous five years. Given the change towards larger ships, the forecasted new orders of 14.6M dwt compare better, or just 16% down for the same period.

General cargo ships are the most numerous of the merchant fleets and they form the basis for all the regional transports – of course in competition with a range of other ships as ro-ro, ferries, small bulkers and container feeders. In the latter two segments they perform exactly the same service since they act as both container and bulk feeders. Freight rates for general cargo ships are frequently set on a spot basis, but for those used as container feeders or those used in close co-operation with different industries, time charters are used. Lately rates have rocketed and that is mostly due to contracts for ships that compete with small bulkers that also have had a real upwards momentum in their freight rates recently. • Given that the time charter rates follow the larger bulkers closely the

heyday for general cargo ships will continue until at least to year-end 2009.

• In recent years and in the years to come the use of general cargo ships as container feeder ships will increase and this also adds to the bright outlook for this segment.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

155

In the longer term the owners of general cargo ships have to renew their fleets and in the less developed parts of the world this will be a real quest – given that the earning potential is slim over time since the customers simply do not have enough money. Still, some parts of the cost side of the operation – notably bunkers – are the same as in the more developed nations. EU has 24% of the total 79M dwt capacity in the world fleet and the other parts of Europe account for 18. Other Asia has 17 and the rising star China controls 15%.

General cargo fleet, 79M dwt. Group operator (Region/country; M dwt, in %)

EU27; 19; 24%

Germany; 5; 7%

Netherlands; 3; 4%

Greece; 2; 3%

N America; 3; 3% RoW; 1; 2%Unknown; 3; 3%Mid East; 4; 5%Japan; 5; 6%

Other Asia; 13; 17%


China; 12; 15%

C&S America; 6; 7%

Italy; 1; 2%

UK; 1; 2%

Denmark; 1; 1%Cyprus; 1; 1%

Other 18; 4; 5%

2008-01-01

81% of EU

Figure 123: Group operators country, General cargo ships

In EU Germany is the largest country by 7% followed by the Netherlands and Greece.

3.7 Container

Since they were invented 50 years ago container penetration in to the world transport system has increased gradually. In the recent decade this development has increased and is now rapid. Given that airfreight is very expensive in comparison there is really no other alternative for transoceanic transport of many consumer products – as for instance the absolute majority of clothes and electronic gadgets. In the container sector, the development that we anticipate for the period up until 2011 is a movement towards the contract shipping corner. Even though we firmly believe there will be consolidation and fewer world wide suppliers of liner services, we also realise that with a ratio of around 50% chartered tonnage for the larger operators there is no way that the second-hand market could be difficult, even looking at a long time horizon.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

156





sin

ess

Eco

nom

ies

of

Sca

le


Container









Container

Figure 124: Strategies of Container shipping

The move among the container carriers towards the upper left corner means that they will be in a similar position to the sophisticated chemical tankers – an industry notoriously known for having problems with its revenue streams despite there being rather few actors on the stage. The past decade has seen several large mergers and acquisitions in the container industry. Even so, it still contains plenty of actors. • Given that there are obvious advantages in having a large network, we

believe that more M&A activity will follow in the coming years, with a peak coming in 2010-11 when supply of ships will be tremendous and thus markets probably weak.

An additional factor that speaks for M&A activity in the years to come is the EU decision to take away the exemption for the liner industry’ conference system, which we will highlight further on in this report.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

157

Table 64: Consortia and alliances

CHKY AllianceCoscon, Hanjin/Senator, "K" Line, Yang MingTrades Weekly Number Total TEU

Services of Ships CapacityTranspacific (USWC & EC) 20 123 554,700Europe/Med-Far East 11 84 480,500Transatlantic (incl. Med-USEC) 1 4 12,300Total 32 211 1,047,500Grand AllianceHapag-Lloyd, MISC (Europe-Asia only), NYK, OOCLTrades Weekly Number Total TEU

Services of Ships CapacityTranspacific (USWC & EC) 11 67 347,600Europe/Med-Far East 6 51 350,000Transatlantic (incl. Med-USEC) 6 32 104,600Total 23 150 802,200New World AllianceAPL, Hyundai, MOLTrades Weekly Number Total TEU

Services of Ships CapacityTranspacific (USWC & EC) 13 74 371,200Europe-Far East 4 31 191,300Transatlantic 1 5 21,500Total 18 110 584,000Total three alliances on the East West Trades (as of October 2007)Trades Weekly Number Total TEU

Services of Ships CapacityTranspacific (USWC & EC) 44 264 1,273,500Europe/Med-Far East 21 166 1,021,800Transatlantic (incl. Med-USEC) 8 41 138,400Total 73 471 2,433,700

The largest operator of container ships is still the Danish company Maersk, ahead of Swiss-based MSC and the French operator CMA CGM. All of these are European, but given trade developments with most cargo coming from China, there is much to be said for predictions that the Chinese will take an increasing share in the coming years. Operators have been faced by much higher costs for fuel, ship charters, equipment and other overheads than anticipated when 2007 business plans were drawn up. Port congestion is now adding to cost pressures, with ships forced to burn more fuel on the return leg to Asia in order to make up for lost time in Europe. The main obstacle for the containerised trade is the imbalance in trade between Asia and Europe and Asia and the US. Traditionally the operators have tried to fill the empty containers going back to Asia with lower paying cargo as Sawn timber or waist paper. However, Hapag-Lloyd announced earlier in 2007 that it would limit the number of containers loaded with heavy, low-value cargo on eastbound sailings in order to release space for the return of empties that are urgently needed in Asia. Now, Hapag-Lloyd and most of the world’s big container lines, led by Maersk, Mediterranean Shipping Co and CMA CGM, say they will stop accepting cargo that is such a drain on the bottom line.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

158

We feel that when the respective companies start to negotiate with their customers the present rates will probably continue with little change, given that eastbound sailings from Europe to Asia are not totally insignificant, with about 5M teu moved annually. With annual growth at around 8% per year and the cost for transporting the empty container back still around $800, it is better to share this cost with a client – even if he does not pay full price. If else fails, operators can go down the route taken by Maersk, which according to market sources has started to act as if the boxes was for one use only and sells them second-hand in Europe. In October 2007 the fully cellular container fleet stood at 10.4M teu divided among 4,170 ships. (The general cargo fleet includes an extra 1.6M teu) In this and the next two years an average of 1.5M teu of slots are scheduled for delivery into the market. Annual fleet capacity growth, this year estimated at close to 16%, is expected to fall below 12% in 2009. In 2010 and 2011 deliveries will reach close to 1.8M teu and 2.4 M teu respectively. This gives a rather dramatic overall fleet growth of 90% in 2007-2011, or 13.7% annually. During 2008 and 2009 deliveries of sub-2,999 teu carriers will slow from 458,000 teu in 2007 to 230,000 teu in 2009. Deliveries of 3-4,999 teu carriers will increase from 357,000 teu in 2007 to 496,000 teu in 2009, and deliveries of super post-Panamaxes – above 8,000 teu – will increase from 412,000 to 508,000 teu.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018

Con

tain

er fl

eet,

mill

ion

teu,

197

6-

8,000+ teu 5 -7,999 teu 3 -4,999 teu 2 -2,999 teu 1 -1,999 teu -999 teu2008-04

Forecast

Figure 125: Container fleet, thousand teu

The current orderbook represents 58% of the existing total fleet capacity, and contracting of new container carriers is this year expected to surge 70% from last year to reach an all-time high at close to 3M teu, featuring a 200% increase in the contracting for ships above 8,000teu. • Based on this, the 8,000teu and above fleet is expected to grow at an

average of 38% per year during 2007-2011. While cargo forecasts are soft by nature, those related to capacity are rock-hard: yes, ships will grow further, by number and size. Ultra Large Container Ships (ULCS) are there to stay and become too big to ignore. Anytime in the past that carriers jumped to yet a bigger vessel category, think of the 4,000 - 5,000 - 8,000 teu steps, almost the end of times was predicted. However, up to now they have been proven to be right as liftings increased 7% more than shipboard capacity since 2000.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

159

However, 2007 ordering exceeded anything ever seen before: in the space of just eight months starting in May an unprecedented number of ships of 10,000 teu and larger were ordered. Adding to existing orders and deliveries, the total number of those monsters probably stood at 191 units -operating and on order- by yearend. Their joint capacity is 2.33 million teu (average 12,200 teu) and their (order) value around US $29 billion. They should all be sailing by the end of 2012, two years before the enlarged Panama Canal locks would enable new trade patterns that could perhaps absorb (part of) these numbers. That would make the deployment of the behemoths more flexible than today when Europe-Far East is the only option in terms of volumes and port capacity. This trade may thus have to digest all the big ships until 2014. Why this explosion of the ULCS (Ultra Large Container Ship) super leviathan? Provoked by the latest Maersk Line trick? The Danes made it a tradition to build -in secrecy- very big ships, with the two best known examples being the 1996-launched, initially 6,000 teu rated “Regina Maersk”: actually 30% larger than any other unit sailing at that moment - and 10 years later the (11,000 teu declared, but estimated at) 15,200 teu “Emma Maersk”: even nearly 60% bigger. Worried as they were that, through the assumed considerably lower slot costs of so much larger ships Maersk Line’s cost leadership would erode their market share, it still took the competition nearly five years to catch up to the “Regina Maersk”. However, the reaction to “Emma” came much faster: MSC upped the size of existing orders from the initial 9,400 to even 13,200 teu; the delivery of the first of a series of eight will be delivered in spring 2008 already. The old truth that any new vessel size is a challenge for other carriers to match or rather exceed it exists still today: to keep up with economy of scale; out of fear of being left behind or maybe even denying the competition its losses Do ULCS actually make good economic sense? Especially the -assumed- prolonged port stay may be an issue: “a ship never makes money while it is alongside”, as the saying goes. However, in comparison with a ship half that size, a 14,000 teu unit ship, per slot: - Costs 30% less to build - Uses 35% less berthing space - Uses 10% less fuel - Uses 50% less crew In a long haul trade such as Europe-Far East those and other cost components may make up for savings of up to 15%, for many carriers on this route too big to ignore indeed. On the other hand, a half full 14,000 teu ship will probably generate a lower result to its operator: the capital costs of a full 7,000 teu vessel are just lower: economies of scale only work if ships are full, which, in the Asia trades, they are in one direction only, at best... History has probably never before seen a migration of production to the extent of that to China. This China Factor has disconnected cargo flow developments from economic growth and completely overhauled all former forecast techniques - temporarily at least. Will it continue, either to China or other countries? Strikingly few seems to be publicly known about that, but basically if the shift stops, the “normal” GDP forecast prevails again. On that basis, and until around 2000, the average growth of containerisation including the fast penetration of the initial years was an annual 8 to 9%, including the usual ups and downs. This compared with between 2 and 3 times world economic growth, expected to reach 3.3% in 2008.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

160

Capacity growth of cellular container ships of all sizes stands at nearly 14% for each of the years 2008, 2009 and 2010. Compared with recent history, shipping is currently in a kind of super-cycle. The old fashioned periods of boom following bust have not been seen since say 2002. Looking over the cycles has always been part of life for the carriers. They have to decide on the basis of the present market, and whichever demand forecasts, whether or not to order ships that will be delivered much later and which will then stay around for two-and-a-half decades at least (they nevertheless want to sail them fully loaded from the first nautical mile onwards). Proven market readers such as, in alphabetical order, CMA CGM, Maersk Line and Mediterranean Shipping Company are the ones with the largest capacity of ships of over 10,000 teu on order. They, their colleague operators, and the non-operating owners having ordered them without a charter attached must all be very confident of the current state and future of their business! That does not take away that the outlook for 2008 (and beyond) is characterised by a combination of hope and uncertainty with pundits forecasting anything between brilliant and disaster; smooth sailing and a turbulent ride. On the debit side are: • The longest bull run in world trade seen in modern times • An ever growing world economy doing well on average, and in particular

in the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China), as well as in Japan and Europe

• Explosively growing new markets elsewhere in Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe, with Africa coming (finally)?

• Continuously growing production, whose output must be transported, as always needing ships (and ports)

• Relatively still low interest rates But on the credit side: • The US subprime mortgage induced financial crisis, having induced

billions of write-downs, of which the actual repercussions on trade, if any, are unclear

• An import slump in the US mainly driven by the collapse of the housing market

• The US thought to be on the 50/50 break of a -short- period of recession, which could spread to other Anglo-Saxon countries, including the UK

• Sky high, further increasing oil prices • The depreciating US dollar Whether we like it or not, and despite upcoming economies such as Brazil, India, Russia and Vietnam, much of the health of the liner trades depends on China. Some believe in China forever and that trade growth will continue in the foreseeable future. Others contend that, realistically, what comes up must go down, warning for far too much optimism and suggesting carriers having invested in Ultra Large Container Ships of over 10,000 teu to prepare back-up scenarios in case things do not develop as hoped for. Like those giants themselves, the challenges the ULCS represent are just too big to ignore. The growth predictions at the main three East –West routes are as follows:

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

161

Table 65: Growth prediction for 2008

Westbound to Europe/Mediterranean 16% Eastbound to the Far East 5% Transatlantic Westbound to the US all coasts 1% Eastbound to Europe/Mediterranean 15% Transpacific Eastbound to the US all coasts 4% Westbound to the Far East 8% World container trade 8%

Container freight rates (Figure 126) from Asia to Europe continue to show strength in terms of $/teu, while they remain weak from Europe to Asia and between Europe and the US. Between Asia and Europe annual growth is running at more than 20%, volumes are three times higher than in the opposite direction and more expensive merchandise is shipped. While freight rates on routes from Asia to Europe have recovered well over the past year, lines claim that they are still only around breakeven on the roundtrip because of the losses they are sustaining between Europe and Asia. • Freight rates are at approximately the same level as in 2001. In the

meantime bunker prices have increased by 150-170%.

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2,200

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Source: Federal Statistics Office Germany, LRFR

Con

tain

er

Fre

igh

t R

ate

s. $

/T

EU

US-N.Europe N.Europe-USAsia-N.Europe N.Europe-Asia

Figure 126: Container freight rates calculated from import & export price index incl surcharges

European shippers have continuously been favoured by the weakening dollar against the euro, which means that between Asia and Europe freight rates measured in euros have firmed by only 22% and when measured in dollars by 29%. In the opposite direction freight rates have firmed by 7% and 3.4% respectively. FEFC lines, which account for around 70% of the total trade, hope that by bringing greater transparency to the pricing process they will be able to convince shippers that current eastbound freight rates are unsustainable. However, until the operators start to specify the actual charges in the port instead of the THC, shippers will continue to complain about that at least.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

162

• Given the massive amount of tonnage reaching the market in 2009, there is little to suggest that they will succeed.

In general, the large operators have half of their fleets chartered in, and to add to their headaches there is now little tonnage available for the rest of the year and thus charter rates will continue to be reasonably strong. The low supply is most visible in the 1-3,000teu segments. There is still plenty of variation in the market between prices secured by modern and older tonnage. The age of the vessel and the length of the contract on a smaller vessel are two key factors behind the substantial difference in charter rates.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Source: The Hamburger Shipbrokers' Association

Ch

art

er

rate

s, U

S$

per

14

t/

TEU

per

day

200-299 TEU14 (300-500 TEU) 1000-1299 TEU14 (1350-1750 TEU, G)300-500 TEU14 (500-750 TEU) 2000-2299 TEU14 (2500-3000 TEU, (G))700-999 TEU14 (1000-1350 TEU, G) 2300-3400 TEU14 (3000-5000 TEU (G))

Figure 127: Container ship charter rates

The charter market for feeders has not changed much since the start of this year, but market prospects are positive. Despite the enormous growth in deep-sea containership size in recent years, the typical feeder ship is still of modest capacity, reflecting operating patterns and infrastructural constraints. • Given the massive delivery schemes of new capacity to the container

market there is no trade prognosis in the world that could hinder the market from being lousy in the next years. However, that not the same as low volumes, because the operators will do anything to get cargo onboard their ships – they will just not earn any money on it.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

163

Container fleet, 10.7M teu. Group operator (Region/country; k teu, in %)

Unknown; 17; 0%

RoW; 14; 0%N America; 144; 1%C&S America; 333; 3%Mid East; 450; 4%


China; 2,382; 23%


Japan; 983; 9%

EU27; 3,716; 36%

Denmark; 1,833; 18%

Germany; 860; 8%

France; 799; 7%

Other 14; 224; 2%

2008-01-01

94% of EU

Figure 128: Country of domicile group operators of container ships

As indicated earlier companies in the EU still dominates the container business (36% of the total teu) but as an individual country China is the largest with 23% of the total teu capacity controlled by their operators. Denmark is the second largest at 18 and it only takes Germany and France to add up 84% of the EU container fleet.

3.8 Vehicle

The vehicle carriers traditionally have had modest strength on the decks onboard and thus more or less only transported cars. Newer ships has been made stronger though so the ships are better equipped to take a large share of the projects market that was previously handled by ro-ro ships crossing in between the continents. The car carrier operators that have positioned themselves in the upper right corner in close contact with their clients have a history of rather stable incomes with neither the exceptional highs nor the exceptional lows. The vehicle carrier business has traditionally been a very industrialised part of the shipping market, led by Scandinavian and Japanese operators. NYK, MOL and K-Line are the three largest but if Wallenius Wilhelmsen’s 80% share of the South Korean company Eukor is counted the Scandinavian partnership holds the leading spot.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

164





Vehicle RoRo

Bu

sin

ess

Eco

nom

ies

of

Sca

le










Figure 129: Strategies of car carrying shipping

In recent years, pure car/truck carrier capacity has been too low and the operators have struggled to keep pace with the volumes of cars and other vehicles that have to be transported by sea. The volume of car shipments has increased particularly out of the Far East. Japanese and South Korean exports are still growing, with demand in Russia providing a significant new market. However, import restrictions in Russia have been severe over the last year, which has have led to many cars being parked, waiting, all round Scandinavia. Meanwhile exports from China have become more significant. One trend that is evident in the market is that fewer large vehicles are now being shipped, for instance SUVs. Carriers report a significant growth in volumes of smaller-sized models that offer greater fuel efficiency, and this is also working in favour of Japanese and South Korean manufacturers. On the cost side the operators are faced with high bunker prices – just like the container carriers – but they also cite the increased tolls in the Panama Canal as a large cost driver. The vehicle carrier fleet (Figure 130) stands at 2.8M ceu in October 2007, divided between 739 ships. The fleet has grown by a third in the period 2002-2006 but fleet growth in the 2007-2011 period will be around twice that, or 63%. Fleet growth each year will be more than 10% and according to Sven Ziegler of RS Platou Economic Research in the short term the delivery schedule for PCTCs might be slightly too aggressive. He states that global sea transportation is around 14M cars yearly – higher than the CMA CGM representative. This is around 20% of the total car production. Ziegler foresees a bright future. “If an additional 10% of global production is outsourced to lower-cost countries, such as China, we would expect seaborne transport to rise by 50%.”

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

165

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018

Vehi

cle

carr

ier f

leet

, tho

usan

d ce

u, 1

976-

4,000+ ceu -3,999 ceu2008-03

Forecast

Figure 130: Fleet vehicle carriers, thousand CEU

We find this high but nevertheless this will give room for quite high new ordering in the coming five years. The contract forecast for the 2007-2011 period stands at 1.5M ceu, slightly less than in the previous five years. The forecast for removals in the next five years widely exceeds the previous five years and ends at 222,000 ceu, up from 68,000 ceu. This large difference comes from a fleet structure with many old ships in operation today. The operators have in the recent years started to notice that the development of container ports has started to nag the areas that port operators has been willing to hand over to the car operations. The answer to this has been to take charge of the port operations themselves. Consequently several of the large operators find themselves investing vertically in port facilities around the world where cars and not containers will have first priority. NYK, Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Eukor have been developing automotive terminal facilities in South Korea, Belgium, Australia and not surprisingly China to support their deepsea service networks. • This vertical integration is bound to continue in the years to come.

According to Carl-Johan Hagman, president of Eukor, the development in the car transportation business is towards a web of services as opposed to today’s structure with more or less two trunk lines from Asia to the US and Asia to Europe. This sounds plausible given new production facilities all around the world. • However, here we immediately see a large threat to the market in the

shape of container ships, with their much more extensive network. According to CMA CGM’s VP in container logistics Alexis Michel, around a million vehicles are transported by container each year, compared with 10M by conventional car carriers, but he believes that containers could take their market share up from below 10% at present to 50% in 10 years. To achieve this, the company has started to utilise purpose-built 40ft containers that can fit four cars. Such container penetration has been witnessed on the reefer side, and even though the trade for refrigerated products has increased massively, reefer ships have been knocked out of many markets.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

166

However, the market structure with very close links between the operators of the car carriers and the car manufacturers gives a lot of stability to the operators. • The drawback is that the car manufacturers are probably the best

global industry when it comes to get the most out of their subcontractors – which gives that even though it is a long-term stable business it is not necessarily a very rewarding ones – hence the structure with few actors with rather large fleets.

One of the potential big opportunities is the Chinese car-making market, which is moving along rapidly. Even though the cars produced are meant firstly for domestic use, it is only a matter of time before exports start to reach substantial numbers. As already stated Japan is dominating the vehicle carrying business completely in terms of group operators residing there with 50% of 2.9M ceu capacity. EU has 18% of the total and of those Sweden account for the majority or 12%

Vehicle fleet, 2.9M ceu. Group operator (Region/country; k ceu, in %)

Other 5; 55; 2%

Italy; 109; 4%

Sweden; 352; 12%

EU27; 516; 18%

China; 118; 4%


Japan; 1,488; 50%


N America; 84; 3% C&S America; 24; 1%

Mid East; 17; 1%

RoW; 1; 0%

Unknown; 7; 0%

2008-01-01

89% of EU

Figure 131: Group operators COD for Vehicle carriers

3.9 Roro .

Ro-ro carriers in many cases start their careers as forestry carriers and then continue as compliments to the ropax ferries on routes in Europe. The vehicle carriers developed from ro-ro have taken over most of the oceanic trade. Given the various usages of roro vessels, it is difficult to position it in the illustration below. The forest industry shipments belong to the industry shipping box, while the others bear traits of contract and commodity shipping.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

167





sin

ess

Eco

no

mie

s o

f S

cale








Ro-ro



Figure 132: Strategies for roro shipping

Ro-ro operators are very numerous, and generally each operates a smaller fleet than either the container operators or especially the vehicle carrier operators. The larger entities are found in Northern Europe, where the ro-ro concept was developed. Ro-ro ships are used for many purposes but mostly in regional trades. There are exceptions though, mostly with forestry-related transatlantic trades in close conjunction with the industry. Many of the operators also operate ferries with large ro-ro capacities where the cargo is the important feature.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018

Ror

o fle

et, t

hous

and

lm, 1

976-

2,000+ lm -1,999 lm2008-03

Forecast

Figure 133: Ro-ro fleet, thousand lane metres

The region where the ro-ro ships are used most is Europe, where ro-ro ships take part both in closed dedicated industrial relations and form a complement to the ferry industry in open lines as bridges. The pure ro-ro fleet stands at 1.2M lm in October 2007, spread on 1,660 ships. Fleet growth has been fairly stable in the last 20 years at around 1.5%, but this

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

168

is forecast to grow in the next five years where the average will be 2.4% annually, as Figure 133 illustrates. The forecast for removals in the next five years compares well with the ones in the previous five years at 112,000 lm. However, more of the lane metres will be disposed of from the larger ships because of their age. In general we believe that the future is behind these ships and thus the forecast for new orders is quite modest – in particular among the smaller ones where the new orders will be 199 down on the past five years. Among the larger ships the number of orders is expected to rise by 37 to 84. All in all this gives a total of 167. The TC index for ro-ro ships illustrated in Figure 134 indicates the number of fixtures (the bars) and the rate itself – the line. Many “closures” push the price up and vice versa. In the first half of 2007 the total number of closures has been less than 50 and the rate for the charters has been rather low.

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Ro-

ro T

C In

dex

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Tota

l Num

ber o

f Clo

sure

s

No of Closures Ro-ro TC Index Source: ShipPax Figure 134: Ro-ro charter rates

At year-end 2006 a series of charters were renewed and the prices for those dedicated ships drove the prices upwards. • In the next couple of years there will be new industrial projects but for

instance the forestry industry tend to be very good at negotiating, which means that the forecast for the future in this niche is stable but not especially lucrative.

• The competition from container ships on the long hauls for ro-ro ships is fierce, to say the least, but for certain forms of heavy project cargo they are still a fast and good option, although the vehicle carriers takes large part of this market as well.

The market for short distance ro-ro in Europe will be handled of ferries with large ro-ro capacities often operated by the same operators as traditionally have ro-ro ships in their networks. The EU completely dominates the roro operating business and has 50% of the total lane meter capacity. The capacity is very evenly spread trough EU and it takes eight countries to reach 82% of the EU capacity, but Italy and the Netherlands are the largest in the group.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

169

Roro fleet, 1.2M lm. Group operator (Region/country; k lm, in %)

EU27; 603; 50%

Other 12; 110; 9%

Finland; 49; 4%

Belgium; 57; 5%

UK; 51; 4%

Denmark; 67; 6%

Other Asia; 62; 5%


N America; 183; 15%

Japan; 94; 8%

Mid East; 57; 5%

China; 25; 2% C&S America; 22; 2%Unknown; 15; 1%

RoW; 30; 2%

Germany; 34; 3%

Sweden; 66; 5%

Netherlands; 73; 6%

Italy; 95; 8%

2008-01-01

82% of EU

Figure 135: Operator country for roro ships

3.10 Ferry

A ferry, according to our definition, is a ship that transports passengers from point A to point B according to a schedule, with the emphasis on transport. This definition excludes cruise ships and yachts, given that they are not primarily performing a transport service but rather providing a leisure experience. There is, however, sometimes a thin line between the cruise ferries operating mostly in the Baltic and a regular cruise ship in some respects, as for instance the experience offered. Ferries form a very diverse kind of shipping with many sub-segments – the most numerous being transport of passengers only to and from remote islands and as public transport in waterfront cities. The operators in this segment of the ferry market are commonly only operating ships within the closest region and thus there are very many of these around the globe. The tonnage is often quite old and the need for replacement is mounting. A large part of these companies are owned by the government but in the last decade it has become more and more common with outsourcing to private entities. This privatisation is bound to continue and as in other typically local shipping businesses like tugs we should expect larger entities that operate in a lot larger areas will enter the market in due course.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

170





sin

ess

Eco

no

mie

s o

f S

cale


Ferry, pax only







Ferry, c

argo



Figure 136: Ferries in the strategic shipping graph

All the different ferry businesses have this in common: they are very close to customer contact and thus everyone seems to know a little about the markets by following mainstream media reports. This renders the business a reputation of being very dynamic with clear ups and downs, for instance the abolition of tax-free in the EU. However, when studying the ferries in a larger perspective one of the common denominators across the segment is that it actually is a very stable business and the fleet (although growing) has been remarkably stable over the years. For instance high-speed ferries have been discussed a lot and thus it is interesting to see that also the speed of the fleet has been constant in the past 30 years. Figure 137 shows the average speed for the slower segments over three decades where the pax-only and ropax <25kt and the overnight ferries have increased quite modestly – all below 2kt. Pax-only high-speed ferries have decreased their average speed over the period. The fleet has increased from 156 ships in 1976 to 977 now and the newer ships have been modestly slower than the ones in use in 1976. High-speed ropaxes have increased their speed from around 30 to 36kt but here too the current tendency is for average speed to fall. Having stated that the development is fairly stable one tendency that clearly is here to stay is the development from the operators to focus more on the cargo side of their operations than on the passengers. There are many reasons for this but in Europe the growth of the low-cost airlines certainly is one of them. This has meant ships that have a lot higher ratio between lane-metre and passenger than just ten years ago.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

171

101214161820222426283032343638

1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

Avg

Spe

ed, F

leet

Pax Only, 25kn+ Pax Only, <25kn RoPax, 25kn+ RoPax, <25kn Overnight

Figure 137: Average speed for ferries 1976-2007

This is borne out by developments in Europe in 2007, according to the preliminary reports. While Italian passenger volumes to the west are plummeting, the volumes to the east are positive so far this year. Italian trailer traffic to the east continues to grow, although at moderate speed. Spain and Greece offer the best opportunities for cargo growth. Genoa-Barcelona is a highly promising route. The large North African immigrant population in Italy and Spain provide additional business, as will the increasing tendency of European companies to outsource production closer to home. Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria will offer the major opportunities for this traffic. In northern Europe passenger volumes between the UK and the continent was down during the first nine months of 2007, while traffic to Norway and Denmark was going well. The trailer volumes between the UK and France, the dominant market, are falling, only partly compensated for by increases to Belgium and Spain. Trailer traffic increased on all routes between Germany and Sweden, while trailer traffic between Denmark and Norway was down 15 % compared with the same period last year. In the Baltic, the large Swedish passenger traffic to the west is growing as well as to Poland, Latvia and Lithuania. Passenger volumes to Finland and Estonia are stagnant. Further southeast a new ferry line has been launched to serve the Russian Baltic market from Germany. The direct ro-ro ferry link is between the German port of Sassnitz and Baltiysk in the Russian enclave Kaliningrad. The ferry fleet in November 2007 amounts to 6,399 ships of which 3,077 – almost half – only carry passengers. The fleet in numbers has grown by 2.0% annually in the last 25 years but only 0.5% in the past five. The passenger capacity figures are similar.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

172

Even though almost half of the fleet consists of non-cargo ferries, since they are smaller only one third or 929,000 passengers of the total 2,957,000 passenger capacity resides there.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018

Ferr

y fle

et, t

hous

and

pass

enge

rs 1

976-

Pax Only, 25kn+ Pax Only, <25kn RoPax, 25kn+ RoPax, <25kn Overnight2008-04

Forecast

Figure 138: Ferry fleet development, number of pax

Fleet growth has been very consistent over the years but has been very slow in the past five years. That will continue in the next five years. However if Figure 139 is scrutinised more carefully it is obvious that overnight ferries have actually decreased in capacity and that is also the forecast for the next five years. This is the effect of Europe’s abolition of tax-free in 1999, forcing operators to focus on cargo. The lane-metre thus became the interesting factor, especially on longer lines that use overnight ferries.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018

Ferry

flee

t, th

ousa

nds

lm, 1

976-

RoPax, 25kn+ RoPax, <25kn Overnight2008-04

Forecast

Figure 139: Ferry fleet development; lane metres

The current fleet of ferries amounts to 1.2 million lane-metres. Fleet growth has been 1.7% annually over 25 years but has averaged only 0.8% in the past five. However, the forecast indicates that growth in lane-metre capacity in the ferry segment will be almost 2% yearly in the next five years – even though the lane-metre capacity will decrease in the overnight segment.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

173

Deliveries in the 2007-11 period amount to 444 ships, which is substantially less than the 730 delivered in the previous five years. Measured in passenger capacity the decrease in deliveries will be a little lower or 30% compared with 40%. In lane-metres though, deliveries in the forthcoming five years will increase by 12%. Removals from the ferry fleet in 2007-11 will be 274 ferries, which is considerably (27%) less than in the previous five years. The rather modest removal forecast is based on the behaviour that the ferry owners have shown over the past thirty years, when removals were rarer than they ought to have been. When it comes to new ordering, activity in the ferry segment has been fairly modest in recent years and that trend looks likely to continue. Forecast for 2007-11 stands at 620 ships, a decrease of 12% from 2001-06. Rising bunker prices are a critical factor in all the ferry segments. The parts of the fleet that are publicly funded, whether owned or not, have difficulty with the necessary fleet renewals since costs go up but the ticket prices tend to be more or less the same. Since the transport is a public service and the cost ends up with the government, investments in new tonnage compete with health care and schools among other things. • However, given the congestion in many waterfront cities the general

outlook for public transport companies is bright. • Given that the cost pressure is mounting the development towards

larger private entities that have public transport contracts all around large regions will increase in the next ten years – with the western world being in the forefront.

When it comes to ferries of the mostly European nature with cargo capacity in the form of roro the development towards larger ships will continue. Owners seek economies of scale by introducing larger ships to meet an expected increase in demand as the freight side continues to lead the sector. Unlike when the ferry sector in Europe developed in the 1980s, Mediterranean companies seems to be in the forefront this time around, ahead of the Baltic operators. An example is Grimaldi Naples, which operates two large new ships of 42,500gt and a passenger capacity of 2,300 but almost 3,000 lane-metres instead of the traditional 1,000. This is most likely because competition on the Mediterranean ferry market has increased in recent years with costs rising fast, profit margins under pressure and consolidation the word on everyone’s lips. To be fair however, new ships built for the Baltic Sea have also evolved towards the same layout but the general feeling is that the development is less progressive there than in the Med. • The drive to reduce costs will eventually not just give newbuilding

contracts to Asia but also give longer series of more similar ships since this will reduce costs not just in the newbuilding phase but also during the future operations.

• Another development that is bound to continue is the consolidation of this sector of the industry.

In northern Europe up to date the German/Danish company Scandlines was bought in 2007 by a consortium made up of the UK investment company 3i, the German financial services group Allianz and Deutsche Seereederei, while Grimaldi today controls Finnlines. Also, DFDS has announced that it may take part in larger corporate deals to expand its network.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

174

Also in the Med, cost-cutting, fleet expansion, terminal investment and the development of new routes being the immediate order of the day, growth through merger and acquisition will follow. Rising vessel prices and high fuel costs will be among the factors driving companies to seek greater economies of scale. A wave of consolidation is expected. A few players in the Med will emerge stronger and there will be alliances with companies in northern Europe. The process is already underway, with KKR taking over UN Ro-Ro and Marfin buying Attica. Larger entities that operate in both Northern and Southern Europe could take larger parts of the distribution of lorries. Large transport companies such as DHL will take a more active part here as they are expected to within the feeder service as well. • The trailer-carrying part of the ferry sector will continue to come closer

and closer to the regular roro services since the operators have major advantages while building their networks, using ferries and their natural transport clientele as base cargo.

Ferry fleet, 2.96M pax. Group operator (Region/country; k pax, in %)

EU27; 1,043; 35%

Italy; 243; 8%

Greece; 244; 8%

Finland; 52; 2%

Unknown; 123; 4% Mid East; 35; 1%C&S America; 109; 4%

RoW; 123; 4%

China; 174; 6%

Japan; 239; 8%



Other Asia; 62; 5%

Sweden; 72; 2%

UK; 73; 2%

France; 77; 3%

Germany; 76; 3%

Other 15; 206; 7%

2008-01-01

80% of EU

Figure 140: Group operators, country of domicile, passenger capacity

Companies in the EU27 control 35% of the capacity of ferries if measured in passengers. In EU Italy and Greece are the largest by far with 8% each of the total world capacity.

3.11 Cruise

The cruise industry is an odd niche among the different shipping segments since it creates its own demand by marketing and having a supply of ships. The transport part of the business is slim to non-existent. Given that the target group is people on vacation, cruise companies compete with other vacation providers as much as with each other. The main advantage of cruises obviously is that the ship moves between the resorts and other attractions, as well as providing its own attractions on board. The cruise market is consolidated if seen in the respect of group operator. Several of the large owner-operators operate multiple brands.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

175

Of the 149 cruise ships that are larger than 1,000 lower berths, the major five operators control 128. This means the majors control almost three quarters of the total cruise capacity.





Cruise

Bu

sin

ess

Eco

nom

ies

of

Sca

le










Figure 141: Cruise fleet in the strategic types of shipping graph

By any standards this is an oligopolistic market in the industry corner in the strategic type of shipping graph and that often means good revenues and large barriers to entry. One way of entering the market is to buy an existing company or parts of one. In September private equity firm Apollo Management put $1 billion into Norwegian Cruise Line. This followed an investment in Oceania Cruises in February. In December Apollo confirmed that they had continued the spending spree by acquiring Regent with its four ultra-luxury vessels. Thus, now Apollo owns tonnage in all three cruise categories (contemporary, premium, luxury) and would take fourth place in the list of operators. Regent and Oceania are being placed under the ownership of Apollo subsidiary Prestige Cruise Holdings (PCF), with Oceania CEO Frank Del Rio installed as CEO. The US market is the most diversified cruise market with segments not developed in Europe and Asia with luxury small ships and sailing ships, globetrotting and exploration cruises. Europe has a substantial river cruise segment not found in the US and Asia. Being established in all three regions, the contemporary and premium market types are those that are expected to grow the most, which means generally large cruise vessels. The major cruise operators totally dominate the US and the Asian market, while in Europe a number of minor operators hold a market share equal to that of the majors. It is primarily in Europe where a further consolidation can be expected. The cruise ship fleet of 432,000 lower berths in November 2007 has developed strongly in the past 15 years with an average yearly growth of 6.1% (Figure 142). The growth for ships larger than 1,000 lower berths has been around 10% though and thus the growth in number of ships has obviously been lower. The current fleet in numbers is 518 divided into 149 large and 369 smaller vessels.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

176

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018

Cru

ise

fleet

, tho

usan

d lo

wer

ber

th, 1

976-

1,000+ low berths -999 low berths2008-04

Forecast

Figure 142: Cruise fleet development, lower berth

Demand for cruise holidays is very much dependent on marketing effort and price. As shown earlier, demand growth has been consistent over the years and very much corresponds to the growth in supply. The forecast for fleet growth in the coming five years corresponds to 5.6% annually. This is low in the historical perspective and is because operators have not chosen to order more tonnage in recent years and delivery times are long. A cruise ship of a respectable size is not possible to build before year-end 2011. Few cruise ships have been removed in the past three decades – never more than 12 ships in any year since 1978. So far only 15 ships in the large ship category have ever been removed. In the forecast for 2007-2011 the total number of ships to be removed stands at 22, which is less than half than in the previous five years. No more than three will be large ones. • Given the cautious approach shown by the players in the industry so far

the forecast for new contracts in the 2007-11 period is rather modest at 87 ships compared with 94 in the previous period.

• In capacity though, the forecast is an increase of 17% to 185,000 lower berths, following a reduction in small ships but an increase of larger vessels from 47 to 62.

Even though the cruise ships have been scaled up in size the last two years has produced a clear price hike also if the price is measured per lower berth. There are many reasons for that, but a general one is that the ships are ordered in Europe and there are few yards that produce large cruise ships and they do not come cheap. But, as for the ferries, another reason is that some of the ships ordered in 2007 in particular had very high specifications. Currently there are some 15 million cruise passengers per year, which is expected to grow to about 18-19 million by 2012. • The market for the coming years for cruise ships should be prosperous

if the turmoil surrounding US sub-prime loans does not result in a complete US meltdown – and that seems unlikely at the moment.

The European market (33%) is currently the fastest growing segment. The Asian market (3%) is the youngest market, but not expanding as rapidly as have the two other segments, despite substantial marketing efforts.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

177

The Caribbean will remain the most important market for the next five years, but it will not show the highest growth. For instance Australia, which became a cruise country after the 9/11 attacks, seems to have a prosperous future and Carnival Australia is forecasting strong growth. “Only younger passengers and short, inexpensive cruises have been properly served in the country,” says CEO Ann Sherry. Carnival will cater for the older and wealthier segment of the market by introducing Princess Cruises in combination with the more youngish P&O Cruises already operating there. In Asia too there is a potential growth in the next five years, even though Star Cruises has problems with its Indian business following an extension of economic territorial waters, hampering tax-free sales. However, the Delhi government has proposed various incentives, including tax breaks, to companies operating cruises in India in its first-ever cruise policy. The policy will be finalised within a couple of months. Closer to the US market, there could be changes that will trigger “new” cruise destinations, such as Cuba, within the next decade. The challenging environment regarding costs of bunker has further underlined the ongoing trends in the cruise business all aimed at reducing costs and create a better risk balance. • The tendency to buy smaller operators and form large units will

probably continue in the next five years. The US market may seem to be levelling off but that is as much the effects of the large operators focusing on other market to have a better spread of risk. Both Carnival Corp and RCCL are decreasing their market shares in North America, while hiking shares in Europe and South America. In short term, the softening dollar does not necessarily mean that the cruise market will be negatively affected, as most cruise travels are marketed in US dollars. This makes cruise travel even more attractive from an economic point of view. For Americans the softening dollar also makes cruising an economically better option than going abroad. Europe is expected to grow substantially and eventually the Asian market may follow or even surpass European growth rates. A central component of the trend towards diversification is targeted branding, a concept Carnival has long been using but now also taken up by RCCL. Following RCCL’s late 2006 acquisition of Spain’s Pullmantur and its earlier UK joint venture, First Choice, RCCL unveiled three brands in 2007. Croisières de France will launch in spring 2008 and Azamara Cruises, an upper-premium brand using ex-Pullmantur ships, debuted in May 2007. In December 2007 RCCL announced it would team up with Germany’s TUI to form TUI Cruises, a project originally proposed by Carnival. Carnival has also continued to add new brands by Iberocruceros of Spain. • Another interesting development is that the large operators are looking

to take control of some of the ports where they call. Recently Costa Crociere and Louis Cruise Lines have been bidding for a 35-year concession in Larnaca, Cyprus – with other shipping partners. Yet Costa’s parent Carnival has scorned vertical integration, saying: “Even if we sell a lot of shrimps it makes no sense to be shrimp farmers.”

Of all the cruise majors, RCCL faces the heaviest fuel expense as a result of its decision to use gas turbines instead of diesel engines on eight of its ships. Thus RCCL has now had to change, at least partly, to diesel engines on those ships.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

178

• This campaign to lower bunker costs is set to continue in the business since the cruise lines’ competitors are primarily land-based vacation spots, which have not been affected as much by rising oil costs.

• Higher operating costs are making it harder for small owners and operators with just one or two ships to save enough money for fleet renewal, and thus this part of the market will fare a lot worse than the larger operators in the near future.

EU27 companies do only control 11% of the world cruise fllet, where North American companies holds no less than 64%. In Europe Germany is somewhat larger than Spain and Cyprus but on a world wide level they all are quite small.

Cruise fleet, 453K lbrth. Group operator (Region/country; k lbrth, in %)

EU27; 48; 11%

Germany; 12; 3%

RoW; 2; 0%Mid East; 1; 0%

Unknown; 3; 1%

China; 4; 1%Japan; 5; 1%


N America; 274; 64%

Other Asia; 45; 10%

C&S America; 4; 1%

Spain; 9; 2%

Greece; 6; 1%

Cyprus; 8; 2%

UK; 3; 1%

Other 10; 9; 2%

2008-01-01

82% of EU

Figure 143: Cruise fleet control by country, measured in lower berth

3.12 Offshore

The offshore industry finds itself on the right-hand side in the strategic type of shipping graph, in between industry and special shipping – or rather a little of both. Given the high oil and gas prices, the offshore sector is booming, especially in deepwater fields. According to John Westwood, MD of Douglas-Westwood, “Deepwater oil production currently accounts for almost 15% of total offshore production, but over the next few years its share relative to shallow water output will grow – accounting for around 20% of offshore production by 2011.” All in all the forthcoming investments until 2012 will mostly be done in deep water off Africa, the Gulf of Mexico and Brazil, with maybe 15% ending up in the next hot spot area – Asia. Even though Africa is the largest, Gulf of Mexico is the area with the shortest lead times. The region’s extensive offshore infrastructure and the relative proximity of supply and service centres have a significant influence, turning otherwise marginal prospects into viable commercial propositions.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

179





sin

ess

Eco

nom

ies

of

Sca

le


Offshore









Figure 144: Strategic type of shipping, Offshore

In Africa and in the Gulf of Mexico it is the oil majors that stand behind most of the financing for the large projects. In Brazil, Petrobras is using innovative technology to achieve production from tremendous water depths. The offshore fleet in December 2007 stands at 5,957 ships of which the majority are platform-supply ships (1,740) and anchor-handling tug and supply ships (1,170).

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018

Offs

hore

flee

t, nu

mbe

r of s

hips

, 197

6-

Crew/Supply Platform Supply Offs. Tug/Supply AHTSSupport/safety Pipe (various) FPSO, drill Platform2008-04

Forecast

Figure 145: Offshore fleet, numbers

As Figure 145 illustrates, the number of offshore ships rose dramatically during the oil crisis in the late 1970s before standing almost idle until 1997. However, in the recent decade the fleet growth measured in numbers has averaged at a healthy 3% yearly and in the recent five it has been 3.5%. The growth until year-end 2011 will increase to 4.8% and of course, also this coincides with high oil and gas prices.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

180

Figure 146 shows the offshore fleet in dwt and it is relevant merely for the FPSO sector and clearly illustrates the growth of those in the last decade. The fleet stands at 47.4M dwt and the growth so far this year has been 2.3M dwt. Much of the capacity in the FPSO fleet comes from conversions of single-hull VLCC tankers, but this is forecast to decrease somewhat in importance because nowadays these vessels are more likely to be converted into large ore carriers instead.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018

Offs

hore

flee

t, m

illio

n dw

t, 19

76-

Crew/Supply Platform Supply Offs. Tug/Supply AHTSSupport/safety Pipe (various) FPSO, drill Platform2008-04

Forecast

Figure 146: Offshore fleet development, dwt

In the offshore service sector, we find both ships that helps with the rig moves and for the cargo runs to the rigs, both illustrated in Figure 147.

0

50

100

150

200

250

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Day

Rat

e, 1

,000

US$

All Cargo Runs Rig Moves Source: Seabrokers Group

Figure 147: Offshore market rates

Freight rates started to increase in 2005 before surging upwards in late 2006 and early 2007, mostly for rig moves. In 2007, both indices fell back in the summer (but still at historically high levels) but have then recovered in some style. • The forecast for removals of offshore ships in 2007-2011 is rather modest

– or 127 ships – 20 less than in the previous period. So far this year 11 ships have been removed.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

181

An effect of the higher rates, and the demand that provided the rates, has been that the number of new orders has increased rapidly in recent years with 2006 being extraordinary. The forecast compares well with recent years (with the exception of 2006). • New contracts are forecast at 1,285 in the 2007-2011 period – 32% less

than in the previous five years – but still at historical highs. So far this year 352 ships have been ordered.

The deliveries in the 2007-2011 period will be massive given the recent high contracting and until year-end 2011 1,649 ships will be delivered: 45% more than in 2001-2006. As Figure 148 illustrates the offshore fleet to only 14% is controlled by EU27 interests. Not surprisingly UK based companies are the largest within the region but only with 4% of the total world fleet.

Offshore fleet, 5,981 ships. Group operator (Region/country; no, in %)

EU27; 835; 14%

UK; 248; 4%

Unknown; 183; 3%

Japan; 65; 1%

RoW; 189; 3%China; 226; 4%

C&S America; 486; 8%


N America; 2,140; 37%

Mid East; 568; 9%


Netherlands; 137; 2%

Italy; 108; 2%

Denmark; 105; 2%

France; 90; 2%

Other 12; 147; 2%

2008-01-01

82% of EU

Figure 148: The control of the Offshore fleet, measured in no

3.13 Service

The service segment is dominated by the many tugs but also contains research ships, dredgers, workboats and SAR & patrol ships. In December 2007 the fleet stands at 17,133 of which 12,137 are tugs. So far this year the fleet has increased by 222 ships. The service sector is illustrated by the tugs in the strategic figure and they are in a process of moving from very many suppliers to substantially fewer – especially in the western world. The times when every port had its own tug operator are gone forever; nowadays large companies service large regions where individual tugs are positioned where the need for them is greatest. Tugs have also evolved and today perform many functions that previously were filled elsewhere in the service sector. • This restructuring gives fewer tugs per world fleet tonnage, but since

the world fleet of especially large ships is growing massively, the demand outlook for this niche in shipping still looks very positive.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

182





Service (Tugs)B

usi

ness

Eco

no

mie

s o

f S

cale



Specialised serviceDifficult second-hand market



Specialised servicesDifficult second-hand market




Figure 149: Strategies of shipping, Service sector

In the service sector, we include dredgers. A market report from Freek Tewes of AFS Brokers calculates the share of the total market not controlled by governments and their respective fleets to be around 65% of the total and worth around €8.3Bn yearly. The largest private companies reside in Belgium and the Netherlands, no doubt for historical reasons. These four operate globally. The main drivers for the dredger market are the growth of world trade, in global energy consumption, in tourism, in population and effects of climate change. The first three factors are prompting ships to get a lot larger, which stimulates the need for dredging. Climate change leads to change in water levels – which in turn provides work for more or less any work boats including dredgers. On top of these trends, new, large-scale projects such as new ports (Asia), new reclamation of land (Dubai) and a larger Panama Canal are positive indicators for the sector in future. Even so, the orderbook is anything but impressive, which underlines the positive earnings outlook even further. Fleet growth has been fairly low but stable in the past 15 years, with an average growth of 2% and a little higher the last five. In the 2007-2011 period the fleet is expected to increase marginally less, or 1.7% yearly. The new contracts has been lower in the service sector than in many other shipping sectors in recent years and thus the deliveries in the 2007-2011 period will actually be quite modest – almost 27% less than in the recent five years. So far this year 333 service ships have been delivered, of which 280 have been tugs. • Given that the deliveries will be quite low, the removals will also

follow suit and be lower than in the 2001-2006 period. In numbers, the removals will amount to 425, which is 253 less than in the previous five years.

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

Maj

or s

hip

mar

kets

and

the

EU

inte

rest

183

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018

Ser

vice

sec

tor f

leet

, num

ber o

f shi

ps, 1

976-

Research Tug Dredging SAR & Patrol Workboats Other2008-04

Forecast

Figure 150: Service, fleet, number

The main reasons for the low growth in the tug sector is that the large existing fleet is utilised better each year with operators covering regions with many ports and not just one port. Many of the new tugs delivered since 2000 are also equipped to cater for service in the search and rescue sector as well. • Since this development will continue, the new order forecast for the

2007-2011 period is meagre at 1,856 ships, almost 40% less than in the previous five years.

Companies in the EU 27 controls 20% of the world service fleet and of the European countries The Netherlands, Denmark and Italy are the largest.

Service fleet, 17,178 ships. Group operator (Region/country; no, in %)

EU27; 3,421; 20%

Other 14; 629; 4%

Belgium; 158; 1%Greece; 181; 1%France; 214; 1%

Germany; 259; 2%


Japan; 1,407; 8%


N America; 2,258; 13%

C&S America; 1,055; 6%

Mid East; 995; 6% China; 814; 5%

RoW; 717; 4%

Unknown; 769; 4%

Spain; 286; 2%

UK; 335; 2%

Italy; 431; 3%

Denmark; 435; 3%

Netherlands; 493; 3%

2008-01-01

82% of EU

Figure 151: Control of the service fleet, by country, measured in no

Oth

er E

urop

ean

ship

ping

act

ors

184

4 Other European shipping actors

Europe’s maritime sector is a world player as shown in the earlier chapters. Shipping and logistics, shipbuilding, and related services and fields, ranging from cargo handling and coastal tourism to off-shore energy fields, fishing and aquaculture provide about 5 million jobs18 across Europe. Coastal tourism account for a fair share of these. Some 70% of shipping-related jobs are onshore – in shipbuilding, naval architecture, science, engineering, electronics, cargo handling and logistics. Commercial shipping and port operations account for a third of the economic value of the maritime cluster and are seen as important new growth areas for employment, notably in the field of logistics. Table 66: Study findings of no of employees in the maritime sector

Study findings (excludes fisheries)

Study findings without coastal

tourism and navy (excludes fisheries) Fisheries XIV

Total maritime employment (all study

sectors + fisheries)

Traditional maritime employment (includes fisheries but excludes coastal tourism and

navy)AT 9,341 9,341 734 10,075 10,075BE 48,837 39,936 1,743 50,580 41,679CY 72,192 28,937 1,175 73,367 30,112CZ 1,618 1,618 2,267 3,885 3,885DK 149,380 87,752 14,060 163,440 101,812EE 48,105 20,303 6,700 54,805 27,003FI 121,814 45,744 2,740 124,554 48,484FR 422,141 176,160 64,712 486,853 240,872DE 229,342 191,283 16,409 245,751 207,692GR 258,386 62,647 37,701 296,087 100,348HU 605 605 1,680 2,285 2,285IE 7,516 3,680 10,584 18,100 14,264IT 179,033 179,033 47,957 226,990 226,990LV 63,599 39,299 10,580 74,179 49,879LT 31,021 26,272 6,565 37,586 32,837LU 1,836 1,836 1,836 1,836MT 35,628 7,628 1,441 37,069 9,069NL 209,110 107,890 9,049 218,159 116,939PL 184,890 135,390 19,923 204,813 155,313PT 66,284 12,533 33,229 99,513 45,762SK 1,520 1,520 1,180 2,700 2,700SI 16,403 2,553 623 17,026 3,176ES 1,755,720 90,486 87,310 1,843,030 177,796SE 108,564 37,541 3,955 112,519 41,496UK 580,330 198,971 33,534 613,864 232,505Total 4,603,215 1,508,958 415,851 5,019,066 1,924,809

Source: DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs

18 “Employment trends in all sectors related to the sea or using sea resources - An

exhaustive analysis of employment trends in all sectors related to sea or using sea resources”, ECOTEC for DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs 2006

The European maritime cluster encompasses much more than ports and ship owners. Many of them are however largely dependent on the existence of ship owners and ports. Several of these other actors form part of large land based industries that manufacture equipment to other industries but the maritime. The purpose with this chapter is to provide an introduction to the maritime cluster since the development of seaborne transports will have an impact – directly or indirectly – on the cluster as a whole. The respective European segments’ importance for the development of the competitive position of the shippers (European industry), European shipping industry and European port sector is evaluated in a 2018 perspective.

Oth

er E

urop

ean

ship

ping

act

ors

185

Some clusters focus on single geographic regions – often around a major port – while others are multi-centred, bringing together expertise and experience from several coastal sites, often across national boundaries. Many ports have become major economic and employment hubs, driving local and regional development on the basis of maritime-related industries such as high-tech shipbuilding, ship-broking, cargo handling and port services, offshore energy, fisheries, and marine research. Many ports have developed other specialisations – catering for the offshore energy sector or for aquaculture, for new cruise markets, for heritage and tourism, and for the rapidly growing recreational boating sector. Special skills acquired in shipping and off-shore technology feed into innovations in merchant ships and vessels for deep-sea exploration 19. Europe takes benefit from an extensive maritime economy including the world’s largest merchant fleet, a large number of ports and the most advanced maritime manufacturing industry. The economic importance of the maritime cluster in Europe is indicated by the European Metalworker’s Foundation who have stated that their sector’s 1.3 million employees together generate value added totalling €70 billion20. A similar assessment presented by the European Sea Ports Organisation arrives at an employment figure of about 2.5 million people and a added value of about €111Bn21.

4.1 Ports and operators

The European Union‘s coastline extends for almost 70,000 kilometres, fringed by the Baltic and North Seas, the Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Thanks to its outermost regions, the EU has coasts also at the Caribbean Sea and the Indian Ocean. Almost half of Europe’s population lives within 50 km of the coast and the population growth in coastal regions and islands has been double the EU average over the last decade. Many of Europe’s ports have become major logistics centres for reception, storage and processing of materials and goods, and related services. Their access to Europe’s regions make them crucial for the strategic supply of energy and raw materials required by EU industries and citizens, and for the export of goods to Europe’s trading partners22. Furthermore, 350 million passengers pass through Europe’s ports every year to use ferry and cruise services. Approx. 284,00018 people work in ports and directly related services (excluding industry). There are over 1,000 seaports in Europe, handling in total 3.5 billion tonnes of cargo per year. About 700 of these ports each handle less than 1 million tonnes and there are only 10 ports in Europe which handle 19 http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs

20 EMF (European Metalworker’s Foundation) Executive Committee, Luxembourg, 7th & 8th June 2005

21 ESPO Annual Report 2006-2007

22 http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs

Oth

er E

urop

ean

ship

ping

act

ors

186

more than 50 million tonnes. Ports and directly related services (excluding industry) generate a value added of about 20 billion euro23. The ports access to Europe’s regions make them crucial for the strategic supply of energy and raw materials required by EU industries and citizens, and for the export of goods to Europe’s trading partners. Furthermore, 350 million passengers pass through Europe’s ports every year to use ferry and cruise services. The port is considered as part of a cluster of organizations in which different logistics and transport operators are involved in bringing value to the final consumers. Ports are bi-directional logistics systems in that they receive goods from ships to be distributed to land (road/rail) and inland waterway modes that perform the remaining legs of the transport systems, whereas at the same time ports receive cargoes arriving by road/rail and inland waterway and deliver them to ships for the sea-leg. This requires a high level of co-ordination and inter-connectivity capabilities within the port system. Traditionally, port authorities played the role of facilitator, focusing on the provision of superstructure and infrastructure for ship operations, loading/unloading, temporary storage and intra-port operations. Competition between ports, has intensified and port competitiveness nowadays depends to a large extent on the ability of ports to integrate in global supply chains. Variation in the degree of seaport integration in logistics and supply chain management include adoption of information and communication technologies, relationships with shipping lines, value added services, inter-connectivity/inter-operability with inland modes of transport, relationships with inland transport operators and channel integration practices and performance. 24 To achieve competitive advantage port operators must implement strategies that involve the above-mentioned parameters suggesting that they must look beyond the narrow geographical limits of the port in attempting to achieve competitiveness. This has become especially clear regarding the container handling. In this liner shipping, more economical ships and alliance co-operation have lowered the costs associated with the sea-leg and ship operation and thus made the intermodal costs share an increasing part of the total cost. The portion of inland costs in the total costs of container shipping would range from 40% to 80%25. Liner operators are increasingly operating terminals and sometime even owning them, when merchant ports are owned either by states, local communities or by private enterprises. Not only the liner shipping industry, but also the container terminal operating industry has witnessed an increased amount of consolidation during 2005-2006. A front-runner in this respect was DP World, through the acquisition of the terminal portfolios of CSX World Terminals (2005) and P&O Ports (2006) for a total amount of more than 8 billion US Dollars. Apart from DP World’s acquisitions, another major deal has been PSA’s acquisition of a 20% stake in

23 ESPO

24 DONG-WOOK SONG; PHOTIS M. PANAYIDES, Global supply chain and port/terminal: integration and competitivene, Maritime Policy & Management, Volume 35, Issue 1 February 2008 , pages 73 - 87

25 NOTTEBOOM, T. E. and RODRIGUE, J.-P., 2005, Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy & Management, 32(3), 297–313

Oth

er E

urop

ean

ship

ping

act

ors

187

Hutchison Port Holding’s global terminal portfolio for a reported USD 4.93 billion, following its earlier purchase of strategic shareholdings in a number of other Hong Kong operations (HIT, Cosco-HIT, Container Terminal 3 and Container Terminal 8) in 2005. In addition, quite a number of terminal operators took shareholdings or increased their existing stakes in individual terminal businesses during 2005 and 2006. It is beyond the scope of this Hence, whereas a few years ago the container handling sector was still fragmented the picture looks drastically different today. The container handling industry is nowadays dominated by four worldwide operating companies with an enormous lead over their rivals in terms of throughput and almost half of the world container throughput. The current European portfolio of leading container terminal operators is presented in Figure 152. The financial involvement varies between full ownership to minority shareholdings.

Figure 152: Terminal portfolio for some of the large terminal operators

Moreover, while their business had thus far grown mainly organically, APM Terminals announced in mid-2006 that they were also looking at the acquisition of existing facilities, in order to reduce dependency on Maersk Line and strengthen their common-user business. It is believed that Maersk Line traffic nowadays accounts for about 65% of APMT business worldwide, down from 90% some five years ago. However, in early 2007 the prospect of further consolidation among the major players was somewhat put on hold by the decision of the City of Hamburg concerning the sale of a stake in local terminal operator HHLA. At the end of 2006 the City of Hamburg requested. In fact, the interest being shown by players such as Macquarie for investments in port operations is something that has only been witnessed in recent years. This follows international trends with more and more pension funds invest in infrastructure. Indeed, as mentioned by Dynamar (2007:2 ), “when it comes to takeovers of ports, terminals or terminal operators, more and more financial suitors (banks, hedge funds, private equity groups, investors) are directly taking part in the bidding, a completely new development also seen in other lines of business”. Examples of recent deals involving such players are listed in Table 67. The total value of the deals listed exceeds $13Bn.

Oth

er E

urop

ean

ship

ping

act

ors

188

Table 67: Container terminal takeovers

Company Took over Price

American International group Activities of P&O USA, including 6 container terminals (Dec. 2006) USD 1.01 BnOntario Teachers Pension Board Plan Board 4 OOil Terminals in North America (Nov. 2006) USD 2.35 BnRREEF Infrastructure (Deutsche Bank) 49% share of Peel Ports UK (Nov. 2006) USD 1.43 BnMacquaire Infrastructure Halterm Halifax (Nov. 2006) USD 0.15 BnMacquaire Infrastructure 40% share of 6 Hanjin terminals and the USA (Sept. 2006) USD 0.85 BnAdmiral (Goldman Sachs, GIC) Associated British Ports UK (Aug. 2006) USD 5.30 BnMontauban (Cobelfret) Remaning 53% of Simon Group UK (Jul. 2006) USD 0.18 BnBabcock & Brown PD Ports UK (Dec. 2005) USD 0.46 BnPeel Ports Clyde Ports UK (Nov. 2005 USD 0.29 BnPeel Ports Mersey Dock and Harbour Company UK (UMDHC) (Jun. 2005) USD 1.38 BnSource: Dynamar (2007) Importance for the development of the competitive position in a 2018 perspective for; Shippers: HIGH Shipping sector: HIGH Port sector: not applicable.

4.2 Maritime works

The maritime works sector comprises a wide range of sea and inland waterway related activities. In this study the maritime works sector is defined as follows: • Dredging (capital, maintenance and remedial) of docks, harbours,

approaches, river jetties and major navigation channels. • Construction of new land in the sea. • Coastal protection. • Manufacturing, laying and maintenance of underwater cables. • Maritime related construction. In global terms, the value of the maritime works sector has grown rapidly over the past decade with the current annual volume of sales standing at around €7 billion. Most ports host organisations that offer tug services, piloting, bunkering, food, and port clearing services. At present the European Tugowners Association has over 80 members in 20 countries owning or operating more than 670 tugs and tenders providing towage and salvage services. The total turnover of the member companies of the European Dredging Association (EuDA) stands at €4.2 billion. Four of the largest Western European dredging companies account for approximately 60% of the world-wide sales generated in the so-called open markets. Dredging and other sub sectors of the maritime works sectors are particularly important for the both economies and particularly maritime economies of the Netherlands and Belgium. In the less open markets, dredging works are normally carried out by state-owned companies or local private companies. But in recent years dredging work by state-owned companies has somewhat declined due to the deregulation of global trade and consequently the 'opening' of closed markets. The free market has expanded in favour of professional dredging companies, in particular the above mentioned larger Dutch and Belgian players. According to the European Dredging Association (EuDA) the dredging industry alone contributed to the creation of a total of 17,763 direct jobs in 2005. One third of employees were employed as seafaring crew and the rest ashore. Employment in dredging companies has grown strongly in recent years, with employment more than doubling in some companies over the past 5-10 years.

Oth

er E

urop

ean

ship

ping

act

ors

189

Importance for the development of the competitive position in a 2018 perspective for; Shippers: MEDIUM Shipping sector: MEDIUM Port sector: HIGH

4.3 Shipbuilders

Today, in Europe, around 153,00018 people are involved in the shipbuilding or ship repairing business. Some 110,000 personnel are believed to represent the backbone of the shipbuilding industry, which extends far beyond the continent's coastal regions. Suppliers of entire system components, who offer their wares on the global market, are just as dependent on their local shipbuilding industry as logistics companies that are hoping to expand their business. Today, ocean-going vessels are being built and/or repaired at over 200 shipyards in Europe, and the average shipyard – after 25 years of massive job cuts – has a workforce of around 500. Table 68: Deliveries 2005-2007 from European yards (ex naval)

Country of the builder, delivered 05-07 No ships Dwt GtGERMANY 232 4,467,189 4,170,255POLAND 250 2,307,229 2,596,361DENMARK 23 2,233,931 2,183,632CROATIA 79 2,706,634 1,986,699ITALY 166 381,204 1,678,666ROMANIA 206 1,957,372 1,476,062TURKEY 302 1,714,048 1,222,841NETHERLANDS 196 766,062 648,247SPAIN 226 595,761 641,786FINLAND 14 78,297 583,879RUSSIA 125 696,178 579,690FRANCE 44 184,986 435,053UKRAINE 42 340,345 269,934BULGARIA 26 206,660 144,168NORWAY 55 159,937 142,827OTHER 193 775,418 618,378Total 2,179 19,571,251 19,378,478 As Table 68 illustrates yards in Germany produced most ships in Europe in 2005-2007, if measured in gt or dwt. Turkey and Poland had higher output if measured in numbers though. Denmark find itself on the third spot in gt but only made 23 ships, however large. If looking foreword the orderbook is presented in Table 69 and the largest ones are for yards in Germany, with Romania as the runner up if measured in gt. In dwt the latter is clearly ahead but both countries has fewer orders in numbers compared to Turkey.

Oth

er E

urop

ean

ship

ping

act

ors

190

Table 69: Current orderbook for European yards, April 2008 (ex naval)

Country of the builder No ships Dwt GtGERMANY 236 3,308,123 4,405,929ROMANIA 239 4,566,351 3,427,839ITALY 180 521,901 2,694,212TURKEY 351 3,495,885 2,356,348POLAND 183 1,963,736 2,096,207CROATIA 70 2,039,248 1,896,069DENMARK 26 2,090,638 1,433,050UKRAINE 84 2,503,286 1,421,161SPAIN 181 770,165 984,452RUSSIA 114 1,086,969 842,633FINLAND 11 83,614 782,912FRANCE 29 85,343 774,738NETHERLANDS 170 756,435 589,951BULGARIA 34 567,519 352,570NORWAY 65 219,547 238,240OTHER 140 441,894 393,288Total 2,113 24,500,654 24,689,599 In some countries both the volume of sales achieved and number of workers employed in the naval shipbuilding sector outstrips their performance in the merchant shipping sector. At present, there are around two dozen shipyards involved in naval shipbuilding in Europe. Approximately 35,000 to 40,000 jobs in the European shipbuilding industry depend either directly or indirectly on orders placed by the respective navies. In summary, the European shipbuilding industry is important for employment. Further is the industry activity as such significant to its network of subcontractors. Importance for the development of the competitive position in a 2018 perspective for; Shippers: LOW Shipping sector: LOW Port sector: LOW

4.4 Ship repair

The fact that most of the freight markets are flourishing means that repair has grown substantially. In addition, the conversion market has picked up considerably. Enquiries regarding standard repairs for commercial ships increase continuously and has led to a new record level of employment. Problems that the repair yards now face is that they have lack of qualified labour force and by increasing material and energy cost.

Oth

er E

urop

ean

ship

ping

act

ors

191

Table 70: Maintenance, repair and conversion, turnover, million Euro

The turnover on ship repairs and conversions on merchant ships carried out by all German yards was Euro747M in 2006. All Polish ship repair yards were busy and made profit. To better utilise shipyards’ knowledge and skill, the workload has been partially shifted from simple maintenance and repairs to more sophisticated conversion and newbuilding of special purpose niche vessels. In 2006, the Dutch repair and maintenance turnover increased to 525M euros. The Dutch ship repair business focus mainly on traditional market segments – dry and liquid carriers. The figures for ship repair and conversion works carried out by Spanish yards in 2006 have shown an upward trend. The total turnover for 2006 amounted to 275 million Euro, mainly from cruise vessels, passenger ships, gas carriers and offshore repairing activities. Responding to customers’ demands, Spanish repair yards have taken a step forward by gaining a reputation for work on cruise vessels, passenger and ro-ro ferries, chemical and product tankers, gas carriers (LNG and LPG) and container ships, while maintaining the former specialisation for large fishing and factory vessels, oceanographic research vessels and reefers. Importance for the development of the competitive position in a 2018 perspective for; Shippers: LOW Shipping sector: HIGH Port sector: LOW

4.5 Marine Equipment

The European marine equipment manufacturers and suppliers represent a cluster of companies with a very significant role in the European maritime cluster26: • Direct employment in the maritime equipment sector is estimated at

more than 284,000. • Average yearly turnover is estimated at around €26 billion.

26 Source: http://www.emec-marine-equipment.org

Oth

er E

urop

ean

ship

ping

act

ors

192

• The export share is nearly 46%. • The expected annual growth for the coming year is 2.5% in production,

1.5% in added value and 1% in employment. • The marine equipment sector is the third largest in the maritime cluster

after shipping and fisheries. The marine equipment sector comprises all products and services supplied for the building, conversion and maintenance of ships (seagoing and inland). This includes technical services in the field of engineering, installation and commissioning, and ship maintenance (including repair). The production ranges from fabrication of steel and other basic materials to the development and supply of engines and propulsion systems, cargo handling systems, general machinery and associated equipment, environmental and safety systems, electronic equipment incorporating sophisticated control systems, advanced telecommunications equipment and IT. Thus the marine equipment industry supports the whole marine value chain and stakeholders: from the port infrastructure and operation to the ship/shore interface, shipbuilding and ship repair. European equipment industries are world leaders in propulsion, cargo handling, communication, automation and environmental systems. Importance for the development of the competitive position in a 2018 perspective for; Shippers: LOW Shipping sector: MEDIUM/HIGH Port sector: LOW

4.6 Maritime services

The maritime service sector is a sector currently lacking European/global recognition as a maritime sector of its own. London is widely seen to be at the heart of this sector because of the strong presence of major international organisations such as the IMO, Lloyd's insurance and the Baltic Exchange. This presence leads to Europe’s top global position for the maritime service sector with London as the hub for the capital and expertise for marine insurance, ship-chartering, shipping finance, ship classification, legal services, dispute resolution and accountancy services. In addition, there are a wide range of other facilities, including education and training, publishing, event organisation, research and consultancy located in different EU member states.

4.6.1 Class societies

In the development of modern maritime industry, ship classification has been an essential contributor to the safe-guarding of life, property and the environment and is thus very important. Fundamentally classification is a very simple concept based on three main elements, applicable both to the newbuilding and operational phases, • Setting standards (Classification Rules) • Verification of compliance with standards (approval of specifications

and drawings, surveys and testing) • Documenting compliance with standards (survey reports, Classification

certificates)

Oth

er E

urop

ean

ship

ping

act

ors

193

In Europe there are five members of IACS (International Association of Classification Societies). Together they employ 17,000 people, many of which working in branch-offices outside Europe. Several of them have had run in to some problems lately. In January 2008 several leading classification societies were raided by corporate watchdogs in Europe as part of an investigation into possible collusion to distort the classification market. Although the European Commission would not name the societies concerned, Bureau Veritas, DNV and Lloyd’s Register have confirmed their premises were visited. DNV said, “We are not concerned,” LR said it is “co-operating fully” and BV said, “We are giving them what they need.” Germany’s GL would not comment and a spokesman for Italy’s RINA said it would make comment as soon as possible. A spokesman for one society stated that: “We understand that other classification societies are being subjected to a similar inspection with regard to information held by the Commission suggesting that IACS and/or its members have sought to reduce the level of competition in the classification industry.” These things usually take a long time to sort out so time will tell if they are guilty to have broken the Rome treaty or not. Importance for the development of the competitive position in a 2018 perspective for; Shippers: LOW Shipping sector: MEDIUM Port sector: LOW

4.6.2 Ship brokers

The role of a shipbroker is to act as an intermediary between the two parties to a contract, whether they are ship owners and charterers in the chartering market, or buyers and sellers in the sale and purchase market. The chartering market - a shipbroker is an intermediary in maritime transport who provides professional services to the principal (i.e. the carrier), by concluding agreements or mediating in the negotiation of agreements on behalf of the carrier in one or more ports or transport hubs where the latter is unrepresented or for some other reason leaves these activities to the shipbroker. The shipbroker's duties involve representing the carrier on the spot, while also being authorized by the carrier to undertake all sorts of local shipping and transport matters on his behalf. The shipbroker's duties involve performing all sorts of minor activities on behalf of his principal's vessel, master and crew. The shipbroker can for example engage pilots, tugs and boatmen for his principal, arrange for ship's stores and supplies and bunkers to be delivered, handle inward and outward clearance, arrange moorings, pay harbour dues and other fees, arrange for the vessel to be loaded or unloaded, have the cargo stowed and lashed, handle personnel matters, such as the crew change, accept cargo for shipment and much else besides, subject of course to the proviso that limits may be set on the shipbroker's duties if this is laid down in or arises from the contract entered into with the principal. Chartering or Sale & purchase - The shipbroker is involved in many stages of the deal: presenting the business to potential clients, negotiating the main terms of the fixture or sale, finalising the details of the contract and following the deal through to its conclusion. With only a few exceptions, virtually all secondhand purchases are conducted through a broker or brokers, whereas an increasing proportion of new building contracts are negotiated directly

Oth

er E

urop

ean

ship

ping

act

ors

194

between owner and shipyard, as many shipyards now have worldwide representation and marketing teams. The Baltic Exchange, which is situated in the City of London, represents over 500 of the world’s leading shipbroking, ship owning and operating, chartering and freight derivative trading companies. Most of the major shipbroking companies in London, and even many overseas shipping companies, are members of the Baltic Exchange. The Baltic acts as a regulatory body for its members and provides a forum for shipping information to circulate among its members. Number of members in various European shipbroker associations: � Greece 350 members (65%) � Finland 73 members � Denmark 50 members � Germany 184 members � Poland 23 members � Sweden 150 members � Italy 600 members Included the other European countries the European ship broking business it is estimated at comprise 2,000 persons/organisations. Importance for the development of the competitive position in a 2018 perspective for; Shippers: MEDIUM

Shipping sector: HIGH for bulk, MEDIUM for other sectors

Port sector: LOW

4.6.3 Marine insurance

Marine insurance is the oldest type of insurance. Out of it grew non-marine insurance and reinsurance. It traditionally formed the majority of business underwritten at Lloyd's. Nowadays, marine insurance is often grouped with aviation and transit (ie. cargo) risks, and in this form is known by the acronym 'MAT'. Typically, marine insurance is split between the vessels and the cargo. Insurance of the vessels is generally known as 'Hull and Machinery' (H&M). A more restricted form of cover is “Total Loss Only” (TLO), generally used as a reinsurance, which only covers the total loss of the vessel and not any partial loss. Marine Insurance covers the loss or damage of ships, cargo, terminals, and any transport or property by which cargo is transferred, acquired, or held between the points of origin and final destination. Cargo insurance is a sub-branch of marine insurance, though Marine also includes Onshore and Offshore exposed property (container terminals, ports, oil platforms, pipelines); Hull; Marine Casualty; and Marine Liability. The International Union of Marine Insurance is a professional body run by and for its members. It provides an essential forum to discuss and exchange ideas of common interest and to protect and advance members' interests. Importance for the development of the competitive position in a 2018 perspective for; Shippers: LOW Shipping sector: LOW Port sector: LOW

Oth

er E

urop

ean

ship

ping

act

ors

195

4.6.4 P&I (Protection and indemnity)

A marine policy typically covered only three-quarter of the insured's liabilities towards third parties. The typical liabilities arise in respect of collision with another ship, and wreck removal. In the 19th century, ship owners banded together in mutual underwriting clubs known as Protection and Indemnity Clubs (P&I), to insure the remaining one-quarter liability amongst themselves. These Clubs are still in existence today and have become the model for other specialised and uncommercial marine and non-marine mutuals, for example in relation to oil pollution and nuclear risks. Clubs work on the basis of agreeing to accept a ship owner as a member and levying an initial 'call' (premium). With the fund accumulated, reinsurance will be purchased; however, if the loss experience is unfavourable one or more 'supplementary calls' may be made. Clubs also typically try to build up reserves, but this puts them at odds with their mutual status. The principal underwriting member clubs of the International Group of P&I Clubs (“the Group”) between them provide liability cover (protection and indemnity) for approximately 90% of the world’s ocean-going tonnage. Each Group club is an independent, non-profit making mutual insurance association, providing cover for its ship owner and charterer members against third party liabilities relating to the use and operation of ships. Each club is controlled by its members through a board of directors or committee elected from the membership. Clubs cover a wide range of liabilities including personal injury to crew, passengers and others on board, cargo loss and damage, oil pollution, wreck removal and dock damage. Clubs also provide a wide range of services to their members on claims, legal issues and loss prevention, and often play a leading role in the management of casualties. European member clubs are: * Assuranceforeningen Gard * Assuranceforeningen Skuld * The Britannia Steam Ship Insurance Association Limited * The London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association Limited * The North of England Protection & Indemnity Association * The Shipowners' Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association (Luxembourg) * The Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Limited * The Swedish Club * The West of England Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association (Luxembourg) Importance for the development of the competitive position in a 2018 perspective for; Shippers: LOW Shipping sector: LOW Port sector: LOW

4.7 Finance

Financing ships is different from most other industry financing for a number of reasons. It is a very capital intensive business – especially in relation to the

Oth

er E

urop

ean

ship

ping

act

ors

196

size of company staff -, assets are totally mobile, markets are usually volatile and the businesses are not transparent – limited information emerges. Most ship debt financing is still made by banks. They supply about 50% of the capital needs. Providers of finance include commercial banks, mortgage banks, merchant banks, finance houses and leasing companies. Loans over $50 M are usually syndicated between different banks. There are some 200 institutions world wide who have special involvement in ship finance. Most of them have specialised departments. About 60% of global ship finance is supplied by German banks. Some financing is also made in the Grade Bond Market and High Yield Market (“Junk Bonds”). Financing ships on the public equity market does take place and is successful for certain companies but not all, mainly because of the volatility of markets, the low yields and the market’s rules on disclosure. It is very difficult to evaluate the price of shipping stock. Private equity is supplied by owners or partners. A number of other financing solutions are used such as mezzanine financing in various forms. This is financing between equity and senior debt. The German KG system is a mixed system of financing an investment. It is a limited liability partnership with a limited liability company as general partner and private investors as limited partners. The partnership purchases vessels that are chartered to shipping companies. Banks usually supply about 70% of the capital. Chartering out in various forms, time-charter or bare-boat is in essence leasing out a ship to an operator. The private investor can usually use the investment as a tax trade off in his own business as a dentist or other private entrepreneur. There are similar systems in other European countries. The institutions/ companies involved in ship financing include banks and other financial institutions, insurance companies, rating institutes, “dentists”, brokers, specialised lawyers and a specialist group on “damage limitation” when a shipping company runs into severe financial trouble. These latter experts are very few but contribute immensely to the restructuring of shipping companies in trouble by salvaging whatever values can be salvaged in a crisis situation. Putting together a ship financing contract requires the involvement of quite a number of specialists, especially if the loan is syndicated or the bond or public equity markets are used. Not only are lawyers and brokers involved but also insurance companies to cover the various risks of such a contract and financial rating institutes to cover the credit rating of the borrowing company. Brokers would usually provide the expertise for evaluating the ship in the case of financing the purchase of a second hand vessel. Brokers or special consultants are also used to advice banks on the possible profitability of a ship investment when the bank does not have its own expertise. Considering the importance of German shipping banks on the international market, there should be a substantial number of people working in this field. As with many other areas, it would be very difficult to estimate the number of people involved, partly because many of them also have other functions in their banks. The same goes for insurance companies, consultants and brokers. What can be established however, is that practically all the people involved have very special skills, which provide important input to the maritime cluster. Importance for the development of the competitive position in a 2018 perspective for; Shippers: LOW Shipping sector: MEDIUM/HIGH Port sector: LOW

Sig

nals

of f

utur

ech

ange

Sig

nals

of f

utur

ech

ange

197

5 Signals of future change

SWOT analyses are used for auditing organisations’ current positions so as to reach a better understanding of where the efforts should be directed in order to obtain a desired future position. SWOT stands for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Strengths and weaknesses are internal factors such as geographic location, (in)efficient processes or a quality reputation (good or bad). Opportunities and threats are external factors. Examples of external factors are fast transition to the use of electronic data interchange (EDI), introduction of new EU policies or changes in trade growth and trade pattern. Opportunities and threats are forward looking and should therefore best be accompanied by forecasts and scenarios. A scenario can be defined in several different ways, e.g. like the very short definition in the Merriam-Websters dictionary:

• A sequence of events especially when imagined • A synopsis of a possible course of events

In strategic management a much longer definition is used to describe a business scenario: “a description of future business circumstances, imagined on the basis of past and present trends, uncertainties, and assumptions”. This depicts the anticipated interactions of external agents (such as competitors, customers, suppliers, and economic and regulatory environment) and aims to highlight the associated opportunities and threats. This is the definition that will be employed in this report. The scope of the scenario generation is to provide different future perspectives on the entire maritime industry, with an emphasis on European maritime businesses. With a broad target for the scenarios to be generated, the point of departure for triggers for change should be found in a fairly wide range of topical areas. The main headlines for the signals of future change are described briefly in the following sub-chapters.

5.1 Technology

There are many aspects of technology that could be triggers for change. It is believed that three main areas of technology development could be of particular importance to the maritime industry.

5.1.1 New materials

Driver ID: 1 This could be of particular importance to the shipbuilding sector. Lightweight composites based on carbon are already in some use and are most likely to be further developed, but maybe not to a revolutionary degree. The area of nano-technology is to some extent ideal as trigger for scenario-generation, but only in a fairly long term perspective. The 2007 Nobel Prize in physics was given for contributions in the field of giant magnetoresistance which may contribute i.e. to faster and better computers, but the field is still in its infancy, and it will take years to see revolutionary commercial applications. Nevertheless, the prospects of being able to create materials on a molecular

This chapter of signals of future change is an inventory of factors that could serve as a basis for both the SWOT analyses and later on for the process of scenario analysis.

Sig

nals

of f

utur

ech

ange

198

level with tailor made characteristics is an alluring proposition. A possible dichotomy for scenario generation could be: Positive: New light, strong, anti-fouling materials for revolutionary new

hull constructions, the ships will become lighter in general. New construction materials for containers may evolve into a new generation of maritime containers.

Negative: Nothing new, ship production without significant innovations.

5.1.2 New sustainable sources of energy

Driver ID: 2 A lot of research is being put into the design of fuel cell “batteries” that can use renewable sources of fuel, like hydrogen. Applications are already developed for cars and buses, but the energy efficiency of fuel cells is still limited. The prospects of having a new source of energy based on renewable sources are in nature revolutionary for shipping. New technologies are normally thought of as intrinsically a positive phenomenon. A breakthrough technology on renewable energy will, however, have a mainly negative impact on shipping, as the industry to a very large degree is based on carrying large volumes of non-renewable energy sources across the main oceans. A positive scenario for shipping would thus be that non-renewable energy resources do not find themselves confronted with a viable renewable alternative. New sustainable and affordable sources of energy would ensure that the new generation ships apply the cleaner sources of energy (i.e. solar panels and the use of cold ironing in ports). Furthermore reduction of energy consumption is explored through for example the use of sky sails. Two extreme states-of-the-world regarding the consequences for shipping as such, would be: Positive: New, renewable energy sources are only applicable in small

scales, no viable applications to ship engines, yet, and only small utilisation for cars (amongst others) at the moment.

Negative: Breakthrough applications of fuel cell technology, dramatically reducing demand for oil and oil products.

The socio-economic consequences for society are positive.

5.1.3 Information and communication technology

Driver ID: 3 The production strategies of global corporations have revolutionized the structure of global port and container shipping industries as both have adopted information and communication technology (ICT) to better articulate the spatial movement of goods between the production and consumption region. The yield system of global container operators enables them to extend the utilization of their container fleet to the utmost and yet be flexible and responsive to the customer demands. Satellite container tracking and tracing, the use of RFID’s tags and other tracing methods will be further introduced in the near future. The improved coverage of global communication combined with further improvement in computer systems, leads to two obvious candidates for forces of change:

Sig

nals

of f

utur

ech

ange

Sig

nals

of f

utur

ech

ange

199

Positive: Global satellite communications leads to truly safe digital navigation and improved communication between ship and shore-based administration.

Negative: The potential of ICT technology is underutilized because of lack of global standards and adequate software solution development.

5.2 Human resources

It seems to be a general sentiment that the quality and availability of human resources will be the main limiting factor for economic development. For the shipping industry, the main concern lies with the future availability of those manning the ships.

5.2.1 Availability and quality of crew

Driver ID: 4 Estimations by BIMCO of the supply and demand for global seafarers indicate that the perceived shortage of qualified seafarers gradually is getting worse. This can be a main bottle-neck problem for shipping, and also a worry in the area of safety of navigation. The OECD countries remain an important source of officers, although Eastern Europe has become increasingly significant with a large increase in officer numbers. A significant overall surplus is estimated for seamen, although doubts exist as to how many that will be available for international service. Most of the European seafarers are reported to stop sailing after they reach the age of 30-40. This practice underpins the shortage of seafarers to what seems like an unnecessary extent. On the other hand, the new technological developments and economies of scale made it possible to have the same headcount for bigger size vessels (i.e. Emma Maersk has the same size of crew with its predecessors.) The centre of gravity of the labour market for seafarers has continued to shift from the traditional maritime countries of Western Europe, Japan and North America towards the Far East, Indian sub-continent and Eastern Europe. The developed nations, however, are expected to be the leading forces on the education side. Training of the seafarers is essential, as incorrect and incomplete trained staff is more likely to cause accidents. China has seen a large increase in maritime labour supply, although most of the additional workforce is currently used by the Chinese-owned fleet to meet expanding domestic requirements. The overall demand for both officers and seamen increases, due to the fact that the commercial fleet is growing, and that the average size of these vessels exceed that of the current fleet. International work hour regulations, the ISPS Code, and commercial demands have increased the workload on board, which means that there is little scope for manning reductions. This increasing “regulatory burden” underlines the necessity to simplify procedures and requirements for onboard administration. 25% of the officers from OECD countries were over 50 years old in 2005, and well over 50% were over 40. Relatively few officers from the Far East choose to remain at sea over the age of 50. The retirement patterns of East European officers are not clear.

Sig

nals

of f

utur

ech

ange

200

The BIMCO 2005 Update report suggests that the demand for qualified seafarers will continue to increase over the next decade. This demand will only be met if the increase in levels and training is maintained and if retirement rates are reduced. If the world fleet measured in number of vessels were to increase by 1% per year and the recruitment and retirement levels were to follow the same pattern of change as in 2000-2005, a deficit of 27,000 officers or 5.9% of the total would occur in 2015 according to BIMCO. Considering the strong growth in the ordering of new vessels after 2005, our forecast of the annual world fleet growth up to 2015 is 2.7% per year, which would give a very serious 80-85,000 officer deficit if the same number of officers per ship is assumed. The two main extremes are: Positive: Huge effort of the industry to train and develop new manning

resources. Negative: Lack of qualified crew, increasing accidents, inefficient

transportation solutions.

5.3 Globalisation

The globalisation of the world economy will have effects on many levels. In addition to effects on the macro-economic level, globalisation will have cultural and socio-economic effects as well as implications for the organization of businesses and human resource requirements. In a scenario generation setting, there is little uncertainty regarding many of these effects. The main uncertainty is related to the degree of the effects. Two areas of such uncertainty have been chosen for the creation of scenarios:

5.3.1 Trade barriers

Driver ID: 5 Negotiations about the Doha Round seem to have stalled at the moment and the democrat candidate in the US expresses strange thoughts about free trade – however he is still not in the office. Positive: Breakthrough WTO initiatives basically removing all trade

barriers. Negative: Bilateral trade disputes, elements of protectionism. Return to

protectionist measures basically based on non-tariff barriers to trade “Buy locally” or nationalistic campaigns supported by different governments of OECD countries.

5.3.2 The role of multinationals, location of economic activity

Driver ID: 6 Multinationals reshape the economic and social structure of territories by means of positioning their production plants. The preferred regions of the past are subject to change. Current trends show that outsourcing to relatively developed and cheaper Far East seems to slowdown, although hopping around (also in East Europe) becomes the new rule. After the collapse of the iron curtain, there were preliminary expectations regarding Eastern Europe to turn into the new Far East, however it has welcomed less headquarters compared to Asia. Eastern Europe lacks important elements that Far East was endowed with, including colonial

Sig

nals

of f

utur

ech

ange

Sig

nals

of f

utur

ech

ange

201

legacy, and therefore language skills at the required level to do global business based on local low-cost structures. Positive: Many new production facilities in developing countries with

trade creation effects, sourcing globally, often far from assembly point, which will be advantageous for the container shipping industry.

Negative: The multinational companies are not expected to serve as motors for economic development.

5.4 Trust and security

Since the end of the cold war and the collapse of the communist systems, the prospects for a peaceful world seemed within reach. The last 15-20 years have, however, given us a world of regional troubles and growth of terrorism that have widespread effects in terms of peoples perceptions of safety and security. There are great uncertainties as to how this will develop in the future, and terrorism and regional conflicts seem, therefore, unavoidable in a scenario generation setting.

5.4.1 Terrorism

Driver ID: 7 It is important to distinguish between two different concepts: piracy and terrorism. Piracy is a robbery committed at sea (or sometimes on the shore), while a terrorist act can happen anywhere and often has political aspirations. The coast of Eastern Africa is quite known for the numerous piracy acts that have taken place, even sometimes 60 miles away from the shore. Most of these countries lack proper maritime coastguard systems making the piracy an easy act. Positive: Shipping not a target for direct attacks. Negative: Direct attacks on passenger ships with devastating effects on

cruise and passenger transportation, greatly increased security measures implemented for all shipping activities. Cargo ships used as a terrorist tool causing increased security measures.

5.4.2 Regional conflicts

Driver ID: 8 China and Taiwan and the North versus South Korea conflicts, next to countries in the Middle East seems to be the most important areas where conflicts may add to global unrest. So far the developments seem to be heading into a more peaceful direction. Positive: Few and unimportant conflicts from a shipping point of view.

Huge disruptions in the Middle East force the closure of the Suez Canal and thereby increasing the ton-mile demand.

Negative: Middle East conflicts, huge disruptions to trade with that region.

5.5 Environment

There is no doubt that environmental concerns are growing globally, and this will be a main area of influence in the decades to come. This problem area has basically two dimensions. On the one hand the facts and the perception of people of these facts as to the seriousness of the challenges facing mankind and on the other hand what kind of policies and regulations that may be

Sig

nals

of f

utur

ech

ange

202

implemented to cope with the problem. In this scenario generation setting the latter problem is addressed under the “regulations” heading below.

5.5.1 Global warming

Driver ID: 9 There is a similar situation for shipping in this context as for new energy technologies: the recognition that we have a serious global warming problem will lead to initiatives that inevitably will reduce the demand for shipping transportation. So what could be considered as essentially a positive thing for the world as a whole, will mainly be a negative thing for shipping. Higher sea levels caused by global warming will require the design and build of higher water quays in many parts of the world. Positive: Ongoing discussions on the seriousness of the problem, little

effect on policies and regulation. Negative: Politically recognized as THE major global problem with strong

political effects. This would lead to the introduction of strong measures to reduce the harmful effects of fossil fuels with marked negative effects on the conditions for shipping, particularly deep sea.

5.5.2 Consumers’ perceptions of sustainability

Driver ID: 10 This could well be one of the more powerful forces of change in the world economy in the coming decades. The same paradox exists here: what may seem positive for the world as a whole, will be a negative scenario for shipping. Positive: Consumers happy with just minor good stories of environmental

improvements. Until now the predominant drive for customers’ decision has been the price rather than the concerns on sustainability.

Negative: Environmental concerns a superior motive for purchasing behaviour, causing fundamental changes in development of product and services.

5.6 Regulations

Changes in regulation regimes will primarily be closely connected to the area of environmental concerns. There seems to be little uncertainty regarding whether we will see new regulations, but quite high uncertainties as to the degree and seriousness of new regulations. An important fact is that port development has faced serious delays due to environmental regulations, which relates to the imbalance of port capacity in several European ports today. It is in this context important to ensure that the burden is not increased on masters and others onboard the ships as mentioned previously in chapter 5.2.1.

5.6.1 Greenhouse gas emissions regulations

Driver ID: 11 Positive: Shipping only mildly affected by global regulation initiatives. Negative: All use of fossil fuels subject to heavy, direct and global taxation

schemes.

Sig

nals

of f

utur

ech

ange

Sig

nals

of f

utur

ech

ange

203

5.6.2 Pollution & other emissions regulations

Driver ID: 12 Positive: IMO and the industry proactively introducing operational

improvements, reducing the need for new regulations. Negative: Strict regulations as to environmentally damaging emissions,

with high cost increases and reduced direct transport efficiency.

5.6.3 Transport mode taxation

Driver ID: 13 Politicians have for a long time debated the issue of how to treat the various transport modes. There seems to be general acceptance of the fact that road transportation have effects that the sector is not paying for, like congestion and transport bottleneck problems, and the sector is not paying for infrastructure investments in roads and the land use and possible negative external effects on the environment. This is a very interesting issue in relation to scenarios for shipping. Positive: New taxation schemes, reflecting the total social costs of

transportation, making road, rail and air transport much more expensive to use.

Negative: Nothing new that changes the relative user prices of transportation modes.

5.6.4 Container Shipping Conferences

Driver ID: 14 “As the reliability of services will be maintained but transport costs will come down, the abolition of the Liner Conference system will further enhance European Union (EU) exports”, argued the European Commission (EC) in announcing, late 2006, the final repeal of antitrust exemption of Liner Shipping Conferences (Regulation 4056/86) in the trades from and to Europe. From 18 October 2008 that date onwards, carriers will no longer be allowed to jointly set minimum rates -the application for long being superseded by daily practices- and/or regulate capacity. Also discussing rate levels and then recommending, instead of setting them (including arrays of surcharges and additional charges), as it has become more and more the fashion since containers took over, will then be unlawful. On July 1, 2008 the EC DG Competition released the “Guidelines on the application of Article 81 of the EC Treaty to maritime transport services”27 that had been adopted by the European Commission following public consultations. As from October 2008, liner companies will have to assess themselves whether their business practices comply with the competition rules. Unsurprisingly, the decisions of the EC induced debate in the US as well. In late 2006 already, the federal Antitrust Modernization Commission (AMC) started hearing experts from the carrier and stevedoring industry, involving government parties and legal experts as well. It was concluded that ocean shipping in general is a good example of an industry operating more efficiently with competition than without, but only a minority of its (twelve) members suggested that antitrust immunity for Liner Shipping Conferences

27 http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/legislation/maritime/

Sig

nals

of f

utur

ech

ange

204

and Discussion Agreements, as provided by the 1998 Ocean Shipping Reform Act should be repealed. Insider Albert Pierce, until 2006 the executive director of the eastbound Transpacific Stabilization Agreement (TSA) and its westbound equivalent (WTSA) predicted that the US will forbid such liner bodies within three years. Elsewhere anti-trust is on the agenda as well: • A new anti-trust law, without any exemption for liner shipping, is to be

introduced in China in August 2008. Instructions for the registration and filing of shipping bodies in accordance with Chinese maritime regulations have already been tightened in 2006, when also new all-encompassing port regulations for new projects were introduced

• The Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport is still to decide on the country’s Fair Trade Commission’s recommendation to withdraw exemption from the antimonopoly act for Liner Shipping Conferences

• The exemption from section 34 of the Singapore's Competition Act for liner shipping conferences and the like is a 5-year fact since 1 January 2006

• India still considers the introduction of an exemption from antitrust for shipping conferences and groupings along the lines of the new Singapore regulation; however recently a regulation to put maximum rates on carriers was proposed

• Australia’s federal government decided Part X of the Trade Practices Act (antitrust exemption for container lines/groupings) to be retained effective August 2006

The view of Albert Pierce (referred to above) that worldwide antitrust immunity for the liner shipping industry as a whole will be lifted before 2012 may well be correct. Positive: Removal of antitrust immunity regulations increases

transparency and competition – positive for shippers. Negative: Removal of antitrust immunity regulations increases

transparency and competition – initially negative for some ship operators.

5.7 Safety

Driver ID: 15 Safety has very often a direct link to the human element. A general low level of education and early promotion due to the lack of skilled seafarers may result in an increased risk of accidents. This has a direct link to the driver on the availability of crew. The ISPS and the scanning of containers is first and foremost a security issue, but there are links to safety as well. The ISPS code system might be strengthened in case a new threat appears. Full scanning of each and every box is not efficient. A new system might be developed to separate and scan the containers according to the country of origin, enabling intra European traffic not to be subject of scanning whilst external traffic may subject to (partly) scanning. Positive: New regulations made in cooperative efforts with the shipping

industry, with limited cost driving effects. Identifications of port of origin can structure container operations and customs procedures including partly scanning more efficiently. Relieves

Sig

nals

of f

utur

ech

ange

Sig

nals

of f

utur

ech

ange

205

for Europe might free up some personnel and, on the margin, reduce the lack of seafarers.

Negative: New, strict regulations with high direct and indirect costs (training, etc) for shipping companies. Full scanning of all containers will not be feasible in practice.

5.8 Demographics and poverty

For shipping anything that may disrupt economic growth will be important variables in a scenario setting. It is believed that the ageing of populations, where a shrinking work force may have problems creating enough value added to finance a growing non-working old population and the problem of economic inequality that may reach a point where desperation leads to massive movements of people are the two areas that could be covered in the generation of future scenarios.

5.8.1 Ageing populations

Driver ID: 16 Ageing is not only a drop in the national workforce resources of a country, but also causing other severe consequences such as different consumption patterns. Positive: New pension schemes with only limited negative effects on

economic growth. Target group for primarily cruises increases. Negative: The burden of an ageing population leads to severe negative

effects on economic growth, particularly in Europe and Japan.

5.8.2 Migration of large populations

Driver ID: 17 Positive: Migration problems kept under control. Negative: Serious exodus of people from poor and mismanaged, less

developed countries to Europe. Established countries might face flows of undocumented immigrants.

5.9 Economic power and economic growth

There seems to be little uncertainty as to the continued growth of Asian economies, but economic growth is closely related to technology transfer to the new, dominating economies as well as the political implications of getting new economic superpowers that may play widely different political roles depending on the development. This is an important potential trigger point for quite fundamental changes.

5.9.1 Transition of economic power from US/EU to Asia

Driver ID: 18 Asia in total is a rising economic power with China as dominant player. Increasing inter-Asia trade and overall increase in consuming goods sustain the positive expectations from the region as the successor economic power. Positive: Transition of economic and political power as well as technology

secure economic growth in Asia. Negative: The decline of USA as a global economic power is not met by

new leadership. Conflicts between China and other Asian

Sig

nals

of f

utur

ech

ange

206

economies lead to political unrest and dramatic reductions in economic growth.

5.9.2 Development in Russia

Driver ID: 19 Russia is important to the EU as a trading partner. Russia is a crucial supplier of energy products, primarily crude oil and gas. Russia is also an important importer of consumer products with a potential of growing much in importance. Politics and bureaucracy stand in the way of a rapid development, but this could change fairly swiftly with immediate impact on trade, transport, port throughputs and logistic centres. Positive: Further liberalisation of the Russian economy and increasingly

opening of the Russian market to EU companies. Negative: Increasing protectionism and obscurantism, growing lack of

transparency in the Russian economy.

5.10 Possible classification and clustering of drivers of change

Some of the 19 drivers are more likely to happen simultaneously with other drivers, so there could be some natural logic to clustering some of the scenario variables.

TechnologyID 1: New materialsID 2: New sustainable

sources of energyID 3. ICT

Human resourcesID 4: Availability and

quality of crew

EnvironmentID 9: Global warmingID 10: Consumers’

perceptions of sustainability

RegulationsID11: Greenhouse gas

emissionsID12: Pollution , emissionsID 13: Transport mode

taxationID 14: Container shipping

conferences

GlobalisationID 5: Trade barriersID 6: The role of

multinationals, location of economic activity

Trust and securityID 7: TerrorismID 8: Regional conflicts

SafetyID 15: Safety

Demographics and poverty

ID 16: Ageing populations

ID 17: Migration of large populations

Economic power & growth

ID 18: Transition of economic power from US/EU to Asia

ID 19: Development in Russia

The clustering of variables could be a way of thematically organizing scenarios. The table below tries to list some fairly obvious scenario possibilities. There are obvious possible linkages among these four topical areas, and the combination possibilities are many, in fact only the imagination will set limits to the possibilities. The extremes would of course be to set all factors to Positive and create a true shipping bonanza scenario, or use all the Negative outcomes to create a truly doomsday scenario for shipping.

Sig

nals

of f

utur

ech

ange

Sig

nals

of f

utur

ech

ange

207

Type Basic forces of scenarios

Primary drivers

Resulting drivers

Possibly associated drivers

A Environmental concerns

9, 10 1, 2, 11, 12, 13

B Globalisation 5, 6 3, 18 16, 8, 7 C Political

processes 8, 18, 19 17, 15, 7, 5 6, 8

D Shipping policy 4, 13,15 12, 14 3 Another approach would be to try to classify the drivers along two dimensions: The degree to which the outcomes of the drivers are uncertain and the degree of impact the driver is likely to have on shipping. A subjective attempt of placing the drivers in such a two-dimensional context is illustrated in the figure below. The drivers best suited for scenario generation will normally be the ones associated with high scores along both dimensions. This indicates that the following drivers seem best suited for the generation of scenarios:

LOW

D

egre

eof im

pac

tH

IGH


LOW

D

egre

eof im

pac

tH

IGH


4

6 10

12

16

18

19

15

14

8

9 3

5

11

2

13

1 17

7

Figure 153: Subjective classification & clustering of drivers of change

1. New materials

2. New sustainable sources of energy

3. Information and communication technology

4. Availability and quality of crew

5. Trade barriers

6. The role of multinationals, location of economic activity

7. Terrorism

8. Regional conflicts

9. Global warming

10. Consumers’ perceptions of sustainability

Sig

nals

of f

utur

ech

ange

208

11. Greenhouse gas emissions regulations

12. Pollution & other emissions regulations

13. Transport mode taxation

14. Container Shipping Conferences

15. Safety

16. Ageing populations

17. Migration of large populations

18. Transition of economic power from US/EU to Asia

19. Development in Russia

SWO

T an

alys

is

209

6 SWOT

SUMMARY • Over supply in many shipping segments; good news

for shippers, bad news for ship operators.

• No port capacity problems for bulk handling.

• Port capacity constraints for container handling.

The position of the European maritime sector is basically strong. Among the common strengths you will find that the supply of high quality tonnage is ample over the years to come. Other strengths worth highlighting are the high ship operational competence, sufficient capacity for the handling of most bulk cargoes and a high degree of involvement in international fora from national maritime administrations. Weaknesses common to the entire sector are in the forms of difficulties in communicating the advantages of a career at sea and later on onshore leading to recruitment difficulties for many of the maritime sectors, capacity shortages in several major container ports, and upholding the competitiveness of national registers. There are several opportunities, whereof some of the more important common ones are the expected continued growth of cargo volumes and development of new products and transport networks in the basic forecasts. To this should be added the increased cooperation between national maritime administrations whose joint efforts may strengthen the competitiveness of national ship registers. Threats to be taken seriously are the impacts on Europe in changes in Russian policies on imports and exports of various products, the foreseen lack of skilled seamen, and a growing Far Eastern share of control over the world fleet.

6.1 Port, logistic systems ie the EU industry and society

One of the main tasks of this project is to analyse if the EU ports and infrastructure can cope with the development that is expected up until 2018, and if not, suggest what the EU can do about it. Since the conditions differ widely on the infrastructural side both among regions and among the cargo types, we have to make the SWOT analysis somewhat divided. We focus on the large three commodity groups, liquid, dry and containerised cargo. The perspective is from an industry/society point of view and not a competition view from or in between the ports themselves. The analysis are for large regions and seen aggregated overall and thus the strengths,

The SWOT analyses in this chapter are brief ”bullet format” inventories of factors that are foreseen to be relevant for the development of;

• Port, logistic systems ie the EU industry and society, • A European ship operator of average size, • The European member states’ Maritime Administrations.

The ones found to be more relevant of these factors will be further elaborated in chapter 8 Strategic recommendations.

SWO

T an

alys

is

210

weaknesses, opportunities and threats could differ much for individual member state ports. The focus in this report is on the segments presented below. For the other actors in the maritime cluster, SWOT analyses will not be carried out.

6.1.1 Liquid cargo

Strengths Weaknesses There is a good balance between port facilities and demand outlook, but for LNG.

Ship capacity will be plenty.

Too few regasification facilities in certain areas (eg UK, Italy and Spain), compared to expected supply of LNG.

Opportunities Threats Potential volumes of renewable liquid fuels and/or volumes from deep sea offshore fields.

Too high dependence of deliveries of liquids from Russia.

Particularly shipment in ice conditions is pressured by lack of skilled seamen.

6.1.2 Dry cargo

Strengths Weaknesses There is a good balance between port facilities and demand outlook.

Ship capacity will be plenty.

There could be regional capacity shortages in export facilities in the Eastern Baltic.

Opportunities Threats There exists many opportunities if more dry bulk will be delivered from Russia.

Ukraine and black sea countries to export more grains. Demand for raw materials to use as bio-fuels increases the shipping traffic.

Russia wants to use solely their own ports for bulk handling – thus taking away business from the ports in Eastern EU.

6.1.3 Container

All regions Strengths Weaknesses There will be enough ship capacity and networks will continue to develop favourably

Space demanding

Opportunities Threats New systems of feedering from the large mega carriers

Some ports may be discarded by the global operators

SWO

T an

alys

is

211

East Mediterranean region Strengths Weaknesses Spacious port areas in several ports.

Investment needs to increase capacity and efficiency. Different institutional set-ups in eastern ports.

Opportunities Threats Transhipment of Russian cargo. Increased traffic with Turkey and Black Sea countries. Increased traffic with North African Coast. Developments of the Balkan countries. Mid Europe supply through Adriatic ports instead of traditional North European ports.

Increased protectionism from Russia and thus a wish to use own ports even more. Limited capacity of the Bosphorus strait. Unrest and instability of Levant countries like Israel and Lebanon.

West Mediterranean and the Atlantic ark Strengths Weaknesses Several ports highly efficient. Ample transhipment capacity.

Unstable labour relations in ports. Italian port capacity constraints.

Opportunities Threats Increased intra-European traffic through motorways of the sea. New port capacity in north African countries (ie. Tangier), provides more capacity for shippers. Opportunity for involved port operators. New traffic trades with North Africa Coast.

New port capacity in north African countries (ie. Tangier), threat to some port operators. Direct calls to north African countries will reduce today’s transhipment in European ports.

North Sea region Strengths Weaknesses Several ports highly efficient. Capacity shortages in ports

mounting despite investments.

Unstable labour relations in ports.

Hinterland connections under stress due to growing seaports.

Opportunities Threats Increased transhipment of Russian cargo.

Investments facing environmental challenges.

Russian cargo transhipped in the Mediterranean or in the Baltic sea in the future

Baltic sea region Strengths Weaknesses Ample transhipment capacity. Unstable labour relations in

ports.

Opportunities Threats Transhipment of Russian cargo.

Capacity shortages in German ports. Areas are to small and new investments faces large environmental challenges.

SWO

T an

alys

is

212

6.2 The European ship operators

The SWOT analysis must be done for each and every ship segment given the different markets that the operators act upon. However, many things could be applicable in several sectors. The perspective is the one of an averaged sized EU member state company (ship owner or operator).

6.2.1 General

Strengths Weaknesses Generally high competence in all operational aspects

Life at sea less attractive today compared with shore side alternatives.

Opportunities Threats A cyclical market were timing in the purchase and sale price of the ship as an asset are crucial.

An actual shortage of officers in the world in the future.

The cyclical market when investing/disinvesting

6.2.2 Oil tanker

The companies of EU27 control 36% of the world dwt. Strengths Weaknesses Modern and more efficient fleet than most non-EU operators.

Over supply risk; 30% growth over the next five years.

Opportunities Threats Sustainable oil exports from Iraq.

New trade lanes for ice strengthened tonnage.

Refinery capacity imbalances lead to cross trade.

Severely increased tensions in the Middle East.

Higher degree of financing from external share owners, often on the stock exchange, a drawback when markets turn south.

Competitive alternative source of energy.

The China factor:

- Import on their own ships.

- Recession and thus less demand.

6.2.3 Chemical tankers

The companies of EU27 control 46% of the world dwt. Non-EU Europe 14%. Strengths Weaknesses Integrated industry relations.

Over supply risk; 68% growth the next five years – equals 11% p.a. in average.

Opportunities Threats Further increased demand from the Far East.

Large scale investments by Chinese interests.

SWO

T an

alys

is

213

6.2.4 LPG tankers

The companies of EU27 control 27% of the world cubic metres. Strengths Weaknesses Very integrated with the production industry in parts of the market.

New port developments for this sector.

Over supply risk; 38% growth the next five years.

Opportunities Threats Sustained high crude oil prices increase competitiveness of LPG. Increased LNG production increases supply of LPG.

Sharp drop in crude oil prices.


6.2.5 LNG tankers

The companies of EU27 control 22% of the world cubic metres. Strengths Weaknesses High degree of integration with the industry.

New port developments for this sector.

Over supply risk in medium term; 100% growth the next five years.

Shortage of regasification facilities, where needed.

Opportunities Threats Positive medium to long term demand outlook. Highly competitive energy source from an environ-mental point of view.


6.2.6 Bulk carriers

The companies of EU27 control 33% of the world dwt. Strengths Weaknesses Well functioning commercial systems and long tradition.

High over supply risk; 60% growth the next five years – equals 10% p.a. in average.

Higher degree of financing from external share owners, often on the stock exchange, is a drawback when markets turn south.

Opportunities Threats Russian cargo base that should be exported from there, especially on within Europe on shorter distances.

The China factor:

- Import on their own ships.

- Recession and thus less demand.

Competitive alternative source of energy. More iron ore in “Brammen” reducing the iron ore trades.

SWO

T an

alys

is

214

6.2.7 General cargo ships

The companies of EU27 control 24% of the world dwt. Non-EU Europe 18%. Strengths Weaknesses Flexibility and often capability to handle containers.

No imminent over supply risk.

Fragmented industry

Opportunities Threats Growing network of container operations to smaller ports without container cranes.

Increased volumes open up for either bulk carriers or container feeders.

6.2.8 Container carriers

The companies of EU27 control 36% of the world teu. Non-EU Europe 12%. Strengths Weaknesses Vast and growing network.

Exploration of economies of scale keeps unit costs down.

No over supply risk in the feeder segments.

High over supply risk in the larger segments; 275% growth the next five years – equals 30% p.a. in average.

High bunker fuel consumption.

Opportunities Threats Successful M&A of owners/operators.

Containerisation of even more cargo groups – for instance cars.

The China factor:

- Export on their own ships, current control is 23% and growing.

- Forceful appreciation of the Renminbi

Failing consolidation process

6.2.9 Vehicle carriers (roro)

The companies of EU27 control 18% of the world car equivalent units. Japan 50%. Strengths Weaknesses Close industry relations The clients (Car manufacturers)

are too strong, monopsony power.

The Japanese cars sell well and that strengthens the Japanese operators

Opportunities Threats Increasing purchasing power in the Emerging Market Economies.

Over supply on the container market increases interest in shipping cars in containers.

SWO

T an

alys

is

215

6.2.10 Roro .

The companies of EU27 control 50% of the world lane metre. Strengths Weaknesses Favourable sea-land interface

No imminent over supply.

Expensive to build. Limited cargo carrying capacity due to the carriage of other transport modes.

A diminishing market in between the continents.

Environmental performance per cargo ton carried.

Opportunities Threats Increased demand for short sea shipping to reduce congestion.

High bunker fuel consumption as many of the ships run at fairly high speeds.

6.2.11 Ferry .

The companies of EU27 control 35% of the world fleet measured in passenger capacity. Strengths Weaknesses High flexibility.

Environmental performance when carrying cargo.

For ropax vessels the complexity of demand in between passenger and cargo is substantial.

The many good but no superior available technologies makes the business complex.

Opportunities Threats Growing demand for short distance passenger transport, with or without a car.

Increased demand for short sea shipping to reduce congestion.

High bunker fuel consumption.

Changed regulations for technical design.

6.2.12 Cruise .

The companies of EU27 control 11% of the world lower berths. North America 64%. Strengths Weaknesses Supply of ships creates its own demand.

Few European operators and high entry barriers.

Opportunities Threats European cruise market still not exploited.

Possibility for slow steaming due to short distances between attractions.

Terrorism affecting both willingness to cruise and to travel to port of departure.

Contagious or infectious diseases.

SWO

T an

alys

is

216

6.2.13 Offshore vessels

The companies of EU27 control 14% of the number of offshore vessels in the world. Non-EU Europe 8%. Strengths Weaknesses Close relationships in between the energy companies and the maritime cluster.

Small fleet controlled from EU.

Opportunities Threats Deep sea exploration. Reopening of closed offshore wells.

Extremely high crude oil prices that seem to continue to rise.

Rapidly falling crude oil prices.


6.2.14 Service

The companies of EU27 control 20% of the number of service vessels in the world. Non-EU Europe 8%. Strengths Weaknesses EU fleet relatively modern.

Low degree of vessel utilisation.

Opportunities Threats M&A of owners/operators.

Growing fleet and vessel sizes.

Increased environmental concern.

Increased safety demands.

Failing consolidation processes.

6.3 The European member states’ Maritime Administrations

Strengths Weaknesses Active in international fora.

Lack of cooperation between maritime administrations.

National registers not attractive enough.

Opportunities Threats Increased cooperation and harmonisation could enhance the attractiveness of EU registers.

Establishment of new ship registers. Shift of fleet control to the Far East.

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

217

7 Year 2018 scenarios

The scenarios is this chapter are to a large extent built on the extensive, continuous scenario work done by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA). The geo-political, macro-economic and energy market parts of their scenarios form the foundation for the shipping related parts of the scenarios produced for this report. The critical questions raised in the formulation of the scenarios are;

How is the rise of Asia altering the global balance of power? What does it mean for geopolitics and the energy industry? What will happen to the competitiveness of European industries? What is the effect on containerized cargo? How high can oil prices rise? What would it take to drive average annual oil prices above $120 per barrel (ref graph to the left of spot vs avg annual price)? How would the world react? Where will Europe source its supply of energy? What will be the impact for the transports of energy products and further to the oil, gas and coal carrier segments?

How would a world faced with a sustained slowdown in global economic growth and integration affect energy demand and long-term investment in the energy industry? How will such a slow down in activity match the anticipated growth in the supply of tonnage?

7.1 Scenario storylines

In the following, three scenario storylines are presented, namely Asian Phoenix, Break Point and Global Fissures.

??

Global Economy

??

??

Global Economy

xx

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

Source: EIA

Cru

de o

il a

vera

ge a

nn

ual

pri

ce,

$/

bb

l

Brent Spot Brent Spot average annual

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

218

7.1.1 Asian Phoenix

The centre of global economic and political gravity shifts to Asia. Strong growth in China and India puts them on a path to eventually challenge the United States for global economic pre-eminence. Piecemeal international efforts to manage carbon emissions. • Asia reclaims its place as the source of a majority of the world’s

economic output and is the most dynamic economic region. • Change in the global balance of power and growing rivalry among

major powers is the prime focus of international affairs. • International trade continues to expand, helping to fuel strong

economic growth. • China and India gain a larger role in management of global institutions. • Lack of shared vision among major powers on global issues is a

constant challenge for international peace and security, as well as coordination of policies to address climate change.

7.1.2 Break point

Oil supply difficulties limit production growth. Average annual oil prices surpass $120 per barrel (nominal). Fear of peak oil encourages moves to enhance energy efficiency and accelerate growth of alternative fuels. Oil loses its monopoly on transportation. Strong, coordinated international focus on limiting CO2 emissions drives carbon prices and research and investment in clean energy. • Slow growth in production capacity, combined with major supply

disruptions, leads to severe supply constraints that drive average annual oil and gas prices to sustained levels well above $100 per barrel and $9 per MMBtu in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars.

• A convergence of international political, social, and economic interests related to climate change sparks significant global cooperation and strong policy efforts to limit growth in carbon emissions and apply an economic cost to CO2.

• Global cooperation on energy grows among large consuming nations. • A global economic slowdown driven by high energy prices, combined

with strengthening carbon policies, encourages development of alternative energy technologies.

• Oil loses its monopoly in transportation fuels as non-traditional liquids such as biofuels capture growing market share.

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

219

7.1.3 Global Fissures

Widespread political backlash against free trade and globalization, combined with global trade and political disputes and growing security concerns over ongoing terrorist threats results in lower economic growth and weaker energy demand. Little to no effort to limit carbon emissions. • A severe economic slowdown cascades from the United States to Europe

and China. • Growing security fears over terrorism and nuclear proliferation feed

growing isolationism and protectionism, resulting in a global backlash against globalization and cooperation on trade, economics, and the environment.

• There is a sustained economic slowdown that contributes to weaker global primary energy demand and lower energy prices.

• Public concerns over global environmental issues such as climate change take second stage to efforts to protect and strengthen national economies.

• Weak environmental concerns and low energy prices inhibit public and private investment and support for alternative energy technologies.

7.2 Scenarios & key elements

There are a number of key elements that are crucial to the development of the general business environment, economic growth, trade and transport. These elements are in the following put into context of the three different scenarios.

7.2.1 Global macro‐economics

Asian Phoenix

• A cyclical economic slowdown in the US occurs early in the scenario, but there is no significant impact on other regional markets and overall global growth patterns continue.

• Global fiscal imbalances remain but diminish gradually.

Break Point

• A cyclical economic slowdown in the US is exacerbated by high energy prices, leading to a deep US recession and volatile global growth.

• Global fiscal imbalances adjust but strong cooperation among global financial institutions and the owners of global reserves help to prevent a significant global slowdown.

Global Fissures

• A cyclical economic slowdown in the US, accompanied by rapid, uncoordinated adjustments of global fiscal imbalances results in a deep recession in the US.

• Significant terrorist attacks cause severe market reactions leading to an extended global slowdown – and economic challenges in Asia.

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

220

Table 71: Scenario GDP growth figures

Average: 4.6%High: 10.3%Low: 2.0%



Chinese GDP Growth




European GDP Growth

Average: 1.8%High: 2.6%Low: (1.1%)



North American GDP Growth

(1.7%)(1.0%)(0.2%)Variance with Historical Trend

4.5%Historical Average Annual GDP Growth (2000–07)

Average: 2.8%High: 4.7% (2008)

Low: 2.3%

Average: 3.5%High: 4.7% (2008)

Low: 2.8%

Average: 4.3%High: 4.7% (2008)

Low: 4.0%

Average Annual GDP Growth

Global FissuresBreak PointAsian Phoenix




Chinese GDP Growth




European GDP Growth




North American GDP Growth

(1.7%)(1.0%)(0.2%)Variance with Historical Trend

4.5%Historical Average Annual GDP Growth (2000–07)

Average: 2.8%High: 4.7% (2008)

Low: 2.3%

Average: 3.5%High: 4.7% (2008)

Low: 2.8%

Average: 4.3%High: 4.7% (2008)

Low: 4.0%

Average Annual GDP Growth

Global FissuresBreak PointAsian Phoenix

7.2.2 Global trade

Asian Phoenix

• Continued expansion of global trade to greater number of emerging market countries—driven by bilateral deals led by Asian countries.

• Rapid growth in Asian economic integration. • Protectionist rhetoric in the US and Europe versus Asian trade with

some trade barriers remaining.

Break Point

• Global trade and economic institutions work well to aid in economic recovery.

• WTO grows and new trade multilateral agreements are forged—particularly regarding agricultural trade and biofuels.

Global Fissures

• Rising protectionism and trade barriers. • WTO and other international institutions weakened. • Security concerns become severe constraints on international trade and

transportation.

7.2.3 States versus markets

Asian Phoenix

• Hybrid global marketplace with selective free market principles being pursued for national advantage.

• Government's role in controlling the commanding heights—the strategic sectors—of national economies to promote national interests continues to resonate in Asia and elsewhere around the world.

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

221

Break Point

• Progress in economic reforms across the world (privatization, finance/banking, capital markets, commercial regulations, intellectual property, etc.).

• Gradual reduction of regulatory constraints, with greater global coordination and cooperation.

Global Fissures

• Backlash to globalization trends. • Free market principles in decline. • Growth in regulation and government control over commerce. • China and India do not become part of expanded G8, IMF.

7.2.4 Oil .

Asian Phoenix

• Strong demand growth is generally balanced by incremental growth in fundamental supplies that is made possible in large part by an increase in nontraditional liquid supplies such as biofuels, Fischer-Tropsch liquids (gas to liquids GTL and coal to liquids CTL).

• This balance remains relatively tight throughout the scenario period, keeping inflation-adjusted real prices fairly flat, but at a generally high level.

Break Point

• A slow pace of growth in liquids supply causes the world oil market to undergo severe stress.

• The upstream oil supply environment is characterized by project delays, high costs, labour and equipment shortages, and a series of production disruptions in important oil-producing countries stemming from a mix of domestic unrest and geopolitical drivers.

• The expansion of supply is hampered by a scarcity of investment as many countries with large oil endowments feel less pressure to expand production as revenues pour into their rainy day oil funds.

• Markets, combined with government policies driven by a growing sense of urgency over energy security climate change respond by creating strong incentives to expand non-traditional liquids production capacity and other alternative energy technologies that begin a long-term displacement of oil as the world’s primary transportation fuel.

Global Fissures

• The impact of the global economic downturn has a lasting effect on dampening world oil demand.

• Prices are pushed downward by a surplus of supply over weakening demand growth, falling production costs and a surge in liquid production capacity.

• Much of the supply growth is fuelled by both non-OPEC and OPEC expansion projects launched before the global slowdown but which come on-stream as prices weaken.

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

222

• Over time, weak demand and softening prices lead to reduced upstream spending which helps to rebalance supply with demand.

• Real prices stabilize by about 2015, but continue to fall gradually as modest demand growth from a very slowly recovering global economy keeps supply relatively plentiful for the remainder of the scenario period.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

2006US

Dollarsper

Barrel

Average Real Crude Oil Prices1970–2007: $361980–2007: $39

2008–15Asian Phoenix: $80Break Point: $110

Global Fissures: $60

History GlobalFissures

AsianPhoenix

Break Point

1980–2007 Average

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

2006US

Dollarsper

Barrel







History GlobalFissures

AsianPhoenix

Break Point

1980–2007 Average

Figure 154: Real average annual light, sweet crude oil prices in the three scenarios

7.2.5 Gas .

Asian Phoenix

• Demand for natural gas grows strongly in Asian Phoenix, with Asian consumption rising to surpass all other regions of the world by 2030.

• Global gas production is sufficient to support this growth in demand throughout the scenario time frame. As a result, real gas prices remain relatively stable over the scenario period.

• International gas trade grows. North America, East and South Asia, and particularly Europe grow as net import regions. Major pipelines are built between Eurasia and East Asia and between the Middle East and Asia.

• The build-out in liquefaction capacity continues, helping to raise LNG’s share of total gas supply.

Break Point

• Geopolitical unrest in the Middle East and West Africa, combined with rising costs and increasingly difficult upstream access, constrains global gas supplies during the first half of the scenario.

• Adding to supply constraints is rapidly growing gas demand in producing countries – particularly in the Middle East.

• A long period of high natural gas prices encourages investment in exploration and production and also drives technological advancements that allow economical gas production from a broader range of gas reserves around the world–ultimately leading to a moderation of prices in the latter half of the scenario.

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

223

• A strong build of cross-border gas pipelines takes place late in the scenario period, driven by a combination of factors, including security-of-supply concerns, significant improvements in the development of deep ocean gas pipeline technology, and the growing political importance of bilateral energy deals.

Global Fissures

• Weak global economic growth and flat electric power demand slow natural gas consumption across most of the world, altering its growth trajectory.

• Upstream costs fall as utilization rates in the upstream services industries dwindle and demand for steel and other materials decline.

• Plentiful supply and falling demand put steep downward pressure on natural gas prices in the early years of the scenario period. Real prices remain fairly flat through most of the scenario.

• Rising political tensions and energy security concerns raise barriers to gas pipeline transportation and trade.

• Seaborne trade of LNG is favoured based on security of supply benefits, competitive costs, and delivery flexibility.

7.2.6 Coal .

Asian Phoenix

• Strong demand growth in Asia, combined with limited global climate change policies, helps to make Asian Phoenix the high growth scenario for coal.

• New mining capacity is constructed throughout the world to meet rising demand, with most additions occurring in the Pacific market (Australia, China and Indonesia).

• Real coal prices are generally flat across much of the scenario period with occasional instances of volatility due to a growing volume of internationally traded coal and temporary supply imbalances due to lag times required for expanded mining capacity to meet rising demand.

Break Point

• Despite the progression of global cooperation on climate change action and the acceleration of clean energy technology developments, global coal demand (primarily driven by the power sector) continues to grow, although at a comparatively slower rate than in Asian Phoenix or Global Fissures.

• The lower growth rate reflects factors related to carbon policy – specifically the institution of carbon trading in North America and the strengthening of the existing carbon trading regime in Europe. These trends are offset somewhat by continued strong growth of coal-fired power generation in Asia.

• There is a flurry of CTL technology development in China and in North America early in the scenario but activity subsides later in the scenario as oil prices moderate.

• In the second half of the scenario, strong government support and funding for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies leads to a

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

224

rebound in coal consumption in the power sectors of Europe and North America.

Global Fissures

• Growing political preoccupation with developing domestic resources for economic and energy security reasons favors coal use, as does the absence of a global consensus on climate control and CO2 emissions, which inhibits the expansion of CO2 pricing via taxes or trading regimes.

• Low oil prices throughout the scenario preclude any significant development of coal-to-liquids (CTL) capacity worldwide.

• Most of the supply growth in new coal mining capacity occurs in the Pacific market (Australia, China, Indonesia), where the lowest-cost reserves are located.

7.2.7 Carbon policies

Asian Phoenix

• General themes; Climate change remains a top environmental concern, but no global consensus develops on an appropriate response.

• Global framework; In the absence of a new global policy, a patchwork of regional climate change policies emerges.

• China; Remains a strong originator for GHG offsets. Tensions increase with trade partners over lack of carbon policies.

• Europe; Tighter emissions trading scheme (ETS) targets are delayed until broader participation is achieved outside of Europe.

• USA; Adopts cap-and-trade with allowance price controls for power sector.

Break Point

• General themes; Pressure to reduce carbon emissions steadily increases from policymakers, shareholders, and consumers.

• Global framework; New international treaty establishes differentiated targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, clean energy investments, and efficiency improvements for all major emitters.

• China; Agrees to near-term targets for clean energy investments, energy efficiency improvements, and long-term emissions targets.

• Europe; Implements aggressive ETS limits and efficiency/fuel standards for transport.

• USA; Agrees to near-term emissions targets. Seeks to manage emissions through cap-and-trade for power plants and refineries.

Global Fissures

• General themes; Economic concerns overshadow carbon policies. • Global framework; Support for Kyoto Protocol wanes and no successor

is established. • China; Focus remains on non-carbon environmental concerns. • Europe; ETS remains in place but is not a driver to reduce emissions.

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

225

• USA; Federal policy establishes mandatory targets for reducing the US economy’s emissions intensity measured as GHG emissions per economic output.

7.3 Scenarios & EU policy

The three basic scenarios are divided into two different policy action scenarios. The “present” one means that the current policy remains unchanged. The “pro-active” one means that measures are taken as to strengthen foreseen positive developments and to cushion the foreseen negative ones. As illustrated in Figure 155, this divides the Asian Phoenix scenario into “Money maker” and “Money maker ++”, Break Point into “Bunker price struggle” and “Transition to sustainability” and Global Fissures into “Seriously troubled waters” and “Short sea shipping opportunities”. The scenario outcomes are presented in a news magazine format, highlighting some foreseen news items of “the day” some time in the year 2018.

Asian Phoenix Global FissuresBreak Point

EU policy:

Present

Pro-active

Money maker

Money maker++

Bunker pricestruggle

Transition tosustainability

Seriously troubledwaters

Short sea shippingopportunities

Figure 155: The six scenarios

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

226

7.3.1 The money maker

After the incredibly profitable years in the late 00s, many experts believed that the shipping markets were doomed to many years of depression, due to the record high ordering of vessels in the mid 00s. The shipping markets did not, however, return to the long depression of the 1980s and 90s, and the primary reason for that is to be found in the high growth of the Asian economies, with China and India as the primary locomotives. These economies have continued to sustain growth rates of 8-10% in GDP and much higher growth rates in the imports of key products like iron ore and oil as well as in container shipments, both for exports and imports. 10 years ago the oil prices fluctuated around 100$ per barrel, and although oil prices have remained fairly high, increased OPEC production has caused a downward pressure on prices. The combination of high Asian growth, more OPEC production and slow steaming of vessels have enabled an absorption of the high order books of 2007 without dramatic reductions in freight earnings. China and India have not only played crucial roles as economic locomotives, but also in the political sphere do they play a much more important role in the world today. Their engagements in the United Nations and the WTO have contributed to a safer world and continued trade liberalization, with more trade in agricultural products, which again has been positive for shipping.

