After an uneven 2008, when the situation became stable towards the end of the year, container transport between Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, especially in the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, went through an even harder period of time in 2009. The most dramatic downfall was recorded in the first half of the year. The economic crisis hit Europe and this type of transport dropped by 25%. The main destinations for container transport in Asia are Japan and China. These two countries attract 30% of the container traffic. In 2006, freight worth EUR 427 Million was carried in containers, 60% of which was shipped by the terminals in Asia. Central Asia and Turkey recorded the highest level of progress in the field of container traffic, while Europe seemed to go back to national traffic and the large container hubs in Western Europe seemed to expand towards Eastern Europe.
Transport flows are fragmented, but the logistics chains continue to avoid most countries
One of the current tendencies in case of container transport between Europe and Asia is the powerful comeback of short and medium-distance transport, represented by the traffic between neighbouring countries, which usually have a long standing tradition in cross-border exchanges and who prefer to develop their local networks than to invest in the construction of multi-national corridors.
One such example is the Viking project, which was initiated by the Baltic countries, Belarus and Ukraine. Viking consisted in a pair of trains that carried 20 and 40 feet containers, as well as motor vehicles (RO-LA – rolling road transport) from Scandinavia to the port of Klapeida, on the Mukran-Klapeida line, and then to Ukraine, Belarus, and the Caucasus region via the ports of Ilyitchovsk and Odessa. The ferry routes incorporate the route between the Ilyitchovsk (Ukraine) – Poti terminals or Batumi (Georgia) or Derinj (Turkey). Such projects are being developed by most countries in Eastern Europe or the Caucasus region. These initiatives are motivated by the commercial relations that exist between these countries. However, this type of projects is indicated during these though times. The involvement of the authorities in stimulating traffic is essential in order for these projects to be successful. The lack of such a strategy was believed to be the reason leading to the failure of the intermodal ports developed so far, which represented the exclusive initiative of a number of private companies and other large corporations such as Maersk and MSC, who understood that, in a field dominated by the economic and political stability in the region, they have to cooperate with the governments of the countries in which they operate.
On the other hand, in Western Europe there is another tendency: domestic traffic seems to be gaining ground to the detriment of international traffic. Small and medium-sized terminals are preferred to the detriment of the large ports. This is mainly due to the drop of container traffic with the US. Container traffic has increased in the Ruhr Basin or other economic centres in Austria, France or the Netherlands. As container transport seeks new exits to the Black Sea, the continental ports seek new alternatives to revitalize this type of transport. This process led to the development of a large number of container transport operators. The terminals that took advantage of this trend were the East European ports of Gdansk, Rijeka and even Constanța, who recorded positive indicators year after year.
Main issue: the lack of intermediary terminals
The main problem of container transport is the lack of intermediary terminals, especially in Eastern Europe, where most of the existing terminals that were built before the fall of communism require the modernisation of their equipment. Many of them were even shut down. EU’s efforts to develop intermodal transport in the region face the reticence of the local authorities, who don’t direct the post-accession funds towards the development of intermodal terminals.
The CREAM project (Customer Driven Rail-Freight Services on a European Mega Corridor), which benefits from the participation of 26 partners from 12 EU member states, was created in order to encourage railway container transport and to bring it to a level equal to the road container transport. However, the consultancy company in charge of identifying the best traffic routes and terminals, HaCon from Germany, discovered that this mission is much more difficult than it was originally estimated.
In Eastern Europe, HaCon identified only the terminals in Budapest and Belgrade as projects worthy of being included in CREAM. DB Schenker’s announcement concerning the construction of a modern terminal in Sofia seems to be the only positive aspect brought by CREAM. Although this project was initially thought to show promise, it remains only on paper. The CREAM signatories promised to pressure the authorities into becoming more involved in supporting the development of terminals, seeing as it is necessary to extend the current facilities or to build new terminals capable of taking over the traffic of over 280 TEU per day.
by Alin Lupulescu
Share on:
