Trends in Transport Development between Northern Europe and Russia

Transcription

1

2 Trends in Transport Development between Northern Europe and Russia Prof. Olli-Pekka Hilmola Lappeenranta University of Technology, Kouvola Unit Prikaatintie 9, FIN Kouvola, Finland

3 Introduction Speed Oil (fuel) Labour Capital Investments Payments e.g. sea ports and fairways Overhead Transportation CO2 emissions Freight vol. Freight price Source: Sulphur oxide regulation, effective from year 2015 onwards Notteboom (2011). The impact of low sulphur fuel requirements in shipping on the competitiveness of roro shipping in Northern Europe. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, April 2011, 10:1, pp

4 Some Finnish Shipping Companies

5 Caution: East Coast of USA Source: Department of Transportation (2013). Freight Facts and Figures Bureau of Transportation Statistics. USA.

6 Caution: We could devote much more to rail and hinterlands Source: Department of Transportation (2013). Freight Facts and Figures Bureau of Transportation Statistics. USA.

7 Very Few Research Works Exist: Sulphur Free Diesel Price The transport connections between Western Europe and the Baltic States are expected to be heavily affected by the introduction of the new regulations on low sulphur requirements for vessels in the ECAs. While long-distance, short sea transport succeeds in keeping a price advantage over trucking on a number of O- D relations (see for example Hamburg Tallinn), the ratio between the trucking price and the price for the truck/short sea combinations seriously deteriorates on most other routes. On the routes Dieppe Kaunas an Amsterdam Kaunas, short sea services are likely to completely lose their appeal to customers that imply major modal shifts away from the Lübeck Riga short sea link. On the routes Hamburg Kaunas and Antwerp Kaunas, the price disadvantage for the longdistance short sea solution becomes too high to guarantee a high competitiveness vis-à-vis trucking. Alternative short sea routes 3 and 4 remain competitive for connecting Esjberg to the Baltic States, but also there the price difference shrinks when introducing MGO. Source: Notteboom (2011). The impact of low sulphur fuel requirements in shipping on the competitiveness of roro shipping in Northern Europe. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, April 2011, 10:1, pp

8 LSMGO will be used, not scrubbers Source: Alhosalo, Minna (2013). Shipping Company Barometer (in Finnish, free translation to Eng. from Varustamobarometri ). Publications from the Centre for Maritime Studies, University of Turku, B 197. Turku, Finland.

9 Price of Oil (Brendt, 200 d. moving aver.) & US Fed Bank Credit

10 Sulphur Directive Will Make Maritime Transports at Baltic Sea Expensive: Est. from Freight Price Changes (shipping) Share of fuel costs from overall costs (before 2015) 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % Average Diesel price increase 0 % 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 12.5% 10 % 6.5% 13.0% 19.5% 26.0% 16.3% 20 % 8.0% 16.0% 24.0% 32.0% 20.0% 50 % 12.5% 25.0% 37.5% 50.0% 31.3% 100 % 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 50.0% 150 % 27.5% 55.0% 82.5% 110.0% 68.8% 200 % 35.0% 70.0% 105.0% 140.0% 87.5% Average 16.4% 32.7% 49.1% 65.4% Source: Hilmola, Olli-Pekka (2014). Shipping Sulphur Regulation, Freight Transportation Prices and Diesel Markets in the Baltic Sea Region. International Journal of Energy Sector Management (article accepted, forthcoming).

11 Sulphur Directive Will Make Maritime Transports at Baltic Sea Expensive: Est. from Freight Price Changes (road, Finland) Source: Hilmola, Olli-Pekka (2014). Shipping Sulphur Regulation, Freight Transportation Prices and Diesel Markets in the Baltic Sea Region. International Journal of Energy Sector Management (article accepted, forthcoming).

12 Sulphur Directive Will Make Maritime Transports at Baltic Sea Expensive: Est. from Freight Price Changes (rail, Finland) Source: Hilmola, Olli-Pekka (2014). Shipping Sulphur Regulation, Freight Transportation Prices and Diesel Markets in the Baltic Sea Region. International Journal of Energy Sector Management (article accepted, forthcoming).

13 Source (data): Finnish Transport Agency (2014) Challenge in European General Cargo of Finland is the preference on roro-ropax and trucks and/or semi-trailers, instead of containers (year 2013 in below) 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % Market share of trucks and semi-trailers (units): FINEST, 96.2 % FINSWE, 98.4 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0 % FIN-EST FIN-SWE FIN-GER Containers rare Containers, empty TEU Containers, FEU (and longer) Containers, TEU Semi-trailers Trucks FINGER, 38.3 % Market share of trucks and semi-trailers (tons): FINEST, 97.8 % FINSWE, 98.3 % FINGER, 36.1 %

14 Will Finnish-Estonian General Cargo volumes ( 000 tons) match that of Sweden in 2030? *Germany (0.05 level) and Estonia (0.001 level) statistically significant Source (data): Eurostat (2013) and Finnish Transport Agency (2014)

15 Source (data): Eurostat (2013) and Finnish Transport Agency (2014) Or in no growth scenario that of Germany in 2030 ( 000 tons)? y = x R² = y = x R² = Estonia Sweden Germany Linear (Estonia) Linear (Sweden) Linear (Germany) 4000 y = x R² =

16 Dominant Operator to Estonia and Sweden, Tallink Silja (amount of trucks and semi-trailer units) Market share (from trucks and semitrailers): FINEST, 50 % FINSWE, 35 % Source (data): Tallink (2014). Tallinn stock exchange press release database. Available at URL: 12&pg=details&tab=news

17 .not only due to Sulphur Directive Structural Trade Issue Too (in Euros) 10,000,000, ,000,000, ,000,000, ,000,000, ,000,000, Export Import Trade Account Export Import Trade Account Export Import Trade Account Baltic States and Poland Germany Sweden ,000,000, ,000,000, Growth 1 (98-13): % Growth 2 (02-13): 85.3 % Growth 1: 41.6 % Growth 2: 15.3 % Growth 1: 85.6 % Growth 2: 60.6 % Source (data): Finnish Customs (2014). Uljas database. Available at URL:

18 Is Helsinki-Tallinn route the answer? It is from the angle of sulphur directive, will gain a lot from it, especially if diesel prices will increase due to disruptive change in Baltic Sea transports It is from the angle of Finnish foreign trade growth higher growth than that of Sweden (slightly) and Germany (sign. higher) It is serving already big trade area (like EU countries that of three BS and Poland), and it is still surplus to Finland (rare situation nowadays!) Estonian connection should be seen as hinterland of numerous economies and countries, like three Baltic States, Belarus, parts of Russia, Poland and in parts Germany, Czech republic, Slovakia, Austria and Ukraine It is realistic to expect that general cargo volumes are slightly above 6 mill. tons in year 2030, and above 5 mill. tons in year 2020 in FIN-EST route (these are conservative estimates, could be % higher) Cheaper oil, cheaper labour, lower road use charges (vs. SWE and GER) Only challenge in Estonian route is the environmental aspect of it. Nearly all of the volumes are today originating from trucks and semi-trailers, shift to containers and railway based chains should be made. This would also ease oil dependency and cost increases in the world of 2020 and 2030.

19 Two Answers: Helsinki-Tallinn and Hanko-Paldiski Y13: 252,711 units Share: 86.0 % Y-o-Y Growth: -4 % (Tallink: +8.1 %) Y13: 41,100 units Share: 14.0 % Y-o-Y Growth: % Source (map): Google Maps (2014)

20 Why? Distance (km) Difference (km) City Tallinn Stockholm (Fehmarn) Stockholm (Jutland) Stockholm (Fehmarn) Stockholm (Jutland) Berlin Hamburg Düsseldorf Cologne Frankfurt Stuttgart Munich Wien Warsaw Budapest Berlin: via Trelleborg to Travemunde Sea journey from Helsinki to Stockholm is more than 400 km longer than that to Tallinn Cost of transportation is four or five times lower in road by truck than in Helsinki-Tallinn route (sea transport cost in Table 1 is total costs, incl. driver and fleet)

21 What about Finnish-Russian freight transports and sulphur regulation? Raw material imports to Finnish industry (rail): negative (depends a lot from pulp and paper industry competitiveness, which is the main importer, also price and export tariff in Russia vital) Raw material transit export through Finland (rail): some negative or even neutral (depends a lot from Finnish government and the level of fairway dues) Container and car import of Russia through Finland: neutral Finnish exports to Russia (mostly with road): could be even positive (main competitors Sweden and Germany, will be hurt by regulation more in Russian export) Russian exports to Finland (oil, by sea): neutral

22 What about Valga, Estonia? Raw material imports to Estonian industry (by rail, like wood for sawn mills): positive (due to the reason that Finland is already in cost disadvantage, and sulphur regulation will increase this disparity even further) Raw material transit export through Estonia (rail, crude oil): slightly negative (depends a lot from St. Petersburg sea ports, but storage facilities and EU area in Tallinn provide attraction ) Container and car import of Russia through Estonia: Better than what is in Finland hinterland position offers lower rates than sulphur regulation route to St. Petersburg via sea ports. Some growth available, but this in hinterland option (road and rail). Estonian exports to Russia (with road and rail): could be even positive (main competitors Sweden and Germany, will be hurt by regulation more in Russian export)

23 16.1% 17.0% 15.7% Estonia is already experiencing small boom in transit containers (as compared to FIN and RUS) 3,000, % 42.4% 40.0% 2,500, % 2,000, % 30.8% 31.4% 30.0% 1,500, % 25.0% St. Petersburg (TEU) Total FIN (TEU) Total EST (TEU) 20.0% Share of FIN Share of EST 1,000, % 12.1% 10.1% 9.3% 8.9% 10.0% 500, % 2.4 % 1.9 % 1.9 % 1.6 % 2.0 % 1.4 % 2.0 % 1.8 % 1.8 % 1.2 % 0.9 % 0.5 % 0.5 % % 0.0% Reason: Railway block-trains to Russia (Moscow & Kaluga) and other eastern destinations

24 There is no end or bubble in sight (even this year 2014 with recession and sanctions etc.!) Containers 1999 ( TEU) ( TEU) 6,322 6,445 6,944 7,321 7,773 5,751 5,662 5,447 6, ( TEU) 6,056 6,075 6,645 6,770 6,839 7,023 7,590 6,173 5,750 5,812 6,453 6, ( TEU) 6,665 6,849 7,389 7, ,228 7,822 7,139 7,719 7, ( TEU) 6,673 7,234 8,555 8, ,308 9,305 7,960 8,608 8,563 7, ( TEU) 8,792 8,464 9,371 10, ,339 8,825 9,393 9,764 10,270 9, ( TEU) 9,600 8,931 8,811 11, ,434 10,200 10,945 10,947 13,209 11, ( TEU) 11,341 11,853 12,470 13, ,361 12,750 13,192 12,990 13,655 11, ( TEU) 12,197 12,179 15,368 14, ,840 17,317 16,635 16,046 14,414 13, ( TEU) 13,350 13,070 14,415 15, ,188 17,229 16,019 16,539 13,277 13, ( TEU) 11,850 11,366 12,231 12, ,511 9,614 10,517 10,472 10,003 11, ( TEU) 10,875 10,444 15,041 13, ,727 12,686 13,452 12,829 12,841 12, ( TEU) 13,944 13,847 16,525 14, ,127 18,210 18,612 17,666 15,789 18, ( TEU) 17,203 19,353 20,411 20, ,345 18,557 19,331 18,983 15,954 17, ( TEU) 19,369 19,419 23,327 23, ,989 18,876 22,735 22,864 21,305 17, ( TEU) 19,193 20,839 22,330 27, , SUM

25 Tourism from Surrounding Countries is Also Good Opportunity Long-term trend is still in place! 14,000, % 12,000, % 92.0% 10,000, % 8,000,000 6,000,000 Passenger traffic 88.0% 86.0% 84.0% Estonia total to/from Finland Share of Finnish traffic Linear (Estonia total) Linear (to/from Finland) 82.0% 4,000, (5 968 th) , (6 020 th) , (5 740 th) % , (5 945 th) , (5 863 th) 2,000, , (6 738 th) % , (7 008 th) , (6 760 th) , (6 514 th) % , (7 247 th) , (7 258 th) , (7 915 th) , (8 479 th) ,478.9 Passenger transport volumes (persons) through the sea ports of Estonia and the Finnish share of it during the time period of (8 842 th) , (9 236 th) , (5 686 th.t) ,686.1 SUM