The positive development for shipping has naturally spread to the port sector, where there is hectic activity to try to cope with the growth. Port development is a long term process, and sometimes bottleneck situations do occur, but generally the port sector has managed to accommodate higher volumes. There has been one area of constant disputes, however, and that is in the energy policy field. European countries have pressured for strong global initiatives to reduce the emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere, but particularly China and the USA seem unable to agree on anything in this field. China accuses the US of being the main energy sinner with many times as high energy consumption per capita as China and thus the country that should lead on in the energy conservation struggle. USA on the other hand point to the enormous growth rates of the Chinese energy consumption, which to an alarming degree is based on coal, and this disagreement seems to prevent some international agreement that could turn an alarming development. This is currently the main cloud on the horizon, combined with the mounting internal political problems in China due to the increasing gap between rich and poor and the mounting problems of the banking and housing sector of the Chinese economy, as well as failed attempts of creating a suitable social security system in the vast country. It is therefore doubtful that the next decade will be as good for shipping as the last ten years have been.

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

227

7.3.2 The money maker ++

China and India have led the Asian region to economic prosperity in the last decade. With sustained growth rates of 8-10% in GDP and much higher growth rates in the imports of key products like iron ore and oil as well as in container shipments, the demand side of the shipping markets has seen positive developments, indeed. This development has been matched by some bold political initiatives in the EU in the period 2010-12 that also contributed to the extremely good markets. The motivation for the initiatives were not really to improve the markets as such, this came more as a side effect. The primary motivation was twofold: to see improvements in safety and quality of shipping services and to contribute to energy savings. The first was achieved through a set of regulations that literally removed sub-standard ships from being engaged in European trades, thus effectively reducing the supply side and the second was achieved through regulation of allowed maximum speed of vessels and other initiatives to both reduce total energy consumption of vessels as well as increasing the energy efficiency of this transport mode. Again the side effect was to reduce the supply side and further contributing to improved markets. The successful way in which China and India have assumed their roles in international politics by convincingly taking on leading roles within both the United Nations system, particularly within IMO, as well as in WTO, has further contributed to a safer world and a world in which international trade has had optimal conditions. Strong progress has been made in liberalizing the agricultural sector, particularly after EU dramatically changed their agricultural policy by drastically reducing support to EU farmers. Again this political initiative had

positive side effects for shipping, as the result was a series of demonstrations, particularly in France and other south European countries that for long periods of time paralyzed the road transportation systems. This became an opportunity for short sea shipping that came up with transport solutions that survived a return to the normal on the roads of Europe. Today, short sea shipping has not only challenged road transportation, but has become the preferred transport mode on major routes in Europe. The main obstacle in this rosy picture is, however, the difficulties in getting a match between port capacity and the growing demand. The shipping industry complains that port planning takes way too long time, compared to what we see is possible in Asia. The EU Commission has set up a committee to come up with suggestions as how to speed up the process, but critics claim this also takes too long. So, on this last day of the year, is everything just peachy? Not really. Despite the good will of China and India in their roles as economic powers, they never seem to be able to agree with the USA in the energy policy field. The US want China and India to stop using so much coal (and oil) in their energy consumption, as this leads to unacceptable levels of CO2 emissions. China continues to counter this argument by just pointing out that USA have the highest specific consumption of energy in the world and should thus be leading on in attempts of reducing their energy consumption. The UN climate panel points to this disagreement as the main obstacle in the struggle for preventing catastrophic climate changes, and it is a tone of urgency in their latest report indicating that this is serious, indeed.

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

228

7.3.3 Bunker price struggle

After the historical break-through agreement at the Climate Conference in Copenhagen in 2009, the world has really had to learn to live with high oil prices. In the years after this memorable conference, the leading nations of the world have been able to agree on a global system of taxation on the actual use of fossil fuels. This has been made possible primarily because the new president after the retirement of George W. Bush in 2009 has seen it as a main task to lead on in more positive international efforts of cooperation rather than the unilateral struggle against terrorism. We all know the effects: Record high oil prices has led to record high gasoline prices, with strong effects on travel and transportation. The most dramatic reductions have been in the overall demand for oil, with very negative results for the profitability of the sector, despite of slow-steaming effects also reducing supply, but not sufficiently to prevent freight rate reductions. The aviation sector is severely hit, with dramatic reductions in holiday and leisure travels. In shipping, two segments seem to have benefited from this: the ferry segment and to some extent the container business since air shipments of perishable and other previously air transported cargo in some cases have become prohibitively expensive. The ferry business is seeing dramatic restructuring, where the fast ferry operators are the big losers and those with long haul overnight ferries are seeing improved markets. Despite the high oil prices, the world show a remarkable ability to live with this new set of relative prices. The development seems to

have brought the main economic powers: USA, EU, Japan, China and India closer together in many ways, and the spirit of international cooperation has spilled over into other political arenas, like trade policy, where much progress has been made within the WTO, which has been good for shipping. The high bunker prices have led to new transport systems with lower speeds and a need to use more ships to keep the frequency up. The Middle East remains a political hotspot, however, and with a declining oil demand, the struggle to be the preferred supplier has led to several instances which brought countries to the brink of war. Some experts believe it is only a matter of time before a main local dispute can blossom into a full-fledged international crisis. High energy prices have obviously led to a field day for those supplying the alternatives: wind power, solar energy and nuclear energy, where the growth potential is astronomical, but is restricted by the production capacity. A lot of research is going on in finding the ultimate replacement of fossil fuel, but commercial solutions do not seem just around the corner. This means that the struggle for survival in many shipping segments will continue. The port sector is the one struggling the most, at least with any new developments, as the negative climate makes all private investors shy away from this sector completely at the moment.

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

229

7.3.4 Transition to sustainability

It has been a remarkable decade of change. It started with a combination of an US presidential election and a global climate conference in 2009 that created a window of opportunity for policy makers. The result has been a multitude of initiatives that most probably will change the world, as we know it, fundamentally forever. The global tax on the use of fossil fuel sent the prices of oil, gas and coal sky high, and the effects have been dramatic. For shipping the most obvious short term effect was that of a near market collapse. Oil demand was drastically reduced, and the same for gas and coal, particularly the latter. The effect was dampened somewhat by reductions in supply due to the lower speed of the vessels as a result of IMO regulations, but the net effect was negative, indeed, from a ship owner’s point of view. The positive result, however, has been a drastic reduction in the CO2 emissions from the shipping sector, but even more importantly, a new attitude of the necessity to change. This has permeated the political and research arenas to the degree that we probably are seeing the beginning of something radically new. The technology of converting hydrogen into a useable fuel with the use of solar energy has developed drastically, highly boosted by the many facets of the innovative EU research program “the Hydrogen Society”. Experts begin to see a role of shipping in transporting hydrogen in large volumes in specialized tankers. In Denmark, the introduction of a new generation electrical cars, based on a highly efficient new fuel cell battery technology, has been such a success that the government has prohibited the use of traditional cars in the cities, and the adjustment seems to go without disrupting

protests. The experience here has led Chinese and Indian politicians to voice that similar actions should be taken on a large scale there. The UN climate panel are quite optimistic in their latest report, stating that the development in CO2 emission reductions has gone much faster than they had believed possible. In Europe, short sea shipping is expanding rapidly, based on new, environmental friendly ships that the trucks simply cannot compete with on some routes. Thanks to the coordinating efforts of the EU commission, the shipping community has gone hand in hand with ship builders and ship equipment producers to show the world that Europe remains the centre of maritime innovation. The port sector is also going in position to design and start building the first hydrogen terminals, to a large degree based on long term experience with demanding LNG terminals. The European maritime cluster is showing strength and a remarkable willingness to cooperate across traditional boundaries. On the global political scene, the energy challenge has clearly united the big players and it is today much easier to get even radical proposals through the UN system, including the IMO, than ever before. By abandoning the agricultural policy of the EU, Europe is clearly showing solidarity with the third world on a scale hitherto unknown. This has been good for shipping, so despite the many examples of reductions in earnings for some shipping segments, the overall picture is one of a promising future.

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

230

7.3.5 Seriously troubled waters

The last decade has been truly depressing seen with the eyes of those believing that globalization was a good thing. It all started with the development of the US economy. In the mid 00s, one could sense that something was not quite right with the US financial sector. A series of irresponsible loan schemes sent the housing market into recession, then the Asian economies seem to have lost faith in the new US administration that came into office in 2009, and almost stopped investing in US bonds, which made it obvious to the world that the US deficit was no longer sustainable and the US economy went into a deep recession, with effects almost like the famous 1929 Wall Street crash. This quickly spread to the international scene, with a substantial drop in growth rates both in Europe and in Asia. The effect on shipping was instant: Demand for transportation was reduced across all shipping segments and with the high orderbooks from the late 00s, the resulting drop in freight rates was quite dramatic. What makes the situation a lot worse than just an isolated US recession is the fact that the crisis has spilled over into the political arena in troublesome ways. First of all, the European Central Bank failed in its coordination efforts with China and Japan to dampen the effect of the US development. Then the anti-globalization NGOs launched

a very effective internet campaign, which in contrast was brilliantly coordinated, that has basically altered the political climate: it is now easier to get support for all sorts of protectionist and nationalistic ideas than to get support for getting globalization back on track. In the WTO they work overtime to deal with the many complaints of violation of existing treaties, and all attempts of more liberalization initiatives are put on hold. The only examples of something positive for shipping earnings are regrettably coming from regional conflicts, predominantly in Africa and the Middle East, often connected to acts of terrorism. Some parts of shipping has always profited from conflicts, but it is sad to recognize that this is the most positive elements in a troubled world. In Europe, pessimism is ruling the shipping sector, investors flee to Asia, where there is still some growth and nobody cares about innovation and research. The shipbuilding sector is just a shadow of what it was just 10-12 years ago, and absolutely nobody is willing to invest in ports and terminals, which even in a depressed market is creating bottleneck problems. In the current political environment, all discussions about global warming and emission of climate gases seem to have vanished, which is really bad news for the long term perspective of our globe.

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

231

7.3.6 Scenario: Short sea shipping opportunities

When the US economy went into serious recession in 2009, most economists agreed that this would just be a temporary dip, because coordinated policies of other countries and regions would help to quickly restore growth in the global economy. How wrong they were! A total failure in policy coordination opened the door for the critics of globalization, labelling the US recession and the coordination failure as symptomatic for a vulnerable globalization process. The result of this, cleverly orchestrated by NGOs using the internet, was a surge of nationalistic ideas and anti-free-trade argumentations that has effectively reduced economic growth all over. Shipping is the one sector really suffering from this development, particularly the reduction in Chinese growth, which was the main source for the golden shipping years 12-15 years ago. When it became obvious that the recession had spread to all types of demand, the European shipping community initiated a dialog across traditional boundaries, arguing that unless something was done to counter the negative economic development, European shipping would be reduced to nothing within just a few years. In the ensuing debate, the shipping industry was adamant that they did not want any direct subsidies as a means of survival, so the end result became a mix of research initiatives, mainly regarding safety and quality and

environmental friendly technologies, and a very bold political decision: a new taxation scheme for all transportation modes, where the tax is reflecting the total social, environment and infrastructure costs of each transport mode. Despite the practical problems of agreeing on actual tax rates and the many protests from trucking companies and railways all over Europe, the Commission held on to the idea, which has given short sea shipping a real boost in its development. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, some large regional operators have been formed with sufficient size and financial strength to create efficient short sea shipping networks, transferring millions of tons of cargo from congested roads on to environmentally friendly ships. The positive development is clearly reflected in port and terminal investments. From being a neglected and almost backwards moving sector, the European ports and terminals have been, and still are, in very positive development. The new taxation system has convinced investors that this is a sector for the future, so even very expansive plans have easily secured private finance. So, in a world where the globalization process is in reverse and trade liberalization attempts are at a standstill, and most shipping sectors are suffering badly, short sea shipping is thriving and because of this, it is still a hope that European shipping may survive these bad years after all.

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

232

7.4 Test of the drivers of change against the scenarios

In the following, the 19 drivers described in chapter 5 Signals of future change are tested against the six scenario storylines. The positive and negative evaluations of the drivers from that chapter are copied in below for review. The tests are simple statements of the envisaged major developments of the drivers in the scenario contexts. Further are the drivers’ influence on the scenario outcomes evaluated. The statements and evaluations are illustrated with the use of the following symbols; Symbol Driver develop't in scenario context Symbol Driver influence on scenario outcome

++ very positive * not very important to scenario outcome

+ somewhat positive ** moderately influential on scenario

= neither positive nor negative *** dominating influence on scenario

- somewhat negative

-- very negative 7.4.1 New materials

Positive: New light, strong, anti-fouling materials for revolutionary new hull constructions, the ships will become lighter in general. New construction materials for containers may evolve into a new generation of maritime containers.

Negative: Nothing new, ship production without significant innovations.

Change factorID

New materials1 = * + * + * + ** = * + *

Global fissuresMoney-maker Money-maker

++Bunker price struggle

Transition to sustainability

Seriously troubled

SSS oppor-tunities

Asian Phoenix Break point

Over the scenario period, the impact of new materials is low in all but the transition to sustainability scenario where the development provides incitements for a rapid introduction of new, light, strong, anti-fouling materials.

7.4.2 New sustainable energy

For shipping; Positive: New, renewable energy sources are only applicable in small

scales, no viable applications to ship engines, yet, and only small utilisation for cars (amongst others) at the moment.

Negative: Breakthrough applications of fuel cell technology, dramatically reducing demand for oil and oil products.

For society; positive socio-economic consequences.

Change factorID

New sustainable energy2 = * = * -- ** -- *** = * = *




Seriously troubled

SSS oppor-tunities


This is only an issue in the Break Point scenarios, where a large scale transition to renewable energy sources would have a dramatic influence on the demand for petroleum shipments. Biofuels also need to be shipped, but distances are foreseen to be much shorter, thus a significantly negative impact on ton-miles demand.

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

233

7.4.3 ICT .

Positive: Global satellite communications leads to truly safe digital navigation and improved communication between ship and shore-based administration.

Negative: The potential of ICT technology is underutilized because of lack of global standards and adequate software solution development.

Change factorID

ICT3 + * + ** = * + * - * + **




Seriously troubled

SSS oppor-tunities


In Money-maker ++, a global standard is assumed to be introduced. In the Short sea shipping opportunities scenario, a European standard is expected to be launched. In most scenarios, the impact is seen as positive. The only negative aspect is the lack of standards.


Positive: Huge effort of the industry to train and develop new manning resources.

Negative: Lack of qualified crew, increasing accidents, inefficient transportation solutions.

Change factorID

Availability and quality of crew 4 - ** + * = * + ** = * + *




Seriously troubled

SSS oppor-tunities


In the most negative market development scenarios (Bunker price struggle and the two Global fissures scenarios) the availability of crew will not be a restraining factor due to the lack of employment for the ships. In contrast, crew availability becomes a troublesome issue in the more positive scenarios, particularly in Money-maker, where the absence of new policy measures are not supplementing/matching the industry’s own efforts.

7.4.5 Trade barriers

Positive: Breakthrough WTO initiatives basically removing all trade barriers.

Negative: Bilateral trade disputes, elements of protectionism. Return to protectionist measures basically based on non-tariff barriers to trade “Buy locally” or nationalistic campaigns supported by different governments of OECD countries.

Change factorID

Trade barriers5 + * ++ ** = * = * -- *** - **




Seriously troubled

SSS oppor-tunities


The removal of trade barriers has a positive impact on the demand for, primarily deep sea shipments. The opposite is valid for the Global fissures scenarios, where protectionist moves have a direct negative impact on the same activities. In the Short sea shipping opportunities scenario, the negative impact on deep sea shipments is cushioned somewhat by a positive development of short sea shipments. The impacts affect different actors in many cases though.

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

234

7.4.6 Role of multinationals, location of economic activity

Positive: Many new production facilities in developing countries with trade creation effects, sourcing globally, often far from assembly point, which will be advantageous for the container shipping industry.

Negative: The multinational companies are not expected to serve as motors for economic development.

Change factorID

Role of multinationals, location of economic 6 ++ ** ++ ** = * = * -- *** = **




Seriously troubled

SSS oppor-tunities


This driver is strongly influenced by the type of scenario. In the positively oriented Asian Phoenix scenarios, the multinationals act as described in the positive paragraph above and in the Global fissures as in the negative. In the Short sea shipping opportunities scenario, deep sea operators are not fairing well, while the outlook for short sea operators is fairly positive. This is due to the expected allocation of production resources closer to consumption areas.

7.4.7 Terrorism

Positive: Shipping not a target for direct attacks. Negative: Direct attacks on passenger ships with devastating effects on

cruise and passenger transportation, greatly increased security measures implemented for all shipping activities. Cargo ships used as a terrorist tool causing increased security measures.

Change factorID

Terrorism7 + * ++ * = * + * -- ** - **




Seriously troubled

SSS oppor-tunities


The introduction of balanced pro-active measures, coupled with enhancement of compliance with existing measures have the potential of reducing both the risk for and the harmful effects of terrorist attacks. Extreme measures could have a negative effect on efficiency. All measures will add to costs somewhere, but to various degrees.

7.4.8 Regional conflicts

Positive: Few and unimportant conflicts from a shipping point of view. Huge disruptions in the Middle East force the closure of the Suez Canal and thereby increasing the ton-mile demand.

Negative: Middle East conflicts, huge disruptions to trade with that region.

Change factorID

Regional conflicts8 + * ++ * - ** = * -- ** - **




Seriously troubled

SSS oppor-tunities


Regional conflicts have the potential to harm trade relations and thereby demand for transport of goods to and from the countries concerned. These threats form part of the Break point and Global fissures scenario storylines. In the Asian Phoenix scenarios, it is the absence of major conflicts that is the reason for the positive evaluation.

7.4.9 Global warming

Positive: Ongoing discussions on the seriousness of the problem, little effect on policies and regulation.

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

235

Negative: Politically recognized as THE major global problem with strong political effects. This would lead to the introduction of strong measures to reduce the harmful effects of fossil fuels with marked negative effects on the conditions for shipping, particularly deep sea.

Change factorID

Global warming9 ++ * ++ * -- ** -- *** = * = *




Seriously troubled

SSS oppor-tunities


Shipping is recognized as both a contributor and a saviour. In the positive set of scenarios shipping comes out well, while the potential introduction of really strong measures would be the cause of serious problems for the majority of the industry – particularly deep sea shipments of energy (LNG possibly excluded) and medium to high speed shipments of containers and vehicles. The drama is a product of the Break point scenarios.

7.4.10 Consumers’ perception of sustainability

Positive: Consumers happy with just minor good stories of environmental improvements. Until now the predominant drive for customers’ decision has been the price rather than the concerns on sustainability.

Negative: Environmental concerns a superior motive for purchasing behaviour, causing fundamental changes in development of product and services.

Change factorID

Consumers’ perceptions of sustainability 10 ++ * ++ * - * -- ** = * = *




Seriously troubled

SSS oppor-tunities


Large scale changes in consumer preferences could lead to a significant impact on the type of goods transported and the distribution pattern of the same. In the Transition to sustainability scenario, policies taken are aimed at punishing non-preferred fuels. This would lead to a quicker, but more painful restructuring of shipping activities.

7.4.11 Greenhouse gas emissions regulations

Positive: Shipping only mildly affected by global regulation initiatives. Negative: All use of fossil fuels subject to heavy, direct and global taxation

schemes.

Change factorID

Greenhouse gas emissions 11 ++ * ++ * - ** -- ** = * = *




Seriously troubled

SSS oppor-tunities


Regulations introduced could span from exempting all shipping activities from any type of punitive regulations, fees or taxes to levying the same heavy across-the-board. As for any other environmental issues, the impact would be within the Break point scenarios.

7.4.12 Pollution & other emissions regulations

Positive: Shipping only mildly affected by global regulation initiatives. Negative: All use of fossil fuels subject to heavy, direct and global taxation

schemes.

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

236

Change factorID

Pollution/emissions12 + * ++ * - * - * = * = *




Seriously troubled

SSS oppor-tunities


The emissions to air and water of harmful substances such as particular matters or sulphur are local to regional in their physical impact. Measures address types of fuel used, abatement technologies, shore based power (cold ironing), speed limits, reception facilities for sludge, anti-fouling etc. Some measures could call for significant investments for ship owners/operators, but other measures could be introduced to cushion some of the most negative impacts. In a wider perspective and seen over a longer period of time, the overall impact on shipping should be marginal.

7.4.13 Transport mode taxation

Positive: New taxation schemes, reflecting the total social costs of transportation, making road, rail and air transport much more expensive to use.

Negative: Nothing new that changes the relative user prices of transportation modes.

Change factorID

Transport mode taxation13 - * + ** = * ++ ** = * ++ ***




Seriously troubled

SSS oppor-tunities


The relative competitiveness of short sea shipping vis-à-vis land transport alternatives would increase significantly and thereby boost the shift of cargo. Once an established preferred modal choice, the continued development is secured. The Break point and Global fissures scenarios underpin the impact of measures taken.

7.4.14 Freight conferences

Positive: Removal of antitrust immunity regulations increases transparency and competition – positive for shippers.

Negative: Removal of antitrust immunity regulations increases transparency and competition – could be a demanding transition for some ship operators.

Change factorID

Freight conferences14 + * ++ * = * = * -- * + *




Seriously troubled

SSS oppor-tunities


The removal of antitrust regulations would open up for competition in a wider sense than today. If this is pursued in a Global fissures scenario without supportive balanced measures (for instance non-discriminatory measures) then detrimental price competition will follow. On the other hand could the same development open up for significant short sea shipping opportunities if measures are introduced to support this.

7.4.15 Safety and security

Positive: New regulations made in cooperative efforts with the shipping industry, with limited cost driving effects. Identifications of port of origin can structure container operations and customs procedures including partly scanning more efficiently.

Negative: New, strict regulations with high direct and indirect costs (training, etc) for shipping companies. Full scanning of all containers will not be feasible in practice.

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

237

Change factorID

Safety and security15 = * + * - * = * -- * - *




Seriously troubled

SSS oppor-tunities


Measures introduced in a non-discriminatory and careful way will have limited cost driving effects. The impact is low in all scenarios.

7.4.16 Ageing populations

Positive: New pension schemes with only limited negative effects on economic growth. Target group for primarily cruises increases.

Negative: The burden of an ageing population leads to severe negative effects on economic growth, particularly in Europe and Japan.

Change factorID

Ageing populations16 ++ * ++ * = * = * -- * -- *




Seriously troubled

SSS oppor-tunities


Demographic changes affect the structure of consumer behaviour. This is of interest for the cruise shipping sector, to mention the one with most likely the highest direct impact. This is a driver of low uncertainty of happening and is thus fairly predictable. The overall all impact on shipping is low, with the exception of passenger shipping. The three basic scenarios range from very positive to very negative, but with no impact of pro-active measures. There is however a connection with a higher impact and that is the ageing group of seafarers. The retirement/recruitment ratio is unfavourable and this is the cause of the imminent problems.

7.4.17 Migration of large populations

Positive: Migration problems kept under control. Negative: Serious exodus of people from poor and mismanaged, less

developed countries to Europe. Established countries might face flows of undocumented immigrants.

Change factorID

Migration of large populations 17 ++ * ++ * - * - * -- * -- *




Seriously troubled

SSS oppor-tunities


The gloomier the scenario, the graver is the development of the migration problems. The impact on shipping is generally low. No impact of pro-active measures foreseen.

7.4.18 Transition of economic power from US/EU to Asia

Positive: Transition of economic and political power as well as technology secure economic growth in Asia.

Negative: The decline of USA as a global economic power is not met by new leadership. Conflicts between China and other Asian economies lead to political unrest and dramatic reductions in economic growth.

Change factorID

Transition of economic power from US/EU to Asia 18 ++ *** ++ *** = * + * -- *** -- **




Seriously troubled

SSS oppor-tunities


The transition of economic and political power as well as technology to the Far East secures the need for shipment of input, intermediate and finished goods across the globe. In the Global fissures scenario this transition is significantly reduced and the impact on shipping is marked.

Sce

nario

s to

201

8

238

7.4.19 Russia

Positive: Further liberalisation of the Russian economy and increasingly opening of the Russian market to EU companies.

Negative: Increasing protectionism and obscurantism, growing lack of transparency in the Russian economy.

Change factorID

Russia19 + ** ++ ** - ** + * -- ** -- **




Seriously troubled

SSS oppor-tunities


High growth in Russia and a European focus on all exports and imports is a positive development. Volatile economic and political development, and a changed focus towards Asia is a less favourable alternative.

Stra

tegi

cre

com

men

datio

ns

239

8 Strategic recommendations

This chapter contains our strategic recommendations for the European Commission. It is clear that the current shipping policy with the adopted state aid guidelines has been working reasonable well so far. The challenges ahead are however plentiful as highlighted in previous chapters. Some of these challengers can be met by policy changes, removal of existing policies or the introduction of new ones. The areas to address with policies are diverse. Some of the important issues relate to;

• Trade • Sustainability • Modal shifts and short sea shipping • Influence in the IMO • Safety and security

8.1 Description of recommendations

The following recommendations’ impact on the EU shipping services are put into the perspective of the three main scenarios.

Symbol Impact of the recommendation on EU shipping services, compared to a continuation of the present policy

++ very positive

+ somewhat positive

= neither positive nor negative

- somewhat negative 8.1.1 External relations

Trade is a fundamental factor for the demand for transport. Some of the cornerstones of well-functioning trade are the free movement of goods and the stability of the business environment for the trade. Maintaining a dialogue is important in all situations, be that in trade negotiations or when faced with regional conflicts. It is recommended that the work in the WTO is continued and that strong efforts are made to strengthen the positions. Multi- and bilateral agreements are second best alternatives that should be pursued in parallel without undermining the work in the WTO. Removal of trade barriers benefit transport and should be encouraged. As for the representation of the EU27 it should be underlined that, seen from a European shipping perspective, it is favourable that EU27 speaks with one voice. Words should be possible to back with demands and if necessary with sanctions in those cases where this is relevant. Working for free trade is one of few active measures that could mitigate the Global fissures scenario. Reference to drivers: #5, 8. Impact on EU shipping services: Recommendation

External relations ++ ++Global fissuresAsian Phoenix Break point

+

Stra

tegi

cre

com

men

datio

ns

240

8.1.2 Short sea shipping

Short sea shipping comes out as a potential winner in all of the scenarios, but of course to varying degrees. An expansion of short sea shipping activities is necessary to alleviate congestion and reduce the growth of emissions while still servicing growing transport volumes. Overall transport costs are bound to rise over time and we will have to be prepared to internalise external costs at some point in the future. The challenge when that time comes is to ensure that it is done in a non-discriminatory way. In Asian Phoenix, transport volumes are growing and so are feedering volumes. In Break point, volume growth is slowing and possibly turning to negative figures, but the high energy prices speeds up the transition towards a reduction of the dependency on the long haul supply of fossil fuels and a cap on the growth of land transport. This will lead to increased, relative demand for short sea shipping. In Global fissures, the growing protectionism and isolationism will lead to a reallocation of production facilities from outside the EU to inside. This will in turn benefit intra-European transports. Short sea shipping would play a vital role in such a development. The net effect of reduced feedering of deep sea cargo and increased intra-European transports is believed to be positive for short sea shipping. Hindrances for the competitiveness of short sea shipping are several, many of which are already addressed with mixed success.

• Port and fairway fee structures need to be looked at to ensure that short sea shipping is not discouraged in any way.

• The importance of the success of the maritime space without barriers is underlined. The efforts made should continue with the highest possible ambition.

• Preserving the large number of smaller ports is essential when the short sea shipping network is to expand and land transport distances are to be minimized.

• The efficiency and costs for modal shifts ie. the sea to rail or road interface is key to the success of short sea shipping. This has been addressed in the programmes Pilot Actions for Combined Transport (PACT), the MarcoPolo and the Motorways of the Seas. All three programmes were/are fairly pragmatic in their approach. This should be supplemented with basic research and innovation on cargo modes, cargo handling and logistic solutions with the aim at finding solutions that cut lead times, transport and handling costs.

Reference to drivers: #6, 13. Impact on EU shipping services: Recommendation

Short Sea Shipping = ++ ++Global fissuresAsian Phoenix Break point

8.1.3 Port infrastructure investment fast‐track

There is a mounting need for investments in ports in Europe, particularly for the handling of containers and liquefied natural gas (LNG). The latter involves the allocation and construction of regasification facilities. Every investment decision is preceded by thorough analyses of demand development (volumes, structure, vessel sizes etc), investment costs, building time, return on investment etc.

Stra

tegi

cre

com

men

datio

ns

241

Another requirement that follows port investments is the environmental impact assessments and the related approvals that have to be in place before construction can be initiated. These procedures tend to be lengthy, in many cases as long as ten years. The European transport system is faced with many challenges ahead where emissions and congestion are two of the more crucial ones, both environ-mental issues. A higher utilisation of shipping is seen as the solution to these two challenges and it is therefore paradoxical that one of the main obstacles is the passing of environmental approvals. It is recommended that the procedures for environmental assessments and all related approvals that are in practice in the EU today are assessed and reviewed. The aim should be to establish procedures that cut the overall lead time significantly without giving in to any of the environmental demands. Reference to drivers: #11, 12, 13. Impact on EU shipping services: RecommendationPort infrastructure investment fast-track ++ + =

Global fissuresAsian Phoenix Break point

8.1.4 Transition to sustainability

The IMO has set the guidelines for reducing the emissions from shipping activities. The time frame is surprisingly short in the perspective of a ship owner’s ability to take any major actions with the exception to switch to better quality fuels. Theoretically, one good option for the ship owners is to fuel their vessels with natural gas (NG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG), which would reduce the emissions to levels far below the requirements. From an emissions point of view that would position sea transports as the cleanest mode of transport. To make this become reality is not easily done. Presently the distribution system for NG and LNG is almost non existent. There are no gas bunker vessels operating today. The prime use of gas has been focused to shore and to a limited extent to some LNG tankers. Another restricting factor today, is the lack of engines for newbuildings. However, the possibility of converting a four stroke diesel is good. The time for a conversion is a few weeks where the major task is to install new bunker tanks. The engine conversion is mainly about reconstructing the fuelling system. The simplicity of making a transition to gas fuelled vessels maybe is some-what exaggerated. Nevertheless, this is a technology already in use. The steps needed to start the building of a new infra-structure for this is something that policy makers could have look at. There currently are close to 4,700 vessels in the world fleet with four stroke engines and of a significant size, here set to 5,000gt and above. Furthermore, there are 960 vessels on order, known to be equipped with four stroke engines (≥5,000gt). Vessels flying any EU27 flag count to over 1,600, plus another good 400 on order. Maybe the policy makers in the EU could take the initiative. There are many steps that could be taken without interfering with the market too much. The reasoning above is possibly one out several solutions to the reduction of emissions. Improvements in efficiency of supply chains is another approach with the potential of producing impressive results in a relatively short time period. The connection to short sea shipping is obvious.

Stra

tegi

cre

com

men

datio

ns

242

Future scenarios indicate that efficient use of energy and eventually efficient use of non-fossil fuel alternatives are major challenges. It is recommended that a research programme is set up that is focusing on energy use for ships, bunker fuels or other types of fuels, propulsion systems, coatings and supply chain efficiency. Projects such as INTERMODESHIP, FLAGSHIP, INMARE, SMOOTH and MOSES all address certain parts of the challenges, but a targeted and massive drive is what is called for here. Reference to drivers: #2, 9, 10. Impact on EU shipping services: Recommendation

Transition to sustainability = ++ ++Global fissuresAsian Phoenix Break point


The supply of seafarers have been raised by several instances of the maritime cluster as of growing concern. This is a combination of attracting young people to the maritime sector, ensuring quality of education and retaining those already within the sector. The latter is not so much about keeping seafarers within the maritime cluster, quite the opposite. Few are leaving the cluster, but there is a demand from shore based, maritime related activities for experienced seafarers that competes with the option of staying at sea. Recruitment is first and foremost an operational responsibility for the employers ie the ship owners/operators/managers. It is up to them to ensure that the job offer as such is attractive enough. Factors at play here are of course salaries, working conditions on board, time at sea vs time at home, communication possibilities on board and much more. There is however more to the issue that needs to be addressed. Young people need to be made aware of what a life at sea is about today, so if they do choose to go another path, at least they make that choice based on up-to-date information. We recommend that a policy package is launched containing;

• Commissioning of a study of the perception among young people in Europe of how a career at sea is. The results of the study should be a guidance for the final formulation of a policy on recruitment supporting measures.

• Joint EC and industry PR campaign about the advantages of a career at sea.

• An inventory is made of the capacities, capabilities, content and qualities of the maritime education offered in EU27 today. If the inventory shows that there is a lack of capacity and/or insufficient quality and content then this should be addressed accordingly and quickly.

• A support scheme for apprenticeship onboard. Taking onboard apprentices could be claimed to be the industry’s own responsibility, but there are a few issues that need to be addressed to take onboard an apprentice (cabin, food, safety training etc).

• Soft loans for students. Reference to drivers: #4. Impact on EU shipping services:

Stra

tegi

cre

com

men

datio

ns

243

Recommendation

Availability & quality of crew


+ = = 8.1.6 EU and the IMO

Decision in the IMO are generally taken by consensus, which largely contributes to the slow decision process. Real voting is a rare event, but the underlying voting power is still highly important for the ratification of regulations for shipping. By the enlargement to 27 member states, the EU influence in the IMO has increased. However, as presented in chapter 3, the ship operators in the member states have maintained their share of world fleet control, whilst the EU flagged fleet has decreased by a third over the past thirty years. The value of EU member states to speak with one voice in international forums such as the IMO is debated. The standpoint in this report is that it is powerful to represent a consensus view of the EU27. Doing so would enhance the chances of getting necessary and/or preferred decisions ratified in the IMO. We are talking about decisions on safety, security and environmental impact. The recommendation is twofold;

• Work for a consensus presentation in the IMO, preferably via a permanent EU representation. As second best alternative, or a step on the way, preparatory work for a consensus view to be presented by the member states with the effect of “one voice”.

• Work for the replacement of ratification based on flag by ratification based on the fleet defined by the country of residence of the company issued with a Documents of Compliance (DOC) for the ships as defined by the IMO28.

Reference to drivers: --. Impact on EU shipping services: Recommendation

EU and the IMO + + +Global fissuresAsian Phoenix Break point

8.1.7 Transport policy

Transportation of goods is a necessity for a well functioning economy. In the future it will be increasingly important that the transport sector contributes to a sustainable economic development by delivering cost and energy efficient solutions in an environmentally friendly way. This will in general imply more costly transportation, and then it will be more and more important that transportation is viewed in the perspective of a total, intermodal chain. In the future it will be a demand for the best supply chains from a total cost perspective, including environmental and social costs. Currently the various transport modes are treated differently in a number of ways. Road and rail infrastructure is generally regarded as a public responsibility, while ports are getting more and more a private sector concern. There are different systems of taxation for cars and ships, rail companies are mostly public companies etc. It is recommended that a major study is commissioned to estimate the total costs of the use of the various modes of transportation, including all the 28 Enters into force January 1, 2009.

Stra

tegi

cre

com

men

datio

ns

244

indirect costs related to infrastructure investments, wear and tear, congestion and bottleneck problems, energy use, emissions of harmful substances etc. On the basis of such a study it should be a political challenge to device a tax system for the transport sector that creates a level playing field across the transport modes. If such a system is established, the market mechanisms will find the optimal supply chains. The Greening Transport Package is a positive initiative in this context. This may affect maritime transport both positively and negatively, depending on the cases studied. In general it is presumed that this in the long run will benefit short sea shipping solutions in Europe, but the overall aim must be to stimulate the development of the total transport sector, thereby enabling it to positively contribute to a long term sustainable economic development. Reference to drivers: #13. Impact on EU shipping services: Recommendation

Transport policy = + +Global fissuresAsian Phoenix Break point

8.1.8 State aid

There are various forms of support to maritime activities currently in place under the state aid guidelines. These have been developed over time and the practice of, for instance, tonnage tax is generally considered successful. Some argue that it is very important that member states preserve their right not to introduce some of the measures. Seen in broader perspective and over a longer period of time, questions could be raised over the rationale of special treatment for certain industries, such as shipping. Seen in a 2018 perspective, there is no need to revisit any of these support schemes or special treatments. Most of them could be said to have functioned well.

8.1.9 Competition in ports

The opening up for competition in the provision of port services has been proposed and rejected over the years. This apparently is a difficult issue that nevertheless needs to be resolved in one way or the other. To the clients of the ports, ie ship operators, the shippers and their agents, having options to choose from must be considered a benefit when entering into negotiations on services. On a well functioning competitive market is the strive for improvements in efficiency and productivity always higher. The recommendation is that the work with a port package is restarted, possibly with a revised approach. Reference to drivers: --. Impact on EU shipping services: Recommendation

Competition in ports


+ + +

Stra

tegi

cre

com

men

datio

ns

245

8.1.10 Safety

Safety is an issue that always have to form part of the shipping policy. There is always more that can be done and measures already taken need to followed through and updated. Studies made in Sweden29 on the ISM-code show that regulations already in force are complied with in various ways which thereby erode the safety as such. The functions of Port State Control and that of EMSA are important for the control and management of compliance. This concerns the quality of ships, but could well be considered to be extended to cover also the crew. The latter in way similar to the proposal that the control of the maritime education is meeting a minimum quality standard. The first recommendation is that focus of attention is given to studies of safety culture and how compliance is perceived and met in the different cultures. The ambition is to have a somewhat uniform interpretation of the conditions for compliance. The result from this study should lead to a revision of the safety measures if deemed necessary. The second recommendation is presented in 8.1.11 ICT standards. Reference to drivers: #3, 15. Impact on EU shipping services: Recommendation

Safety + + +Global fissuresAsian Phoenix Break point

8.1.11 ICT standards

In order to promote the development and utilisation of safe digital navigation, improved communication between ship and shore-based administrations, the EU27 (member states or via the EC) should actively work for the establishment of global standards. A sub-objective is to work for the establishment of a European standard. Reference to drivers: #3. Impact on EU shipping services: Recommendation

ICT standards = + +Global fissuresAsian Phoenix Break point

29 The ISM code – a study of Swedish cargo shipping and cargo ships’ operation, part

of the ”Safety Organisation, Safety Management, Cultural Management and Maritime Safety” project, Jense, Eldh, Wengelin, 2006-2009, Växjö Universitet.

Stra

tegi

cre

com

men

datio

ns

246

8.1.12 Security

Security is, as safety, an issue that always have to form part of the shipping policy. There is always more that can be done and measures already taken need to followed through and updated. Regulations already in place should be perused and compliance controlled. As with safety, it is recommended that studies are undertaken on how compliance is perceived and met throughout the Union. This is a burning issue given the fairly recent expansion of the number of member states. Reference to drivers: #7. Impact on EU shipping services: Recommendation

Security + + +Global fissuresAsian Phoenix Break point

App

endi

x I

247

9 Appendix I – Ships in ports (AIS live)

9.1 Crude oil tanker, port calls in EU 2007

Type Size Port CountryNo of Calls Total Dwt

Average Duration, h

Crude 200,000+ dwt Rotterdam Netherlands 124 37,617,714 52.7Antifer France 41 12,540,787 31.1Donges France 13 3,983,027 21.9Gdansk Poland 8 2,438,907 32.5Fos France 6 1,828,369 37.2Setubal Portugal 5 1,502,740 133.4Le Havre France 4 1,184,189 28.2Wilhelmshaven Germany 3 922,242 29.7Bilbao Spain 3 896,194 60.3Tallinn Estonia 3 896,251 62.4

Crude 120 -199,999 dwt Rotterdam Netherlands 166 24,332,796 26.7Fos France 135 21,162,985 29.2Wilhelmshaven Germany 78 11,161,396 20.3Le Havre France 70 9,915,690 18.7Milford Haven United Kingdom 55 7,513,767 26.2Algeciras Spain 44 6,934,876 27.7Tallinn Estonia 34 5,252,963 44.5Tetney Terminal United Kingdom 34 4,583,019 22.2Sullom Voe United Kingdom 32 4,233,207 37.6Setubal Portugal 32 4,971,791 108.0

Crude 60 -119,999 dwt Rotterdam Netherlands 660 67,909,931 31.3Fos France 224 23,470,411 25.7Wilhelmshaven Germany 188 19,379,460 21.4Hound Point United Kingdom 174 18,505,786 16.9Teesport United Kingdom 171 18,128,049 20.0Antwerp Belgium 152 14,797,988 42.2Fawley United Kingdom 127 13,212,383 30.4Genoa Italy 122 12,992,495 32.0Le Havre France 117 12,288,542 37.6Milford Haven United Kingdom 94 9,529,973 25.5

Crude 10 -59,999 dwt Rotterdam Netherlands 111 3,890,934 54.9Immingham United Kingdom 57 2,331,923 41.7Antwerp Belgium 48 1,780,815 30.5Ventspils Latvia 47 1,355,461 23.2Amsterdam Netherlands 35 1,435,560 77.6Wilhelmshaven Germany 34 1,239,292 24.6Gothenburg Sweden 23 769,579 32.1Maraxlokk Malta 23 951,718 36.5Bilbao Spain 23 850,687 25.4Algeciras Spain 22 770,149 34.8

Crude -9,999 dwt Hamburg Germany 117 382,968 25.3Bremerhaven Germany 69 225,735 27.3Rostock Germany 27 88,560 21.0Brunsbuttel Germany 10 32,755 4.1Teesport United Kingdom 7 22,897 13.0Ceuta Spain 6 41,574 4.0Lubeck Germany 5 16,400 8.2Holtenau Germany 5 16,400 0.4Nordenham Germany 5 16,400 7.4Genoa Italy 4 21,616 50.8

App

endi

x I

248

9.2 Products tanker, port calls in EU 2007


Average Duration, h

Products 60,000+ dwt Rotterdam Netherlands 119 10,538,322 37.7Ventspils Latvia 43 3,470,422 47.6Le Havre France 37 3,412,149 46.3Amsterdam Netherlands 36 2,834,264 60.0Antwerp Belgium 35 2,936,152 46.4Fawley United Kingdom 28 2,678,253 32.9Fredericia Denmark 26 2,882,681 23.7Wilhelmshaven Germany 20 1,754,684 28.1Sines Portugal 17 1,455,071 35.8Milford Haven United Kingdom 17 1,293,590 41.4

Products 20 -59,999 dwt Milford Haven United Kingdom 68 3,106,520 45.2Ventspils Latvia 67 2,039,697 31.1Wilhelmshaven Germany 48 1,613,276 32.9Antwerp Belgium 43 1,667,162 35.4Maraxlokk Malta 39 1,382,208 31.8Agioi Theodoroi Greece 122 10,749,773 37.4Hamburg Germany 34 1,017,338 44.7Bilbao Spain 31 1,047,366 34.0Piraeus Greece 27 926,855 79.8Genoa Italy 26 997,523 39.1

Products 10 -19,999 dwt Riga Latvia 59 900,442 26.4Gothenburg Sweden 46 579,617 27.4Rotterdam Netherlands 45 604,273 22.8London United Kingdom 35 513,262 24.7Gdansk Poland 34 451,834 18.6Brofjorden Sweden 29 325,492 16.4Amsterdam Netherlands 27 421,809 45.0Antwerp Belgium 26 364,895 21.2Ventspils Latvia 21 303,897 25.6Manchester Ship Canal United Kingdom 21 272,027 29.4

Products 5 -9,999 dwt Brofjorden Sweden 150 1,140,631 13.6Rotterdam Netherlands 141 962,475 23.8Gothenburg Sweden 131 1,019,183 18.2Milford Haven United Kingdom 123 866,368 12.9Teesport United Kingdom 118 780,022 12.6Rostock Germany 87 686,110 8.8London United Kingdom 84 561,117 14.2Riga Latvia 75 523,617 21.1Copenhagen Denmark 68 488,617 14.1Algeciras Spain 66 357,114 21.1

Products -4,999 dwt Gothenburg Sweden 734 2,005,631 27.5Hamburg Germany 669 522,884 21.4Brofjorden Sweden 390 1,317,884 6.0Kopli-Port of Tallinn Estonia 302 500,043 27.8Grangemouth United Kingdom 266 1,206,425 15.9Skagen Denmark 250 775,188 4.7Gdansk Poland 237 319,670 47.7Tallinn Estonia 237 417,291 12.8Piraeus Greece 226 524,360 28.6Milford Haven United Kingdom 221 815,003 8.4

App

endi

x I

249

9.3 Chem/Prod tankers, port calls in EU 2007


Average Duration, h

Chemical/Products 20,000+ dwt Rotterdam Netherlands 1,345 50,611,837 45.4Antwerp Belgium 449 16,542,386 33.0Amsterdam Netherlands 278 11,550,575 50.4Tarragona Spain 186 6,578,565 31.5Lavera France 181 6,710,139 48.2Ventspils Latvia 166 6,059,020 30.7Maraxlokk Malta 165 6,318,806 31.0Le Havre France 158 5,902,582 32.8Immingham United Kingdom 140 5,065,823 35.6Barcelona Spain 135 4,874,482 28.8

Chemical/Products 10 -19,999 dwt Rotterdam Netherlands 1,056 16,029,891 36.7Antwerp Belgium 511 7,826,617 27.1Amsterdam Netherlands 366 5,567,988 30.9Milford Haven United Kingdom 305 4,684,071 19.3London United Kingdom 242 3,368,004 20.3Teesport United Kingdom 227 3,551,232 17.6Immingham United Kingdom 223 3,290,700 22.0Hamburg Germany 207 3,107,396 26.3Manchester Ship Canal United Kingdom 194 2,684,925 23.0Le Havre France 192 2,943,659 21.5

Chemical/Products 5 -9,999 dwt Rotterdam Netherlands 1,154 8,117,106 33.4Antwerp Belgium 723 4,699,993 27.0Gothenburg Sweden 246 1,872,920 20.2Hamburg Germany 235 1,576,207 22.2Manchester Ship Canal United Kingdom 224 1,434,038 23.8Asnaesvaerkets Havn Denmark 178 1,202,300 11.5Teesport United Kingdom 170 1,120,754 18.7Fredericia Denmark 166 1,253,205 23.3Le Havre France 164 1,093,325 20.7Tarragona Spain 153 1,028,364 15.6

Chemical/Products -4,999 dwt Rotterdam Netherlands 1,122 3,993,105 28.3Antwerp Belgium 546 1,919,191 26.3Teesport United Kingdom 418 1,444,956 19.5Hamburg Germany 297 819,842 18.8Agioi Theodoroi Greece 294 623,276 11.0Immingham United Kingdom 225 881,263 16.9Le Havre France 192 733,531 18.6Brunsbuttel Germany 187 544,986 11.5Fawley United Kingdom 162 586,146 18.8Port Jerome France 156 565,292 24.8

App

endi

x I

250

9.4 Pure chemical tankers, port calls in EU 2007


Average Duration, h

Pure Chemical 20,000+ dwt Rotterdam Netherlands 193 6,024,115 56.1Antwerp Belgium 69 2,159,843 29.1Le Havre France 27 871,062 25.9Barcelona Spain 11 354,372 34.6Dunkirk France 10 320,348 45.9Constantza Romania 9 274,567 39.4Setubal Portugal 8 346,498 128.3Donges France 8 268,953 24.8Tarragona Spain 7 214,251 21.0Amsterdam Netherlands 6 176,388 117.0

Pure Chemical 10 -19,999 dwt Rotterdam Netherlands 204 3,474,370 42.2Antwerp Belgium 98 1,633,040 33.5Sines Portugal 55 1,068,949 21.9Tarragona Spain 47 696,030 22.1Brofjorden Sweden 44 602,720 16.2Gothenburg Sweden 33 501,498 16.8Teesport United Kingdom 31 512,417 14.6Manchester Ship Canal United Kingdom 21 332,739 10.8Lavera France 21 315,221 31.3Barcelona Spain 19 315,070 26.9

Pure Chemical 5 -9,999 dwt Rotterdam Netherlands 205 1,399,798 35.2Antwerp Belgium 107 734,517 34.1Tarragona Spain 57 387,657 17.8Teesport United Kingdom 51 329,672 20.5Algeciras Spain 49 362,352 16.9Barcelona Spain 38 276,877 15.0Lavera France 38 254,401 21.4Naantali Finland 28 226,854 13.0Fos France 25 165,105 16.7Genoa Italy 24 155,185 15.7

Pure Chemical -4,999 dwt Rotterdam Netherlands 548 1,742,239 32.0Antwerp Belgium 290 945,475 31.8Teesport United Kingdom 176 558,744 22.4Fawley United Kingdom 145 443,712 15.6Skagen Denmark 133 415,484 9.3Grangemouth United Kingdom 129 333,768 23.9Aarhus Denmark 124 382,972 9.2Immingham United Kingdom 122 393,486 14.1Hamburg Germany 93 292,216 12.8Port Jerome France 89 302,248 25.7

9.5 LPG tankers, port calls in EU 2007

Type Size Port CountryNo of Calls

Total Capacity (m3)

Average Duration, h

LPG 50,000+ cbm Lavera France 42 2,967,789 48.0Tarragona Spain 16 1,064,959 28.5Antwerp Belgium 12 778,550 24.4Terneuzen Netherlands 11 750,476 36.3Vlissingen Netherlands 9 630,842 17.2Rotterdam Netherlands 8 508,977 26.2Stenungsund Sweden 7 505,721 40.5Braefoot Bay United Kingdom 6 347,089 23.8Sines Portugal 6 393,552 36.7Fawley United Kingdom 4 251,701 35.5

LPG -49,999 cbm Antwerp Belgium 1,026 6,683,689 20.9Teesport United Kingdom 705 3,411,148 15.0Rotterdam Netherlands 419 1,918,697 23.6Terneuzen Netherlands 374 2,370,463 15.7Immingham United Kingdom 323 968,600 12.1Butzfleth Germany 242 1,297,875 14.0Lavera France 236 1,681,643 22.0Fawley United Kingdom 228 1,044,684 16.6Milford Haven United Kingdom 196 1,282,708 16.9Moerdijk Netherlands 183 990,534 33.7

App

endi

x I

251

9.6 LNG tankers, port calls in EU 2007


Total Capacity (m3)

Average Duration, h

LNG -199,999 cbm Fos France 110 6,879,112 19.9Barcelona Spain 76 7,056,628 21.6Sagunto Spain 50 4,634,674 13.8Montoir France 45 6,268,788 32.4Donges France 39 5,307,784 23.7Zeebrugge Belgium 28 3,944,936 20.7Sines Portugal 14 1,902,100 13.2Marseilles France 12 559,229 161.3Setubal Portugal 11 1,456,999 239.4Genoa Italy 4 231,666 49.0

9.7 Bulker, port calls in EU 2007


Average Duration, h

Bulker 200,000+ dwt Rotterdam Netherlands 102 25,581,723 92.9Hamburg Germany 26 6,806,036 165.4Cadiz Spain 6 1,873,108 123.9Constantza Romania 5 1,031,496 103.6Antwerp Belgium 3 606,796 40.0Setubal Portugal 2 469,474 208.8Dunkirk France 1 208,014 7.1Algeciras Spain 1 211,485 0.0

Bulker 100 -199,999 dwt Rotterdam Netherlands 310 51,043,857 74.6IJmuiden Netherlands 163 26,066,465 51.3Dunkirk France 138 22,894,530 83.6Immingham United Kingdom 125 20,547,148 60.3Amsterdam Netherlands 80 12,459,491 88.9Teesport United Kingdom 78 12,821,536 48.5Antwerp Belgium 51 7,730,037 60.2Hamburg Germany 47 7,523,205 73.0Fos France 43 7,037,213 121.8Sines Portugal 26 4,345,211 57.4

Bulker 60 -99,999 dwt Rotterdam Netherlands 230 16,858,408 90.6Amsterdam Netherlands 168 12,908,857 67.9Hamburg Germany 162 12,120,974 58.8Ghent Belgium 133 9,834,642 73.9Antwerp Belgium 106 7,947,431 55.7Immingham United Kingdom 102 7,706,576 47.7Dunkirk France 95 7,012,449 75.7Tarragona Spain 94 6,730,711 96.8IJmuiden Netherlands 91 6,791,889 27.4Ventspils Latvia 76 5,494,102 113.6

Bulker 35 -59,999 dwt Antwerp Belgium 234 10,513,769 79.7Rotterdam Netherlands 169 7,519,109 63.5Bremen Germany 145 6,540,191 44.2Liverpool (United Kingdom) United Kingdom 103 4,408,070 99.5Hamburg Germany 82 3,764,760 55.8Ghent Belgium 68 2,915,130 56.2Tarragona Spain 67 3,007,268 76.4Aviles Spain 61 2,619,474 60.0Amsterdam Netherlands 57 2,644,976 82.0Piraeus Greece 53 2,363,910 126.6

Bulker 10 -34,999 dwt Antwerp Belgium 268 7,201,572 80.7Riga Latvia 248 7,042,024 62.4Rotterdam Netherlands 228 5,547,781 64.6Rouen France 136 3,361,434 53.3Constantza Romania 124 2,758,554 133.1Bremen Germany 119 2,638,515 40.4Varna Bulgaria 114 2,094,303 118.3Hull United Kingdom 102 2,582,644 46.2Immingham United Kingdom 101 2,675,778 52.2Gdansk Poland 94 2,359,125 102.0

Bulker -9,999 dwt Aalborg Portland Denmark 400 1,615,799 14.9Rostock Germany 171 491,297 31.2Slite Sweden 129 766,510 17.7Setubal Portugal 127 583,492 22.1Newport (South Wales) United Kingdom 122 223,566 22.3Rotterdam Netherlands 117 524,605 25.9Dunkirk France 114 892,871 18.4Copenhagen Denmark 113 552,375 23.5Medway Ports United Kingdom 104 926,807 17.6Szczecin Poland 99 399,532 63.7

App

endi

x I

252

9.8 General cargo, port calls in EU 2007


Average Duration, h

General cargo 10,000+ dwt Medway Ports United Kingdom 184 3,118,511 49.7Lulea Sweden 153 2,258,507 23.9Dunkirk France 116 1,709,499 25.3Antwerp Belgium 84 1,875,802 70.2Amsterdam Netherlands 79 1,561,211 36.1Rotterdam Netherlands 75 1,682,628 74.5Koverhar Finland 67 913,910 17.2Storugns Sweden 67 900,314 25.6Vlissingen Netherlands 54 1,549,073 36.4Shannon Foynes Port Ireland 48 624,573 18.5

General cargo 10,000+ dwt, 100+ TEU Antwerp Belgium 802 21,981,776 67.5Rotterdam Netherlands 326 8,344,717 54.2Hamburg Germany 174 4,446,636 63.0Vlissingen Netherlands 151 5,148,004 55.3Bremen Germany 113 3,240,592 73.6Maraxlokk Malta 104 1,280,824 39.8Rauma Finland 101 2,047,778 69.3La Rochelle-Pallice France 92 3,001,850 36.9Bilbao Spain 92 2,194,607 54.8Genoa Italy 72 1,676,824 34.5

General cargo -9,999 dwt, 100+ TEU Rotterdam Netherlands 4,031 17,784,607 31.0Antwerp Belgium 2,088 9,576,221 38.5Hamburg Germany 1,372 6,152,550 25.5Riga Latvia 1,238 5,012,685 43.4Amsterdam Netherlands 816 3,306,432 35.1Szczecin Poland 789 3,130,238 47.8Lisbon Portugal 681 3,257,786 35.3Ghent Belgium 668 3,024,325 25.5Terneuzen Netherlands 655 2,991,875 23.7Immingham United Kingdom 639 2,888,608 21.6

General cargo 5 -9,999 dwt Rotterdam Netherlands 180 1,234,392 47.4Antwerp Belgium 158 1,112,915 83.2Tarragona Spain 130 878,224 22.0Constantza Romania 123 888,195 82.7Ceuta Spain 117 794,722 2.4Amsterdam Netherlands 91 543,107 23.7Braviken Sweden 84 456,042 10.3Ghent Belgium 83 551,952 29.0IJmuiden Netherlands 80 558,905 26.0Terneuzen Netherlands 80 508,750 21.2

General cargo -4,999 dwt Rotterdam Netherlands 2,735 5,821,378 28.5Antwerp Belgium 1,137 2,755,095 29.4Szczecin Poland 819 1,716,524 44.1Amsterdam Netherlands 733 1,703,417 32.3Hamburg Germany 723 1,640,756 25.2Trent Wharves United Kingdom 693 1,380,106 32.3Klaipeda Lithuania 683 1,685,827 43.7Rostock Germany 671 1,412,629 27.0Constantza Romania 662 1,781,216 66.2Bremen Germany 615 1,226,364 32.6

App

endi

x I

253

9.9 Container, port calls in EU 2007


Total TEU Capacity

Average Duration, h

Container 8,000+ teu Hamburg Germany 409 3,540,964 34.2Rotterdam Netherlands 406 3,651,952 30.3Antwerp Belgium 241 2,120,631 27.7Felixstowe United Kingdom 182 1,628,390 42.1Le Havre France 179 1,540,521 25.2Southampton United Kingdom 158 1,328,198 34.8Valencia Spain 114 972,051 34.6Zeebrugge Belgium 104 926,731 19.5Bremerhaven Germany 97 946,178 33.4Algeciras Spain 71 782,293 29.0

Container 5 -7,999 teu Rotterdam Netherlands 734 4,758,205 27.2Hamburg Germany 593 3,718,486 30.8Le Havre France 480 2,909,793 23.5Felixstowe United Kingdom 378 2,375,670 29.3Antwerp Belgium 334 1,989,452 26.7Bremerhaven Germany 288 1,885,552 27.7Southampton United Kingdom 288 1,871,142 27.0Zeebrugge Belgium 232 1,462,492 16.5Barcelona Spain 180 1,084,514 22.9Genoa Italy 172 1,038,678 35.9

Container 3 -4,999 teu Antwerp Belgium 720 2,768,594 24.4Rotterdam Netherlands 610 2,452,724 18.1Bremerhaven Germany 532 2,160,288 20.8Barcelona Spain 403 1,598,153 17.2Le Havre France 373 1,451,088 16.5Valencia Spain 305 1,157,009 25.3Felixstowe United Kingdom 304 1,186,195 17.2Genoa Italy 260 975,306 28.3Hamburg Germany 246 966,696 22.8Algeciras Spain 219 890,695 21.1

Container 2 -2,999 teu Antwerp Belgium 719 1,845,577 22.3Rotterdam Netherlands 654 1,713,867 17.9Hamburg Germany 493 1,278,540 21.2Le Havre France 492 1,276,005 15.8Felixstowe United Kingdom 339 854,300 18.2Valencia Spain 292 725,857 24.9Barcelona Spain 262 659,786 15.2Bremerhaven Germany 257 681,526 18.4Algeciras Spain 236 592,789 25.0Genoa Italy 207 524,170 27.4

Container 1 -1,999 teu Antwerp Belgium 963 1,425,339 26.9Algeciras Spain 613 929,127 25.7Hamburg Germany 520 771,288 29.6Bremerhaven Germany 501 719,880 30.9Barcelona Spain 412 584,496 17.7Le Havre France 379 599,141 20.5Valencia Spain 327 472,508 19.6Lisbon Portugal 305 454,964 15.2Rotterdam Netherlands 297 421,980 20.9Felixstowe United Kingdom 296 430,413 18.1

Container -999 teu Rotterdam Netherlands 4,019 2,726,721 18.9Hamburg Germany 3,099 2,212,503 22.6Bremerhaven Germany 1,556 1,109,227 14.5Antwerp Belgium 840 599,154 16.4Dublin Ireland 661 463,059 23.2Gothenburg Sweden 537 334,262 16.1Felixstowe United Kingdom 524 337,489 14.0Helsinki Finland 504 413,275 11.4Kotka Finland 393 315,511 19.9Tilbury United Kingdom 391 303,317 12.3

App

endi

x I

254

9.10 Vehicle, port calls in EU 2007


Total CEU Capacity

Average Duration, h

Vehicle 4,000+ ceu Bremerhaven Germany 628 3,576,891 30.9Zeebrugge Belgium 622 3,491,404 16.2Southampton United Kingdom 506 2,798,426 12.1Antwerp Belgium 454 2,428,808 22.0Barcelona Spain 315 1,742,822 11.8Piraeus Greece 298 1,577,960 12.6Bristol United Kingdom 285 1,497,414 13.9Rotterdam Netherlands 181 1,038,933 12.7Le Havre France 134 777,086 14.7Emden Germany 126 649,521 33.5

Vehicle -3,999 ceu Zeebrugge Belgium 673 1,077,108 14.8Emden Germany 508 694,923 15.2Bremerhaven Germany 375 702,695 18.5Piraeus Greece 364 669,846 11.7Grimsby United Kingdom 311 262,440 11.2Hanko Finland 295 379,539 8.1Barcelona Spain 262 431,294 12.2Southampton United Kingdom 257 449,321 11.3Newcastle upon Tyne United Kingdom 255 322,554 19.0Sheerness United Kingdom 240 247,690 6.8

9.11 Roro, port calls in EU 2007


Total Lm Capacity

Average Duration, h

Roro 2,000+ lm Zeebrugge Belgium 2,113 5,783,950 9.3London United Kingdom 1,601 3,950,270 6.4Rotterdam Netherlands 1,290 2,987,213 13.3Gothenburg Sweden 1,076 3,477,810 13.9Immingham United Kingdom 903 2,616,578 9.0Killingholme United Kingdom 692 2,236,096 12.5Lubeck Germany 669 1,752,536 17.2Teesport United Kingdom 575 1,352,250 10.0Hanko Finland 454 1,253,583 9.3Antwerp Belgium 426 1,292,468 18.4

Roro -1,999 lm London United Kingdom 1,468 2,213,218 5.8Rotterdam Netherlands 1,435 2,165,797 10.1Ostend Belgium 1,052 1,197,793 11.0Felixstowe United Kingdom 1,030 1,607,818 5.3Vlissingen Netherlands 994 1,584,723 10.3Zeebrugge Belgium 929 1,343,903 16.2Helsinki Finland 555 896,660 15.1Tilbury United Kingdom 513 670,226 7.9Dublin Ireland 417 493,337 15.4Hull United Kingdom 392 616,345 10.3

9.12 Cruise, port calls in EU 2007


TotalLow Berth Capacity

Average Duration, h

Cruise 1,000+ low berths Barcelona Spain 488 1,150,581 13.8Mariehamn Finland 320 575,242 6.7Piraeus Greece 295 593,669 35.5Palma Spain 263 579,459 10.2Valletta Malta 209 442,237 7.0Southampton United Kingdom 207 460,998 12.7Savona-Vado Italy 177 459,265 7.5Copenhagen Denmark 152 337,365 11.7Marseilles France 120 294,110 12.8Lisbon Portugal 119 261,283 9.0

Cruise -999 low berths Piraeus Greece 573 300,408 35.6Barcelona Spain 203 130,000 19.4Helsinki Finland 139 67,401 9.4Marseilles France 123 82,477 24.2Lisbon Portugal 117 61,244 30.7Tallinn Estonia 110 63,493 5.8Copenhagen Denmark 102 56,762 10.2Genoa Italy 101 60,246 50.0Valletta Malta 96 49,237 10.1Valencia Spain 72 39,917 9.4

App

endi

x II

255

10 Appendix II – Cargo in ports (Eurostat, Dynamar)

10.1 Belgium Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)BE-Antwerpen Liquid Bulk 33,899 33,704 37,176 38,272 27,314 10,958 13%

Dry Bulk 22,794 25,156 26,702 25,645 18,931 6,713 13%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 154 952 1,899 2,093 773 1,319 1258%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2,077 2,445 3,486 3,425 1,485 1,940 65%Other General Cargo 17,734 17,833 17,734 18,937 8,647 10,290 7%Containers 51,217 56,740 60,093 65,224 27,431 37,793 27%Container (TEU) 5,445,437 6,063,746 6,488,029 7,018,799 3,461,439 3,557,360 29%

BE-Antwerpen Total (not incl. TEU) 127,875 136,830 147,090 153,596 84,582 69,014 20%BE-Gent Liquid Bulk 3,220 2,386 3,340 2,817 1,986 831 -13%

Dry Bulk 14,388 13,672 13,065 16,860 14,863 1,997 17%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 63 73 76 378 269 109 499%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2,057 1,235 1,008 1,641 840 800 -20%Other General Cargo 2,713 2,851 4,619 2,380 1,130 1,249 -12%Containers 129 101 31 30 1 29 -77%Container (TEU) 26,231 32,441 30,529 35,888 4,352 31,536 37%

BE-Gent Total (not incl. TEU) 22,569 20,319 22,138 24,106 19,090 5,015 7%BE-Oostende Liquid Bulk 235 26 70 94 94 -60%

Dry Bulk 1,397 1,081 992 968 968 -31%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,271 1,604 3,827 3,221 1,351 1,870 153%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,982 2,080 2,361 3,069 1,072 1,997 55%Other General Cargo 32 41 343 431 425 6 1239%Containers 54 87 28 16 15 1 -70%Container (TEU) 13,263 15,418 8,890 4,555 3,684 871 -66%

BE-Oostende Total (not incl. TEU) 4,971 4,919 7,621 7,799 3,925 3,874 57%BE-Zeebrugge Liquid Bulk 3,789 3,104 4,163 5,896 4,626 1,270 56%

Dry Bulk 1,683 1,663 1,719 1,863 1,829 33 11%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,723 1,987 2,428 3,187 1,528 1,659 85%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 13,426 12,769 13,580 13,689 5,476 8,213 2%Other General Cargo 673 689 1,040 1,041 722 319 55%Containers 3,895 4,764 5,797 7,321 2,607 4,714 88%Container (TEU) 1,012,694 1,196,000 1,407,933 1,653,493 756,719 896,774 63%

BE-Zeebrugge Total (not incl. TEU) 25,190 24,976 28,727 32,997 16,788 16,208 31%BE Total (not incl. TEU) 180,605 187,045 205,576 218,497 124,386 94,112 21%

1,000 ton, (teu)Year

10.2 Bulgaria Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)BG-Burgas Liquid Bulk 6,879 7,942 8,913 10,883 7,325 3,558 58%

Dry Bulk 3,346 2,973 3,027 3,895 3,334 561 16%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 84 74 85 64 25 39 -23%Other General Cargo 2,642 2,361 2,280 2,398 880 1,518 -9%Containers 219 292 304 311 157 154 42%Container (TEU) 20,200 26,600 25,685 25,950 12,464 13,486 28%

BG-Burgas Total (not incl. TEU) 13,170 13,642 14,609 17,551 11,720 5,831 33%BG-Varna Liquid Bulk 545 528 789 943 262 681 73%

Dry Bulk 5,951 7,012 7,451 6,787 3,156 3,631 14%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 407 411 456 375 161 214 -8%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 9Other General Cargo 568 605 605 722 274 448 27%Containers 738 973 1,028 1,176 677 499 59%Container (TEU) 65,063 78,599 84,400 94,422 48,513 45,909 45%

BG-Varna Total (not incl. TEU) 8,218 9,528 10,330 10,003 4,530 5,473 22%BG Total (not incl. TEU) 21,388 23,170 24,939 27,554 16,250 11,304 29%


App

endi

x II

256

10.3 Cyprus Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)CY-Larnaca Liquid Bulk 66 114 201 203%

Dry Bulk 71 179 364 411%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 27 25 10 -62%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 0Other General Cargo 228 205 184 -19%Containers 5 79 43 742%Container (TEU) 503 7,000 4,732 104 60 44 -79%

CY-Larnaca Total (not incl. TEU) 398 601 803 102%CY-Larnaca Oil Terminal Liquid Bulk 1,893 1,295 1,094 -42%CY-Larnaca Oil Terminal Total (not incl. TEU) 1,893 1,295 1,094 -42%CY-Lemesos Liquid Bulk 16 17 25 57%

Dry Bulk 689 557 440 -36%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 91 139 108 18%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 49 67 103 111%Other General Cargo 397 447 448 13%Containers 1,626 1,943 2,191 35%Container (TEU) 254,794 298,109 312,130 356,723 213,790 142,933 40%

CY-Lemesos Total (not incl. TEU) 2,869 3,171 3,315 0 0 0 16%CY-Moni Anchorage Liquid Bulk 137 144 192 40%CY-Moni Anchorage Total (not incl. TEU) 137 144 192 40%CY-Other Liquid Bulk 509 503 531 4%CY-Other Total (not incl. TEU) 509 503 531 4%CY-Vasilico Liquid Bulk 384 426 528 38%

Dry Bulk 1,061 689 633 -40%Other General Cargo 5 1 38 636%Containers 0 -

CY-Vasilico Total (not incl. TEU) 1,450 1,117 1,199 -17%CY Total (not incl. TEU) 7,256 6,832 7,134 0 0 0 -2%


10.4 Germany Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)DE-Amrum I. Liquid Bulk 3 2 2 2 2 -37%

Dry Bulk 6 17 13 6 6 1 17%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 13 12 1 19 16 4 48%

DE-Amrum I. Total (not incl. TEU) 21 30 16 27 23 4 30%DE-Baltrum I. Dry Bulk 13 1 6 6 0 -52%

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1 1 0 0 0 -75%Other General Cargo 10 7 8 7 1 -23%Containers 1 1 1 0 1 -10%

DE-Baltrum I. Total (not incl. TEU) 25 10 15 13 3 -39%DE-Bensersiel Dry Bulk 10 0

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 13 12 7 1 6 4332%Other General Cargo 30 13 13 5 1 4 -84%Containers 3 3 3 4 3 0 14%

DE-Bensersiel Total (not incl. TEU) 44 29 28 16 5 11 -65%DE-Borkum I. Liquid Bulk 1 1 1

Dry Bulk 29 8 16 3 3 -91%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 109 116 122 121 62 60 11%Other General Cargo 2 0 2 2 18%Containers 6 8 8 1 1 -79%

DE-Borkum I. Total (not incl. TEU) 147 133 147 127 66 61 -13%DE-Brake Liquid Bulk 409 342 390 443 112 331 8%

Dry Bulk 2,676 2,184 2,208 2,456 1,562 895 -8%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 58 75 73 63 13 49 8%Other General Cargo 2,234 2,378 2,646 2,494 1,160 1,333 12%Containers 29 26 32 30 21 9 2%Container (TEU) 2,451 2,272 2,826 2,504 1,734 770 2%

DE-Brake Total (not incl. TEU) 5,407 5,005 5,348 5,486 2,868 2,618 1%DE-Bremen Liquid Bulk 1,672 1,520 1,644 1,867 1,702 166 12%

Dry Bulk 7,780 7,545 6,450 8,383 7,840 543 8%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 44 24 34 30 29 1 -31%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 0 1 0 0 31%Other General Cargo 4,014 4,379 4,529 4,882 1,387 3,495 22%Containers 182 172 291 150 37 114 -17%Container (TEU) 31,833 27,334 45,288 24,255 8,323 15,932 -24%

DE-Bremen Total (not incl. TEU) 13,692 13,642 12,948 15,313 10,993 4,319 12%DE-Bremerhaven Liquid Bulk 352 415 487 485 470 15 38%

Dry Bulk 101 148 140 87 87 -14%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,963 2,127 2,348 2,740 998 1,742 40%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 19 31 81 63 16 47 230%Other General Cargo 1,113 1,100 1,200 1,291 755 536 16%Containers 25,390 28,206 29,838 36,308 16,635 19,673 43%Container (TEU) 3,158,020 3,441,919 3,698,681 4,420,134 2,107,451 2,312,683 40%

DE-Bremerhaven Total (not incl. TEU) 28,938 32,027 34,094 40,973 18,960 22,013 42%


App

endi

x II

257

Cargo Category Year 03-06 % Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)DE-Brunsbüttel Liquid Bulk 5,625 5,611 5,476 4,574 3,118 1,456 -19%

Dry Bulk 1,543 1,158 1,100 1,633 840 793 6%Other General Cargo 8 14 21 26 12 15 218%Containers 5 113Container (TEU) 21,000 26,255

DE-Brunsbüttel Total (not incl. TEU) 7,180 6,896 6,598 6,233 3,969 2,264 -13%DE-Büsum Dry Bulk 122 102 112 63 50 -DE-Büsum Total (not incl. TEU) 122 102 112 63 50 -DE-Bützfleth Liquid Bulk 2,136 2,373 2,317 2,229 1,018 1,211 4%

Dry Bulk 2,062 2,320 2,661 2,560 2,174 386 24%Other General Cargo 0 11 6 24 7 17 5363%

DE-Bützfleth Total (not incl. TEU) 4,198 4,703 4,984 4,812 3,199 1,613 15%DE-Carolinensiel Liquid Bulk 0 0 -100%

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2 2 2 1 1 -17%Other General Cargo 2 1 1 0 0 -78%Containers 19 19 19 7 11 -2%

DE-Carolinensiel Total (not incl. TEU) 23 21 21 8 13 -11%DE-Cuxhaven Liquid Bulk 1 5 3 2 2 118%

Dry Bulk 279 263 246 202 196 6 -27%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 146 240 289 290 13 278 99%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 526 687 799 748 322 426 42%Other General Cargo 107 182 227 216 129 87 101%Containers 137 217 269 408 68 340 199%Container (TEU) 20,000 32,546 35,200 68,000 31,652 36,348 240%

DE-Cuxhaven Total (not incl. TEU) 1,196 1,594 1,833 1,867 729 1,138 56%DE-Dagebüll Dry Bulk 16 2 13 11 0 11 -28%

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 90 91 101 121 36 84 34%DE-Dagebüll Total (not incl. TEU) 106 93 114 132 37 95 25%DE-Duisburg Liquid Bulk 1 7 2 -100%

Dry Bulk 109 87 84 74 69 5 -32%Other General Cargo 1,280 1,399 1,339 1,291 170 1,121 1%Containers 156 191 248 254 41 213 62%Container (TEU) 40,721 44,588 36,413 44,414 20,984 23,430 9%

DE-Duisburg Total (not incl. TEU) 1,546 1,684 1,673 1,618 280 1,338 5%DE-Emden Liquid Bulk 858 727 861 830 712 118 -3%

Dry Bulk 430 505 418 452 432 19 5%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,241 1,313 1,422 1,622 432 1,190 31%Other General Cargo 749 950 884 963 866 97 29%Containers 35 4 12 0 0 0 -99%Container (TEU) 16,448 893 2,445 272 1 271 -98%

DE-Emden Total (not incl. TEU) 3,313 3,498 3,597 3,867 2,442 1,424 17%DE-Flensburg Liquid Bulk 4 3 2 0 0 -98%

Dry Bulk 530 487 552 493 489 4 -7%Other General Cargo 31 33 1 3 2 0 -92%

DE-Flensburg Total (not incl. TEU) 565 523 555 496 491 4 -12%DE-Föhr I. Liquid Bulk 11 2 -100%

Dry Bulk 29 33 2 3 3 -89%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 77 82 6 88 59 28 14%Other General Cargo 1 -Containers 0 -

DE-Föhr I. Total (not incl. TEU) 117 118 8 91 63 28 -22%DE-Hamburg Liquid Bulk 11,657 12,241 13,068 14,164 10,728 3,436 22%

Dry Bulk 28,866 25,611 27,822 29,018 21,626 7,392 1%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 399 434 397 393 34 359 -1%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 100 4 11 14 10 4 -86%Other General Cargo 2,218 2,327 2,363 2,347 1,562 786 6%Containers 51,716 59,813 66,430 70,927 34,982 35,945 37%Container (TEU) 6,126,274 7,003,470 8,087,545 8,861,804 4,607,666 4,254,138 45%

DE-Hamburg Total (not incl. TEU) 94,955 100,430 110,091 116,864 68,942 47,922 23%DE-Helgoland I. Liquid Bulk 1 1 1 1 -10%

Dry Bulk 3 5 2 2 -51%Other General Cargo 15 12 13 10 4 -12%

DE-Helgoland I. Total (not incl. TEU) 20 19 16 12 4 -19%DE-Juist Dry Bulk 5 3 3 1 -

Other General Cargo 22 21 22 21 1 -2%Containers 4 5 5 5 9%

DE-Juist Total (not incl. TEU) 27 32 30 23 7 13%DE-Kappeln Liquid Bulk 2

Dry Bulk 44Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0

DE-Kappeln Total (not incl. TEU) 46DE-Kiel Liquid Bulk 278 255 314 206 195 10 -26%

Dry Bulk 599 824 739 618 430 188 3%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 857 766 779 806 386 419 -6%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 772 722 761 838 387 451 8%Other General Cargo 327 272 329 375 179 197 15%Containers 217 147 176 204 35 169 -6%Container (TEU) 31,000 16,000 19,029 19,000 9,116 9,884 -39%

DE-Kiel Total (not incl. TEU) 3,050 2,986 3,099 3,047 1,613 1,434 0%DE-Langeoog, Insel Dry Bulk 14 -100%

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 12 12 7 6 1 8115%Other General Cargo 31 13 13 5 4 1 -84%Containers 3 3 3 4 0 3 15%

DE-Langeoog, Insel Total (not incl. TEU) 48 29 28 16 11 5 -68%


App

endi

x II

258

Cargo Category Year 03-06 % Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)DE-List/Sylt Ro-Ro (self-prop) 41 62 76 80 75 5 95%DE-List/Sylt Total (not incl. TEU) 41 62 76 80 75 5 95%DE-Lübeck Liquid Bulk 2 1 -100%

Dry Bulk 1,088 1,331 970 1,043 746 297 -4%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 5,502 6,131 6,062 6,505 3,009 3,496 18%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 9,691 9,847 9,650 10,463 6,862 3,601 8%Other General Cargo 403 408 417 557 503 54 38%Containers 1,099 1,450 1,749 2,521 1,022 1,499 129%Container (TEU) 58,897 67,024 80,105 84,975 38,682 46,293 44%

DE-Lübeck Total (not incl. TEU) 17,786 19,168 18,848 21,089 12,142 8,947 19%DE-Neuharlingersiel Other General Cargo 12 10 9 0 9 -DE-Neuharlingersiel Total (not incl. TEU) 12 10 9 0 9 -DE-Norddeich Dry Bulk 30 0 1 1 1 -98%

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 106 91 112 116 6 110 9%Other General Cargo 22 24 21 25 5 20 17%Containers 22 21 21 18 17 1 -16%

DE-Norddeich Total (not incl. TEU) 179 137 156 160 28 132 -11%DE-Nordenham Liquid Bulk 701 538 686 486 306 179 -31%

Dry Bulk 2,034 2,336 2,402 2,534 2,449 85 25%Other General Cargo 182 642 680 752 698 54 313%Containers 27 20 13 14 5 8 -49%Container (TEU) 2,735 1,656 1,493 1,286 534 752 -53%

DE-Nordenham Total (not incl. TEU) 2,944 3,535 3,780 3,785 3,458 327 29%DE-Norderney I. Liquid Bulk 2 3 1 1 -

Dry Bulk 2 2 3 3 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 91 110 116 109 7 -Other General Cargo 0 1 4 0 4 -Containers 9 10 10 1 9 -

DE-Norderney I. Total (not incl. TEU) 103 125 134 115 20 -DE-Nordstrand Dry Bulk 1 1 1 -

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 16 27 26 5 21 -Other General Cargo 1 1 0 0 0 -

DE-Nordstrand Total (not incl. TEU) 16 29 27 5 22 -DE-Pellworm I. Dry Bulk 22 18 7 5 1 -

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 20 28 29 23 5 -Other General Cargo 1 1 1 0 0 -

DE-Pellworm I. Total (not incl. TEU) 42 46 36 29 7 -DE-Puttgarden Ro-Ro (self-prop) 3,375 3,574 3,735 3,965 1,706 2,259 17%DE-Puttgarden Total (not incl. TEU) 3,375 3,574 3,735 3,965 1,706 2,259 17%DE-Rostock Liquid Bulk 2,359 2,699 2,646 2,959 2,152 807 25%

Dry Bulk 7,523 5,743 6,554 6,543 2,624 3,919 -13%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 4,148 4,749 5,287 6,009 3,025 2,985 45%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2,124 2,089 1,894 1,871 950 921 -12%Other General Cargo 1,093 1,133 1,240 1,807 1,121 686 65%Containers 1 11 8 7 3 4 386%Container (TEU) 1,000 883 1,000 1,000 349 651 0%

DE-Rostock Total (not incl. TEU) 17,249 16,424 17,630 19,195 9,875 9,321 11%DE-Sassnitz Dry Bulk 153 142 130 127 36 91 -17%

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 395 485 461 441 205 236 11%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2,237 2,144 2,010 2,064 1,090 974 -8%Other General Cargo 152 88 22 31 25 7 -79%Containers 0 0 1 0 0 0 -58%Container (TEU) 24 8 97 3 1 2 -88%

DE-Sassnitz Total (not incl. TEU) 2,938 2,858 2,623 2,663 1,355 1,308 -9%DE-Spieckeroog I. Liquid Bulk 0 0 0 0 -

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 0 0 0 -Other General Cargo 11 10 9 8 0 -

DE-Spieckeroog I. Total (not incl. TEU) 11 10 9 8 0 -DE-Stralsund Dry Bulk 710 -100%

Other General Cargo 184 -100%DE-Stralsund Total (not incl. TEU) 893 -100%DE-Wangerooge I. Dry Bulk 2 -

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1 0 1 0 0 -Other General Cargo 1 0 1 0 0 -Containers 18 17 16 11 5 -

DE-Wangerooge I. Total (not incl. TEU) 23 17 17 11 6 -DE-Wilhelmshaven Liquid Bulk 36,923 42,278 43,645 40,866 30,683 10,183 11%

Dry Bulk 2,141 2,138 1,903 1,881 1,876 5 -12%Other General Cargo 88 273 411 359 347 11 308%Containers 276 267 18 -100%Container (TEU) 39,438 43,032 25,706 -100%

DE-Wilhelmshaven Total (not incl. TEU) 39,427 44,956 45,977 43,106 32,906 10,199 9%DE-Wismar Liquid Bulk 97 23 56 94 94 -3%

Dry Bulk 1,507 1,815 1,716 1,641 424 1,216 9%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 0 -Other General Cargo 1,060 966 1,977 2,114 1,814 300 99%Containers 1 -Container (TEU) 70 -

DE-Wismar Total (not incl. TEU) 2,664 2,804 3,750 3,848 2,332 1,516 44%DE Total (not incl. TEU) 252,066 267,361 282,157 299,303 178,856 120,447 19%


App

endi

x II

259

10.5 Denmark Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)DK-Aabenraa Liquid Bulk 338 306 422 475 395 81 41%

Dry Bulk 775 817 917 990 586 404 28%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 203 227 264 237 123 114 17%Other General Cargo 17 7 12 18 15 4 11%

DK-Aabenraa Total (not incl. TEU) 1,333 1,356 1,615 1,721 1,118 603 29%DK-Aalborg Liquid Bulk 1,101 1,187 1,086 1,579 1,221 358 43%

Dry Bulk 1,275 1,188 957 956 877 79 -25%Other General Cargo 146 132 211 287 132 155 97%Containers 235 244 289 304 171 134 30%Container (TEU) 44,300 33,135 55,960 59,000 29,186 29,814 33%

DK-Aalborg Total (not incl. TEU) 2,756 2,751 2,542 3,126 2,400 726 13%DK-Aalborg Portland (Cemen Liquid Bulk 17 23 13 23 23 38%

Dry Bulk 2,700 2,925 2,906 3,016 879 2,136 12%Other General Cargo 43 27 42 49 46 3 14%

DK-Aalborg Portland (Cementfabrikken Rørdal) Total 2,760 2,974 2,960 3,088 949 2,139 12%DK-Århus Liquid Bulk 1,600 1,602 1,731 1,920 1,450 470 20%

Dry Bulk 2,664 2,770 2,852 3,050 2,777 273 14%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,798 1,860 1,819 1,731 888 843 -4%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,287 1,371 1,551 1,780 902 878 38%Other General Cargo 144 134 252 272 132 140 88%Containers 2,490 2,619 2,961 3,161 1,528 1,633 27%Container (TEU) 330,079 341,335 397,000 427,000 211,672 215,328 29%

DK-Århus Total (not incl. TEU) 9,983 10,357 11,167 11,913 7,676 4,237 19%DK-Asnæsværkets Havn Liquid Bulk 161 94 32 23 16 7 -86%

Dry Bulk 1,692 1,125 1,274 2,034 1,883 151 20%DK-Asnæsværkets Havn Total (not incl. TEU) 1,853 1,219 1,306 2,057 1,899 158 11%DK-Avedøreværkets Havn Liquid Bulk 185 162 217 217 -

Dry Bulk 696 489 486 463 23 -Other General Cargo 256 284 126 126 -

DK-Avedøreværkets Havn Total (not incl. TEU) 1,137 935 830 807 23 -DK-Enstedværkets Havn Liquid Bulk 9 -100%

Dry Bulk 7,621 4,916 3,502 5,734 3,188 2,547 -25%DK-Enstedværkets Havn Total (not incl. TEU) 7,630 4,916 3,502 5,734 3,188 2,547 -25%DK-Esbjerg Liquid Bulk 627 639 552 665 349 316 6%

Dry Bulk 1,408 1,026 1,082 1,156 1,070 87 -18%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 78 77 94 105 76 28 35%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,567 1,567 1,668 1,689 603 1,085 8%Other General Cargo 407 308 277 301 92 209 -26%Containers 31 48 110 223 127 95 618%Container (TEU) 250,000 270,000 295,000 339,250 190,123 149,127 36%

DK-Esbjerg Total (not incl. TEU) 4,119 3,665 3,783 4,138 2,317 1,821 0%DK-Fredericia (Og Shell-HavnLiquid Bulk 14,266 14,785 15,189 14,143 1,038 13,105 -1%

Dry Bulk 1,485 1,127 1,032 1,037 943 95 -30%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 18 25 30 20 19 2 14%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 238 230 182 233 83 150 -2%Other General Cargo 349 289 464 428 376 52 23%Containers 156 197 175 246 108 138 57%Container (TEU) 12,000 18,000 12,000 19,000 7,306 11,694 58%

DK-Fredericia (Og Shell-Havnen) Total (not incl. TEU) 16,513 16,653 17,071 16,108 2,567 13,541 -2%DK-Frederikshavn Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2,568 2,673 2,402 2,408 1,288 1,120 -6%

Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 173 193 244 318 153 166 84%Other General Cargo 21 22 30 30 19 11 43%

DK-Frederikshavn Total (not incl. TEU) 2,762 2,887 2,675 2,756 1,459 1,297 0%DK-Frederiskværk Havn (FredDry Bulk 188 68 68 -

Other General Cargo 740 833 564 269 -DK-Frederiskværk Havn (Frederiksværk Stålvalseværk) Total (not incl. TEU) 928 900 564 337 -DK-Gedser Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,111 1,188 1,447 1,714 857 857 54%DK-Gedser Total (not incl. TEU) 1,111 1,188 1,447 1,714 857 857 54%DK-Helsingør (Elsinore) Ro-Ro (self-prop) 4,230 4,417 4,283 4,442 2,075 2,367 5%DK-Helsingør (Elsinore) Total (not incl. TEU) 4,230 4,417 4,283 4,442 2,075 2,367 5%DK-Hirtshals Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,177 1,263 551 712 -

Other General Cargo 17 18 17 1 -DK-Hirtshals Total (not incl. TEU) 1,194 1,280 568 713 -DK-Kalundborg Liquid Bulk 33 17 32 30 2 -

Dry Bulk 421 493 653 150 503 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,836 1,900 1,860 1,774 865 909 -3%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 943 994 1,132 1,303 661 641 38%Other General Cargo 14 53 72 71 56 14 398%

DK-Kalundborg Total (not incl. TEU) 2,794 3,401 3,574 3,833 1,763 2,069 37%DK-Københavns Havn Liquid Bulk 3,169 2,496 3,137 3,050 2,289 761 -4%

Dry Bulk 2,072 2,258 2,071 2,326 1,913 413 12%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 278 245 217 227 110 117 -19%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 219 179 151 172 96 76 -21%Other General Cargo 190 181 165 177 163 14 -7%Containers 841 858 934 1,031 641 390 23%Container (TEU) 116,312 120,635 132,326 150,217 77,509 72,708 29%

DK-Københavns Havn Total (not incl. TEU) 6,769 6,215 6,675 6,983 5,212 1,771 3%DK-Køge Liquid Bulk 73 75 37 57 55 2 -22%

Dry Bulk 756 874 849 734 462 272 -3%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 32 120 128 27 102 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 339 355 183 215 108 107 -37%Other General Cargo 194 97 90 110 72 38 -43%

DK-Køge Total (not incl. TEU) 1,362 1,433 1,278 1,243 724 520 -9%


App

endi

x II

260

Cargo Category Year 03-06 % Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)DK-Kolding Liquid Bulk 32 29 34 25 25 -22%

Dry Bulk 822 914 899 933 766 166 13%Other General Cargo 243 209 185 218 205 14 -10%

DK-Kolding Total (not incl. TEU) 1,097 1,153 1,118 1,175 996 180 7%DK-Nordjyllandsværkets HavnLiquid Bulk 11 8 14 6 8 -

Dry Bulk 1,108 657 967 962 4 -Other General Cargo 0 0 -

DK-Nordjyllandsværkets Havn Total (not incl. TEU) 1,119 666 981 969 12 -DK-Odense Liquid Bulk 44 52 55 54 38 16 21%

Dry Bulk 1,772 1,910 2,046 1,939 1,408 531 9%Other General Cargo 113 152 237 296 295 1 162%

DK-Odense Total (not incl. TEU) 1,930 2,115 2,337 2,289 1,742 547 19%DK-Randers Liquid Bulk 7 11 14 -100%

Dry Bulk 753 953 883 961 726 235 28%Other General Cargo 122 184 334 283 113 170 131%

DK-Randers Total (not incl. TEU) 883 1,148 1,231 1,244 840 404 41%DK-Rødby (Færgehavn) Ro-Ro (self-prop) 4,632 4,911 5,241 5,755 2,878 2,878 24%DK-Rødby (Færgehavn) Total (not incl. TEU) 4,632 4,911 5,241 5,755 2,878 2,878 24%DK-Rønne Liquid Bulk 76 75 82 89 89 17%

Dry Bulk 890 858 886 999 530 470 12%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 113 122 175 186 128 58 65%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 264 261 208 241 120 121 -9%Other General Cargo 71 60 51 50 37 13 -30%

DK-Rønne Total (not incl. TEU) 1,414 1,376 1,402 1,565 904 661 11%DK-Statoil-Havnen Liquid Bulk 8,342 8,753 7,781 7,573 4,795 2,777 -9%DK-Statoil-Havnen Total (not incl. TEU) 8,342 8,753 7,781 7,573 4,795 2,777 -9%DK-Stigsnæsværkets Havn Liquid Bulk 5 5 6 6 -

Dry Bulk 684 551 1,160 962 198 -DK-Stigsnæsværkets Havn Total (not incl. TEU) 690 556 1,166 969 198 -DK-Studstrupværkets Havn Liquid Bulk 18 27 30 31 20 11 79%

Dry Bulk 1,358 1,155 784 1,401 1,362 39 3%Other General Cargo 0 4 4 -

DK-Studstrupværkets Havn Total (not incl. TEU) 1,375 1,181 814 1,437 1,386 50 4%DK-Vejle Liquid Bulk 16 14 16 16 16 -1%


DK-Vejle Total (not incl. TEU) 836 879 894 1,060 991 69 27%DK Total (not incl. TEU) 86,483 87,894 88,975 96,114 52,610 43,503 11%


10.6 Estonia Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)EE-Kunda Liquid Bulk 74 122 82 12 70 12%

Dry Bulk 456 262 329 168 162 -28%Other General Cargo 904 828 745 71 674 -18%

EE-Kunda Total (not incl. TEU) 1,433 1,212 1,156 250 906 -19%EE-Miiduranna Liquid Bulk 2,259 2,025 1,499 1,499 -34%

Dry Bulk 272 229 229 3 226 -16%EE-Miiduranna Total (not incl. TEU) 2,531 2,255 1,728 3 1,725 -32%EE-Pärnu Dry Bulk 269 157 204 9 195 -24%

Other General Cargo 1,548 1,351 1,152 121 1,031 -26%EE-Pärnu Total (not incl. TEU) 1,817 1,508 1,356 130 1,226 -25%EE-Tallinn… Liquid Bulk 25,435 24,414 24,040 1,731 22,309 -5%

Dry Bulk 5,243 6,975 10,578 364 10,215 102%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 3,051 3,099 2 2 0 -100%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 34 28 5 -Other General Cargo 2,366 1,637 5,318 2,757 2,561 125%Containers 1,008 2,684 1,382 751 631 37%Container (TEU) 99,472 113,081 127,585 152,399 80,432 71,967 53%

EE-Tallinn… Total (not incl. TEU) 0 37,103 38,809 41,353 5,633 35,720 11%EE-Vene-Balti Liquid Bulk 1,643 1,022 1,916 33 1,883 17%

Dry Bulk 38 12 25 25 -35%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 8 3 5 -Other General Cargo 220 219 264 50 214 20%Containers 0 14Container (TEU) 230 -

EE-Vene-Balti Total (not incl. TEU) 0 1,902 1,267 2,213 111 2,102 16%EE Total (not incl. TEU) 0 44,787 45,052 47,806 6,127 41,679 7%


App

endi

x II

261

10.7 Spain Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)ES- Liquid Bulk 693 625 685 1,039 855 184 50%

Dry Bulk 143 141 156 113 113 -21%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 377 438 441 343 211 132 -9%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 761 801 858 769 582 186 1%Other General Cargo 2 2 2 5 4 0 111%Containers 163 178 192 173 157 17 7%

ES- Total (not incl. TEU) 2,138 2,186 2,335 2,442 1,922 520 14%ES-Algeciras Liquid Bulk 20,546 21,919 22,167 23,315 15,683 7,632 13%

Dry Bulk 2,737 2,765 2,652 2,708 2,691 17 -1%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,004 1,018 976 962 545 417 -4%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 0 50 -100%Other General Cargo 841 1,013 1,201 1,342 634 708 60%Containers 24,095 26,952 29,471 33,118 16,373 16,745 37%Container (TEU) 2,517,318 2,937,381 3,179,614 3,244,640 1,621,486 1,623,154 29%

ES-Algeciras Total (not incl. TEU) 49,223 53,667 56,518 61,445 35,926 25,519 25%ES-Alicante Liquid Bulk 126 148 152 189 170 19 50%

Dry Bulk 1,490 1,555 1,668 1,643 1,423 220 10%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 7 8 12 8 4 4 12%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 187 208 239 153 4 149 -18%Other General Cargo 347 290 322 348 268 80 0%Containers 1,065 1,086 1,093 874 177 697 -18%Container (TEU) 146,477 153,870 159,237 172,729 88,076 84,653 18%

ES-Alicante Total (not incl. TEU) 3,221 3,296 3,486 3,215 2,046 1,169 0%ES-Almería Liquid Bulk 1,275 8 9 7 7 -99%

Dry Bulk 6,123 5,803 6,307 5,965 4,024 1,941 -3%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 119 126 115 51 7 44 -57%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 251 233 261 171 30 140 -32%Other General Cargo 331 145 160 179 163 16 -46%Containers 0 3 0 0 0 -95%Container (TEU) 77 104 81 192 192 149%

ES-Almería Total (not incl. TEU) 8,099 6,319 6,852 6,372 4,230 2,142 -21%ES-Avilés Liquid Bulk 850 744 740 814 297 518 -4%

Dry Bulk 2,787 3,008 3,083 3,615 2,232 1,384 30%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 0 0 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 -100%Other General Cargo 979 1,171 1,034 1,414 673 741 44%Containers 80 86 92 56 8 48 -30%Container (TEU) 9,083 9,719 10,851 9,114 4,549 4,565 0%

ES-Avilés Total (not incl. TEU) 4,696 5,008 4,949 5,900 3,209 2,690 26%ES-Barcelona Liquid Bulk 10,301 12,096 12,283 10,788 10,516 272 5%

Dry Bulk 3,705 3,583 3,532 4,108 3,668 439 11%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,493 2,301 2,720 3,590 961 2,630 141%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,210 1,193 1,146 1,294 508 786 7%Other General Cargo 1,313 1,543 1,763 861 672 189 -34%Containers 12,265 16,141 16,139 18,320 9,031 9,289 49%Container (TEU) 1,652,373 1,910,723 2,078,329 2,317,481 1,165,349 1,152,132 40%

ES-Barcelona Total (not incl. TEU) 30,287 36,856 37,583 38,961 25,356 13,605 29%ES-Bilbao Liquid Bulk 16,037 18,678 19,723 22,290 17,913 4,377 39%

Dry Bulk 4,145 5,033 4,261 5,524 4,567 958 33%Other General Cargo 3,482 3,746 3,851 3,789 2,606 1,184 9%Containers 3,887 4,236 4,477 4,605 1,981 2,624 18%Container (TEU) 453,763 468,958 503,811 523,124 258,002 265,122 15%

ES-Bilbao Total (not incl. TEU) 27,551 31,693 32,312 36,208 27,066 9,142 31%ES-Cádiz Liquid Bulk 68 70 108 74 71 3 8%

Dry Bulk 1,797 2,178 2,557 2,699 2,270 429 50%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 65 67 84 39 8 31 -40%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,412 1,453 1,412 830 324 506 -41%Other General Cargo 271 436 399 324 124 200 19%Containers 1,035 991 1,166 972 253 719 -6%Container (TEU) 150,100 114,528 138,441 155,370 75,100 80,270 4%

ES-Cádiz Total (not incl. TEU) 4,649 5,194 5,726 4,938 3,051 1,887 6%ES-Cartagena Liquid Bulk 16,525 18,795 21,141 19,431 17,677 1,754 18%

Dry Bulk 3,961 3,854 5,028 5,173 5,111 62 31%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1 4 6 1 1 -29%Other General Cargo 296 374 444 566 558 8 91%Containers 366 273 391 354 89 264 -3%Container (TEU) 36,918 28,109 38,089 39,594 19,619 19,975 7%

ES-Cartagena Total (not incl. TEU) 21,150 23,300 27,010 25,525 23,435 2,090 21%ES-Castellón Liquid Bulk 6,706 7,811 8,985 8,184 6,352 1,832 22%

Dry Bulk 2,262 2,631 3,294 3,598 3,270 328 59%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 10 10 14 19 2 17 83%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 99 0 0 0 0 0 -100%Other General Cargo 454 506 569 576 169 407 27%Containers 401 463 547 838 56 783 109%Container (TEU) 33,103 35,041 43,773 71,660 36,467 35,193 116%

ES-Castellón Total (not incl. TEU) 9,932 11,422 13,409 13,216 9,849 3,367 33%


App

endi

x II

262

Cargo Category Year 03-06 % Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)ES-Ferrol Liquid Bulk 893 819 822 -8%

Dry Bulk 7,596 8,609 8,290 9%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 0 0 -90%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 -Other General Cargo 375 456 566 51%Containers 1 0 1 60%Container (TEU) 58 51 126 1,249 540 709 117%

ES-Ferrol Total (not incl. TEU) 8,865 9,884 9,679 0 0 0 9%ES-Ferrol Liquid Bulk 937 883 54 -

Dry Bulk 8,709 7,585 1,124 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 0 0 -Other General Cargo 550 381 169 -Containers 8 0 8 -

ES-Ferrol Total (not incl. TEU) 10,204 8,850 1,354 -ES-Gijón Liquid Bulk 1,439 1,346 1,428 1,398 1,350 47 -3%

Dry Bulk 17,064 18,268 19,663 18,298 17,065 1,233 7%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2 0 0 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1 -Other General Cargo 366 210 431 516 178 339 41%Containers 79 46 64 77 18 58 -3%Container (TEU) 10,397 4,441 5,048 7,734 3,932 3,802 -26%

ES-Gijón Total (not incl. TEU) 18,949 19,869 21,589 20,289 18,611 1,678 7%ES-Huelva Liquid Bulk 11,339 11,349 12,942 13,400 10,940 2,461 18%

Dry Bulk 6,119 6,414 7,531 7,416 6,389 1,027 21%Other General Cargo 694 453 465 713 346 368 3%

ES-Huelva Total (not incl. TEU) 18,153 18,216 20,937 21,530 17,674 3,855 19%ES-La Coruña Liquid Bulk 7,608 7,331 8,534 8,255 6,367 1,888 9%

Dry Bulk 3,649 4,432 4,438 4,096 3,686 410 12%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 -100%Other General Cargo 771 857 1,015 1,030 810 219 34%Containers 0 12 4 8 4377%Container (TEU) 1,355 746 609 -

ES-La Coruña Total (not incl. TEU) 12,029 12,621 13,987 13,393 10,867 2,525 11%ES-Las Palmas Liquid Bulk 4,546 4,544 4,846 4,504 4,040 464 -1%

Dry Bulk 1,690 1,590 1,785 1,669 1,667 1 -1%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 107 120 138 141 101 40 31%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,397 1,422 1,495 1,533 865 668 10%Other General Cargo 643 869 643 611 428 184 -5%Containers 7,896 9,329 10,329 11,009 6,446 4,564 39%Container (TEU) 952,358 1,098,028 1,209,661 1,302,755 653,329 649,426 37%

ES-Las Palmas Total (not incl. TEU) 16,278 17,875 19,236 19,468 13,546 5,921 20%ES-Málaga Liquid Bulk 74 107 76 66 32 35 -10%

Dry Bulk 1,844 1,784 2,100 1,953 1,740 213 6%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 28 64 79 95 37 58 234%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 145 278 302 322 78 244 122%Other General Cargo 28 17 30 23 22 1 -18%Containers 2 502 2,162 3,640 1,779 1,861 175734%Container (TEU) 1,650 72,697 247,451 450,694 224,906 225,788 27215%

ES-Málaga Total (not incl. TEU) 2,122 2,753 4,750 6,100 3,688 2,412 188%ES-Marín- (Pontevedra) Liquid Bulk 0 0 0 0 0 -97%

Dry Bulk 779 820 1,016 892 832 60 14%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 0 -100%Other General Cargo 602 545 559 550 163 387 -9%Containers 278 257 274 242 54 188 -13%Container (TEU) 32,808 30,535 32,128 37,423 19,580 17,843 14%

ES-Marín- (Pontevedra) Total (not incl. TEU) 1,659 1,621 1,850 1,684 1,049 635 1%ES-Molina de Segura Liquid Bulk 1,356 1,329 -

Dry Bulk 1,016 1,235 -Other General Cargo 226 193 -

ES-Molina de Segura Total (not incl. TEU) 2,597 2,757 -ES-Motril Liquid Bulk 1,444 1,433 11 -

Dry Bulk 1,172 843 329 -Other General Cargo 259 233 26 -Containers 0 0 0 -Container (TEU) 32 30 2 -

ES-Motril Total (not incl. TEU) 0 0 0 2,875 2,509 366 -ES-Palma de Mallorca Liquid Bulk 1,698 1,807 2,068 2,286 2,286 0 35%

Dry Bulk 2,063 2,191 2,390 2,207 2,101 106 7%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2,959 3,441 4,601 5,557 3,728 1,829 88%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2,535 2,266 2,604 1,947 1,475 472 -23%Other General Cargo 92 281 223 345 204 141 274%Containers 1,915 1,726 1,399 1,317 1,065 252 -31%Container (TEU) 159,348 185,998 155,582 156,000 76,538 79,462 -2%

ES-Palma de Mallorca Total (not incl. TEU) 11,261 11,711 13,285 13,660 10,859 2,801 21%ES-Pasajes Liquid Bulk 256 100 -100%

Dry Bulk 3,441 3,500 3,274 3,253 3,209 44 -5%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 307 359 311 341 92 248 11%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 20 19 21 19 2 -Other General Cargo 1,889 1,735 1,751 1,840 1,007 833 -3%Containers 0 0 0 -Container (TEU) 52 106 106 -

ES-Pasajes Total (not incl. TEU) 5,893 5,715 5,355 5,454 4,327 1,127 -7%


App

endi

x II

263

Cargo Category Year 03-06 % Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)ES-Santa Cruz de Tenerife Liquid Bulk 8,896 9,011 9,636 9,640 6,415 3,225 8%

Dry Bulk 1,543 1,991 1,892 1,987 1,759 228 29%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 396 370 377 409 261 148 3%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,248 1,323 1,291 1,359 655 704 9%Other General Cargo 274 288 253 220 166 54 -20%Containers 2,329 2,500 2,663 2,610 2,171 438 12%Container (TEU) 411,902 428,888 455,211 29 11 18 -100%

ES-Santa Cruz de Tenerife Total (not incl. TEU) 14,686 15,483 16,113 16,225 11,427 4,798 10%ES-Santander Liquid Bulk 355 341 278 426 340 85 20%

Dry Bulk 3,965 4,516 5,140 4,165 3,180 985 5%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 343 438 499 383 264 119 12%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 3 5 33 49 21 28 1412%Other General Cargo 612 612 687 745 551 194 22%Containers 96 2 1 1 1 1 -98%Container (TEU) 10,007 132 104 134 100 34 -99%

ES-Santander Total (not incl. TEU) 5,374 5,915 6,637 5,769 4,357 1,412 7%ES-Sevilla Liquid Bulk 299 393 364 359 358 1 20%

Dry Bulk 2,902 2,448 2,813 2,828 2,114 713 -3%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 68 94 109 81 22 59 19%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 104 84 87 64 26 38 -39%Other General Cargo 779 746 709 989 944 44 27%Containers 686 743 779 651 104 548 -5%Container (TEU) 102,854 111,092 115,669 122,611 60,166 62,445 19%

ES-Sevilla Total (not incl. TEU) 4,838 4,508 4,862 4,971 3,567 1,404 3%ES-Tarragona Liquid Bulk 18,026 18,144 18,047 18,802 15,096 3,706 4%

Dry Bulk 9,541 10,650 11,916 11,234 9,455 1,779 18%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 251 310 593 638 283 355 154%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 95 45 102 1 1 0 -99%Other General Cargo 450 439 390 588 554 34 31%Containers 405 106 62 85 37 48 -79%Container (TEU) 57,018 17,214 8,980 12,135 6,404 5,731 -79%

ES-Tarragona Total (not incl. TEU) 28,769 29,695 31,109 31,347 25,424 5,923 9%ES-Valencia Liquid Bulk 1,723 1,779 1,470 4,450 4,137 314 158%

Dry Bulk 5,919 5,561 6,395 7,148 6,712 436 21%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -Other General Cargo 5,086 5,546 5,668 6,321 4,024 2,296 24%Containers 19,028 20,426 22,342 23,583 9,602 13,982 24%Container (TEU) 1,992,903 2,137,137 2,409,821 2,612,139 1,327,634 1,284,505 31%

ES-Valencia Total (not incl. TEU) 31,755 33,312 35,875 41,503 24,475 17,028 31%ES-Vigo Liquid Bulk 57 89 63 89 89 0 58%

Dry Bulk 770 686 693 702 702 -9%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 517 501 471 549 121 428 6%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 33 22 0 26 2 24 -21%Other General Cargo 950 934 910 1,021 701 320 7%Containers 1,641 2,012 2,122 1,837 937 900 12%Container (TEU) 165,973 197,269 205,497 226,722 114,101 112,621 37%

ES-Vigo Total (not incl. TEU) 3,968 4,242 4,259 4,225 2,552 1,673 6%ES-Villagarcía (de Arosa) Liquid Bulk 477 317 392 334 332 2 -30%

Dry Bulk 444 592 578 613 613 38%Other General Cargo 277 237 240 246 144 102 -11%Containers 1 1 0 -Container (TEU) 150 55 95 -

ES-Villagarcía (de Arosa) Total (not incl. TEU) 1,198 1,147 1,211 1,194 1,090 104 0%ES Total (not incl. TEU) 346,743 376,105 403,668 418,110 300,964 117,146 21%


App

endi

x II

264

10.8 Finland Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)FI-Hamina Liquid Bulk 2,342 1,810 1,703 1,788 669 1,118 -24%

Dry Bulk 218 343 362 326 320 5 50%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 17 13 23 33 32 1 92%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 255 279 332 362 142 220 42%Other General Cargo 2,304 2,382 1,765 1,700 147 1,553 -26%Containers 804 1,212 1,120 974 696 277 21%Container (TEU) 106,735 140,200 155,476 168,192 95,665 72,527 58%

FI-Hamina Total (not incl. TEU) 5,940 6,039 5,304 5,183 2,007 3,175 -13%FI-Hanko Liquid Bulk 5 4 1 2 2 0 -65%

Dry Bulk 0 7 -100%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 717 818 950 1,078 851 227 50%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,257 1,094 1,342 1,433 697 736 14%Other General Cargo 578 733 636 1,224 176 1,048 112%Containers 351 426 517 416 203 213 18%Container (TEU) 34,699 41,556 52,351 54,256 27,793 26,463 56%

FI-Hanko Total (not incl. TEU) 2,908 3,075 3,453 4,152 1,928 2,224 43%FI-Helsinki Liquid Bulk 566 462 336 437 414 23 -23%

Dry Bulk 1,563 1,431 960 1,041 1,013 28 -33%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,479 1,769 2,129 2,324 969 1,355 57%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 3,041 3,349 2,906 3,338 1,545 1,793 10%Other General Cargo 663 694 786 880 322 558 33%Containers 4,376 4,547 3,942 3,713 1,701 2,012 -15%Container (TEU) 471,778 492,206 459,679 416,667 210,333 206,334 -12%

FI-Helsinki Total (not incl. TEU) 11,688 12,252 11,058 11,733 5,963 5,770 0%FI-Inkoo Liquid Bulk 183 75 269 49 49 -73%

Dry Bulk 3,103 2,050 1,257 1,796 1,289 507 -42%Other General Cargo 56 33 34 46 39 7 -17%

FI-Inkoo Total (not incl. TEU) 3,342 2,159 1,560 1,891 1,377 515 -43%FI-Inland Ports Dry Bulk 1,442 1,467 1,533 1,476 1,216 261 2%

Other General Cargo 786 901 693 641 22 619 -18%FI-Inland Ports Total (not incl. TEU) 2,228 2,368 2,226 2,118 1,238 880 -5%FI-Kemi Liquid Bulk 558 499 526 489 489 -12%

Dry Bulk 768 665 773 868 865 4 13%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2 1 2 1 1 0 -25%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2 0 0 151 0 151 6453%Other General Cargo 1,209 1,184 994 976 33 943 -19%Containers 293 315 242 225 67 158 -23%Container (TEU) 35,938 27,000 29,127 23,645 11,705 11,940 -34%

FI-Kemi Total (not incl. TEU) 2,833 2,665 2,537 2,711 1,455 1,257 -4%FI-Kokkola Liquid Bulk 929 950 939 989 755 234 7%

Dry Bulk 1,550 2,054 2,709 3,625 949 2,677 134%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1 0 0 0 0 -88%Other General Cargo 506 457 429 656 21 635 30%Containers 48 47 53 53 53 0 10%Container (TEU) 3,776 3,600 3,698 2,612 2,092 520 -31%

FI-Kokkola Total (not incl. TEU) 3,033 3,509 4,130 5,323 1,777 3,546 76%FI-Kotka Liquid Bulk 1,246 1,315 1,077 883 396 487 -29%

Dry Bulk 2,185 1,959 1,928 1,977 1,717 260 -10%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 19 49 83 281 252 28 1395%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 7 27 315 627 22 605 8346%Other General Cargo 2,611 2,525 2,210 2,087 130 1,956 -20%Containers 2,315 2,759 2,816 3,724 1,338 2,386 61%Container (TEU) 268,897 326,078 386,556 452,401 229,851 222,550 68%

FI-Kotka Total (not incl. TEU) 8,384 8,634 8,428 9,578 3,856 5,722 14%FI-Koverhar Dry Bulk 1,197 1,157 1,129 1,196 1,123 74 0%

Other General Cargo 234 219 234 218 6 212 -7%FI-Koverhar Total (not incl. TEU) 1,431 1,376 1,363 1,415 1,129 286 -1%FI-Loviisa Liquid Bulk 5 4 4 1 1 -85%

Dry Bulk 634 550 355 471 375 96 -26%Other General Cargo 634 656 704 654 29 625 3%Containers 0 -

FI-Loviisa Total (not incl. TEU) 1,273 1,210 1,063 1,126 405 721 -12%FI-Naantali Liquid Bulk 3,606 3,867 4,054 3,774 2,598 1,176 5%

Dry Bulk 1,199 1,131 884 900 754 146 -25%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,854 1,938 1,996 2,227 1,106 1,121 20%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 87 103 81 4 2 2 -96%Other General Cargo 463 371 340 284 155 129 -39%

FI-Naantali Total (not incl. TEU) 7,208 7,410 7,354 7,188 4,614 2,574 0%FI-Oulu Liquid Bulk 900 1,004 1,091 1,258 1,184 74 40%

Dry Bulk 645 569 352 481 350 131 -25%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2 3 3 2 2 1 -6%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 15 13 11 185 18 167 1159%Other General Cargo 699 778 695 706 205 501 1%Containers 229 293 226 362 53 309 58%Container (TEU) 18,097 23,698 19,744 30,338 13,277 17,061 68%

FI-Oulu Total (not incl. TEU) 2,491 2,660 2,377 2,993 1,811 1,182 20%FI-Parainen Dry Bulk 994 934 887 1,046 644 402 5%

Other General Cargo 5 2 1 0 0 -95%FI-Parainen Total (not incl. TEU) 1,000 937 888 1,047 644 402 5%


App

endi

x II

265

Cargo Category Year 03-06 % Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)FI-Pietarsaari Liquid Bulk 156 210 136 161 161 3%

Dry Bulk 456 641 731 867 864 3 90%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 0 0 0 120%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 -Other General Cargo 522 550 492 501 10 491 -4%Containers 16 16 9 12 2 10 -25%Container (TEU) 2,220 1,600 828 772 -28%

FI-Pietarsaari Total (not incl. TEU) 1,151 1,417 1,367 1,541 1,037 504 34%FI-Pori Liquid Bulk 792 793 664 840 608 232 6%

Dry Bulk 3,790 3,412 2,241 3,873 3,144 728 2%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 0 0 -100%Other General Cargo 913 661 782 624 107 518 -32%Containers 607 664 590 449 128 322 -26%Container (TEU) 58,903 61,619 54,981 43,862 17,704 26,158 -26%

FI-Pori Total (not incl. TEU) 6,103 5,530 4,277 5,786 3,986 1,800 -5%FI-Raahe Liquid Bulk 317 348 306 42 -

Dry Bulk 4,732 4,936 4,735 201 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1 3 0 3 -Other General Cargo 795 704 19 685 -Containers 53 98 61 37 -Container (TEU) 3,769 5,000 7,640 6,975 3,766 3,209 85%

FI-Raahe Total (not incl. TEU) 0 0 5,897 6,089 5,122 967 -FI-Rauma Liquid Bulk 175 212 202 181 116 65 3%

Dry Bulk 1,248 1,392 1,524 1,680 1,480 200 35%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2 2 3 0 0 0 -70%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 79 109 79 53 12 41 -34%Other General Cargo 3,384 3,508 2,978 3,212 73 3,139 -5%Containers 1,046 1,129 1,149 1,470 304 1,165 40%Container (TEU) 110,100 115,821 120,234 168,952 76,122 92,830 53%

FI-Rauma Total (not incl. TEU) 5,934 6,353 5,935 6,595 1,984 4,611 11%FI-Rautaruukki/Raahe Liquid Bulk 306 332 -100%

Dry Bulk 4,654 4,481 -100%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 0 -100%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 0 -100%Other General Cargo 965 946 -100%Containers 29 33 -100%

FI-Rautaruukki/Raahe Total (not incl. TEU) 5,953 5,792 -100%FI-Sköldvik Liquid Bulk 17,449 19,217 17,350 19,739 11,531 8,208 13%

Dry Bulk 32 -Other General Cargo 4 12 0 0 -89%

FI-Sköldvik Total (not incl. TEU) 17,453 19,248 17,362 19,739 11,531 8,208 13%FI-Turku Liquid Bulk 398 395 423 416 393 23 4%

Dry Bulk 179 150 58 139 88 51 -22%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,195 1,345 1,388 1,334 720 614 12%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,381 1,534 1,457 1,509 705 803 9%Other General Cargo 308 300 307 317 221 96 3%Containers 227 219 194 212 162 50 -6%Container (TEU) 23,149 20,960 16,717 20,257 12,548 7,709 -12%

FI-Turku Total (not incl. TEU) 3,688 3,943 3,827 3,926 2,289 1,637 6%FI-Uusikaupunki Liquid Bulk 311 321 339 364 158 207 17%

Dry Bulk 787 777 811 682 202 480 -13%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 26 14 24 37 0 37 43%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 35 30 211 246 114 132 594%Other General Cargo 136 132 116 143 136 7 6%Containers 10 18 4 14 -Container (TEU) 1,446 699 747 -

FI-Uusikaupunki Total (not incl. TEU) 1,296 1,274 1,511 1,490 614 876 15%FI-Vaasa Liquid Bulk 456 408 439 446 446 -2%

Dry Bulk 812 739 455 545 496 48 -33%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 87 123 154 209 108 102 142%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 65 70 67 76 69 7 18%Other General Cargo 116 82 126 124 123 1 7%Containers 0 0 -Container (TEU) 22 8 8 -64%

FI-Vaasa Total (not incl. TEU) 1,535 1,422 1,240 1,399 1,241 158 -9%FI Total (not incl. TEU) 96,870 99,272 93,157 103,024 56,009 47,015 6%


App

endi

x II

266

10.9 France Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)FR-Ajaccio Liquid Bulk 264

Dry Bulk 126Ro-Ro (self-prop) 89Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 330Other General Cargo 9

FR-Ajaccio Total (not incl. TEU) 818FR-Bayonne Liquid Bulk 1,554 1,718 1,699 9%

Dry Bulk 2,502 2,434 1,569 -37%Other General Cargo 131 132 628 380%

FR-Bayonne Total (not incl. TEU) 4,187 4,284 3,896 -7%FR-Bordeaux Liquid Bulk 4,602 4,688 5,361 16%

Dry Bulk 3,066 2,787 2,648 -14%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1 1 2 47%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1 0 0 -100%Other General Cargo 235 169 160 -32%Containers 422 459 449 7%Container (TEU) 50,671 50,671 50,425 54,661 26,716 27,945 8%

FR-Bordeaux Total (not incl. TEU) 8,327 8,105 8,621 0 0 0 4%FR-Boulogne-sur-Mer Liquid Bulk 41 39 38 -7%

Dry Bulk 1,080 261 284 -74%Other General Cargo 386 284 239 -38%Container (TEU) 20,750 29,320 -100%

FR-Boulogne-sur-Mer Total (not incl. TEU) 1,507 583 562 0 -63%FR-Brest Liquid Bulk 997 1,059 1,122 13%

Dry Bulk 1,247 976 1,041 -16%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 5 1 -100%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 0 2 419%Other General Cargo 98 43 29 -71%Containers 153 230 235 54%Container (TEU) 19,636 25,509 29,668 24,695 12,179 12,516 26%

FR-Brest Total (not incl. TEU) 2,499 2,310 2,429 0 0 0 -3%FR-Caen Liquid Bulk 12 5 9 -23%

Dry Bulk 627 628 593 -5%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,184 1,259 1,399 18%Other General Cargo 148 142 132 -11%Containers 1 1 -100%

FR-Caen Total (not incl. TEU) 1,971 2,035 2,132 8%FR-Calais Liquid Bulk 204 195 148 -27%

Dry Bulk 1,026 779 827 -19%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 14,034 15,968 16,555 18%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 -100%Other General Cargo 318 163 129 -59%Containers 0 -100%Container (TEU) 18 6 6 -100%

FR-Calais Total (not incl. TEU) 15,582 17,105 17,659 0 0 0 13%FR-Cherbourg Dry Bulk 393 534 249 -37%

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,750 1,657 1,457 -17%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 1 1 133%Other General Cargo 0 0 -Containers 3 1 -100%

FR-Cherbourg Total (not incl. TEU) 2,147 2,194 1,707 -21%FR-Dieppe Liquid Bulk 23 23 56 146%

Dry Bulk 231 310 354 53%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 496 410 458 -8%Other General Cargo 113 97 90 -20%Containers 7 13 38 435%Container (TEU) 1,329 2,106 3,572 169%

FR-Dieppe Total (not incl. TEU) 869 853 995 0 15%FR-Dunkerque Liquid Bulk 13,232 12,195 15,163 15%

Dry Bulk 26,075 27,130 26,537 2%Other General Cargo 5,475 5,707 5,782 6%Containers 1,297 1,459 1,560 20%Container (TEU) 157,734 193,118 204,562 204,835 103,707 101,128 30%

FR-Dunkerque Total (not incl. TEU) 46,078 46,491 49,042 0 0 0 6%FR-Fort-de-FR (Martinique) Liquid Bulk 1,159 1,419 1,432 24%

Dry Bulk 259 244 248 -4%Other General Cargo 42 36 36 -13%Containers 1,303 1,442 1,445 11%Container (TEU) 153,741 156,142 79,632 76,510 -

FR-Fort-de-FR (Martinique) Total (not incl. TEU) 2,762 3,141 3,161 0 0 0 14%FR-Guadeloupe (Guadeloupe Liquid Bulk 716 697 789 10%

Dry Bulk 944 867 701 -26%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 37 31 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 117 148 -Other General Cargo 156 59 71 -55%Containers 1,056 764 982 -7%Container (TEU) 24,953 137,873 139,870 71,735 68,135 453%

FR-Guadeloupe (Guadeloupe) Total (not incl. TEU) 2,871 2,542 2,721 0 0 0 -5%


App

endi

x II

267

Cargo Category Year 03-06 % Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)FR-La Rochelle Liquid Bulk 2,610 2,755 2,691 3%

Dry Bulk 4,155 3,195 3,254 -22%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2 1 11 490%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 41 58 52 27%Other General Cargo 1,091 991 880 -19%Container (TEU) 16 24 -

FR-La Rochelle Total (not incl. TEU) 7,898 7,001 6,889 0 -13%FR-Le Havre Liquid Bulk 47,870 51,172 48,043 0%

Dry Bulk 4,914 4,374 4,848 -1%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,727 1,477 1,319 -24%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2 1 0 -89%Other General Cargo 170 136 132 -22%Containers 16,147 18,251 17,756 10%Container (TEU) 2,014,612 2,157,878 2,057,369 2,130,000 1,067,903 1,062,097 6%

FR-Le Havre Total (not incl. TEU) 70,829 75,410 72,100 0 0 0 -100%FR-Lorient Liquid Bulk 1,159 1,164 1,222 5%

Dry Bulk 1,458 1,516 1,455 0%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 0 0 53%Other General Cargo 0 7 0 70%Containers 1 -Container (TEU) 329 213 150 63 -

FR-Lorient Total (not incl. TEU) 2,617 2,687 2,679 0 0 0 2%FR-Marseille Liquid Bulk 66,176 63,701 66,172 0%

Dry Bulk 14,797 14,957 15,363 4%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 548 574 492 -10%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,337 1,393 1,476 10%Other General Cargo 3,183 3,184 3,047 -4%Containers 6,822 7,575 7,419 9%Container (TEU) 832,986 916,277 907,918 941,400 482,256 459,144 13%

FR-Marseille Total (not incl. TEU) 92,862 91,383 93,969 0 0 0 1%FR-Nantes Saint-Nazaire Liquid Bulk 20,386 22,306 23,643 16%

Dry Bulk 7,924 7,675 8,350 5%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 280 272 204 -27%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 64 64 94 47%Other General Cargo 563 524 585 4%Containers 1,134 1,178 1,169 3%Container (TEU) 119,390 124,169 123,700 135,514 69,501 66,013 14%

FR-Nantes Saint-Nazaire Total (not incl. TEU) 30,350 32,020 34,045 0 0 0 12%FR-Port-la-Nouvelle Liquid Bulk 1,421 1,384 1,422 0%

Dry Bulk 766 703 750 -2%Other General Cargo 80 85 121 51%

FR-Port-la-Nouvelle Total (not incl. TEU) 2,266 2,171 2,293 1%FR-Port-Réunion (ex Pointe-dLiquid Bulk 760 937 760 0%

Dry Bulk 1,105 1,214 1,291 17%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 49 48 54 10%Other General Cargo 147 158 120 -18%Containers 1,415 1,657 1,541 9%Container (TEU) 70,772 77,056 80,089 132,528 48,391 84,137 87%

FR-Port-Réunion (ex Pointe-des-Galets) (Réunion) To 3,476 4,015 3,765 0 0 0 -100%FR-Rouen Liquid Bulk 9,599 9,422 10,748 12%

Dry Bulk 9,913 7,647 8,252 -17%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2 211 240 11042%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 0 1 1116%Other General Cargo 1,826 1,625 1,480 -19%Containers 883 979 1,137 29%Container (TEU) 154,640 167,999 202,429 209,220 101,734 107,486 31%

FR-Rouen Total (not incl. TEU) 22,224 19,883 21,857 0 0 0 -2%FR-Saint-Malo Liquid Bulk 290 284 170 -41%

Dry Bulk 960 985 790 -18%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 208 279 273 31%Other General Cargo 388 312 254 -34%

FR-Saint-Malo Total (not incl. TEU) 1,846 1,859 1,488 -19%FR-Sète Liquid Bulk 1,523 1,460 1,585 4%

Dry Bulk 1,716 1,701 1,768 3%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 76 85 52 -32%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 0 1 7329%Other General Cargo 319 247 270 -16%Containers 76 36 61 -20%Container (TEU) 12,900 10,800 11,500 8,100 6,529 1,571 -37%

FR-Sète Total (not incl. TEU) 3,709 3,530 3,736 0 0 0 1%FR Total (not incl. TEU) 327,697 329,602 335,746 0 0 0 2%


App

endi

x II

268

10.10 United Kingdom Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)GB-Aberdeen Liquid Bulk 1,619 1,955 1,996 2,150 1,423 727 33%

Dry Bulk 266 342 393 384 217 166 44%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 7 18 24 15 7 7 107%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 155 192 232 190 87 103 23%Other General Cargo 1,070 1,284 1,843 1,799 658 1,141 68%Containers 109 97 121 125 14 111 14%Container (TEU) 27,000 25,000 28,000 27,000 9,891 17,109 0%

GB-Aberdeen Total (not incl. TEU) 3,227 3,888 4,609 4,663 2,407 2,256 45%GB-Ballylumford Liquid Bulk 473 13 13 -97%

Dry Bulk 569 1,114 977 1,142 1,142 101%GB-Ballylumford Total (not incl. TEU) 1,041 1,114 977 1,155 1,155 11%GB-Belfast Liquid Bulk 3,010 3,064 3,107 2,870 2,870 -5%

Dry Bulk 3,668 3,738 3,444 3,539 2,582 957 -4%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,939 1,802 1,972 1,902 997 904 -2%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2,606 2,819 2,731 2,779 1,645 1,134 7%Other General Cargo 498 548 602 620 596 24 24%Containers 1,499 1,588 1,643 1,804 1,198 606 20%Container (TEU) 210,000 229,861 217,000 236,000 118,145 117,855 12%

GB-Belfast Total (not incl. TEU) 13,221 13,559 13,500 13,514 9,889 3,625 2%GB-Boston Liquid Bulk 11 10 12 9 9 -26%

Dry Bulk 449 183 269 290 12 278 -35%Other General Cargo 487 424 375 486 455 32 0%Containers 87 88 111 49 38 11 -43%Container (TEU) 15,000 22,000 22,000 8,000 5,277 2,723 -47%

GB-Boston Total (not incl. TEU) 1,035 705 767 834 514 320 -19%GB-Bristol Liquid Bulk 2,540 2,812 3,135 2,225 2,222 4 -12%

Dry Bulk 7,037 5,874 6,416 8,001 7,517 484 14%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 687 802 719 714 478 235 4%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 81 103 123 153 113 40 90%Other General Cargo 452 478 350 388 384 4 -14%Containers 765 936 936 919 601 319 20%Container (TEU) 100,000 111,300 114,390 98,137 50,270 47,867 -2%

GB-Bristol Total (not incl. TEU) 11,562 11,006 11,679 12,400 11,315 1,085 7%GB-Cairnryan Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,327 1,817 2,187 2,017 952 1,066 52%

Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,000 1,032 1,087 1,128 495 633 13%GB-Cairnryan Total (not incl. TEU) 2,328 2,849 3,274 3,145 1,446 1,699 35%GB-Cardiff Liquid Bulk 1,219 1,292 1,264 1,379 1,370 9 13%

Dry Bulk 399 378 323 405 397 8 2%Other General Cargo 428 596 587 819 428 391 91%Containers 241 238 276 270 91 179 12%Container (TEU) 45,000 52,507 56,000 66,941 36,382 30,559 49%

GB-Cardiff Total (not incl. TEU) 2,287 2,504 2,450 2,873 2,286 587 26%GB-Clydeport Liquid Bulk 2,995 3,482 3,499 3,825 3,163 663 28%

Dry Bulk 5,190 6,907 11,282 10,193 8,328 1,865 96%Other General Cargo 597 739 590 567 157 410 -5%Containers 432 379 367 396 54 342 -8%Container (TEU) 79,311 63,431 63,575 65,287 33,851 31,436 -18%

GB-Clydeport Total (not incl. TEU) 9,214 11,507 15,737 14,981 11,702 3,279 63%GB-Cromarty Firth Liquid Bulk 3,317 2,957 3,115 2,975 1,499 1,476 -10%

Dry Bulk 116 122 108 85 78 8 -26%Other General Cargo 68 129 102 145 32 114 114%

GB-Cromarty Firth Total (not incl. TEU) 3,501 3,208 3,325 3,206 1,608 1,598 -8%GB-Dover Dry Bulk 278 311 311 250 190 60 -10%

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 17,875 19,759 20,124 22,791 14,012 8,779 28%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 366 404 541 563 454 110 54%Other General Cargo 274 276 165 200 200 -27%Containers 3 2 4 -100%Container (TEU) 4,660 6,390 6,000 -100%

GB-Dover Total (not incl. TEU) 18,796 20,753 21,145 23,805 14,856 8,948 27%GB-Dundee Liquid Bulk 358 331 663 622 429 193 74%


GB-Dundee Total (not incl. TEU) 1,016 1,058 1,222 1,202 918 284 18%GB-Felixstowe Liquid Bulk 139 141 72 100 99 1 -28%

Dry Bulk 4 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 217 225 236 355 129 226 63%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2,811 2,716 2,634 2,641 1,716 925 -6%Other General Cargo 702 723 358 55 48 7 -92%Containers 18,626 19,865 20,054 21,465 12,878 8,587 15%Container (TEU) 2,481,570 2,717,300 2,760,000 3,030,000 1,553,117 1,476,883 22%

GB-Felixstowe Total (not incl. TEU) 22,495 23,669 23,358 24,616 14,869 9,747 9%GB-Fishguard Ro-Ro (self-prop) 325 380 380 418 251 168 29%

Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 148 142 133 179 89 89 20%GB-Fishguard Total (not incl. TEU) 474 522 513 597 340 257 26%GB-Fleetwood Ro-Ro (self-prop) 526 544 564 543 291 252 3%

Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,098 1,117 1,072 1,127 533 594 3%GB-Fleetwood Total (not incl. TEU) 1,624 1,662 1,635 1,670 824 847 3%


App

endi

x II

269

Cargo Category Year 03-06 % Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)GB-Forth Liquid Bulk 34,352 30,758 29,100 26,208 1,955 24,253 -24%

Dry Bulk 1,410 1,008 1,651 2,266 2,032 235 61%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 194 269 256 73 41 32 -62%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 206 241 218 357 190 166 73%Other General Cargo 946 740 1,183 667 454 212 -29%Containers 1,645 1,875 1,810 1,986 681 1,305 21%Container (TEU) 187,000 215,000 230,000 245,000 123,251 121,749 31%

GB-Forth Total (not incl. TEU) 38,752 34,892 34,218 31,556 5,353 26,203 -19%GB-Fowey Liquid Bulk 9 -100%

Dry Bulk 1,438 1,330 1,270 1,103 5 1,098 -23%GB-Fowey Total (not incl. TEU) 1,447 1,330 1,270 1,103 5 1,098 -24%GB-Glensanda Liquid Bulk 3 1 -100%

Dry Bulk 5,319 5,188 5,439 6,004 6,004 13%GB-Glensanda Total (not incl. TEU) 5,322 5,189 5,439 6,004 6,004 13%GB-Goole Liquid Bulk 34 39 32 45 29 16 32%

Dry Bulk 266 325 433 233 218 15 -12%Other General Cargo 1,297 1,433 1,263 1,334 1,091 243 3%Containers 316 376 895 602 372 230 91%Container (TEU) 28,000 45,000 119,000 82,000 40,893 41,107 193%

GB-Goole Total (not incl. TEU) 1,913 2,174 2,623 2,215 1,710 505 16%GB-Great Yarmouth Liquid Bulk 141 143 265 411 410 1 192%

Dry Bulk 362 407 367 367 306 61 1%Other General Cargo 275 58 131 172 171 1 -38%

GB-Great Yarmouth Total (not incl. TEU) 778 607 763 950 887 62 22%GB-Harwich Liquid Bulk 422 75 354 296 131 165 -30%

Dry Bulk 202 48 103 147 147 -27%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,431 1,544 1,511 1,710 1,097 613 20%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,940 2,150 2,118 1,890 1,268 622 -3%Other General Cargo 144 61 125 132 94 39 -8%Containers 192 386 11 -100%Container (TEU) 30,000 61,000 62,000 -100%

GB-Harwich Total (not incl. TEU) 4,330 4,264 4,221 4,176 2,590 1,586 -4%GB-Heysham Liquid Bulk 10 8 16 4 4 -62%

Dry Bulk 98 95 94 140 140 43%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 474 480 467 491 227 264 4%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 3,342 2,811 2,842 3,263 1,575 1,689 -2%Other General Cargo 159 145 258 116 67 49 -27%

GB-Heysham Total (not incl. TEU) 4,083 3,539 3,676 4,014 2,013 2,001 -2%GB-Holyhead Dry Bulk 228 360 365 346 346 52%

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2,463 2,834 3,088 3,095 1,485 1,610 26%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 638 752 694 712 353 359 12%

GB-Holyhead Total (not incl. TEU) 3,329 3,945 4,147 4,153 2,183 1,969 25%GB-Hull Liquid Bulk 2,536 2,736 2,523 1,982 1,054 928 -22%

Dry Bulk 1,425 2,782 3,785 3,699 3,496 202 160%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 667 591 1,151 607 326 282 -9%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2,144 2,395 2,751 3,367 2,489 878 57%Other General Cargo 1,521 1,522 1,585 1,464 1,209 255 -4%Containers 2,242 2,418 1,652 1,666 1,195 471 -26%Container (TEU) 267,000 310,000 252,000 268,000 139,741 128,259 0%

GB-Hull Total (not incl. TEU) 10,536 12,443 13,447 12,785 9,769 3,016 21%GB-Immingham Liquid Bulk 23,399 24,341 24,504 23,840 16,305 7,534 2%

Dry Bulk 17,791 19,125 20,735 23,412 22,114 1,298 32%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,917 1,733 1,783 2,034 1,328 706 6%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 9,933 9,698 10,897 12,015 7,303 4,712 21%Other General Cargo 1,972 1,788 1,881 1,682 1,192 490 -15%Containers 993 1,034 1,099 1,110 857 253 12%Container (TEU) 125,000 137,000 151,000 137,000 69,670 67,330 10%

GB-Immingham Total (not incl. TEU) 56,006 57,720 60,900 64,093 49,099 14,993 14%GB-Ipswich Liquid Bulk 401 374 384 366 354 12 -9%

Dry Bulk 1,956 1,507 1,817 1,847 1,021 826 -6%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 66 78 99 96 65 32 45%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 775 864 969 971 735 236 25%Other General Cargo 252 255 222 180 172 8 -29%Containers 437 480 88 45 33 11 -90%Container (TEU) 74,606 83,717 15,000 10,000 4,566 5,434 -87%

GB-Ipswich Total (not incl. TEU) 3,888 3,557 3,578 3,505 2,380 1,125 -10%GB-Kirkwall Liquid Bulk 14,284 17,756 14,373 11,092 4,041 7,051 -22%

Dry Bulk 17 23 16 16 16 -4%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 11 7 8 4 2 1 -69%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 16 60 60 68 52 16 333%Other General Cargo 38 29 29 19 14 6 -49%Containers 56 59 48 50 33 16 -11%Container (TEU) 14,522 11,382 10,408 10,364 4,742 5,622 -29%

GB-Kirkwall Total (not incl. TEU) 14,422 17,934 14,534 11,249 4,158 7,091 -22%GB-Larne Liquid Bulk 71 20 49 104 104 47%

Dry Bulk 23 21 17 12 12 -48%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,860 2,460 2,830 2,620 1,329 1,291 41%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2,366 2,482 2,599 2,753 1,546 1,208 16%

GB-Larne Total (not incl. TEU) 4,319 4,984 5,496 5,489 2,990 2,498 27%


App

endi

x II

270

Cargo Category Year 03-06 % Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)GB-Liverpool Liquid Bulk 12,160 12,282 13,148 12,484 12,381 103 3%

Dry Bulk 8,956 8,486 8,891 9,091 6,624 2,467 2%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,560 1,779 2,596 2,626 1,118 1,509 68%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 3,830 4,207 3,628 4,108 1,877 2,231 7%Other General Cargo 983 915 777 708 699 9 -28%Containers 4,215 4,566 4,736 4,566 2,385 2,181 8%Container (TEU) 566,000 603,000 612,000 625,000 302,849 322,151 10%

GB-Liverpool Total (not incl. TEU) 31,703 32,234 33,776 33,583 25,083 8,500 6%GB-London Liquid Bulk 20,211 21,649 20,776 19,329 16,703 2,626 -4%

Dry Bulk 15,006 14,232 15,003 13,811 12,401 1,411 -8%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 983 1,047 999 905 649 257 -8%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 4,480 5,081 7,992 8,130 6,011 2,119 81%Other General Cargo 3,230 3,489 3,309 3,721 3,278 443 15%Containers 7,625 9,076 6,385 6,238 4,439 1,798 -18%Container (TEU) 894,884 965,972 765,056 742,567 374,596 367,971 -17%

GB-London Total (not incl. TEU) 51,535 54,574 54,464 52,135 43,481 8,654 1%GB-Londonderry Liquid Bulk 354 276 264 610 610 72%


GB-Londonderry Total (not incl. TEU) 1,172 1,392 1,151 1,690 1,608 81 44%GB-Manchester Liquid Bulk 4,615 5,207 5,473 6,083 2,045 4,038 32%

Dry Bulk 1,392 1,162 1,659 1,888 1,526 362 36%Other General Cargo 80 245 87 72 18 55 -10%Containers 20 23 5 5 -Container (TEU) 1,232 13,114 3,735 1,043 2,692 -

GB-Manchester Total (not incl. TEU) 6,088 6,634 7,241 8,049 3,594 4,455 32%GB-Medway Liquid Bulk 1,209 1,208 2,694 4,057 4,057 236%

Dry Bulk 7,935 6,413 5,471 8,358 7,886 472 5%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 411 476 397 458 408 50 12%Other General Cargo 2,778 2,578 2,493 2,528 2,204 324 -9%Containers 3,376 3,965 4,478 3,659 2,271 1,387 8%Container (TEU) 517,175 672,173 702,904 594,277 298,818 295,459 15%

GB-Medway Total (not incl. TEU) 15,709 14,639 15,534 19,060 16,827 2,234 21%GB-Milford Haven Liquid Bulk 32,092 37,713 37,099 33,587 19,752 13,835 5%

Dry Bulk 34 45 67 89 54 36 160%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 437 463 536 620 315 305 42%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 369 406 541 479 234 245 30%Other General Cargo 15 15 19 34 33 0 125%

GB-Milford Haven Total (not incl. TEU) 32,948 38,641 38,262 34,808 20,389 14,420 6%GB-Newhaven Dry Bulk 476 383 659 321 192 129 -33%

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 417 371 152 612 380 232 47%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 34 44 9 83 78 5 142%Other General Cargo 21 132 56 29 29 37%

GB-Newhaven Total (not incl. TEU) 949 929 876 1,046 650 395 10%GB-Newport, Gwent Dry Bulk 823 1,258 2,073 1,956 1,952 4 138%

Other General Cargo 1,959 2,184 1,897 1,881 1,059 822 -4%Containers 9 6 1 9 2 7 0%Container (TEU) 160 85 100 267 118 149 67%

GB-Newport, Gwent Total (not incl. TEU) 2,790 3,448 3,971 3,846 3,013 833 38%GB-Peterhead Liquid Bulk 521 299 501 481 447 34 -8%


GB-Peterhead Total (not incl. TEU) 1,051 676 928 947 647 300 -10%GB-Plymouth Liquid Bulk 1,260 1,236 1,315 1,389 1,389 10%

Dry Bulk 610 810 833 916 349 567 50%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 155 104 136 121 75 46 -22%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 18 10 15 22 11 11 21%Other General Cargo 11 6 10 4 4 -60%

GB-Plymouth Total (not incl. TEU) 2,054 2,167 2,308 2,452 1,828 624 19%GB-Poole Liquid Bulk 203 189 150 166 157 9 -18%

Dry Bulk 300 299 294 275 58 217 -8%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 735 843 813 886 525 361 21%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 167 178 226 238 87 151 43%Other General Cargo 237 245 228 241 199 42 2%

GB-Poole Total (not incl. TEU) 1,640 1,754 1,712 1,806 1,027 779 10%GB-Port Talbot Dry Bulk 7,756 8,525 8,570 8,646 8,362 284 11%

Other General Cargo 63 30 3 13 13 -79%GB-Port Talbot Total (not incl. TEU) 7,819 8,555 8,573 8,659 8,362 297 11%GB-Portsmouth Dry Bulk 326 348 308 403 403 23%

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2,642 3,121 2,812 2,131 1,243 887 -19%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 579 654 910 576 203 373 0%Other General Cargo 564 693 783 896 804 92 59%Containers 110 125 118 200 65 135 82%Container (TEU) 54,000 50,000 54,000 57,000 18,429 38,571 6%

GB-Portsmouth Total (not incl. TEU) 4,222 4,940 4,931 4,205 2,717 1,488 0%GB-Ramsgate Dry Bulk 34 35 30 53 53 57%

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,400 1,428 1,618 1,381 933 448 -1%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 355 239 224 270 199 70 -24%

GB-Ramsgate Total (not incl. TEU) 1,789 1,702 1,872 1,704 1,186 518 -5%GB-River Hull and Humber Liquid Bulk 9,230 8,502 8,638 8,928 8,928 -3%

Dry Bulk 605 540 983 639 484 155 6%Other General Cargo 190 199 222 207 207 9%

GB-River Hull and Humber Total (not incl. TEU) 10,025 9,242 9,843 9,774 9,619 155 -2%


App

endi

x II

271

Cargo Category Year 03-06 % Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)GB-Shoreham Liquid Bulk 213 162 177 209 209 -2%

Dry Bulk 1,138 1,233 1,382 1,256 1,171 85 10%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 0 0Other General Cargo 370 290 266 333 255 78 -10%Containers 4 1 1Container (TEU) 201 127 133

GB-Shoreham Total (not incl. TEU) 1,725 1,686 1,827 1,797 1,635 163 4%GB-Southampton Liquid Bulk 24,641 27,419 28,614 28,318 20,198 8,121 15%

Dry Bulk 2,813 2,024 2,235 2,288 1,775 513 -19%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,335 1,415 1,456 1,477 466 1,011 11%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 20 105 100 66 13 52 224%Other General Cargo 24 168 172 137 10 127 477%Containers 7,429 7,886 8,033 8,493 4,349 4,143 14%Container (TEU) 1,374,000 1,446,000 1,382,000 1,500,306 775,685 724,621 9%

GB-Southampton Total (not incl. TEU) 36,262 39,017 40,608 40,778 26,811 13,967 12%GB-Stranraer Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,036 1,090 1,047 1,007 515 492 -3%

Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 237 187 119 215 129 86 -9%GB-Stranraer Total (not incl. TEU) 1,274 1,277 1,165 1,222 644 578 -4%GB-Sullom Voe Liquid Bulk 26,360 23,939 20,492 19,417 3,691 15,726 -26%

Other General Cargo 48 30 14 16 -GB-Sullom Voe Total (not incl. TEU) 26,360 23,939 20,541 19,447 3,705 15,743 -26%GB-Sunderland Liquid Bulk 549 695 468 651 381 270 18%


GB-Sunderland Total (not incl. TEU) 1,020 1,117 920 904 446 458 -11%GB-Swansea Liquid Bulk 108 40

Dry Bulk 380 368 406 351 278 73 -8%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 21 27 36 18 10 8 -14%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 22 22 44 16 7 10 -25%Other General Cargo 309 263 208 248 172 76 -20%Containers 8 1Container (TEU) 8,197 118

GB-Swansea Total (not incl. TEU) 848 721 695 634 467 167 -25%GB-Tees and Hartlepool Liquid Bulk 36,593 36,628 36,960 34,782 5,739 29,043 -5%

Dry Bulk 12,357 11,976 12,402 12,217 11,089 1,128 -1%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 305 237 172 240 156 84 -21%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2,298 2,294 2,468 2,797 1,647 1,150 22%Other General Cargo 1,194 1,482 2,626 2,290 304 1,987 92%Containers 1,125 1,218 1,233 1,057 544 513 -6%Container (TEU) 130,676 136,239 138,000 133,847 67,393 66,454 2%

GB-Tees and Hartlepool Total (not incl. TEU) 53,873 53,836 55,862 53,384 19,480 33,904 -1%GB-Trent River Liquid Bulk 41 20 2 36 34 2 -12%

Dry Bulk 895 835 864 814 646 168 -9%Other General Cargo 1,373 1,474 1,058 1,211 973 238 -12%

GB-Trent River Total (not incl. TEU) 2,309 2,329 1,924 2,062 1,653 409 -11%GB-Tyne Liquid Bulk 128 133 133 141 141 11%

Dry Bulk 1,457 1,582 2,033 2,638 2,103 535 81%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 491 575 650 699 320 379 42%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 103 104 166 139 78 60 34%Other General Cargo 311 351 313 325 280 45 4%Containers 277 228 175 166 129 37 -40%Container (TEU) 43,000 42,000 34,000 24,000 12,045 11,955 -44%

GB-Tyne Total (not incl. TEU) 2,768 2,973 3,469 4,108 3,051 1,057 48%GB-Warrenpoint Liquid Bulk 4 6 9 6 6 47%

Dry Bulk 384 286 378 368 366 3 -4%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 125 115 87 157 73 84 26%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 985 1,063 766 1,253 593 660 27%Other General Cargo 290 340 382 296 296 2%Containers 92 156 813 228 159 68 147%Container (TEU) 18,000 20,000 36,000 24,000 12,168 11,832 33%

GB-Warrenpoint Total (not incl. TEU) 1,880 1,967 2,436 2,307 1,493 814 23%GB Total (not incl. TEU) 540,762 560,971 573,396 570,358 356,681 213,677 5%


App

endi

x II

272

10.11 Greece Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)GR-Agii Theodori Liquid Bulk 11,973 12,485 13,203 15,100 8,970 6,131 26%

Dry Bulk 6 5 6 6 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 0 -

GR-Agii Theodori Total (not incl. TEU) 11,973 12,490 13,208 15,106 8,976 6,131 26%GR-Aliverio Liquid Bulk 301 247 277 300 300 0%

Dry Bulk 3,150 3,562 3,291 2,817 785 2,032 -11%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 0 -Other General Cargo 215 110 124 12 2 10 -95%

GR-Aliverio Total (not incl. TEU) 3,666 3,919 3,692 3,129 1,087 2,042 -15%GR-Almyros Volou Liquid Bulk 2 -

Dry Bulk 2,387 2,202 2,506 3,805 666 3,138 59%Other General Cargo 1 0 327 518 40 479 66351%

GR-Almyros Volou Total (not incl. TEU) 2,388 2,202 2,835 4,323 706 3,617 81%GR-Antikyra Liquid Bulk 240 295 313 271 271 13%

Dry Bulk 1,337 1,241 1,297 1,199 730 469 -10%Other General Cargo 29 54 32 38 12 26 32%

GR-Antikyra Total (not incl. TEU) 1,605 1,590 1,641 1,508 1,013 495 -6%GR-Antirio Dry Bulk 1 -

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 7,231 5,574 2,242 2,342 1,182 1,159 -68%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -Other General Cargo 0 1 -100%

GR-Antirio Total (not incl. TEU) 7,231 5,575 2,243 2,342 1,182 1,159 -68%GR-Chalkida Liquid Bulk 126 123 164 222 218 5 77%

Dry Bulk 1,268 1,416 1,629 1,618 986 632 28%Other General Cargo 890 859 772 753 583 170 -15%

GR-Chalkida Total (not incl. TEU) 2,284 2,397 2,565 2,593 1,786 807 14%GR-Corfu Liquid Bulk 124 137 137 -

Dry Bulk 228 481 481 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 631 528 239 288 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1 3 2 0 -Other General Cargo 87 64 64 -

GR-Corfu Total (not incl. TEU) 1,071 1,212 923 289 -GR-Eleusina Liquid Bulk 11,102 9,308 8,198 8,715 3,639 5,076 -21%

Dry Bulk 2,183 2,504 2,970 2,762 1,665 1,097 27%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 25 21 15 28 11 17 11%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1 0 0 -100%Other General Cargo 1,907 1,640 1,447 1,547 1,131 416 -19%Containers 0 1 0 0 -Container (TEU) 6 53 30 30 -

GR-Eleusina Total (not incl. TEU) 15,218 13,474 12,631 13,052 6,446 6,606 -14%GR-Heraklio Liquid Bulk 650 611 671 740 712 28 14%

Dry Bulk 977 966 824 973 972 1 0%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 643 749 934 1,067 726 341 66%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 718 930 963 1,099 776 323 53%Other General Cargo 144 172 134 169 165 4 18%Containers 414 88 149 125 115 10 -70%Container (TEU) 33,432 18,096 18,593 21,963 17,450 4,513 -34%

GR-Heraklio Total (not incl. TEU) 3,546 3,516 3,676 4,173 3,466 707 18%GR-Igoumenitsa Liquid Bulk 149 149 63 114 114 -24%

Dry Bulk 509 624 653 900 324 576 77%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 3,131 2,423 2,745 2,712 1,482 1,230 -13%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 67 67 24 66 23 42 -2%Other General Cargo 34 102 187 86 9 77 153%

GR-Igoumenitsa Total (not incl. TEU) 3,891 3,364 3,672 3,878 1,952 1,926 0%GR-Istmia Liquid Bulk 50

Dry Bulk 587Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0Other General Cargo 110

GR-Istmia Total (not incl. TEU) 747GR-Itea Dry Bulk 1,130 1,396 1,406 1,057 1,057 -6%GR-Itea Total (not incl. TEU) 1,130 1,396 1,406 1,057 1,057 -6%GR-Kavala Liquid Bulk 274 207 238 218 112 106 -20%

Dry Bulk 954 1,086 1,067 1,081 573 508 13%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 141 135 101 119 47 72 -15%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2 6 8 57 4 53 2746%Other General Cargo 343 283 262 360 81 280 5%Containers 1 1 0 -Container (TEU) 78 72 6 -

GR-Kavala Total (not incl. TEU) 1,714 1,717 1,676 1,838 818 1,019 7%GR-Larymna Liquid Bulk 26 28 38 32 32 25%

Dry Bulk 3,753 4,072 4,402 3,908 1,896 2,012 4%Other General Cargo 86 89 203 90 90 5%

GR-Larymna Total (not incl. TEU) 3,864 4,189 4,643 4,030 1,928 2,103 4%GR-Lavrio Liquid Bulk 997 565 431 -

Dry Bulk 65 37 28 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 107 3 103 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 9 0 9 -Other General Cargo 54 48 7 -Containers 0 0 -Container (TEU) 6 6 -

GR-Lavrio Total (not incl. TEU) 0 0 0 1,231 654 578 -


App

endi

x II

273

Cargo Category Year 03-06 % Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)GR-Megara Liquid Bulk 7,227 8,163 8,545 9,146 9,146 27%

Dry Bulk 49 4 1 3 3 -93%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 306 386 383 349 110 239 14%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

GR-Megara Total (not incl. TEU) 7,582 8,552 8,929 9,498 9,259 239 25%GR-Milos Liquid Bulk 42 61 199 254 254 503%

Dry Bulk 2,789 2,767 2,893 3,133 94 3,039 12%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 33 27 19 27 20 8 -17%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 4 3 5 4 3 1 -7%Other General Cargo 11 20 92 36 7 29 223%

GR-Milos Total (not incl. TEU) 2,880 2,878 3,208 3,454 379 3,076 20%GR-Nafplio Liquid Bulk 0 -

Dry Bulk 986 658 -Other General Cargo 63 74 -

GR-Nafplio Total (not incl. TEU) 1,049 732 -GR-Paloúkia Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2,010 1,734 1,867 1,616 1,042 574 -20%

Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -GR-Paloúkia Total (not incl. TEU) 2,010 1,734 1,867 1,616 1,042 574 -20%GR-Patras Liquid Bulk 257 120 246 108 98 10 -58%

Dry Bulk 202 241 257 195 195 -4%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 5,008 3,278 2,948 3,194 1,680 1,514 -36%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 915 478 613 644 400 243 -30%Other General Cargo 88 83 64 98 95 4 11%Containers 0 0 -100%

GR-Patras Total (not incl. TEU) 6,470 4,200 4,128 4,238 2,468 1,770 -34%GR-Perama Liquid Bulk 838 775 841 891 891 6%

Dry Bulk 2 -100%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2,010 1,734 1,867 1,616 574 1,042 -20%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -Other General Cargo 2 -

GR-Perama Total (not incl. TEU) 2,850 2,509 2,710 2,506 1,465 1,042 -12%GR-Pireus Liquid Bulk 335 164 219 262 239 23 -22%

Dry Bulk 1,129 437 230 378 374 4 -66%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2,780 3,273 3,247 3,540 1,142 2,398 27%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,441 1,482 1,525 1,812 476 1,336 26%Other General Cargo 80 169 61 88 49 40 10%Containers 15,954 15,211 13,959 14,314 8,263 6,051 -10%Container (TEU) 1,605,135 1,541,563 1,394,512 1,403,408 716,010 687,398 -13%

GR-Pireus Total (not incl. TEU) 21,719 20,737 19,241 20,394 10,543 9,851 -6%GR-Politika Dry Bulk 1,440 1,486 1,205 1,197 1,197 -17%

Other General Cargo 87 -GR-Politika Total (not incl. TEU) 1,440 1,486 1,292 1,197 1,197 -17%GR-Rhodes Liquid Bulk 603 645 658 628 622 6 4%

Dry Bulk 157 181 228 189 189 20%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 202 223 255 163 140 23 -19%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 40 22 23 25 19 6 -38%Other General Cargo 92 84 97 75 75 0 -18%Containers 7 4 4 -100%Container (TEU) 476 260 272 -100%

GR-Rhodes Total (not incl. TEU) 1,101 1,160 1,265 1,080 1,044 36 -2%GR-Rio Liquid Bulk 163 162 55 -100%

Dry Bulk 1,266 1,047 1,135 430 369 61 -66%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 7,231 5,574 2,242 2,342 1,159 1,182 -68%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -Other General Cargo 64 200 107 30 30 -53%

GR-Rio Total (not incl. TEU) 8,725 6,983 3,538 2,802 1,559 1,243 -68%GR-Souda Bay Liquid Bulk 173 -

Dry Bulk 83 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 342 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 323 -Other General Cargo 21 -

GR-Souda Bay Total (not incl. TEU) 942 -GR-Thessaloniki Liquid Bulk 8,016 8,664 8,424 8,605 7,452 1,154 7%

Dry Bulk 2,671 2,977 3,396 3,654 2,511 1,143 37%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 39 42 52 23 5 18 -41%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 30 59 57 25 1 25 -14%Other General Cargo 1,169 1,321 1,297 1,162 808 355 -1%Containers 2,457 2,926 3,069 2,970 1,781 1,189 21%Container (TEU) 269,552 336,096 365,925 343,727 173,293 170,434 28%

GR-Thessaloniki Total (not incl. TEU) 14,382 15,989 16,295 16,440 12,556 3,883 14%GR-Volos Liquid Bulk 351 237 121 174 168 7 -50%

Dry Bulk 8,469 8,074 7,952 8,253 4,740 3,513 -3%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 63 61 74 64 3 61 1%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 5 2 6 0 0 0 -100%Other General Cargo 527 690 1,113 816 373 443 55%Containers 185 88 124 208 136 72 12%Container (TEU) 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 8,215 6,785 0%

GR-Volos Total (not incl. TEU) 9,601 9,152 9,390 9,515 5,420 4,095 -1%GR Total (not incl. TEU) 138,014 133,204 127,552 132,211 76,670 55,541 -4%


App

endi

x II

274

10.12 Ireland Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)IE-Bantry Bay Liquid Bulk 524 535 825 965 547 419 84%

Dry Bulk 453 123 316 226 226 -50%IE-Bantry Bay Total (not incl. TEU) 977 658 1,142 1,191 547 644 22%IE-Cork Liquid Bulk 5,879 5,679 6,546 6,090 3,901 2,189 4%

Dry Bulk 1,707 1,543 1,569 1,795 1,389 406 5%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 107 153 128 127 110 17 19%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 24 24 40 19 11 8 -20%Other General Cargo 319 329 310 305 173 132 -4%Containers 1,140 1,194 1,326 1,373 718 655 20%Container (TEU) 137,246 155,081 164,336 184,445 89,551 94,894 34%

IE-Cork Total (not incl. TEU) 9,176 8,923 9,919 9,709 6,302 3,407 6%IE-Drogheda Liquid Bulk 175 125 149 139 139 -21%

Dry Bulk 250 397 362 473 376 97 90%Other General Cargo 366 370 363 365 359 6 0%Containers 464 376 528 301 190 111 -35%Container (TEU) 61,392 48,373 48,490 34,848 17,522 17,326 -43%

IE-Drogheda Total (not incl. TEU) 1,255 1,268 1,402 1,279 1,065 214 2%IE-Dublin Liquid Bulk 3,494 3,907 4,037 4,055 4,055 16%

Dry Bulk 1,721 1,610 1,904 2,067 1,124 943 20%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 3,759 4,054 4,256 4,695 2,853 1,842 25%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 3,807 4,000 4,108 4,249 2,732 1,517 12%Other General Cargo 199 236 295 318 309 9 60%Containers 3,703 4,123 4,628 5,412 3,593 1,819 46%Container (TEU) 495,862 540,779 590,250 693,000 376,336 316,664 40%

IE-Dublin Total (not incl. TEU) 16,682 17,931 19,228 20,795 14,666 6,129 25%IE-Galway Liquid Bulk 875 875 -

Dry Bulk 13 13 -Other General Cargo 58 21 37 -

IE-Galway Total (not incl. TEU) 946 909 37 -IE-Limerick Liquid Bulk 1,583 1,612 1,836 -100%

Dry Bulk 8,332 8,725 9,141 -100%Other General Cargo 187 278 326 -100%Containers 3 52 -Container (TEU) 735 9,289 18,432 9,450 8,982 -

IE-Limerick Total (not incl. TEU) 10,102 10,619 11,355 0 0 0 -100%IE-New Ross Liquid Bulk 368 373 287 199 199 -46%


IE-New Ross Total (not incl. TEU) 1,129 1,102 966 831 642 190 -26%IE-Waterford Liquid Bulk 204 149 99 60 60 -70%

Dry Bulk 719 757 804 908 829 79 26%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 8 4 4 -100%Other General Cargo 135 106 73 117 70 47 -13%Containers 1,266 1,326 1,276 1,290 805 485 2%Container (TEU) 175,049 180,216 181,300 184,857 91,124 93,733 6%

IE-Waterford Total (not incl. TEU) 2,332 2,342 2,257 2,376 1,765 612 2%IE Total (not incl. TEU) 41,653 42,842 46,268 37,128 25,895 11,232 -11%


10.13 Italy . Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)IT-Ancona Liquid Bulk 510 225 43 -92%

Dry Bulk 1,574 1,681 1,548 -2%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2,079 2,213 2,058 -1%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 131 143 147 12%Other General Cargo 144 89 54 -63%Containers 427 330 473 11%Container (TEU) 58,590 43,159 64,118 75,374 37,948 37,426 29%

IT-Ancona Total (not incl. TEU) 4,866 4,681 4,323 0 0 0 -11%IT-Augusta Liquid Bulk 31,409 31,121 32,736 4%

Dry Bulk 800 741 897 12%Other General Cargo 169 110 138 -18%Containers 11 -Container (TEU) 780 5 5 -

IT-Augusta Total (not incl. TEU) 32,378 31,973 33,782 0 0 0 4%IT-Bari Liquid Bulk 42 66 169 304%

Dry Bulk 1,628 1,409 1,258 -23%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 863 862 858 -1%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 68 84 44 -36%Other General Cargo 67 72 73 9%Containers 94 93 69 -27%Container (TEU) 20,713 17,007 13,204 10 10 -36%

IT-Bari Total (not incl. TEU) 2,763 2,585 2,471 0 0 0 -11%IT-Barletta Liquid Bulk 419 326 286 -32%

Dry Bulk 1,055 918 801 -24%Other General Cargo 49 87 113 131%

IT-Barletta Total (not incl. TEU) 1,522 1,332 1,201 0 -21%


App

endi

x II

275

Cargo Category Year 03-06 % Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)IT-Brindisi Liquid Bulk 3,703 2,143 2,814 -24%

Dry Bulk 5,990 7,425 6,340 6%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 838 859 773 -8%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 56 54 36 -36%Other General Cargo 196 286 213 9%Containers 7 35 34 404%Container (TEU) 747 4,890 3,432 4,559 1,444 3,115 510%

IT-Brindisi Total (not incl. TEU) 10,790 10,802 10,210 0 0 0 -5%IT-Cagliari Liquid Bulk 630 509 603 -4%

Dry Bulk 567 480 471 -17%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 84 209 270 220%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2,671 2,648 2,758 3%Other General Cargo 149 123 121 -19%Containers 1,358 6,281 5,183 282%Container (TEU) 329,553 524,806 659,126 690,392 363,028 327,364 109%

IT-Cagliari Total (not incl. TEU) 5,460 10,250 9,407 0 0 0 72%IT-Catania Liquid Bulk 34 268 523 1439%

Dry Bulk 173 207 242 40%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 737 753 325 -56%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 810 625 760 -6%Other General Cargo 228 279 183 -20%Containers 78 11 126 62%Container (TEU) 13,662 12,938 14,726 13,873 9,138 4,735 2%

IT-Catania Total (not incl. TEU) 2,059 2,142 2,160 0 0 0 5%IT-Chioggia Liquid Bulk 9 1 17 98%

Dry Bulk 1,237 1,543 1,537 24%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 1 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 23 43 -Other General Cargo 951 962 1,042 10%Containers 0 1 -Container (TEU) 8 82 489 19 470 -

IT-Chioggia Total (not incl. TEU) 2,196 2,530 2,642 0 0 0 20%IT-Civitavecchia Liquid Bulk 3,543 2,212 2,442 -31%

Dry Bulk 1,211 1,179 1,025 -15%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 324 438 583 80%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,337 1,360 1,460 9%Other General Cargo 219 274 212 -3%Containers 156 195 316 102%Container (TEU) 25,365 36,301 32,802 33,537 24,508 9,029 32%

IT-Civitavecchia Total (not incl. TEU) 6,790 5,658 6,038 0 0 0 -11%IT-Falconara Marittima Liquid Bulk 4,539 4,549 4,894 8%

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 5 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1 -Other General Cargo 0 -Containers 1 -Container (TEU) 90 28 28 -

IT-Falconara Marittima Total (not incl. TEU) 4,539 4,549 4,901 0 0 0 8%IT-Fiumicino Liquid Bulk 5,399 6,055 6,542 21%

Dry Bulk 0 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 0 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 -Other General Cargo 0 -

IT-Fiumicino Total (not incl. TEU) 5,399 6,055 6,542 0 21%IT-Gaeta Liquid Bulk 1,792 1,536 1,944 9%

Dry Bulk 510 562 604 18%Other General Cargo 192 152 184 -4%Containers 0 -100%

IT-Gaeta Total (not incl. TEU) 2,494 2,250 2,733 0 10%IT-Gela Liquid Bulk 6,669 7,934 7,942 19%

Dry Bulk 270 269 -100%Other General Cargo 6 6 0 -100%

IT-Gela Total (not incl. TEU) 6,945 8,208 7,942 0 14%IT-Genova Liquid Bulk 20,457 19,865 18,292 -11%

Dry Bulk 4,857 4,772 3,559 -27%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,207 915 773 -36%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 5,288 6,798 6,583 24%Other General Cargo 3,166 855 1,809 -43%Containers 12,238 13,003 11,907 -3%Container (TEU) 1,605,946 1,686,243 1,624,964 1,657,113 828,971 828,142 3%

IT-Genova Total (not incl. TEU) 47,212 46,207 42,923 0 0 0 -9%IT-Gioia Tauro Liquid Bulk 4 220 5397%

Dry Bulk 120 81 101 -16%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 63 151 193 207%Other General Cargo 4 14 49 1187%Containers 26,084 30,542 29,855 14%Container (TEU) 3,148,662 3,261,034 3,160,981 2,938,176 1,488,832 1,449,344 -7%

IT-Gioia Tauro Total (not incl. TEU) 26,275 30,789 30,418 0 0 0 16%IT-La Spezia Liquid Bulk 4,323 3,337 3,582 -17%

Dry Bulk 2,247 2,177 1,854 -18%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1 1 0 -75%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 23 3 9 -63%Other General Cargo 632 593 621 -2%Containers 7,788 8,072 7,636 -2%Container (TEU) 1,006,641 1,040,438 1,024,185 1,133,725 550,385 583,340 13%

IT-La Spezia Total (not incl. TEU) 15,015 14,183 13,701 0 0 0 -9%


App

endi

x II

276

Cargo Category Year 03-06 % Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)IT-Lipari Liquid Bulk 1,191 1,335 1,231 3%

Dry Bulk 263 316 340 29%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 117 112 90 -23%Other General Cargo 0 7 0 22%Containers 1 -Container (TEU) 59 -

IT-Lipari Total (not incl. TEU) 1,572 1,771 1,662 0 6%IT-Livorno Liquid Bulk 8,993 8,168 8,986 0%

Dry Bulk 1,496 1,395 1,235 -17%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,289 1,096 1,823 41%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 4,416 4,458 4,944 12%Other General Cargo 1,969 2,011 2,327 18%Containers 4,400 4,185 4,827 10%Container (TEU) 379,989 376,139 461,379 434,521 191,589 242,932 14%

IT-Livorno Total (not incl. TEU) 22,564 21,313 24,143 0 0 0 7%IT-Manfredonia Liquid Bulk 239 200 -


IT-Manfredonia Total (not incl. TEU) 0 1,070 1,043 0 -IT-Marina di Carrara Liquid Bulk 51 141 62 20%

Dry Bulk 1,000 1,030 1,018 2%Other General Cargo 1,551 1,501 1,727 11%Containers 150 145 211 41%Container (TEU) 8,672 7,917 6,222 4,493 2,209 2,284 -48%

IT-Marina di Carrara Total (not incl. TEU) 2,753 2,817 3,018 0 0 0 10%IT-Messina Liquid Bulk 393 140 199 -49%

Dry Bulk 44 27 26 -40%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 987 964 1,209 23%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 204 125 240 18%Other General Cargo 85 105 105 22%

IT-Messina Total (not incl. TEU) 1,713 1,361 1,779 0 4%IT-Milazzo Liquid Bulk 16,212 13,125 17,481 8%

Dry Bulk 63 57 107 70%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 175 156 148 -15%Other General Cargo 247 193 131 -47%Container (TEU) 3 60 60 -

IT-Milazzo Total (not incl. TEU) 16,696 13,531 17,867 0 0 0 -100%IT-Monfalcone Liquid Bulk 655 371 287 -56%

Dry Bulk 1,226 773 1,061 -13%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 85 87 74 -13%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 261 542 395 51%Other General Cargo 1,568 2,201 2,307 47%Containers 2 12 10 366%Container (TEU) 343 1,572 1,302 979 372 607 185%

IT-Monfalcone Total (not incl. TEU) 3,798 3,987 4,135 0 0 0 9%IT-Napoli Liquid Bulk 6,592 5,761 5,833 -12%

Dry Bulk 871 825 1,037 19%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,425 855 1,275 -11%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,378 1,285 1,172 -15%Other General Cargo 97 109 97 0%Containers 2,572 1,729 1,583 -38%Container (TEU) 433,303 347,537 373,706 444,982 235,072 209,910 3%

IT-Napoli Total (not incl. TEU) 12,936 10,564 10,997 0 0 0 -15%IT-Olbia Dry Bulk 59 43 66 13%

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,234 1,084 1,057 -14%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 3,462 3,651 3,849 11%Other General Cargo 18 20 56 209%Containers 0 -Container (TEU) 1 1,384 310 274 36 -

IT-Olbia Total (not incl. TEU) 4,772 4,798 5,029 0 0 0 5%IT-Oristano Liquid Bulk 77 125 99 27%

Dry Bulk 1,478 1,488 1,503 2%Other General Cargo 201 83 110 -46%Containers 0 -100%

IT-Oristano Total (not incl. TEU) 1,757 1,697 1,711 0 -3%IT-Ortona Liquid Bulk 827 849 839 1%

Dry Bulk 355 393 393 11%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 13 5 7 -48%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 -Other General Cargo 133 133 108 -18%Containers 0 0 1 3163%Container (TEU) 36 26 35 36 18 18 0%

IT-Ortona Total (not incl. TEU) 1,328 1,380 1,348 0 0 0 2%IT-Other Liquid Bulk 1,519 -

Dry Bulk 579 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 45 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 66 -Other General Cargo 28 -Containers 27 -Container (TEU) 1,857 -

IT-Other Total (not incl. TEU) 0 0 2,265 0 -


App

endi

x II

277

Cargo Category Year 03-06 % Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)IT-Palermo Liquid Bulk 777 1,256 1,235 59%

Dry Bulk 163 200 187 15%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 951 880 1,066 12%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,413 1,683 1,689 20%Other General Cargo 152 61 64 -58%Containers 161 273 377 134%Container (TEU) 15,272 24,040 27,547 13,686 6,923 6,763 -10%

IT-Palermo Total (not incl. TEU) 3,617 4,353 4,618 0 0 0 28%IT-Piombino Liquid Bulk 64 445 348 445%

Dry Bulk 4,152 4,130 4,375 5%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 971 1,148 1,151 19%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 640 655 650 2%Other General Cargo 1,557 1,408 1,383 -11%Containers 0 1 64150%Container (TEU) 2 332 16500%

IT-Piombino Total (not incl. TEU) 7,384 7,787 7,909 0 7%IT-Porto Empedocle Liquid Bulk 102 -


IT-Porto Empedocle Total (not incl. TEU) 0 0 1,079 0 -IT-Porto Foxi Liquid Bulk 25,967 25,240 22,728 -12%

Dry Bulk 135 2 33 -76%Other General Cargo 4 -100%

IT-Porto Foxi Total (not incl. TEU) 26,106 25,241 22,760 0 -13%IT-Porto Nogaro Liquid Bulk 10 19 15 51%

Dry Bulk 526 552 500 -5%Other General Cargo 957 1,141 739 -23%Container (TEU) 6 6 -

IT-Porto Nogaro Total (not incl. TEU) 1,493 1,712 1,254 0 0 0 -16%IT-Porto Torres Liquid Bulk 3,145 2,185 2,739 -13%

Dry Bulk 1,067 2,141 2,179 104%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 137 145 144 5%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 595 624 661 11%Other General Cargo 16 7 14 -13%Containers 0 1 4 1308%Container (TEU) 32 42 470 223 105 118 597%

IT-Porto Torres Total (not incl. TEU) 4,960 5,102 5,741 0 0 0 16%IT-Portovesme Liquid Bulk 926 1,023 1,090 18%

Dry Bulk 4,076 4,382 4,515 11%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 113 117 118 4%Other General Cargo 14 24 56 287%

IT-Portovesme Total (not incl. TEU) 5,129 5,547 5,778 0 13%IT-Pozzallo Liquid Bulk 2 -

Dry Bulk 854 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2 -Other General Cargo 177 -Containers 36 -Container (TEU) 2,572 689 277 412 -

IT-Pozzallo Total (not incl. TEU) 0 0 1,071 0 0 0 -IT-Ravenna Liquid Bulk 6,570 5,733 5,367 -18%

Dry Bulk 12,385 12,738 12,962 5%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 5 15 9 80%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 834 842 529 -36%Other General Cargo 3,618 4,576 3,743 3%Containers 1,522 1,549 1,709 12%Container (TEU) 139,768 147,095 152,831 139,181 63,849 75,332 0%

IT-Ravenna Total (not incl. TEU) 24,934 25,454 24,320 0 0 0 -2%IT-Salerno Liquid Bulk 5 21 2 -69%

Dry Bulk 676 854 761 13%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,451 1,965 1,563 8%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 287 140 295 3%Other General Cargo 512 119 146 -71%Containers 2,520 2,416 2,096 -17%Container (TEU) 417,480 411,618 418,206 358,020 135,474 222,546 -14%

IT-Salerno Total (not incl. TEU) 5,451 5,516 4,862 0 0 0 -11%IT-Santa Panagia Liquid Bulk 18,569 19,020 23,254 25%

Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 9 21 -100%Other General Cargo 0 -100%

IT-Santa Panagia Total (not incl. TEU) 18,578 19,041 23,254 0 25%


App

endi

x II

278

Cargo Category Year 03-06 % Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)IT-Palermo Liquid Bulk 777 1,256 1,235 59%

Dry Bulk 163 200 187 15%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 951 880 1,066 12%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,413 1,683 1,689 20%Other General Cargo 152 61 64 -58%Containers 161 273 377 134%Container (TEU) 15,272 24,040 27,547 13,686 6,923 6,763 -10%

IT-Palermo Total (not incl. TEU) 3,617 4,353 4,618 0 0 0 28%IT-Piombino Liquid Bulk 64 445 348 445%

Dry Bulk 4,152 4,130 4,375 5%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 971 1,148 1,151 19%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 640 655 650 2%Other General Cargo 1,557 1,408 1,383 -11%Containers 0 1 64150%Container (TEU) 2 332 16500%

IT-Piombino Total (not incl. TEU) 7,384 7,787 7,909 0 7%IT-Porto Empedocle Liquid Bulk 102 -


IT-Porto Empedocle Total (not incl. TEU) 0 0 1,079 0 -IT-Porto Foxi Liquid Bulk 25,967 25,240 22,728 -12%

Dry Bulk 135 2 33 -76%Other General Cargo 4 -100%

IT-Porto Foxi Total (not incl. TEU) 26,106 25,241 22,760 0 -13%IT-Porto Nogaro Liquid Bulk 10 19 15 51%

Dry Bulk 526 552 500 -5%Other General Cargo 957 1,141 739 -23%Container (TEU) 6 6 -

IT-Porto Nogaro Total (not incl. TEU) 1,493 1,712 1,254 0 0 0 -16%IT-Porto Torres Liquid Bulk 3,145 2,185 2,739 -13%

Dry Bulk 1,067 2,141 2,179 104%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 137 145 144 5%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 595 624 661 11%Other General Cargo 16 7 14 -13%Containers 0 1 4 1308%Container (TEU) 32 42 470 223 105 118 597%

IT-Porto Torres Total (not incl. TEU) 4,960 5,102 5,741 0 0 0 16%IT-Portovesme Liquid Bulk 926 1,023 1,090 18%

Dry Bulk 4,076 4,382 4,515 11%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 113 117 118 4%Other General Cargo 14 24 56 287%

IT-Portovesme Total (not incl. TEU) 5,129 5,547 5,778 0 13%IT-Pozzallo Liquid Bulk 2 -

Dry Bulk 854 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2 -Other General Cargo 177 -Containers 36 -Container (TEU) 2,572 689 277 412 -

IT-Pozzallo Total (not incl. TEU) 0 0 1,071 0 0 0 -IT-Ravenna Liquid Bulk 6,570 5,733 5,367 -18%


IT-Ravenna Total (not incl. TEU) 24,934 25,454 24,320 0 0 0 -2%IT-Salerno Liquid Bulk 5 21 2 -69%

Dry Bulk 676 854 761 13%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,451 1,965 1,563 8%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 287 140 295 3%Other General Cargo 512 119 146 -71%Containers 2,520 2,416 2,096 -17%Container (TEU) 417,480 411,618 418,206 358,020 135,474 222,546 -14%

IT-Salerno Total (not incl. TEU) 5,451 5,516 4,862 0 0 0 -11%IT-Santa Panagia Liquid Bulk 18,569 19,020 23,254 25%

Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 9 21 -100%Other General Cargo 0 -100%

IT-Santa Panagia Total (not incl. TEU) 18,578 19,041 23,254 0 25%IT-Savona — Vado Liquid Bulk 6,340 7,548 7,646 21%

Dry Bulk 4,641 4,715 4,467 -4%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 228 167 116 -49%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 2 1 158%Other General Cargo 561 454 447 -20%Containers 355 603 1,879 429%Container (TEU) 54,796 83,754 219,876 231,489 106,979 124,510 322%

IT-Savona — Vado Total (not incl. TEU) 12,125 13,490 14,557 0 0 0 20%IT-Taranto Liquid Bulk 5,773 5,708 7,662 33%

Dry Bulk 16,679 17,661 25,454 53%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 15 2 -88%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,841 3,808 2,293 25%Other General Cargo 6,119 6,411 7,232 18%Containers 4,904 5,826 5,273 8%Container (TEU) 659,000 763,318 716,856 892,303 545,520 346,783 35%

IT-Taranto Total (not incl. TEU) 35,331 39,412 47,917 0 0 0 36%


App

endi

x II

279

Cargo Category Year 03-06 % Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)IT-Termini Imerese Liquid Bulk 624 420 277 -56%

Dry Bulk 94 115 105 12%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 132 128 44 -67%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 763 768 756 -1%Other General Cargo 50 4 12 -76%

IT-Termini Imerese Total (not incl. TEU) 1,663 1,435 1,194 0 -28%IT-Trapani Liquid Bulk 84 94 85 1%

Dry Bulk 399 122 17 -96%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 347 318 765 120%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 32 315 176 451%Other General Cargo 53 1 10 -82%Containers 204 239 145 -29%Container (TEU) 12,912 9,415 8,853 9,871 4,716 5,155 -24%

IT-Trapani Total (not incl. TEU) 1,120 1,090 1,198 0 0 0 7%IT-Trieste Liquid Bulk 34,240 34,707 35,818 5%

Dry Bulk 2,543 1,424 2,130 -16%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,562 1,766 1,373 -12%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,644 1,745 1,832 11%Other General Cargo 554 297 275 -50%Containers 1,026 1,579 1,928 88%Container (TEU) 95,747 149,451 182,713 183,852 90,350 93,502 92%

IT-Trieste Total (not incl. TEU) 41,569 41,518 43,357 0 0 0 4%IT-Venezia Liquid Bulk 12,184 12,736 13,562 11%


IT-Venezia Total (not incl. TEU) 28,271 28,933 30,604 0 0 0 8%IT-Vibo Valentia Liquid Bulk 810 862 906 12%

Dry Bulk 218 163 218 0%Other General Cargo 16 14 8 -52%

IT-Vibo Valentia Total (not incl. TEU) 1,044 1,038 1,131 0 8%IT Total (not incl. TEU) 465,366 475,152 498,992 0 0 0 7%


10.14 Lithuania Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)Lithuania-Būtingė Liquid Bulk 6,127 5,888 2,961 2,928 -Lithuania-Būtingė Total (not incl. TEU) 6,127 5,888 2,961 2,928 -Lithuania-Klaipėda Liquid Bulk 14,801 7,215 8,267 665 7,602 -

Dry Bulk 6,208 7,519 7,590 1,991 5,599 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,260 848 968 488 480 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 360 852 1,150 703 447 -Other General Cargo 2,059 2,262 1,996 620 1,376 -Containers 1,154 1,380 1,586 1,038 548 -Container (TEU) 118,413 174,241 214,307 231,548 118,593 112,955 96%

Lithuania-Klaipėda Total (not incl. TEU) 0 25,842 20,075 21,557 5,506 16,052 -LT Total (not incl. TEU) 0 25,842 20,075 21,557 5,506 16,052 -


10.15 Latvia Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)LV-Liepaja Liquid Bulk 877 663 1,044 37 1,007 -

Dry Bulk 1,172 1,680 1,711 536 1,175 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 588 437 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 109 83 -Other General Cargo 1,651 1,637 1,446 39 1,407 -Containers 45 40 76 40 35 -Container (TEU) 2,662 3,000 3,144 7,809 4,013 3,796 193%

LV-Liepaja Total (not incl. TEU) 0 4,443 4,541 4,277 652 3,625 -LV-Riga Liquid Bulk 4,294 3,516 4,694 542 4,151 -

Dry Bulk 11,002 14,938 14,223 1,111 13,112 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 258 79 179 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 49 35 14 -Other General Cargo 5,846 4,373 2,982 149 2,832 -Containers 925 1,593 1,553 956 597 -Container (TEU) 145,655 152,800 168,978 176,826 95,484 81,342 21%

LV-Riga Total (not incl. TEU) 0 22,068 24,421 23,758 2,873 20,885 -LV-Ventspils Liquid Bulk 17,195 17,660 17,498 1,677 15,820 -

Dry Bulk 7,514 10,440 8,070 618 7,452 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 269 512 1,305 590 715 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2 3 20 14 6 -Other General Cargo 2,099 735 718 98 620 -Containers 2 7 134 73 62 -Container (TEU) 3,688 682 948 14,241 7,909 6,332 286%

LV-Ventspils Total (not incl. TEU) 0 27,081 29,358 27,744 3,069 24,675 -LV Total (not incl. TEU) 0 53,591 58,320 55,780 6,594 49,185 -


App

endi

x II

280

10.16 Malta Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)MT-Marsaxlokk Liquid Bulk 495 389 665 929 882 47 88%

Dry Bulk 6 0 2 15 15 0 150%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 0 0 0 -85%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 0 1 1 1 0 1007%Other General Cargo 7 63 0 18 18 0 161%Containers 529 616 496 624 539 85 18%Container (TEU) 1,305,000 1,461,174 1,308,600 1,485,000 1,220,030 264,970 14%

MT-Marsaxlokk Total (not incl. TEU) 1,037 1,068 1,165 1,587 1,455 132 53%MT-MT (Valetta) Liquid Bulk 790 754 1,091 974 957 17 23%

Dry Bulk 934 755 677 553 539 14 -41%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 32 16 23 28 17 11 -13%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 241 206 182 195 158 37 -19%Other General Cargo 222 508 175 129 125 4 -42%Containers 163 175 200 114 98 16 -30%Container (TEU) 47,539 51,666 59,800 47,920 28,069 19,851 1%

MT-MT (Valetta) Total (not incl. TEU) 2,382 2,414 2,347 1,993 1,893 100 -16%MT Total (not incl. TEU) 3,419 3,483 3,512 3,579 3,348 231 5%


10.17 Poland Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)PL-Gdańsk Liquid Bulk 10,734 12,481 11,732 13,321 2,360 10,961 24%

Dry Bulk 8,113 7,580 9,274 7,060 1,556 5,504 -13%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 102 107 112 222 140 82 117%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 52 36 5 7 2 5 -87%Other General Cargo 2,171 1,872 961 923 180 742 -57%Containers 151 213 492 540 153 387 258%Container (TEU) 22,537 43,700 70,014 78,364 27,809 50,555 248%

PL-Gdańsk Total (not incl. TEU) 21,323 22,288 22,575 22,072 4,391 17,682 4%PL-Gdynia Liquid Bulk 586 584 1,047 1,419 822 597 142%

Dry Bulk 3,239 3,075 3,416 4,116 2,276 1,840 27%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 561 807 1,056 1,205 688 517 115%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 367 371 530 939 677 262 156%Other General Cargo 2,673 2,005 1,579 799 310 490 -70%Containers 2,307 2,759 3,443 3,739 2,126 1,613 62%Container (TEU) 308,619 377,200 400,165 461,170 240,297 220,873 49%

PL-Gdynia Total (not incl. TEU) 9,733 9,602 11,071 12,218 6,900 5,319 26%PL-Police Liquid Bulk 198 206 248 164 4 159 -17%

Dry Bulk 2,116 2,070 2,086 1,921 1,399 522 -9%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 -Other General Cargo 0 3 0 25 25 -Containers 0 -

PL-Police Total (not incl. TEU) 2,314 2,279 2,334 2,110 1,403 706 -9%PL-Swinoujscie Liquid Bulk 166 190 255 404 76 327 143%

Dry Bulk 5,289 6,133 6,736 4,275 1,497 2,778 -19%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,428 1,466 2,240 2,461 1,289 1,172 72%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 461 488 490 593 279 313 29%Other General Cargo 1,649 1,155 662 585 237 347 -65%Containers 4 11 61 77 3 73 1767%Container (TEU) 1,805 3,769 4,560 370 4,190 -

PL-Swinoujscie Total (not incl. TEU) 8,997 9,442 10,443 8,393 3,382 5,011 -7%PL-Szczecin Liquid Bulk 556 620 628 655 492 163 18%

Dry Bulk 5,460 5,211 5,084 5,005 2,372 2,633 -8%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 0 13 3 3 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 32 66 108 31 77 -Other General Cargo 2,113 2,365 2,201 2,058 666 1,392 -3%Containers 217 238 296 329 172 157 52%Container (TEU) 21,628 27,700 36,453 42,425 19,510 22,915 96%

PL-Szczecin Total (not incl. TEU) 8,345 8,466 8,288 8,159 3,733 4,426 -2%PL Total (not incl. TEU) 50,712 52,077 54,711 52,952 19,809 33,143 4%


10.18 Slovenia Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)SI-Koper Liquid Bulk 1,898 2,152 2,039 2,078 2,077 1 10%

Dry Bulk 6,289 7,324 7,732 10,101 7,218 2,883 61%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 22 32 20 6 2 4 -72%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 8 2 8 11 4 8 32%Other General Cargo 1,333 980 1,066 1,153 79 1,075 -13%Containers 1,223 1,534 1,748 2,107 1,122 984 72%Container (TEU) 126,210 153,347 179,745 218,970 112,717 106,253 73%

SI-Koper Total (not incl. TEU) 10,773 12,025 12,614 15,457 10,501 4,955 43%SI Total (not incl. TEU) 10,773 12,025 12,614 15,457 10,501 4,955 43%


App

endi

x II

281

10.19 Netherlands Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)NL-Amsterdam Liquid Bulk 12,371 17,774 19,280 24,865 13,078 11,787 101%

Dry Bulk 25,298 29,279 25,108 26,606 22,180 4,426 5%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 308 242 322 386 256 130 25%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 7 6 14 3 3 -57%Other General Cargo 2,450 2,235 2,174 2,208 1,875 333 -10%Containers 503 522 683 3,154 2,005 1,150 527%Container (TEU) 44,511 51,904 65,844 305,722 201,308 104,414 587%

NL-Amsterdam Total (not incl. TEU) 40,936 50,058 47,581 57,221 39,396 17,826 40%NL-Delfzijl/Eemshaven Liquid Bulk 363 303 374 265 166 99 -27%

Dry Bulk 1,482 1,485 1,603 1,613 678 935 9%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 6 6 8 11 1 10 81%Other General Cargo 685 549 850 794 296 497 16%Containers 0 0 2 0 2 -Container (TEU) 45 77 226 23 203 -

NL-Delfzijl/Eemshaven Total (not incl. TEU) 2,536 2,344 2,835 2,685 1,142 1,543 6%NL-Den Helder Liquid Bulk 0 0 -

Dry Bulk 11 25 4 2 3 -Other General Cargo 81 95 176 257 108 149 218%

NL-Den Helder Total (not incl. TEU) 81 107 201 262 110 152 224%NL-Dordrecht Liquid Bulk 212 229 200 202 156 46 -5%

Dry Bulk 1,598 1,524 1,499 1,708 571 1,137 7%Other General Cargo 421 462 420 462 239 223 10%Containers 0 2 3 3 6646%Container (TEU) 130 538 248 248 91%

NL-Dordrecht Total (not incl. TEU) 2,232 2,217 2,119 2,375 966 1,408 6%NL-Harlingen Liquid Bulk 5 -100%

Dry Bulk 590 574 772 950 528 421 61%Other General Cargo 152 87 134 119 11 108 -21%Containers 4 -

NL-Harlingen Total (not incl. TEU) 748 664 906 1,069 540 529 43%NL-Moerdijk Liquid Bulk 1,797 1,984 2,146 2,475 2,039 436 38%

Dry Bulk 921 745 917 1,096 848 248 19%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 12 8 1 2 0 1 -85%Other General Cargo 843 740 1,060 1,451 1,129 322 72%Containers 90 158 159 224 130 93 150%Container (TEU) 400,000 245,765 154,235 -

NL-Moerdijk Total (not incl. TEU) 3,662 3,635 4,284 5,248 4,147 1,101 43%NL-Rotterdam Liquid Bulk 150,720 159,568 170,495 175,228 149,351 25,877 16%

Dry Bulk 84,058 87,279 87,895 85,629 77,847 7,783 2%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 9,412 9,321 9,600 9,703 3,947 5,756 3%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,274 1,571 1,381 1,134 520 614 -11%Other General Cargo 8,355 9,399 8,279 9,982 7,398 2,584 19%Containers 55,904 65,685 71,556 74,356 34,999 39,357 33%Container (TEU) 7,117,600 8,291,912 9,286,757 9,600,482 4,944,589 4,655,893 35%

NL-Rotterdam Total (not incl. TEU) 309,723 332,823 349,206 356,033 274,062 81,970 15%NL-Scheveningen Liquid Bulk 12 23 4 2 2 -80%

Dry Bulk 3 3 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2,942 3,103 3,329 3,149 1,135 2,014 7%Other General Cargo 62 42 80 31 0 31 -50%

NL-Scheveningen Total (not incl. TEU) 3,016 3,168 3,413 3,185 1,138 2,047 6%NL-Terneuzen Liquid Bulk 6,324 6,875 6,747 7,078 5,852 1,227 12%

Dry Bulk 3,944 3,867 3,743 3,173 1,411 1,762 -20%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2 3 5 0 5 187%Other General Cargo 2,014 1,637 2,263 2,046 1,888 157 2%Containers 74 107 153 43 3 40 -42%Container (TEU) 9,876 13,520 13,324 5,608 1,507 4,101 -43%

NL-Terneuzen Total (not incl. TEU) 12,357 12,486 12,909 12,345 9,154 3,191 0%NL-Velsen/Ijmuiden Liquid Bulk 244 206 467 145 101 44 -40%

Dry Bulk 15,081 15,048 18,666 17,501 16,648 852 16%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 191 142 179 187 76 111 -2%Other General Cargo 2,752 2,636 2,828 3,105 621 2,484 13%Containers 0 30 0 0 -Container (TEU) 139 4,963 38 38 -73%

NL-Velsen/Ijmuiden Total (not incl. TEU) 18,266 18,032 22,171 20,938 17,447 3,491 15%NL-Vlaardingen Liquid Bulk 1,639 989 1,618 983 752 230 -40%

Dry Bulk 1,233 698 802 506 258 248 -59%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 491 158 333 -Other General Cargo 147 73 81 90 53 37 -39%Containers 0 4 19 2 16 -Container (TEU) 20 879 2,113 467 1,646 -

NL-Vlaardingen Total (not incl. TEU) 3,019 1,760 2,505 2,089 1,224 865 -31%NL-Vlissingen Liquid Bulk 3,377 3,591 3,881 3,979 2,595 1,384 18%

Dry Bulk 4,606 4,906 5,295 5,167 4,312 855 12%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,494 1,839 1,735 1,750 671 1,080 17%Other General Cargo 4,564 3,937 4,144 4,707 3,602 1,105 3%Containers 302 316 298 262 103 159 -13%Container (TEU) 41,961 41,427 46,527 46,818 24,469 22,349 12%

NL-Vlissingen Total (not incl. TEU) 14,343 14,587 15,353 15,865 11,282 4,583 11%NL-Zaanstad Liquid Bulk 33 22 2 5 1 4 -85%


NL-Zaanstad Total (not incl. TEU) 343 207 169 164 149 15 -52%NL-Zwijndrecht Liquid Bulk 62 27 42 4 4 -93%


NL-Zwijndrecht Total (not incl. TEU) 186 170 118 58 37 21 -69%NL Total (not incl. TEU) 411,447 442,257 463,768 479,536 360,793 118,742 17%


App

endi

x II

282

10.20 Portugal Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)PT-Aveiro Liquid Bulk 606 604 536 535 371 164 -12%

Dry Bulk 1,067 1,071 1,416 1,159 890 269 9%Other General Cargo 1,291 1,452 1,375 1,653 1,032 621 28%Containers 0 0 0 0 4600%Container (TEU) 1 2 6 6 500%

PT-Aveiro Total (not incl. TEU) 2,964 3,128 3,328 3,347 2,293 1,054 13%PT-Caniçal Liquid Bulk 281 281 -

Dry Bulk 180 180 -Other General Cargo 78 71 7 -Containers 715 602 113 -Container (TEU) 113,915 56,720 57,195 -

PT-Caniçal Total (not incl. TEU) 1,253 1,133 120 -PT-Figueira da Foz Dry Bulk 653 358 295 -

Other General Cargo 413 82 331 -Containers 126 7 118 -Container (TEU) 10,093 675 9,418 -

PT-Figueira da Foz Total (not incl. TEU) 1,192 448 744 -PT-Funchal Liquid Bulk 366 412 296 103 102 2 -72%

Dry Bulk 284 411 262 221 221 -22%Other General Cargo 108 113 28 7 1 6 -94%Containers 666 734 601 12 2 10 -98%Container (TEU) 118,184 120,414 95,921 1,906 1,072 834 -98%

PT-Funchal Total (not incl. TEU) 1,424 1,669 1,187 343 325 18 -76%PT-Leixões Liquid Bulk 7,471 7,299 7,713 7,404 6,097 1,308 -1%

Dry Bulk 2,226 2,378 2,301 2,150 1,763 388 -3%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 8 9 7 6 3 3 -31%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1 1 2 12 3 8 1113%Other General Cargo 533 462 489 573 331 242 8%Containers 2,533 2,837 2,820 3,089 1,409 1,680 22%Container (TEU) 320,280 348,493 352,002 378,387 197,785 180,602 18%

PT-Leixões Total (not incl. TEU) 12,773 12,986 13,332 13,234 9,605 3,628 4%PT-Lisboa Liquid Bulk 1,452 1,276 1,609 1,392 1,204 189 -4%

Dry Bulk 4,790 4,761 5,203 5,077 4,096 981 6%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 12 20 11 5 5 -62%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 1 1 -100%Other General Cargo 458 464 439 537 352 185 17%Containers 4,585 4,169 4,052 4,083 1,392 2,691 -11%Container (TEU) 553,513 513,918 513,061 512,501 255,678 256,823 -7%

PT-Lisboa Total (not incl. TEU) 11,297 10,691 11,315 11,095 7,049 4,046 -2%PT-Ponta Delgada (ilha de S. Liquid Bulk 495 479 336 143 -

Dry Bulk 374 365 365 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 8 10 7 3 -Other General Cargo 38 49 34 14 -Containers 647 672 367 305 -Container (TEU) 80,507 82,570 35,561 47,009 -

PT-Ponta Delgada (ilha de S. Miguel, Açores) Total (not incl. TEU) 1,562 1,576 1,110 466 -PT-Setúbal Liquid Bulk 1,323 1,133 1,717 1,092 1,092 -17%

Dry Bulk 2,883 3,065 3,224 3,172 1,262 1,910 10%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 364 376 368 369 170 199 1%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2 4 4 5 4 1 96%Other General Cargo 1,381 1,715 1,212 1,442 889 553 4%Containers 85 141 81 86 63 23 1%Container (TEU) 12,059 19,515 13,145 15,736 8,014 7,722 30%

PT-Setúbal Total (not incl. TEU) 6,039 6,434 6,606 6,166 3,480 2,686 2%PT-Sines Liquid Bulk 15,453 16,810 18,677 19,620 13,458 6,162 27%

Dry Bulk 5,396 5,416 5,802 6,180 6,098 82 15%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1 -100%Other General Cargo 23 45 29 36 34 2 57%Containers 0 208 546 1,211 504 707 411971%Container (TEU) 40 19,211 50,994 121,956 62,189 59,767 304790%

PT-Sines Total (not incl. TEU) 20,873 22,479 25,053 27,048 20,095 6,953 30%PT Total (not incl. TEU) 55,369 57,386 62,383 65,252 45,538 19,714 18%


App

endi

x II

283

10.21 Romania Cargo Category Year 03-06 %

Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)RO-Basarabi Dry Bulk 10 12 -

Other General Cargo 6 -RO-Basarabi Total (not incl. TEU) 10 18 -RO-Braila Liquid Bulk 10 -


RO-Braila Total (not incl. TEU) 235 263 -RO-Constanta Liquid Bulk 11,650 13,825 12,751 8,428 4,323 9%

Dry Bulk 17,141 18,228 16,596 8,329 8,268 -3%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 9 13 25 3 22 178%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 25 186 116 62 54 368%Other General Cargo 5,171 5,231 4,035 996 3,039 -22%Containers 3,923 7,455 9,763 5,278 4,485 149%Container (TEU) 391,204 867,036 1,170,434 607,222 563,212 199%

RO-Constanta Total (not incl. TEU) 37,919 44,937 43,286 23,096 20,190 14%RO-Galati Liquid Bulk 32 101 72 60 11 125%

Dry Bulk 189 66 127 88 39 -33%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 3 -Other General Cargo 973 976 889 22 867 -9%

RO-Galati Total (not incl. TEU) 1,194 1,146 1,088 171 917 -9%RO-Mangalia Liquid Bulk 103 71

Dry Bulk 130 108Other General Cargo 13 10

RO-Mangalia Total (not incl. TEU) 246 189RO-Medgidia Dry Bulk 30 159

Other General Cargo 25 29RO-Medgidia Total (not incl. TEU) 55 187RO-Midia Liquid Bulk 898 1,315 1,812 975 837 102%

Dry Bulk 114 74 172 13 158 50%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 25 10 17 17 -30%Other General Cargo 36 62 30 30 -17%

RO-Midia Total (not incl. TEU) 1,073 1,462 2,031 1,018 1,013 89%RO-Tulcea Dry Bulk 175 63 -

Other General Cargo 4 0 -RO-Tulcea Total (not incl. TEU) 179 63 -

RO Total (not incl. TEU) 40,912 48,264 46,405 24,285 22,120 -


10.22 Sweden

Cargo Category Year 03-06 % Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)SE-Bergs Oljehamn Liquid Bulk 1,011 1,026 1,026 1,026 1%SE-Bergs Oljehamn Total (not incl. TEU) 1,011 1,026 1,026 1,026 1%SE-Brofjorden Scanraff Liquid Bulk 19,440 19,055 19,221 18,591 9,541 9,050 -4%SE-Brofjorden Scanraff Total (not incl. TEU) 19,440 19,055 19,221 18,591 9,541 9,050 -4%SE-Gävle Liquid Bulk 1,243 1,224 1,321 1,886 1,848 38 52%

Dry Bulk 352 334 437 512 331 181 45%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1 2 2 1 1 0 25%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1 2 3 2 2 1 85%Other General Cargo 1,440 1,384 1,397 1,275 725 550 -11%Containers 405 431 498 579 110 469 43%Container (TEU) 84,555 67,136 28,827 38,309 -

SE-Gävle Total (not incl. TEU) 3,442 3,376 3,657 4,255 3,016 1,239 24%SE-Göteborg Liquid Bulk 17,794 20,623 19,674 20,942 12,359 8,583 18%

Dry Bulk 251 177 130 240 21 219 -4%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 3,304 3,427 3,253 3,414 1,509 1,906 3%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 5,710 6,123 6,949 8,608 3,373 5,235 51%Other General Cargo 56 64 68 87 41 46 55%Containers 5,249 5,997 6,410 6,625 2,846 3,780 26%Container (TEU) 666,000 731,000 788,000 820,394 780,619 39,775 23%

SE-Göteborg Total (not incl. TEU) 32,364 36,411 36,484 39,917 20,149 19,768 23%SE-Halmstad Liquid Bulk 501 441 466 433 412 20 -14%

Dry Bulk 674 681 812 834 620 213 24%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 55 59 70 81 77 4 49%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 24 96 60 0 0 0 -98%Other General Cargo 588 672 1,626 1,306 250 1,055 122%Containers 108 131 176 97 24 73 -10%Container (TEU) 11,755 15,669 21,865 11,509 5,516 5,993 -2%

SE-Halmstad Total (not incl. TEU) 1,950 2,082 3,210 2,751 1,385 1,366 41%SE-Helsingborg Liquid Bulk 928 867 741 976 704 272 5%

Dry Bulk 697 540 501 662 440 222 -5%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 3,670 3,883 3,825 3,997 2,091 1,906 9%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 662 706 616 570 300 270 -14%Other General Cargo 154 99 273 157 38 118 2%Containers 802 932 1,020 1,202 448 754 50%Container (TEU) 89,200 150,000 162,000 194,350 90,883 103,467 118%

SE-Helsingborg Total (not incl. TEU) 6,913 7,026 6,975 7,563 4,021 3,542 9%


App

endi

x II

284

Cargo Category Year 03-06 % Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)SE-Husum Liquid Bulk 167 189 185 231 188 43 38%

Dry Bulk 227 240 106 30 23 8 -87%Other General Cargo 1,889 2,054 2,100 1,937 1,032 905 3%

SE-Husum Total (not incl. TEU) 2,283 2,483 2,391 2,198 1,243 955 -4%SE-Iggesund Liquid Bulk 44 54 54 -

Dry Bulk 0 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 0 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 9 9 -Other General Cargo 1,098 983 410 573 -Containers 4 11 11 -Container (TEU) 8,013 7,716 6,952 764 -

SE-Iggesund Total (not incl. TEU) 1,147 1,056 464 593 -SE-Jätterssön Liquid Bulk 35 36 38 8%

Dry Bulk 2 3 -100%Other General Cargo 1,441 1,471 1,664 15%Containers 42 32 28 -32%Container (TEU) 10,291 5,408 4,639 -55%

SE-Jätterssön Total (not incl. TEU) 1,519 1,542 1,730 14%SE-Kappelskär Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2,374 2,446 2,482 2,831 1,441 1,391 19%

Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 58 100 101 23 11 11 -61%Other General Cargo 1 2 1 11 11 1 894%Containers 0 0 0Container (TEU) 1 10 1

SE-Kappelskär Total (not incl. TEU) 2,433 2,547 2,585 2,865 1,463 1,402 18%SE-Karlshamn Liquid Bulk 842 701 2,286 2,928 1,704 1,224 248%

Dry Bulk 2,032 2,405 2,700 2,477 530 1,947 22%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 657 722 882 1,144 537 607 74%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 201 266 280 201 114 87 0%Other General Cargo 864 716 1,140 901 132 768 4%Containers 0 -Container (TEU) 28 -

SE-Karlshamn Total (not incl. TEU) 4,596 4,810 7,287 7,650 3,018 4,633 66%SE-Karlskrona Liquid Bulk 12 13 11 2 -

Dry Bulk 1 22 22 -Ro-Ro (self-prop) 932 1,076 478 598 -Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 33 41 29 11 -Other General Cargo 224 214 0 214 -Containers 1 3 3 0 -Container (TEU) 85 184 170 14 -

SE-Karlskrona Total (not incl. TEU) 1,202 1,369 522 847 -SE-Köping Liquid Bulk 217 216 238 279 279 29%

Dry Bulk 947 882 992 876 658 217 -7%Other General Cargo 296 216 289 188 123 65 -37%Containers 17 8 -100%

SE-Köping Total (not incl. TEU) 1,476 1,322 1,518 1,342 1,060 282 -9%SE-Luleå Liquid Bulk 369 342 382 350 312 37 -5%

Dry Bulk 7,017 6,925 7,136 6,963 2,046 4,917 -1%Other General Cargo 219 298 195 168 5 163 -23%Containers 0 0 10 4 0 4 136833%Container (TEU) 1 1 1,472 330 22 308 32900%

SE-Luleå Total (not incl. TEU) 7,605 7,565 7,723 7,486 2,364 5,122 -2%SE-Malmö Liquid Bulk 3,164 2,961 2,944 2,977 2,228 750 -6%

Dry Bulk 486 692 598 866 750 116 78%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 2,003 2,666 2,806 2,872 1,537 1,335 43%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,014 1,120 1,078 1,640 820 820 62%Other General Cargo 348 246 344 317 117 200 -9%Containers 199 257 303 342 194 148 72%Container (TEU) 26,000 30,000 35,000 38,000 19,701 18,299 46%

SE-Malmö Total (not incl. TEU) 7,215 7,942 8,072 9,014 5,645 3,369 25%SE-Norrköping Liquid Bulk 1,145 956 1,352 1,502 1,279 223 31%

Dry Bulk 1,128 889 960 707 442 265 -37%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 4 4 -Other General Cargo 1,826 1,918 1,596 1,470 433 1,037 -19%Containers 172 137 114 117 59 58 -32%Container (TEU) 50,000 50,000 43,349 45,000 27,754 17,246 -10%

SE-Norrköping Total (not incl. TEU) 4,271 3,901 4,022 3,800 2,213 1,587 -11%SE-Norrsundet Other General Cargo 1,109 -SE-Norrsundet Total (not incl. TEU) 1,109 -SE-Nynäshamn (ports) Liquid Bulk 1,775 1,907 2,303 2,074 1,018 1,056 17%

Ro-Ro (self-prop) 402 541 442 528 252 276 32%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 5 253 230 106 124 54669%

SE-Nynäshamn (ports) Total (not incl. TEU) 2,177 2,453 2,998 2,832 1,376 1,456 30%SE-Oxelösund (ports) Liquid Bulk 277 389 1,252 2,002 986 1,015 621%

Dry Bulk 3,578 3,967 4,252 3,297 2,853 444 -8%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 0 -Other General Cargo 1,232 1,369 1,392 1,153 99 1,054 -6%Containers 39 47 48 110 55 55 185%Container (TEU) 1,774 2,061 2,363 9,493 5,426 4,067 435%

SE-Oxelösund (ports) Total (not incl. TEU) 5,126 5,772 6,944 6,562 3,995 2,568 28%SE-Piteå Liquid Bulk 242 224 213 210 203 6 -13%

Dry Bulk 14 5 9 4 4 -72%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 0 0 1 1 1 0 987%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 0 0 1 1 1387%Other General Cargo 1,293 1,446 1,587 1,304 509 795 1%Containers 2 6 7 6 2 -Container (TEU) 254 526 704 464 240 -

SE-Piteå Total (not incl. TEU) 1,550 1,678 1,816 1,527 724 803 -1%


App

endi

x II

285

Cargo Category Year 03-06 % Port 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inw -06 Outw -06 (03-05, 04-06)SE-Skellefteå Liquid Bulk 588 591 542 566 76 490 -4%

Dry Bulk 972 1,008 989 882 573 308 -9%Other General Cargo 363 272 355 354 136 218 -2%Containers 22 34 30 2 28 -Container (TEU) 3,596 4,949 3,088 2,114 974 -

SE-Skellefteå Total (not incl. TEU) 1,922 1,894 1,921 1,832 788 1,045 -5%SE-Skutskär Other General Cargo 1,038 -SE-Skutskär Total (not incl. TEU) 1,038 -SE-Slite (ports) Liquid Bulk 51 82 88 86 84 2 67%

Dry Bulk 2,307 2,281 2,318 2,720 545 2,175 18%Other General Cargo 21 32 48 50 50 134%

SE-Slite (ports) Total (not incl. TEU) 2,380 2,395 2,454 2,856 680 2,176 20%SE-Stenungsund (ports) Liquid Bulk 2,934 3,176 3,363 2,980 2,102 877 2%

Dry Bulk 339 321 349 326 205 121 -4%SE-Stenungsund (ports) Total (not incl. TEU) 3,273 3,497 3,712 3,305 2,308 998 1%SE-Stockholm Liquid Bulk 1,157 1,124 1,052 956 938 18 -17%

Dry Bulk 977 1,056 1,022 1,198 1,145 53 23%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,512 1,650 1,660 1,552 773 779 3%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1,109 1,135 1,033 1,139 621 519 3%Other General Cargo 29 16 0 0 -99%Containers 242 231 243 223 175 47 -8%Container (TEU) 33,554 33,017 38,122 37,000 33,559 3,441 10%

SE-Stockholm Total (not incl. TEU) 5,025 5,196 5,027 5,067 3,651 1,416 1%SE-Storugns Dry Bulk 2,409 2,499 2,504 2,692 135 2,557 12%SE-Storugns Total (not incl. TEU) 2,409 2,499 2,504 2,692 135 2,557 12%SE-Sundsvall Liquid Bulk 671 580 561 525 523 2 -22%

Dry Bulk 218 261 320 377 377 73%Other General Cargo 1,106 1,153 1,203 1,267 144 1,123 15%Containers 17 0 15 15 -9%Container (TEU) 1,390 30 974 487 487 -30%

SE-Sundsvall Total (not incl. TEU) 2,012 1,994 2,084 2,184 1,044 1,141 9%SE-Trelleborg Liquid Bulk 79 109 105 123 123 55%

Dry Bulk 64 39 21 53 2 51 -17%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 7,158 7,418 7,554 8,167 4,105 4,063 14%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 3,354 3,204 3,004 3,038 1,449 1,589 -9%Other General Cargo 0 0 1 0 0 0 -72%

SE-Trelleborg Total (not incl. TEU) 10,655 10,771 10,684 11,381 5,679 5,702 7%SE-Uddevalla Liquid Bulk 86 81 104 142 86 56 66%

Dry Bulk 654 889 572 602 431 171 -8%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 4 26 33 10 2 7 173%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 0 2 1 2 -Other General Cargo 288 318 347 309 77 232 7%Containers 2 3 3 3 0 3 84%Container (TEU) 167 364 301 305 24 281 83%

SE-Uddevalla Total (not incl. TEU) 1,033 1,317 1,059 1,068 597 471 3%SE-Umeå Liquid Bulk 277 368 333 359 345 14 29%

Dry Bulk 117 141 175 148 147 1 26%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 59 162 218 264 136 128 346%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 2 3 11 17 14 3 706%Other General Cargo 948 899 999 976 180 795 3%Containers 56 60 72 87 1 86 56%Container (TEU) 8,812 11,529 11,213 14,094 6,529 7,565 60%

SE-Umeå Total (not incl. TEU) 1,459 1,633 1,807 1,850 823 1,026 27%SE-Varberg Liquid Bulk 124 102 117 20 20 -84%

Dry Bulk 212 158 165 155 152 4 -27%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 566 330 659 591 320 271 4%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 24 15 6 13 13 -46%Other General Cargo 785 882 1,191 891 92 798 13%Containers 32 32 68 139 47 92 337%Container (TEU) 6,796 7,301 14,051 21,565 9,341 12,224 217%

SE-Varberg Total (not incl. TEU) 1,744 1,518 2,205 1,809 611 1,198 4%SE-Västerås Liquid Bulk 570 532 526 496 493 3 -13%

Dry Bulk 1,157 969 721 888 768 120 -23%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 1 -100%Other General Cargo 313 195 255 238 146 92 -24%Containers 330 311 348 374 150 224 13%Container (TEU) 32,885 35,701 33,454 40,458 19,682 20,776 23%

SE-Västerås Total (not incl. TEU) 2,372 2,007 1,850 1,995 1,557 439 -16%SE-Ystad Liquid Bulk 1 1 2 1 1 100%

Dry Bulk 126 159 89 140 27 113 11%Ro-Ro (self-prop) 1,419 1,565 1,958 2,284 1,116 1,168 61%Ro-Ro (non-self-prop) 460 464 501 614 308 306 33%Other General Cargo 117 94 83 47 19 28 -59%

SE-Ystad Total (not incl. TEU) 2,122 2,282 2,633 3,086 1,471 1,615 45%SE Total (not incl. TEU) 141,776 146,966 160,092 160,933 82,568 78,365 14%


Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay Research, Sven källfelts gata 210, S‐426 71 Västra Frölunda, Sweden, E‐mail: [email protected]

11 Approach

The figure to the right illustrates the analytical approach used in this publication. Changes in demand for seaborne transport capacity are a function of economic growth and international trade, which in turn result from changes in the business environment. The effects of changing demand for seaborne transport capacity depend on how the markets are organised; the market structure (e.g. monopoly, oligopoly etc), strategies used to meet demand and products and services developed to meet demand, as well as the different components of utilisation.

Notice and terms of use Limitation of liability Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay Ltd., its affiliates and subsidiaries and their respective shareholders, officers, employees or agents are, individually and collectively, referred to in this clause as the ‘LRF Group’. The LRF Group assumes no responsibility and shall not be liable to any person for any loss, damage or expense caused by reliance on the information or advice in this document howsoever provided, unless that person has signed a contract with the relevant LRF Group entity for the provision of this information or advice and in that case, any responsibility or liability is exclusively on the terms and conditions set out in that contract. Title: Report Authors: Christopher Pålsson, +46 (0) 31 704 4330, +46 (0)708 53 77 10

[email protected]

Niklas Bengtsson, +46 (0) 31 704 4330, +46 (0)709 99 69 77 [email protected]












Local

Businessenvironment


Market












Local

Businessenvironment


Market

Date post:	29-Mar-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times